Should Meat Loaf play at Donald Trump's Inauguration Ceremony?

[loaferman61]

Originally Posted by BostonAngel

Please explain to me how LOSING the popular vote by almost 3 million votes, is winning by a majority????? If you count those that voted against him by voting 3rd party or write-in candidate he LOST by an even greater margin! You sound just like Trump we says he won BIGLY.
When discussing politics, you need to stick to facts, please. And the FACT is that Trump did not win by any type of majority!!!!!! He LOST the popular vote!

http://blogs-images.forbes.com/alexk....jpg?width=960

"If ifs and buts were candies and nuts we'd all have a merry Christmas".

[CarylB]

Originally Posted by Julie in the rv mirror

Now, I thought I would turn this discussion somewhat back towards the original subject of the thread with a real world example. As I think most people know, Bruce Springsteen has spoken out against Trump, and supported Hillary (though not nearly as strongly as he did Obama) during the campaign. It's been reported in the news (somewhat erroneously) that The B Street Band, a Springsteen tribute act, is playing the inauguration, and many Springsteen fans are quite angry, saying that the band should not play, even to the point of calling for a boycott of their future appearances.

Interesting update .. they have pulled out saying " “Our decision is based SOLELY on the respect and gratitude we have for Bruce and the E Street Band.”

[stretch37]

Originally Posted by loaferman61

http://blogs-images.forbes.com/alexk....jpg?width=960

"If ifs and buts were candies and nuts we'd all have a merry Christmas".

It's the widest margin in the history of the USA. Nothing else has ever come that close - Where the electoral college voted for a president with 3 million less votes.

Now the question in my mind is: Did the electoral college just do its job as a "checks and balances system" and elect the person that will best govern the American people despite the popular vote, or did they just take part in the very kind of decision making that the Electoral College was designed to prevent?

History will be the judge of that...

[AndrewG]

Originally Posted by CarylB

Interesting update .. they have pulled out saying " “Our decision is based SOLELY on the respect and gratitude we have for Bruce and the E Street Band.”

So when they can't go after the main artists, liberal fans go after the tribute bands next. Classy.

Originally Posted by stretch37

It's the widest margin in the history of the USA. Nothing else has ever come that close - Where the electoral college voted for a president with 3 million less votes.

Now the question in my mind is: Did the electoral college just do its job as a "checks and balances system" and elect the person that will best govern the American people despite the popular vote, or did they just take part in the very kind of decision making that the Electoral College was designed to prevent?

History will be the judge of that...

History won't give a crap.

[Julie in the rv mirror]

Originally Posted by CarylB

Interesting update .. they have pulled out saying " “Our decision is based SOLELY on the respect and gratitude we have for Bruce and the E Street Band.”

Yep, I came back to this thread to mention this. I think I'm in the minority in saying that I think all of this has been very unfair to the band. I could see some backlash if they accepted a job knowingly and specifically in honor of Trump; I think in that case, they should have respect for Bruce's beliefs. But in this case, they accepted the job before the candidates were even known, much less before they knew who the winner was. The party isn't even for Trump- it's for New Jersey residents who currently reside in D.C.

I do believe it was just business to them. In fact, they played for New Jersey Governor Chris Christie's inauguration as governor, ironically after Christie had asked Bruce to play, and Bruce turned him down because of politics (despite the fact that Christie is a huge Springsteen fan). Nobody made a big deal about it then.

I do feel sorry for the abuse the band members have taken on Facebook, Twitter, and the like, and I also blame the media for inaccurate reporting that lead to much misunderstanding. The band initially said that they would pull out if Bruce asked them to, which as far as anyone knows, he did not (nor did he comment at all on the matter). If I had to guess, he might not have been happy about the situation, but having come up through the same ranks as a working musician, I would think he would understand the "just business" aspect of the situation. Two band members did comment on Twitter and Facebook, and both appeared neutral to supportive. Steve Van Zandt tweeted:

Nice guys. Met them. I wouldn't say right or wrong. Up to them. But it's naive to think one can separate Art and Politics. Art IS Politics.

Regardless of what the tribute band members say, I do think they gave into public pressure, which I understand (they have to make a living), but I think it's sad. They seem rather overwhelmed by the controversy; one of the members stated to Rolling Stone:

Forte agrees. "All this stuff made it clear to us that this event is not worth it," he says. "It's just a job to us. We're just trying to hold up a contract. We're not trying to prove anything. We're just a fun band!

