Im surprised how many extreme right plebs are going hard for Trump in Australia.
Im surprised how many extreme right plebs are going hard for Trump in Australia.
Trump and Tony Abbott have both done a particular thing which I find creepy and a touch bizarre.
If you're against taking refugees into your country, fine. It's not something I agree with, but whatever. But they've both criticised other countries for taking in refugees. Trump took a bit of a swing at Merkel on the topic today, and Abbott went on a speaking tour where he went around telling countries they shouldn't be taking in refugees at all.
At that point, it's no longer about perceived national interest or anything like that, surely? It seems like it's just an honest-to-goodness hatred of refugees on general principle.
That Abbot tour was so dumb because he had a bloody ocean to work with and got to pay off 3rd world countires. The guy feeds off hate and fear.
Surely his time should be used in the outback being a champion of the indigenous people he so dearly cares for?
Trump losing $800m in a single year might explain why he's not releasing his tax returns.
Abbott's fundamentally broken. His idea of a win is pissing off people he disagrees with, rather than finding consensus, or even pleasing his ideological fellow travellers. This is why he functioned well in opposition, but dropped the ball so badly when he found himself in charge.Originally Posted by Queenslander
It's like the knight/dame thing. A profoundly unpopular decision that even his own allies thought was stupid. But it really irked the people he didn't like, and he sees that as a win for him. I'm pretty sure that the refugee thing for him was deciding that refugees were in the "enemies" basket, and therefore anything they disagree with is a solid win.
Politicians (on either side) who see making their opposition unhappy for its own sake are the worst kind of political backbiters.
Having a go at Merkel, assuming it's sensible language, is reasonable enough. It involved a unilateral suspension of the Dublin regulation and massively exacerbated the crisis. Given you had hundreds of thousands of migrants marching through Europe, it was a big problem for other countries. Her reasons are her own, but it seems generally accepted in Germany that it was a mistake and some of the recent elections, including the rise of this Neo-Nazi party reflect that.
It was a national decision with profound international implications and she didn't have a clear plan for any of it.
Criticism of that is fine, but extending that to more 'traditional' scenarios, eg. Granting asylum when they're already in the country or taking them from the refugee camps themselves, is clearly a non starter.
It is not like Merkel had a well crafted plan that included all possible contingencies, a direct plan to action, and a waterfall series of checklists to mark and grade progress.
You know, a proper plan, like Brexit.
Also, let's not pretend that Trump even had unreasonable objections beyond "foreign refugee muslims raaaaarggh". He can't hold a train of thought for two minutes, so I doubt he cares deeply about German foreign policy.
See also: Tony Abbott.
Comparing our decision to leave a customs union with the decision to invite well over a million migrants into Europe is one way to demonstrate having lost all sense of perspective.
Indeed.
The point is that for a lot of government work there is no clear plan. As soon as you start acting things change and you are left dealing with contingencies. There is no good result for a humanitarian crisis. Complain about the response not being quick enough but a clear plan?
It is just adding unrealistic bars to acting.
You can't just decide to open the borders in response to something like that without thinking it through. Turning up for selfies with foreigners and saying "Wir schaffen das" isn't sufficient, as they're now realising to their considerable cost.
No plan survives contact with the enemy (or whatever it is). I get that. But all but the most craven wannabe Belgians would be able to find some positives in Brexit, even if they still think that the negatives out-weigh them. It's harder to know where to start with the German response to the migrant business, in which case planning should probably not have advanced beyond 'Don't do it, mate'.
Any choice in a bad situation involves negative consequences. Judge them on their lack of response management. Business works off iteration all the time and government is seldom allowed to. It is why government led outcomes are often so poor because we demand a clear plan.
I'm not actually worried about the specifics of the case.
Those negative consequences did not necessarily have to be felt by Germany (and the rest of Europe) though.
Sure, they would have been felt by refugees. It is how you frame the question. But we should allow that to be the question of public governance.
Are you willing to suffer to reduce the suffering of others is a question that should be put to people. We'd have better governance. Or at least governance that reflected our will better.
Instead we insist on being lied to. It is how we got Trump.
It didn't reduce the suffering of others. Thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, will have died because they were encouraged to get on rafts with holes in them. It gave succour to people smuggling operations the world over and it's not as if the people who most need the west's help (children, the elderly, the infirm, the disabled) were the ones who got it. They're still in the camps in Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan et al - it was almost entirely young men who reached Germany, because it was they who were fit enough to walk hundreds of miles through Europe whilst every country between Greece and Germany waved them straight through.
Still, I suppose it continues to suit someone's narrative that it be presented as a 'humane' gesture, rather than the travesty it was.
Ah yes, everyone fled due to the encouragement of the west. That's clearly what the prime motivating factor was.
My point is that a clear plan is often not a possibility for national events and that you use it selectively rule out actions you don't like. Scots are foolish about independence because they have no clear plan; dealing with a wave of refugees is wrong because there was not an exhaustive study done on events in realtime, but Brexit?
You'll note that numbers are considerably lower this year owing to the EU-Turkey deal which basically returns everyone who arrives in Europe on a boat back to Turkey. It's removed the incentive to chance it.
Merkel's pronouncement meant a) 'guaranteed' asylum made hazarding the boat journey and trek through Europe a worthwhile risk b) that people smugglers could wave this about as a valid 'inducement' to hazard the trip and give them all of your savings to do so and c) it meant the Greek / Balkan / central European states absolved themselves of any blame and just waved people through, exacerbating the crisis. It was a disastrous policy decision, which the Germans are now dealing with. It didn't require a 'clear plan' on Germany's part - "I wouldn't be doing that, Angela" would have been sufficient.
