lostboy

Can you remove your blinkers?

And how do you know that the killing of Iraqi people (particularly the criminal Isil) has not contributed to your freedom? Who went to help the Yazidi peoples, the "security-industrial complex" you have such a problem about?

What was the financial or power benefit from doing that?

Yes, unfortunately there are always collateral damage in any war, to all sides.

And you are sounding like the propaganda machine spokesperson of conspiracy theorists with your "security-industrial complex" fears. And who will protect you in the event of a real threat to you and your lifestyle?

So spare me your return comments, I have no further interest in them - you are entitled to your beliefs as I am to mine. Try and have a nice day.

Don't have the courage of your convictions to stand by your insults I see. Pepper me with questions and then tell me I can't reply to your post. Well, since this is not a conversation but a series of public posts, then what attracts your interest is of no concern to anyone. You have zero authority to determine what anyone posts.

How do I know that killing Iraqi people has not contributed to my freedoms? Quite simple. ISIS did not exist before 20 March 2003, the date when US led forces attacked that country on the basis of untruths, deceptions and public manipulation by the US regime. The group that seems to send you into hysterical fear was a creation of abominable decisions taken by the US occupying forces after the collapse of the Iraqi regime, specifically the 'de-bathifisation' of the civil service and the disbanding of the Iraqi armed forces.

Iraq under Saddam did not threaten my freedoms. Iraq under Saddam did not threaten your freedoms. Iraq under Saddam threaten no one in the West. The military adventurism of the neocons under GW was unjustifiable but they just steamrolled over everyone. Their unilateralism compounded by incompetence in administration and refusal to work with other countries created the mess in Iraq.

For the security industrial complex, I guess you just slept through the whole past decade and the Wikileaks and Snowden stuff. The 34th President of the United States, Dwight D. Eisenhower was the one who coined the phrase military-industrial complex. You clearly cannot comprehend its insidious reality and try to pass it off as a joke. The 34th President of the United States was no joke.

I work in conflict states. I confront security issues and real threats every day I work on missions in these countries. Do you? Or are you just spreading your fear exacerbated by right wing intolerance and a sophomoric understanding of international affairs? The conduct of war is governed by the Geneva Conventions. US unilateralism, assisted by the UK and a few other nations bullied into compliance change the international legal basis for conflicts at their whim. It is very clear what constitutes a war crime. Passing it off as collateral damage is unacceptable. All accusations of war crimes must be investigated and if found to be substantiated prosecuted and punished.

These are not matters of opinion. These are matters of Law. They are matters of Morality and Ethics. They are matters Right and Wrong. We do not agree to disagree. You have no choice but to accept the Law.

Who's Law? Who's Morality and Ethics? Who's matters of Right and Wrong? The whole world does not subscribe to them!! How do you know ISIS did not exist before 20 March 2003? Do you think the Taliban, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram and other "terrorist organizations" have no choice but to accept the Law. They do, but it is there Law, not yours!

I repeat, take your blinkers off!

You are acting like some schoolyard, know it all, religious bully. Or perhaps you're just being an ostrich? Or got your head up your own fundamental? I DO HAVE A CHOICE AND I WILL DISAGREE WITH YOU.

More questions. Very well. I will answer. Whose Law? Pretty much the whole world's law. "The four 1949 protocols of the Geneva Convention have been ratified by 196 States" You may see a list here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_the_Geneva_Conventions This is the Law. It is International Law. You have no choice in this matter irrespective of the number of words you Capitalise.

I was not the one attacking another poster on the basis of an absurdity that came out of Jack Nicholson's mouth in a Tom Cruise movie. I was not the one hurling implied slurs abut those who have not been soldiers having the temerity to comment on this topic.

Advocating or excusing the abeyance of international law governing conflict is immoral. Participants in such conflicts must be held to some standard. This is my morality. These are my ethics. Most civilised countries agree with me. I do not require your agreement.

I don't think Seastallion understands the concept of freedom provided to him by those who fought for those freedoms.

What an offensive, trite, simplistic comment. It is the comment either of a simpleton or an unthinking ideologue. I guess at least people who speak in aphorisms do not have to expend any energy on thought.

British and American forces killing Iraqi people have not contributed to my freedoms one jot. In no manner at all. For no-one in any region of the world. In fact, it has made the world less safe, brought misery and death to hundreds of thousands and is facilitating the dominance of the security-industrial complex that will trample on freedoms for the next and future generations.

Spare us the grade school history lessons. You are just feeding the power grab by people who have no interest in protecting anyone's freedoms at the expense of their power or financial benefit. Such mindlessness is tragic.

Can you remove your blinkers?

And how do you know that the killing of Iraqi people (particularly the criminal Isil) has not contributed to your freedom? Who went to help the Yazidi peoples, the "security-industrial complex" you have such a problem about?

What was the financial or power benefit from doing that?

Yes, unfortunately there are always collateral damage in any war, to all sides.

And you are sounding like the propaganda machine spokesperson of conspiracy theorists with your "security-industrial complex" fears. And who will protect you in the event of a real threat to you and your lifestyle?

So spare me your return comments, I have no further interest in them - you are entitled to your beliefs as I am to mine. Try and have a nice day.

Don't have the courage of your convictions to stand by your insults I see. Pepper me with questions and then tell me I can't reply to your post. Well, since this is not a conversation but a series of public posts, then what attracts your interest is of no concern to anyone. You have zero authority to determine what anyone posts.

How do I know that killing Iraqi people has not contributed to my freedoms? Quite simple. ISIS did not exist before 20 March 2003, the date when US led forces attacked that country on the basis of untruths, deceptions and public manipulation by the US regime. The group that seems to send you into hysterical fear was a creation of abominable decisions taken by the US occupying forces after the collapse of the Iraqi regime, specifically the 'de-bathifisation' of the civil service and the disbanding of the Iraqi armed forces.

Iraq under Saddam did not threaten my freedoms. Iraq under Saddam did not threaten your freedoms. Iraq under Saddam threaten no one in the West. The military adventurism of the neocons under GW was unjustifiable but they just steamrolled over everyone. Their unilateralism compounded by incompetence in administration and refusal to work with other countries created the mess in Iraq.

