If Streep had any integrity she would not have promoted her political opinions on that stage. There will always be the suspicion that she was given that award because it would give her a platform to spout the political views of the judges or the organisers.

It makes a mockery of the whole award process. No one will be able to take these awards seriously again whenever they are used for political purposes.

She may deserve the award on her merits but so too would many other actors who probably were not prepared to compromise their integrity in the same way.

«On January 8, as anyone with internet access will know, the 74th annual Golden Globes Awards ceremony occurred.»

Liar! I have internet access and I have no idea or interest to know what you are talking about.

Seriously, who in their right mind would care enough to write a tedious article moaning because some Hollywood actress made a speech they disagreed with.

A pretty trivial subject, I think, but I cannot see why Streep or any other actor would think that their political views are of any interest to anyone. A favourite of mine, Denzel Washington, looked completely gobsmacked by Streep's outburst. Our own dual citizen, Nicole Kidman, was forced by the media to explain herself after she said that they should get behind Trump because he was elected via the democratic process on which the U.S is built. Hollywood is totally unreal, and so are the people in it. They should stick to their self-congratulatory award nights - same as real estate floggers giving each other prizes - and leave the real world to the adults.

This was an American actress taking the time
as an American citizen to voice her feelings
on a situation that had been caused by the
President-elect of her country. She wanted to
make her feelings known regarding people in
positions of power, the duty of the media
and bullying in general. As far as I'm concerned
she had every right to do that. Those who
disagree are under no obligation to read or take
any notice of her comments which were directed
to an American audience. An audience to whom
she and her opinions matter a great deal.
Obviously.

Foxy:

There were hundreds of Americans in the theatre that night. Streep was one of them. Why should she have the stage to express her political views over and above all the others? Does her acting credentials give her more reason than anyone else to be given that opportunity? By what criteria would you judge who has the right to express their views? There is none because everyone there was equally qualified to express their views. So, either give everyone that opportunity, which would be totally impractical, or give it to none of them.

She was not expressing ‘feelings’ but opinions about the suitability of Trump to be president. She is no more entitled to express her political opinions than anyone else in that room. That was not the purpose of the gathering. She hijacked it for her own selfish ends.

She tried to suggest that Trump was a bully and therefore unfit to be president. The example of his bullying that she chose should in no way disqualify him to be president since there is no good reason why the person who was on the receiving end of Trump’s mockery would be affected by it. A person with a disability knows that they are in no way responsible for their disability and so there is no good reason why they should be offended by someone mocking their disability.

It was patronising of her to use that journalist as fodder for her bitterness since she obviously thinks that a person with a disability should be offended. She does not understand disability but acted as if she did.

Dear Phanto,

You are in no position to judge what Meryl
Streep was entitled to say or do. Neither
am I. We had nothing to do with that evening.

Meryl Streep however was invited to that event and
was honoured with an award at that
function. She was invited to speak.

That made her position different to
those of the other guests. In her speech she
chose to speak out about people in positions
of power who misuse their privileged positions.
She spoke about journalists not being silenced
and holding people in positions of power
to account. She did
not mention Trump by name. She was asked to
make a speech and what she spoke about was
up to her. I don't have a problem with that as
many speakers at various different functions have in the
past chosen to do likewise - choosing a topic dear
to their hearts.

Your opinion is different from
mine in this matter and - that's fine.
We are entitled to have different viewpoints on a
discussion forum such as this one.

I listened to part of Meryl's speech. Thought it not unreasonable and her right as a high profile public figure, to hold those who would weld extreme power, to account and forewarned.

And in the best democracy money can buy! Any citizen's right! Even a (hup 2-3-4) left right?

And a least as much right to an opinion as Louis, who'd like any critique of Mr Trump halted, gagged or simply and vacuously labeled leftist!?

The last time I looked holding countervailing left wing views, having a brain/doing your own thinking, wasn't a hanging offence Louis, except in the glorious third Reich?

That said, we may be misjudging Mr Trump?

It's possible he may even have a Keynesian based (new deal) economic plan, to make America great again?

Particularly as his survival and that of huge swathes of the republican party absolutely relies on delivered outcomes!
Alan B.

Streep's un-American speech, may prompt Uncle Don to resurrect the committee for un-American activities again. I hope so!

I really don't care who denounces Trump, as long as we get as many denunciations possible. This man is the most dangerous man on earth at the moment and we will all, American and non-American alike, will have to pull our weight and show him for what he is, a buffoon. This is no time for niceties about who is allowed to voice and opinion. Good on you Meryl Streep.

Foxy:

You are judging. You have judged that what Streep did was a good thing to do. We all have right to judge the situation.

What the organisers wanted we cannot tell. We know what Streep wanted and that was to abuse her position as an actor to try an influence a political situation. It was her choice and she just thumbed her noses at everyone else in that theatre who had just as much claim to political expression as she did.

Political platforms should not be handed out on the basis of your acting skills no matter how good those skills may be. It goes against every egalitarian principle that Americans claim to support. Obviously Streep does not believe in equality.

“She did not mention Trump by name.”

No she spoke of the person who would occupy the most important seat in the land. Who else could she be talking about?

“Your opinion is different from
mine in this matter and - that's fine.
We are entitled to have different viewpoints on a
discussion forum such as this one.”

I don’t need you to give me permission to have a different view to you. Why else would you state such an obvious truth?

Dear Phanto,

We have seen that people in different walks of life
may interpret the same phenomenon - whether it's a
president elect's speech, the speech of an award
winning actress, or
a post on a discussion forum - in very different ways.
In other words, people tend to see things from a
viewpoint of subjectivity.

As for what Meryl stated? - she was invited to speak
and she exercised her right to do precisely that.

cont'd ...

Streep's speech was less pointed and politically
charged than similar speeches have been in the
past (George Clooney's Oscar speech 2006). It is
ironic however - the issue of criticising a
bona fide Hollywood star like Streep for using
her celebrity status to supposedly advance her
politics in the wake of electing a President who
made a name for himself by embracing Hollywood,
as the host of his own reality show.

Streep in her over all benign speech, focused her
message on inclusivity, empathy for outsiders,
and freedom of the press.

Apparently this message has rung alarm bells for
some.

Any speech that starts with 'I love you all' should have anyone's BS detector on high alert. La Streep then went on to take a whole lot of cheap and largely false potshots at a very easy target, one that the entire media, Hollywood and political establishment has been monsterfying for well over a year.

In terms of moral courage, it didn't hold a candle to Marlon Brando's use of the Oscar's to stick it to Hollywood for its part in glorifying indigenous genocide, or Vanessa Redgrave's Oscar speech condemning the Vietnam War and inequality, or Michael Moore's savaging of the Bush regime. On those occasions, the speakers were drowned out by the orchestra and quickly rushed off stage. No genuflecting or veneration for them.

Had La Streep even a fraction of the moral courage of these people, she might have chosen to use her position to call for unity, to respect the electoral outcome no matter how painful, to adopt a wait and see policy on the incoming administration and to hold them to account. Instead, she has further split an already deeply divided and morally troubled country.

Her speech represents everything that is wrong with the US.

Why anyone would pay any attention to a clapped out old harpy like Streep I really can't imagine.

These people are only a fountain spurting other people's words in their day job, & most prove that most definitely when they are interviewed & have to use their own words.

People who play make believe in their day job I'm sure have less grip on reality than the janitor who cleans the set. That they believe they are important proves this. We saw quite a few of these clowns talking rubbish during the presidential election. The results prove how effective they were.

Sells:

“will have to pull our weight and show him for what he is, a buffoon.”

He is now the president. Either you work with him or against him. It all depends on how truly you value democracy. You obviously do not value democracy or else you would behave like you do. Resorting to name calling and derision shows how little integrity you have when you do not even support you own values. What other of your professed values do you not really support?

Foxy:

“We .... subjectivity”

This is another of your patronising sermons. We are all quite capable of working out how the world works without your help.

“she was invited to speak
and she exercised her right to do precisely that.”

Yes she chose the occasion to trash the value of democracy because she is bitter that a value which she has freely chosen to uphold has turned around and bitten her on the backside. She would have done herself a lot more good if she had focused on talking about movies.

What Trump did in a former life is irrelevant. The only thing that people should have judged him on was his political arguments here and now. He was not trying to use his celebrity status. If Americans voted on that basis then that is their responsibility and not his and they must take the blame. It is still the result of a democratic process which all should accept if they have any principles at all.

Streep was using her celebrity status to manipulate an audience. There is no point in trotting out losing arguments. It is just a way of trying to shift the blame for living in a democracy. She should accept the situation which now exists instead of belligerently still carrying on like it was a lead up to an election.

If Trump is a "buffoon", I want a buffoon, just like him, here, in Australia, right now.

Sells..
Really, I'm surprised to hear you sprouting anti Trump themes.
Trump is a God-send.
If Trump stays true to his word to make America great again, it is bound to be a rough ride.
How much more homless can the homless become for example. With two percent of Americans, (including families) homless and living on the street under Obama. What was his good really. Not to mention the myriad of other social issues unchallenged by him. He was an abysmal failure, and virtually useless to average Jo.
Straight off, Trump is diffusing the Cold War and challenging China. Two essentials for peace!
Many would also be happy to see Uncle Sam flex some muscle in Australian politics, offering some challenge to the silent Chinese invasion of Australia!
What is your objection?

