192
   

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

 
 
izzythepush
 
  0  
Sun 2 Jun, 2019 04:32 am
Quote:
Two bands who have called for members of the Conservative Party to be killed are to perform at Glastonbury Festival 2019.

One of Killdren's best known songs is called Kill Tory Scum while Fat White Family have called for violence against Conservatives on social media.

The Jo Cox Foundation said the language was "completely abhorrent".

"We're seeing a legitimising and normalising of harmful words and actions," it said.

Killdren, who are a "two-bit rave punk band" and claim to form the "ideal soundtrack to the worst generation in history", will play at Glastonbury's Shangri-Hell International TV stage on Friday 28 June.

Their lyrics include: "Even if it's your dad or your mum, kill Tory scum, kill Tory scum...murder them all to the beat of a drum, kill Tory scum, kill Tory scum."

The band also played a graphic set at Boomtown Fair 2018, in which they kicked, punched, and spat at a man dressed in a suit, while wearing Kill Tory Scum clothing.

The Glastonbury story was first reported by the Sunday Times. When asked about the song, the band told the paper: "The piece would not exist if the destructive and violent policies of the Tory party hadn't taken such a devastating toll on the UK."

The band's YouTube page claims the song is "satirical discourse".

Also due to perform at festival is Fat White Family, who previously played at Glastonbury's Park stage in 2015.

Its song topics include abusive relationships, serial killers and addiction to class A drugs.

In a 2015 tweet, the punk rock band, from south-east London, said anyone who voted Tory had "blood" on their hands, and called for them to be executed.

A year earlier, they said Tories should be hanged.

Catherine Anderson, chief executive of the Jo Cox Foundation, said the language was "completely abhorrent".

Jo Cox MP was killed by a right-wing extremist in 2016, days before the Brexit referendum.

Ms Anderson told the BBC: "The direct incitement of violence and abuse, on any platform and in any sector, is wrong and something that we absolutely reject.

"We're seeing a legitimising and normalising of harmful words and actions, and this is leading to a decay in our shared language and ultimately our values, and that concerns us very much.

"We cannot but think of what happened to Jo, after whose murder we believed things would improve; instead, things have got a lot worse."

The BBC has contacted Glastonbury for its response.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48488732

Pretty catchy tune.



Free speech!
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Sun 2 Jun, 2019 05:42 am
Quote:
SEOUL (Reuters) - The Pentagon has told the White House that the U.S. military will not be politicized, a U.S. official said on Sunday, amid a controversy after officials directed the United States Navy to keep the USS John S. McCain out of sight during a recent speech by President Donald Trump in Japan.
[...]
“Secretary (Patrick) Shanahan directed his chief of staff to speak with the White House military office and reaffirm his mandate that the Department of Defense will not be politicized,” Lieutenant Colonel Joe Buccino, a Pentagon spokesman, said in a statement.

“The chief of staff reported that he did reinforce this message,” Buccino said.
... ... ...
reuters
izzythepush
 
  0  
Sun 2 Jun, 2019 06:46 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Like you I posted the above on the wrong thread, never mind.
0 Replies
 
revelette1
 
  2  
Sun 2 Jun, 2019 08:17 am
Quote:
President Trump has unveiled another anti-immigration policy that seems likely to be just as ineffective as all his previous anti-immigration policies.

Trump announced on Twitter Thursday night that he will impose new 5 percent tariffs on all goods imported from Mexico — and then keep raising those tariffs until that country somehow squelches the flow of undocumented immigrants to the United States.

It's another dramatic act by a president who loves drama — and it will produce plenty of criticism from people who already hate the president's trade and immigration policies. But perhaps the most important point is that this move probably won't work. Here are three reasons new tariffs are unlikely to stop — or even slow — northward migration, or accomplish much except to raise the level of misery in both Mexico and the United States.

1. Tariffs will increase the pain abroad. Trump's new policy seems likely to exacerbate the problems that are producing migration in the first place. There are many reasons people around the world flee their countries and head to the United States, but economics is a big one: It's easier to make money here than in their home countries.

Under those circumstances, Trump's tariffs make zero sense. The president's idea is that the policy will work by creating pain in the Mexican economy, forcing that country's officials to act more aggressively to end migration into the U.S. That pain will take the form of reduced profits and — it seems likely — smaller workforces at Mexican companies.

What will Mexican workers do when they lose their jobs? Probably the same thing as their compatriots from across Latin America: head north. Trump's new plan might actually increase the number of migrants seeking work in the United States.

2. Tariffs will increase the pain at home. Economists never tire of pointing out — and the president just as steadfastly seems determined to misunderstand — that tariffs on imports to the United States aren't really paid by those companies or their home countries. Those higher costs are passed on to the American consumers who buy those products. The pain may be unavoidable: Mexico is, after all, one of America's largest trading partners.

This means Americans are about to pay more for their groceries in order to help the president achieve his goal of keeping immigrants out of the country.

