|
|
Post by fascinating on Mar 23, 2016 10:14:23 GMT 1
" Hang on - tell me why Trump's economic program is not "coherent" first, please."
You assert that it is coherent - tell us why you think that.
|
|
|
|
Post by jean on Mar 23, 2016 11:31:04 GMT 1
Not that there's anything wrong being a travelling salesman - is there? Nothing wrong exactly, but earning what you can on the back of the people who actually make things doesn't put you firmly in the superior moral position you like to occupy, either. This might be a good place to explain that for the years I worked in Italy, I wasn't paid a penny by any state - I taught English to all who enrolled in my classes, many of whom worked in the small family manufacturing firms which were the source of the Veneto's economic resurgence in the mid-C20. These people made free decisions to part with their own money to pay me for teaching them, because they realised that I did the job better than the available alternatives and got them the results they wanted. Such decisions are not all that dissimilar to appointing someone like you to make a profit out of selling what they made. They watch telly - Berlusconi's channels. After he became PM and slapped restrictions on RAI, they had even less choice than they'd had before. I don't know what the situation's like now, though. La Repubblica and Corriere della Sera can stand comaprison with serious newspapers anywhere - but Italians don't read newspapers much; there's no equivalent of the British red-tops. If you want ordinary scandal, you read the popular weeklies, which don't bother with politics at all. That's true, but it doesn't explain all their voting choices; a significant number (I talked to these people, remember) really did hope Berlusconi offered something new, untainted by politics-as-usual. Alessandra Mussolini is another matter - she may have had beauty-queen looks, but she was a serious Fascist, which will always have an appeal to some (though she quarrelled with Gianfranco Fini and switched to Forza Italia). And of course, because of the Italian relatively 'pure' form of PR, 'La Cicciolina' was elected by a proportion of votes that wouldn't even have saved her deposit under FPTP (I'm not arguing for FPTP I hasten to say, which distorts voter intentions the opposite way). None of those make or made such a claim, as far as I know - except perhaps for Galloway, who left (or was thrown out of) an established party and formed his own instead. Even Reagan had already been governor of California when he stood for President. I wouldn't mind talking like a nun from the middle ages, actually (though I'd rather sing like one)- but such language would probably be a good deal more erudite that what you managed to pick up in your wanderings. I don't claim great erudition in fact (though for obvious reasons I read Italian very well) - and in the Veneto there's the added problem of the dialect, which everyone speaks amongst themselves. That's not quite correct; see this comparison between the American and Italian systems. But even if judicial apppointments in Italy were as completely in the hands of political parties as they are in America, that doesn't make a judge a politician. If you take the meaning of political as including everything that concerns the polis, and if you then say that every political act is by definition performed by a politician, then yes - but at the moment we don't say that. |
|
|
|
Post by jean on Mar 23, 2016 12:15:13 GMT 1
" Hang on - tell me why Trump's economic program is not "coherent" first, please." You assert that it is coherent - tell us why you think that. And before that, tell us what 'it' consists of. |
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Mar 24, 2016 12:18:47 GMT 1
Tisn't.
A point - and you find that "damning", do you? But alas, isn't the same point official Green policy? Some cognitive dissonance here, surely?
There's no "if" about it.
No doubt - but not in the mainstream media, like the Washington Post, CNN, the BBC, and C4.
Eh? How the hell do you work that out? You're the one "in politics". It's people like you and Skippy No-Brain who have any such debt.
No doubt - he's writing for the Guardian. It's just a shame he couldn't give the smallest account of why his policies weren't coherent either.
Good enough for me, Miss.
I don't - especially if you're too lazy to actually say them.
|
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Mar 24, 2016 13:52:14 GMT 1
So, mrsonde can't show any coherent policies of Mr Trump.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Mar 24, 2016 15:28:09 GMT 1
Wow. That show Portillo does in the archives is brilliant - what a great broadcaster he is. The greatest PM we never had, I think - compassion with realism and a very deep intelligence: wisdom, I'd say. If I was Cameron, or one of the Tory grandees, I'd be moving heaven and earth to get him another seat. The only person with the remotest chance of derailing Boris, I'd say.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Mar 24, 2016 15:35:09 GMT 1
So, mrsonde can't show any coherent policies of Mr Trump. Gawd, here she is again, Biffa's even more gormless sidekick. Alright, let's see if you can get more than a handful of neurons working together for once. What exactly do you find not "coherent" about repudiating NAFTA, cancelling TTIP, and reversing Obama's tax-breaks to any American company that moves its operations abroad so that instead anyone so unpatriotic and destructive to the welfare of the American people gets heavily penalised instead? What is it that you don't get? What is it about it that you find not coherent? Try your best to put together a sensible argument for once. |
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Mar 24, 2016 16:00:48 GMT 1
" Hang on - tell me why Trump's economic program is not "coherent" first, please." You assert that it is coherent - tell us why you think that. It's what existed before Clinton, for a start - if it worked for centuries before then, why wouldn't it now? On top of that, Trump proposes to reward those who choose to return, rather than pay the penalties they should have paid in the first place. Sounds extremely sensible to me - and there's no reason I can think of that it shouldn't be put into law within a week of his inauguration. Is there? As for the tariffs he proposes - like any country in such severe trade deficit, again it makes perfect sense. Can't lose - just as we can't lose if the EU retaliates for our departure by trying to impose tariffs on us. If you think it doesn;t, or there's some hidden "incoherency" about it, explain why please. No one else seems able to, least of all Obama or Clinton. |
