Donald Trump wants Bill Gates to 'close the Internet', Jeff Bezos to pay tax United States Presidential candidate Donald J Trump has called on Bill Gates to shut down parts of the Internet, to prevent radicals spreading their ideas. That seems to be the thrust of remarks made by Trump at a campaign rally on Monday in the United States. As the video below shows, Trump told a rally that “We are losing a …
"I've a strong (and slightly worried) feeling that if Clinton were to win the nomination, a lot of people would vote for Trump instead."
Well, except for women, ethnic minorities, liberals, conservatives who think Trump is insane, anyone living on either coast, the technically literate, the functionally literate... Basically, if Trump wins the nomination then Pol Pot could stand against him with Chairman Mao on the ticket and still get 60% of the popular vote.
Most 'establishment' Republicans are also worried that a Trump nomination could lose them a dozen seats in the senate and fifty or more in the House, too. He appeals solely to the anti-state, racist, sexist nutjob fringe of the Republican party, which now apparently accounts for some 50% of their base. The best bit is, even if he doesn't win the nomination, Trump will probably stand anyway and completely split the republican vote. There's simply no chance of a republican president while Trump is involved in the race.
There are a ton of Americans who claim to have been completely unrepresented in the executive office for 8 years now. The funny thing is, the vast majority of the people that hate Obama are precisely the group who has benefited the most from his terms in office. The people who voted for Obama basically had to sit back and watch Obama try and help the little bus folk because he believes that if he forces those people to be healthy and hopefully get an education, it will be better for the people with a quarter of a brain or more.
What if, these people who hate Obama and seem to love Trump were to get exactly what they asked for. A congress dominated by republicans and Trump as president. It will be an absolute international disaster and he'll probably send the world to war while jobs are lost and international treaties fall apart. I would imagine multiple members leaving NATO to distance themselves from the US. Other countries will call in US debts for fear of Trump doing something crazy like suggesting they're no longer value because he doesn't believe the US should have to pay them.
Wouldn't it be a good thing to give the American people what they want so they can learn their lesson the hard way?
The end result will be that
I do hope he wins the nomination. I can't conceive of a world in which he wins the election,
According to the polls and the experts, if Trump runs against Hillary, it's almost a sure thing he will win.
Here in the States there is amongst the Democrats an ABH (Anyone But Hillary) movement. Dems would rather vote for Trump than Hillary, for the reason that people would rather vote for a Repub that is a self-promoting blowhard than a Dem who brings new meaning to the word "selfish".
The polls don't bear out AC's claim:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html
The only poll that shows Trump beating Hillary is the one from Fox News. If Trump was a sure fire victor over her the republican establishment wouldn't be so terrified of him winning the nomination, since the likelihood of Hillary not winning the democratic nomination is about 1%.
The real problem the republicans have in this election is that they've been pushing their anti-government agenda so hard over the years that now the majority of their primary voters are unwilling to support any republican politician, because he's a politician. Previously that might have only hurt republican congressmen while governors could claim they have avoided the taint of Washington on them, but now their voters see even them as tainted. So you see non-politicians like Trump, Carson and Fiorina taking all the attention away from the people the republican establishment wants to push.
I can't remember the numbers but I was amazed at the percentage of likely republican primary voters who said that they saw little difference between Bush and Clinton, and some even said that about the self-styled anti-Washington Washington guy, Ted Cruz. If the establishment is seen as pushing out guys like Trump/Carson to make way for one of their guys like Bush or even Cruz, they might have enough people staying home from the polls that they lose the house/senate that way too. They've really sort of let themselves be boxed in by allowing the anti-government rhetoric to take such a strong hold in their party's message.
Anyway, it is far too early to say who wins the general election between the two. Some republicans who are loathe to support him will decide they'd rather have him than Hillary. Some democrats who want "anyone but Hillary" will decide she's better than Trump. And there's 11 months for them to take a big fall. What's more likely in that time, a new scandal to come up that actually sticks to Hillary, or Trump to shoot himself in the foot so many times that he's managed to alienate most of the republican base to the point where they view this election as a lost cause and start concentrating on finding some to beat Hillary in 2020?
I'm not a huge fan of Reagan and wasn't when I was a much younger man during his reign term, but at least Reagan came into office with prior political experience as governor of California and president of SAG.
Trump and Fiorina and, in California, Meg Whitman are yet more businessfolk who seem to think success in the corporate world can be directly translated into success in the Oval Office.
Congress and the Supreme Court would have pails of bitter pills for them if any ever managed to secure the White House. Unlike the corner office where orders are issued and carried out on pain of termination, the Oval Office has to get legislation pushed through Congress before it can act on most things. And those things have to pass constitutional muster as viewed by the Supreme Court.
Didn't stop people suggesting that he wasn't the sharpest knife in the box
And those people were wrong, anyway, as later historical analysis has shown. I'm not a Reagan fan myself, but I'm willing to examine the evidence. His notes for the policy speeches he made before and during his governorship, for example, show that he was a well-informed and insightful policy wonk.
There's no question in my mind that age and disease had taken their toll on Reagan's intellect by the end of his career, but in 1980, the evidence suggests, he was still a very intelligent man.
Trump, on the other hand, is an idiot - a megalomaniacal bully and semi-competent con artist whose occasional ability to profit from the greed of others has deluded him into imagining he's capable of intelligent thought. I don't know of any evidence whatsoever that he's not an utter fool, as well as a vile demagogue and entirely devoid of any moral compass.
And in general the tone of Reagan's campaign message was one of hope and goodwill, not spittle-flecked xenophobic hatred. There's really no grounds for comparison.
"Peeps in the US, trump is another term for fart in Blighty."
Yep, that's what always comes to mind whenever I hear he's opened his mouth again. Lots more hot smelly air!