For the security industrial complex, I guess you just slept through the whole past decade and the Wikileaks and Snowden stuff. The 34th President of the United States, Dwight D. Eisenhower was the one who coined the phrase military-industrial complex. You clearly cannot comprehend its insidious reality and try to pass it off as a joke. The 34th President of the United States was no joke.

I work in conflict states. I confront security issues and real threats every day I work on missions in these countries. Do you? Or are you just spreading your fear exacerbated by right wing intolerance and a sophomoric understanding of international affairs? The conduct of war is governed by the Geneva Conventions. US unilateralism, assisted by the UK and a few other nations bullied into compliance change the international legal basis for conflicts at their whim. It is very clear what constitutes a war crime. Passing it off as collateral damage is unacceptable. All accusations of war crimes must be investigated and if found to be substantiated prosecuted and punished.

These are not matters of opinion. These are matters of Law. They are matters of Morality and Ethics. They are matters Right and Wrong. We do not agree to disagree. You have no choice but to accept the Law.

I don't think Seastallion understands the concept of freedom provided to him by those who fought for those freedoms.

What an offensive, trite, simplistic comment. It is the comment either of a simpleton or an unthinking ideologue. I guess at least people who speak in aphorisms do not have to expend any energy on thought.

British and American forces killing Iraqi people have not contributed to my freedoms one jot. In no manner at all. For no-one in any region of the world. In fact, it has made the world less safe, brought misery and death to hundreds of thousands and is facilitating the dominance of the security-industrial complex that will trample on freedoms for the next and future generations.

Spare us the grade school history lessons. You are just feeding the power grab by people who have no interest in protecting anyone's freedoms at the expense of their power or financial benefit. Such mindlessness is tragic.

Why why why would an intelligent human being even venture into a public restaurant anywhere in Afghanistan?

Because we need to eat. Pretty simple really. Those of us who work in or know about working in fragile and conflict states make continuous decisions about security based on intelligence, experience and resources. Restaurants such as Le Jardin will have a rating from international agencies based on the level of security provided. It is up to the individual to assess the risks of movement in a particular situation. Statistically, I would be more likely to die in a car accident in Thailand than from a Taliban bombing of a French restaurant in Kabul. I may check it out when I am back there in a few weeks since now that it has been bombed, it might be ok to eat there for a while. And getting a good steak in Kabul is impossible.

Generally if someone is sensible about security in a place like Kabul and does not take un-necessary risks, then the issue comes down to being in the wrong place at the wrong time, much like life. That does not prevent some of us from working there and similar countries.

Another survey that will reflect the TVF demographic. An overwhelming Yes vote will continue to feed the self-delusion of a marginal sub-set of society. Thankfully, these people have entirely no influence on policy but just add to the noise and chaos that real decision makers have to deal with in the real world.

I prefer the position taken by the International Red Cross decades ago in 1958 that every person in enemy hands should be covered by the Geneva Convention. This allows only two options; they are treated as a Prisoner of War under the Third Convention; or, they are a civilian and so covered by the Fourth Convention and are tried under the domestic law of the State detaining them.

US domestic law has created a legal category of 'non-combatant' which is not mentioned in the Geneva Convention. Such domestic law invests the President with certain power but such powers are not covered by international treaty. Practices such as detention at Guantanamo Bay, Military Trials and drone strikes can be easily interpreted as equally unlawful according to international law.

Unilateral action by any State can be reciprocated in the future. The world would be far safer if States worked under the provisions of multilateral treaties and comply with the law.

So what you are saying is we have our hands tied behind our backs and we honour the geniva convention. Whilst the terrorist have there hands free to do as they please and kill whoever they like with no come back on them even though they do not follow the afore mentioned convention. Plus as we have our hand tied already were easy to behead. The Geneva conventions by the way are for wars and conflicts not terrorists in any form.

I am not saying that at all. You and the intellectual pygmies that accompany you are saying this. I said something quite different. I find it more than a little tragic that right wing ideologues are so quick to advocate the abrogation of law. The codification of laws created the first civilisations in history and is the hallmark of subsequent 'great' civilisations, including the American Experiment. Unlike instructions from one god or another, laws are created by people; are rationale; and, effective laws are non-discriminatory and applied equally to all.

What discriminates you from a terrorist when you advocate arbitrary execution?

The Geneva Convention has legitimacy. It provides a legal framework governing international conflict that has protections and consequences just like domestic laws should have. There are international courts whose role is to interpret and expand the provisions of such conventions. Why is the terrorism scourge any different? Unreasoned fear is used by people with an agenda to pervert the protections and non-discriminatory principles that great societies live by to advance their own power or ideology. You and your fellow travellers merely play into their hands. I will put my trust in a robust set of laws that are applied without fear of favour to everyone. In advanced societies, this generally means that the death penalty is not among the legal options available.

Making assertions about international treaties, using just one sentence to make a declaration is pretty weak and easily dismissed. Provide me some mature argument of how the 3rd and 4th Conventions do not apply in this matter. A combatant is either a POW or a civilian to be tried under domestic laws. Like I said, your hysterics pay into the hands of people who do not have the interests or advancing civilisation at heart.

Another survey that will reflect the TVF demographic. An overwhelming Yes vote will continue to feed the self-delusion of a marginal sub-set of society. Thankfully, these people have entirely no influence on policy but just add to the noise and chaos that real decision makers have to deal with in the real world.

I prefer the position taken by the International Red Cross decades ago in 1958 that every person in enemy hands should be covered by the Geneva Convention. This allows only two options; they are treated as a Prisoner of War under the Third Convention; or, they are a civilian and so covered by the Fourth Convention and are tried under the domestic law of the State detaining them.

US domestic law has created a legal category of 'non-combatant' which is not mentioned in the Geneva Convention. Such domestic law invests the President with certain power but such powers are not covered by international treaty. Practices such as detention at Guantanamo Bay, Military Trials and drone strikes can be easily interpreted as equally unlawful according to international law.

Unilateral action by any State can be reciprocated in the future. The world would be far safer if States worked under the provisions of multilateral treaties and comply with the law.

