Monarchy Forum
Register Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 3 of 25      Prev   1   2   3   4   5   6   Next   »
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,037
Reply with quote  #31 
Bannon has turned Breitbart a little unsavory, but it isn't white-nationalist or any of the other hyperbolic nonsense we have been hearing from the Democrats (isn't it time someone got Harry Reid the medication he so obviously needs?) or their camp followers in the media (who seem to have learnt little - people don't put the kind of store into these fake controversies they want them to).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethiomonarchist
 

That is true, but what I was arguing against was not the system as you say, but the blatantly incorrect quote from the article David cited that said that Trump won a majority of the vote, which he clearly did not.  Hillary Clinton earned 61,039,676 votes to Donald Trump's 60,371,193 according to the last numbers from the Associated press.  That's 668,483 votes more.

It does mean a great deal actually since Mr. Trump has been attacking the Electoral College system and has been voicing a preference for the popular vote system for a while.  Even after he has won the presidency he still seems to be saying that his position on the electoral college hasn't changed (although his answer to that question in his big interview on 60 Minutes was not clear). 
Well, it is certainly true Trump was a hypocrite here, but then so are many of the Democrats. They wouldn't be complaining if he had got the popular vote but lost the electoral college, just as they, and the media, would be creating a huge stink if anti-Hillary people were protesting peacefully after she won, let alone smashing things up. Ignoring all this, I think on principle the popular vote is not that important.



Quote:
An intriguing idea, but you are discounting that close to half the electorate failed to vote at all.  The vote among African Americans was much lower than for Obama, and that vote would probably have gone to Hillary.  There were also the many Bernie voters that stayed home but who would probably have voted for Trump only if Hell froze over, and who are now at the forefront of the protests saying he is not their president and demanding that...(not sure what they are demanding really since it's all done now).

This is true, but this is not quite the same method of determining the people's voice. There is a distinction between the preferences of those who voted and those who didn't. After all, does it even make sense to take into account those who didn't turn up to vote? I think this all underscores the fact that what matters in the American system is the electoral college, whatever Democrats or even Trump might say.


Quote:

Kerry is unlikely to stay on as he is philosophically opposite to everything Trump stands for.  Bolton is anti-Moscow which will probably hurt him with Trump who wants to reset his relationship with Russia.  It is increasingly believed that Trump intends on abandoning the rather questionable "moderate" opposition in Syria that Obama and Bush had tried to hard to prop up, and allow Russia a free hand in Syria to save Assad.  I don't think Bolton would be too comfortable with that.  Buchanan is very anti-Israel, and Trump being so warm with Netenyahu, I think that's a no-go.  Senior Advisor Bannon and his friends at Brietbart might have liked that very much, but I don't think Trump will take to that at all.


I don't think Buchanan is anti-Israel. In some neocon and movement conservative circles you are anti-Israel if you think Israel is not always 100% right, or you don't think the US has twin capitals of Washington and Tel Aviv (or Jerusalem these days), to paraphrase Russell Kirk. Buchanan simply believes America must look after her own interest first, and that this interest is not entirely the same Israel's.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,462
Reply with quote  #32 
I don't see what is unsavoury about Breitbart. Both it and Heat Street (founded by former Tory MP Louise Mensch) epitomise the social media revolution breaking the hold on Establishment media.

The whole "white nationalist" and even "anti-Semitic" claims are completely false. It may be that far right provocateurs are possibly serving Establishment interests in working to undermine legitimate opponents of the status quo. There is a long tradition of this being deployed by the political police.

That a "white nationalist" and neo-Nazi movement exists and has gained a voice and constituency is not in doubt. It is regrettable and is to be avoided at all cost, for risk of tainting legitimate causes and movements.

I believe, however, the whole thing has been manufactured by liberal interests intent on preventing certain ethnic and religious groups from embracing more right-wing positions. It is, however, failing badly.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,037
Reply with quote  #33 
The entire support for the anti-Semitism charge seems to be headline for an article written by a Jewish author. The white nationalist charge seems to be a mix of Bannon's support for non-liberal universalist positions and flimsy guilt by association.
Ethiomonarchist

