Buddist Monk

Are you telling me all the finances from the football club come from those generated purely by the football club alone? Anyway, it's irrelevant to the point I'm making, if a club the size of St Johnstone can be a success then a larger and more (historically) successful club like St Mirren most definitely can be.

The WP covered Trump's emolument in a bit of detail a few months back.. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2018/07/25/trump-loses-big-in-emoluments-case

That is just raw meat for the balcony as they have a legal obligation to pay back a large percentage of it. Those on the right, who seem to defend this action, look upon the "divorce bill" as if we are paying for the right to be independent from the EU. When in reality it's just us paying for things we agreed to pay for. If Raab gets his paper delivered by the local newsagent. The value goes on his tab of which he settles at the end of the month. He then wishes to swap to another newsagent. He's obviously entitled to do so, but he still has to settle his tab, and no other newsagent will pick him up because they know he is a bad risk. Meanwhile Raab is taken to court for not paying his bill. What's interesting is that on Radio 4 this morning he refused to state what he wouldn't pay for, not the amounts but just the categories or sectors. That alone makes it clear it's an empty threat.

They say possession is nine tenths of the law (or up to 14 years in jail depending on what you happen to possess!). Trump has already made a huge fortune, not just from his branding but from things like the tax cuts. Even the most conservative efforts place a saving of roughly $10m from that alone, although many other postulate that is only in directly linked finances and that saving could increase to well over $100m. Still even keeping to the lower value that's still a decent wedge. His family? Well that's been documented elsewhere.. http://fortune.com/2018/06/11/ivanka-trump-jared-kushner-made-82-million-while-working-white-house/ That's from Fortune magazine, who lifted it from the Washington Post. The WP clearly isn't a supporter, but Fortune doesn't tend to play figures too loosely. While I take your points about the negative feedback, Ivanka's clothing line being a perfect example, you will still have people visiting Trump Towers not because they are Trump fans but because of the infamy surrounding it and it's owner.

It's all the undocumented Muslims and Mexicans, if only there was a man who would dedicate himself to ridding America of such malign forces and return the country to the honest God fearing white nation it has always been!

No it's not. I think the thing I was alluding to is that when people mention his comments us Saints fans are only too well aware that he's been saying this all the time he's been at the club, but I think it's acceptable to say that if a club like St Johnstone, even with sugar daddy money from Brown can manage it, then why can't we.

Because they do, all the studies show this. Not all of them of course, but enough that it will have a detrimental effect on his chances. His support in every metric except white Christian males has dropped way below what was needed for him to win. Now let's remind ourselves that he already lost the popular vote by some 3 million* and only won via the Electoral College. I'm not going to say the EC is a bad thing, both candidates knew the rules before the elections started, but its a bit of a pyrrhic victory. The idea that he is delivering on what he says is not really true. If you look back at his campaign and detail every claim he made about what he'd do once in office there is a massive gap between what he said and what he has done. I'd also say that he has made America weaker. He has no understanding or respect of soft power. He has no understanding or respect for multinational bodies. Yet America has spent billions of dollars generating those and tilting them so that they are beneficial to the American agenda. He is simply wasting all that time effort and money. He has shown via twitter absolutely no decorum what so ever, and even some of his most ardent followers accept he has not acted in any way presidential Trump can rail all he wants about leaving the WTO or NAFTA or NATO or the UN or the Paris agreement or any other body for that, it simply makes America poorer. Now it's up to the American citizens to accept that or not, but the two key problems is that one, the effects of Trump's actions are not immediate and so will not land at Trump's desk, it will land at the desk of the next president in 2020 and secondly the creation of the false narrative by the White House which claims anything that runs contrary to their official stance is simply "fake". I shared a Rove op-ed earlier and that underlines the way in which double standards and lies constitute, for some, acceptable commentary. * did anyone else see his claim that it was actually harder to win the Electoral College than the popular vote? His ego does not like that he lost, I find it quite funny he is, to use a parlance of our times, such a "butthurt snowflake" on the issue. You may continue to contest that, but I am still of the mind that you picked one particular quote, saw it one way and ran that as the sole reason. That's fine, that's Internet forums, but in context with my other comments it just doesn't really validate. Most of my posts have been quite lengthy so I fully understand why someone wouldn't necessarily wade through one in order to get context for another. However.. I am equally happy not to continue to argue the point. I think in the grand scheme of things, it's a pretty minor issue of whether Obama annoys Trump into acting in a certain way or it's just Trump acting in a certain way, because the problem is his volition not his motivation. The one thing I would say is that Trump has "won". No matter what happens from this point on, he has won because his personal fortune and the personal fortunes of all his family, have massively increased. His brand name is now worldwide when before it really wasn't despite his claims on this. He has used the office for his personal vandetta and his personal enrichment, and while you might argue all politicians do the same, not all politicians use such insidious language and policies to achieve that.

You are personalising this, I tried my best not to. I am not saying this person or that is racist, I'm saying that the image itself is a racist trope. Mr Knight's own defence of his image shows that he finds it annoying that people are offended, he doesn't actually discuss the image, it's construction or the tropes used in the composition. It's this lack of accountability, the idea that you can put out anything you want yet if people find offence with it then the issue is with the offence not the subject, is pretty mealy mouthed to say the least. In fact at one point he claims that some people can't claim it was racist because he's been drawing cartoons before they were born, as if his age in some way sets him up as the arbiter of what is and isn't racist. It was commented on by many that the reason he doesn't see it as racist is because, like many who don't find it racist, is that he is not black, has not had to deal with racism both overt and casual, and had to deal with it not just once or twice but on an almost constant basis. It might just be that he doesn't understand why it is seen that way and that spending some time with people who do hold that viewpoint might allow him to broaden his narrow definition of what is and isn't. Today, pictures like those seen in Tin Tin in the Congo are rightfully castigated. In the future people will look back and wonder why there were people defending Knight's presentation of a black person. Just like we do with Herge's artwork. The image doesn't even look like Williams, it looks like a classic American racist trope. I don't think anyone here has in any way countered that argument. We need to get away from people being annoyed at other people being annoyed. That seems to be a constant trigger for people in this sort of debate. As I said to banana, we should be playing the ball not the man. Again, I don't think it helps branding people racist. It's casual racism because of the history of the word. Let's for example take the word Jock. I hate being called that down in England, but many defend it as simply a harmless epithet towards Scottish people, and in isolation it is. Now imagine if the English had subjugated us to brutal oppression and inequality for centuries (oh, heh.. I know.. insert your own raised eyebrows with that!), with Jock being used as a vitriolic and general term to describe the worst things about us. Move that along the timeline so that in the 70s you had gangs of non Scots chasing down Scots and attacking them, all the time shouting Jock b*****ds and the like. Can you see why the word, while in itself not racist, holding the weight of racism?

Now to me, that simply sounds like you saying, "I will play Devil's Advocate because I know it annoys people", and whether that annoyance is justified or not is irrelevant. The problem is that in doing so, you open yourself up to the accusation you are using the DA premise because it allows you to say 'questionable' things with a level of impunity. Allow me to be very blunt here, and I mean very blunt, racism through jest or challenge is still racism. Again I want to be very clear I am not accusing you personally of being a racist. It has been seen all down history that many racists, xenophobes, homophobes and misogynists also use this tactic in order to allow their hateful views to hold some intellectual weight. As if it's a bold and courageous thing. It's not though, it's intellectually bankrupt, and sadly all too transparent. Am I saying you are a racist, xenophobe, homophobe or misogynist? No, at least not based on what I've read of your comments so far. I'd say your stance is anachronous but that is for perhaps for another debate as you say. That is a classic trope used by racists. It says if you find offence in this you are impeding on my freedoms. The thing is you will have a line yourself of where offence is taken. For example if someone put up roadside billboards of child pornography you'd naturally be offended and wish for those things to be removed. It's an outlandish suggestion of course, but that is the point. Using your argument, anyone wishing to remove those things would go against the freedoms of the "artist" and that the offence generated is in your own words "absolutely imperative". So, in short, you claim it's not offensive because you don't find it offensive, and things you don't find offensive are entirely allowed because it's about freedom of expression. Those billboards would (I hope!) cross your line of what is offensive. The thing is, you are not the sole arbiter of what is offensive, and I would content that as you are not black, you are in a position where your experiences are limited in regard to this. Don't try and wrap it up in the metaphorical flag of freedoms, when those freedoms are not the ones laid out by you but by the social norms of the society you live within. I'm sorry but your statement was considerably absolute. However you rolling back on that, as you have done here (and I would contend you are doing so because you realise the inaccuracy of that premise), is obviously a good thing. The problem that it's pernicious is simply saying that "I don't see offence so you have no right to see it and I'm worried what other things may be effected in the future". It's not a justifiable position to claim that something that people find abhorrent shouldn't be considered abhorrent because of some unknown and ambiguous existential threat further down the line. This whole thing has been discredited by history. For example people said at the time that Love Thy Neighbour was acceptable television in the 70s. However the racism within it is seen pretty much universally as being unpalatable in modern society. The argument at the time as to why it shouldn't be considered as such? The same as the one you are using now. Your victimhood claim, btw, is not addressing the issue, it's addressing the person. Play the ball not the man. I would also counter that not being black puts you at a disadvantage in judging what a section of society finds offensive. That works both ways, though, and I should point out I am not creating a false dichotomy here, or giving a blank cheque to anyone to claim offence simply because they (or their culture/creed) are the subject of the work.

