Donald trump. what is your take on him?

Then you have Hezbollah, a Lebanese militia fighting against the illegal occupations and invasions of Lebanon by Israel. It wouldn't exist if Israel wasn't belligerent and an invading force [...]

Click to expand...

Well... the use of words like 'illegal', belligerent' and 'invading' in this sentence are almost carelessly patched together. It's never a smart idea to start history with a random date as it inevitably leads to simplified views.

We have to consider terrorism and the role/activities of the PLO back then, the political situation in Lebanon (civil war) at the time and the role of Syria in it, the talks between Israel and the US, as well as the high tension stemming from the Six Day War (speaking of 'illegal'), further back the war in 1948, Balfour etc etc etc etc. Well, we could just as easily point to the failed British politics of appeasement... ... Add to that the political and religious fundamentalist thinking of certain groups of people on both sides and here we are.
+

Anyway, back to topic:
"The establishment protected itself, but not the citizens of our country [...] there was little to celebrate for struggling families all across our land [...] for too many of our citizens, a different reality exists [...]"

This is in a nutshell, I think, why Trump won and it also points to the people who, I project, will be disappointed most by him. But as I said already I am hoping for unexpected surprises to come along.

Back on topic.

I am mystified why women in countries other than America are protesting against Trump.

What possible influence can he have over women in other countries?  Other countries have their own laws and rights.

I can see a remote possibility he might meddle in gay rights or abortion programs  (but I don't think he will have time truthfully).

But this seems a vast overreaction to me, its not like he has issued a decree saying all women must revert to stockings and suspenders :

DaveP

Script said:

Well... the use of words like 'illegal', belligerent' and 'invading' in this sentence are almost carelessly patched together. It's never a smart idea to start history with a random date as it inevitably leads to simplified views.

We have to consider terrorism and the role/activities of the PLO back then, the political situation in Lebanon (civil war) at the time and the role of Syria in it, the talks between Israel and the US, as well as the high tension stemming from the Six Day War (speaking of 'illegal'), further back the war in 1948, Balfour etc etc etc etc. Well, we could just as easily point to the failed British politics of appeasement... ... Add to that the political and religious fundamentalist thinking of certain groups of people on both sides and here we are.
+

Click to expand...

I fail to see your point. Balfour, the creation of Israel, and the six day war are irrelevant. All of those are Sunni problems. As a Shia militia, Hezbollah has an entirely different timeline and history, and it all started with Israel's 18-year occupation of south Lebanon.

And there's no point in whitewashing Israel's trampling of Lebanese sovereignty. Did they honestly expect nobody to organise themselves and fight back?

Ehud Barak: "They were not there when we entered Lebanon 20 years ago. And Hamas was not there when we took over the Judean Samarian. They were created as a result of our staying."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2006/07/26/barak-israel-presence-in-lebanon-produced-hezbollah.html

Banzai said:

Ehud Barak: "They were not there when we entered Lebanon 20 years ago. And Hamas was not there when we took over the Judean Samarian. They were created as a result of our staying."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2006/07/26/barak-israel-presence-in-lebanon-produced-hezbollah.html

Click to expand...

The official record is sometimes painfully obvious to witness.....

DaveP said:

Back on topic.

I am mystified why women in countries other than America are protesting against Trump.

What possible influence can he have over women in other countries?  Other countries have their own laws and rights.

Click to expand...

Yes, but it's possible that one reason is the fear that Trump's reactionary views on women might spread to other nations. Again, we're talking about a man that bragged about what, if true, essentially amounts to sexual assault at worst, and clearly abusing one's power at best.... a man who then argued that he couldn't possibly have assaulted some of his accusers because just look at them... who has called women nasty.... ran a beauty pageant.... etc. This coupled with his views on some minorities gives a clear hint of his personality. That's the "leader of the free world" for you.

Secondly, solidarity. I know it's a very "leftist" kind'a thing, but it sort of works.

Ehud Barak: "They were not there when we entered Lebanon 20 years ago. And Hamas was not there when we took over the Judean Samarian. They were created as a result of our staying."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2006/07/26/barak-israel-presence-in-lebanon-produced-hezbollah.html

Click to expand...

The context was the Lebanese civil war and from the same interview:-

"Basically, I ordered the eventual pull-out from the last square inch of Lebanon after a tragedy that stretched over 18 years and cost us the lives of thousands of Israelis without ever protecting the northern border against Katyusha"s.

So they went in because of the Katyusha's on the northern border.  "And the sudden pressure, diplomatic hopefully will suffice, on Syria to stop transporting the rockets into the Lebanese area and to Hezbollah".

From the same interview:-
"Does this prove once and for all that land for peace can never work with an enemy that is sworn to the destruction of the State of Israel? Does that prove that that to be a fallacy?

BARAK: I'm confident that we cannot seriously negotiate with Hezbollah or Hamas. They are exactly like Al Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden. You cannot negotiate with them. We cannot negotiate with them, because those guys are getting orders from heaven and the orders are to destroy you. So you cannot negotiate anything".