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 5,090
Reply with quote  #34 
The Trump transition team seems to be spinning into a Borgias episode. Reports are that demoted Governor Christie and his people (including Congressman Mike Rogers who quit the team today) are at loggerheads with Trump's very trusted son-in-law Jared Kushner. Christie prosecuted and imprisoned Kushner's father years ago and apparently there is very bad blood there. Trump reportedly soured on Christie when Christie stepped back after the Billy Bush tapes were released and reduced his involvement. It is being reported that transition team members are asking Obama political appointees for the names of Republicans to replace them. This is rapidly becoming a real mess unless someone imposes some order on the process! He is having particular problems finding people to fill National Security posts since he angered so many during the campaign.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-transition-team_us_582b9516e4b0aa8910bd97a5

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-national-security-foreign-policy-communities-2016-11

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/16/us/politics/trump-transition.html

__________________
The Lion of Judah hath prevailed.

Ethiopia stretches her hands unto God (Quote from Psalm 68 which served as the Imperial Motto of the Ethiopian Empire)

"God and history shall remember your judgment." (Quote from Emperor Haile Selassie I's speech to the League of Nations to plead for assistance against the Italian Invasion, 1936.)
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,037
Reply with quote  #35 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidV
Wessexman manages to be pretentious and hyperbolic at the same time, which is an achievement for someone who thinks he's in some kind of mystical spiritual trance while waxing poetic about being some kind of high-minded deep-thinking special enlightened traditional soul. Then again I'd do my best to ignore the person. Ha ha.



I missed this, which is probably good, because I can't make heads nor tails of it. You seem, as often is the case, to have decided to be needlessly personal, in your inimitable, charmless way. That you of all people would claim anyone else was hyperbolic is the height of hypocrisy - you even manage to be hyperbolic in this post!

John Bolton is an arch-neocon. The neocon foreign policy is a disaster of ideologically based over-reach, and we have seen the consequences of this. His appointment by Trump would be a great shame, as one of Trump's real pluses was he seemed more open to a realist foreign policy than much of the GOP.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,462
Reply with quote  #36 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman

I missed this, which is probably good, because I can't make heads nor tails of it. You seem, as often is the case, to have decided to be needlessly personal, in your inimitable, charmless way. That you of all people would claim anyone else was hyperbolic is the height of hypocrisy - you even manage to be hyperbolic in this post!


Inimitable and charmless? You sound like you know me really well don't you? Calling me a hypocrite once more? My whole problem with you is that you decided from the very start to pursue me on whatever posts I make because you think it's your duty to find faults all the time. Truth is, you're nothing but a prick and a very arrogant one at that. You've never even shown the slightest interest in doing anything for whatever causes we've promoted on here because you somehow think you know better. Most of us here are interested in royalty and monarchy, and wish to defend and restore monarchies. What part of that do you not understand? I'd rather ignore you, but that would never be reciprocated by you would it?
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,037
Reply with quote  #37 
I know your persona as far as I have interacted with you, and that is all I can comment on. And, yes, to me personally you have often been nasty and petty and charmless, not to mention paranoid. Hypocrisy is more or less provable. Even in that post you are hyperbolic in accusing me of being hyperbolic. I recall you just recently excoriating another poster in the most over-the-top terms for nothing but holding a different position on the EU. You again and again throw around terms like evil for people who disagree with you.  I am no doubt far from an ideal poster, but I'm far more sinned against than sinning in our exchanges. You are, in fact, a nasty bit of work. 

The stuff about pursuing you and finding faults is just paranoia. You cannot take criticism or differing views. And, no, I will not just ignore your posts if I feel like responding. This isn't your forum. I have never pursued you, no matter how many times you say it, but I will respond if I want. If you don't like it you can either grow up, or start your own blog and police all comments.

I fail to see what you do for the monarchist or conservative causes. I can just see your own brand of paranoia and nastiness is a great rhetorical strategy for monarchists everywhere. I have no idea what point you are trying to make when you point out we here are monarchists. Again, you seem to be blending together your personal views - here, presumably, on Bolton - and the monarchist cause.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,726
Reply with quote  #38 
David's post seemed clear enough to me. O wad some Pow'r the giftie gie us ... but yes, it would be better not to have another round of bickering such as we have seen before. You could have averted the possibility of same by being grown-up enough to ignore the sally, I can assure you that David would not then have returned to the attack, not soon anyway. Since he has already done so in response to you, I suggest that 1) neither of you continue and 2) you satisfy yourself by having a swipe back at me, which I will ignore, and that will be the end of the matter.