Exactly my point. Trump was very clear about his intentions before hand so for people now to claim, "no no it's nothing to do with him" seem to hold a somewhat short memory. Lets take the discussion away from the personality politics and look at some of his tweets before and his actions now. So this is a genuine tweet: I am sort of hoping there isn't anyone here who thinks this isn't anything other than "fake news", but it's telling that it is the same line trotted out during his election, along with all sorts of stupid hyperbole like the Chinese are "raping" America. This is just one, but it's a fairly decent example. Are we to somehow believe that Trump denied global warming (ok, climate change is the better term, but still..) then, and continued to do so now and demonstrates that by his actions with the EPA. Yet on the other hand dismiss the idea that tweets about how he hates Obama and wanting to reverse his policies if he ever got into power are no longer Trump's opinion when yet again we have evidence of him doing the very thing he said he would before? You can call this Occam's Razor or even quote Conan Doyle but whatever way you slice it the obvious is.... well... obvious.

I think you may find the semantic gap you are trying to squeeze down is a little too tight, even for those who intend it in jest. I have written in length on this thread regarding how and why Trump goes about his business, I suggest you might go back and read that before picking out one quote. It's clear the motivations he has, what is also clear is that Obama riled him. You only need to see the tweets he made before he became president and the claims he made before he got in the White House to see the that this hatred "underlines" the actions he takes now. There have been occasions when he has revoked bills where there was no actual political or financial gain from him doing so, including times when his own party advised against it, the only obvious motive is because Obama had his hand on it last. Does Trump's almost pathological obsession with Obama chime with general dislike of his policies in the GOP? Sure, of course it does. It always would.

Not sure if you consider yourself some sort of expert wind up merchant, the profile term "Triggerdaddy" suggests you might, however this sort of rhetoric is pretty self serving. You might not take offence, you might think it's acceptable, and I would contest that you would be wrong on that. However I don't suggest you do that because you are inherently seeking a racist agenda, so in the same manner you should refrain from suggesting those who object are inherently seeking victimhood.

Remove the screeching around the image, take it into isolation. Ok, sure it's obviously reflecting Williams' childish behaviour so we can't completely remove that context but just for a minute place yourself in a situation where the machinations of idiots on twitter and facebook aren't pouring out ridiculous claims (on either side). Once you do that, you must find the cartoon racist. I am not intentionally finding offence where there is none. Personally I'm not offended by it, I'm disappointed by it, but I'm not offended by it.

II think you are confusing the words "underlines why" with "this is the only reason". When you underline something, it's enhancing an already existing situation. Allow me to offer up a cheeky example. Csaba Lazlo won't get Dundee United promoted. Not being able to motivate his team underlines why Csaba Lazlo won't get Dundee United. See the subtle difference?

Not sure where you got that idea from. It's certainly not what I wrote and to try and claim it is does you a disservice. It's clear that Obama rattled Trump, Trump admitted as much. It's certainly not the only reason, but there is a certain level of motivation from him to sully Obama's legacy. Obama is no saint. He was ludicrously awarded the Nobel Peace prize in the same week he launches missile attacks on Houthi rebels in Yemen - a conflict still on the go where the only beneficiaries are the arms dealers - notably Britain France and the US. Don't try and create a false dichotomy here by claiming that because I can find fault with Trump - and trust me I can - that somehow Obama gets a free pass.

Could I bring people's attention to this sort of shit.. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/09/12/karl-rove-by-attacking-trump-obama-shows-hes-self-absorbed-partisan-warrior-not-senior-statesman.html Now, it's Fox News, so you expect bias, but this particular op-ed is particularly pernicious and insidious. It is jam packed with errors, assumptions and hypocrisy*. There are people I know who will only watch Fox, who will only believe Fox and who will defend Fox even when they have no actual experience or understanding of the subject at hand. Even some of the most vitriolic xenophobes I've met in the UK have at least been willing to bend to certain arguments when provided with all the relevant facts. Sure they will construct another narrative that suits but you can see you are actually getting through to them. The issue with a large part of his base is that they simply refuse to accept anything other than what they have been told to believe by a very bias source. * I am more than happy to detail these, I don't think people need me to fire out 4 pages of rebuttal though and should be able to spot them themselves.

