I'm afraid that one of the victims of 2016 was satire.

(I thought it would be a sharp turn for you to say that. haha)

Have you seen the posts on this forum recently? You can never assume people will know you're joking with the amount of rabid Trump & Farage admirers here.

No. Possibly those who did are.

Yeah, fair point.

No, you're not thick for not knowing, I don't think Trump himself knows. There was some vague idea that the US would tax the money that illegal immigrants send home to their families, which is clearly unconstitutional. Then they'd get Mexico to pay for it somehow, maybe by threatening aid or trade sanctions? Which if we seized money from immigrants and cut off aid to mexico it would still be like a billion dollars, which is maybe 1/8th of the projected cost of his wall?

Plus I'm guessing the US government would have to seize land in order to build it, some of it from native people.

so no, you aren't thick. you're sane.

In all honesty, that was my first reaction and thought you were ...but then I wasn't sure. lol.

the line of thinking, and i mean that in the loosest possible sense, seems to be that because Mexico is so dependent on the US for trade that Trump can threaten them with trade sanctions unless they agree to pay for the wall, and that Mexico will just pay it as it will be cheaper in the long run than the cost of the sanctions

Hilarious indeed.

Still no proof of this alleged hacking in today's report.

I keep hearing Trump has now accepted Russia was involved, but I must have read a different statement............

Interesting link. I hadn't see it before. His 'pants on fire' lies are

Yes it's always other people isn't it?

I don't know how self aware you are, but it wasn't rabid Trump and Farage admirers who didn't get the sarcasm behind your joke, its was a few critics of Trump and Russia on this very thread.
Any casual observer might reasonably feel that there might be a bit of projection going on there.

And you just let that fly by and say "Yeah, fair point",

But it's not as if it's any different from the mindset which just believes that Russia affected the outcome of the election and were definitely the culprits behind what is described as the hacking.
It's just believed, without any requirement of factual proof. Just a belief in the opinions of other people who you happen to prefer over other people.

Of course it's perfectly fine to say that you 'think' it was Russian hackers, or it could have been, or even that you believe that there is a high chance that it was. But no, it's a cast iron solidified belief that it definitely was.
But rather than ask questions about what you're being presented with it's far easier to try to undermine the people who disagree with the approach of believing something in blind faith without putting the theory under scrutiny.

To some there is some reassurance to be gained by accusing people who don't share their opinion as being rabid. It feels better than trying to seek the truth, despite the fact that many of these people are quite open to new information and updating their opinion based on what can be confirmed.

The irony is that you would probably describe somebody who refuses to change their beliefs and sticks to them like glue and is hostile to anybody who questions them as being rabid, and there won't be many people who believe that Russians definitely didn't engage in any hacking activities. They just believe that it's very important to be informed by what is objectively factual and true. To not do so would be making the very same mistake many people made leading up to the last war in Iraq.

Speaking personally I have never even said that Russia weren't involved. I've always maintained that they might have been. I've said that I just don't know. I just require proof when somebody makes a claim such as the one being made here. Nothing which has come out in public has been said in a way which strikes me with confidence when they're using language like there's a high probability, or our assessments or judgments suggest. They can either confirm information or they can't. If they can't or don't and just make allusions then I can't have confidence in their claims until proven otherwise.

I'm not even sure he can be called a "liar". He's completely full of contradiction and keeps doing u-turns which means he can attack someone one day then praise them the next.

I don't think he believes half the things he says himself and doesn't really care whether you believe them either (perfect for the 'post truth' and 'post expert' era in other words).

I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out he's senile. He's old enough and he seems to be borderline crazy.

its because he just makes things up as he goes along tbh, he can then never remember what he has and hasn't said, so ends up denying that he said something in the first place or just contradicts himself

there is also the vanity that he hates admitting he doesn't know something so when asked a question rather than just not comment he'll make something up thinking that makes him appear "smart" when it actually just makes him look even more like a buffoon

he is a walking representation of the old adage "a little knowledge is dangerous"

Which you would have thought people would think to be a good thing and come as a relief to them. Considering they believe that he's going to do terrible things based on what they believe he's going to do based on what they think he's said.

But no, interestingly that isn't the case. They think it's bad if he backtracks or softens his approach on something.

If we are to judge him on anything how about what judging on some of the things he's done so far before being inaugurated? I mean actual material 'things' not comments on Twitter or some abstract idea of what he's done in the media.
He's done a few things already which some might say are positive things and which appear so far to be fulfilling some of what were perceived to be some of his 'good' promises. Not everyone will agree on that, but I think that's more realistic criteria with which to speculate about than perpetuating the same old end of the world rhetoric which was being pumped out during the election campaign.

Much of what he's being criticised for right now is largely in the world of the abstract. Suppositions based on how a tweet and what it means, how people think he will conduct himself, an idea of Russian hacking which somehow connects him to it.
He's actually doing things right now in the real world which most people aren't even commenting on. Which you'd think they might be or should be.
That doesn't follow that you'd necessarily agree with them from a political standpoint, but they are actual real things which provide signs of what may follow, rather than opinions being formed by listening to a continuation of rhetoric which maintains a state of perpetual fear about what he's going to do.

