Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 32 of 32

Thread: Ot The Trumpian Visit.

  1. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by ramAnag View Post
    Full marks for that reply Rom...although I’d question that there’s anyone genuinely ‘hard core left’ in the States.

    Point is that both Pence and Trump have spoken of their desire to overthrow the Roe v Wade legislation as regards abortion and Kavanaugh’s appointment is seen as a route to achieving their aim.
    If that happens, imo, it will set back the cause of womens’ rights almost fifty years and coming from a President who,
    two years ago, was seen on TV advocating grabbing women by the ‘p***y’...well you can see my concern.
    Of course that's possible but still a few years away at the least. Since a case has to go through the normal lower courts then appellate before reaching the Supreme Court.

    But if it's still only a 5-4 then there's a good chance 1 or 2 of the Conservative judges might flip. I think Roberts might not want to see his court go down in infamy.

    Still I think abortion won't get repealed altogether rather more stringent requirements.
    I also doubt same sex marriages will be repealed.

    Rather I think we might get a confirmation on immigration policy, approval of 'extra police powers' and harsher sentencing. And of course, greater leeway to presidential authority.

    1 thing I'd like to add, is the recent decision allowing the ban on individuals from certain Muslim countries.
    I think most people miss the key point in the whole case.
    It's not whether the President can impose such a ban, (which he can), rather whether remarks he made on the campaign trail encroached the separation/ freedom of religion clause in the Constitution.
    I think the Court ruled rightly here that mere remarks did not encroach. Despite it being Trump, the bar would be set way too high if the ban was overturned based merely on that.

    I think the Court ruled in a way that's rather acceptable in most jurisdictions- the Executive has the power to set immigration policy provided it does not breach basic rights.

  2. #22
    In regards to other replies, I think the media is being too silly to hit on Trump on every matter.
    You've got to give him credit for some of the successes he's had and agree with some of his policies.

    He's done ok on Syria, N Korea and even has a point on NATO. He's created a number of jobs. His tax policy isn't that bad and his infrastructure and spending plans are reasonable.

    Of course his trade policies is too simplistic. But the point here is that you're not gonna sway his base if you keep attacking him all the time.

    Praise him and praise him well when he does something positive. It'll then give you lots of leg room to attack him when he does something dumb.
    It might not be altogether successful in swaying his base but if you can get 5-10% of them plus independents, then you can defeat him in 2020.

    At the current rate, you can only defeat him if you convince enough Dems to come out and vote. Compared to the Republican machine, there's a huge bridge to close.

  3. #23
    Q
    Quote Originally Posted by Andy_Faber View Post
    I think I’m defending people’s right to have the opinion he’s doing a good job ‘on balance’. Here’s one from my good old girl Cathy in a grubby little town near Charlottesville : ‘ I hate what he’s doing splitting families up but what I hate more is illegals setting up a tax-free haven down the road from (husband’s) body shop’. That’s an actual quote about an actual situation and yes it’s only an anecdote but it’s from a smarter-than-I businesswoman not a Rebel-flag-waving inbred. So, there’s good and bad. I DO think he’s a sleaze but as someone who bloody hates political correctness, I’m glad he’s stirred the pot and emboldened people to say what was becoming effectively ‘forbidden’ not so long ago. And NO my enthusiasm doesn’t extend to man hating fellow man but there HAS to be more open discussion on many issues

    The liberal thing is the ying to the trump yang, I see them (or some other centrist group) applying the brakes to anotherwise rampant Tory or Labour government. If the 2010 - 2015 govt had been Tory not coalition God knows what they’d have foisted on us. Look at last time - when they thought they’d get a landslide they slipped in the return of fox hunting FFS! Old cable wouldn’t be having any of that. Remember I said Brexit is only one of many issues either or probably both could **** up without a voice of reason around. Maybe give Ken Clark a casting vote on everything where the parliament vote was within 50 would be an alternative
    I’m quite certain you’re a thoroughly nice and reasonable chap, AF...but when it comes to politics you’re like a virgin at Freshers’ Week.

  4. #24
    Did OK on Syria? ISIS is a group that evolved out of rebels supplied and funded by, amongst others, the US. The recent "gas attacks" there. Never happened.

    It's all about which oil pipeline gets built. The US preferred one or the Russian preferred one? All of this conflict, of course, means guns and ammo are being used and need replacing...... more profit for arms manufacturers and their shareholders.

    Trump is cosying up to Russia and distancing himself from his "natural" allies in Europe. His preferred home policies are taking away freedoms from citizens. Making gun ownership harder and more sensible being the one issue he won't get tough on.

    Some US TV station took a 13 year old, with his parents' permission to 3 different shops to buy stuff he is too young to buy. A scratch card in one, cigarettes in another and beer in the 3rd. The shops didn't even bother to ask for ID, they flatly refused to serve him. He then went to a gun fair and walked out 10 minutes later with a shotgun. Nobody asked for ID.

    Trump is asking, nay, demanding that the European members of NATO live up to their agreed spend of a minimum of 2% of GDP on "defence". At the moment only the US and the UK do so. If you take away all of the money the US spends on its selfish escapades in places like Syria and Iraq and others where the excuses have been "gas attacks" and "WMD" then they also don't reach 2%. Apparently there have only been a dozen or so years that the US wasn't at war with someone..........

    Super Callous Fragile Sexist Racially biased POTUS.

  5. #25
    You have more faith in human nature than me, ramAnag. I think the 'decent' people prefer to forget about Rotherham because it's too sickening and vile to think about. It's much more fun to attend the Donald Trump 'hate' fest than it is to face up to the Religion that must not be named.

