General / Off-Topic Trump will make Khan an honorary white guy. Hooray

We can only hope that Mr Khan is suitably grateful. [money]

_89646279_untitled-2.jpg


Presidential hopeful Donald Trump has said the newly elected mayor of London would be an "exception" to his proposed ban on Muslims travelling to the US.

Because of his faith, Sadiq Khan had expressed concern that he would not be able to visit the US if Mr Trump were elected.

Mr Trump proposed a ban on Muslims entering the US after attacks in Paris killed 130 people last year.

"There will always be exceptions," the Republican businessman said.
The temporary ban has been widely criticised in the US and abroad but Mr Trump has stood by the proposal, saying it is needed to ensure US security.

Mr Trump said he was "happy" that Mr Khan would be leading London.
"If he does a good job and frankly if he does a great job, that would be a terrific thing," he added.

Mr Khan - the son of Pakistani immigrants - is London's first Muslim mayor, after beating Conservative rival Zac Goldsmith for the Labour Party by 1,310,143 votes to 994,614.
"I want to go to America to meet with and engage with American mayors," Mr Khan told Time magazine. "If Donald Trump becomes the president I'll be stopped from going there by virtue of my faith."

He added that he was "confident that Donald Trump's approach to politics" would not prevail in America.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-36253556?post_id=1391329307862200_1600127713649024#_=_
 
Last edited:
Sadiq Khan has rejected US presidential hopeful Donald Trump's offer to make the new London mayor an "exception" to a ban on Muslims travelling to the US.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36256087

I almost chocked on my morning doughnuts and dogs reading his response.

This is quickly getting to one of the surreal situations where you don't know whether to laugh of cry.

There's something seriously wrong in the US that they could take a man like Trump seriously.

It's patently obvious that most Americans are sensible, even if they do drive on the wrong side of the road. But I can't understand how the majority could let an idiot like Trump even have a driving licence.

It's perhaps even more weird that Trump is apparently friends with his principal political opponent, Clinton.
 
I read an interesting article (I'll try and find the link) about the "authoritarian" character type.

In brief, it proposes a character trait "authoritarian" that sits alongside other traits like introverted, extroverted, optimistic, pessimistic etc.

In times of "stress", say a recession or conflict or terrorism threat, people who are "authoritarian" tend to respond by looking for an outside "power" to take control and make things better.

This outside power could be a deity, in which case you have the classic "turning to god" in times of turmoil trope.

But it can also be a "strongman" politician type, say Putin or Hitler (damn it Godwin!) or Trump.

This explains the correlation between religious conservatives and right wingers of the "strong leader" type (not the free market right wingers although they may also have the same trait).

It also explains why after a big recession/depression and turmoil the world seems to see an uptick in the number of elected "dictators". Authoritarian personality types tend to not care about niceties like civil liberties, the rule of law etc as long as the leader "makes it better". After the (first) great depression we saw people like Hitler, Mussolini, Mosley etc. with real public support.

Now, after the second great depression we are seeing the rise of (generally right wing but not always) "strong men" with genuine popular appeal.

Trump is a classic strong man figure. He relies on personal charisma, his projection of himself as a powerful "alpha male". He wins with women, he crushes others at business, he beats others at sports (by cheating at golf apparently), there is nothing he can't master and he will win for the nation!

Without being glib the similarities in presentation between Trump, Putin and Kin Jong Un are startling when you adjust for society.

N Korea wants a wise and capable leader sort of a father figure for the nation so pictures of KJU flying planes, directing tanks, advising scientists, providing food, paintings of smiling children.

Russian want a manly man, so Putin driving a submarine, bare chested on a horse, doing martial arts, doing manly macho things.

America wants a successful man as indicated by wealth. Lots of Trump in jets (being flown not flying, flying means you're not rich enough to afford a pilot), posh cars (ditto drivers), if he went on a sub, he would have a captain and it would look like that sub roger more was in at the end of that bond film I forget, all fur and champagne, fancy hotels, lots of gaudy gold and rich wood. Lots about his business success and connections, lots about how hard a negotiator he is.
 
Whilst I share some of the incredulity over the Trump scenario I can't help thinking people are forgetting that good old Ronnie Raygun got elected too.

Popular joke from the time - paraphrased..

Why did Nancy usually go on top when Ronnie and Nancy got jiggy?