Your irrelevant introduction of popular vote v electoral college is what sparked it, Ethiomonarchist mentioned as a relevant datum in context that Trump did not in fact win the popular vote, but had in no way questioned the validity and lawfulness of his election. I would hope that no one does, and like him I am unsure exactly what the anti-Trump protesters are protesting about. It can't be specific policies since he has not yet assumed office, and it can't be about the electoral process since no one is suggesting that anything improper took place (Trump himself suggested in advance that it might, but presumably is quite satisfied now that it didn't). Yes, it is a disgrace to America to have elected such a person to such an office, but publicly protesting the fact seems futile. Wait until he does something.

I never saw any episode of The Borgias, but it seems a bit of an insult to compare the Trump camp to the historical Borgias at least. Pope Alexander VI was a much nicer and more fair-minded person than the President-elect, and a good deal more capable and intelligent than I suspect Trump will prove, though for all our sakes I hope I am wrong about that.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,037
Reply with quote  #39 
Well, I admit that I often will not ignore being personally attacked, but that is not in the same league as constantly to make such unprovoked personal attacks. It is quite okay to object to them. As you objected bitterly to far less than the types of attacks I endure from David, I don't think you should be one to lecture. Indeed, I notice that you decided not to weigh in, in neutral terms, but to have a veiled swipe at me yourself.

O wad some Pow'r the giftie gie us ... - if irony could be bottled!

As David's problem was clearly with criticism of Bolton, you are wrong about what you term, somewhat uncharitably (as if there cannot be legitimate misunderstandings of what is being argued), as the irrelevant bringing up of the issue of electoral college. I obviously did not accuse Ethiomonarchist of questioning the validity of the election.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,462
Reply with quote  #40 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman
I know your persona as far as I have interacted with you, and that is all I can comment on. And, yes, to me personally you have often been nasty and petty and charmless, not to mention paranoid. Hypocrisy is more or less provable. Even in that post you are hyperbolic in accusing me of being hyperbolic. I recall you just recently excoriating another poster in the most over-the-top terms for nothing but holding a different position on the EU. You again and again throw around terms like evil for people who disagree with you.  I am no doubt far from an ideal poster, but I'm far more sinned against than sinning in our exchanges. You are, in fact, a nasty bit of work.


In case you forgot, I actually withdrew my post because I at least admitted it was rather silly. Notice that I'd rather not attack the said poster personally and I regretted it, but I admit I'd never withdraw anything I've said about you because you're rather different and don't regret it. Now you decide to play the victim and think I've sinned against you? How precious of you.

Quote:
The stuff about pursuing you and finding faults is just paranoia. You cannot take criticism or differing views. And, no, I will not just ignore your posts if I feel like responding. This isn't your forum. I have never pursued you, no matter how many times you say it, but I will respond if I want. If you don't like it you can either grow up, or start your own blog and police all comments.


You're telling me to start my own blog? Who on earth do you think you are? I don't even know you and you decide you think you know what's better for me. I've known people on here for a good deal longer.

Quote:
I fail to see what you do for the monarchist or conservative causes. I can just see your own brand of paranoia and nastiness is a great rhetorical strategy for monarchists everywhere. I have no idea what point you are trying to make when you point out we here are monarchists. Again, you seem to be blending together your personal views - here, presumably, on Bolton - and the monarchist cause.


I'm not trying to "blend together views" you scumbag. I am a conservative and you might say a counterrevolutionary - that means a return to whatever form of government exists or existed in a given place. That's not hard to understand for most people. However, whenever I wanted to put forth support for restoring a monarchy, you actually have the audacity to find fault with it because you think you know better about it (you don't) or that I'm acting like some kind of "neocon" (I'm not). I'm not the one who started this crap, you've been on my case quite consistently since you came around. When you act like that, it's hardly surprising someone will bite back.

Then again, you did say you were once tired of arguing, then you crawled from under the rock to start again after some months. Perhaps now you'll regret doing that?
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,462
Reply with quote  #41 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter

I never saw any episode of The Borgias, but it seems a bit of an insult to compare the Trump camp to the historical Borgias at least. Pope Alexander VI was a much nicer and more fair-minded person than the President-elect, and a good deal more capable and intelligent than I suspect Trump will prove, though for all our sakes I hope I am wrong about that.