Come on Yanks! Don't you all have guns? This guy is as close to a terrorist as you can get without him actually killing someone! He terrorises me at the thought of his finger "The Button"
He seems to be doing nicely in statistical terms. All the hooting and snappy barbs and Hitler comparisons and bon mot stonings and snappy argot sniping and knit brow forehead slapping and bleacher seat Bronx cheers and dinner table pounding and sleepless mutterings of astonishment are starting to sound like blind panic which isn't surprising judging from the hideous sticky film of illogic that coats the human mind. He seems to be doing nicely in statistical terms.
In statistical terms, he is trouncing a field of 7 dwarves, in polls from the self-selecting primary voters, with 29% of supporters.
12% of Republicans voted in 2008 primaries.
assuming 50% of population is Republican
.29 * .5 * .12 = 0.0174
I am aware that I am conflating poll respondents with primary voters at this point, but in statistical terms, he ain't quite speaking for the whole US yet.
At least, I hope not.
I think that alternance in governments is a virtue. Few democracies do well from having one party run a country for >10 years. At the rate this is going, the Dems will trounce an eventual Trump candidacy in the real election.
America at large will not benefit from a system in which very engaged, older, white, angry, conservative voters repeatedly delude themselves into thinking they are a >50% majority and then consistently choose someone willing to pander to their prejudices to carry their banners pitchforks. With no snowball's chance in hell to make it past the rest of the electorate on election day. Those are the folks who thought Palin was the real thing. Those are the "statistical terms" you ought to think about.
It's not like the Dems are so incredibly great that I welcome the likelihood of them sitting in power for decades because the Reps can't choose electable candidates.
Trump may not have as much support in the republicans who skip the primaries, but if they find him unacceptable that's their own fault for skipping the primary and letting him win (if he does end up winning)
Maybe if it gets close to the Iowa caucus and NH primary and he's still up there, it will galvanize record turnouts in both states to hand him a loss, and he'll quickly fade once he's lost his mojo.
I'm still wondering if he's pulling a Ross Perot and will bail out at some point. If he is just power hungry, then he's someone we don't want in that office. And we sure as hell don't need another guy like Obama who knows better on everything and won't listen to any counterpoints.
Hitlery said virtually the same thing, but not surprisingly there's not a lot of stories about it.
Hillary Clinton said on Sunday that the Islamic State had become “the most effective recruiter in the world” and that the only solution was to engage American technology companies in blocking or taking down militant websites, videos and encrypted communications.
“You are going to hear all the familiar complaints: ‘freedom of speech,’ ” Mrs. Clinton said in an hourlong speech and question-and-answer session at the Saban Forum, an annual gathering at the Brookings Institution that focuses mostly on Israel’s security issues.
Hopefully, that POS won't win either.
“You are going to hear all the familiar complaints: ‘freedom of speech,’ ” Mrs. Clinton said
All the viable candidates1 are pro-surveillance and anti-civil-rights. That's been true pretty much since 1980 (and quite a lot earlier, if we put Carter aside as an anomaly). The question is who would do more damage.
1Sanders isn't viable. He won't win the nomination, and if he somehow did, he wouldn't win the general election. Regardless of what you think about him, he's too far from the US center to win.
In another country his latest rant would have qualified for hate speech.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/07/donald-trump-ban-all-muslims-entering-us-san-bernardino-shooting
Banning entering the country a particular religious denomination and tagging all of its followers inside the country? Do a s/muslims/jews/g and Hitler would be proud.
Funnily enough, he's done his bit to offend Jews as well
Again >implying that we don't need MORE leaders to tell Israel to fork off! Of corse the last One to do this ended up causing Bush I, the presidency. I just pray that history isn't set to repeat itself.
Not only that but when asked for clarification he also meant to include American born Muslims that were currently outside the country.
That would be fun for the family returning from Haj etc.
A nod towards Bush junior who advocates tagging and monitoring ALL foreign visitors.
That would be fun for the family returning from Haj etc.
Hajj? Nah... I'd like to see him go onto a transport plane full of U.S. Marines returning from a tour in the Middle East and try to tell them that some of the guys they've been fighting beside for the last six months aren't going to be allowed off the plane...
Al Gore sponsored a pile of legislation that funded computing and networking research, and the precursors to the internet. He might well be a good person to talk to if you want to find places the US govenment can fund or cut to improve or destroy the internet. Republicans liked to say Al Gore claimed to invent the internet, but before repeating their delusions, it is worth checking snopes.
Oddly enough, I already know that:
a) Al Gore didn't invent the Internet,
b) he didn't claim to, and
c) manbearpig is the single largest threat that this, or any, country faces
I'm just pointing out that asking Bill Gates to do something about this is as farcical as asking Al Gore or Stephen Hawking (and all the other elders of the Internet that live in Big Ben).
/like-"goldy"-and-"bronzy"-only-it's-made-out-of-iron
You shore do have a purty mouth. Fer a city boi.
Seems to me that you can gauge the IQ of a merkin, to some extent, by the party that they support. If it's GOP then you might be looking at someone called cletus who screws pigs and whose idea of foreplay is to say "wake up, Ma". An evolution denying moron whose only talent is the ability to play the banjo very quickly. In short, probably not the sort of person you'd want to trust with the biggest economy and military in the world.
I agree with all of this, as funny as it is.
But then I remember that this is a successful businessman who has run his own business, worked on TV and has a huge income - he has got to have done something right, racist or not...
(Plus, he managed it all with THAT haircut!)
Okay so I'm really hoping that all these people that keep saying in poles they are going to vote for Trump are just trolling, because the idea that people actually support this lunatic is seriously depressing. Like build a rocket to get off the planet so I don't need to keep sharing air with them depressing.
Not even Americans can be serious about voting for this guy? Right? Right? Please tell me I'm right... Please? Pretty please?