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/ne...-party-w461203

(The article quotes Garry Tallent's tweet, but he later was more supportive on Facebook)

Originally Posted by CarylB

However, they do have some muscle in terms of fair use as opposed to trade mark abuse, and the other area which might support a request not to use their music is the Right of Publicity in the USA, defined as “the inherent right of every human being to control the commercial use of their identity”, which in some jurisdictions has come to protect likeness, name, persona, catch phrase, and even voice. This leans towards (though doesn't insist on) good practice through which tribute bands would seek permission from the original artists they pay tribute to, so that original artists can maintain control over the goodwill associated with their identities. In cases where this has been used the plaintiff must demonstrate a commercial interest in his or her identity, the defendant must have commercially used some aspect of the plaintiff’s identity without permission, and finally, the defendant’s use must have caused some type of damage. The last is usually commercial damage (Apple Music brought a case against Beatlemania and won). It might be hard to demonstrate in court at this stage a case for damaging goodwill towards the original artist by the tribute's appearance at an unpopular inauguration, but a request not to use their music might be beefed up by referring to Right of Publicity.

This is very interesting, Caryl- I did not know this (I was aware of the info you posted regarding licenses for live performances). I agree with you that it would probably be difficult for Bruce to demonstrate some damage over this, not to mention that many of Bruce's fans are Trump supporters (notice that Bruce has spoken harshly against Trump himself, but seems to sympathize with his voters), and I think it would make Bruce appear as a bully himself if he were to take any legal action.

[loaferman61]

Thank God the inauguration is only days away, so obviously Meat is not playing. Even bands who had gigs booked before the election are catching hell from the tolerant who believe in everyone's rights (oh, wait).

I doubt Meat was officially asked and if so, his back issues would make it virtually impossible. So I'm sure he would have said he was physically unable. It would have required getting the band back together and some rehearsal so it was never planned to happen.

Really we hope Meat is taking care of his health and concentrating on getting well regardless of any other political things. He can't play a gig of any kind now without pain at least until he gets better. If he ever decides to do any more live shows he will have to be very careful with his back and knees. The travel would be that much more difficult. I really want him to do what is best for him.

After 40 or more years as a performer he deserves the chance to take a rest while he decides what - if anything- he wants to do.

[CarylB]

Originally Posted by AndrewG

So when they can't go after the main artists, liberal fans go after the tribute bands next. Classy.

No, it isn't .. because it's just business. But as I said, one has to exercise judgement and accept consequences, which shouldn't be abuse but may well incur disappointment.

Originally Posted by Julie in the rv mirror

I do feel sorry for the abuse the band members have taken on Facebook, Twitter, and the like, and I also blame the media for inaccurate reporting that lead to much misunderstanding. The band initially said that they would pull out if Bruce asked them to, which as far as anyone knows, he did not (nor did he comment at all on the matter). If I had to guess, he might not have been happy about the situation, but having come up through the same ranks as a working musician, I would think he would understand the "just business" aspect of the situation.

Agree with all of that

This is very interesting, Caryl- I did not know this (I was aware of the info you posted regarding licenses for live performances). I agree with you that it would probably be difficult for Bruce to demonstrate some damage over this, not to mention that many of Bruce's fans are Trump supporters (notice that Bruce has spoken harshly against Trump himself, but seems to sympathize with his voters), and I think it would make Bruce appear as a bully himself if he were to take any legal action.

Yes I agree it would. I suspect most tributes respect the artists concerned, and a quiet word would suffice if the artist had strong feelings. I thought the Right of Publicity was interesting though. I remember he whose name is **** set up a site where he actively encouraged those who mistakenly assumed it was of the artist himself. They got him on cyber-squatting, but this could have equally applied perhaps?

Originally Posted by loaferman61

After 40 or more years as a performer he deserves the chance to take a rest while he decides what - if anything- he wants to do.

Agreed. He put in an appearance at a Bose outlet in Austin recently, so the rehab must be progressing, and as far as I know he wants still to support the premieres of the musical. I think touring is less likely, but I hope he is able to resume his acting career. He loves and lives to perform, and I'm sure there is plenty of film and TV gas in the tank

[stretch37]

Originally Posted by AndrewG

History won't give a crap.