I'm no fan of Mr Trump, not now or when he ran the apprentice! But he won the election fair and square, albeit with a minority of the popular vote. Therefore, ought to be given his chance.

Should he fail to deliver for anybody other than D Trump inc, he and a good many republicans, will hear those dreadful words, you're fired!

Should that day dawn four short years from now, let's hope our world is not already a smoking ruin!

It's hard for a man with an IQ of 140 to be a buffoon, sells, unless he paid a doppelganger to stand in his shoes and take the test for him?

Where were you and what were you doing Christmas of 55?

And don't tell me. You wore a red suit and drove a reindeer powered sleigh through an event horizon, so you got back before you started, only a thousand years older? But with all your prezzies delivered?

Some folks will believe the most risible rubbish!

It's amazing what you can buy with enough money nowadays?
An exam or three? Even an election perhaps?
Alan B.

Alan B

If you break down that popular vote, Clinton's majority came mostly from the populous states of California and New York. Unlike in Australia, one of the few advantages of the US electoral system is that it balances the skewed metropolitan-regional divide.

diver dan

'If Trump stays true to his word to make America great again, it is bound to be a rough ride.'

He can't make America great again because it was never great to start with. That rubbish is all part of its manifest destiny mythology.

The US cannot hope to ever become a halfway decent nation until it learns to become just another country, instead of the corrupt global bully and poverty-denialist that it really is. I can't see someone like Trump abandoning that principle. I'm sure he'll shake up the smug neo-liberal status quo and I admire his straight-from-the-hip style. But he's just another trust-fund All-American rich kid.

America is funny in that there's a level of pomp; dancing girls and marching bands.
Many people look to celebrities, but they aren't really much more knowledgeable or worldly than anyone else.
Honestly, in my opinion most actors seem to be a bunch of hive-minded progressives little different to feminists.

Who cares what the hell she thinks.

She's just an actress trying to get in front of the camera again, attempting another award-winning performance and to stay relevant.
Interesting (but not surprising) that Obama gave her a Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2014.

I love it when empty windbags from the left continue to throw tantrums. They really do show their true colours. Wasn't Streep one who cheered for the Polish rapist.

Streep was virtue signalling.

However, there is no virtue in shameless self-promotion and risking social divisions through non-acceptance of the outcome of the democratic poll.

Louis

You are correct in pointing out that Meryl Streep does not really know what she is talking about.

The real problem is that Donald Trump does not do so either and he is now the US president-elect -see Preliminary Conclusions About Donald Trump's Policy Agenda (http://cpds.apana.org.au/Teams/Articles/globalization.htm#Preliminary_Conclusion)

Foxy is correct, Meryl Streep was given a platform to speak her mind and chose a topic designed to appeal to the tinsel town glitterati who unsurprisingly gave her a standing ovation.

That her virtue signalling resonated only within her elite clique and made not one iota of difference amongst those that voted for Trump was irrelevant as she got the adulation she has been missing for years.

The CIA or FBI will find a true "patriot" in a long tradition and exercising their 2nd amendment rights will solve the international Trump problem.

Trump himself alluded to this during the campaign...although he was referring to Hillary.

Where was Streep when Obama trashed the US Constitution with signing orders ? Where was Streep when Obama illegally invaded many countries like the Bush criminals ? The left parasites fear Trump will end their freebees just like the right parasites.

It's a bit late for Hollywood to complain about pushing political agendas, considering the amount of nationalist and jingoistic propaganda they have been spewing out over past decades.

If politicians are free to deliberately lie and obfuscate on the campaign trail, somebody has to call them to account. Perhaps it's true that bullies can dish it out but just can't take it.

In any case, the Main Game hasn't even started yet so brace yourselves.

rache:

“If politicians are free to deliberately lie and obfuscate on the campaign trail, somebody has to call them to account. Perhaps it's true that bullies can dish it out but just can't take it.”

They are called to account at the ballot box. Voters weigh up all the considerations and make a choice. Their choice was for Trump.

The question is what do you do about that reality or do you go on dreaming about what might have been. Dreamers are no help to the rest of us. Only those who are prepared to help get the best out of the situation are of any value. Indulging in your own fantasies about a different reality does not do anything to solve the world’s problems.

These whingers are fundamentally selfish people.

"If you break down that popular vote, Clinton's majority came mostly from the populous states of California and New York. Unlike in Australia, one of the few advantages of the US electoral system is that it balances the skewed metropolitan-regional divide."

Totally unnecessary, this wasn't a vote for congress, this was a straight fight for president. Australia doesn't have this vote, as we don't elect a head of state, we have first past the post, as does the UK, which is fine, as it elects representatives by area. If we were voting for a president would you be OK with voting by electorates? Would you accept the person you voted for winning the popular vote by millions and losing? The country would be in uproar, and rightly so.

Hillary Clinton didn't win the popular vote, it's a misconception.
Everyone that believes she did and that which the corporate media told them regarding the US elections are a bunch of gullible idiots.

They're falling for campaign strategy and propaganda not facts, I told you all this from the start, months before the election...

-Obama left the border open for years and allowed Democrat run 'Sanctuary Cities' that would not return illegals, even when they committed crimes.
He encouraged them to vote, and told them they would not be penalised for doing so just prior to the election.

Lets look at the numbers (LA Times results):

HRC - 62,521,739
DJT - 61,195,258
Hillary 'technically' won by 1,326,481 votes;
- But only if you count the illegal (and dead) votes as legitimate.

Now all through the election it was estimated by the independent media and analysts that 3million illegals were going to vote.
3 million fraudulent votes is a lot more than the 1.3m she won by.
She did not win the popular vote, it's rhetoric to get people on the streets and damage/discredit the Trump administration going forward.

http://www.google.com.au/#q=3+million+illegals+voted+in+us+election
(There's links for and against, you can look into it yourself, only don't waste my time arguing the 'politifact' or 'snopes' links as they are known disinformation sites supporting of HRC.)

Also Jill Steins voter recount exposed some voter discrepencies, favouring Hillary.
http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/jill-stein-recount-finds-voter-fraud-hillary-supporters/
...And I'm not even going to get into the reports of people being bused around to vote multiple times for Hillary (goes back again to voter ID laws) or the Project Veritas revelations, or the fact she stole the nomination from Bernie Sanders outlined within the Podesta emails...

No offense, but many of you need to be sure of the things your arguing for or against, because you are arguing from a misinformed point of view, and all you doing is making things worse taking crap.

Don't believe everything the corporate media tells you; and FYI the Republican Party IS usually just as dirty, but this time around many in the GOP themselves wanted Trump to lose.

AC says
" Obama left the border open for years and allowed Democrat run 'Sanctuary Cities' that would not return illegals, even when they committed crimes.
He encouraged them to vote, and told them they would not be penalised for doing so just prior to the election."

This has been proven to be BS!& so many times and yet you reproduce it here.

I cant even imagine why a local (Australia) would want to defend the Trump buffoon.

The post is too long to counter all of the ridiculous points but on illegals voting try this...

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/10/trumps-bogus-voter-fraud-claims/

Here is a link that in my opinion sums up
very well Meryl Streep's Golden Globe speech:

http://www.esquire.com/entertainment/movies/a52148/meryl-streep-golden-globes-speech-donald-trump/

It's worth a read.

Foxy:

Mery Streep's speech was about Meryl Streep.

"I know you all love me because you have given me this wonderful award. If you truly love me you will agree with me that Trump will be a bad president. You will give me a rousing reception as I detail how evil he really is.

If you do not support me in this then you obviously do not love me. So who is it to be me or Trump?"

Unfortunately for her the electorate said Trump.

Dear phanto,

How about actually reading the link I cited
and commenting on it. That might add something
to this discussion.

Did I not just mention in my last comment yesterday about fake establishment factchecking websites...
So he adds one. (hand slaps forehead)

Democrats’ Filibusters Shield Illegal Immigrants, Sanctuary Cities
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/6/democrats-vote-defend-sanctuary-cities/

Video: Obama 'Encourages Illegals To Vote'
http://www.wnd.com/2016/11/obama-encourages-illegal-aliens-to-vote/

And speaking of Project Veritas, (which I did in my previous comment)
New video came out yesterday showing a Soros funded organisation planning an attack on the Trump 'DeploraBall' Inaugruation party.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/01/james-okeefe-strike-undercover-video-reveals-radical-leftists-plotting-potential-terrorist-acts-inauguration/

"I cant even imagine why a local (Australia) would want to defend the Trump buffoon."

- Which is why you talk a whole lot of uninformed crap.
Maybe you should find out why, then you might have something worthwhile to write.

It's not as if I don't post links all the bloody time.
"Day 85, Still no Braverman"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8XCsrjpjnM

For goodness sakes why won't you people take your heads out of the damn sand?

Foxy:

How do you know I did not read the article? Just because I do not agree with you? Perhaps the article made no points worth considering.

I made a contribution to the discussion. Just because you do not agree with the contribution does not mean it does not qualify as a contribution.