@tkioz He has strong support among people who never went to college and are registered Republican. When you see numbers like 30% keep in mind that's 30% of people who are registered as Republican, which is at a record low 25% of Americans, so that's 7%, about as many who think the moon landing was faked.
And they are serious about voting for this guy, but Trump's just the American version of UK's UKIP, France's National Front, Germany's PEGIDA / NPD, Holland's Party for Freedom (lol) etc. etc. Everyone has these idiot blue collar xenophobes. They're just afraid. Of everything and everyone. So they'll vote for whatever idiot claims he can keep out all Muslims and will send all the Mexicans back to Mexico.
Trump's especially amusing because he's so dumb and blustery and shows how low the standards really are for these troglodytes. But that's an artifact of the bizarre political system - in the primaries, the dumber and more extreme you are the more likely you are to get the nomination. In the general election that collapses. He has no chance at all there.
As an aside, people now realize our Democrat party are also corporate whores who are full of sh@# (though in different ways) so Independents are up to record 42%. Obama being eager spymaster didn't help there. But everything is still legislatively stacked in favor of Dems and Reps so Hillary will still get it.
With voting non-compulsory, the US voting public is largely comprised of those people who are strongly one way or the other.
Unfortunately, it's not just a matter of being strongly for 'your' side but strongly against the 'other' side. Policies don't matter, people don't matter - just your colo[u]rs.
>>You know, the National Front just did well in French local elections
Don't panic Mr Mainwaring, don't panic! This happened last time there were local elections in France, and then they returned a Socialist president. And the same happened in the UK, when UKIP dominated the last Euro elections and a couple of parliamentary by-elections, then disappeared without trace in the following general election.
We'll know the 30s are really calling when someone with actual ideological commitment and proper political opinions, of any hue, is allowed to get into real power (paging Jeremy Corbyn..?). But that's not going to happen while so many rich and powerful people have so much to lose by allowing it - I'm afraid we're stuck with the corporation-serving advertising-and-spin front-persons for the forseeable future.
Which is probably better than the 30s alternatives. I hope. Meh.
"Why do I get the feeling we are back in the 1930's?"
Unfortunately it's quite a different ball game now.
In the 30s it was relatively difficult for a nutjob to do serious damage across the other side of the globe. These days the military hardware enables a nutjob to kill & maim to order pretty much anywhere around the globe within a few hours.
Why do I get the feeling we are back in the 1930's?
Because this is what happens after a serious financial collapse. Everyone except the very wealthy gets hurt: the middle classes get squeezed and fear for their safety net; the poor see their income fall and lurch between bad and uncertain jobs. People understandably worry about things which are completely outside their control and lose trust in mainstream politicians (of whatever stripe) to handle it. Some demagogue finds a way to blame a complex situation (of any sort) on a single root cause, and whether that root cause is announced to be the European Union or migration or Muslims, enough scared people will start to back them just because they sound confident and decisive, regardless of whether their policies could possibly achieve what they claim and regardless of how many 'not like us' people would be harmed.
>Why do I get the feeling we are back in the 1930's?
We are just emerging from a recession which, in many respects, is comparable with the Great Depression (note: not 'the same' but 'comparable with').
That episode brought a lot of populist, minority-blaming politics to the fore. We shouldn't be surprised it's happened again.
Hilary is, ultimately more scary than Dick Trump at least he will start as Pres with everybody knowing what he stands for and likely, what he is going to do.
HC is one of those politicians with so many dangerous undercurrents around her no-one knows which way she will jump, the only certainty being,it will be in her favour.If she's anything like her old man ( he started a war every time he was caught with his dick somewhere it shouldn't be) she's a liar as well as a dodgy politician. Just for laughs look up 'The Clinton Murders', if it's true there's no smoke without fire, then I would vote for crazy old Trump the Chump.
The other thing in Trump's favour he is not a slimy lawyer, she is.
Where have all the good politicians gone?
@Chris G
If you give any credence to the "Clinton Murders" then you are either a moron or your bias is preventing you seeing how stupid that is. Snopes, as ever, has an excellent article about it and can give it the analysis I can't here
http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/bodycount.asp
There are some Americans who only get their 'news' from Fox. When they occasionally get news from elsewhere, they assume it must be false because Fox and all their Foxed friends disagree. There are enough people like that to keep Trump looking like a possible candidate. The aren't enough people like that to get Trump elected president.
You can expect the hilarity to continue, as the extremes of the Republican party have shot down any candidate who appeals to more than one faction. We will continue to get half a dozen Republicans each speaking only to their own faction, with statements that sound utterly insane to everyone else.
If there is a way out of this, it has not occurred to anyone in the Republican leadership.
So your choice is between a liar and moron? Surely democracy must be capableof throwing up a better candidate. Not much better in the UK, we get the choice of three liars and a moron.
Remember George W., prior to the first election very few people outside the US could see any reason to elect him (I've even got the T-shirt) but the rest is history (and blood and tears).
Who's the fucking idiot? Read my post again , I support neither, how could anyone support a chump?
I was merely pointing out that possibly the chump is slightly lesser of the two evils.
Try thinking about what you read before a knee jerk reply.
I am only giving an opinion and can contribute to no meaningful statistic since I am not an American voter.
Get out of US politics and go back under the rock you crawled out from.
Damn right we will vote for Donald Trump so we can stop flamers like you from getting any more political weight and ruining this country any further. He's not a lunatic, he's not mincing words like you wimps and he's telling the truth about the Muslim threat to this country.
FTR, if polls say Trump already has 1/3rd of the Republican vote, you can bet that there are another 30% who favor Trump that won't answer pollsters. Most pollsters in this country are liberal scum and skew the numbers in their favor anyway.
Hillary Clinton is already under investigation by the FBI for her lying and misuse of classified information exactly like the issues that Obama's Department of "Justice" prosecuted General Petraeus for. If he should have been prosecuted, then Hillary has committed far worse crimes than Petraeus did.
