http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/09/donald-trump-ireland-sinn-fein-terrorism
Of course, the point that is being missed both in the UK and the Republic is not so much Trump's inconsistent approach to terrorism, as his association with a party that was in 1995 committed to a fairly radical socialist programme, even if since 1995 the most radical thing Sinn Fein has done is lay off municipal binmen and make the Irish Labour Party look even tweedier than it did in the late 1960s. And of course let's not start on the Green Book, which even in its later editions was only marginally less pledged to an all-socialist Ireland than its earlier versions, before the Officials had given way to the PIRA.
The question for far right Republicans and Tea Party members is therefore not "are you happy to vote for a virulent racist and Islamophobe?", which clearly they are, but "are you happy to vote for a man who cheerfully endorsed and funded a party committed to democratic socialism and social ownership?"
Personally, if he does somehow navigate the cratered aftermath of a hundred other fated pratfalls and half-baked obscurantist bloviations, I can't wait to see him implement such a progressive and advanced programme of dirigisme in the US. Imagine how delighted his lobo far-right echo chamber will be.
09 Dec 15
1 edit
Originally posted by AmauroteThe silver lining in all of this is the political damage Donald Trump is doing to his own republican party. His arrogant, mean spirited racist and sexist oratory exposes some ugly truths about America's conservatives they would rather have kept hidden, and in doing so, is sending more votes to the liberal side that normally would not have gone there. Several conservative political strategists have privately admitted that if Donald does not become more inclusive, and less mean spirited, the election of 2016 will be a disaster for the republican party. As a Liberal, I look forward to Donald's next fire and brimstone speech. 😏
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/09/donald-trump-ireland-sinn-fein-terrorism
Of course, the point that is being missed both in the UK and the Republic is not so much Trump's inconsistent approach to terrorism, as his association with a party that was in 1995 committed to a fairly radical socialist programme, even if since 1995 the most radical ...[text shortened]... programme of dirigisme in the US. Imagine how delighted his lobo far-right echo chamber will be.
09 Dec 15
Originally posted by AmauroteHis "association" seems to have been limited to going to one speech given by Adams after years of his being banned from the US. Claiming that means Trump was a supporter of some "socialist" agenda of Sinn Fein is ridiculous.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/09/donald-trump-ireland-sinn-fein-terrorism
Of course, the point that is being missed both in the UK and the Republic is not so much Trump's inconsistent approach to terrorism, as his association with a party that was in 1995 committed to a fairly radical socialist programme, even if since 1995 the most radical ...[text shortened]... programme of dirigisme in the US. Imagine how delighted his lobo far-right echo chamber will be.
09 Dec 15
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderHis association is pretty categorical and requires no inverted commas, since it was a fund-raising event for the party at which seats were $200 each, irrespective of whether or not he himself paid for one, or was invited in the hope of drawing others to do the same.
His "association" seems to have been limited to going to one speech given by Adams after years of his being banned from the US. Claiming that means Trump was a supporter of some "socialist" agenda of Sinn Fein is ridiculous.
You're right about the latter point, of course, but then again, no-one here has made that claim. He simply lent his support and endorsement to a political party with a well-known and well-chronicled history of democratic socialism, pledged consistently to an extensive programme of nationalization, and before 1969 actual Marxism, at least if you discount the occasional isolated right-wing leftover from the mid-60s like Sean Mac Stiofain. I'd suggest that the cognitive dissonance this implies is interesting, to say the least.
09 Dec 15
The post that was quoted here has been removedI think the Donald could be standing on a podium with "Mao Zedong Thought Lights the Way to a Better Future" emblazoned on it in flashing neon and still be blissfully unaware of the irony. Of course, in 1995 everyone was queuing up to meet Gerry Adams, which was a good thing, since he was a peacemaker, and his respectablisation was great for the peace process. They just weren't queuing up to fund his party - and Trump's decision to do so has to be seen as an active decision to which he presumably gave some thought, if only for what a great photo-op it made. Presumably Adams didn't realize he was shaking hands with someone whose later platform would closely resemble Paisleyism minus the clericalism.
09 Dec 15
1 edit
Originally posted by AmauroteCalling the event a "fund raiser" is misleading. It was a speech, the first one given by Addams in the US in decades, for which an entry fee was charged. if you wanted to see the speech, you had to pay the fee. That's like calling a Rolling Stones concert a "fund raiser".
His association is pretty categorical and requires no inverted commas, since it was a fund-raising event for the party at which seats were $200 each, irrespective of whether or not he himself paid for one, or was invited in the hope of drawing others to do the same.
You're right about the latter point, of course, but then again, no-one here has made that ...[text shortened]... iofain. I'd suggest that the cognitive dissonance this implies is interesting, to say the least.
Going to a speech, even paying to go to a speech, does not mean you endorse all or any of A) What the person speaks about and most certainly not B) Things he or his organization might believe that he doesn't speak about.
EDIT: I see now the speech was not the first that year and apologize for the error.
The rest of my points remain valid IMO.
09 Dec 15
Originally posted by AmauroteShaking hands with someone is even less of an endorsement of their beliefs than paying to listen to them give a speech.
I think the Donald could be standing on a podium with "Mao Zedong Thought Lights the Way to a Better Future" emblazoned on it in flashing neon and still be blissfully unaware of the irony. Of course, in 1995 everyone was queuing up to meet Gerry Adams, which was a good thing, since he was a peacemaker, and his respectablisation was great for the peace proce ...[text shortened]... hands with someone whose later platform would closely resemble Paisleyism minus the clericalism.