Cycling UK Forum

Bonefishblues wrote:I wish him every success, i really do..................

In doing what?

In his new role, what else?

I think Trump is making his personal character very obvious for the entire world to see. I suspect he has always been like that but we are only really seeing it or paying attention to it now given the role he is to take on. To me, I cannot respect somebody with his very apparent character flaws and inability to see things from other people's point of view. So I hold him in the contempt I feel he deserves.

I had not previously seen his imitation of the disabled reporter and that he did it and the response he got from his audience completely warrants Ms Streep's comments. He seems to do this sort of thing rather too often for it to be a "misspeak" (e.g. his comments about groping women inappropriately getting him the nickname "Molester in Chief" (as opposed to "Commander in Chief")).

It is sad and disappointing but nothing we can do about it other than watch, laugh/cry and be on our guard against making similar choices ourselves.

Ian

This is an interesting analysis:

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2017/j ... bes-speech

Cyril Haearn wrote:The UK voting system is similar. At one election labour got more votes but the tories got more seats and all the power.

1951. And the opposite happened in the first 1974 GE: Conservative got more votes but Labour got more seats (though not an overall majority).

Doesn't mean it's all right when this happens though.

I would have hoped that some form of PR could be devised and brought into use, to sort these anomalies out. But when that issue was put to referendum a few years ago, it got a resounding no-no (probably due to the LibDems unpopularity at that time) and I suppose we have to live with that.

Thinking about these 'unfair' results a bit more - there's an analogy with the scoring in a tennis match. Supposing you lose a three-set match 6-0 5-7 5-7. You have actually won 16 games, as against your opponent's 14, but you still lose the match!

PH wrote:

bikepacker wrote: I would have thought many of those millions, probably more knowledgeable about their homeland than any of us, regard his non-political approach as to be giving solutions.

Yet even more of them voted for the evil, conniving, criminal Clinton.

Conniving and criminal yes. Therefore evil? More importantly her belief that she was somehow entitled to lie? That sounds like evil. Even if she had no chance of being a dictator she somehow thought she could behave like one? How do these career politian think they can behave they way they do?

661-Pete wrote:

Cyril Haearn wrote:The UK voting system is similar. At one election labour got more votes but the tories got more seats and all the power.

1951. And the opposite happened in the first 1974 GE: Conservative got more votes but Labour got more seats (though not an overall majority).

Doesn't mean it's all right when this happens though.

I would have hoped that some form of PR could be devised and brought into use, to sort these anomalies out. But when that issue was put to referendum a few years ago, it got a resounding no-no (probably due to the LibDems unpopularity at that time) and I suppose we have to live with that.

Thinking about these 'unfair' results a bit more - there's an analogy with the scoring in a tennis match. Supposing you lose a three-set match 6-0 5-7 5-7. You have actually won 16 games, as against your opponent's 14, but you still lose the match!

A bit like the football or Rugby world cup to name just to examples

It is astonishing just how important film stars think they are. Its not that they shouldn't say what they think, it's using that particular stage to put there views over. I wouldn't mind but they are even more shallow than politians!!

Perhaps if a film star said something that some person wanted to hear, and agreed with, that film star would magically appear to that person to be not 'shallow' after all!

I find the posts removed from this thread intolerable,I suspect in trying to protect me the moderators have in fact protected the author of one of the nastiest posts I've seen,unnecessary in it's vitriol and without a thought as to how it would be received,or maybe not I've no way of knowing.
I feel sorry for Bikepacker and I feel sorry for the way this Teashop thread sank so quickly.

A sad deterioration that I really could do without,and which has lead me have a long think about many things concerning the forum and my place here,a long think is in order.

Boyd wrote:It is astonishing just how important film stars think they are. Its not that they shouldn't say what they think, it's using that particular stage to put there views over. I wouldn't mind but they are even more shallow than politians!!

To write off someone as shallow because they are an actor or a politician FTM,is shallower than the shallowest in either profession.

661-Pete wrote:PerhNoaps if a film star said something that some person wanted to hear, and agreed with, that film star would magically appear to that person to be not 'shallow' after all!

No I can assure you no matter which film star wherever it be John Wayne or Mel Gibson they should keep there views to themselves at certain events.

bikepacker wrote: I would have thought many of those millions, probably more knowledgeable about their homeland than any of us, regard his non-political approach as to be giving solutions.

I'd suggest it's pretty much a given that the best way to appraise any situation or person is from the outside looking in. Like brexit those affected are ruled by emotion rather than facts.
Perhaps the real solution to politics is to have your representatives elected by votes from outside your country...

(Not that I think we're in a good position to judge anything related to Trump but it's good theatre. There are a lot of interesting complications en-route from his 'solutions' which I personally think he just isn't bright enough to deal with and it'll be interesting to see what happens next.)

The position celebrities hold really requires them to speak out against the vile vitriol that trump is spouting.

kwackers wrote:...
(Not that I think we're in a good position to judge anything related to Trump but it's good theatre. There are a lot of interesting complications en-route from his 'solutions' which I personally think he just isn't bright enough to deal with and it'll be interesting to see what happens next.)

I do think it time that the US started losing some if it's "global dominance" and I think that Trump is somebody who will see/cause that loss to happen. My worry is that as he sets off the decline of US dominance, it is the most vulnerable in US society that will feel the impacts worse (you can bet his billionaire mates wont suffer at all).

And the worrying aspect is how other countries (ok, the UK) still seem to be sitting by his side like a little puppy dog desperate for any attention they might be given and convinced the subject of their awe is wholly committed to their wellbeing.

Ian