It's also likely that Mexico could retaliate with tariffs of its own. The ensuing escalation could produce even more economic pain in the United States. American farmers have already been badly hurt by the first year of the president's trade wars; the president has tried to soften the blow with subsidies to make up for lost business.

So even if the tariffs somehow do manage to reduce immigration, it probably won't be worth the cost to the economy. One good sign: The president's Republican allies in Congress are signalling that they're losing their patience with this approach.

3. Complex problems don't have simple solutions. It's clear that Trump is looking for a silver bullet to end the challenges of migration, but the issue is far too complex to be solved so easily or one-dimensionally. Violence, poverty, and persecution are all factors — and climate change will increasingly be a cause, as well.

To create an effective policy that would reduce migration to the United States, Trump would have to fundamentally change his entire approach to leadership. He would have to care about the hard work of addressing root causes instead of looking for easy one-off solutions that produce more headlines than results. He would have to consider policies that include both carrots and sticks. He would have to be creative.

Trump's apparent approach, instead, is simply to inflict pain and hope it somehow makes the problem go away.

Where immigration is concerned, that approach has been a failure on the president's own terms. The Muslim travel ban was implemented in haphazard fashion. Family separation remains a moral disaster. The border wall is an offense against the Constitution. Still, immigrants keep coming.

There is no reason to believe the president's new policy will be more effective than his previous efforts. But it will cause pain. Trump may not be very good at solving problems, but he's excellent at increasing the amount of unhappiness in the world. That is all his new tariff threat is likely to accomplish.


This Week
snood
 
  1  
Sun 2 Jun, 2019 09:36 am
Don’t believe the hype that Trump and his cronies would welcome impeachment, supposedly because it would improve his position. They are terrified about what it would do to his “brand”.

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/06/trump-campaigns-kayleigh-mcenany-praises-pelosi-for-playing-the-long-game-and-not-beginning-impeachment-proceedings/
Baldimo
 
  0  
Sun 2 Jun, 2019 09:37 am
@revelette1,
You like the article you posted can't see to be honest about the debate between legal and illegal immigration. The very first line of the article tells the lie, so the whole "news" article is invalid. Let me fix it for you:

President Trump has unveiled another anti-illegal immigration policy that seems likely to be just as effective as all his previous anti-illegal immigration policies.

Have you seen the latest our of New Mexico? Several months ago, National Guard troops were stationed at the border there and the New Mexico Gov decided that the problem at the border was "fake news" and a "fake crisis", so she pulled the troops. Now several months later, she is going to the Feds to ask for help with the border crisis in her state...
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Sun 2 Jun, 2019 09:57 am
@coldjoint,
Moonbattery is certainly the appropriate name for that site. It is. Obama is actually pretty accurate in that statement.. Guns are far too availablem too easly, too quickly, as witness the two handguns the Virginia shooter purcheased legally before he went out and killed a doezen people. And semi--auto rifles with bump stocks are in effect machine guns. Obama knows, Trump blows.
Walter Hinteler
 
  3  
Sun 2 Jun, 2019 10:33 am
Quote:
https://i.imgur.com/5phUAEt.jpg


Trump made his remarks about the duchess in a Sun newspaper interview ahead of his state visit to the UK.
"I didn't know that. What can I say? I didn't know that she was nasty."
Already yesterday the Sun posted an audio recording of the interview on its website.

What honestly makes me wonder is
- his interview was with "The Sun", not CNN, NYT etc,
- his denial on Twitter came the day after the interview was published, including the audio.
izzythepush
 
  0  
Sun 2 Jun, 2019 10:36 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Does it need to be said the Sun is owned by Murdoch, same as Fox News. Not quite so supine this side of the Atlantic though.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  0  
Sun 2 Jun, 2019 10:36 am
That kind of bald-faced lie doesn’t even phase his bible thumping hordes a little bit. Strange days.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Sun 2 Jun, 2019 11:01 am
@snood,
Well, I really think how someone can make such a comment more than 24 hours after it is online (even with sound) and in print.

Other media were reporting about this Sun-interview.
And now about the President of the USA's denial of having

Even if he only answered the question in his own way, Trump called Duchess Meghan "nasty", loud and clear - at best unintentionally.
If Trump now claims that the statement was invented, what have we to think about the President of the United States of America?
izzythepush
 
  3  
Sun 2 Jun, 2019 11:27 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Most people wait until they arrive somewhere to **** a visit up, not Trump.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Sun 2 Jun, 2019 11:29 am
@izzythepush,
His ambassador has already paved the way very well.
Quote:
Donald Trump's British envoy has sparked fury with claims that access to the NHS would be "on the table" in post-Brexit trade deal with the US.

Woody Johnson, the US ambassador to the UK, said the "entire economy" would be included in transatlantic negotiations, which could include allowing American private firms to bid for NHS contracts.