Someone woke up in a ~~~~ing great mood :P

I disagree.

If trump does stupid shit, which he probably will, and causes the worst disaster for the USA in modern history, historians WILL WANT TO KNOW WHY.

[Julie in the rv mirror]

Originally Posted by loaferman61

Even bands who had gigs booked before the election are catching hell from the tolerant who believe in everyone's rights (oh, wait).

Yeah, I think it's going too far, but I think it speaks to the strong feelings people have over this election. We've had plenty of Republican presidents, and there has never been controversy like in this case- it's unprecedented (yeah, I went there ).

I believe the left is actually very tolerant; I've seen plenty of mocking and childish name-calling going on the last eight years coming from the other side, and no one called them "snowflakes" and told them to just get over it. They opposed Obama at every turn, but now we're supposed to just give Trump a chance? Why?

Originally Posted by CarylB

Agreed. He put in an appearance at a Bose outlet in Austin recently, so the rehab must be progressing, and as far as I know he wants still to support the premieres of the musical. I think touring is less likely, but I hope he is able to resume his acting career. He loves and lives to perform, and I'm sure there is plenty of film and TV gas in the tank

I agree that it would be a shame if Meat had to retire completely from performing. Hopefully, he will recover enough to work in some capacity.

[AndrewG]

Originally Posted by Julie in the rv mirror

I believe the left is actually very tolerant; I've seen plenty of mocking and childish name-calling going on the last eight years coming from the other side, and no one called them "snowflakes" and told them to just get over it. They opposed Obama at every turn, but now we're supposed to just give Trump a chance? Why?

I disagree.
Over the last 1 1/2 years I've seen from the left / so called tolerants / liberals:

• A Labour parliament member call on UK voters to not listen to white old men, even though a white old man is in charge of their party (Labour has never had a female leader compared to conservatives) and it was still mostly white old men who ensured we do not speak German in this country. Had it not been for selfless white old men in the UK my family would never have existed.
• Left wing press and some associated with government try to use the Jo Cox murder to push for an EU remain vote and paint those who wanted to leave the EU as fascist Nazis who were responsible for her death.
• Call for political assassinations, mostly of Trump (including a Guardian journalist who wrote this). I think Trump's life is in far more danger than Obama's. I don't want to see anything bad happen to politicians from any side.
• Ganging up of liberals with @jack of Twitter (backed by Saudi money) to get many prominent right wing voices banned on that social media platform which has led to the setup of gab.ai. This happened whilst Twitter never took a stance against obvious bullies such as the sick one who annoyed Patti Russo for months. (I filed numerous Twitter complaints, no action was taken mostly).
• It appears now socially acceptable to write things such as "Goodmorning everyone (except all the white people)" on places such as Twitter. I doubt such voices are from those who would vote republican / conservative or UKIP.
• Been myself and those I agree with called a racist countless of times when those with other views lose the argument on rationality and facts. I think the term snowflake originally was much less bad than "racist". But to be honest all labels are now losing their worth since they are being used so frequently for very modest opposing views. Someone concerned about immigration is not a racist. In fact I would argue many who support limitless Eastern European immigration into the UK (mostly same race as white Brits) support racism through that policy since there is undoubtedly less opportunity for people from commonwealth (including other races) countries (see UK minimum earnings rules imposed on none EU immigrants recently). It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that someone who can speak and write our native language will fair better here quicker regardless of race. Does it make me a languistist? (is there such a thing?) I don't give a crap!

Even here on MLUKFC I've seen hardly anyone speak out against the anti Trump camp even though I have received several messages from individuals saying they (quietly) agree with me or certain aspects of my arguments.
In other words some seem to be afraid to write what they really feel on this board in case of backlash. I have no problem defending my case against 4, 5 or 50 of those who think otherwise on here. Do I think it is a proper reflection of the voting public what is posted on here and in particular this thread? No.

Left tolerant? Nah...

And if you are a 100% liberal and happy about that, before you click dislike on this post consider this video of what liberal virtue signalling sometimes actually means... yes it means you could be the racist whether intentionally or not:

YouTube Video

[CarylB]

Originally Posted by AndrewG

Even here on MLUKFC I've seen hardly anyone speak out against the anti Trump camp even though I have received several messages from individuals saying they (quietly) agree with me or certain aspects of my arguments.
In other words some seem to be afraid to write what they really feel on this board in case of backlash.

