Trump's response to Meryl Streep's speech....

[blackbike]

Liberal is a compliment.IMHO. Long live Liberal.

It would be a compliment if it wasn't nearly always a self-description by left leaning types who are anything but liberal.

Unfortunately most of them are intolerant, illiberal and censorious, forever calling for more government, a bigger state and new laws and bans to restrict our liberty. They also use their beloved and bossy rules of political correctness to attempt to restrict free speech for everyone else.

They often describe themselves as progressive too, presumably because they want to progress to a time when we all obey them without question.

Brexit and the election of President Trump have been severe setbacks to these people, and they can barely believe or understand how the rest of us have been allowed to defy them and their allegedly enlightened plans for how things should be.

[PDQ Mobile]

Meic,
I am not sure if all Republicans are fully illiberal.
There are a fair few Democrats that look pretty right wing come to that.
It's not that simple.

I am worried that Trump is perceived as anti-establishment. But I, for one, am not convinced.
He has made a good deal of that kind of sentiment during his campaign and a disillusioned proportion of the USA electorate bought it hook, line and sinker.

For my money the real establishments ((any established politico can be removed at he next election so by definition not established)) are the Multinational Corporation, Media Moguls and the Bankers. Powerful stuff.
I believe it was Aaron Banks who said on Question Time "forget democracy this is the age of Multinationalism"!

Now Trump is exactly that. A representative of and lackey to big business. Just look at his appointments.

A big business mogul and a well known media personality to boot.
He only cares about money; very little else IMV.
And he may not be as rich as you suggest after all his debts are counted up!
He has a "good" line in bluster and little more so far.

Although I am not aware of the "Milliband bacon butties" incident I can imagine the drift.

The telling of a deliberate lie or misinformation to one's supporters as an end to instill fear and hence loyalty to their protector is different though and deserves full and proper scrutiny.

[PDQ Mobile]

Liberal is a compliment.IMHO. Long live Liberal.

I dangled it over the edge of the parapet and low and behold...

[Vorpal]

The word 'liberal' has been thrown around rather loosely, and has come to mean anything the user wants.

defintion of liberal https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/liberal

1 Willing to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas.
‘liberal views towards divorce’

1.1 Favourable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms.
‘liberal citizenship laws’
1.2 (in a political context) favouring individual liberty, free trade, and moderate political and social reform.
‘a liberal democratic state’
1.3 Relating to Liberals or a Liberal Party, especially (in the UK) relating to the Liberal Democrat party.
‘the Liberal leader’
1.4 Regarding many traditional beliefs as dispensable, invalidated by modern thought, or liable to change.

definition of conservative https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/defin ... nservative

1 Averse to change or innovation and holding traditional values.
‘they were very conservative in their outlook’

1.1 (of dress or taste) sober and conventional.
‘a conservative suit’

2(in a political context) favouring free enterprise, private ownership, and socially conservative ideas.

2.1 Relating to the Conservative Party of Great Britain or a similar party elsewhere.
‘the Conservative government’

[meic]

There was a time when being a liberal was a bit of a challenge and something to aspire to

Willing to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one's own

that bit got replaced with "willing to respect values in agreement with our own and denounce others who dont share that viewpoint", which made being a liberal, something anybody could claim to be.
But no longer an accolade worth the bother of claiming.

[bovlomov]

The word 'liberal' has been thrown around rather loosely, and has come to mean anything the user wants.

defintion of liberal https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/liberal

1 Willing to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas.
‘liberal views towards divorce’

1.1 Favourable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms.
‘liberal citizenship laws’
1.2 (in a political context) favouring individual liberty, free trade, and moderate political and social reform.
‘a liberal democratic state’
1.3 Relating to Liberals or a Liberal Party, especially (in the UK) relating to the Liberal Democrat party.
‘the Liberal leader’
1.4 Regarding many traditional beliefs as dispensable, invalidated by modern thought, or liable to change.

definition of conservative https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/defin ... nservative

1 Averse to change or innovation and holding traditional values.
‘they were very conservative in their outlook’

1.1 (of dress or taste) sober and conventional.
‘a conservative suit’

2(in a political context) favouring free enterprise, private ownership, and socially conservative ideas.

2.1 Relating to the Conservative Party of Great Britain or a similar party elsewhere.
‘the Conservative government’

And most of those definitions are open to wide interpretation. People favouring individual liberty and free trade can be found on the far right, just as they can be found in the middle. Conservatives governments, during the past few decades, haven't been averse to change and have often rejected traditional values. Social liberals are not necessarily economic liberals, and vice versa.

As I said, these labels require qualification if they are to be any use. At the moment the term 'liberal' is being used by people on the right to divert attention from the fact that everything that they claim is wrong with the global economy is at least as much to do with the right as it is to do with the centre. As the left has barely had a look-in over the past decade, it isn't credible to blame them, so the liberals get it instead. (When I say right, centre and left I refer to tribal groupings rather than political philosophy)

[blackbike]

Just what is going on in Sweden?

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/21/europ ... olm-riots/

[Edwards]

Could the criminals be Russians?

[Vorpal]

Just what is going on in Sweden?

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/21/europ ... olm-riots/

Riots 'erupt' in a neighborhood that has a history of civil unrest, going back 30 years or more. News that has become news outside of Scandinavia only because Donald Trump made a vague statement about 'what's happening in Sweden'.

