-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Donald Trump and the aftermath of his presidency
- Thread starter backontrack
- Start date
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Oh dear. That may or may not be the case.... but how can I put this gently?
Those who throw stones should, perhaps, not inhabit a glass greenhouse.
AlterEgo
Veteran Member
So you're not sure if the data provided by that pro-Brexit newspaper is correct?
I haven't read it, which is why I said it may or may not be the case.
Generally speaking, the only fact I take for granted in a newspaper is the date. And one of them got that wrong many years ago.
AlterEgo
Veteran Member
I haven't read it, which is why I said it may or may not be the case.
Generally speaking, the only fact I take for granted in a newspaper is the date. And one of them got that wrong many years ago.
So what data *would* you accept as illustrating the fact that, in general, there was a correlation between education level and referendum voting intention?
None because it won't agree with their view?
I'd refer you back to my post number 209.
Now, as I've already said, thank you for the opportunity to respond further, but I've made my point and will now leave it at that.
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
I think it's fairly obvious that the number of people who are motivated to sign petitions is only a subset of the population, so claims about the number of people who haven't signed any one petition are fairly meaningless. It's almost always going to be reasonable to assume that the number of people who have actually signed any parliament.uk petition is a small fraction of the numbers who would agree with the petition.
Perhaps those who think that Trump should be invited to the UK, should meet the Queen, should be given the honour of a state visit, with all the consequent photo-opportunities that he will undoubtedly use as publicity for himself back in the USA, would do better to explain why they think he should be given that, rather than keep trying to snipe at the numbers who have signed the petition?
Perhaps those who think that Trump should be invited to the UK, should meet the Queen, should be given the honour of a state visit, with all the consequent photo-opportunities that he will undoubtedly use as publicity for himself back in the USA, would do better to explain why they think he should be given that, rather than keep trying to snipe at the numbers who have signed the petition?
AlterEgo
Veteran Member
I'd refer you back to my post number 209.
Now, as I've already said, thank you for the opportunity to respond further, but I've made my point and will now leave it at that.
So, essentially, you're miffed that people keep referring to the standards of education of voters and the way they voted in the EU referendum. I suspect you think that this implies that Leave voters are somehow "stupid".
All sources I have seen, regardless of perceived bias, point to a clear correlation between the two.
Note that "highest educational level attained" does not "equal "stupid"; there are many correlations you can draw about that statistic, not least the undercutting of casual or low-paid labour from the overseas labour market which would disproportionately concern that demographic.
AlterEgo
Veteran Member
I don't think Trump should have a state visit. I am very reticent for us to be seen to suck up to him. If it was my decision, he would not be coming for a state visit.
Nonetheless, just because I don't agree with it doesn't mean I am strongly opposed enough to protest. (I don't count the facile 30-second signing of a Parliamentary petition about a matter which doesn't concern Parliament any form of protest, btw)
At present, Trump concerns me greatly. But he's also the elected President and we should respect that when he does visit, even if we all have to hold our noses.
If you want to go and chain yourself to the railings, or protest in any other meaningful or disruptive way, then do so. I would not oppose that or complain about it in the slightest.
The way I would see that is the more people who benefit the better the plan is for progress, so yes you can argue people benefit from building a casino but it's a small proportion of people who benefit compared to those who would benefit from a hospital.
Tim R-T-C
Established Member
- Joined
- 23 May 2011
- Messages
- 2,143
I hope that people will protest by simply not showing up.
If 200,000 people show up - protest or not, Trump can spin that and convince himself that it shows he is doing the 'right thing'.
If the streets are deserted when he visits, then it will show what people really think of him and provide some more excellent photographs for him to lie his way out of.
If 200,000 people show up - protest or not, Trump can spin that and convince himself that it shows he is doing the 'right thing'.
If the streets are deserted when he visits, then it will show what people really think of him and provide some more excellent photographs for him to lie his way out of.
Well I never thought I would agree with Caroline Lucas but I totally agree with what she has said in an interview with the Beeb News. Mrs May is so scared of being without any friends post Brexit that she is willing to do anything to be friends with the Trump administration. I wouldn't be surprised if David Cameron was sobbing into a cushion on his sofa watching this all unfold.
AlterEgo
Veteran Member
He probably is, and I'm imagining it's a really nice cushion in a villa on the Algarve.
Starbucks are to offer jobs to 10,000 refugees worldwide, in response to Drump's catastrophic immigration policy.
Nice to see that some people on this planet are still compassionate.
BBC news source
Nice to see that some people on this planet are still compassionate.
Tim R-T-C
Established Member
- Joined
- 23 May 2011
- Messages
- 2,143
Unsurprising that Trump has remained silent on the "Terrorist" attack in Quebec at the weekend. Given that it appears to be a deliberate hate crime attack against Muslims, it goes against everything he preaches about Islam being the cause of terror attacks and the most danger to Americans:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/quebec-...slims-justin-trudeau-donald-trump-no-comment/
Yet more random executive orders, this time requiring officials to repeal two regulations for every new one they bring in. Largely aimed at businesses and likely to mean that consumer rights and environmental protection laws will be sacrificed.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-executive-order-regulations/
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/quebec-...slims-justin-trudeau-donald-trump-no-comment/
Yet more random executive orders, this time requiring officials to repeal two regulations for every new one they bring in. Largely aimed at businesses and likely to mean that consumer rights and environmental protection laws will be sacrificed.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-executive-order-regulations/
"It was the biggliest most well attended state visit ever. Her Majesty the Queen told me so herself, she said "I've never seen such a big crowd". All these fake news outlets saying nobody was there. SAD!"