Given no-one has given you any "backlash" on here for your views, that's just daft. As Julie has said, the discussion here has been reasoned and generally courteous without rancour or name-calling. To give reasoned disagreement is not "backlash", and I would have no sympathy for anyone who is not prepared to join the discussion because of fear. They may be people who prefer not to or don't "talk politics" ... that's a choice they make. It's their right to choose .. but nothing on this thread would imply they would be attacked if they did, so I disagree with your assumption Andrew.

[loaferman61]

Originally Posted by AndrewG

I disagree.
Over the last 1 1/2 years I've seen from the left / so called tolerants / liberals:

• A Labour parliament member call on UK voters to not listen to white old men, even though a white old man is in charge of their party (Labour has never had a female leader compared to conservatives) and it was still mostly white old men who ensured we do not speak German in this country. Had it not been for selfless white old men in the UK my family would never have existed.
• Left wing press and some associated with government try to use the Jo Cox murder to push for an EU remain vote and paint those who wanted to leave the EU as fascist Nazis who were responsible for her death.
• Call for political assassinations, mostly of Trump (including a Guardian journalist who wrote this). I think Trump's life is in far more danger than Obama's. I don't want to see anything bad happen to politicians from any side.
• Ganging up of liberals with @jack of Twitter (backed by Saudi money) to get many prominent right wing voices banned on that social media platform which has led to the setup of gab.ai. This happened whilst Twitter never took a stance against obvious bullies such as the sick one who annoyed Patti Russo for months. (I filed numerous Twitter complaints, no action was taken mostly).
• It appears now socially acceptable to write things such as "Goodmorning everyone (except all the white people)" on places such as Twitter. I doubt such voices are from those who would vote republican / conservative or UKIP.
• Been myself and those I agree with called a racist countless of times when those with other views lose the argument on rationality and facts. I think the term snowflake originally was much less bad than "racist". But to be honest all labels are now losing their worth since they are being used so frequently for very modest opposing views. Someone concerned about immigration is not a racist. In fact I would argue many who support limitless Eastern European immigration into the UK (mostly same race as white Brits) support racism through that policy since there is undoubtedly less opportunity for people from commonwealth (including other races) countries (see UK minimum earnings rules imposed on none EU immigrants recently). It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that someone who can speak and write our native language will fair better here quicker regardless of race. Does it make me a languistist? (is there such a thing?) I don't give a crap!

Even here on MLUKFC I've seen hardly anyone speak out against the anti Trump camp even though I have received several messages from individuals saying they (quietly) agree with me or certain aspects of my arguments.
In other words some seem to be afraid to write what they really feel on this board in case of backlash. I have no problem defending my case against 4, 5 or 50 of those who think otherwise on here. Do I think it is a proper reflection of the voting public what is posted on here and in particular this thread? No.

Left tolerant? Nah...

And if you are a 100% liberal and happy about that, before you click dislike on this post consider this video of what liberal virtue signalling sometimes actually means... yes it means you could be the racist whether intentionally or not:

Excellent post. Yes there are few of us willing to defend Trump openly but I don't care either. One post said Trump did not win any majority and called for facts, I posted the actual map with the majority of states red for Trump and got a dislike LOL.

I am on other forums that make this look like a Sunday School picnic. I'd rather not have that political stuff in the Meat Loaf section of this forum. At least move it to where those of us who don't want it here won't have to read it mixed in with other topics.

I wonder if Meat would want this to devolve into politics? There are thousands of boards and reddits for politics.

[CarylB]

Originally Posted by loaferman61

Excellent post. Yes there are few of us willing to defend Trump openly but I don't care either. One post said Trump did not win any majority and called for facts, I posted the actual map with the majority of states red for Trump and got a dislike LOL.

A dislike/disgreement is hardly a "backlash".

I am on other forums that make this look like a Sunday School picnic. I'd rather not have that political stuff in the Meat Loaf section of this forum. At least move it to where those of us who don't want it here won't have to read it mixed in with other topics.

As I've said before, the thread title invited it by asking "Should Meat Loaf play at Donald Trump's Inauguration Ceremony?" rather than for eg "Do you think Meat WILL .. etc" No-one is forced to read any thread, but if you reads this one it is reasonable to expect people to be talking about the political aspect rather than the fee offered.