|
|
|
Post by jean on Mar 24, 2016 16:11:05 GMT 1
A point - and you find that "damning", do you? Obviously not, since it was the rest of the article, that is, the parts I didn't quote, that I described as damning.Let's look at what I wrote, which makes this quite clear (I know it's much more fun to make up what I didn't write and look at that instead, but perhaps we could stop playing that game just for a moment?) ...You've seized on a particularly inept and unsubstantiated paragraph that you happen to agree with, but which is obviously so shallow it should have been cut by any competent editor - not written in the first place, by any competent journalist, in fact. The rest, which is reasonable and interesting and well-balanced, you've completely ignored... actually, is just as damning of Trump as the bit I quoted. (The rest of the srticle, you see? The bit I didn't quote.) You go on: Exactly! You've got it at last! He talks about the negative effects of Free Trade, but beyond vague promises to do deals, nothing. Well, then. I have had no access to these censored policy statements, so however much I might wish to draw them to anyone's attention, I can't. You, however, have evidently had this access. Don't you think you owe it to Trump, if not to the world, to reveal the positive side to him that no-one has yet seen? |
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Mar 24, 2016 16:36:51 GMT 1
Nope - once again, sheer mendacity. There you are then, point proven - not only are you a blatant liar, you don't even have the brains to not repeat the lie. Shall I go back and repeat the bit you did quote? And you then claimed - totally falsely, as you now admit - that the rest was "damning". You chose the paragraph you quoted because it claimed, without the slightest evidence or even reasoning, that if he did get in he wouldn't do what he says he'd do. If you wanted to make another point, you shouldn't have been so lazy as to link to somewhere else, should you? You bother to quote at length the paragraph you like, after all. You were too exhausted after such an effort, eh?  No, it seems you have! It suddenly dawned on you what a load of contradictory crap you talk, clearly! So - let's get this absolutely clear then, shall we? A bit - a paragraph you quoted - is "damning" of Trump. The rest - the bits you chose not to quote - are not only not "damning", you actually agree with them wholeheartedly now? Good - shall we move on now? On the contrary - he's very clear about his proposals. Of course "deals" must be renegotiated if America's insane trade deals are repudiated - and of course he's in no position to specify exactly what they'll be! You believe this can possibly be some sort of criticism? Evidently not - you clearly "have access" only to the liberal-left mainstream media, and believe what they spin you. That's what I've been pointing out. You can find out what Trump has been saying in that other 95% content though, if you want - it's not hard. You have Sky TV? You know how to navigate YouTube? Yep. I like to be informed, and think for myself, see? I want to hear what someone like Farage or Marine Le Pen or Trump might be saying, rather than swallow The Guardian's spin. You have not seen. You've already painted a whole country with the shitty drabness of your own supercilious ignorance - now it's the whole Western world. Try learning a little about the matters you spout off about, why don't you? |
|
|
|
Post by jean on Mar 24, 2016 16:42:36 GMT 1
So - let's get this absolutely clear then, shall we? A bit - a paragraph you quoted - is "damning" of Trump. The rest - the bits you chose not to quote - are not only not "damning", you actually agree with wholeheartedly now? Since that's the opposite of what I've just explained to you, again, the only mendacity around is yours. Stop wasting my time. |
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Mar 24, 2016 16:52:08 GMT 1
So - let's get this absolutely clear then, shall we? A bit - a paragraph you quoted - is "damning" of Trump. The rest - the bits you chose not to quote - are not only not "damning", you actually agree with wholeheartedly now? Since that's the opposite of what I've just explained to you, again, the only mendacity around is yours. Stop wasting my time. You really do believe everyone else is stupid and ignorant, don't you??! Anyone who's interested can go back and see what you wrote, Jean. Not that I recommend it, ever, for anything you ever write. That's the real waste of time. Anyway, I'm glad it's all been cleared up at last - a lot quicker than usual, before you're finally forced to retract on your blustered nonsense. So - you now agree with Trump's economic program, and find it perfectly coherent, because it's what's in your party's own manifesto - just a damned sight more explicit and detailed. Pass on the good news to your dimwit of a sidekick, will you? That'll save a hell of a lot of time. |
|
|
|
Post by jean on Mar 24, 2016 17:14:13 GMT 1
I retract nothing. Anyone can understand what I wrote - you could even have done so yourself, if you'd bothered to read it properly first time round.
But there's a huge difference between the sort of vague promises Trump makes, and a properly worked out policy detailing how you'd achieve the desired results.
Trump has no economic program - not one he's revealed to the world, anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Mar 24, 2016 17:21:46 GMT 1
Here's the paragraph you quoted.
"Thus did he hint at his curious selling proposition: because he is personally so wealthy, a fact about which he loves to boast, Trump himself is unaffected by business lobbyists and donations. And because he is free from the corrupting power of modern campaign finance, famous deal-maker Trump can make deals on our behalf that are “good” instead of “bad”. The chance that he will actually do so, of course, is small. He appears to be a hypocrite on this issue as well as so many other things. But at least Trump is saying this stuff."
You then claimed the rest of the article was equally as damning.
|
|
|
|
Post by jean on Mar 24, 2016 17:29:26 GMT 1
No, that's not quite what I said.
You said the paragraph in question was damning. I replied that the rest of the article was equally damning - but that I had chosen that paragraph because its last sentence wasn't damning.
Its last sentence said clearly all there is to be said in Trump's favour - that is, "But at least Trump is saying this stuff."
|
|