  6. #26
    Hope this isn't deemed off topic in this thread but a mere 3 days ago, 12 Russian diplomats were indicted by the Mueller team investigating the US election fraud/sabotage that Trump says is no more than a witch hunt.

    Sorry Don lad, it looks like it actually ahppened and if you or your family or staff are found to have been involved, you/they will be next.

  7. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by MadAmster View Post
    Hope this isn't deemed off topic in this thread but a mere 3 days ago, 12 Russian diplomats were indicted by the Mueller team investigating the US election fraud/sabotage that Trump says is no more than a witch hunt.

    Sorry Don lad, it looks like it actually ahppened and if you or your family or staff are found to have been involved, you/they will be next.
    Mueller is in the Clinton camp and has been right from the start. Yes, it's a witch hunt.


    It's interesting that no mention has been made of Obama's attempts to rig the Israeli election in order to unseat Netyanhu.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Sweet Home Alabama
    Posts
    2,635
    Quote Originally Posted by ramAnag View Post
    Q

    I’m quite certain you’re a thoroughly nice and reasonable chap, AF...but when it comes to politics you’re like a virgin at Freshers’ Week.
    Sorry don't understand the analogy, and as an aside me (and there rest of my family) was too savvy to get dragged into freshers' week

  9. #29
    Mueller in the Clinton camp despite being a registered Republican?
    Appointed by Republican Presidents to all his previous posts.
    Yeah right.

    Incidentally James Comey was also a Republican.

    I guess everyone who disagrees with Trump is a Hillary loving Democrat.

    Trolol

  10. #30
    Classic case on what I said earlier. 2 incidents happened which 1 should not be anti whilst the other was fair.

    1. Visit to Windsor.

    Much too much been made of so-called faux pas or slights to HM.
    She was kept waiting.
    Excuse me, did Trump drive himself there? If you wanna blame, blame the driver. Even that is probably unfair. It wasn't the Beast but. Range Rover. Different car maybe different style. And anyway the timing is controlled by the host isn't it? And since Trump is the guest, no harm in the Queen waiting for her guest not the other way round.

    Neither curtsied? (sp)

    Why should non Brita curtsey? Why should a Head of a different State have to curtsey or bow to the British Monarch?
    A handshake is perfectly acceptable.

    He walked in front of her. What rubbish. Both were walking together each gesturing to the other to go ahead. Trump eventually by the turn ended up in front. He stopped and waited. Non issue really.
    Anyway make some people don't understand protocol elsewhere. It's quite normal for the first to walk ahead in inspecting the GOH, since it's formed for his benefit not the host's.
    I've seen these numerous times in various countries. The Guest walks ahead to inspect the Guard.

    The whole exercise was a meaningless exercise to portray Trump in the worst light possible.

    And even his meeting, he said very complimentary things, did not reveal anything in detail except that HM said Need it was a very complex issue which is a fair comment for him to make without providing the telling details of their convo.

    2. Helsinki

    Here Trump made a series of disastrous remarks which the media has every right to assail him.

    Conclusion.

    When the media or opponents jab him for non-issues, they lose the initiative when real issues turn up.
    What would an ordinary voter leaning Republican think. Oh they attacked him for nothing and now doing it again. I can't really trust all these media reports and better stick to script and continue to believe him when he says all these are fake news, deep state etc.

    And that's the problem, when you attack him needlessly you are not convincing his voters to go against him.
    When Bush was President, the media held off personal attacks except for the humorous stuff he did, which even he accepted as fair.
    So when he made policy mistakes, they then when after him and got the message across.
    The result? 2008 was a shoo- in for a Democrat. McCain was not a bad choice for the Republicans but he was faced with an uphill battle trying to distance himself from whatever errors Bush made in the previous 8 years.

    This is a lesson for those who oppose Trump vehemently. Choose yoyr6 battles. Let him win a few meaningless ones, so when the real blunder occurs, you are seen as fair.

    They were presented with a Watergate style opportunity with the Russian probe. But most of that has been lost in translation, now a majority of Republicans think it's a witchunt.
    It's not gonna affect him unless Mueller can pin evidence and charges against Eric or Jared. Or unless there's a smoking gun which clearly shows Trump colluding or obstructing justice. I think it's safe to say that this now looks very unlikely.

  11. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by Andy_Faber View Post
    Sorry don't understand the analogy, and as an aside me (and there rest of my family) was too savvy to get dragged into freshers' week
    Sorry...was a tad the worse for wine...think I meant...where politics is concerned, you’re anxious to please and see the best in people but unable to always differentiate between those who are sincere and those whose intentions are less honourable.
    In short...it is impossible to act as a simultaneous suitor for both the admirable Vince and the loathsome Trump, so climb down off that fence...Brexit or Remain? Progressive Liberal or Regressive tyrant? Your choice but you can’t have it both ways...hope that makes more sense...just knackered now but at least, unlike Trump, I still know the difference between ‘would’ and ‘wouldn’t’!
    Last edited by ramAnag; 17-07-2018 at 08:03 PM.

  12. #32
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Sweet Home Alabama
    Posts
    2,635
    Quote Originally Posted by ramAnag View Post
    Sorry...was a tad the worse for wine...think I meant...where politics is concerned, you’re anxious to please and see the best in people but unable to always differentiate between those who are sincere and those whose intentions are less honourable.
    In short...it is impossible to act as a simultaneous suitor for both the admirable Vince and the loathsome Trump, so climb down off that fence...Brexit or Remain? Progressive Liberal or Regressive tyrant? Your choice but you can’t have it both ways...hope that makes more sense...just knackered now but at least, unlike Trump, I still know the difference between ‘would’ and ‘wouldn’t’!
    yes his U-turn is a bit pathetic, but again I think he'll get away with it and in my experience such behaviour isn't uncommon amongst autocrats.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •