Welcome to the Podiatry Arena forums

You are currently viewing our podiatry forum as a guest which gives you limited access to view all podiatry discussions and access our other features. By joining our free global community of Podiatrists and other interested foot health care professionals you will have access to post podiatry topics (answer and ask questions), communicate privately with other members, upload content, view attachments, receive a weekly email update of new discussions, access other special features. Registered users do not get displayed the advertisements in posted messages. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our global Podiatry community today!

  1. Have you considered the Clinical Biomechanics Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Have you considered the Clinical Biomechanics Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
Dismiss Notice
Have you liked us on Facebook to get our updates? Please do. Click here for our Facebook page.
Dismiss Notice
Do you get the weekly newsletter that Podiatry Arena sends out to update everybody? If not, click here to organise this.

Podiatrists Support Trump for President

Discussion in 'USA' started by Craig Payne, Mar 12, 2016.

  1. A President Hicks would have been something else..
     
  2. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
  3. BEN-HUR

    BEN-HUR Well-Known Member

  4. Tonight, I is mostly listening to "Love over Gold" by Dire Straits. Think there is a message there...
     
  5. delete, but loving the new title for the USA- Trumpton. Guess you have to be a certain age and from the UK to appreciate that one.
     
  6. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
  7. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    Articles:
    8
  8. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    Articles:
    8
    and this:
    Americans looking for international property online increases by 500 per cent following Trump’s win
    "
    American property website Realtor.com’s International site saw traffic hit a high of 7000 pages views at 5am Australian time this morning — up more than 500 per cent from the same time the week before.
    During the three days leading up to the election, Realestate.com.au had also seen a 21 per cent surge in searches made from people with US IP addresses."
     
  9. Not a single one of my 30 patients was happy today with the results of the presidential election. With that being said, no one I know is seriously considering moving to another country because of the election results. Why would I want to move from this great country that so many people in the world would love to move to and live in? Donald Trump? Not a chance. I won't want to miss seeing if can convert all of his bombast and bluster and unealistic promises into real action for the good of the American people.

    The real winners of the 2016 election? Saturday Night Live and all the late night comedy shows...they are guaranteed four years of great new material, all at the expense of our new president.
     
  10. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
  11. drhunt1

    drhunt1 Well-Known Member

    And of the patients I saw on Thursday, very few were appalled or not happy with the results. What Kevin doesn't disclose is the political ideology of his patients. Outside of SF or LA, Sacramento is a hotbed of liberalism, (being the State Capitol, which is dominated by Progressives/Marxists/Liberals). What Kevin does not admit, is that, perhaps, his patients are as misinformed as he is. Besides America and capitalism winning BIG TIME on Nov 8/9, the real losers are those in MSM...exposed for the corrupt and criminal enterprises they are, thanks to Project Veritas, Wikileaks and alternative media. First it was Brexit, (thank you, Nigel Farage)...but now, the REAL threat to globalism has been won at the ballot box, (thank you American voter). I, for one, welcome the change...true transformation back to our roots of Constitutionalism. It will be interesting to watch the liberals' heads explode in unison, as true supply-side replaces Keynesian economics, illegal immigration is properly dealt with and The Donald drains the swamp.

    You like apples? Remember folks, in the mid-terms in 2018, 25/33 Senate seats up for re-election are held by Democrats. For the first time in US history, with a net gain of 9 Senate seats, a GOP POTUS can have a super-majority in the Senate and a majority in the House. How do you like those apples?
     
  12. drhunt1

    drhunt1 Well-Known Member

    A zippy little tune from the Millennials to you #neverTrump advocates. Turn up the speakers:

     
  13. Well you do share some personality traits, I suppose. I'm sure the President would endorse your breast examination techniques, if only to encourage his growing pain deficiencies. Are you going to help build the wall and round-up some rag-heads, Matty, or are you just a bar-room redneck??
     
  14. drhunt1

    drhunt1 Well-Known Member

    LOL! And there you go, Mark...immersing yourself further into irrelevancy. Ad hominem attacks I'm completely familiar with and used to...especially from the slobbering left here in the US. This must mean that your book sales are non-existent as well...bitter and thoroughly rejected, you "sound" much like the media over here...if the story isn't true...who cares...write it anyway. Good luck, Mark...you're going to need it.
     