Other than Trump, Fox News, Wall Street Journal making that statement is there any polling that shows that trend?

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=d950cadf-05ce-4148-a125-35c0cdab26c6

I don't get it. Someone asks for some justification of your claim that black voters are 'significantly' flocking to Trump and you provide data that says in September of 2015 out of 900 registered voters surveyed, Clinton is polling at 59% against Trump at 25% among Black voters. Thus demonstrating the point implied by up2up2. Such are the pitfalls of Google Bingo.

You do know how this whole debate thing works don't you?

Clearly, someone who hasn't got a clue, that would be boy, about American electoral history. Yes, the poll indicates that Trump is making a huge inroad into the black vote that traditionally goes to Democrats. http://www.gallup.com/poll/139880/election-polls-presidential-vote-groups.aspx

I am still confounded. You keep doubling down on stupid. Here's a tip for those playing Google Bingo. Read the information before posting links. Your silly assessment that black voters traditionally vote Democrat is supported by data from the 2012 election when black voters were voting for a black President. What's next Captain Obvious?

Perhaps some people haven't noticed, but Trump in fact is appealing to black voters. They are the first victims of bad trade policies and weak borders. He will pick up a significant portion of the black vote. That is why the GOP establishment hates him. Their strategy is to write off blacks and concentrate on hispanics. And both of those groups hate each other. They are engaged in a real life turf war across the US.

Other than Trump, Fox News, Wall Street Journal making that statement is there any polling that shows that trend?

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=d950cadf-05ce-4148-a125-35c0cdab26c6

I don't get it. Someone asks for some justification of your claim that black voters are 'significantly' flocking to Trump and you provide data that says in September of 2015 out of 900 registered voters surveyed, Clinton is polling at 59% against Trump at 25% among Black voters. Thus demonstrating the point implied by up2up2. Such are the pitfalls of Google Bingo.

You do know how this whole debate thing works don't you?

<<snip>>

So I now categories the phrase, Democracy is Mob Rule, in the same way that I deal with the phrases, Republic is not a Democracy and Global Warming, as being political and ideological and not historically representative. There is no point in trying to debate or elucidate and elaborate detail as this is not the purpose of such definitions. So I think I will leave that one alone.

<<snip>>

There is a difference between a Republic and a Democracy.

For your edification...

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

An Important Distinction: Democracy versus Republic

It is important to keep in mind the difference between a Democracy and a Republic, as dissimilar forms of government. Understanding the difference is essential to comprehension of the fundamentals involved. It should be noted, in passing, that use of the word Democracy as meaning merely the popular type of government--that is, featuring genuinely free elections by the people periodically--is not helpful in discussing, as here, the difference between alternative and dissimilar forms of a pop ular government: a Democracy versus a Republic. This double meaning of Democracy--a popular-type government in general, as well as a specific form of popular government--needs to be made clear in any discussion, or writing, regarding this subject, for the sake of sound understanding.

These two forms of government: Democracy and Republic, are not only dissimilar but antithetical, reflecting the sharp contrast between (a) The Majority Unlimited, in a Democracy, lacking any legal safeguard of the rights of The Individual and The Minority, and (b ) The Majority Limited, in a Republic under a written Constitution safeguarding the rights of The Individual and The Minority; as we shall now see.

Read more here: http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/demrep.html

Thank you Chuck although you are giving away some of your secret sources that allow you such perspicacity on constitutional issues. I am not so pleased that you used the word edification instead of information. The piece that you reference coming from a 1976 book called the American Ideal of 1776 written by one Hamilton Abert Long neither improves my intellect nor adds to any debate on the issues. It is political writing. Apart from continuing the fetishisation of the Found Fathers, it contains no central thesis nor is it structured to explain, defend and critique such a thesis. Extract you provide merely keeps telling us what is important to know and makes assertions without telling us why. The extended except referenced is the same and I would imagine the whole book would also be a political rant.

I do not argue the virtues of Republicanism. I do not try to diminish the Great Experiment of the US Constitution. I fully support its ideals and hope for continued success. However this is not the point I made. I argued that the historical context of the Founding Fathers and their perceptions of human merit informed their view of what would constitute a proper voting franchise. Universal Suffrage was a century away in the future and the idea of full enfranchisement would be contrary to their socially and economically determined bias. The quote from Madison in Federalist 55 in the extended excerpt speaks directly to that point. He did not believe in universal suffrage because he thought that there was "a degree of depravity in mankind" (your link). I do not interpret this as any way arguing against democracy but of universal suffrage.

You may simplify this to say that Republicans believe in that individuals are fundamentally bad while Democrats believe that individuals are fundamentally good. You add some evangelical religious fundamentalism to this and you have the Tea Party of today.

I have made my argument. Your link does not persuade me otherwise. How could I take any argument on this subject seriously when there is absolutely no reference to Kant http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/358 who establishes the rationality and sovereignty of the individual and builds on Rousseau http://www.philosophybasics.com/philosophers_rousseau.html who establishes the individual's self authority. Madison, Jefferson, Adam et al did not exist in a vacuum although to read some of the drivel that people try to pass of as edification, you would think that the Age of Reason started and ended in 1787 in Philadelphia at the Constitutional Convention (I would post a picture of me sitting in one of the delegate's seats in Independence Hall in Philadelphia but I suppose the mods won't allow it).

I am happy to debate and argue the conceptual basis of Republicanism and its similarities and differences to other forms of Democracy but am unwilling to wade through reams of politicalise pap generated by fetishers of the Founding Fathers in pursuit of maintaining some hubristic notion of Exceptionalism.

I do not agree with your analysis of the causation of income inequality in America. Globalisation means increased trade and trade generates wealth. Immigration has been shown to have a net positive effect on economies. Your point about the average American 'Joe' 40 years ago is more about wealth distribution than wealth generation. I agree with the analyses that point to the particular brand of voodoo known as Reaganomics as the primary causal factor in the growth of income inequality in this generation. Regulations favouring investment over labour initiated and has maintained this trend. The so-called 'banksters' are a direct result of this.