[Edwards]

Vorpal the Trumpeter is desperate.

[Psamathe]

Just what is going on in Sweden?

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/21/europ ... olm-riots/

From your linked report

The clashes come days after US President Donald Trump suggested that immigrants in Sweden were to blame for an increase in crime across the country.

So Trump was referring to an event that had not yet happened! Spooky.

But if you've ever lived in France, such events are run-of the mill. when I lived in France I believe there was an average of one car "torched" every 13 mins. When the government tried introduce an optional alternative employment contract with slightly less security (though still far greater security than any employment in the UK) riots started, cars were torched, etc. nothing to do with immigration. Just picking what looks from your linked report as a pretty minor incident related to the arrest of a criminal that just happened to be in an area with higher than average immigrant residents is beyond stupid. But certainly our sympathies should go out to the Police Officer who suffered a bruised arm (and to his family).

It does not even say it was immigrants doing the rioting, best it could come up with is "largely immigrant area" - and life back to normal with less than a couple of hours.

Ian

[Psamathe]

can anybody trust what he says in future. And is that really acceptable with almost 4 years still to go.

Of course dont trust him.
Are you saying that you trusted Thatcher, Blair, Brown, Cameron or May?
Did you trust Raygun, Bush, Clinton, Bush or Obama?

If it isnt acceptable what then, do we invade the most powerful military in the world and depose their elected leader because he doesnt have the approval of the establishment?

Then there are "lies" as in references to events in Sweden or say Jack Straw's famous "Iraq is twice the size of France", which are not material "lies" directly pertinent to the issue. Compared to proper lies like WMD's in 45 minutes, which were not only deliberate but the main basis of invading another country.
Blair had a history too long to mention of other more petty lies like this prior to that but they never really got any air time.

I feel that whilst other politicians certainly have lied in big big ways (e.g. Blair, Bush), they have made significant efforts to hide their lies, made some effort to make their lies credible and not "overused" their lying. Trump seems to feel he can just make up anything whenever he wants, that his lies should not be subject to question or scrutiny but that we should just believe him because he is President/Trump (bit like Papal infallibility). That he does it all the time, not even trying to be credible.

Whilst the lies are a serious issue, what is more amazing is that there are so many and so easy to establish as lies and that he considers his lies should be above question. To me that suggests some pretty serious character flaws and also significant questions over the basis for his policy. Is his administration bothering to establish any fact before making policy or are they just basing it on "what the saw on TV last night" and the output from more extreme alt-right web sites their mates run (with significant fictional content).

Ian

[reohn2]

Just what is going on in Sweden?

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/21/europ ... olm-riots/

From your liked report

The clashes come days after US President Donald Trump suggested that immigrants in Sweden were to blame for an increase in crime across the country.

So Trump was referring to an event that had not yet happened! Spooky.

But if you've ever lived in France, such events are run-of the mill. when I lived in France I believe there was an average of one car "torched" every 13 mins. When the government tried introduce an optional alternative employment contract with slightly less security (though still far greater security than any employment in the UK) riots started, cars were torched, etc. nothing to do with immigration. Just picking what looks from your linked report as a pretty minor incident related to the arrest of a criminal that just happened to be in an area with higher than average immigrant residents is beyond stupid. But certainly our sympathies should go out to the Police Officer who suffered a bruised arm (and to his family).

It does not even say it was immigrants doing the rioting, best it could come up with is "largely immigrant area" - and life back to normal with less than a couple of hours.

Ian

Contrast it with the riots in the US in response to indiscriminate shooting of African Americans by the police,one of which was videoed by a victim's partner who was sat in the passenger seat when he was shot without any reason whatsoever.
Was anyone brought to justice for those shootings?

EDITED to add

[meic]

The old politicians were knocking out the low level falsehoods on a regular basis, though with a bit more finesse and a LOT less scrutiny.
Blair lied to parliament after a spat with Greenpeace, claiming they were misconceived about use of illegal timber. Despite clear photographic and documentary evidence that this happening, we couldnt get any press to publicise it. This was before Iraq exposed his tendencies to a wider public
Of course if you base your world view on what the papers tell you, you just will not know that the press are being very selective about who they "out". It is only when you have direct experience of the porkies that you know.

[Psamathe]

The old politicians were knocking out the low level falsehoods on a regular basis, though with a bit more finesse and a LOT less scrutiny.
Blair lied to parliament after a spat with Greenpeace, claiming they were misconceived about use of illegal timber. Despite clear photographic and documentary evidence that this happening, we couldnt get any press to publicise it. This was before Iraq exposed his tendencies to a wider public
Of course if you base your world view on what the papers tell you, you just will not know that the press are being very selective about who they "out". It is only when you have direct experience of the porkies that you know.

But with Trump it seems to be pretty well every time he opens his mouth. And he seems surprised he is subject to any scrutiny. And when his claims are yet again found to be lies (within minutes) he just starts attacking the press.

I don't say you are wrong about out other politicians but it does seem to me that Trump seems either totally detached from reality or has no basis for his policy so has to just make stuff up to support it. I do think he seems to be operating on a very different level from politicians lying about incidents (actually rather broader than just politicians).

Ian