I think that in six months time some people may have a real problem. Which is what happens if it turns out that Trump turns out to be nothing like what they are insisting he's going to be like?
If you invest so much into the negative speculations which are being indulged right now, some of which are extreme to say the least, it's going to end up painting you into an intellectual corner where there is no space left to move if the future is absolutely nothing like how some are describing it will be right now.

I think the wall thing was quite possibly a clever way of reinvigorating a policy which existed before, but presenting it in such a way which would grab attention.
He may pull back a bit in terms of the tone and enact it in a compromised manner where a deal is struck between America and Mexico which is mutually beneficial for both of them.
It's obviously not going to be a full wall, it's more likely to be a reinforcement of sections of it with perhaps more finances put into border control.
I think that Trump will offer financial incentives which will work out for Mexico and both parties benefit. That is if he pursues this issue. Which I imagine he may well.

so your line of logic, and once again i mean that in the loosest possible sense, is that people should be happy that all the lies he told to get himself elected are turning out to actually be lies after all

If that were the case then surely it should beg the question of how the campaign strategy worked. If Trump himself wasn't a factor then I think it's fair to conclude that there are some highly intelligent people who formulated a strategy which won them the election.
When you think about it it's quite incredible, whether Trump was a significant player or not.
I think it would be a mistake to underestimate his intelligence. Him winning the election can't be down to pure luck. If it was then it raises serious questions about the approach of the Democratic Party. Serious questions on a similar note to how the British Labour Party are in crisis.

It's something to think about when so many repeat the rhetoric that Trump is a misogynist who hates 'ALL' women, they always ensure that they say 'ALL', when he hired Kellyanne Conway as his campaign manager. Who if Trump had little input into the campaign must be a political genius.
I'm not saying that lightly either or in a sarcastic jokey way, I mean it as a genuine compliment to her abilities and talent. You have to genuinely think about the power of the machine they were up against.

People can feel how they want to feel. It's not a question of my logic telling people anything. Not once in that post have I told anyone how they should feel about it. It's just some casual analysis where I expressed my take on the subject of his wall policy.

Your logic appears to deduce that from what I've written I've told people that they should be happy. In which part of my post did you interpret that?
I've reread my own post and in no line of it have I referred to any other people at all, let alone express how I think they should feel.
In fact my reply to you was very respectful and I focused solely on addressing the content of your post, not you.

I think you're reading things which aren't even there. it's probably a good example of a self-contained post which sticks entirely to the subject in hand without reference to anything outside of pure analysis.


In this post however I will make reference to other people. I think many people right now see monsters everywhere, and if they can't see them then they will create them.

Bearing in mind how close the election was, and how easily it could've gone the other way, I think it's a mistake to read too much into his win. The tendency when one side wins is to make out that it represents a fundamental change in the political dynamic. After 2008 and 2012 there was lots of talk about the 'rising coalition' of minorities and college-educated whites. Now there's similar commentary about white working-class voters.

In many ways Trump's victory was a bit of a fluke. If 100,000 votes or so went for Clinton in three states, Trump would've lost. The fact he was close enough in the polls to Clinton to sneak a win says something about him and his campaign, I suppose. It also says a lot about the deeply embedded, polarised nature of partisan politics in the US. Trump was the Republican candidate, so he was going to get at least 45% of the vote, no matter what.

I think Trump, much like George W Bush, has a certain low cunning, but he's really not massively bright. In many ways his victory showed that who Trump was, was essentially irrelevant compared to what he represented - which was change. Trump was, by all objective measures, a truly awful candidate. At every step of the way he showed he was incapable of doing the job. His convention speech was terrible. His debate performances were shambolic. I heard somewhere that something like 60% of Trump voters thought he was unqualifed to do the job - and they voted for him anyway. A combination of a Democratic candidate who (fairly or unfairly) was viewed as being corrupt, deep-seated resentment over globalisation and deindustrialisation, and a general sense of 'a plague on both your houses' meant enough people were willing to take a risk and vote for him. They hope he'll blow Washington up (metaphorically) and maybe things will get better. His 'intelligence', one way or the other, didn't really come into it.

Anyway, soon enough he'll take over and we'll all find out whether he's crazy like a fox or just a preening, narcissistic buffoon. I know which scenario I think is more likely, but time will tell

any truth to the rumour that hillary is going to run for mayor of new york?

That's the first I've heard of it. Sounds like bollocks to me. There's an incumbent Democrat in office, so why would she run against him? She's 70, it would seem highly unlikely she'd run for president again, so why bother? She might as well retire, enjoy life as a grandmother, and watch America descend into Trump-inspired chaos with a smug sense of knowing superiority.

Just out if interest, where would this "smug sense of superiority" be coming from?

Not from the humiliating defeat she suffered in the presidential election that's for sure

Would? Didn't you mean to ask where does it come from?

yeh it was getting thrown around twitter and reddit so likely is just that