[nightinr]

I spoke earlier in the thread about the liberal, social elite who demonise people if they dare to share an opinion that they don't agree with.

In the UK if somebody openly says they voted for Brexit they are given the tag as an uneducated racist. I'm guessing a similar thing is happening in the US?

Personally I don't have strong political views but I have seen an increasingly amount of snobbish bullying from the liberal, social elite in recent years. Ironically this behaviour has probably led people to vote for Trump, Brexit etc

[BostonAngel]

Originally Posted by nightinr

I spoke earlier in the thread about the liberal, social elite who demonise people if they dare to share an opinion that they don't agree with.

In the UK if somebody openly says they voted for Brexit they are given the tag as an uneducated racist. I'm guessing a similar thing is happening in the US?

Personally I don't have strong political views but I have seen an increasingly amount of snobbish bullying from the liberal, social elite in recent years. Ironically this behaviour has probably led people to vote for Trump, Brexit etc

You are demonizing others by calling ALL those that don't support Trump "The social, liberal elite who think they're better than the average man/woman in the street talk in an articulate, patronising way of how terrible Trump is" And by calling those that don't support Brexit, similar names. It is Ok for YOU to make judgements and denonize others by calling them names You can't have it both ways. It is called hypocrisy and makes you a hypocrit!

[nightinr]

Originally Posted by BostonAngel

You are demonizing others by calling ALL those that don't support Trump "The social, liberal elite who think they're better than the average man/woman in the street talk in an articulate, patronising way of how terrible Trump is" And by calling those that don't support Brexit, similar names. It is Ok for YOU to make judgements and denonize others by calling them names You can't have it both ways. It is called hypocrisy and makes you a hypocrit!

I didn't call ALL those who didn't support Trump as the social, liberal elite. In fact it is probably a very small minority. Most people accept people have different views. Personally I would have preferred Trump not to have won but I respect people who voted either way as everyone's situation is different.

[CarylB]

Originally Posted by nightinr

I didn't call ALL those who didn't support Trump as the social, liberal elite. In fact it is probably a very small minority. Most people accept people have different views. Personally I would have preferred Trump not to have won but I respect people who voted either way as everyone's situation is different.

But to be fair that isn't what you implied is it? You wrote

I spoke earlier in the thread about the liberal, social elite who demonise people if they dare to share an opinion that they don't agree with.
In the UK if somebody openly says they voted for Brexit they are given the tag as an uneducated racist.

Saying if someone "openly says" (as if it's something that has to be kept secret) they voted Remain they are given the tag of "uneducated racist" does suggest it's far more common than not, rather than a small minority.

I think we know now that many voted for Brexit as a protest against government .. numbers of them have since said they regret doing this. From what I have seen and heard people say some clearly DID vote on "immigration" issues (despite the fact that we have always had absolute control of immigration, it is migrant EU workers that Brexit would end, not immigration per se). I know people who voted who are not in the least racist, but voted to leave because they are concerned about housing, genuinely believed the EU costs us more than we gain, thought we could stay in the free market even if we left, or believed the mystical figure that would be pumped into the NHS immediately (the last accepted a lie). Some are pissed now. Do I think some voted without really knowing much about the basic facts, cost, implications? Yes, and probably on both sides. The "campaign" was misleading on one side and woefully absent on the other. So some will have voted in ignorance .. which doesn't mean they are stupid, just lacking clear information.

In the same way, some will have voted for Trump because they vote Republican, full stop. Some clearly fear immigrants, Muslims, Mexicans either racism, bigotry, or xenophobia. Trump played to this very colourfully and with disappointing success. Others voted for him because they genuinely believe he will deliver jobs, wealth, success. Some voted for change, any change. Of course not all who voted for Trump are "ignorant" or "uneducated" .. but I'd argue for eg that those who think repealing Obamacare is not the same as repealing the ACA are certainly ill-informed!

There are those on BOTH sides who demonise those who voted the other way. Many Republicans demonised Obama throughout his administration. They were not a "liberal social elite" .. and anyway elite means the best, and the best do not descend to overt attacks, rudeness, bad language, name-calling, and demonisation whether they are liberal or not. They get informed, they attend to what is said and argue their case cogently, they reason. Shouting and screaming, rudeness and ill manners lose any argument. The wise do their best, accept what happens but if the outcome is one they fear, remain vigilant, hold those in power to account, and protest peacefully in the face of events they see as detrimental.