Since Trump's economic policies are as opaque and opportunistic as his political leanings, all I can see as a result of a Trump victory would be continued development of corporatist America and regulations that continue to favour the wealthy. I see no vision for an inclusive society that respects people and provides equality of opportunity for all.

edited^

You don't see globalization as corporatist? Your conclusion is disjointed from your premise. In fact, the "banksters" are the corporatists. The coporatists are the globalists. . Somewhere in the labyrinth you've lost your thread.

Thank you for your comment. I do, however believe that you have become a victim of your own ideologisation. I am surprised that a stalwart of the harsh social interpretation of the Exceptionalist Capitalist wing would follow the received wisdom of the Left in the interpretation of Globalisation as a corporatist, capitalist cabal. The propositional calculus that you tender by assuming that since corporates are a driver of Globalisation hence Globalisation is ipso facto Corporatist borders on a tautology.

While an advocate of economic liberalisation, of the Reaganomics mould (actually more Thatcherite), I am also a believer in regulation where market forces are not appropriate. Undesirable and inefficient outcomes of Globalisation, particularly in the realm of the movement of capital and the abuse of market power by large, multinational conglomerates is a failure of regulation rather than anything intrinsic to the concept. Globalisation is an ages old concept which began when the first traders brought back goods that were unobtainable domestically, primarily foodstuff which enabled more interesting diets and better nutrition. It is no coincidence that the most stable and prosperous empires historically became so through the provision of security for trade and sensible approaches to tariffs and taxes.

I fully support the multilateral approach to trade agreements as embodied in the WTO and reject the bilateralism displayed by the US under the GW regime.

However, I raised Globalisation in response to the poster's claim of this being a causal factor in income inequality. I do not make it the premise of my argument. Nor do I make my response to the Immigration issue the premise of my argument. I specifically argue that the deregulation under the Reaganomics platform initiated, maintains and exacerbates income inequality for this generation of Americans. There are still many examples of State Governors who continue to bankrupt their State economies in such deregulatory fervour. Such instances provide a stark insight into the harshness and cruelty of the conservative capitalist mind.

I read with interest, actually I am quite aghast, some of your posts about Democracy being akin to mob rule. If I didn't think that you used such hyperbole to try to shock and awe the reader, I would think that you are afflicted by some End of Days syndrome; something more than just the usual grumpy old man stuff powerless to influence the progress of the world. Trump and the Trump demographic seems to be comprised entirely of similar alarmists. To me, Government is a social contract. It is, in fact very much like a corporation, which is a legal construct comprising a nexus of contracts. Original Republican belief in the nature of Government centred on the ideal of community in contrast to the ideal of the Democrat which centred on the individual. Irrespective of political leanings, at least there was some underlying social rationale to the idea of Government. Trump's corporatism has already splintered the Party. Even Reagan knew he had to bring in the Evangelicals and the old-style Southern Democrats who resisted the Johnson Civil Rights progressiveness to maintain power. Merely relying on the Corporate Capitalists is not enough. The splintering of the Reagan Grand Coalition has taken long enough and I am glad that it is happening now. Now that American has taken a big jump to the Left, if you will forgive the Rocky Horror reference, it is time to address the regulatory environment inherited from Reagan to ensure that Social Justice once again becomes central to the American polity.

Hahaha. Of course you see me as a victim of... (name the agent). In this case myself. Today, everyone is a victim. Nicely done. Your post? Love it. Does not matter one bit whether I agree or not, I just love to see a reasoned mind. It is a privileged. Really.

I am not Right or Left across the board, though clearly further Right. I will not line item response other to say Capitalism is both the flower of modernity and its bane. In this mix clearly wise management (read regulation) is required. I believe Big Government is not a necessary evil. It is evil. I believe the Federal Government should be shackled to the precise dimensions of the constitutional prison it belongs. I believe a number of these questions should be answered at the state level. I believe Banksters/corporations and the urge to globalism is both a means and an end. Globalism is hardly just an economic model/tool, it is a social/political model. I have zero use for Globalism as it is offered. I have no use for the monopoly world of the elite controlling the majority of the world's resources. I have no use for private banksters running an imaginary "Federal" Reserve, nor fiat money, fractional lending, and all the endless derivatives of usury based on it.

1. Democracy is absolutely Mob Rule. I am as equally aghast that America is refereed to as a Democracy as you apparently are that I note this absurdity, this stalking progressive horse of co-opting word meaning. Democracy is mob rule. Invariably, when the majority can act willy nilly on the minority it is Democracy. [d]emocratic mechanisms are a different story.

2. I am likely younger than the majority of posters here so old man stuff sounds... well, pointless if not biased.

3. Not sure what you mean by end of days stuff as this is primarily the fail safe eschatology of religions, and I hold to none. The world is entirely what humans make of it, notwithstanding rocks from space or the sun causing climate change.

4. I do not like Trump. I dislike Trump least. I dislike the Republican Establishment more. When you note the Rocky Horror reference, America has taken the big jump to the Left because of the complicity of the Right, not because of better ideas or representative majority- because of capitulation. The Republican Party is the secondary thing most objected to and reflected in Trump's popularity.

5. To state the regulatory Leviathan is inherited from Reagan is misleading. This started under FDR and began its real zenith under the Great Society. Besides, where it began does not matter. It has become a force of power unto its own and is contrary to anything a Representative Republic or a Democracy stands for.

Great Post. Thank you.

Thank you for your comment and kind remarks. I suspect that if we continue the debate, then we would end up agreeing more than we disagree.

However, I clearly do not subscribe to the statement that Democracy is Mob Rule. I see this as a stalking horse for the radical right. Quotations from and references to various Leaders of the early United States, i.e. the Founding Fathers are, I believe, taken out of historical context. It would seem logical to assume that since no government system had then been established that included universal suffrage, which is a defining principle of modern perceptions of democracy, that their concept of governance would not extend to fully enfranchise all citizens. The property qualifications in most states disenfranchised more than half of white men, women had no vote and there is the notorious Three Fifths compromise regarding Blacks in the 1787 Constitutional Convention.

I interpret the use of the word 'republican' by the Founding Fathers as meaning 'non monarchy'. After all, they were in rebellion against the British Monarch and needed to provide legal justifications for this act and ensure that the National and State Constitutions protected citizens from its recurrence. I do not see the term 'Republic' as meaning 'non Democracy'.