In an interview ahead of Mr Trump's state visit, Mr Johnson said the US was already "looking at all the components of the deal and trying to get everything lined up so when the time comes we’re ready to go".

Asked if healthcare would be part of the deal, he told the BBC's Andrew Marr Show: "I think probably the entire economy, in a trade deal all things that are traded will be on the table."
The Independent
0 Replies
 
coldjoint
 
  0  
Sun 2 Jun, 2019 12:49 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Quote:
What honestly makes me wonder is

The coverage Hitler got was never this negative. The press can sure pick 'em. Right?
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Sun 2 Jun, 2019 12:58 pm
@coldjoint,
coldjoint wrote:
The coverage Hitler got was never this negative. The press can sure pick 'em. Right?
I neither lived then nor did I mention that Hitler visited the UK. (Actually, I've never heard such.)
I didn't compare Trump to Hitler either.
coldjoint
 
  0  
Sun 2 Jun, 2019 01:00 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Quote:
I neither lived then nor did I mention that Hitler visited the UK.

Good for you. I never said you did.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  0  
Sun 2 Jun, 2019 04:00 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

I neither lived then nor did I mention that Hitler visited the UK. (Actually, I've never heard such.)


There is a somewhat apocryphal tale about Hitler visiting Liverpool.

Quote:
Of all the stories that are woven into the rich tapestry that is Liverpool’s history, few offer as much debate and intrigue as the link between the city and Adolf Hitler.

The Nazi dictator, who led Germany and virtually the rest of the world into the 20th Century’s most brutal and destructive war, certainly had relatives in Liverpool following the marriage of his half-brother Alois and Bridget Dowling (later Hitler), an Irish woman from Dublin, in 1910.

For many years it has been rumoured that a youthful Adolf Hitler paid them a visit before World War I.

The Hitlers had moved to 102 Upper Stanhope Street in Toxteth soon after their arrival, and there have long since been questions asked over whether the later-reviled tyrant had ever visited the city as a result.

Now, former Liverpool Daily Post and Echo editor Mike Unger hopes to shed some light over Hitler’s links with Liverpool after becoming involved with the story whilst working for the Daily Post in the early 1970s.

By using the memoirs of Bridget Hitler, in which she claims and explains at length that Adolf visited the couple in 1912, Mike has chronicled the story of the youthful would-be dictator arriving on Merseyside far before his rise to power, in a new book: ‘The Hitlers of Liverpool’.

Mike is convinced that Adolf Hitler’s visit to this city took place.


http://jmu-journalism.org.uk/did-hitler-really-visit-liverpool/
0 Replies
 
revelette1
 
  2  
Sun 2 Jun, 2019 04:27 pm
Quote:
Acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney said Sunday that it wasn't "unreasonable" for an administration staffer to ask that the USS John S. McCain be hidden during President Trump's Japan visit last week.

Mulvaney said on NBC's "Meet the Press" that he believes it was a "probably somebody on the advance team" who told the Navy to hide the ship based on the president's feelings toward late Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).

"The president's feelings towards the former senator are well known," Mulvaney said, adding that firing someone over the request "is silly."

"The fact that some 23- or 24-year-old person on the advance team went to that site and said, 'Oh my goodness. There's the John McCain. We all know how the president feels about the former senator. Maybe that's not the best backdrop. Can somebody look into moving it?' That's not an unreasonable thing to ask," Mulvaney said.

The Navy on Saturday confirmed receiving a request to "minimize visibility" of the USS John S. McCain, named for late senator's grandfather.


https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/446526-mulvaney-attempt-to-move-uss-john-mccain-during-trump-visit-not

https://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/3cf3c84ad7d1954987000102281b9968?width=650
John S. McCain III (C) as a young boy with his grandfather Vice Admiral John S. McCain Sr. (1884 — 1945) (L) and father Commander (late admiral) John S. McCain Jr. (1911 — 1981) in family photo from the 1940s. Picture: Terry Ashe/The LIFE Images Collection/GettySource:Getty Images

https://www.news.com.au/finance/work/leaders/tributes-flow-for-john-mccain-after-his-death-from-brain-cancer/news-story/9b3c64a3801b1c8e2db074d7a0b27c95

Way to go. Why couldn't Trump simply have said, I had not directed anyone to hide the USS John McCain nor would I approve of anyone doing it? That would have been the correct response.

It is disrespectful for the man in uniform who it was named after, no matter who it was or if Trump had a beef with his grandson.
RABEL222
 
  2  
Sun 2 Jun, 2019 05:14 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
That he is a lying crook whose religious right have decided to give him godhood before Jesus or Mohammed or any of the present religious gods?
0 Replies
 
coldjoint
 
  1  
Sun 2 Jun, 2019 05:26 pm
@revelette1,
McCain is dead. Russian collusion is dead. Comey, Brennan, Clapper, and hopefully Obama are going to wish they were.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.55 seconds on 07/10/2025 at 03:43:52