Neither side has the monopoly on demonising, and it's wrong to suggest any one does.

[nightinr]

Originally Posted by CarylB

But to be fair that isn't what you implied is it? You wrote


Saying if someone "openly says" (as if it's something that has to be kept secret) they voted Remain they are given the tag of "uneducated racist" does suggest it's far more common than not, rather than a small minority.

I think we know now that many voted for Brexit as a protest against government .. numbers of them have since said they regret doing this. From what I have seen and heard people say some DID vote on "immigration" issues (despite the fact that we have always had absolute control of immigration, it is migrant EU workers that Brexit would end, not immigration per se. I know people who voted because they believed the mystical figure that would be pumped into the NHS immediately; they accepted a lie. Some are pissed now. Do I think some voted without really knowing much about the basic facts, cost, implications? Yes. The "campaign" was misleading on one side and woefully absent on the other. Some will have voted in ignorance .. which doesn't mean they are stupid, just lacking clear information.

In the same way, some will have voted for Trump because they vote Republican, full stop. Some clearly fear immigrants, Muslims, Mexicans either racism, bigotry, or xenophobia. Trump played to this very colourfully and with disappointing success. Others voted for him because they genuinely believe he will deliver jobs, wealth, success. Some voted for change, any change. Of course not all who voted for Trump are "ignorant" or "uneducated" .. but I'd argue for eg that those who think repealing Obamacare is not the same as repealing the ACA are certainly ill-informed!

There are those on BOTH sides who demonise those who voted the other way. Many Republicans demonised Obama throughout his administration. They were not a "liberal social elite" .. and anyway elite means the best, and the best do not descend to overt attacks, rudeness, bad language, name-calling, and demonisation whether they are liberal or not. They get informed, they attend to what is said and argue their case cogently, they reason. Shouting and screaming, rudeness and ill manners lose any argument. The wise do their best, accept what happens but if the outcome is one they fear, remain vigilant, hold those in power to account, and protest peacefully in the face of events they see as detrimental.

Neither side has the monopoly on demonising, and it's wrong to suggest any one does.

I agree with most of this Caryl.

As we are talking on a Meat Loaf forum maybe we should use Meat Loaf as an example of how to behave re politics. I liked the way he didn't publically get drawn into the Trump vs Clinton debate. I do however think he was holding back some foreceful views but I may be wrong.

Other artists who I will class as the liberal, social elite were telling people how to vote and subsequently demonised voters post the election.

In some ways I am disappointed with myself for getting involved in this debate as I honestly don't have strong political views. I am all for the centre ground on the whole.

As Meat once said in an interview "religion and politics...no way we're going to talk about rock n roll".

[Julie in the rv mirror]

Originally Posted by loaferman61

One post said Trump did not win any majority and called for facts, I posted the actual map with the majority of states red for Trump and got a dislike LOL.

I'm sure you do realize that the map is misleading, in that he could have won a state by only a few votes and it would be colored red. Additionally, many of the red states are those that are most sparsely populated- not really representative of a huge majority.

Originally Posted by loferman61

I am on other forums that make this look like a Sunday School picnic.

As am I, and it's based on that experience that I wrote my opinion above that I thought the left was more tolerant (maybe I should have said "Democrats" or "left-leaning" instead), in that the majority of the racist, bullying, name-calling comments come from those who identify themselves as Republicans, conservatives, and/or Trump supporters. It seems they aren't capable of expressing an opinion without using terms such as "libtard", which is offensive on several levels.

Originally Posted by AndrewG

[*]Call for political assassinations, mostly of Trump (including a Guardian journalist who wrote this). I think Trump's life is in far more danger than Obama's. I don't want to see anything bad happen to politicians from any side.

But yet, Trump himself made a comment while campaigning that could have been interpreted to encourage the assassination of Hillary Clinton.

Originally Posted by AndrewG

[*]It appears now socially acceptable to write things such as "Goodmorning everyone (except all the white people)" on places such as Twitter. I doubt such voices are from those who would vote republican / conservative or UKIP.

No, those people just write other racist things, such as the nonprofit director who called Michelle Obama an "ape in heels" in a Facebook post.

