I could have put a link to this article, but it's from a Swedish news paper or the news version from the main public tv-channel SVT.

The main headline:

Proposal: How to talk to your child about Trump

Now that Trump have been elected as the President of USA, it have made many children worried and here the grown-ups need to take a talk with their children about trump.

Markus

Honestly, I'm inclined to agree, and I'm even open to the idea of Trump surprising us all with a slightly softer line to the one he took in the campaign.
I'm just worried about how this is going to affect people in certain groups who will be victimised by other people, and, again since I feel that I need to state this, this also includes Trump supporters who are being attacked. No-one, and I repeat, No-one should be physically or mentally abused or discriminated against because of their gender, race, sexual preference, religious or political beliefs. Since I'm sure that I'll have to clarify it, yes, that includes people who want to keep a firearm, the only concern I would have on that is their ability to safely own and operate one, my signature basically describes how I feel on that...slight derail there but I just want to make sure that if someone picks me up on that I have already addressed it.

I think a lot of Trumps plans are going to hit the brick walls of reality soon, so what we'll see will no doubt be a lot of watered down promises...but that's nothing new from a politician...and Trump, like it or not...is now a politician. :03:

No. We'd rather not see quotes of entire articles here - links are better. The problem in this case is that the author of the article lied about what was said, and you repeated that lie. Fortunately the author did post a link to the entire interview. Selective quotes are fine, as long as they don't distort what was actually said. In this case it did.

Yes it does.

Even when the information presented is distorted and designed to fill someone's agenda?

All of this is true. On the other hand, beginning a discussions with accusations of how horrible the person in question is, is not discussion at all, but inflammation. Better to start off with reason than attacks.

Deliberately misquoting someone to fit one's agenda does so as well. As I pointed out before, that is exactly what the article in question does.

well what if the person is horrible? and his behaviour has made this pretty clear hasnt it?

and now look at what is coming in in day 1 of Trumps America

https://twitter.com/i/moments/796417517157830656

So I know this guy posting links from half a world away telling me that at my location the sky is falling. <Looks out window > Nope, its still there.

So, some kids have posted this on their FB and twitter, it must be true.

As I pointed out before, we have had members here who spent the past eight years talking about how horrible Obama was, and how he was going to instill martial law and make himself Dictator. It could still happen, but I wouldn't bet on it. Now fear mongers from the left are predicting that Trump is going to destroy everything. I wouldn't bet on that either, no matter how much you want it to happen.

What you don't seem to understand is that there are a great many of us, on the Left and the Right, who know what America really stands for, and who are willing to step up and fight against that sort of thing.

We've had bad presidents before, and have survived quite nicely. That said, we won't know how bad, or good, he really is until he's been in office for awhile. Some of those on the Left hated Bush long before he took us into Iraq, but that's the excuse they gave after the fact. Some of those on the Right hate Obama with a passion, yet overall he hasn't really done that badly. As I also pointed out earlier, the article this whole thread is based on lied about what Trump actually said. That some individuals reflect the worst in us is not necessarily his fault, and what they actually do, if anything, can be dealt with on an individual basis.

Until he actually takes office and his policies become clear, all of this crying and shouting does no one any good, and is in itself more hurtful than helpful.

Man i wasn't on the site for a day, what became of this tread ?!

I posted a link to an opinion piece which maybe (!) has a bit of truth in it, and i also said it is hard to swallow. Moore's chrystal ball prediction of Trump winning the election is much more biased. Why do you think i'd be so fond of it? I am not.
I do not want to answer each and every post, nut just to remember i did not write said article and i am not "Agathosdaimon" . Bilge rat's Realclearpolitics.com link is much better.


Yeah i bet you'd like that. Bolo and hanged for felony. Seems regarding sheer hate the article is not entirely wrong. :shifty:

http://therapyideas.net/wp-content/u...4/04/guilt.jpg

:Kaleun_Thumbs_Up:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cw7KZlxVEAAkMt9.jpg

https://m.popkey.co/390fea/oGme8.gif

Wow a radio shock jock saying something provocative. It's well,... shocking! :o

http://i.imgur.com/ZSKW9Vc.jpg

I'm already saving up my acorns for the next one... you can be Vice President, Catfish :)

I don't know if this is the right thread to post this American-Presidential-election-history

Found this on FB.

"The president was considered to rough and crude to be a competent leader. Democrats incited riots in the cities, States run my Democrats threatened to secede even before he took office. 1860"

Sound interesting, does anyone of you have more about this historical event ?

Markus

Hypocritical was more the word I was looking for, but I guess shocking will do if you like.