The history of industrialising societies in the 19th century is not just a socio-economic history but a political history in which the voting franchise was extended, ultimately to all persons including women in the first decades of the 20th Century and, some would argue to African Americans not until the 1960's in all States. The Founding Fathers were clearly a produce of the Age of Rationalism but they were also a product of their historical context in terms of attaching merit to people of wealth, 'breeding' and education. Clearly they were as concerned about the Great Unwashed as the other Elites.

So I now categories the phrase, Democracy is Mob Rule, in the same way that I deal with the phrases, Republic is not a Democracy and Global Warming, as being political and ideological and not historically representative. There is no point in trying to debate or elucidate and elaborate detail as this is not the purpose of such definitions. So I think I will leave that one alone.

To circle back around to the OP, I do, however, believe that you correctly identify that Trump represents the latest attempt to capture and define the soul of the Republican Party. Dissatisfaction with the Establishment is certain a major factor in Trump's appeal. However, despite your statement that you are actually a younger guy than I assume, I do believe that ignoring the generational factor is dangerous. I think there is a Trump Type which I call the Trump Demographic. I do not believe that the values of the new generation, the so-called Millenials, are captured by the Trump Type. The new generation may well be as dissatisfied with the Establishment as the Trump Types but I do not believe their solutions, priorities and concerns coincide. We will see who is correct as the nomination process and the general election proceeds.

Trump has tapped the US electorates dissatisfaction with the economic trends that have, over the past 30 or 40 years, destroyed the "American Dream". 40 years ago it was possible for a working class American to own a house, a car and put their kids through university with a minimum of financial effort and sacrifice. Now, globalization, increased population (due mainly to immigration) and the greed of bankers who are "too big to fail" have combined to make those things increasingly out of reach for the lower middle class.

It's ironic that they have turned to a member of that global economic community to save them! If Trump wins (and I would put his odds of success at about 50-50) the people who voted for him may be sadly disillusioned in the coming years.

I do not agree with your analysis of the causation of income inequality in America. Globalisation means increased trade and trade generates wealth. Immigration has been shown to have a net positive effect on economies. Your point about the average American 'Joe' 40 years ago is more about wealth distribution than wealth generation. I agree with the analyses that point to the particular brand of voodoo known as Reaganomics as the primary causal factor in the growth of income inequality in this generation. Regulations favouring investment over labour initiated and has maintained this trend. The so-called 'banksters' are a direct result of this.

Since Trump's economic policies are as opaque and opportunistic as his political leanings, all I can see as a result of a Trump victory would be continued development of corporatist America and regulations that continue to favour the wealthy. I see no vision for an inclusive society that respects people and provides equality of opportunity for all.

edited^

You don't see globalization as corporatist? Your conclusion is disjointed from your premise. In fact, the "banksters" are the corporatists. The coporatists are the globalists. . Somewhere in the labyrinth you've lost your thread.

Thank you for your comment. I do, however believe that you have become a victim of your own ideologisation. I am surprised that a stalwart of the harsh social interpretation of the Exceptionalist Capitalist wing would follow the received wisdom of the Left in the interpretation of Globalisation as a corporatist, capitalist cabal. The propositional calculus that you tender by assuming that since corporates are a driver of Globalisation hence Globalisation is ipso facto Corporatist borders on a tautology.

While an advocate of economic liberalisation, of the Reaganomics mould (actually more Thatcherite), I am also a believer in regulation where market forces are not appropriate. Undesirable and inefficient outcomes of Globalisation, particularly in the realm of the movement of capital and the abuse of market power by large, multinational conglomerates is a failure of regulation rather than anything intrinsic to the concept. Globalisation is an ages old concept which began when the first traders brought back goods that were unobtainable domestically, primarily foodstuff which enabled more interesting diets and better nutrition. It is no coincidence that the most stable and prosperous empires historically became so through the provision of security for trade and sensible approaches to tariffs and taxes.

I fully support the multilateral approach to trade agreements as embodied in the WTO and reject the bilateralism displayed by the US under the GW regime.

However, I raised Globalisation in response to the poster's claim of this being a causal factor in income inequality. I do not make it the premise of my argument. Nor do I make my response to the Immigration issue the premise of my argument. I specifically argue that the deregulation under the Reaganomics platform initiated, maintains and exacerbates income inequality for this generation of Americans. There are still many examples of State Governors who continue to bankrupt their State economies in such deregulatory fervour. Such instances provide a stark insight into the harshness and cruelty of the conservative capitalist mind.

I read with interest, actually I am quite aghast, some of your posts about Democracy being akin to mob rule. If I didn't think that you used such hyperbole to try to shock and awe the reader, I would think that you are afflicted by some End of Days syndrome; something more than just the usual grumpy old man stuff powerless to influence the progress of the world. Trump and the Trump demographic seems to be comprised entirely of similar alarmists. To me, Government is a social contract. It is, in fact very much like a corporation, which is a legal construct comprising a nexus of contracts. Original Republican belief in the nature of Government centred on the ideal of community in contrast to the ideal of the Democrat which centred on the individual. Irrespective of political leanings, at least there was some underlying social rationale to the idea of Government. Trump's corporatism has already splintered the Party. Even Reagan knew he had to bring in the Evangelicals and the old-style Southern Democrats who resisted the Johnson Civil Rights progressiveness to maintain power. Merely relying on the Corporate Capitalists is not enough. The splintering of the Reagan Grand Coalition has taken long enough and I am glad that it is happening now. Now that American has taken a big jump to the Left, if you will forgive the Rocky Horror reference, it is time to address the regulatory environment inherited from Reagan to ensure that Social Justice once again becomes central to the American polity.

Trump has tapped the US electorates dissatisfaction with the economic trends that have, over the past 30 or 40 years, destroyed the "American Dream". 40 years ago it was possible for a working class American to own a house, a car and put their kids through university with a minimum of financial effort and sacrifice. Now, globalization, increased population (due mainly to immigration) and the greed of bankers who are "too big to fail" have combined to make those things increasingly out of reach for the lower middle class.