Dan Paul.
Get off a UK site and crawl back under your rock.
The *only* 'Muslim threat to this country' is the one that has been generated by the bombing of civilians carried out under the 'War on Terror' TM, courtesy of the US Right Wing Idiots.
Trump is quite capable of ruining the US all on his own.
Attitudes like yours seem to match rather well with the cletus analogy offered earlier.
How's your banjo playing?
amazing!
so did you use both fists to type that or just the one?
I only ask as, sometimes the typing with two fists method causes the tinfoil hat to fall over the eyes and can result in spelling errors which were, suspiciously, absent from your post.
Clippy shall return to protect us from ourselves!
I think Trump had a series of mini strokes. Either that, or the nails holding that carpet on his head are too deep.
Sidenote: Nazis were national SOCIALISTS, which we find where on the Murrican spectrum? Ah, yes, the liberal left (Iooking at you, Bernie).
There is no good choice with the Presidential Prom King/Queen. They are all bad, all say stupid things, have shoddy pasts, and most are proven liars.
I'm afraid the last vestiges of socialism in the Nazi party were purged in June 1934 ('The night of the long knives' - remember that?). Any 'Socialist' policies were purged way before that (about when Hitler regained control in the mid-20s).
Just because they called themselves Socialist doesn't mean they were - no more than the 'Peoples Democratic Republic of Korea' is democratic or run for the benefit of the people.
The Nazis were centrist in European terms, socialist from a US viewpoint. They believed in a regulated free market, but also provided social security and free public healthcare. They had some extreme policies in certain areas, obviously, but economically they were very boring, very middle-of-the-road.
You're kidding. They were the very definition of socialist when it came to the economy - nationalise, centralise, directed production. Look at VW: a private enterprise whose capital was effectively impounded and diverted into state-directed military production for the duration of WW2.
"You're kidding. They were the very definition of socialist when it came to the economy "
They really, really weren't. For starters, you had a lot of private enterprise, no unions, and no rights for large parts of the workforce - most German industrialists were quite happy with Nazi party economic policy, and utterly terrified of actual socialism.
But more importantly, economic policy under socialism is very much about central planning. This simply wasn't the case in Nazi Germany, where there was no serous planning of any kind; the economy was a total basket-case, in fact. It was flooded with foreign (mainly US) capital because the no-labour-rights-no-unions economy was a favourable investment climate; this lead to the 'economic miracle. But when it came to the actual planning, there wasn't any central attempt to join up the plans of the different ministries - or even any real oversight. In 1938, the German airforce wanted the resources to build enough planes to consume 78% of the whole world's oil output. In the same year, the Navy wanted 30 years worth of Germany's iron output for battleships. And they all fought over it, and they all simply mass-produced with whatever stuff they could. The German economy likely would have imploded by about 1941 without the plunder of the war.
"They really, really weren't. For starters, you had a lot of private enterprise, no unions, and no rights for large parts of the workforce - most German industrialists were quite happy with Nazi party economic policy, and utterly terrified of actual socialism."
With that paragraph alone you summed it up. The Nazis ruled by diktat, they did not challenge (nor wish to) private ownership of capital in Germany and yes German capitalists were amongst their most enthusiastic supporters benefiting as they did from the slave labour factories.
@ gazthejourno
A country run by a dictator is called a dictatorship, no need to use any fancy words there. A wartime industry is centralised, of course. Happened in each and every country that took part in WW2. Very few cars for normal use were built in the USA during those years, for instance.
@gazthejourno - "You're kidding. They [The Nazis] were the very definition of socialist when it came to the economy - nationalise, centralise, directed production. Look at VW: a private enterprise whose capital was effectively impounded and diverted into state-directed military production for the duration of WW2."
Perhaps you didn't do much history but the Nazis hated actual socialism. Other's have pointed out how they really operated and they purged socialists as soon as they could.
In respect of your point about VW, it is worth remembering that many nations nationalised critical production *during the war* regardless of political bent.
The whole "Nazi's were SOCIALISTS" mantra,seems to be pushed by right wingers in a bid to convince themselves that they aren't anything like that when so accused.
>> economically they were very boring, very middle-of-the-road.
With the economy dependent on a huge but invisible infrastructure of slave labour...?
But I suppose you could call that "middle-of-the-road" in modern terms, given that it's quite fashionable in countries like China and North Korea - and let us not forget the US with a working prison population in excess of 2 million...
Economically, hardly boring; from thousands of percent inflation in the early twenties to a totally rebuilt country with purpose by the late thirties, admittedly much of that was acheived by robbing and killing large portions of their own population and then annexing neighbours but boring ? No! Evil? Yes!
Just goes to show what can be done by a government with no conciense.
Word web Boring: So lacking in interest as to cause mental weariness
Then I stand corrected.
Actually a much better response than I thought I would get! It still leaves me uneasy that socialism enjoys the fanbase it has, but I can then decouple it from the actual dictatorship Hitler helmed.
I still stand by the analogy that the US is voting for a Prom King/Queen, without considering the advertised platforms.
It is scary that Trump garners so many supporters. Consider this: Many people in the US do not like where things are heading - in a political, financial and social sense. They feel powerless, and latch on to anyone loud enough to voice their angst and anger.
Individualism is still a thing here in the US. That doesn't mean the backwards dummy who y'all think of, gun-clutching and bible-toating. No, it is people who do not think that we have a forced responsibility without accountability. That is diametrically opposed to socialism, communism, progressivism, and other liberal concepts. Good as they may seem in their basic idea, they are always more restrictive and punitive under the guise of doing something really good; usually, for some intangible like "for the children" or "the unfortunate" and curiously, never for the individual benefit. *
Trump is not the answer. I don't see anyone who appeals to me on the conservative side.