I presented my analysis of what was going on in that theatre just like everyone else has made their own analysis. Why not try and argue with what my analysis is instead of deriding it as a non-contribution.

Dear phanto,

I can only go on what you post.
You appear to be arguing on an
emotional level - not a mature
intelligent one. Perhaps someone
else may find dialogue with you
useful.

Foxy,

In the link you provided the author said "Streep's speech also went a ways to proving that an award show can, in fact, be a reasonable venue for "personal political propaganda"", which is exactly what it was.

That the audience was made up of glitterati multimillionaires who have perennially been democratic party supporters, Streep's serving of politically correct hypocrisy lambasted Trump for mocking a disabled reporter in private.

The hypocrisy being in the implication that this reporter, who has continuously mocked Trump in wildly unflattering terms, is totally immune from criticism because he has a disability.

Those that think that this new fad of identity politics is crap, didn't vote for Hillary, and are unlikely to be converted by this pompous prattle.

"I cant even imagine why a local (Australia) would want to defend the Trump buffoon."

The disruption, regime change, drug and sex trafficking operations, shaking down other governments and extorting them aside...

- Maybe because we don't support the irrational psychotic beliefs and actions of the so-called liberal left...

Ads In Two Dozen Cities Offer Protesters Up To $2,500 To Agitate At Trump Inaugural.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/17/ads-two-dozen-cities-offer-protesters-2500-agitate/

So you ruin the middle class, (not had real wage increases in 18years) and make them so desperate and brainwashed they sign up to become political operatives just to put food on the table.
Hmmmm...

Dear Shadow Minister,

Apparently, judging from the applause that Meryl
Streep received and the responses that followed
her speech was considered right and appropriate
by the majority of her audience. Apparently the
truth of what she said seemed to resonate with
them.

As stated in the link I cited they liked Streep's
speech "because she wrote it reasonably well and
delivered it with all the pathos expected of
the greatest living American actress. Her message
was not confrontational except to Trump..."
Which should tell us something.

Foxy:

I don’t agree with you so the only possible conclusion is that I am “arguing on an emotional level - not a mature intelligent one.”

“Perhaps someone else may find dialogue with you useful.”

They would already know what things they find useful or not – they do not need your help to live their lives.

Shadow Minister:

“The hypocrisy being in the implication that this reporter, who has continuously mocked Trump in wildly unflattering terms, is totally immune from criticism because he has a disability.”

It also implies that the reporter needs help to deal with Trump and she and her Hollywood buddies are here to provide that help. Trump is just a human being and you would deal with him like any other human being that mocked you. The presumption of Streep is that because Trump has power in one area that he has power over the reporter. That is patronising to the reporter and a very childish understanding of power.

billyd thinks Australia has a first past the post voting system "as does the UK"!

No, we have a preferential voting system, unlike the UK. Indeed, the UK's first past the post system can easily (and does at times) result in a government elected by a minority of the voters. An example: four candidates (A, B, C, D) stand in an electorate. Candidate A gets 35 per cent of the vote, Candidate B gets 30 per cent, Candidate C gets 29 per cent, and Candidate D gets 4 per cent and two per cent are informal. Candidate A wins. If enough candidates of Candidate A's party win with similar minority votes, you have a government elected by a minority.

He also thinks there is some deficiency in the electoral college system used to elect the US president.

The US Constitution specifies the voting system for the presidency, which is based on electoral college votes distributed across the states in proportion to population. In most states, if you win the state, you win all of the available electoral college votes for that state, although a small number of states share the votes between the candidates, based on the proportion of votes received. That system was deliberately intended to prevent a situation in which a couple of large states, say, oh, California and New York, could dominate the rest of the country.

In any case, billyd, your opinion about what "should/ought/must" happen is irrelevant to what the US Constitution actually specifies for their electoral system. Your little tanties won't make it different.

billyd's gross ignorance on display again. Spare us your great wisdom and learning, billyd.

Foxy,

The entertainment industry and those associated with it are notoriously left whinge. If Streep said "Trump is an idiot" and followed it up with a loud raspberry she would also have got a standing ovation. The adulation she achieved is little indication of the merit of what she said.

Your link to left whinge author whose previous comments incl "I'm not sure if you heard, but on Tuesday night, a giant fkg disaster happened. America elected Voldemort to the presidency!" and "Trump is evil" is hardly going to produce a reasoned response.

P.S. You didn't comment as to whether a disabled reporter is immune from criticism?

The American electorate have spoken their will in the form of turning up and voting. What I loved most about the losers is the fact that some 46% of eligible voters did not actually cast their vote.

Obviously they thought it was going to be a landslide victory in favour of the establishment. What a surprise they got for their tardiness, complacency & belief their God given silver spoons would be forever in their mouths.

The tide of opinion, despite the spin doctoring, perception management, outright lies & disinformation of the MSM has been seen through for what it is...now the establishment is worried the status quo is being eroded.

Hollywood, since the early 1930's has been nothing more than a propaganda department for the elites who are poo-pooing the challenge to their existences. Mz Streep is just another talking head.

Oh look, Calwest has popped his head up after the humiliation he suffered on another thread.

So an Australian government has never been elected with a minority of votes? After your failure to check the credentials of the climate scientist you quoted, who turned out to be a writer encouraging governments to burn more coal, I would have thought you would have checked your facts a little better.

"He also thinks there is some deficiency in the electoral college system used to elect the US president."

"The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy.
This election is a total sham and a travesty. We are not a democracy!
He lost the popular vote by a lot and won the election.
We should have a revolution in this country! More votes equals a loss … revolution!"

Donald Trump, 2012.

Dear Shadow Minister,

People like actors and writers must be skilled at
emphasising with people from all walks of life
and all different parts of society so there is a
tradition in the entertainment industry to see
things in a different light, finding different
perspectives. People with a "conservative mindset"
are more likely to defer to the perspectives of
tradition or authority and not be involved in
alternative perspectives. However your assumption
that Hollywood is made up of the "left-whinge,"
as you put it is wrong. If you were to Google
"Conservatives in Hollywood," you may be surprised
as to how many there are in the entertainment
industry. Just a few names that were given, both
from the past, and current, were:

Clint Eastwood, John Wayne, Bob Hope, Charlton Heston,
Jon Voight, Ronald Reagan, Arnold Schwarzenegger,
Vince Vaughan, Gary Cooper, Adam Sandler, Chuck Norris,
Kelsey Grammar, Tom Selleck, and the list goes on.

Of course a disabled journalist is not immune from
criticism however his disability should be immune
from being mocked. And that is what the American
President-elect did to the New York Times investigative
reporter, Serge Kovaleski during a rally in South
Carolina.

Mr Kovaleski suffers from a condition known as
arthrogryposis. A congenital condition affecting how his
joints move. Mr Trump made several offensive gestures
imitating Mr Kovelaski's condition jerking his arms
and hands in a mocking manner.
That was an inappropriate thing to do.
Most people would agree.

Foxy,

The acting profession is overwhelmingly left whinge, the handful of exceptions if anything prove the rule. Streep could not have got a better response from a democratic convention.

Your characterisation of conservatives shows that you have no clue as to what we think. Most conservatives I know are individualists and defer to reason and experience rather than the left's "alternative" fuzzy emotionalism, and desire to have a big nanny government.

Finally Serge Kovaleski uses his disability as a trade mark and to get access where other reporters can't. As he and other reporters have mocked Trump's appearance, his disability is fair game. Trump's mocking of SK fades into insignificance compared to Hillary's email scandal.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Actually I was raised in a very conservative thinking
and voting family. I also worked and lived in Los
Angeles for close to ten years. I know the entertainment
industry in Hollywood quite well. So I know of what I
write.

billyd, your lies and ignorance are manifest.

Anyone who thinks Australia has a first past the post voting system is a dunce. That's you.

On the other hand, I have never said Australia has not had a government elected by a minority. It has. But it's a very rare circumstance under preferential voting, compared to a first past the post system, which by its nature can deliver minority governments regularly. So that's another of your lies.

Your disgraceful attacks on the late Professor Bob Carter are shameful. However, Leo Lane, not I, did most of the heavy lifting in defending Bob's reputation against your vile smearing.

Every time I read your crap it reminds me that if someone is as ignorant as you they should just shut up.

Foxy:

"his disability should be immune from being mocked."

That is a very patronising attitude to people with a disability. Why should they be more protected than anyone else? They would not want to be protected from being mocked anymore than the next person because they see them selves as equal to everyone else. You obviously think they are not equal to everyone else simply because of their disability.

It is wrong to discriminate against people with a disability because it is not their fault that they have a disability but that does not mean that mocking them is worse than mocking anyone else. Mocking is mocking whoever is on the receiving end.

People who have a disability are just as able to deal with mocking behaviour as those without and they do not need 'do-gooders' like yourself or Meryl Streep to stand up for them.

Dear phanto.

I have politely told you I do not wish to
enter into any dialogue with you. If you
want to know why? Go back and read your
posts to me, then take an intelligent guess.

Foxy:

I heard you the first time. I am not here to tender to your desires. If you make a comment on a public forum then others have every right to respond with their own comments.

You cannot control that.