It's ironic that they have turned to a member of that global economic community to save them! If Trump wins (and I would put his odds of success at about 50-50) the people who voted for him may be sadly disillusioned in the coming years.

I do not agree with your analysis of the causation of income inequality in America. Globalisation means increased trade and trade generates wealth. Immigration has been shown to have a net positive effect on economies. Your point about the average American 'Joe' 40 years ago is more about wealth distribution than wealth generation. I agree with the analyses that point to the particular brand of voodoo known as Reaganomics as the primary causal factor in the growth of income inequality in this generation. Regulations favouring investment over labour initiated and has maintained this trend. The so-called 'banksters' are a direct result of this.

Since Trump's economic policies are as opaque and opportunistic as his political leanings, all I can see as a result of a Trump victory would be continued development of corporatist America and regulations that continue to favour the wealthy. I see no vision for an inclusive society that respects people and provides equality of opportunity for all.

God save the Queen!

Why would God (if one exists) save her? What has she done to be considered superior to everyone else? Get real for goodness sake

No you get real pal,

your entitled to your own minority opinion, mine is if you are a UK subject then you commit Treason and should be hung by your Gonads until they wither and drop off. If you not a Brit or hail from one of the dominions then keep your pie hole shut.

Just so we know who is allowed to post on this topic, perhaps you could tell us which citizens of which countries are from the British dominions? And are there other rules that they/we must follow? Perhaps their/our beneficent imperial masters would provide some guidance to we mere subjects.

I guess when a person is so dependent on an anachronism for identity, then over-the-top arrogant abuse is considered normal. The rest of us will act like grown-ups and take responsibility for our own governance. Thank you for your advice. It will be treated as it deserves.

What continues to amaze me is all the progressive liberal talk about the Republican voters who might support Trump...or any of the other candidates.

They have been called racists, misogynists, war mongers. rednecks, hillbillys, gun freaks, fascists, Islamaphobes and any number of other assorted epithets.

Oh, and don't forget that old standby on this forum...dirty, grumpy old white men.

Now let's look at some quality Democrat voters and supporters:

Well Charles, since you bring up one of my favourite sayings about the grumpy old white men, let me just say that I have never, not once, included the word dirty in that sobriquet that I bestow on TVF's stalwart keyboard warriors.

A Freudian slip I wonder?

I will avoid offering hints to your ancillary questions. That seems to ring alarm bells. But dig deeper Padawan.

Imagine were this woman somehow to become president and find herself in direct, person to person, tough, edgy talks with Putin or some other aggressor about to light the fuse. And what happens? She craps her pants suit.

You mean sort of like when Bush Sr. vomited all over at the formal dinner in Japan?

Yes, precisely. But that was AFTER he was president.

So Einstein, tell us who was President of the United States on 9 January, 1992?

Not all terrorists are Muslim. Thought I'd point that out, incase you all forgot.

Religion, race, colour and creed. Sh1t happens, it's just more widely reported these days due to the age of the internet. Chill, this sh1ts been going on for milleniums.

Not all terrorists are Muslim,no ,but most are

You should try Googling "non muslim terrorist attacks". The global research page and the loon watch page make for interesting reading.

In today's Papers

European capitol cities step up security amid warnings of terror attacks between now and New Year . wonder who the attackers could be , Jews , Crazed American gun fanatics , Bhuddists , Fringe Christian Groups? hard to tell ,oh it may be those peacful Muslims ,you never know .

Heightened security posture is a standard response to information or intelligence received. Nothing extraordinary about this. Let us hope that such measures prevent any atrocities. However, now that your incisive mind has tarred all Muslims with the same brush in the context of this anticipated next even, what is your solution? Ban all Muslim travel? Require all Muslims to stitch a Green Crescent onto their overcoats? Forced relocation to secured areas with armed perimeters for their continued 'happiness'? How about forced conversion to another religion of your choosing.

Seems to me these solutions have been tried before.

Here's one that hasn't been tried. Require all school students to learn the tenets of Islam to ensure that they understand the character of Muslim people. Do you think that would get much support from the right wing nasties?

Who were the terrorists threatening the UK and Europeans before WWI? Who were the terrorists threatening UK and the Europeans in the 70's? Was there similar bigotry agains Serbians, Irish, Japanese, disaffected Northern European youth as there was against Palestinians and now the blanket islamophobia that infests the right wing, the chauvinists and the ignorant?

lostboy, on 27 Dec 2015 - 09:47, said:

The operative word is 'brought'. If you can demonstrate that textile mills recruited in Pakistan and India and facilitated the movement of Pakistan and Indian national to the UK in significant numbers to work in the textile mills then I will withdraw my post. I maintain that South Asian immigration to the UK in that period was driven by other factors.

What you call secondary immigration i.e. by families of original immigrants was entirely legal.

http://www.dawn.com/news/1086126/

In 1967, the British invited a displaced Pakistani community of thousands to establish themselves in Britain. It also served the labour shortage in Britain’s textile mills. The same lack of workers in the 1960s saw the British Ministry of Health recruiting nurses and domestic workers directly from the West Indies, and London Transport establish a recruitment office in Barbados.

Some area's of the UK are still referred to as 1st Generation.

A large number of Pakistanis continue to bring spouses from back home. In Bradford, for instance, a large number of Pakistanis continue to be first generation immigrants.

A community of over 1.1 million individuals, which has been in Britain for over five decades, should now be working with second- and third-generation immigrants. Instead, waves of fresh migrants continue to arrive from Pakistan, which prevents the diaspora from developing educated, experienced, and networked communities.

http://www.dawn.com/news/1086126/

Not even close. The post to which I referred and heavily edited by another poster claimed that Pakistani and Indians were 'brought' to the UK and 'exploited' in the textile mills.

You identify one group of Pakistani people who were settled in the UK as a result of displacement from a dam project. Your article then states that employment of such people served to alleviate a labour shortage in the mills.

The accusation was that UK textile mills brought South Asian muslims to work as exploited labour and this opened the door to further muslim migration through brining in their families.

Playing google bingo has merely led you into narrative fallacy. Trying to make a sequence of facts fit your perceived narrative. Even throwing in West Indian migration to the mix. You are aware that the West Indies is not in South Asia are you not?