But when I look at the liberal side, there is even less. Socialism is not an American value. Neither is Progressivism and certainly not Communism.
Ignoring or circumventing law, for whatever means, is what we would like to avoid. The right will use religious reasons, the left will use social reasons. Moral and social justice if you will.
Don't believe that Trump, as the idiot individual who he is, represents conservatism. He doesn't, and given his recent "conversion", I would like to believe his ambitions being based on some psychological problem - he just ain't right.
But to believe that liberals have all the answers, that they do not have heinous/stupid ideas would be the assumption of a fool. Sadly, that is the hip thing these days. We are all global, we are all community, blablabla.
In my experience and opinion, any liberal stance changes once the individual is directly affected (being at a disadvantage) by those idealistic leanings.
* Political platforms based on religious beliefs aren't much different. I am not talking about those, since most of you are quickly (and rightfully) opposed to a theocracy. Google Sky Cake
We can judge how much of a socialist Hitler was by his actions once he was elected chancellor in 1933 rather than by what he chose to call his party*. One of the very first groups who began to disappear (murdered directly or sent to the camps) were, in fact, the members and representatives of the Socialist Workers' Party of Germany and people from the German Social Democratic party (most of the latter regarding themselves as non-Marxist socialists.). Hitler in fact regarded the Left in general in Germany as his sworn enemies (along with Trades Union activists) and prioritised their suppression/liquidation.
*There were various historical reasons for his choice which had nothing to do with any committment on his part to socialism of any description.
" Nazis were national SOCIALISTS,"
Yes, and the People's Democratic Republic of North Korea is a bastion of democracy, and the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics was a voluntary federation of decentralized small-scale local governments.
Because no-one would ever think of using words they didn't mean in a title just because it sounded good.
“If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed... Do not compare yourself to others. If you do so, you are insulting yourself... It is not truth that matters, but victory... I use emotion for the many and reserve reason for the few... The receptivity of the masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, but their power of forgetting is enormous... Humanitarianism is the expression of stupidity and cowardice... I don't see much future for the Americans ... it's a decayed country. And they have their racial problem, and the problem of social inequalities ... my feelings against Americanism are feelings of hatred and deep repugnance ... How can one expect a State like that to hold together?”
Does any of this sound like Trump to you? If so, be very afraid.
Did Bill Gates have enough control over the net to do that?
Also is the man not aware that there is an Internet outside of America and it's jurisdiction?
It scares me how this man managed to aquire so much wealth while still being such a shameful excuse of an oxygen thief and that he has the potential to end up controlling one of the worlds most destructive arsenals.
"since when... Did Bill Gates have enough control over the net to do that?
"You can sway a thousand men by appealing to their prejudices quicker than you can convince one man by logic" (R A Heinlein)
" Also is the man not aware that there is an Internet outside of America and it's jurisdiction?
Most probably not. I'm betting most of his supporters don't either.
I don't know. Sometimes you think he has a brilliant campaign plan tailored to appeal to idiots, and then he says something clearly unprepared and off-the-cuff that is jaw-droppingly stupid.
I'm thinking he is stupid, there is no plan, he just happens to have stumbled upon a formula that works (so far). It ultimately means that when it stops working, expect him to be clueless. We must hope that that happens before he manages to stumble into a position of power.
Now who can argue with that? I think we're all indebted to Trumpy for clearly stating what needed to be said. I'm particulary glad that these lovely children were here today to hear that speech. Not only was it authentic frontier gibberish, it expressed a courage little seen in this day and age.
"We have to do something. We have to go see Bill Gates and a lot of different people that really understand what's happening.”
Somehow, a total lack of understanding is not a disqualifier for the office of POTUS. This is a new low for the USA. Will Trump bring Sarah Palin back as his running mate -- and perhaps retrieve Dan Quayle (remember him?) from the links as his Secretary of State? That would complete the unholy triumvirate (and probably bring about the end-times).
How do you make a small fortune trading stocks & futures?
Well, first you start with a large fortune...
I think he would have more money if he stacked it in the corner and occasionally sprayed it for bugs. The only reason he has a fortune at all is he was given it, squandered most, but managed some lucky timing on property.
"The @washingtonpost loses money (a deduction) and gives owner @JeffBezos power to screw public on low taxation of @Amazon! Big tax shelter"
Amazon rarely makes a profit, so there isn't any need for a tax shelter. Plus, Bezos owns the WaPo, not Amazon. But facts never stopped Donald Trump.
Has El Reg cut a deal with (f)ailing social media company Twitter?
Bolding the tweets and giving and aligning them in the centre does not do much for readability. Not that that really matters that much given their content. It reminds of junior school reporting in front the teacher: "but he said, but she said…"
Trump is spouting some fairly stupid stuff to keep himself in the news. That there may be method in the madness is worth considering. See Scott Adams light-hearted articles.
The meedja seem to be doing a lot of that these days.
I guess, for some, it's a convenient way to present a particular point of view while hoping to dodge defamation claims; "We didn't say it. We just reported the fact that someone else said it". Invariably presented with one criticising or dissenting tweet to provide the defence that they gave a balanced perspective.
I don't think it works, unfortunately. You can be sued for defamation when you quote an official police spokesperson, let alone a random person on Twitter.
("You can defame a person by repeating words spoken by someone else, for example an interviewee. It is no defence to claim that you were only quoting someone else.")
...or is the small furry creature sitting on the mouthy puppet's head doing a bang-up job here? He/she/it should win an award for this galactically epic piece of performance art.
Trump was clearly the inspiration behind Pixar's "Ratatouille". The reality was so bizarre, nobody would have believed it, so they naturally went for a more plausible storyline.
No, he said that "Isn’t it interesting that the tragedy in Paris took place in one of the toughest gun control countries in the world?"
But this was about the Hebdo shootings.
