Jump to content
Phyciodes

The News

Recommended Posts

What I don't understand at the moment is the current protests about Trump taking place in the UK. He is an elected official of a different country. The people of the united states may have elected a right wing extremist but the point is he was still elected. 

What exactly are these protests trying to achieve?

They know who he was and they still elected him so continuing to call him a racist/sexist I don't think is going to change the American populations mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because groups need to let our mob of idiots in charge know that some things should not be ignored, like climate change or lgbt rights...

 

Besides, it's the right of people to fight against it if they don't agree in something, because we do live in a democracy and what not...

 

"America First" basically means that any deal they make will be done on their terms, so we're screwed...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Benin said:

Besides, it's the right of people to fight against it if they don't agree in something, because we do live in a democracy and what not...

 

An odd one when what is being fought against is the very result of that democracy.

 

22 minutes ago, Benin said:

"America First" basically means that any deal they make will be done on their terms, so we're screwed...

 

I'm a million miles from a Trump fan, the blokes an absolute tool, but some aspects of all this I don't think are entirely negative. What do you think our, or any government, are doing when they make any deal with another nation? This is just honesty that we don't usually get to see, and I thinks it's that honesty the Americans have gone for. He says what he really thinks, even if what he thinks is entirely mental. Even if that honesty shows a repulsive human that might well be better than being lied to by someone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Benin said:

Because groups need to let our mob of idiots in charge know that some things should not be ignored, like climate change or lgbt rights...

 

Besides, it's the right of people to fight against it if they don't agree in something, because we do live in a democracy and what not...

 

"America First" basically means that any deal they make will be done on their terms, so we're screwed...

 

I always think of these protests as way of showing solidarity. If societies just sat down and did nothing, peoples rights would be trampled over. Who cares if it's not our country that this is effecting, it could so easily be a far right prime minister denying climate change or rights to LGBT's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are ways and means of conveying solidarity that don't involve protesting or throwing bricks through the nearest window akin to a two year old laying in the supermarket screaming because mummy said no to chocolate.

 

As pluk said it's always amusing to see people protest in the name of democracy the result of a democratic election, makes you wonder if these people actually understand the concept of democracy or whether they voted, I'd hazard a guess a percentage of the protesters didn't even vote and the other half are there for the carnage and free food, after all who takes a claw hammer to a 'peaceful protest'?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Ian-S said:

There are ways and means of conveying solidarity that don't involve protesting or throwing bricks through the nearest window akin to a two year old laying in the supermarket screaming because mummy said no to chocolate.

 

As pluk said it's always amusing to see people protest in the name of democracy the result of a democratic election, makes you wonder if these people actually understand the concept of democracy or whether they voted, I'd hazard a guess a percentage of the protesters didn't even vote and the other half are there for the carnage and free food, after all who takes a claw hammer to a 'peaceful protest'?

 

My first throught really is what better way to show solidarity then millions of people the world over, protesting with the same message. I'm assuming that 80,000 shop windows weren't broken in London yesterday so presumably they were all peaceful protests; and the odd troublemaker in there for good measure. I'm a good fan of a peaceful protest, Pride may have become a bit of a party but it's background is what keeps me visiting. People fought hard and died for the very rights I enjoy today.

 

Final bit, an assumption. I've seen the statistics, 53% of white women who voted, voted for Trump for example. That leaves 47% of white women in America that didn't. That's a lot of people left to take part in this protest. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because some people go to protests to use as an excuse to kick off means all protests are bad?

 

If people didn't protest against the status quo or decisions then what would be the point in bothering with anything? Especially given that recent democratic results have had a LOT of lies and what not going on throughout... Living in a democracy does allow us to fight against issues we don't agree with for whatever reason... I guess people thought the same of women, blacks and gays in the day as well too...

 

Given the treatment of particular sides after voting as well, which basically amount to "you lost, therefore your opinion doesn't matter", means that some people feel their voices need to be heard before the country they care for drives off a cliff...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Benin said:

I guess people thought the same of women, blacks and gays in the day as well too...

 

Not really the same, is it? When people had to protest for those rights it wasn't because a party that were pro had lost an election, it was because there was no one pro in the running, or that there couldn't be anyone in the runnung because their particular rights were suppressed by law in the first place; it wasn't allowed to be pro their cause.