Originally Posted by AndrewG

Someone concerned about immigration is not a racist.

No, not necessarily; but many racists are concerned about immigration. The difference between the two is the reason behind the concern and how one proposes to address those concerns.

Originally Posted by AndrewG

And if you are a 100% liberal and happy about that, before you click dislike on this post consider this video of what liberal virtue signalling sometimes actually means... yes it means you could be the racist whether intentionally or not:

I'd never call myself 100% liberal; I lean that way, but my views are (like most people's, I think) actually somewhere in the middle. I don't personally have a problem with voter ID laws; in fact, the first time I heard that such laws could be considered racist, I thought it was kind of ridiculous, because I had never come across any people of color who didn't have any ID. But, my experience is in a large city (much like the people featured in the video); if one were to go to poor rural areas, you might have different answers. Although, that would be a factor of financial status, as opposed to race (though the two are often related). Are a large enough number of people affected that it's a legitimate concern? I honestly don't know- where I live, I think it's a non-issue. But, you can't make federal laws that apply to some areas and not to others. Not to mention, there are other means to identify voters besides asking for a photo ID (I actually had this conversation with an election judge the last time I voted, after the woman before me questioned why she didn't check for ID).

Originally Posted by nightinr

In the UK if somebody openly says they voted for Brexit they are given the tag as an uneducated racist. I'm guessing a similar thing is happening in the US?

Yes, but in the case of Trump, for example, the man was endorsed by the KKK and didn't immediately (if he ever did at all) renounce them. If his supporters disliked being called racist, they should have called him on that lack of action.

Originally Posted by CarylB

Do I think some voted without really knowing much about the basic facts, cost, implications? Yes, and probably on both sides. The "campaign" was misleading on one side and woefully absent on the other. So some will have voted in ignorance .. which doesn't mean they are stupid, just lacking clear information.

In the same way, some will have voted for Trump because they vote Republican, full stop. Some clearly fear immigrants, Muslims, Mexicans either racism, bigotry, or xenophobia. Trump played to this very colourfully and with disappointing success. Others voted for him because they genuinely believe he will deliver jobs, wealth, success. Some voted for change, any change. Of course not all who voted for Trump are "ignorant" or "uneducated" .. but I'd argue for eg that those who think repealing Obamacare is not the same as repealing the ACA are certainly ill-informed!

I agree, Caryl- well said. I think this video illustrates your last point- it's of course not a "scientific" poll, but I think it probably represents typical citizens:

YouTube Video

Before the election, I was called "elitist" here because I made a comment that I thought some people who voted for Trump might later be regretting that decision. I am Facebook friends with a former classmate who has been a Trump supporter; as the parent of a special-needs child, she is now (rightfully) concerned about his nominee for Secretary of Education, based on answers she gave in her confirmation hearing. (How she could have rationalized and excused Trump's mocking of a disabled reporter is beyond me- I think she fell for the "he didn't really do that" spin.) I won't go so far as to presume that my friend is regretting her decision, but it illustrates that when you vote for a candidate, you also vote for whomever that candidate might also place in key cabinet or (in the U.S.) Supreme Court positions. Likewise, some people who supported the repeal of "Obamacare" might not have fully realized they were affecting their own healthcare.

Originally Posted by nightinr

Other artists who I will class as the liberal, social elite were telling people how to vote and subsequently demonised voters post the election.

Can you give an example of an artist demonizing voters after the election?

[Wario]

Originally Posted by BostonAngel

You are demonizing others by calling ALL those that don't support Trump "The social, liberal elite who think they're better than the average man/woman in the street talk in an articulate, patronising way of how terrible Trump is" And by calling those that don't support Brexit, similar names. It is Ok for YOU to make judgements and denonize others by calling them names You can't have it both ways. It is called hypocrisy and makes you a hypocrit!

you are very very meanspirited take a chill pill and relax.

[Julie in the rv mirror]

Wow, so it seems there's a part 2 to the above video; some interesting responses!

YouTube Video

[nightinr]

Originally Posted by Wario

you are very very meanspirited take a chill pill and relax.

Not sure if that is aimed at me or Boston?! If it is aimed towards me sorry for any offence I am just trying to stick up for the "silent majority". Or silent 49%...lets not get into the "majority" debate again!