    Attached Files:

  15. Ha Ha! Dream on eyes tight shut!
     
  16. BEN-HUR

    BEN-HUR Well-Known Member

    Only a couple of hours till Donald Trump becomes the 45th U.S President. I hope all goes well. Since the election, we've seen the "deplorable" nature/conduct of Clinton (Democrat) supporters (i.e. street violence, vandalism, civil unrest in many cities etc...). How much did Clinton do to stop it, to prevent & resolve it? (Should that tell us something) Anyway, such actions/sentiments looks to continue in the future (going by reports I've seen)... creating such a destructive divide; fuelled by hate, intolerance & ignorance i.e. ask many of these anti-Trump (pro-Clinton) morons why they are protesting - many have no actual idea (just following the crowd/Left-wing media hype... like lemmings), or have an incorrect understanding of the issues that have them so riled up (i.e. this B.S racist "white Supremacist" crap).

    Anyway, I hope this sentiment/mentality fades away as this degree of (baseless) divide is not healthy for America (& subsequently the world). I hope President Trump can achieve what he has planned to achieve; in short, rebuild America... govern with a spine & conviction. He is the better candidate to do it (coming from outside the "Washington Elite"); Clinton doesn't have the attributes/incentive (& can't be trusted)... as well as the others within the "Washington Elite". Then again... I do ponder frequently on who really are pulling the strings at this level (but that's a whole other topic).

    It should be an interesting journey.

    Here is a comical piece to help close the divide ;)...
    Two Democrats on an escalator...



    After all, I think I heard that Trump's Cabinet has the "highest I.Q of any Cabinet ever" :cool:.
     
  17. efuller

    efuller MVP

    Reminds me of the Trump rally where the trump supporter slugged a protester walking out of the rally. There are videos of Trump encouraging violence. You do still believe non violent protest is ok in the US. The vast majority of protesters are non violent.

    There are legitimate issues to protest. The promise of drain the swamp didn't even make it till the inauguration. The rushing of the cabinet nominees through the approval process before their potential conflicts of interest could be assessed does not bode well for the swamp.

    "They are rapists and murderers...." No there wasn't any hate from the Trump side. :rolleyes:



    Having money does not equate with IQ. It is the wealthiest cabinet ever. The main complaint about the Washington elite was that they were beholden to wealthy elite. We will see if the wealthy elite will do anything for the non wealthy elite. It will be an interesting journey. By the way its time to stop running against Clinton and to start running the country. So what were the concrete promises made by Trump. A wall. Repealing and replacing the affordable care act. ....?
     
  18. BEN-HUR

    BEN-HUR Well-Known Member

    Eric (it is Eric isn't it?), I have no doubt your memory serves you well on the above account. There was violence on both sides (I wonder whether the guy that got "slugged" was one of the bus loads that the Clinton campaign organised to create havoc at such rallies). Anyway, my previous post (the part in question) was addressing the post-election violence... & yet Clinton had the audacity to call Trump supporters the "basket of deplorables". Speaking of which (yes, it was bound to happen)... violence breaks out ahead of Trump inauguration...



    [You can only watch the above video on YouTube - hence click the link]

    Yes, of course I do... that was my point Eric... I was speaking out against the violent protests (which isn't OK)... like the (video) above.

    I'm sure we are aware that "money does not equate with IQ" Eric... or though, there can be a correlation (but does not necessarily mean causation). Anyway, my use of the comment was made in jest... & maybe Trump also made the comment in jest (???). The context of such is following... & not to be taken too seriously :confused:...

    Yet, here's an (interesting) article on the issue:
    Donald Trump says his new cabinet has the highest IQ ever (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/tr...ever-research-sort-of-backs-him-up-2017-01-19)

    Huh... don't you mean "Trump"? This is the underlying point of my previous post... end the divide, stop running against Trump... come together... rid the biasness (spot on Bill Clinton for stating the following [over 20 years ago] - & spot on Donald Trump for readdressing the [still] evident ongoing problem)...