Please keep on trying if you have nothing better to do with your time on a Sunday.

The original, legal, economic migrants were ?Pakistanis, ( ?Indians ) brought in to work in the mills, probably for a pittance ( exploitation has been going on a very long time ). Where it all went wrong was when they let them stay and bring their families over. I guess they just never envisaged the welfare state as it is today. They still haven't learned the lesson and still let them stay and bring families over ( or so I believe ). Saudi has the sane policy of allowing "guest workers" to stay only as long as they have a job, and when they haven't, they go home.

By editing the post you have either by design or neglect entirely changed the context of the post and my response. The post claimed that Pakistanis and Indians were 'brought' to the UK to work in the mills. I have eyes. This is what I read. It is not necessary to say what the post said or did not say. It is clear to everyone. My assessment of the reason behind posting ignorant, made up stories remains valid.

Legal immigration from South Asia in Post WWII Britain included many nationalities and people of many different religions. The fact that some of these immigrants found employment in textile mills in Bradford is entirely irrelevant. The fact that these legal immigrants brought their families under legally established immigration arrangements is also entirely irrelevant. Irrelevant to the fantasy post to which I responded. The claim was that exploited labour was trafficked to the UK to work in mills and this labour force opened the door to muslim migration. The era of labour exploitation in the UK was during the industrialisation of the North and the dramatic shift in population from rural areas to urban areas. This population shift provided the work force for the various factories and industrial processes.

Post WWII immigration to the UK is described in the British National Archives http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/citizenship/brave_new_world/immigration.htm. It identifies racism and racist violence as a characteristic of this period in British history.

ThaiBeachLovers' post said nothing about trafficking. I believe the 'exploitation' is relative to the natives. Many of the jobs taken were jobs that the natives declined, at least at the offered rates of pay. The jobs available were much better paid than what was on offer in Pakistan. 'Bringing in' merely implies recruitment targeted at specific regions of the world. You may argue that, on the contrary, the primary immigrants came in on spec; there was a post in another topic which claims that the textile industry actively recruited overseas. There's also the middle situation where recruitment was done by those who had already arrived.

It is a fact that the primary immigration has enabled secondary immigration. This includes not only foreign-born children of the original immigrants, but also the spouses, male and female, that the original immigrant's children have brought in. There have been maintenance and accommodation restrictions - the income restrictions since 2012 now prohibit much of the population of Britain from bringing in a foreign spouse.

The operative word is 'brought'. If you can demonstrate that textile mills recruited in Pakistan and India and facilitated the movement of Pakistan and Indian national to the UK in significant numbers to work in the textile mills then I will withdraw my post. I maintain that South Asian immigration to the UK in that period was driven by other factors.

What you call secondary immigration i.e. by families of original immigrants was entirely legal.

You're wrong :

Perhaps you should consider this update.

http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/last-72-hours

Interesting to see the revealing statistics on this link how many times law enforcement is involved in random shootings : 'not so much' but significant enough to conclude that guns speaks for justice, every day...in the US...

I just checked yet another Bloomberg site that uses their very own innovative ways to count "gun violence".

Of the 25 incidents reported in today's listing, in 5 of them there were no shots fired.

That means in 20% of the so called "gun violence" incidents during the past 72 hours, there was no "gun Violence" at all.

Rather than us having to consider your update, perhaps you should reconsider your source.

Thanks for clarifying. We can only use the term gun violence where there are dead bodies. And there have to be 3 or more dead bodies for the 'mass' qualifier to apply. Correct? Threats or intimidation while in possession of a weapon is a misdemeanour? Is there a number of bullets that need to be shot for the term to qualify also?

Good for everyone to be on the same page. Except of course for those who are dead or injured or traumatised. But hey, they're just a statistic and they're probably black or illegals anyway.

Howler monkeys and frigate birds have the ability to puff up parts of their bodies to fend off adversaries. This self inflation is now clearly a Trumpism, adopted by the Great Blowhard and his fanboys.

The poster made not mention of the British PM doing anything in the context of any 'right' of these profiled family members to enter the US. The poster merely points out that it is the duty of the British PM and his government to protect all the rights of British citizens. The US and UK have bilateral treaties; they are both signatories to multilateral treaties. Investigating whether the application of this decision in this case violated any agreement or was inappropriately applied is normal. Furthermore, countries have the right of reciprocity and can respond to any perceived discriminatory actions by another country with reciprocal actions. Normal, sensible people, including government officials involved in such matters are aware of this context. This will be rightly seen as over-reach and I hope appropriate responses are applied.

Trump fan boys puffing up their chests and repeatedly posting inane, shallow and meaningless announcements of the obvious is now indicative of the demographic. Go Trumpettes. Go!

Do you never tire of embarrassing yourself? Have you read the thread?

Another Trump dilettante. Got something meaningful to say? Or do we do the stupid 'reading comprehension' trope?

My friends in Oregon are posting pictures of the snow there on FB. Quite heavy this year. Merry Christmas.

I doubt many countries will want to get in a diplomatic tit-for-tat with the United States. We say jump and you countries ask how high...like with this whole esta visa waiver program itself. All you citizens of countries in the program have to get an electronic clearance before flying to the United States, while me and my US passport can just waltze into all your countries at my leisure (the only exception I'm aware is Australia).

My ESTA applications always lasted 2 years. They used to be free but now there is some nominal charge. I have had continual visa waivers for about 7 years now but will be letting them lapse until I next travel. Approval for my applications was always granted before I had time to take my finger off the mouse after clicking submit. Very efficient system. My first visit nearly 40 years ago required me answering the same questions in paper format. An I90 I think it was called. Had to declare that I was not a member of the Nazi party. I guess there will be another question there now asking if I am a terrorist.

So you want to come to my country? You need a visa. You need to pay a fee. You need to sign a declaration that you have read a statement of our values. Not much waltzing to be done on arrival at Kingsford Smith or Tullamarine airports I'm afraid.

Your first sentence is obnoxious but that is to be expected.

It's none of Cameron's or anybody else's business who the United States denies entry to.