Because Ronnie could only up!

(see how long that survives...)

:D

ETA - it didn't even make the first cut!
 
Last edited:
True. But we are looking at this from our perspective.

Reagan had Thatcher here to back her up. Thatcher didn't seem to care about anyone except herself.

She was quite happy to engineer a war in the Falklands just to break the UKs 25 year or so, period of defensive military. Causing the deaths of decent Argentinian and British people.

She said nothing as huge amounts American of cash and weapons were openly sent to the US sponsored IRA, causing the deaths of many decent British people.

The situation is a little different now. Cameron has a lot more guts not to mention integrity. Corbyn isn't the Lame duck that Labour was then.

I seriously doubt Trump will be elected. But even if he is, I tend to think reactions in the EU generally, will be very different.
 
True. But we are looking at this from our perspective.

Reagan had Thatcher here to back her up. Thatcher didn't seem to care about anyone except herself.

She was quite happy to engineer a war in the Falklands just to break the UKs 25 year or so, period of defensive military. Causing the deaths of decent Argentinian and British people.

She said nothing as huge amounts American of cash and weapons were openly sent to the US sponsored IRA, causing the deaths of many decent British people.

The situation is a little different now. Cameron has a lot more guts not to mention integrity. Corbyn isn't the Lame duck that Labour was then.

I seriously doubt Trump will be elected. But even if he is, I tend to think reactions in the EU generally, will be very different.

Not really sure what that Thatcher has to do with the current situation tbh.

And there has apparently been evidence of some world leaders already winding back the pith taking - just in case..
 
Not really sure what that Thatcher has to do with the current situation tbh.

And there has apparently been evidence of some world leaders already winding back the pith taking - just in case..

You raised the issue (spectre) of Reagan.

Since we are in the UK and ........ Yawn
 
You raised the issue (spectre) of Reagan.

Since we are in the UK and ........ Yawn

I was just pointing out that the US has precedent for electing a president liable to attack on a comedy/incredulity front.

So it could happen again - statistically the same side doesn't win three times in a row - does it?

Though the Trumpster does seem to have an internal fight on his hands too..
 
Russian want a manly man, so Putin driving a submarine, bare chested on a horse, doing martial arts, doing manly macho things.
I like to misread that as Putin driving the submarine astride a horse that can do martial arts.

Interesting points in the rest of your post though. Trump has said he thinks he can deal with Putin more on a man-to-man basis - I would possibly add that to the list of negatives about the aspiring POTUS.
 
I was just pointing out that the US has precedent for electing a president liable to attack on a comedy/incredulity front.

So it could happen again - statistically the same side doesn't win three times in a row - does it?

Though the Trumpster does seem to have an internal fight on his hands too..

They seem to do that quite a lot. But Presidents especially, are figureheads for more complicated teams behind them. I recall many of the more silly antics of Bush Jr, yet doubting his intelligence would be a serious mistake, as I'm sure Blair found out and will hopefully, eventually pay the consequences in front of a war crimes court.

From the perspective of the US, the issue is that this man has signed himself up to a number of polices that will cause internal conflict. Being Muslim in the US is not a crime.

From the perspective of us here in Europe, the question is, how much the various EU governments will be prepared to cow-tow to a possible President Trump?

Thatcher kissed up to Reagan, but she frankly didn't care. If she could upset the rest of Europe in the process, she would, no-doubt, have been quite pleased.

Blair thought he could manage Bush Jr and ended up being his lapdog. 'Hey. Blair!.'

I think Cameron is a different matter frankly.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

I like to misread that as Putin driving the submarine astride a horse that can do martial arts.

Interesting points in the rest of your post though. Trump has said he thinks he can deal with Putin more on a man-to-man basis - I would possibly add that to the list of negatives about the aspiring POTUS.

As opposed to the manipulations of a mere woman like Hillary! [yesnod]
 
Donald Trump has warned he may not have a "very good relationship" with UK Prime Minister David Cameron if he wins the US presidency.

Mr Cameron has called the Republican hopeful "stupid, divisive and wrong" over his call for a temporary ban on Muslims entering the US.

Mr Trump also said he would not forgive London Mayor Sadiq Khan for calling him "ignorant".

Spokespeople for Mr Cameron and Mr Khan said they stood by their comments.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36300005

You couldn't make this stuff up.
 
Back
Top Bottom