    ... & allow America to be governed the best way possible! I'm sure (I hope) we can all agree on that.
     
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2017
  19. efuller

    efuller MVP

    Those protesters in the video were RNC infiltrators bused in and paid to disrupt a peaceful protest. If you have trouble believing that you should have trouble believing the Clinton campaign bused in protestors. Fake news is a problem.

    This is the problem with Donald Trump. We can't take what he says seriously. All we can do is look at what he does. He was really joking about the IQ of his cabinet. The cabinet does include Rick "oops" Perry. Who wanted to eliminate the department of Energy when he was running in the primary and now he is in charge of it. Then there is the Education Secretary who is unaware of current controversies in education. Almost everyone in the cabinet wants to destroy what they are in charge of.


    The above response was related to my comment that it is time to stop running against Hillary. You mean just fall in line and end the divide just like the Republicans did when Obama was President. So, it's ok for the Republicans to campaign constantly, but Democrats should just fall in line. Come on Seriously,

    Eric
     
  20. BEN-HUR

    BEN-HUR Well-Known Member

    Eric; I was speaking about the violence & civil unrest in general... as a result of this anti-Trump mindset - hence the video I posted. Yes, they were not "RNC infiltrators" (thanks for the sarcasm; Clinton campaign protestors has a wee bit more evidence attached to the pre-election account you referred to). In fact (in relation to vandalism/violence in the cited video), some evidence would point towards an anarchist group (hence a flag with an "A" on it within the footage)... possibly a group called Black Bloc (???). Maybe we can call them "ant-democracy protestors", "anti-Trump protestors", "Trump haters"... whatever... the violence is associated with Trump becoming president. Yes, there is fake news... & Trump (& Republicans) have had their fair share of it from the general Left-wing leftard media.

    As stated in following video: "This is what happens when you vote for Trump"...


    Yea... & you seriously trust what comes out of Hillary Clinton's mouth??? Crikey! o_O Yes, let's give Trump a chance... "look at what he does". The violence, protests (violent or not), civil unrest does very little to help... & I feel ultimately self-defeating. But hey - it's your country!

    I'm Australian... who thinks Trump was the lessor of two evils (so to speak) with regard to your presidency (as I've stated before on this forum). But for @#$% sake - give the guy a go. I'm pro-American (to some extent)... America (it's people) have had to deal with a lot of sh!t in the past... not only within it's borders but outside. Trump seems sincere (as he says)... "to make America great again". Let's wait & see what he can do.

    Hillary is gone! Trump is President (get over it). My view is, stop running against Trump - give him a go!
     
  21. David Smith

    David Smith Well-Known Member

    Socialism and capitalism are relative terms but relative to USA most of the rest of the world is socialist - how do account for that and how is it that America isn't great if they are the most capitalist and capitalism is supreme??
     
  22. efuller

    efuller MVP

    The anarchists would have been against Hilary too. Don't paint all the people protesting Trump with the same brush. Now here is the crux of the problem. Lefttard media. The right, for years has been criticizing centrist sources like the New York Times as being leftist. If the mainstream media was on the left the US would have never invaded Iraq. If the mainstream media was on the left there would have been constant reminders about what the results would have been if the Supreme Court had allowed the 2000 Florida recount to finish. Matt, you should change your news feed so that you don't get all anarchists all the time.

    There you go again, campaigning against Hillary. Hillary is now irrelevant. What Trump and the Republicans try to do now is relevant. Don't you think we should protest when the first thing they do is try to eliminate a government ethics office. Don't you think we should protest when they rush through the hearings on confirmation of cabinet members before their potential conflicts of interests are known. Did you see the letter that Chuck Shumer posted that was from Mitch McConnel saying that cabinet nominees should be carefully and fully vetted in Senate hearings. That was right after Obama was elected and the Democrats controlled both houses. The Republicans are not doing what they expected the Democrats to do, and what they did do. Don't you think that deserves protest. The Right certainly did not give Obama a go before they started protesting. It sees kind of funny to expect something different from the center and the left.