Ahh yes, as an aside we may have discussed and disagreed on the Borgias in another post - my commentary on Cesare Borgia and his conquest of the Romagna region, specifically. You described the post-feudal aristocratic families of the day as "robber barons" (ha ha!) which alas I'm not all that sure I'd concur with. At least in that Renaissance era, politics was conducted with a certain, ahem, style! Certainly the Renaissance era families in Italy did much for arts and culture, and let's face it, also created a proto-modern state infrastructure - a new sort of aristocracy and monarchy if you will.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,037
Reply with quote  #42 
I will ignore most of your witless ranting. As I said, you are paranoid. I disagreed sometimes with some of your suggestions, and you blew up. I neither pursued you nor criticised everything you said. You simply can't take criticism and are a nasty bit of work. I am the sort of poster who likes to discuss and debate, and no doubt I can appear pretentious (although there I'm not the only one around here who could be accused of that). But I have never done anything to warrant the level of personal abuse you pour out. I don't say that because I particularly care what you think of me. It is just a fact. At worst I'm slightly annoying (actually, I'm quite aware how some might see me, whether rightfully or wrongly), but you are guilty of much worse.

I did not find fault with restoring monarchies. I found fault with, for example, a foreign policy that supported to interference in Iran, because I think there is more than the issue of monarchism at stake in Britain's foreign policy. This is an eminently defensible position for a monarchist, and doesn't represent any sort of lacklustre support for monarchism around the world.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,462
Reply with quote  #43 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman
I will ignore most of your witless ranting. As I said, you are paranoid. I disagreed sometimes with some of your suggestions, and you blew up. I neither pursued you nor criticised everything you said. You simply can't take criticism and are a nasty bit of work.


I only "blew up" because you accused me of being things I'm not, without a shred of evidence to back it up.

Quote:
I am the sort of poster who likes to debate, and no doubt I can appear pretentious (although there I'm not the only one around here who could be accused of that). But I have never done anything to warrant the level of personal abuse you pour out. I don't say that because I particularly care what you think of me. It is just a fact.


Well you are pretentious, which is a rare admission of honesty from you. You even fancy yourself as some kind of superior intellectual, which I find utterly detestable. I don't owe anything to you and don't have to pay heed to anything you say, because you really have nothing to offer me.

Quote:
I did not find fault with restoring monarchies. I found fault with, for example, a foreign policy that tried to interfere in Iran, because I think there is more than the issue of monarchism at stake in Britain's foreign policy. This is an eminently defensible position for a monarchist, and doesn't represent any sort of lacklustre support for monarchism around the world.


I don't actually believe in governments "interfering", other than think tanks and activists funding a cause which is quite something else. But you seem to think there is something wrong with merely defending or restoring a monarchy because you think you alone have a sound basis to argue for such, because you're some kind of high-thinking traditionalist who thinks monarchism needs your oh-so-robust input. And that's why I accuse you of arrogance. Frankly you deserve whatever abuse I've given you and I'll leave it at there. I think I know a good deal more about royalty and monarchy than you do.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,726
Reply with quote  #44 
I will abide by my 2) in #38 above. Now please both of you abide by my 1), as none of this gives any good image of the forum and you have both surely vented enough spleen for now. On Iran, I agree with Wessexman's second paragraph. Certainly we would all like to see Iran's monarchy restored, or in my case renewed since that seems more in accordance with the country's historical tradition, but as he says there are many other issues at stake. In any case the imposition of monarchy from outside would never work, it has to be a native revolution that overthrows the present clerical tyranny if there is to be any hope for Iran's future prosperity and stability.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,462
Reply with quote  #45 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman
The entire support for the anti-Semitism charge seems to be headline for an article written by a Jewish author.


I confess that it's hard not to suspect someone of anti-Semitism when they begin insinuating that there is some kind of Jewish conspiracy or alleging that Jews are a malignant influence in Western society, never mind the usual Holocaust denial stuff. The hilarious thing is that when anti-Semites are pressed to name those who they claim "rule the world", their case falls apart completely because they can't name any, or even outright lie by calling non-Jews "Jews". I don't even bother arguing with such people anyway. It's a waste of time.

Quote:
The white nationalist charge seems to be a mix of Bannon's support for non-liberal universalist positions and flimsy guilt by association.


I guess too that it's because the words "fascist" and "racist" are so overused they have lost all meaning and effectiveness as a weapon.

Now I'm not sure what "non-liberal universalism" means. I reject universalism and relativism outright because I believe in the supremacy of Western and especially British culture, values, traditions and institutions. This by definition is the opposite of universalism and relativism.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.