What an absurd law. I have to agree with your assessment that this will only seek to harm the average American to the benefit of the richest in society. Exactly what one would expect from a Drumpf presidency.
Surely a more rational approach would be to consider each regulation on its own merit? But that would presumably require him to do some work.
AlterEgo
Veteran Member
Ah... Starbucks. The company which pays millions in UK corporation tax and gives jobs to the homeless who sleep outside its stores.
Keep it all coming, I've not laughed so much since Del Boy fell behind the bar.
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
I am sure that David Cameron will not be bothered one jot by this matter, having divested himself of matters political and would be more likely to be working on his new role as President of the charity, Alzheimers Research UK.
WelshBluebird
Established Member
- Joined
- 14 Jan 2010
- Messages
- 4,923
I despair every time I hear someone complain about regulations or "red tape".
Sure sometimes the complaint is valid, but do these people not realise that most of this "red tape" is generally there for the benefit of the public? Things like health and safety legislation to prevent workplace accidents, things like food regulations to try to prevent food unfit for human consumption entering the foodchain etc. These regulations are good. It is just sad that a large portion of the general public have been hoodwinked by big business and the right wing media media (who want to get rid of the regulations to make even larger profits).
Last edited:
Hornet
Member
- Joined
- 16 Jul 2013
- Messages
- 724
Apt, seeing as he has a tendency to forget where he left his daughter.
EM2
Established Member
It pays tax now after pressure built on them to do so. Between 2009-2012, Starbucks had reported no profit, and paid no income tax, on sales of 1.2 billion pounds in the UK (source: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-starbucks-tax-idUSBRE89E0EX20121015)
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Some are, some aren't.
For example, the proposals to force the normal minimum wage to be paid to those working in the "gig economy" (Deliveroo etc) are in my view bad. They prevent innovation in terms of the ways people can work. Rather than do this, there is a need to accept that "per hour" is not the only sensible way to pay people to work, and to research and develop new ways of ensuring such people are paid a proper amount of money for the work they do.
I would actually much rather be paid for results than flatly per hour. That would go both ways - hard work = more money, but also would mean, subject to deadlines, more control over what hours I put in and when.
Ah... Starbucks. The company which pays millions in UK corporation tax and gives jobs to the homeless who sleep outside its stores.
Keep it all coming, I've not laughed so much since Del Boy fell behind the bar.
Does it not occur to you that some people can see things in a non-binary way? For example, Starbucks has done a lot of bad things (which you have brought up), but I can recognise that this is a good thing.
To take an example: I strongly dislike and usually disagree with Piers Morgan, but I have to say that his recent comment piece in the Daily Mail regarding Drumpf's immigration policy was relatively well thought through and that I agree with a lot of what he says here. That doesn't change the fact that he's written and said some utterly repulsive things in the past, and I have no doubt that he still holds that view.
I'd suggest that you're looking upon this in a simplistic manner, but then again you'll probably just accuse me of insulting your massive intellect. Reminds me of someone...
Does it not occur to you that some people can see things in a non-binary way? For example, Starbucks has done a lot of bad things (which you have brought up), but I can recognise that this is a good thing.
To take an example: I strongly dislike and usually disagree with Piers Morgan, but I have to say that his recent comment piece in the Daily Mail regarding Drumpf's immigration policy was relatively well thought through and that I agree with a lot of what he says here. That doesn't change the fact that he's written and said some utterly repulsive things in the past, and I have no doubt that he still holds that view.
I'd suggest that you're looking upon this in a simplistic manner, but then again you'll probably just accuse me of insulting your massive intellect. Reminds me of someone...
Ah, that usual trick.... ignore a substantive point and twist someone's words to suit your own agenda.
I'm just a thick, Brexit-voting northerner.
Typical liberal. Keep it up...
Last edited:
WelshBluebird
Established Member
- Joined
- 14 Jan 2010
- Messages
- 4,923
I should have specified that I meant good for the people they are aimed to protect.
Regarding the minimum wage ruling specifically, the problem is work hard doesn't equals more money. Especially with things like deliveroo you are reliant on there being the orders there and you being selected (not sure but assuming it works like Uber where it selects a driver based on whatever is coded in the app). You can work your backside off but if the orders are not there, or they are all not well paid (again, assuming it works like uber does where some things will give you more money than others) then you will not make enough money. The way I see it, the "gig economy" is nothing more than a way for big business to get out of paying decent wages - it is pretty much like "self employment" scam some companies try to pull off in an attempt to avoid the responsibilities of having employees.
Last edited:
EM2
Established Member
So if you work Deliveroo (as your example) how do you 'work hard' if they don't give you any deliveries to make? All the time that you are available for work, you should be paid. If they can't find work for you to do, that is their problem.