    Eric
     

    Attached Files:

  23. And protest you should from a position of individual integrity and common decency rather than political persuasion as it affords a far greater authority. Trump may be the "chosen one" but by whom and for what purpose? Our system of governance is broke. The controlling influences are global and unaccountable - predominately the financial elite - and our elected politicians are mere impotent pawns in a much bigger game that we are only now beginning to understand. Trump might profess to be antiestablishment but his balls and bank accounts are firmly in the grasp of powers far removed from the Kremlin - and he will fail, one way or another. That is his raison d'être.

    It is, however, an intriguing spectacle observing the American public and media questioning the honesty of its elected government. Might one hope that when enlightenment occurs, they will revisit the greatest lie perpetrated by a US administration thirteen and a half years ago and demand that the truth be told?

    Somehow I don't think Donald is your man for the job.
     
  24. efuller

    efuller MVP

    This paragraph was ..... Blaming Clinton supporters for creating a destructive divide and then claiming that left-wing lemmings have no idea what they are protesting. This was a joke right? You were just trolling? The right with Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter have been stirring up the anger to create the divide much more than the liberals have. Ann Coulter called liberals traitors. That was a joke too, right? The left is still trying to catch up with the anger coming at them from the right. Your comment about the libtard media wasn't helping helping heal the divide either.

    Eric
     
  25. BEN-HUR

    BEN-HUR Well-Known Member

    Hey Eric, my post (#136) prior to the inauguration was in support of democracy... Trump was elected president (love it, hate it, or somewhere in between - it's happened). It also highlighted the anti-democratic conduct of anti-Trump supporters via their street violence, vandalism, civil unrest (I wasn't referring to quiet protests - the people have the right to protest - it is the nature of which is the issue here). Yes, there was Anarchists there (I stated that i.e. Black Bloc) & they would protest regardless who was elected. In fact, this was my spurring reason... the fact this violence, civil unrest was happening... there was various news footage... from various news feeds - OK?! Don't tell me they were all Anarchists out there... the majority weren't. There was pro-Hillary/pro-Democrats out there causing the violence/civil unrest. No, I have not used absolute language & stated that all Hillary/Democrat supporters are of this conduct (painted with the "same brush")... or that all the violence/civil unrest was stemming from one group. Now you have the media governing world events. I suggest you objectively assess your news feeds & stop the bias... that's a point we should all should take note of.

    There you go again Eric - twisting the dialogue to suit your agenda. I'm not "campaigning against Hillary". As stated previously, I'm campaigning against the anti-democratic conduct of street violence, vandalism, civil unrest as a result of Trump being elected... of which the culprits include pro-Clinton/Democrat supporters (oh, & the Anarchists who protest regardless - hey, maybe they're onto something after all). However, I have discussed the attributes of Hillary when you critique those of Trump. Just trying to be objective here... particularly when you bring up the issue of trusting what comes out of the mouth of Trump. Your above quote was in response to my statement about your claims pertaining to Trump, that being (quote)... "We can't take what he says seriously". But hey, how about Hillary? Can you take what she says "seriously"? It goes both ways Eric... & Clinton has some real doozies... she qualifies as a serial liar (by many)... stemming back from at least the Watergate inquiry (1972/73), Whitewater scandal... the Bosnia "under sniper fire" claims... the Benghazi issue... the emails etc... So don't have a go at me at counterbalancing your claims in reference to truth & what can be taken "seriously"! Seriously?!

    Here's just one of many videos which seriously question Hillary's truthfulness...


    Like I've said before... "I feel Trump is the lessor of two evils" (so to speak). That's my personal assessment, based on the time I have to research the associated topics... whilst trying not be influenced by the media's take (of which in Australia, predominantly appears anti-Trump). As I've also stated... "It’s a shame that in a country the size of America (i.e. about 320 million), the choice ended up being between Trump & Clinton." Agree, disagree?