It is important to differentiate between the attacks, misquoting him is as bad as him misquoting.
"Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said on Saturday that the terror attacks in Paris would have been 'a much, much different situation' had the victims been armed with guns."
[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3318748/Donald-Trump-says-Paris-attack-different-situation-victims-armed-guns.html]
“We have to talk to them [about], maybe in certain areas, closing that internet up in some way.”
So, you're going to close up an idea, a concept. This is simply playing to the right wing gallery in the US, and I doubt Trump, who is not stupid, really believes this stuff.
Apart from anything else, how do we physically close the internet, at least for any meaningful length of time?
"...This is simply playing to the right wing gallery..."
Perhaps, but not with intention. He is simply talking off the top of his head and leading his audience to dream along with him. Sure, he attracts right-wing crazies, but he doesn't deliberately go after them. He repeatedly answers "I don't care" when reporters tell him he may alienate one group or another. He doesn't think in terms of appealing to his audience. He just wants to please himself.
Actually I would say that's one of the very few things he got right.
Now I think this guy is as big an idiot as anyone else here; but when he says things like this it makes him a lot more dangerous because he's touching a very real nerve - one you have just very pointedly tried to deny the existence of.
Political correctness is the idea that people can be forced, manipulated or shamed into believing and adhering to a specific political ideology or doctrine. In itself it has nothing to do with leftist or rightist thinking; it is merely the idea that the way people think can be directed to serve a social or political agenda, under threat of punishment for non-compliance. But in order for this to work the directing hand must be concealed. For PC to be effective it must first deny or conceal its existence.
To most people, PC is associated most strongly with leftist politics because it is demonstrably the left - feminists, anti-racists, social-justice and identity politics crowd - who have primarily resorted to it in order to establish their ideology. Your use of the previously-mentioned denial tactics in dismissing the concept of PC as "outdated" (other common lines of attack include opposition to it being "unenlightened", "bigoted", "moronic" etc) illustrates this principle perfectly.
People aren't opposed to it because they are misogynistic neo-nazi white-supremacist redneck bigots. They're opposed to it because most people don't like being dictated to, told how to think, and what they can and can't say, even if the goal is a valid one. Nor do they like hypocrisy or double standards, the idea that discrimination is wrong in some areas but perfectly acceptable in others.
Most people will, if asked, uphold the belief that women and men, gays and heteros, blacks and orientals and whites, alike should be free to pursue their hopes and dreams. But the idea that all white hetero males are privileged and must therefore be somehow punished or excluded on the basis of some imagined "oppression", coupled with the use of PC (including the attempted concealment of such use) to normalise the idea, is what is driving much of the backlash against the leftist ideology.
Saying that because most privileged people are white males therefore all white males must be privileged, is akin to saying that since most boy-buggerers are gay therefore all gays must be boy-buggerers. It's an outright fallacy. Privilege is the result of wealth, nothing else. A white male on the dole is no more or less privileged than a black female on the dole. But a wealthy black woman like Oprah Winfrey is a hell of a lot more privileged than that white male sacked-out drunk sleeping it off on the local park bench, to the same degree that Trump himself is a hell of a lot more privileged than the young black girl forced into domestic servitude.
It is the natural human opposition to this dictatorial, manipulative and deceptive practice of the ideological left that is driving the majority of opposition to it. And when idiots like Trump start saying things like "political correctness is a major problem" he's going to garner a lot of support from people who are simply looking for a regime that doesn't start from the premise that all white males should pay for the mistakes of the wealthy.
Which, of course, only makes things even worse, since Trump's primary ideology is to make all of humanity other than the wealthy pay for the mistakes of the wealthy.
"Sheer nonsense."
Wow. Just... wow. You must have really taxed your brain cell coming up with such an erudite and informed rebuttal to my argument.
A more brilliant example of stuffing one's fingers into one's ears and shouting LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU would be extremely hard to find!
There is a cult of ignorance in the USA, it is fostered by the GOP. Keep the masses angry, stupid and believing in things that have no basis in fact, and they'll vote for the party which does them the least good. How the GOP, given its policies and who their backers are, gets votes from people with an income of 6 figures (closer to 7) or less in any sane world is just beyond belief. They do however, and the blame can only be laid at the feet of ignorance and stupidity. It is beyond doubt by now that Clinton will secure the Democrat nomination, the Republican one is still up for grabs with the most reasonable candidate (and he's not that good) miles behind Trump, in the election itself Clinton should romp it. That should is a big one, what with the gerrymandering and disenfranchisement that is rife in some states.
Actually, both sides are responsible for the dumbing down and the "not being responsible for your actions" beliefs. It goes back to the 70's and "you're smart" and "we'll not use grades because you're special". Then they cut the spending on the basics... maths, science, etc.
This is the fruit of many years of hard work by the powers that be. They dumbed things down, and here's the result...<sarc> happy proles.</sarc>
Currently, the US is looking for leadership. Obama doesn't have it and the people need it. These same people respect Putin because he is a leader and is (to those outside looking in) looking out for his country. Trump is playing to that. Clinton... not so much.
Study the following:
"Naturally I could no longer doubt that here there was not a question of Americans who happened to be of a different religion but rather that there was question of an entirely different people. For as soon as I began to investigate the matter and observe the Muslims, then America appeared to me in a different light. Wherever I now went I saw Muslims, and the more I saw of them the more strikingly and clearly they stood out as a different people from the other citizens. Especially the inner cities swarmed with a people who, even in outer appearance, bore no similarity to the Americans.
But any indecision which I may still have felt about that point was finally removed by the activities of a certain section of the Muslims themselves. A great movement, called a Caliphate, arose among them. Its aim was to assert the national character of Islam, and the movement was strongly represented in America.