 

This is protest that 'a man won by the legal process and we don't like that man', we'll that actually is too bad! Until he tries to implement something which encroaches on the rights of US citizens,  or has a significant impact on another nation, what is actually being protested against? The course of democracy? It's really a very odd thing.

 

The real issue is the opposition having fielded a damp lettuce as a candidate. I'm pretty sure Trump would have lost against anyone who was half decent and could have capitalised on his many many weaknesses. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Winning an election based on lies and general knobbish behaviour though?

 

Already seems like there's an aim to deny anything reported (see their response to media outlets about the low turnout) in a negative light too, which doesn't seem to be the greatest of starts...

 

Protests seem to be towards the fear that things will go downhill very quickly, and those 'forgotten voices' will not be the ones who have been battling for their own rights for many many years...

 

I'm sure those who have protested have done so for their own reasons, and it's their right to do so... Why is it such a problem when several on the winning side(s) went on record to say if they had lost they would've fought against it? What would've been the difference if there was a pro-Leave march demanding that the court of justice try and make it a parliamentary decision? Or some businessmen protesting Clinton by doing a manmarch or something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any sort of politics has multiple flaws. Democracy can allow previously unpopular leaders to be victorious in elections during times of fear. As much as I think trump is awful, he was better than Clinton. Back to the protests, they will achieve very little

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't think of an election of recent times that hasn't been won off the back of lies! I don't really think you can look at any mainstream party on either side if the Atlantic as having any moral high ground in that respect!

 

As I said, you've got two awful people running for office. One tries to hide their awfulness and does their dirty deeds in an underhand, hidden, standard political spin kind of way. The other pretty much brazenly stands there being openly awful. Who is actually worse? Who should you trust more? It's hard to be surprised by a fool with no self censorship. 

 

I don't have a 'problem' with protest, but just find this one very odd and pretty pointless. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems that it's because the protests were seen/reported as anti-Trump, rather than supporting women's rights given his election... Us 'cis males' (I hate such terms because they're usually unnecessary) wouldn't understand because we don't deal with the issues (such as being grabbed by the pussy) on a daily basis...

 

The lies involved in both referendum and election were far worse than before though... Worse than the Lib Dems free tuition fees one for sure, because it's now affecting almost everyone in both countries...

 

Will the protests' do anything? It depends on what the end goal is doesn't it? I doubt the goal is for the majority for Trump to be impeached, but to ensure that those who's rights have been fought for over time are not reduced because of a foolish person in charge (especially given recent events in America)...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump will quickly learn the things he can do and the things he can't do. 

He could try and reduce women's rights but it is highly unlikely he would ever succeed. He has mid terms and the next election to win so he and his party must ultimately try and please the people. 

The media polarizes everything because people only seem to understand a binary system so the fact he has to try and please people is forgotten as it doesn't make a good story. Women's rights completely destroyed is a much better headline than Trump wants to rework women's rights but can't because his party wants to be relected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He won't go for womens rights. He'll go for easier targets like the LGBT rights or maybe insult a few ethnic minorities, maybe even the disabled because they're softer targets. As long as the Ku Klux Klan are happy though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well not to assume much but the removal of it from the White House website (as well as Climate Change policies) isn't a positive thing for those who would be affected...

 

As for the apparent paradox thing, what does it even mean? Given all definitions relate to hypothetical time travel and changing the past to affect the future? I don't think Ian you even understand it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Ian-S said:

In what way will he go for LGBT rights?

 

The First amendment defence act for a start. Or the fact his supreme court candidates are all anti LGBT. Who knows what will happen to equal marriage laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A causality paradox is where your own actions trigger the very events you are trying to prevent, in the case of these protests, they are presumably protesting because they can and will in all likelihood result in draconian measures to prevent future protest, not because Trump is a Nazi, but because some of the protesters are incapable of protesting peacefully.

 

Do you honestly think protesting is going to change the result of the election?  As Obama said, if you don't like the result, grab a clipboard and put yourself out there for office.

 

As for LGBT I don't real know enough about the rights that are under threat, but I know several gay couples who have never married and are quiet happy with their civil partnerships because to them it is their thing, straight couples have marriage, gay couples civil partnerships, at the end of the day both mean pretty much the same thing so I don't understand why so many knickers get twisted over 'gay marriage' when most of the time is spent trying to break away from conventional 'straight' customs like marriage and whatnot.