    No Eric - no jokes (oh hang on, there is that Democrat escalator skit at post 136 for those with a sense of humour). Speaking out against the violence, civil unrest & anti-democratic conduct that was evidently occurring is no joking matter. Neither is your twisting the dialogue around to suite your anti-Trump stance. The fact is Eric there was pro-Clinton/pro-Democrat supporters involved in the violence & civil unrest conduct. I didn't say all were - nor have I said all Clinton/Democrats are of this ilk or condone such behaviour. The fact you choose to focus on this (subjective) take & not the violence/civil unrest itself questions your objective reasoning skills. I'm sure you don't condone the cited violence/civil unrest do you? Is it Ok by you that I speak out against it, state some of the attributes of which & where some of the responsibility lies? What you choose to do Eric is focus on unsubstantiated claims that I am "blaming Clinton supporters" for all the "destruction & divide". They are in part to blame - are they not? Or are you telling me that none were... that all the violence/civil unrest was solely by the Anarchists? Yes - & some of the rioters had no rational, educated reason why they were doing what they were doing - that is a fact (there is also video footage of reporters questioning their motives). That's not to say the likes of you fit into that category... as stated, I have nothing against (sincere) quiet protests... or personal concern of the forthcoming political climate. And yes, the left-wing orientated media (that's not to say all media outlets) has a lot to answer for in encouraging/fuelling the violence/civil unrest & anti-democratic conduct evidently witnessed (& we can also blame some/many within the entertainment industry).

    Basically Eric - there are problems either side - any rational person should understand that. It would seem your chosen candidate (I assume you voted Hillary) didn't get the job... subsequently, others from your side of the fence (so to speak) has contributed to the issues discussed above... yet, that's not implying people like yourself who appear to have sincere concern fall into the same basket - to use a Hillary phrase - the "basket of deplorables"... the irony of which (Hillary targeting the phrase at Trump/Republican supporters) is in part why I initially posted (would you insinuate that she painted all Trump/Republicans with the "same brush"?).

    All the best & luck for you & America - it appears you going to need all you can get (& I mean that sincerely). Like I said in a previous post... I am somewhat pro-America (I do feel sorry for the sincere rational people within i.e. paying for/dealing with other nation's crap). I say somewhat "pro-" due to other underlying issues... of which (in part) Mark has touched on (of which I don't want to delve into here)...
    Came across this meme recently... do you resonate with the following Mark?...

    [​IMG]

    We'll have to wait & see Mark (I'm trying to be optimistic here). However, based on the area of your above concerns - Hillary Clinton sure as hell was not the person for the job... there is a wee bit more optimism with Trump on such matters than there would have been with Clinton. But hey - that's just my take (for what it's worth).
     
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2017
  26. Lighten up boys and girls, it's going to be beautiful. It'll be fantastic and very exciting. It's a fabulous result. There's going to be so much fun and so much pussy even the other Matt won't know what to do with it. Mind you he's usually too busy squeezing titties to bother too much about what's on offer in the southern states, but it's going to be a wonderful sight all the same.

    It's like the Simpsons, Breaking Bad, West Wing and One Flew over the Cuckoos Nest - all wrapped up in a daily show.

    What more do you want??
     
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2017
  27. I just love the straight out lies about the important things like how many people turned up on Saturday and National Parks getting told told to remove tweets about how many people turned up on Sunday [​IMG] [​IMG]
    But I do Like Dr Suess
     
  28. BEN-HUR

    BEN-HUR Well-Known Member

    Yea well, one big problem there... what you posted was not from Dr Seuss :confused:. If you really do like Dr Seuss, you wouldn't post material which crudely misrepresents his work & character :mad: (let alone spell his name incorrectly :p).

    [​IMG]
     
  29. efuller

    efuller MVP

    Matt, it appears you are really stuck on the violence part. That was such a small part of the total protest. Yes, violence is wrong. So, we agree that peaceful protest is ok.

    How am I twisting your dialog? You are still comparing Trump to Hillary. That is still running against Hillary. Matt, you are repeating yourself.

    So being a serial liar is a bad thing. Did you see the press secretary complain about the press reporting that the crowds at the Trump inauguration were smaller than Obama's? The press secretary flat out claimed that the crowds were not smaller. The pictures don't lie. Trump has not pulled that statement back. Then he went to CIA..... and contradicted what he said earlier. Then there is the tweat that he never made fun of the New York Times reporter. Serial lying is a bad thing. Should the centrist media not report the lying because it might bring on civil unrest?