To outward appearances it seemed as if only one group of Muslims championed this movement, while the great majority disapproved of it, or even repudiated it. But an investigation of the situation showed that those outward appearances were purposely misleading. These outward appearances emerged from a mist of theories which had been produced for reasons of expediency, if not for purposes of downright deception. For that part of Islam which was styled peace-loving and law-abiding did not disown the Caliphists as if they were not members of their race but rather as brother Muslims who publicly professed their faith in an unpractical way, so as to create a danger for Islam itself."
Now answer this question - could this be a genuine Trump trump?
Quite correct, I am. Have an upvote.
As for why - in his rabble-rousing speeches, Trump is attacking Muslims in exactly the same way as Hitler attacked the Jews. In the early part of Mein Kampf, Hitler records his impressions of his first encounters with Orthodox Jews in Vienna. You can see the resentment swelling and festering the more he talks about it, but that particular passage has always stayed in my mind as a classic non-sequitur caused by one man's personal obsession. Hitler automatically assumed that all Jews were Zionists and those who professed otherwise only did so because they didn't have the bottle to nail their colours to the mast. Trump is doing exactly the same thing by implying that all Muslims in the US are Daesh sympathisers, while ignoring the law-abiding and peaceful majority. I genuinely would not be surprised if he were to demand that all Muslims in the US had to wear a yellow crescent when out in public.
I'd suggest that anyone wanting to understand the risks posed by people like Trump should read Mein Kampf carefully and compare the self-pity and festering hatred in that book with the personal charisma and fantastic public presence that Hitler had. He could carry a crowd along with him, talk the talk and put on a good show, but underneath that façade was a bitter and twisted man. Trump comes from the same mould - he whips up a crowd and tries to position himself as a real alternative man of the people, but you only have to take a small step back to realise he's a raving fascist.
@LK Interesting. With MK being re-published, it might be useful to have an e-edition that reframes sections randomly (and with appropriate changes to detail), as you've done, each with a different 'target'--the better to highlight the offensive nature of what underlies the work.
@ Laura Kerr
Thanks for your upvote, and had I read your previous comments I would not have questioned your motive.
And while Herr Trumpf is what he is, the real problem is that people are prepared to vote for him. There are commentards here who claim those who vote for him are stupid and uneducated, but I don't find that explanation good enough. Apparently Rupert Murdoch is ready to endorse Carson, a one trick pony, who I find even more dangerous than Trumpf.
There was a time when I took part in choosing and selecting new young programmers into the company. Had one of those boys or girls told me God asked them to become programmers, I would have very gently and politely pushed them out of the office. So good by, 1/3 of Republican candidates. I just cannot get it. Among all Trumpf's lies the Bible lie I can accept.
We have this feeling that all politicians are stupid and ..., with good reasons, for sure, sometimes. But we can also turn it around. All those candidates throw their fishing nets into the electorate to catch as many votes as possible. While I would rather see Hillary as the next POTUS than any Republican in this election, I still have to wonder about her net. On the subject of affordable health care she goes - "we are not Denmark" and she knows some Americans will go - "yes, how silly, only a small country without any natural resource's can afford it while the worlds richest country cannot". As for affordable health care again, "look Americans, we cannot give that to Trumps kids. And, of course, some Americans will go, heck no, not for them and not for us either. Hillary is not stupid, but does she really know how much will end up in her net.
Bernie is the only candidate who believes that Americans are not that stupid and uneducated. I have friends and relatives in the USA, and I really hope he is right.
See also Hannah Arendt's "The Origins of Totalitarianism." Trump has learned well. There's another bad side to his success, though. He makes the other nutjobs running for the Republican nomination look sane. Ben Carson* wouldn't stand a chance except for the excuse that "yeah, he's looney, but at least he's not Trump."
* "The Pyramids Were Built For Grain Storage, The Big Bang Never Happened, 'Evolution' Is An Idea Encouraged By Satan"
http://www.salon.com/2015/09/30/the_7_most_impressively_stupid_things_ben_carson_has_said_partner/
Trump like Ross Perot and Jimmy Goldsmith was here in the UK are not natural democrats.
They have thrived and succeeded in extremely heirarchical organisations with them at the top and the freedom to hire and fire at will. They genuinely believe that if elected they can transplant that model to government. This does not make them intrinsically evil, I'm sure they honestly think they are working for the greater good; Just their view of it.
They then find in democratic organisations they have to get their peers on side, and although they can fire people out of ministerial office they cannot fire them from the legislative organisation. So they get pissed off at not getting theri own way and blame everyone else. (They are after all CEO's)
So my bet is Donald will lose the nomination and strike out on his own as an independent.
Hilary must be rubbing her hands already.
Is that a very large swathe of people buy into the Trump Extremism. As that is what he is, an extremist, a terrorist, he orchestrates chaos.
This man is dangerous, people listen to him because he lauds his extreme views with immunity to prosecution. his vitriolic hate diatribes paint a dangerous picture for the future.
...who reckons this is all one big reality TV publicity stunt?
A few days before he really has to shit or get off the pot he will withdraw from the race and say he has a new reality show/movie/book ready to come out covering it all and it was all done for fun.
Being Donald Trump billionaire is a lot different to being The President. Suddenly you don't have the power you thought you had as the man at the top of your own inherited empire.
Plus being a President is a young man's game. If you are over 55 now you don't have a chance of surviving 8 years. McCain would have quit after his first term had he won in 2008.
jason 7, whatever one thinks of their merits, George W. Bush was first inaugurated at age 54½, and Reagan was first inaugurated a few weeks before turning 70, and both of them were in office for eight years. George H. W. Bush was first inaugurated at age 64, ran for a second term, and lost on economic grounds rather than on his age. For whatever reason, the most recent Democratic president to be at least 55 at first inauguration and serve for eight years was Woodrow Wilson. (My guess is that if Senator Sanders were elected as president, he would not subsequently run for reëlection.)