Foxy,

You might know something about the entertainment industry. I only know what I see and read w.r.t. what entertainers do and say, and it is overwhelmingly left whinge with actors and actresses fawning over the left whinge pollies and mocking the republicans and liberals in Aus, yet oddly silent when their heros cock up.

I grew up with relatively progressive parents, with my mother a scientist, and my father senior partner of a company he built. I noticed how they became disillusioned with the incompetence and intransigence of the left whinge, and sickened by their sense of entitlement.

As for conservatives, I am sorry that you had a narrow minded and regressive upbringing. Perhaps it is because I am surrounded by smart and educated people who know exactly why they believe in what they do, that I expect debate to reasoned not dogmatic.

Streep had her 5 minutes to whinge about trivia to a global audience, and for the 50% that loved Hillary. For the rest it was a non event.

Dear Shadow Minister,

I did not have a regressive narrow-minded upbringing.
On the contrary. The importance of education was
something that was stressed in our household. Coming
from a family of academics - that is something I take
for granted. Debating a wide variety of subjects with
all sorts of people is a tradition I grew up with.

As for Meryl Streep's speech? and the Hollywood
entertainment industry - that is something we are poles
apart on. I speak from personal knowledge and
experience - you speak from what you read in the media.
To me Streep's words have the power to start a
national conversation about disabilities (and stereotyping).
I found Donald Trump's mocking of Serge Kovaleski crude
and tasteless - of course Kovaleski has the power and
the platform to fight back (he's a Pulitzer Prize
winning journalist after all). However Kovaleski has found
the best way to respond to Trump is silence.

I'm going to take a page out of his book.
See you on another discussion.

Foxy:

"However Kovaleski has found the best way to respond to Trump is silence."

So he does not need your help or Streep's. He figured it out all by himself even though you and Streep behave like he was unable to because he had a disability.

Foxy:

You do not have to dialogue with me. There is no need to tell me that - just do it. You do not have to explain your actions to me unless you are really trying to explain them to yourself.

Foxy,

While Trump's mocking of Kovaleski may have been tasteless, it is a point of such insignificance compared to Clinton calling half of America deplorables, that perhaps silence is a valid comment.

phanto,

You do not have to tell Foxy that she does not have to tell you that she is not going to have dialogue with you. There is no need to tell her that - just let her explain that she is not going to have dialogue with you. You do not need to explain to Foxy that she does not have to explain her actions to you unless you are really trying to explain this to yourself.

Annoying, isn't it?

See why your amateur psychoanalyses are useless? They can be applied to anything that anyone does or says. According to you, everyone here is insecure about their beliefs and motivations by mere virtue of them being here. Including yourself.

Foxy

'Mr Kovaleski suffers from a condition known as
arthrogryposis. A congenital condition affecting how his
joints move. Mr Trump made several offensive gestures
imitating Mr Kovelaski's condition jerking his arms
and hands in a mocking manner.'

Firstly, Mr Kovelaski's arthrogryposis only affects one hand and forearm. (An elderly aunt of mine ad the same condition in later life.) It does not cause the limbs to jerk around. Quite the opposite - the affected part does not move at all. If you watch Mr Kovaleski on video, he is perfectly normal everywhere but the affected limb and his movements and speech are not at all jerky and his arms do not flail around.

Yet, the furore surrounding Streep's speech gives the intentional impression that Mr Kovelaski has cerebral palsy or some kind of severe motor-neuron disease.

And, as for Trump, there are a few videos on YouTube, which show him doing this exact same flailing gesture in many other contexts. It's just a mannerism he has. I attach one such video below. (The presenter is a bit of a right-wing jerk though, so don't watch the whole thing.) At about 4.50, he presents some interesting facts about Mr Kovaleski's disability, movements and speech. At about 6.05, he presents a series of film clips that show Trump using this same flailing gesture in several different contexts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBpkMCa_D5

Killarney:

As Foxy deduced the best way to deal with bullies is to remain silent and ignore them. When you ignore them it takes away their power. If they get no reaction then they become totally ineffective. Their next option is either to become violent or to slink away in disgrace. Most bullies choose the later. If they choose violence then we have laws to make sure that they are punished for their violence. We do not need those laws to deal with bullying because we are all capable of dealing with it ourselves. Everyone can maintain silence.

When people assume that Trump’s bullying can hurt it is because they automatically presume that his victims are powerless. It assumes that they need help. This is why bringing attention to Trump’s bullying is patronising. He may be the biggest bully in the world but even he can be ignored and rendered ineffective as a bully.

Not always, phanto.

<<When you ignore [bullies] it takes away their power. If they get no reaction then they become totally ineffective.>>

This depends on two things:

1. whether there are any onlookers, and;
2. how much power and/or influence the bully has over those looking on.

<<[Trump] may be the biggest bully in the world but even he can be ignored and rendered ineffective as a bully.>>

Yeah, provided every other person on the planet ignored him. Fat chance of that happening, though.

Phanto,

No one can claim that the left whingers are ignoring Trump. This free publicity is what got him elected in the first place.

Shadow Minister:

I am talking about bullying. Everyone is capable of ignoring him if he is personally bullying them just as the journalist did.

How they respond to his other behavior depends on what that behavior is.

phanto

I'm not sure why you are addressing me. My comment was not about dealing with bullies.

My comment was that Trump had NOT bullied the man in question at all. Swinging the arms around is a common Trump gesture - sometimes to mock others, sometimes to mock himself. You can see this on the video I posted. You can also see that the man in question has complete control over his movements, other than one hand and forearm, which he can't move at all.

So the whole basis of Streep's argument, and those who support her, is false. The only bully I can see in all this is Streep herself.

Phanto,

You make statements like "Trump may be the biggest bully in the world.." and while other left whingers in your clique might nod sagely at this, it is complete drivel.

Some level of aggression is required to succeed at business, but bullies seldom do, as relationships need to be built and maintained. A known bully is Kevin Rudd who was abusive to subordinates and whose staff seldom lasted 6 months.

What other behaviour are you talking about? Lowering taxes

Killarney:
Foxy’s point was that you should not bully someone who has a disability. Your point was that the man did not have a disability. My point was that it does not matter either way since he was quite capable of dealing with Trump whether he was bullying or not.

Shadow Minister:

I said Trump MAY be the biggest bully in the world. I did not say that he was. Anyone is capable of being the biggest bully in the world even you. How do you come to the conclusion that I belong to a ‘clique’ of any kind or are you just trying to deride me for some reason?

“Some level of aggression is required to succeed at business”

There are millions of successful businessmen who are not in the least bit aggressive so it is obviously not a necessary requirement.

Phanto,

Don't try and lie. The context was clear. "Shorten may be the leader of the ALP, but he cannot break the law" is the same use of the word May.

Secondly, you haven't even shown that Trump is a bully of any magnitude. A bully uses his/her power to intimidate and control people. Mockery is generally not intimidation otherwise most comedians would be in jail.

In fact is the left whinge social justice warriors trying to intimidate an control people that are the worst bullies.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Mr Trump's business record speaks for itself:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/430628/donald-trump-business-record-bully

There's plenty more links on the web.

Foxy,

Another article from a left whinge blog?

I suppose NSW is bullying its citizens by the forced purchase of property for infrastructure development?

It's not just the fact that Trump is a bully that is a problem, but the fact that he inspires so much bullying. It appears, going by the incidences that I've read of, that racists, sexists, and homophobes now feel legitimised and safer to openly express their bigotry in ways that constitute bullying.

I, for one, will be grabbing the first pussy that takes my fancy the next time I'm in the US, now that it has been endorsed to some extent. I mean, it can't have been all men who voted for Trump.

coming from AJ

'It's not just the fact that Trump is a bully that is a problem, but the fact that he inspires so much bullying.'

typical leftie throwing a tantrum while being among the biggest bullies.

Dear Shadow Minister,

You asked about the link I gave as to whether
it was "another article from a left whinge blog?"

That surprised me. I would have thought that
somebody who claims to be aware of a wide variety
of sources would know that the "National Review" is
described as "America's most widely read and
influential magazine and web site for conservative
news commentary, politics, and opinion."

It was founded by William F Buckley Jr in 1955.
For an entire generation William F Buckley Jr was the
prominent voice of American conservatism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_F_Buckley_Jr

A J Phillips:

"I, for one, will be grabbing the first pussy that takes my fancy the next time I'm in the US, now that it has been endorsed to some extent.

So that was all that was stopping you?

Great attitude to women.

Foxy,

It was a question, but based on the endless anti Trump rhetoric I saw when I opened the site and the flawed commentary.

In most countries they have legislation to prevent obstructionist behaviour, such as in NSW if a person or body buys 75% of a block of apartments he can force the last 25% to sell to him at market rates, and most do getting better than market rates. Similarly states force the sale of houses to build infrastructure. This is not called bullying.

Similarly, the illegal immigrants worked for a contractor that did work for Trump. That the contractor went bankrupt and didn't pay the illegals is not anything to do with Trump.

My friends built a house a few years ago, and the contractor went bankrupt before finishing the house, costing my friends nearly $100 000 more to finish and not paying the subcontractors. Are my friends guilty of cheating the subcontractors.

That was a feeble article.