    Now you are twisting my words. My point was that the liberals are far behind the conservatives in fomenting the anger that is creating the divide. Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter etc. How many times can you put violent and Clinton supporters in the same sentence?

    All the media should report that the President lies when he lies. They should report when there is corruption and potential for corruption. (Not allowing the Senate to fully see potential conflict of interest.) It is not the fault of the media that when they report lies and potential corruption that civil unrest occurs. I'm talking about civil unrest and not uncivil unrest nor violence. The fear is that an authoritarian government will crack down on civil protest because there is a small amount of violence. Putting the words violence and civil unrest in the same sentence is an attempt, I hope an inadvertent attempt, at campaigning for an authoritarian state. Don't over read that. Anarchy and violence are bad. Civil protest is good.

    Basket of deplorables was so quaint when compared with rapists and murderers. By the way, Hillary is irrelevant for our discussion. The question is not whether Trump is better than Hillary, but whether Trump is doing a good job.

    Eric
     

    Attached Files:

  30. Wasn't logged in got see Matts response to me.

    Clearly 1 is not Dr Suess Matt he died in 1991, but the other is, there is a huge volume of work re the rise of Hitler, and other things like America First, etc

    As for spelling never have been able to never will, but if it makes you feel like a bigger man, point it out.
     
  31. efuller

    efuller MVP

    I missed the importance of this subtly worded point the first time through. You are advocating for censorship of the media. Are you trying to manipulate search engines by repeating that civil discord quote?
    Eric
     
  32. What I find amazing is how someone who has never lived in a country can claim to be so knowledgeable on the politics of that country and on how that country should be run. Mind boggling!
     
  33. BEN-HUR

    BEN-HUR Well-Known Member

    Eric, in short… it may appear we have misinterpreted each other & intentions (with maybe an issue of semantics thrown in)…

    From the start, it was the violence & civil unrest that I was addressing. I thought that was clear… you appeared to read more into it i.e. taking my observations as to some of the culprits being pro-Hillary/pro-Democrat personally. Yes, we agree… peaceful process is ok.

    Here is an example of misinterpretation of intentions. My posts had no intentions of “campaigning against Hillary” as you did state… my intentions was “campaigning against the anti-democratic conduct of street violence, vandalism, civil unrest as a result of Trump being elected”. I even stated earlier that Hillary was out of the equation (so to speak) within this dialogue (i.e. “Hillary is gone”). The misinterpretation lies when you thought I was on some campaign against Hillary.

    Yes, I did get wind of the crowd issue Eric. Look, I’m not going to continue getting into a bitching debate on who said this & who said that with regard to the Hillary camp & Trump camp. I mean seriously… we’ll be here all day, every day for the next 4 to 8 years. You raised the issue of not trusting what comes out of Trump’s mouth. Fair enough. But crikey… Hillary has more than her fair share if misdemeanours (& even felonies) in the lying department. You can’t blame me for bringing them up in light of the discussion – surely. And yes, I find them a wee bit more serious than the likes of crowd estimates or the statement of the I.Q of the Trump cabinet. Yes, lying within politics is irritating (but unfortunately customary) but there are lies… & then there are lies… & as stated, “Clinton has some real doozies... stemming back from at least the Watergate inquiry (1972/73), Whitewater scandal... the Bosnia "under sniper fire" claims... the Benghazi issue... the emails etc...”

    I can’t see how I’m twisting your words Eric (but let’s leave that). I seriously (& sincerely) can’t see how the “liberals are far behind the conservatives in fomenting the anger that is creating the divide”. Maybe this is a case of being exposed to different news feeds (???); maybe we are focussing on different areas where the anger is displayed (???). Remember, I am talking about what is happening (i.e. the anger & violence) with regard to protests primarily on the streets – you may be focussing on anger between the two parties (???) – which looks to be the case (hence another example of “misinterpreted each other & intentions”). Eric, there has been a lot of violence targeted towards Trump supporters (surely you’ve seen this). Why… well it appears that many believe that anyone who didn’t vote Hillary/Democrat must be an outright Trump supporter… & hence must be a bigot or racist – hence their justification for violence, whether that be on the streets or even within the classroom or playground (of schools). Now this sort of violence wouldn’t be coming from Trump supporters, it is unlikely coming from the Anarchists (who are more likely to be responsible for vandalism & civil unrest)… so where is it coming from?