 

Isn't the first amendment the freedom of speech one?  If so then I think the removal of that can hardly be classed as anti-LGBT since it will affect everybody.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Police confirmed no arrests from the marches yesterday, so there goes that argument out the window... Besides seems that they're too busy focusing on "alternative facts" right now...

 

Let's be honest as well, those who go to cause chaos are not there for the protest, they use it as a front/excuse to get involved...

 

People aren't directly protesting the result, they're protesting what it means... That it means that certain beliefs and principles (racism, sexism, etc) are acceptable in modern society when they are not... They want their voices heard in a time of uncertainty about the future (especially for the poor and the changes to housing benefits and ACA/Obamacare), hell if anti-abortion people can mingle with relative peace to yesterday's marches then there's a bigger goal clearly...

 

I'll let someone in the LGBT community get involved in that... But I completely disagree with that...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ian-S said:

A causality paradox is where your own actions trigger the very events you are trying to prevent, in the case of these protests, they are presumably protesting because they can and will in all likelihood result in draconian measures to prevent future protest, not because Trump is a Nazi, but because some of the protesters are incapable of protesting peacefully.

 

Do you honestly think protesting is going to change the result of the election?  As Obama said, if you don't like the result, grab a clipboard and put yourself out there for office.

 

As for LGBT I don't real know enough about the rights that are under threat, but I know several gay couples who have never married and are quiet happy with their civil partnerships because to them it is their thing, straight couples have marriage, gay couples civil partnerships, at the end of the day both mean pretty much the same thing so I don't understand why so many knickers get twisted over 'gay marriage' when most of the time is spent trying to break away from conventional 'straight' customs like marriage and whatnot.

 

Isn't the first amendment the freedom of speech one?  If so then I think the removal of that can hardly be classed as anti-LGBT since it will affect everybody.

 

Point 1) The protest isn't about over turning the result and from what I can see, the protestors aren't even going for that angle.

 

Numo 2) Gay couples should be able to have the choice between civil partnership and marriage in the same way that straight couples should be able to. Some gay couples want to be seen as equal as straight marriage. Some want to go against the conventional heterosexual 'rules' of this world.

 

Numo 3) The first amendment won't affect the straight white male. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) not directly but every opportunity given they say "we don't want to overthrow the result, we just don't agree with it"  might as well piss upwind for all the good that is going to do.

 

2) Fair point that's understandable, but one could easily argue that restricting civil partnerships to just gay couples is as repressive as allowing marriage only for straights...

 

3) removal of the first amendment will affect every living being in the USA, not just one particular sexual or racial group.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The forum won't let me edit (probably this crap tablet) so I'll just add this bit about the first amendment, it has absolutely naff all to do with gay, women, black or orange rights and relates to the freedom of expression (what gives an American the right to call me a cock), the freedom of the press (the right reporters have to call Trump a bankrupt) and the right to peaceful protest and redress.

 

If you believe Trump can simply withdraw this amendment then I suggest you stop watching Sky News, he can't, and even if he did try, the Supreme Court can just rule the executive order as unconstitutional and it'll be dead in the water.

 

Here is the Amendment itself, you see it relates not to color, sex or sexual preference so yes, single white males will be just as ****ed as the next person if that amendment ever gets gutted, stop making it an LGBT issue because it isn't.

 

Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Ian-S said:

If you believe Trump can simply withdraw this amendment then I suggest you stop watching Sky News, he can't, and even if he did try, the Supreme Court can just rule the executive order as unconstitutional and it'll be dead in the water.

 

I neither said he'd remove the amendment or that he'd go for only LGBT rights. The assumption that I watch Sky News as well, wow.

 

12 hours ago, Ian-S said:

Here is the Amendment itself, you see it relates not to color, sex or sexual preference so yes, single white males will be just as ****ed as the next person if that amendment ever gets gutted, stop making it an LGBT issue because it isn't.

 

We'd know if straight white men were refused service or discriminated against I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My assumptions are based in no more fact than yours, you also said he'd go for easy targets like LGBT, so yes and no, you're splitting hairs at the atomic level by now trying to say you didn't say he'd only go for LGBT rights...

 

I see that as offended as you seem to be, you don't actually deny watchg Sky News.

 

18 hours ago, Mark9 said:

He won't go for womens rights. He'll go for easier targets like the LGBT rights or maybe insult a few ethnic minorities, maybe even the disabled because they're softer targets. As long as the Ku Klux Klan are happy though.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×