Well pre 9/11 GW Bush spent 75% of his time at his ranch and felt it was the easiest job in the world. Economically sound, Cold war long gone.
Then that all changed and I bet from then on most mornings he was up at 5am and doing a full days work.
Very different job to what it was in the 20th century. Not for the older man or woman. But then again if like Trump you don't take the job seriously...
An animated wig called fart
A creationist
Someone to the left of Corbyn
Any a lot of US people think I am insane for suggesting their current best candidates are the brother of a previous president and the wife of the one before.
They actually like the fart, or they are so thick they believe in creationism (my thoughts are, if you believe in it you are a moron), and I use the Pope as an example of a religious person who knows it is bollocks.
Donald Fart is a cut price, low intelligence version of Nigel Farage, but with a big dollop of Nick Griffin.
At least our mad haired politician is actually quite clever.
The first, that Donald Trump must take comfort in the thought that when he's elected, he'll be able to throw the Big Switch that will turn the internet off
The second, How many of the UK commutards remember the Spitting Image series of sketches titled 'The President's Brain is Missing' ? Well, I think I know where it went.
Trump is just the logical manifestation of the actual problem which is the American people's willingness for their quasi-elected leaders to use their current and future taxes to fund a system of surveillance, spying and international terrorism on a level that destroys any concept of a country of laws.
USA #1!
The roots of the tree of liberty...
Murkin Politics has always confused us Brits. We don't understand why your politics is so right wing, or why you regularly elect the joke candidate. But you do, and we love the way you guys are happy having a leader that is the laughing stock of the rest of the world.
but I have to say, when Fart Hair gets elected, its going to take at least 4 years to stop laughing.
Crimes against humanity? On what basis? I don't recall either Reagan or Thatcher murdering millions of innocent people.
Contrary to popular belief, being unpopular or offensive isn't a crime. There is no such thing as a "Right to never be offended". Such a right would be entirely incompatible with Freedom of Speech/Expression. You can pick one or the other, but never both.
Many of Trump's proposals are impossible to effect in the control-structure of today's America. They couldn't be accomplished politically nor economically. Even if Trump were elected president, he wouldn't have the legal authority to effect many of his projects.
For example, a president can't simply order a wall built on the southern border. Someone needs to draft a bill, supporters need to be gathered and managed, money needs to be allocated from somewhere, and the American people need to be somewhat on board.
A president can't simply order immigration laws be changed either.
And, in terms of his latest solution described as in the article, a president can't turn off the internet.
A president, undeniably, has great powers https://goo.gl/GMoKlX in terms of the veto, executive orders, pardons, appointments, and as commander of the armed forces. But an American president is not the absolute dictator of Trump's dream.
It seems Trump believes once he is president, he can wave a wand or make fairy-tale wishes to a genie who will magically implement them. Maybe growing up rich and popular has distorted his conception of reality. Often, a rich kid *can* get what they want. Often a corporate ruler can get what they want too. The wish comes true without effort. But in a grown-up world with other grown ups, power is not a simple nor easy thing.
I have often imagined on the first day in office the President is called into his first meeting and sitting there are certain members of the 'actual elite' that tell him to forget any plans he actually had and that their agenda comes first.
"Mr President, let's put it this way...you are a puppet. A very powerful puppet. But a puppet nonetheless! Just don't ever think of going off script...it doesn't end well!"
This scenario has been tried before.. Obama's the latest. Nixon even tried it. If, let's assume, Trump wins. If he's smart, he negotiates with Congress instead of screaming, demanding to get his way. Then there will be Supreme Court challenges.
However, if he pulls an FDR (Japanese Interment Camps), he might get away with it. The War Powers Act has a lot of latitude in it.
What kind of alleged journalist would refer to Donald Trump as the "putative president"? Merriam-Webster defines "putative as "commonly accepted or supposed." A case could be made for "The Donald" being the putative Republican candidate (striving to withhold gag reflex), but I take great offense at suggesting much beyond that. Please forgive our great American tragedy otherwise known as Donald Trump!
Trump is proof that you don't have to be intelligent, rational, or (certainly not) urbane to make a fortune. I guess it isn't hard to get rich by stepping on the backs and faces of others, then leaving them in the mud. What a babbling white-collar thug.
I fully expect that if by some fluke he gets elected, that his first move will be to begin making horcruxes.
Mr Trump's idea of closing down some of the internet is the thin edge of the wedge. He shouts that some will argue against losing free speech.
I will, say this... If you consider giving up your some or even all of your rights, then you don't deserve to have any rights. You will then live in a dictatorship, where the government, on a whim, can screw your life up and without a care leave you open to attack from outside influences and forces.
If you want to give up your rights, then go ahead. After all, as Mr Trump has said, America is full of idiots.
I have told the company, TYT industries who make radio transmitters that I am now at war with TYT and China. TYT refuse to honor any warranty. I bought 4 TH-9800 quad-band transceivers (7cms-2m-4m-10m bands for the UK) All four transceivers had a TX audio fault. It is is blatantly obvious, after examining the printed circuit boards that the pcb's, when loaded onto the pick and place machine, that someone had loaded a reel of the wrong value of capacitors onto the pick and place machine.
Tell that to the the Chinese! We can do NO WRONG.... How about testing the TH-9800 transceivers before releasing them into the market!
I am, therefore, going to join ISIS. I shall persuade them to identify who the real enemy is. TYT is the bloody enemy. Blind as bats, unable to see that they have a problem with THIS BATCH of TH-9800 transceivers. Look, it's aright running a tone test with a pass-band of 5KHz, but that does not mean that the capacitors round varactor diode are the correct value. Your are supposed to remove one or two items per batch and test them in real life, on air with real voices. Then they will see there is a problem. DO NOT BUY A TYT RADIO. THE COMPANY DON'T CARE ABOUT YOU.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