Dear Shadow Minister,

How about this one, feeble as well, or a
"left wing whinge?"

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/the-real-donald-trump-a-bully-fraud-incompetent-who-has-wrecked-countelss-lives-a7384426.html

I suspect that citing from either a conservative source or
any other - unless it agrees with your viewpoint you will
find it unacceptable.

I can see I'm wasting my time.

Cheers.

cont'd ...

My apologies for the typo - here's the link again:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/the-real-donald-trump-a-bully-fraud-incompetent-who-has-wrecked-countless-lives-17384426.html

Foxy,

Firstly, your links to the independent are not working.

Secondly, irrespective of the political stripe of a news organisation, there is often the tendency to exaggerate. And while I am not a Trump fan, I find the wild accusations against him irritating. For example the same author compares Trump's reaction to criticism with Sharia law. Over the top? of course it is.

The article you linked demonstrates some possibly shady business practises, but the tendency to use the term "bullying" whenever a large corporation etc takes on a smaller person or entity is an abuse of the term. Trump was entirely entitled to use the court system to determine the validity of his claim. If he had used illegal coercive activity, then it would be bullying, but that did not occur, and he backed down.

I also treat with the same level of disdain comments claiming Obama is muslim or not born in the USA.

"I, for one, will be grabbing the first pussy that takes my fancy the next time I'm in the US, now that it has been endorsed to some extent. I mean, it can't have been all men who voted for Trump."

I think the context was that being famous (and being a billionaire probably does not hurt) changed the dynamic. Then apparently some will let you do it if that's your thing, not sure though how you tell which ones. I'm pretty certain that it would be easy to find that some would not let you do it though so maybe not the wisest course of action.

R0bert

RObert:

And if some let you do it just because you are famous and have lots of money what does that say about them?

And what does that say about rich and famous men who want to do it for that reason?

From my own values system, it's not saying anything admirable about either. No big surprises in it though. Enough tales from the entertainment industry to know about both sides of that equation.

R0bert

Dear Shadow Minister,

If the political persuasion of sources do not matter
to you then why do you consistently brush aside any
that don't agree with your viewpoint as being "Left
wing whinge?" Your actions do not support your claims
when caught out Sir. This time you picked on a
conservative link with the same inference yet again.

Anyway, I shall take you at your word and try to give you
the link that wasn't working the last time. Mr Trump's
behaviour does not have to be fabricated. It is on public
record for all to see and as I mentioned earlier all you
have to do is Google it. There are many websites to choose
from. I'm sure that you could find at least one that suits you.
As for the question of former President Obama's place of
birth? It was Mr Trump who questioned it only to renege on
it when proven wrong.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/the-real-donald-trump-a-bully-fraud-incompetent-who-has-wrecked-countless-lives-a7384421.html

Foxy,

Given that in the past your predilection has been quoting polemicist blogs that are well left of center with some left wing journals such as the Guardian and the Independent.

That the National review is regarded as a conservative journal is a huge departure for you and caught me off guard. However, what is notable is that the author of the article to which you linked previously wrote an article comparing Trump's rhetoric against the main stream media to imposing Sharia law. (OTT)

While I am not a Trump fan and find his business practices bordering on the illegal, I find the anti Trump movement hysterically over the top and lacking in reason and rational. For example, how would you justify women at the Sydney rally dressing up as vaginas? Considering that much of the protest is about Trump's tasteless comments, I found it a serious own goal.

Similarly the vast noise created without a single presidential action to criticise has spent itself on trivia, and in the event of actual wrong doing by Trump will be dismissed as the same petulant hysteria seen so far.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Taken from the Los Angeles Times:

"We have a man who has major conflicts of interest, refuses
to release his tax returns, spews lies and hateful rhetoric,
disdains the press, declares NATO to be obsolete, encourages
nuclear weapons, promoted an agenda that will make the rich
richer and the poor poorer, may destroy the rights of
women and minorities, could bring our nation into a conflict
with major world powers (most frightening of all), destroy
all efforts to protect our environment from the ravages of
climate change. The world is not celebrating today.
Neither am I."

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/readersreact/la-ol-le-trump-inaugural-address-20170120-story.html

Your defence of this man is pathetic!

Foxy,

Your attacks on this man are pathetic.

Nothing that you publish from the left whinge echo chamber in which you perpetually dwell is new. All of it was known long before the election, and he still won it, with 52% of white women voting for him. The marchers dress up as genitals and some act violently, none of which is going to persuade his supporters to change. The more ridiculously they act the more they'll be ignored.

A year from now you might really have something to protest about, but having cried wolf so many times, no one will be listening.

I despise Trump's arrogance, sexism, protectionism, etc. However, given the ridiculous displays of petulance, and attempts to control the lives of everyone, I can see why he won.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Again with the "left whinge," accusations.

I don't reference your consistent narrow-minded ideology.
And the views published are not necessarily my own.
They're given simply as an example of what people
think . I publish links from many sources - yet
you view them all as "left whinge." That says a great deal
about your own ideology.

As for President Trump? History suggests that institutions
tend to dominate personalities. I suspect that Trump will
not be the exception. The success of other presidents
was ultimately due to the degree to which they were
politically restrained. Lyndon B. Johnson was praised for
his political skill, but he gained legislative victories
mainly through strong partisan support in Congress whilst
Richard Nixon's opposition from Congress was ultimately
his undoing. Trump faces the same institutional constraints
as any other president - Congress and the Courts

Foxy,

I similarly find your POV a narrow and archetypical progressive agenda.

There are similarly plenty of people, and articles, with people who relish Trump's shaking up of the status quo after the ineffectual Obama administration.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Now I'm glad that that's settled. You're narrow-minded
and I'm progressive.

As far as The American President is concerned?
It will be interesting to see what kind of support
Trump manages to glean as time goes by. And what
if any constraints Congress and the Courts
place on him. As one Republican MP stated on the
news last night - if the Presidentdoes anything
that goes against our Constitution and our American
values, we will impeach him.

Interesting times ahead.

cont'd ...

America has a new President who thrives on adulation
But can his words alone really save the nation?
When all is said and done and the foolishness ceases
Who'll be there for the people to pick up the pieces?

Agreed Progressive and narrow minded is the same thing.

Just remember that at least for at least the next 2 years the Senate and Congress are republican. My guesstimate is that the anti abortion edict he issued was a sop to the religious wing of the republicans to butter them up for his next moves (as he has no strong feelings on the issue). As I read, there is a good chance that he will roll back the progressive agenda that the left has been building for the last 50 yrs.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Here's a link from a Republican who did not vote
for Mr Trump (there's quite a few of them around)
and who will hold Mr Trump to account. I watched
the interview by Stan Grant last night.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-23/trump-will-conform-or-be-removed-former-bush-adviser-says/8205094

Foxy,

That ranks along side those that were going to convince the electors not to vote for Trump.

First, politicians are essentially pragmatic. The Republican senate and congress now have a Republican president who will help them legislate their agenda. For that they will give Trump nearly everything he wants. As for the threat of impeachment, that requires a vote of 60% of the Congress and 60% of the Senate, which has zero chance. Also Trump will appoint the next Supreme court judge and possible even another.

There may be a few disaffected republicans and a lot of democrats that will huff and puff, but it will happen.

Dear Shadow Minister,

No - that link does more than what you suggest.
Richard Painter is a lawyer who advised former
President George W. Bush on ethics. He's a
Republican who has great concerns about President
Trump. However he's zeroing in on Trump's
business connections to International companies
and countries and whether there's anything that
goes against the American Constitution.

Michele Cuttle writing in The Atlantic, January 23, 2017
tells us that Democrat of Republican, no one on Capitol
Hill is certain what changes the new President will
bring. She states that she has no doubt "that while
Congress may not become significantly more functional -
or less maddening - in the coming session - it will get
shaken up a great deal as exotic new challenges are
layered atop deeply entrenched ones."

Adding that "In the Trump era the rule of thumb on
Capitol Hill will be the same as everywhere else:
expect the unexpected!"

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archieve/2017/01/trump-congress/514085/

cont'd ...

Again my apologies for the typo:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/trump-congress/514085/

Shadow "A year from now you might really have something to protest about, but having cried wolf so many times, no one will be listening."

And there lies a big part of the problem. The left are throwing so much mud at Trump and most that I've seen is overstated, misrepresenting the issue, outright lies or hypocritical as they ignore the same in those they endorse that when there really is something to pay attention to, something of serious concern it will be lost in all that's gone before. No sign of having learned from the story of "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" as a child.

I have serious concerns about Trump but am finding it difficult to get any real sense of the issues because in almost every case when I've dug down to the available facts what's being presented to disparage him does not represent the truth. Over and over again the same story.

I've wondered about false flag trolls on alt-right postings, some almost look like they are trying to hide what truth sits in issues with a barrage of extremes to distract. Coverage of the PizzaGate issues seem to often significantly overstating the available evidence (just as the mainstream media heavily downplayed it) or adding in pet conspiracies of flying saucers etc.

Sadly I suspect many are not trolls and sadly I think the left are so caught up in their anti-Trump rampage that they don't stop to think of the longer term harm when they really have something to say and no one except those already in the echo chamber take them the least seriously.