    I don’t want to get bogged down on speculating the intentions of the media here Eric (we’ve been there). Let’s just say, some news agencies have their leanings & subsequent agendas (well, they do in Australia & I’m sure in the U.S). The twisting of facts occurs either side as well as the highlighting of certain issues to be then blown out of proportion are just a couple of their tactics… & either side does it… & it’s done (in part) to stir up a reaction… & it usually works. Let’s leave it at that.

    In regard to the phrase “civil unrest”… this could be an issue of semantics. I see civil unrest to mean the following…
    “Civil disorder, also known as civil unrest, is a broad term that is typically used by law enforcement to describe unrest that is caused by a group of people. Civil disorder is also described as “any public disturbance involving acts of violence by assemblages of three or more persons, which cause an immediate danger of or results in damage or injury to the property or person of any other individual"... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disorder


    That was (also) my position Eric i.e. “Hillary is irrelevant for our discussion”. Yet due to misinterpretation of intentions… we got diverted. That being said, naturally the issues surrounding Hillary would be expected to surface to some degree being that she is related to the topic, but my intentions was not that of some sort of campaign against Hillary (or her supporters)… it was the violence that ensued over the inauguration of your new President elect.

    I used Hillary’s “basket of deplorable” quote in reference of the violence that ensued. As stated, both sides have their misdemeanours (so to speak)… one could state the lies from Trump are relatively “quaint” compared that of Clinton’s.

    Anyway Eric, we may have differing views on a few things (or see things from a differing perspective i.e. I being Australian)… but the main issue I feel (within our dialogue) is that we have misinterpreted each other & intentions. All the best to you & your country.


    Hey, you can calm down now Eric (LOL). So you... "missed the importance of this subtly worded point"?
    "Subtly worded point" - crikey... you really are reading too much into this. There was nothing "subtle" or cryptic in what I wrote with regard to the media - it really should be quite self-explanatory... I've discussed this issue already above. "Censorship of the media" :confused:... :eek:"manipulate search engines"... give me a break o_O!
     
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2017
  34. BEN-HUR

    BEN-HUR Well-Known Member

    No Mike - spelling should not have any affect on either of our manhood :p (notice the emoticon - in case you missed it within the associated piece above ;)).
     
  35. BEN-HUR

    BEN-HUR Well-Known Member

    Yea, a valid point there Kevin - but who are you referring to Kevin? If it is me (which I doubt - because you're smarter than that)... you might want to read my posts (i.e. endorsing the democratic process & speaking out against the violence, vandalism & civil unrest which has ensued... attributes/mindset of which will contribute the @#$%^!# up of your country). Oh... & I have lived in the U.S.
     
  36. efuller

    efuller MVP

    You can see how I might think you were still campaigning against Hillary when you included a video of her. You may have agreed that Hillary was irrelevant, but then you posted the video. Why did you include the Hillary video if your goal was not to discredit her.

    Matt, I agree that lying is bad. Are you still trying to defend Trump by wishing that Hillary was worse. Your media sources are making you think that Hillary was lying more than Trump is now. It's a good thing that the centrist media is reporting Trumps lies. Latest Trump spokesperson: they are just alternate facts.

    I'm not the one that keeps bringing up Hillary. And yes violence is bad. Now we can move on to the discussion of the competency of Trump.

    Your statement "And yes, the left-wing orientated media (that's not to say all media outlets) has a lot to answer for..." is self explanatory. It is implying that some media outlets should be censored. You are just like Trump. You are trying to claim you didn't say what you said. "Oh, I didn't mean that." " I was just joking. " "It's just locker room talk." Words matter.