On the subject of Brexit, I'm fully behind the balls out option of just repealing the 1972 European Communities Act, telling the Europeans we're going to trade with them on existing terms (i.e. no tariffs) and daring them to unilaterally impose them. If they do, you'll have the much-cited German car manufacturers go absolutely apeshit and we can enjoy the fallout from our position with WTO rules.
Or the initial wave and rush that overwhelmed the situation is over?
There are still millions of people in refugee camps in Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan and more coming every day. I suspect not.
And the camps are more stable and the authorities have learned better how to deal with bottlenecks.
But really, you are right. I'm sure most refugees conversations are:
"Abdullah, have you read paragraph C subsection B on the latest rules for refugees.
Ah yes, let's exploit the Merkel rule. Have you downloaded the latest version of the Refugee finder app? It checks your GPS coordinates to determine if you are an economic or political refugee."
Merkel could turn up on GS' doorstep with cake and he'd find a way to see it as emblematic as everything that's wrong with Europe.
Clinton seems to have firmed strongly after the first debate, but I'm worried about the second and third debates. If someone can coach Trump enough to at least hold a thought in his head for two minutes, he'll be seen as a massive success because the bar is now so insanely low. And if it's immigration or healthcare (which didn't feature in the first debate), then he just has to spit incoherent rage for two minutes straight and it'll appeal to the base.
EDIT: Also, someone needs to take Twitter away from him at night.
EDIT II: But if he follows his baser instincts and targets Bill's infidelities, he'll lose the election there and then. And he'll have been told that, so it'll be fascinating to see if he can stop himself.
Merkel is grand, just you wait until the German social democrats get in and start airdropping boxes of pumpernickel into Athens.
It amazes me that either his advisors are letting Trump do any of this or that he's hired advisors he has no intention of listening to. What does anyone get out of that aside from some of Donald's cash?
You've hired advisors you either don't need or a bunch of yes men whose career are dead as soon as they mention on their resume "2015-2016: Worked on Trump campaign."
While I hate to defer to television on these things, in Veep one of the characters takes on a candidate with similar personal failings to Trump, after someone tells him that "if you win, you're a genius, and if you lose, nobody will blame you". Could be that some of the senior campaign staff are thinking the same way.
They can also get some immense book deals out of it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37533263
Suddenly that $800m loss reported by Forbes is SUSPICIOUS AS FUCK!
Someone is going to publish the definitive book on this campaign and make more money than Trump finagled away in 1995.
Yes, by making it clear that there's no point risking the journey and by putting the money into the camps instead. It's not hard.
Mate.
Seems like a waste of public funding. Unless its to offer him an option out of London.
Trump's response to his tax fiddling is such an open goal for Hilary. Just work out an approximation of how much he's dodged, quantify it with some examples (schools it could fund, policemen it could train) and just lay waste to him. He'll say it's brilliant whilst Hilary can just say its dishonest and ironic that a man going for the purse strings won't pay tax of his own. Finish off with the $800m loss of this year to say how he'll continue. Even his own supporters weren't thrilled with his response. There was a really, really mild cheer amid the stunned silence.
'I've dodged tax for twenty years so that makes me S-M-R-T!'
Tell you what Mert, you've always gone on about how the media is biased and we don't know America and how Trump will win. How about some money on it? $50 says Clinton will win the election.
Latest odds have changed a wee bit since the last debate.
Clinton in to 4/11, Trump out to 11/4.
Interestingly Paul Ryan in to about 100/1 with some bookies.
What odds are you giving me? Happy to take your money especially after the cucking Pence gave Cain tonight.
Ah, the penultimate stage of grief: 'Pretend you're voting for the VP'.
Clinton's 3-4 points up on the poll aggregates. VP debate historically meaningless in the absence of a shocking gaffe.
Trump needs to get out of the headlines and get Clinton back in them.
Simple, I will bet you $50 that Clinton will win the election at whatever exchange rate we end up at on the night.
Senator, you're no Mert Arkan.
The VP debate? You're relying on Mike Pence to drag you over the line? The man that Trump didn't even want to pick? God.
VP debates have about as much impact on elections as the phases of the moon. Short of one of the candidates shooting themselves in the face, the seventeen people who watch it will have forgotten it by the next day. The next time Trump opens his mouth and grabs back the news cycle, that'll be it for that.
The disadvantage Trump has is that he can't avoid being in the news now. Every week that Clinton dominates the news cycle, Trump's numbers improve. Every week he gets the headlines, his numbers drop.
His ideal election run-in would be absolutely no news headlines whatsoever. But with two debates to go, that's a big ask.
Cope harder cuck.
Naw it'll be closer towards the election. Give me odds.
Bottle job.
Give you odds? I'm not a fucking bookmaker.
Considering you've been harping on about Trump winning four months, I'd have thought you'd have taken this up easily, it's $50, nothing more or less.
Unless you're not confident that you 'know' America and in fact you think Trump will lose.
I want you to pay the maximum amount possible for your desperate delusions. Give me odds pussy.
His odds are 1/1.
As Kiko says, 1/1.
It's quite hilarious you calling me a pussy when you won't accept a simple $50 bet. It's almost like you're worried Trump won't win.
Besides, don't you have a job worth $180k guaranteed? This sort of bet should mean nothing to you.
Trump's slid in polls taken since yesterday.
We both know VP debates are a diversion. If Trump's going to beat Clinton, he's going to have to do it himself.
Pathetic from mert here.
If he won't take Byron's 1/1 odds, at least post some proof of taking the bookies 7/4.
Reply With Quote