R0bert

And the media will be so obsessed with Trump for what could be the next eight years that all manner of crime and corporate fraud and political abuse will be given a free pass.

They have stopped being the voice of the people to become of the voice of the bitter and embarrassed because they too have been humiliated by the majority vote. It is all about trying to save face.

phanto, I'm undecided about the majority vote part. On the count of votes Trump didn't get a majority but won because of the way the Electoral College system is set up (to try and ensure the less populous states don't get completely swamped by the North East and West coast votes). I have seen plenty to suggest that there was likely to be a lot of dodgy votes cast, from the "safe cities" programs to protect illegal emigrants, the Veritas videos and discussion of busing (or car pooling) significant voters around to vote where they were not entitled to etc. Not sure we will ever know just what the numbers of cheat votes were. What's also clear is that a lot of voters didn't bother to vote.

The mainstream media certainly called it wrong and still play the game. My understanding is that most indicators are that there was a smaller turnout for Trump's inauguration than Obama's but the New Your Times tweet comparing crowds using what I gather was a shot taken not long after the gates opened for Trumps inauguration compared to the full house period for Obama was a great demonstration of how little they have learned. The CNN Gigapixel image from Trumps inauguration tells a different story.

R0bert

runner,

Could you point me to an occasion where I engaged in bullying? Or was that just an attempt at deflect with the tu quoque fallacy?

You do highlight the point my vulgar-sounding comment was supposed to convey very well, though. You lot will overlook, excuse, or downplay any behaviour, no matter how shocking or depraved, so long as it comes from someone with whom you are politically aligned.

--

phanto,

Given that I clearly wasn't serious, I do wonder what the point of your post to me was.

And yeah, R0bert's right. Hillary Clinton received about 5 million more votes than Trump. It was a quirk of the system that got him over the line, not a majority.

AJ Phillips:

"Given that I clearly wasn't serious"

Why do you need to tell us that you were not serious then if it is so clear?

Why not just ask me what the point of my post was? You don't have to explain the reason for your question unless of course you are insecure about the reason why you are asking the question. Perhaps you are not sure yourself that you were not serious.

Foxy,

I'm struggling to see a specific point in your post or your link. The Republicans have had a majority in the congress and senate for a while, but not a President. They may have to work under a new paradigm that they not familiar with, but having a Republican President, congress, senate, and a majority of state governors is hardly a hand brake on their ambitions.

phanto,

What makes you think I felt a need?

<<Why do you need to tell us that you were not serious then if it is so clear?>>

I wasn’t telling anyone anything. Noting that I wasn’t serious was a lead-in to a reasonable curiosity regarding what your point could have possibly been.

Your amateur psychology flops once again.

Why do you feel the need to ask me why I felt an alleged need to tell people that I wasn’t serious if you did not feel that a deep-down desire to sexually assault women in such a way had been legitimised by Trump's election?

Hmmm?!

<<Why not just ask me what the point of my post was?>>

Because expressing it the way I did made the apparent pointlessness of your post clearer. It’s called “effective communication”. But it appears now, given this latest post of yours, that you were trying to fool any onlookers (and perhaps even yourself) into thinking that I might have been serious.

How pathetic.

I have noted several times in the past that your amateur psychology is nothing more than an attempt to slander others through implication and then damn them whether they choose to defend themselves or not; it’s an attempt to shut your opponents up when you don't like what they're saying.

Thank you for yet another example of that.

Thank you also for demonstrating once again that it is only you who is the fraud here (having once pretended to be concerned about the sincerity of those posting on OLO, while claiming there was a fraudulence on my behalf).

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7426#229225

<<You don't have to explain the reason for your question …>>

I know. That’s why I didn’t.

<<Perhaps you are not sure yourself that you were not serious.>>

Why would you ponder this unless you were feeling uncomfortable with a realisation that you want to commit sexual assault and that Trump’s election vindicates this deep desire?

This amateur psychology of yours is great fun! Any assumption works and you can use it to slander anyone no matter what they say!

Dear Shadow Minister,

The whole point of my post and the link was
to illustrate what to expect with the new
president. "Expect the unexpected."
Nothing is certain in the political arena -
and predicting the future is risky at the best of times.
We'll have to simply wait on see what develops next.
I very much doubt that Mr Trump will not be constrained
politically in certain areas both by Congress and the
Courts. Or rather I should say - fingers-crossed that
this is the case for the sake of us all - Americans
included.

AJ Phillips:

The more defensive you get the more guilty you look.

phanto,

Nothing I have said suggests a defensiveness on my behalf. The brevity of your post and your unwillingness to engage in anything I had actually said, however, does suggest that your desire to sexually assault is very real and that it makes you feel very uncomfortable. There is also the slight possibility that you are experiencing a cognitive dissonance brought on by homophobic feelings that coexist with an appetite for incestuous homoerotic pornography.

No, no. Don't try to deny any of it. It'll only make you look more guilty. Let's just leave the question mark hanging there for others who may be reading, so that you are damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Sound good?

Foxy,

While there has been a lot of bluster, so far Trump is doing pretty much what he promised.

I guess that he and the republicans in the congress and senate will start unwinding the progressive agenda of the last decade. I would guess that if he gives the republicans what he wants, he will get much of his agenda.

Dear Shadow Minister,

I think that you over estimate Mr Trump's
capabilities.

cont'd ...

If you were to Google - you would find that many
people within his own party included, are beginning
to question Mr Trump's emotional maturity and
stability - especially his behaviour since taking
office.

Foxy,

Trump now controls the office of President. The senate and congress cannot pass much without his approval, and there is a lot that he can do without their approval. The die hards can huff and puff, but politicians if nothing else know that to get things done they need to be able to work with him.

AJ Phillips:

Yeah that is all OK by me. I don't need to deny anything since all my behaviour is just a figment of your imagination(and a rather vivid imagination too).

There is no evidence of any wrong doing on my part whereas the evidence of your attitude to women is there for all to see.

So we will just let that hang out there will we?

phanto,

You're insistence that there is no evidence of wrongdoing on your part is indicative of a guilty conscience. It also suggests that you feel the need to reassure yourself of the fact more so than anyone else. Why else would you feel the need to say something unless you were not secure in the belief that there is no evidence of wrongdoing on your part?

Furthermore, the fact that you are persisting in your attempts to create the illusion that I could actually have been serious about such an obviously sarcastic remark, does indeed confirm that you want to sexually assault women and are uncomfortable with the fact. Your engaging in transference, by attempting to apply those feelings to another, is further evidence of this. There is also the slight possibility that you have already surcumbed to your dark desires and feel guilty about a sexual assault that you have already committed.

Someone should call the police, I think. You are a danger to women, and you know it.

AJ Phillips:

OK so I accept I have a guilty conscience. What now?

You say I am 'transferring' because I am "persisting in your attempts to create the illusion that I could actually have been serious about such an obviously sarcastic remark". That presumes that such a thing is an illusion. If it is an illusion then why are you so adamant in defending yourself against an illusion? That has to be a type of argument with a latin name.

"Someone should call the police"

The only someone that could do that would be you since you are the only one who has any evidence. Police tend to require evidence of wrongdoing or else they can charge you with wasting their time.

So off you go then and tell them what you have discovered. Stand up for your beliefs and show the concern for society which you have(except women of course).

Dear Shadow Minister,

The man is emotionally and mentally unstable.
We'll have to wait and see
what provisions there are in the Constitution
to deal with that problem. The Americans will have to
deal with it sooner or later. Preferably sooner
for all concerned. That is the reality that they now
face.

Looks like you’ve already started on your journey to recovery, phanto.

<<OK so I accept I have a guilty conscience. What now?>>

The next step is to seek help. Sex offenders like yourself sometimes move on to children if they are left to go untreated and the thrill of sexually assaulting adults wanes. I would also suggest that you apologise to, and conciliate with, your victim(s). It’s a big part of the healing process.

<<You say I am 'transferring' because I am "persisting in [my] attempts to create the illusion that I could actually have been serious about such an obviously sarcastic remark".>>

That appears to be the case, yes.

<<That presumes that such a thing is an illusion.>>

Do you actually deny that people can have illusions?

<<If it is an illusion then why are you so adamant in defending yourself against an illusion?>>

I’m not. We’re now discussing your dark and perverse sex problems, the guilt that you are currently experiencing because of them, and the fact that they are evident in your continued presence here. Yes, this has become all about you now, yet somehow without being an ad hominem attack.

<<That has to be a type of argument with a latin name.>>

No. No, it’s just another one of your amateur-psychology assumptions.

<<The only someone that could [call the police] would be you since you are the only one who has any evidence.>>

No, no. You continue to present evidence of your guilt every time you post here. I would encourage your victim(s) to come out too, if I knew who he/she was.

<<Stand up for your beliefs and show the concern for society which you have(except women of course).>>

“Except women”? Look here, son. I’m not the one who sexually assaults women and is in danger of moving on to children. A snide remark like this could only come from someone who had zoophilic tendencies.

AJ Phillips:

“I would encourage your victim(s) to come out too, if I knew who he/she was.”

Why do you need to tell us what you would do if you could? It doesn’t sound very brave. Any fool can make those kind of statements.