[Julie in the rv mirror]

It looks like a few people are starting to feel buyer's remorse already:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...cnkdj64idiy66r

[AndrewG]

Originally Posted by nightinr

Not sure if that is aimed at me or Boston?! If it is aimed towards me sorry for any offence I am just trying to stick up for the "silent majority". Or silent 49%...lets not get into the "majority" debate again!

Of course it is aimed at Boston. Jeez.

Originally Posted by Julie in the rv mirror

It looks like a few people are starting to feel buyer's remorse already:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...cnkdj64idiy66r

Now there is a fair and balanced "media organisation".
It has totally changed my opinion....not. Let me know when a nation can pay down its deficit, pay for social care, pay for infrastructure solely based on feelings rather than via work, taxes and trade, then I might start listening to them.

People should judge presidents on their results rather than based on judgements by news/media organisations.
I was impressed when Obama won. Seemed a much better choice than McCain (who seems a lot less balanced or stable than Trump I would say). However I'm not sure what the African Americans can really praise Obama for on the large scale after all this time. Hence perhaps many lacked enthusiasm to come out to the voting booths this time round, especially for Hillary.

African American Labor participation has totally not improved in 8 years.


I guess one can perhaps be happy Obama at least didn't make things a whole lot worse.
Obamacare? Meh maybe it works for some. I understand the concept and idea and it sounded great. But from what I understand the premiums and deductibles are so high for many people, there seems little point to having it at all. It's like those dodgy paying insurance on your mortgage scams, which when you qualify for using it (when unable to work through injury or whatever) only lasts for two years and when you look at the premiums you paid is less than the value you can ever take out.
Overall American healthcare (if you can pay for it at least) seems far better than that in most other countries. Far more advanced procedures such as proton therapy for children with almost incurable brain diseases happen over there far more than here in the UK from what I know.

In the UK we are now having a lot of problems with the NHS with regards to waiting lists (I don't get how Jeremy Hunt just stays in that position for years - must be me).

If I phone my doctor I will be lucky to be able to see her still this month or early Feb. If people think this is totally unrelated to immigration (whether directly or indirectly) then I think they are really wrong. You cannot continue to have 330K+ extra people pouring in, most having salaries in the tax free allowance range and not build extra hospitals, schools or doctor's practitioners. I really think people fail to realise that the net immigration figures alone are at the moment higher than the average natural increase of population we enjoyed between 1900 and 2000. Over 100 years we are talking 33 million if these figures do not change. I actually do not think there is a respectable UK political party out there taking this seriously at all, not even UKIP. Let me be clear: I am not against immigrants at all, I am against the immigration policies. The EU freedom of movement seems blackmail for allowing free trade. Large corporations can enjoy cheap labor at a cost of favouring Eastern Europeans over Brits in many sectors of employment now (I have seen this with my own eyes if people think I am basing this on the Daily Mail). I am a foreign born Brit so somewhat of an immigrant myself. I just think ultimately it is best to have a very very low net immigration figure, close to zero if possible. This is the best for other countries where people are emigrating from (no-one ever thinks about that it seems) and best for the UK. I do of course understand all the reasons why people want to come to the UK. But I think ghetto forming is very, very bad. Sweden has problems with this now, Bradford in the UK has problems, areas in London and Luton too. Not integration in my opinion and past government policies have really failed these areas and it does not seem to be changing. Ironically it is usually in these areas where people always vote for more socialist / liberal policies - make the government give more free stuff- rather than structural changes that could lead to more employment or opportunity for all.

In any case Trump is elected president of the USA, here in the UK we will have a conservative government until at least 2020 and probably well beyond going by what the alternatives are offering (mostly backwards retake the EU referendum ideas etc). People can keep on crying and talking their own countries down because they disagree with past decisions or past votes and elections. Ultimately I think that is a recipe for failure for a country and for the people themselves regardless of who is president, political leader or party and just trying to make the best of things.

Michelle Obama stating "there is now no hope" was totally shameful in my opinion. Disgusting remark.

Inauguration is almost here. The time is right (for me at least) to move on and just live life. All one can do is vote for who and what they think is best. Beyond that hindsight debates such as this, although interesting are definitely not the best use of one's time.

[glockenspiel]

Without in any way wishing to denigrate the contents of previous posts, surely now that we know Loaf-at-Trump isn't happening, it's time to let this thread expire (??)