Absolutely, I mean why should Cameron give a damn, about the rights of British citizens abroad !

No UK citizen or anyone else in the world has "the right" to enter the US.

Howler monkeys and frigate birds have the ability to puff up parts of their bodies to fend off adversaries. This self inflation is now clearly a Trumpism, adopted by the Great Blowhard and his fanboys.

The poster made not mention of the British PM doing anything in the context of any 'right' of these profiled family members to enter the US. The poster merely points out that it is the duty of the British PM and his government to protect all the rights of British citizens. The US and UK have bilateral treaties; they are both signatories to multilateral treaties. Investigating whether the application of this decision in this case violated any agreement or was inappropriately applied is normal. Furthermore, countries have the right of reciprocity and can respond to any perceived discriminatory actions by another country with reciprocal actions. Normal, sensible people, including government officials involved in such matters are aware of this context. This will be rightly seen as over-reach and I hope appropriate responses are applied.

Trump fan boys puffing up their chests and repeatedly posting inane, shallow and meaningless announcements of the obvious is now indicative of the demographic. Go Trumpettes. Go!

"Climate Change" is political ideology not science. "Climate Change" is an economic model based on redistribution, apportionment, and bills of attainder. "Climate Change" has its own religious component under the guise of ecumenicism. "Climate Change" is a liberation theology based entirely upon breaking the bonds that tie people to nations, regions, economics, religion, the tribal, and other ideology; fear is the solvent.The arrogance of those who trumpet this nonsense is only matched by the ignorance of those who buy it.

Pollution and "Climate Change" are not synonymous; pollution is man-made (and horrific).

Ecumenism is not about non-religiousness or about alternative 'religiosity'. It is about universality and multilateralism. Further liberation theology emerged as a consequence of US foreign policy in Latin America and the support of strong men whose violations of human rights are notorious and on record even though many of these criminals escaped justice. Merely using words out of context to be hyperbolic fosters disdain and demonstrates a hollowness of rationality.

I accept that the economic ideology of Climate Change is not synonymous with Pollution. Do you accept that arguing the costs and benefits of different socio-economic systems is more effective on its own merits rather than in the context of climate data, attacks on scientists and their processes or the hurling of wild hyperbole. Do we now take the next step of literal burnings at the stake for dissenters from your orthodoxy?

I guess though, this new theology has significant implications for the old stick in the muds and the way they live their lives.

I commend the passion and zeal of those who want to take action to conserve and preserve the environment. You condemn them.

Quite wrong. I fully support people who stand up for the protection and preservation of the environment.

But the fact is, UN climate policy has nothing to do with the environment, as senior UN officials have publicly stated. In 2010, , , co-chair of a UN IPCC working group, was asked precisely that question in an interview. He replied:

"One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy."

Earlier this year, Christina 'Tinkerbell' Figueres, executive secretary of the UN's Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of the UN is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to undermine and reverse capitalism.

"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution."

As I have said before, anyone who truly believes the world is at risk from global warming should feel profoundly betrayed by the Paris talks, which have given nations carte blanche to do as much or as little as they want to counter the "problem" of global warming.

Very well. I accept your argument on the ideological, non-scientific agenda of some officials involved in the Climate Change issue. I do not yet accept that the objectives stated by the two officials you quoted are formally approved policy objectives. You are probably more aware of the governance structure of the IPCC process than I, but normally the Terms of Reference for working groups and committees will have the objectives clearly defined and detailed. The ideological views of some officials are not automatically an organisation's policy until such policy has been approved and adopted.

Having said that, if your argument is against the economic ideology that you perceive in the Climate Change agenda, why do you not argue those points specifically. Merely posting extreme, incendiary or even mildly controversial statements from people as a means to discredit an agenda is insufficient. What is wrong with the ideals and sentiments in these two quotes? Do you deny that the economic development model centred on industrialisation from an agrarian model is not damaging to the environment? Are there not lessons to be learned from the experience of developed countries that have been through this process; a process whose consequences are being seen in Beijing now? Is not the experience of post-industrial societies also informative for the developing world?

As for the idea of wealth re-distribution, Edenhofer is a German economist. The quote gives no indication of his ideology on this matter. Until that is established, then the context for his statement is questionable. I don't feel like reading up on German economists today so I will take the statement at face value.

So then lets argue the points. I had the good fortune to help organise and listen to a seminar conducted by the Peruvian economist, Hernan de Soto talking about his views on capital http://www.amazon.com/The-Mystery-Capital-Capitalism-Everywhere/dp/0465016154 and I believe he accurately identifies those elements that have made economies based on capital economically successful. Nothing really socialistic about this. More about governance, fairness and the administration of law. However there is also a lot of interest in the sociology of capitalism. With the failures of societies based on Maxist-Leninist principles to deal with inherent sociological flaws, there is still a strong interest in dealing with these aspects of capitalism, in particular the income inequality gap. The book by PIcketty http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/05/economist-explains has become very popular because it is one of the first of a new generation of thinking about these issues.

So I will accept that the 'informed Denier' is actually arguing against economic socialism even though I do not accept that economic socialism is the official objective of the Climate Change agenda but I think the Deniers should start arguing these issues and not boring us to death with endless nitpicking about CO2 and all the damned weather charts. If this is an economic argument, then fine. Let's discuss it on this basis. And leave the scientists to do their work on assessing the impact of humans on the environment and developing technologies to mitigate this as a worthwhile end in itself to conserve resources for future generations.

Publicus...its called keeping an open mind and not falling into the mentally lazy practice of denigrating anyone who thinks differently from you.

Here, here...calling posters and people...right "wingnuts"...because they do not agree with your social and political views is just plain mean spirited and does not add to the conversation...which is the way most lefties try to end a debate...seldom adding any logical verbiage to support their claims to occupy the higher ground on discussions...get real and show us what you got...defend your position...or just shut up...

No insult intended but do you listen to yourself? A right winger complaining about lefties insulting him buy insulting lefties.

When you can just substitute Right Wing for every time you use the word Lefty, then you know that this is a hollow, meaningless, narrow minded, intellectually closed position. What discriminates your from those against whom you rage?

Defend your position or just shut up.