“Look here, son. I’m not the one who sexually assaults women and is in danger of moving on to children.”

So you do it too? But we already knew your attitude to women.

You can go on insulting me as long as you like but it is never really going to satisfy your rage. You will have to up the ante and become physically violent which you seem not to be far away from doing. Just hurling insults makes you look a coward. You don’t have the guts to do anymore than that.

So put up or shut up.

I don’t “need” to phanto.

<<Why do you need to tell us what you would do if you could?>>

Not everything everyone does is done out of a perceived need. The fact that you don’t realise this suggests that everything you do and say is done out of a perceived need, which is why your continuing presence here only makes you look more and more guilty.

<<So you do it too?>>

No, it’s only you. I didn’t mention myself in your quote of me.

<<But we already knew your attitude to women.>>

I would appreciate it if you didn’t project your shabby attitude towards women, characterised by a pre-occupation with feminists, on to me. Thank you.

<<You can go on insulting me as long as you like but it is never really going to satisfy your rage.>>

Who’s insulting? We’re merely discussing your dangerous sexual hang-ups, evident in your defensiveness. There is no rage on my behalf. Sounds like you’re engaging in a bit of transference again. Take a few deep breaths and relax a bit.

<<You will have to up the ante and become physically violent which you seem not to be far away from doing.>>

More transference. Settle down, phanto, or you are going to end up hurting someone. Given the rage you are displaying at the moment, I fear that you may have violent tendencies, and that it is only a matter of time before one of your sexual assaults ends in tragedy.

<<Just hurling insults makes you look a coward. You don’t have the guts to do anymore than that.>>

Transference again. Your level of rage here suggests a concerning tendency toward sexual violence and a taste for violent erotica.

Foxy,

"The man is emotionally and mentally unstable. We'll have to wait and see what provisions there are in the Constitution to deal with that problem."

There are no provisions in the constitution for Trump to be removed because lefties don't like him, or because he acts badly, and even if he were barking mad, he would have to be certified incapable, and be removed by a 60% majority in both the senate and congress. Similarly there is no requirement for conflict of interest or a release of taxes.

In other words. Buckle up, it's going to be at least a 4 year ride.

Shadow Minister:

That is why the Women's Marches were so pointless. Most of the rage was about personal criticism of Trump. It was aggressive, immature and petty.

There are genuine women's issues that may be threatened by the Trump administration but attacking him personally is not going to change anything. It needs a much more concerted and rational approach by cool heads. The way they approach the problem says more about those women than it does about women's issues.

Dear Shadow Minister,

The following link may be of interest:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/01/presidential-psychiatrist-mental-health-congress-214597

By the way there's a great deal on the web that disagrees
with your take on President Trump. You should Google
at least some of it prior to posting.

Foxy,

There are lots of people that don't like Trump. I don't particularly either. But what you site is generally opinion and conjecture which in the real world carry no weight whereas much of what I post are verifiable facts which can relatively easily confirmed.

Your latest link recommends the use of a presidential psychiatrist due to perceived deficiencies in past presidents. However the Facts are:

- Trump is under no obligation to use or report the findings of a shrink.
- Removal of a president, whether by incapacity or criminal activity cannot be done just by the courts, and even a criminal conviction or psychiatrists certification would require a super majority to vote in both houses.
- Unlike Aus, and other US public and elected officials, POTUS is under no obligation wrt conflicts of interest, and the steps Trump has taken to cede control of his businesses to his family more than meets requirements.
- Similarly submission of tax returns is an electoral play and is not obligatory.

Short of Trump getting caught red handed committing a criminal offense or foaming at the mouth, the only chance to remove him would be at the ballot in 2020

AJ Phillips:

You wrote -

"I, for one, will be grabbing the first pussy that takes my fancy the next time I'm in the US, now that it has been endorsed to some extent.”

You claimed that you were not serious. How come it is serious when Trump says it but not serious when you say it?

Dear Shadow Minister,

The Twenty-fifth Amendment to the Constitution. Article 4,
allows - for members of the Cabinet or the Republican
leadership in Congress to declare in writing that the
President is unable to discharge the powers and duties
of his office. The Vice President then immediately can
assume the powers and duties of the office as acting
President.

http://www.salon.com/2017/01/25/dont-look-now-its-president-pence-donald-trump-can-be-deposed-even-without-impeachment/

Taken from the link :

"Of course it's an extreme long shot that members of
Trump's Cabinet or the Republican leadership in Congress
would ever take such a drastic step. This would only
happen if Trump really started to behave in an unhinged
fashiopn. After all the bizarre behaviour he has
exhibited over the past 18 months one can't help but
wonder."

"What could possibly count as going too far?
It's almost too terrifying to imagine."

Hear, hear!

Is playing dumb your next tactic, phanto? Given up on the pseudo-psychology, have we? Maybe this new angle of yours will finally make me look terrible, eh? Let’s see.

<<How come it is serious when Trump says it but not serious when you say it?>>

Trump was using his own words to brag during a private conversation, whereas I was using someone else’s words in mockery on a public forum for shock value to convey a point, and to possibly expose a double standard. The latter didn’t work. Apparently the former didn’t work either, where you’re concerned.

Are you really that dense, or do you not get sarcasm?

I've been pondering a response elsewhere to the question of removal.

A few points.
- My impression is that so far he is pretty much doing things he said he was going to do.
- Wondering if the VP would actually be a safer option for some of the more vocal anti-Trump voices? He may be more conventional but from some of what I've seen could be much further to the "right" than Trump.
- Finding a way to remove Trump from office does not take away the mood of discontent with the status quo that got him elected in the first place. If anything anything it would make it substantially worse and make it easier for someone even more extreme than Trump to gain office in the future.
- My impression is that both major parties are very corrupt.
- So called progressives have generally given up on truth and any concept of consistency in pursuit of identity politics and accepted causes. There is an unwillingness to reform (although some of the left have spoken out about aspects of it). That they will punish anybody they can who challenges the narrative and it seems to many that the only electable alternatives are on the extremes. There are no strong voices for genuine social justice, just the sad parodies of it.
- I think it's going to be difficult for voices for reform in the Republican party in the US to gain traction while they hold power even if many are uncomfortable about the direction that power is taken.

If we want to avoid the spiral to one form of extremism it will take genuine reform from those claiming to present an alternative approach. A reform where truth and fair play start to matter and that seems unlikely.

R0bert

AJ Phillips:

Why would you need to add 'shock value? If the point you were trying to make was reasonable and logical then surely that would be enough? Wouldn't you want people to be persuaded of your point on the merits of its reason and logic? What does shock value add to the reasonableness and logic of you point? You would only need to add shock value because you were not confident in the logic of your point.

"possibly expose a double standard."

Do you mean you are not sure if there was a double standard or not sure whether you wanted to draw attention to it? If the former what was the double standard?

Because our gets the point across quickly, phanto.

<<Why would you need to add 'shock value?>>

Of course, you already knew that, didn't you?

<<If the point you were trying to make was reasonable and logical then surely that would be enough?>>

You would think so, wouldn't you?

<<Wouldn't you want people to be persuaded of your point on the merits of its reason and logic?>>

Yes, I would.

<<What does shock value add to the reasonableness and logic of you point?>>

Brevity.

<<You would only need to add shock value because you were not confident in the logic of your point.>>

Or if I wanted to keep it brief. I was, after all, boarding a plane when I posted that.

You would only suggest that there was only one possibility if you wanted me to lack confidence and were insecure about whether or not that were the case.

You see? Two can play at that game.

<<Do you mean you are not sure if there was a double standard or not sure whether you wanted to draw attention to it?>>

Neither. I meant what I said. I’d suggest that you read what I wrote again, but you even quoted it and still didn't understand. Or is it be that you are again deliberately trying to draw something from what I said that wasn't there? You must take me for a fool.

<<... what was the double standard?>>

That is it is alright to support someone who bragged about sexually assault, but not alright for me to even suggest it in sarcasm. Just imagine if my post was deleted for vulgarity, eh? Now that would’ve been the ultimate way for my point to have been made.

Foxy,

If you actually read the constitution you would realise while a handful of people could remove him from office, it would have to be ratified by a 2/3 vote of congress, without which he would be automatically reinstated within 21 days, when he could fire his VP and ruin everyone else in the plot.

You and your left whinge blogs are grasping at straws.

AJ Phillips:

But you already made your point and then you felt the need to make it again with shock value.

If time was so valuable why add the shock value? It does not add anything to you point. So your argument about time doesn't make sense.
Neither does your argument about brevity since you made the same point twice.

"That is it is alright to support someone who bragged about sexually assault, but not alright for me to even suggest it in sarcasm."

So if what they did was wrong why would you want to even suggest doing it sarcastically? It doesn't make sense to condemn a particular behaviour and then repeat that behaviour even in a sarcastic why. There was no need for a sarcastic retort at all. Sarcasm adds nothing to your point either.You simply have to say that you think their behaviour was wrong.

You still have not given a good reason why you said what you did. So far we have had shock value, had to catch a plane and now sarcasm.

No, phanto. Actually, I didn’t.