Hopefully this restores some context to the simple extraction of a sentence from an interview.

DaveP

DaveP said:

Obama gave weapons to rebels in Syria (some were stolen by hostile groups) as he hoped to unseat Assad, are you saying he was wrong to do that? 

Click to expand...

The last time such a scheme worked out nice was WW2 (although one could say it was kindling for the Cold War).
Ever since, the adage "the enemies of my enemies are my friends" has resulted in disasters, because the countries who help rebels have consistently failed to understand the (more or less) hidden agenda of rebels.

I agree, it is a policy that rarely works, better to let nature take it's course, as in fall of Berlin Wall.

DaveP

Was thinking earlier how nice it is that TPP is dead/undead. The trade promotion authority (fast track) dies with the end of this congress. Obama wasn't able to pass it in the lame duck with a bunch of turncoats. The corporations lost BIG on this one, and since Hill's loss is an object lesson, the bootlicks in congress will be scared to try that sh*t again for a good long while.

What's the distinction between men protesting in other countries and women doing it, DaveP? Why do you feel that women need a special reason?

What's the distinction between men protesting in other countries and women doing it, DaveP? Why do you feel that women need a special reason?

Click to expand...

I don't honestly understand your question.  Women have as much right to protest as men.  Apart from the solidarity issue, I don't see why women in other countries feel threatened by Trump, his style does not travel well.

When I look at the enormity of the problems Trump faces, I just don't see how he can afford to get distracted by something non-productive like removing women's rights.  Therefore I see the protests as an over reaction and a denial of reality.  Sky news played a clip of a women screaming Noooooh at the moment Trump became president at the inauguration (sorry can't find link now).  It was the kind of reaction that you would reserve for the moment you are told that your wife and kids have all been killed in a car crash.  To be fair, when they tried to talk to her afterwards she was a bit incoherent so she might have had mental health issues, she said "Sorry this is not America", that was all I could make out.

DaveP

You say that women have just as much right to protest as men, but unlike men they have no reason to?

Maybe in the US, but you will know that better than me.

But not in the other countries, because Trump has no sway there.

This is the third time I have explained, I suspect you are just playing games, which I don't have time for.

DaveP

I would like to offer this to our American cousins as a way for all the sides in this difficult time to come together over something.

There is little perfection in this life and very few real stars, maybe this is as close as we can get:-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rd8VktT8xY

I guess you have to be dying to understand what really matters, the words seem strangely pertinent to both sides.

DaveP

I am not playing any games, DaveP. You're making a distinction between men protesting Trump, and women protesting Trump.

I'd like you to explain why women in other countries have 'no reason' to protest his election, but men in other countries apparently have a reason.  You seem to be saying that because women are women, they can't protest Trump for the very same reasons that men do, while men can.

Seems like a double standard to me, DaveP. Doesn't it seem that way to you?

OK one last time,

(I am presuming you followed my first post on this subject where I was mystified at the scale of the demonstration).

I'd like you to explain why women in other countries have 'no reason' to protest his election, but men in other countries apparently do.

Click to expand...

The fact is, that the vast majority of the protesters were women, there was no separate men's demonstration, so your question makes no sense to me.  Why don't you try putting a bit more effort into to your question specifically?  Might save us both some time.

Women's rights are possibly more advanced and protected in Europe than in parts of the US, so it is near impossible for those to be affected by anything Trump may do or say.  Therefore my only conclusion can  be that one offered by Matt, in that it is an act of solidarity with sisters in the US.

If you think I'm missing something here, I'm all ears.

DaveP

I edited while you were responding..

"I'd like you to explain why women in other countries have 'no reason' to protest his election, but men in other countries apparently have a reason.  You seem to be saying that because women are women, they can't protest Trump for the very same reasons that men do, while men can."

Why can't women protest Trump's election for the same exact reasons that men do, in your view?

Why do they need additional 'reasons', specific to their gender, in your view?

You have got the wrong end of the stick,  I never differentiated between men and women's rights, they are and must be equal in my view.

It is obvious that women can protest for the same reasons that men can, what is not so obvious is why they would want to as a collective sex in countries that are not under US law:  Other than solidarity.

I hope that is clear enough

DaveP

Other than solidarity.

Click to expand...

Ain't that alone a pretty good reason?

I'm a positive guy, so I think you can come up with another one.

DaveP said:

It is obvious that women can protest for the same reasons that men can, what is not so obvious is why they would want to as a collective sex in countries that are not under US law:  Other than solidarity.

I hope that is clear enough

Click to expand...

OK, then..

Is it possible that women want to protest Trump's election for the exact same reasons that men want to, in your view?

Is it possible that women want to protest Trump's election for the exact same reasons that men want to, in your view?

Click to expand...

It is, can we get to your trap now?

DaveP