    Eric
     
  37. BEN-HUR

    BEN-HUR Well-Known Member

    What I see Eric is someone reading too much into what I have written (again) to appease their agenda… in amidst building a straw man argument (“campaigning against Hillary”) . I posted one video pertaining to Hillary (i.e. her history of lies) after you were incapable of accepting a counterargument to your claim pertaining to trusting the words that comes out of Trump’s mouth. You stated that you can’t take what Trump “says seriously”…& I stated…
    Seriously, we’ve been through this now multiple times & you still don’t get it… unable to join the dots. What do you expect Eric – for you to make statements & not have/want a counterargument to your views. It seems to me that you just don’t want Hillary’s questionable conduct (to say the least) to be critiqued… exposed. I’m just trying to be objective & balance the conversation you’re directed at me. Hillary Clinton has done a good job discrediting herself (for all to see) without my help (as has Trump).

    Do you think we can now leave the issue of lying alone now? We’ve now been through it multiple times now… where your keen to expose Trump’s issues in this area… but not keen to hear a counterbalance view. Yes, we both agree “lying is bad”. Phew!

    Good, let’s move on. Hence, I hope we can move on from the “lying” subject… & the “violence” subject. And we both agree that they are both “bad”. Phew!

    Oh @#$%!. More comprehension problems! My statement – oh heck… I’ll even quote it for you from the source (hence, within its context)…

    Yes, it is self-explanatory. It is what it is – you agree that it exists – I agree that it exists. [Are you also going to imply I censor the entertainment industry as well]
    But here’s the problem – your interpretation of it… or more to the point – your misinterpretation of it… or the attempt to build a straw man argument from it! Where have I said “some media outlets should be censored”? Show me! Use the quote function which you’re more than capable of using & show me where I have (firstly) stated anything about censoring the media… or (secondly) for that matter have implied it. But that probably the key word here – you use of the word “implying” – a subjective term – based around your misinterpretation of my point (or the building of a straw man argument to appease your agenda). The fact is Eric – I truthfully/sincerely had no intentions of (implying) censorship of the media pertaining to that quote. I simply stated it as a fact (one that we both agree exists – as well as the right-wing media)… & that we should be wary of it. Besides, you use the term “centrist media”… well we can’t have a term like that unless there is a comparative leftist media & a rightist (if term exists) media.

    You last two sentences is just unsubstantiated bulls**t… which just further exposes your (either &/or) poor comprehension skills, (sincere) misinterpretation, biasness, your willingness to build a straw man argument. Trying to align me (discredit me) with such lame associations to the ones you used is just self-defeating.

    Yes Eric… “words matter”… & more so – the comprehension of them… & not taking them out of context.
     
  38. efuller

    efuller MVP

    Matt, I am having trouble joining your dots. I said you can't trust Trump and your counter argument is Hillary lies. Non sequiter


    "And yes, the left-wing orientated media (that's not to say all media outlets) has a lot to answer for"

    "Has to answer for". As in has to answer for their crimes.... Should be punished. Trump has called for changing the libel laws so that would make it easier to sue the press. What is really scary is that authoritarian regimes, in the past, have used the arguments like we have to silence the media to prevent unrest. These regimes censor the media to prevent violence and maintain safety. They want to keep people safe from the violence that could occur if there is political unrest. Russia for example. You may not realize it, but your words are right at the top of the slippery slope that leads to censorship. I'm willing to believe that you did not intend to try to convince us that censorship was a good thing. However, that is a reasonable interpretation of the words that you used even if you look at the full quote.

    Eric
     
  39. I hope you understand the interest though, much of Americas Politics have heavy influenced the world rightly or wrongly since the second world war. I now live in a country which would take Russia about 4 min to take over on its way down towards Germany. NATO is still a very important thing for Peace. It might not be even close to perfect but it has been vital. So Russian influence on US politics scares the hell out of me.

    Also I feel for many of the people who voted for Trump because they wanted a change and felt that their plight would be better off, only to find out they will be much much worse off.

    And then there is the trade wars which pulling out of TPP might have kicked off, that added to Brexit may add to the mess. So while who is Swedish PM or Australian PM is not really of a concern globally certain Country leaders and directions of politics cross boarders
     


  40. Late night TV from Holland :)
     
Loading...

Share This Page