<<But you already made your point and then you felt the need to make it again with shock value.>>

There were two points there. I made each one once. The first was about Trump's ability to inspire bullying. The second one, you're still trying desperately to not understand and imply an insincerity or guilt that isn't there.

You're not very good at this whole debating thing, are you?

<<If time was so valuable why add the shock value?>>

For the sake of brevity.

<<It does not add anything to you point.>>

For someone who didn't see that TWO points had been made there? Sure.

<<So if what they did was wrong why would you want to even suggest doing it sarcastically?>>

To make a point. (See my previous posts.)

<<It doesn't make sense to condemn a particular behaviour and then repeat that behaviour even in a sarcastic [way].>>

Just as well I didn’t then, eh? I’d be fronting a judge in no time.

<<You still have not given a good reason why you said what you did.>>

Actually, I have. So how about you quit playing games and address them?

AJ Phillips:

"<<You still have not given a good reason why you said what you did.>>

Actually, I have. So how about you quit playing games and address them?"

Actually, you haven't.

Have too, phanto.

Brevity.

Your argument against brevity relied on the mistaken belief that I had only made one point. Now that I've brought to your attention the fact that there were two points made by myself, your argument falls flat.

So, actually, I have.

So there.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Again with your accusation of" Left whinge blogs."

And here I was attempting to have a serious discussion
with you.

Silly me.

As for what Trump's Cabinet or the Republican leadership in
Congress will or won't do. You have not way of knowing.
We shall have to wait and see. Although -
history has shown that actions have been taken regarding
American Presidents in the past due to certain
circumstances. The possibility does exist whether you
care to admit it or not.

Foxy,

There is also a possibility that my single lotto ticket will win the jackpot and the odds are similar.

1- it has never be done,
2- it is put in place for a president that is genuinely incapacitated not just a dick, and can be overturned by the supreme court if he is not medically unfit.
3- It needs Trump's hand picked VP and a majority of his hand picked department heads to kick off the process, all of whom will be fired if the coup fails. (and probably fired by Trump's replacement)
4- It needs confirmation by a 2/3 majority in a Republican congress within 21 days.

So my point is that the chance that a lot of people with a vested interest in keeping Trump in office are going to mutiny and run the huge risk of destroying their careers, is pure fantasy.

Dear Shadow Minister,

A couple of corrections.

Regarding the link I gave earlier which you described
as a "left wing whinge?" The author of the article
has used sources such as - the Washington Post,
the New York Times, Politico magazine, a report by
Axios, and history itself.

Your claim that "it has never happened?" is false.
Taken from the link, " Actually a transfer of Power
has happened a handful of times since the Kennedy
assassination. Once when Ronald Reagan had cancer
surgery and twice when George W. Bush underwent colonoscopies.
Also under Woodrow Wilson - when his wife assumed the
duties of the Presidency for the remainder of his term."

"This topic was also the subject of discussion toward the
end of the Reagan administration when it became obvious that
the President was suffering a loss of cognitive ability.
It wasn't invoked then, but as we know now, Reagan was
suffering from Alzheimer's. Had it become acute - while he
was in office Congress would have had to take action."

The language of the Amendment clearly encompasses other
scenarios besides physical incapacities. Trump's behaviour
is destructive and it is not a fantasy that either
his Cabinet or the Republican leadership in Congress would
take such a drastic step. The evidence is there
that if Trump really started to behave in an unhinged
fashion the Amendment allows for action to be taken.

See you on another discussion. For me this one has now run
its course. Whether this so called "fantasy" as you put it
ever occurs - we shall have to wait and see. Neither of us
can predict anything with any certainty but the fact
remains that there are provisions within the Constitution
that allow for action to be taken to depose a President.

Foxy,

A correction

The article to which you linked referred specifically to Amendment 25 section 4, not just Amendment 25:

"Section 4: Vice Presidential–Cabinet declaration

Section 4 is the only part of the amendment that has never been invoked. It allows the Vice President, together with a "majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide", to declare the President disabled. "

Dear Shadow Minister,

Correction:

Actually the twenty-fifth Amendment to the Constitution,
Article 4 allows,

"Whenever the Vice President AND a majority of either the
principal officers of the Executive Department or of
such other body as Congress may by law providing transmit ...
their written declaration that the President is unable to
discharge the powers and duties of his office, the
Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and
duties of the office as acting President..."

You should also read the rest of the link I gave you.

It will clear things up for you. There are also plenty
of websites on the web that explain how an American
President can be deposed.

Foxy,

I gather that you have conceded the "never" part.

Perhaps this will help to resolve your delusion:

"Section 4 is meant to be invoked should the President's incapacitation prevent him from discharging his duties, but he is unable or unwilling to provide the written declaration called for by Section 3. The President may resume exercising the Presidential duties by sending a written declaration to the President pro tempore and the Speaker of the House.

Should the Vice President and Cabinet believe the President is still disabled, they may within four days of the President's declaration submit another declaration that the President is incapacitated. If not already in session, the Congress must then assemble within 48 hours. The Congress has 21 days to decide the issue. If within the 21 days two-thirds of each house of Congress vote that the President is incapacitated, the Vice President would "continue" to be Acting President. Should the Congress resolve the issue in favor of the President, or make no decision within the 21 days allotted, then the President would "resume" discharging the powers and duties of his office. The use of the words "continue" and "resume" imply that the Vice President remains Acting President while Congress deliberates."

So essentially if Trump is removed in this way, the VP etc have 21 days to get a nearly impossible 2/3rd majority vote in the congress or Trump would resume as president with all the repercussions.

Dear Shadow Minister,

You can easily Google for yourself the conditions
under which an American President can be deposed.
There are enough sites on the web that will give
you that information. As I stated earlier whether
this will happen regarding Mr Trump we shall have to
wait and see. This is not a fantasy or being
delusional. This is a reality. Neither you nor I
know what the future holds. All I know is that there
are enough rumblings and mutterings and dissatisfaction
against the current President (and protests) going on
not only in the US but around the world.
We'll have to wait and see what if anything, happens
next.

See you on another discussion.

Foxy,

I am fully aware of the requirements. In 1999/2000 the republicans who held a majority of seats in the senate and congress tried to remove Clinton, and while getting a vote in both houses of >50% were unable to remove him.

The suggestion that a supermajority of congress men of whom a majority are republicans will vote to remove a sitting republican president is laughable.

"The suggestion that a supermajority of congress men of whom a majority are republicans will vote to remove a sitting republican president is laughable."

Whilst it seems unlikely I can imagine that if he is damaging the "brand" enough that they think their own electoral prospects are getting destroyed it becomes plausible. If he did actually start to drain the swamp (which I doubt) enough of them would decide that the loss of the oval office was better than the loss of the kickbacks.

Really hard to tell what it would take but given the number of Republicans that didn't support Trump not impossible.

R0bert

Dear Shadow Minister,

I don't imagine that Trump will be laughing.
If it happens. But as RObert and others on the web
point out - it is possible.

Foxy,

As I said before, it is possible, but highly improbable, like me winning the lottery.

Dear Shadow Minister,

At least some progress has been made.

You now agree that it is possible.

In their own echo chamber the Left are over-reacting in their efforts to define President Trump negatively.

As in the campaign though, most Americans are outside of that chamber and are unaffected. The forgotten public who are only remembered when a poll is imminent are still working, carrying out their responsibilities and paying their taxes as usual.

Maybe the Left should first put their own house in order. For example, the Hilary they previously thought was godlike had feet of clay and that reflects on left ideology not just on the identity.

The left can act really, really upset, totally miffed and they are excelling at that.

They obviously have a lot of time on their hands and government funds to waste They are not producing anything of value. Nothing practical, the absence of which might be noticed if they disappeared in a puff of smoke one day.

Maybe the working, tax-paying public realise all of that. It is a fair chance that the public do. Not that the left could care though. Heck, the public always get it wrong, don't they and the public really don't know what's best for them.

Foxy,

As I said it is also possible that I will win the Lotto.

Dear Shadow Minister,

I'll keep my fingers-crossed.

But then I come from a tribe of nature worshippers,
pantheists, believers in fairies, forest sprites,
and wood nymphs ...

Dear Shadow Minister,

The facts speak for themselves no matter whether
you accept their legitimacy of not.

Labor left behind a strong economy after six years of growth,
with one of the lowest unemployment rates among
OECD countries, a AAA credit rating, some of the
lowest debt and deficit levels in the industrialised
world and interest rates at 60 year lows.

How the current government will fare remains to
be seen.

Foxy,

Wrong thread,

Labor inherited a AAA credit rating zero debt, the strongest economy and the lowest unemployment in the OECD.

Labor left a massive debt, little to no new income generating infrastructure, thousands of business strangling new regulations, rampant unions that could break the law with no consequences, and massive new spending bills whose they still block.

How do you feel about Daniel Andrews spending nearly $1bn not to build a new highway?

Dear Shadow Minister,

http://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2015/july/1435672800/richard-denniss/clowns-and-treasurers

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-12/dunlop-the-myth-of-coalition-economic-management/6308704

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/02/labors-economic-record-is-better-than-the-coalitions-and-they-must-make-it-count

Another collection of left whinge polemics?

Only if you look at everything through a very
limited narrow prism and not the facts.