Trump - Misunderstood?

Democracy is a concept the British are used to. When a Government is in power it represents the entire nation (in principle - DA), but those that didn't vote for that political party feel unsupported.
   In the so-called Brexit referendum the issue of regaining 'control of our borders' was promulgated by UKIP. In America, Trump wants to do the same thing. It seems OK for the UK to do this, but not the USA. Is this not an example of Hypocrisy?
   Trump alleges to have many Muslim friends many of whom support his stance on immigration control. It is an obligation of anyone with the responsibility of maintaining security to keep the country and its citizens safe. PM Teresa May is charged with doing this in the UK.

What's the problem?

Unless, of course, there is a campaign to undermine the administration of the USA (the British media appear suspect - DA).

23.03.2017 - update

I have reversed my opinion of Trump (Trump - enough) as time has shown him to be a real (global) problem (...dangerous "tweets"). It would seem that he is trying to run the USA as a personal company. Any board of directors is possibly just told what to do. No discussion - just an instruction.
   Surrounding yourself with "yes-men" is never a good idea - in any situation. It becomes a dictatorship. If you disagree - you are removed.

Trump - Truth Will Out

President Trump's 'requests' for photographic evidence of the potential deliberate misreporting of his inauguration and his stance on climate change are two examples of 'waking up' the people. At least to begin questioning the 'accepted' story.

Who benefits and who pays?

These are fundamental questions that need answering. It's usually BIG BUSINESS that is the major beneficiary and often a BIG BUSINESS that started out as a small business and has grown only after being funded by the taxpayer.

It's a global problem

Create the problem

Provide the solution

  To claim that climate change is a 'hoax' is NOT to deny climate change. That it is ONLY human behaviour regarded as being to blame that is wrong. What is challenged?

The specious

argument/explanation

   The present world is driven by consumerism. Money. To enjoy wealth is regarded as being a winner. A population is allowed (encouraged - DA) to grow, but this has had terrible consequences. Countries unable to compete in this consumer world starve. The aged get older and by living longer become ill more often. 'Care' becomes impossible to manage. Hospitals cannot cope. More automation handled by computers that never tire and do not need rest means that people of working age are becoming redundant. More people (each is a consumer and represents money to someone) are unemployed and do not provide taxes to sustain the expanding population, but rather a drain on resources. The population increases. Wars are allowed to continue in the attempt to reduce the population indirectly by the children dying (starved to death if not murdered). Simply (!) 'killed' off before any opportunity to procreate. And it all seems so acceptable in 'war'.
   A population needs feeding so more and more livestock is farmed just to be slaughtered and then to feed this population and capitalists. While alive, the doomed (from birth - DA) animals produce copious volumes of methane which contributes to the problem.

Methane
Nitrous Oxide

   A downside is that the stranglehold of the oil corporations is protected - it's not carbon dioxide that is the problem - it is the greenhouse gas:

methane

   Time will tell if the oil industry protection is deliberate or unintentional. Nevertheless, it is very encouraging that the populous is being forced to pay attention. And those potentially accused needing to finally defend themselves.
   The fighting will now get dirty: it works both ways and ruffling feathers does create exciting times.

23.03.2017 - update

I have reversed my opinion of Trump (Trump - enough) as time has proven a real danger. It would seem that he is trying to run the USA as a personal company. Any board of directors is possibly just told what to do. No discussion - just an instruction.   Surrounding yourself with "yes-men" is never a good idea - in any situation. It becomes a dictatorship. If you disagree - you are removed.

Trump - President USA

Much has been reported in the British press and talked about on TV. Comments are made about Trump and statements he is alleged to have made. They are often incomplete.
   Similar to arguments in a court of law. 'Fact' can easily be distorted, depending on the question.
  A more accurate Trump comment can paint a different picture to the one printed/broadcast.The reasons are not known though the result clearly distorts what has actually been said.
   Anyone can articulate any 'favorable' statement, but it is what is actually done that becomes the measure of Truth.

The Trial

   What is worrying is that Trump (allegedly - DA) 'tweets' on Twitter (shouldn't that be Witter? - DA). Decisions at presidential level must be agreed with senior decision-makers before they are announced. Trump circumvents this discussion process by 'tweeting' a personal view. This is not a good idea.

   As the CEO of a company owned outright by an individual, this may be acceptable. After all what the boss says will be policy, goes (if you don't like it, tough: go - DA).

You can't run a country

like it's your own

personal business

But you can impeach a president

for a misdemeanour - DA.

   Trump doesn't seem to grasp that democracy counts for something. Trump may be or not be right in what he personally believes, but such views can be damaging. But then, Trump is supposed to be a Republican (well he certainly is not a Democrat! - DA). He was elected instead of registered Democrat Hilary Clinton.

   If he doesn't curtail this 'tweeting' he will fast become (or even faster - DA) a real danger internationally. Worse perhaps than the:

Democratic People's

Republic of Korea

Women's Shoes and Health & Safety

Forcing women to wear high-heeled shoes at work is considered only under discrimination arguments. Nothing has been discussed from a health and safety point of view.
   Shoes can be dangerous (especially women's high heels). There can be no argument that some designs are a disaster.

It must be illegal to demand that
an individual must cause potential

self-harm or face dismissal

   Common decency and fairness should be enough to see that such a demand is wrong. Why men are not forced to wear high heels is a reasonable rhetorical question even in just a tongue-in-cheek manner.

   It is quite clear that such an attitude has no place in society (never did - DA) and the attempt to coerce someone to perform an act of grievous bodily harm to themselves is a nonsense. Actually, it is also nauseating and nasty.

   Sexist? Definitely.

   To have a dress-code (Vogue) is reasonable to ensure the individual represents the employer in a favorable light. Smart clothes do not require dangerous footwear.

   Bodyweight forces the foot into the shoe. Bunions and hammer toes can result. Sprained ankles are also to be expected.

No surprises

   A risk assessment of the 'request' needs to be done to show there is a work requirement for such an order and this can be used in any future legal action that results. Not simply because "it looks good".
   To attempt to defend this position in court (where it will inevitably find itself - DA) is very short-sighted. And ridiculous (laughably so - DA).
   Sensible flattish footwear can look very smart, not smutty like telling a woman to unbutton her blouse or wear a shorter skirt. Even British Airways (BA) has come under heavy criticism.
    A woman can appear and feel rather different to that which is anticipated by an employer.

The whole affair is destined to backfire

   Watch this space