Don't get me wrong, I think a good dose of social democracy would do the US and the rest of the world a bit of good considering what we have now. The sad fact is that to a certain tranche of Americans, they could not accept such policies coming from their president. Obama tried it, and had the temerity to be black while doing it. Part of Trump's success, is a backlash to Obama. I speak to quite a lot of Americans who claim Obama was more divisive than Trump and I find that, even at the height of political myopia, an incredible position to hold. Mind you, this is a country where a large percent of the people expect the Government to allow gun ownership to all, while refusing universal health care. Obama recently said this.. "I know there are Republicans who believe government should only perform a few minimal functions but that one of those functions should be making sure nearly 3,000 Americans don’t die in a hurricane and its aftermath." While that is clearly a dig at Trump's pathetic action on the Puerto Rico hurricane you would think that even the most politically biased could agree that at the bottom line the Government should at least try and save the lives of those in need, yet you will still get dissenting voices claiming that is too much involvement. The bizarre thing is that should anarchy be introduced by having no actual government, it's these same people who would be robbed and killed within the first hours because they are unaware of the level of protection they already get from a Government they despise.

I would counter this, and only because I have in-laws in Carlisle. They do not find it relevant. You are right that the jurisdiction is the same as Kent but the problem is their lives are not homogeneously English, they live and work both sides of the border, are affected by decisions made both sides of the border and in turn find the London (or SE) centric views that come from the main media outlets as frustrating and annoying as those of us North of the border.

I get annoyed with Bernie's claim to be a socialist. To any European he is a left leaning social democrat. He is nowhere near a socialist. That said, generations after McCarthy and the Cold War, the American psyche is blinded by "reds under the beds".

Fox New and Trump is nothing but a narcissistic circle jerk. Trump watches some bullshit on Fox, which was ripped from Breitbart or Infowars, Trump then rails about it on Twitter, Fox then reports on Trump complaining about it. Now that it's gone full circle, and the actual origin story has been lost as has any ability to counter it. Fox claims it's valid because Trump said it, Trump says it's valid because Fox said it. This was ably demonstrated with the Britain First re-tweets. He never apologised for those, he said to Piers Morgan (Oh, I know..) that he would apologise if Morgan wanted him to, Morgan never pressed him on it, and his base now claim that it was all just people losing their shit and that he did apologise. As for the BF tweets Sanders (the press gimp) said that it doesn't matter whether it was true or not, he was merely addressing something that happens. Despite it not happening and the BF tweets being exposed as lies.

Remember when the Americans armed the Mujahideen in order to operate a proxy war in Afghanistan? Remember when the Americans armed militants in Iraq in order to operate a proxy war against Iran? This was the origin of Al-Qaeda. I feel dreadfully sorry for all those who died on that day, however one can't help but look back at the time line and see that if you f**k around with a bees nest long enough you'll end up being stung. Remember when the Saudis gave tacit approval to the attack, so the Americans invaded Afghanistan and struck an arms deal with the Saudis?

I love the parody Dead Ringers did of Gove. https://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/play/p040tt8j

If Mogg, not that he will be, or Johnson, not that he will be, ended up as PM and Scotland didn't choose independence then I don't know what the catalyst could be. Both of these men have been disparaging to this county - Johnson stated that he couldn't give a f**k about Scotland when running for Mayor of London, while Mogg said that Scotland should accept rule from Westminster like any other colony did.

Not picking your comment out specifically, as it seems to reflect quite a few people's opinion on this, but I think if people don't see the racial overtones then perhaps you should speak to people who deal with racism on a daily basis, both overt and casual. You can maybe, maybe, make an argument about caricature, the problem is that that caricature is based on classic racist stereotypes. It's "Tin Tin in the Congo" trope territory. What I would say, before everyone starts piling in on this, is that Williams made a complete fucking tit of herself. She belittled Osaka's success and brought ridicule upon herself. She has come out of this very badly, but taking that cartoon out of the *autistic_screeching* from both sides virtue signalling and being apologists, it is most definitely racist. Am I saying that those who don't see it as racist are racist themselves? No, that is definitely not what I am saying, and I want to make that very clear. This is not a false dichotomy I am creating. What I would say is that Australia itself has a history of racially stereotyping it's own indigenous people and that populist pseudo-racism still exists within mainstream society.

The numbers just don't stack up. Trump won because he wasn't Clinton, people outside America seem to not get that - she was hated even by some democrats. To us Trump is a vile hateful man, to a large percentage, albeit a minority, of the US population he isn't. Clinton lost because of the way the DNC fucked over Bernie. Now it's questionable if Bernie would have won against Trump but that's not a debate worth having now. It should be said that what we call "shy tories" in the UK don't get the correct representation in polls so you have to be very careful when using them but if you drill down to the granularity, there is no way his numbers hold up. For example, and even allowing for shy tories, his popularity amongst every single sector of society other than white Christian males has dropped by a percentage beyond the error margin of most polls. I think definitely they will lose the house, that I think is almost guaranteed. Even some of Trumps supporters want the so called "checks and balances" on their man. If the Democrats run in 2020 with a male candidate on a centrist platform (and that's a US centrist not a UK centrist) the numbers show Trump will suffer considerable losses all over the board. It's crazy but in America, (in general) women hate women in politics, it's so weird.