The New Trump Thread

[Pacman1903]

Old one has disappeared

Apologies for the record link

What do these people actually expect to achieve and also do they think a man like Trump gives one iota of a f@ck and their Trump is a Ballbag" signs

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/donald-trump-greeted-protesters-touches-8282100#bo2dP66TZJWwHZG3.97

[NEM83]

Old one has disappeared

Apologies for the record link

What do these people actually expect to achieve and also do they think a man like Trump gives one iota of a f@ck and their Trump is a Ballbag" signs

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/donald-trump-greeted-protesters-touches-8282100#bo2dP66TZJWwHZG3.97

They've obviously nothing better to do. Same as the few hundred beauts that were protesting the leave vote in London last night

[Aldo1983]

So people just do nothing at all then? I'm sure they don't see it as having nothing else to do.

[Pacman1903]

But my question is, What do they actually expect to achieve, Trump doesnt give a flying f@ck about these folk?

I personally would laugh my ass off if someone had a sign saying "Pacman is a Ballbag", id love it and id even sign it for them

[Barnared]

You have to admire trump. He does seem to know what he's on about. Here's his response to brexit.


http://youtu.be/d8NdQrGljHM

[Aldo1983]

But my question is, What do they actually expect to achieve, Trump doesnt give a flying f@ck about these folk?

I personally would laugh my ass off if someone had a sign saying "Pacman is a Ballbag", id love it and id even sign it for them

It got lots of attention didn't it?

[Pacman1903]

It got lots of attention didn't it?

And what does attention achieve?

Its more publicity for Trump, something Trump loves.

So istill dinna get the point of the protest

[Aldo1983]

And what does attention achieve?

Its more publicity for Trump, something Trump loves.

So istill dinna get the point of the protest

He was always going go get the publicity. They clearly don't like him hence why they are out there voicing that. It's really not that difficult Packers. They aren't hurting anyone so leave them to it.

[Brian Grantland]

convention the past week was hilarious in its ineptitude

this is an interview he gave after it

http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/donald-trump-on-tim-kaine-muslim-ban-taxes-and-roger-ailes-731114563939

[Jupiter]

Barry's brother is voting for Trump

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-36897261

[gervaise_brookhampst]

How does he get off with this sh1t? Telling so many lies and a hell of a lot of Shermans still think he's the answer to all their problems!

http://www.boreme.com/posting.php?id=45923

[Getintaethem]

How does he get off with this sh1t? Telling so many lies and a hell of a lot of Shermans still think he's the answer to all their problems!

http://www.boreme.com/posting.php?id=45923

I am not sure the majority of Americans who will either vote for Trump or the many democrats who will abstain and not vote think Trump is the answer to the many problems in America. It is more to do with who they don't want as their President and on that front Clinton will probably (as it stands right now) lose in November even when she will outspend Trump by tens of millions throughout the campaign.

I think both candidates are pretty loathsome. However, if you watch this video you will see why many Americans have had enough of the Clintons.

Trump is a self publicist, fantasist, bully and many other things, but the Clintons are probably corrupt to the highest degree.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LYRUOd_QoM

[Barnared]

I dony thin many Americans give a phuk about corruption. They give a phuk about guns, Mexican walls and muslims.

[Pacman1903]

I dony thin many Americans give a phuk about corruption. They give a phuk about guns, Mexican walls and muslims.

But the Mexicans are wanting to vote Trump. I work with one (hes a Texican)and he says all his friends are in the same boat. The support for Trump round him is huge and there is a massive Mexican community there.

[Getintaethem]

I dony thin many Americans give a phuk about corruption. They give a phuk about guns, Mexican walls and muslims.

That is the media's take on it certainly, however, the tea party/Trump on the right and the Bernie followers on the left are all about the winners and losers from globalisation and Washington (which is seen as corrupt with politicians being bought with money from big business etc). Guns, walls and muslims certainly add colour to the media debate but without the first part a minority of people would vote based on those issues.

It is not just the Republicans chanting send her to jail... it was Democrats at their convention. That is Democrats shouting for their would be Democratic President to be sent to prison. Amazing really but shows the depth of feeling right across the political spectrum.

[Getintaethem]

But the Mexicans are wanting to vote Trump. I work with one (hes a Texican)and he says all his friends are in the same boat. The support for Trump round him is huge and there is a massive Mexican community there.

I do not think the polls are correctly reflecting his support in the US. I think he will win the popular vote but due to the electoral process he needs to win certain swing states. These tend to have lots of blue collar workers that have typically voted Democrat that do not see much immigration but have seen lots of manufacturing jobs go to countries such as Mexico. His anti free trade messaging plays very well in these states whereas a vote for Clinton is a vote for the status quo. There is not much passion for the status quo in the US especially in these states.

However, Trump has a big task on his hands converting some of these states as well as winning some key states (where demographics are changing) such as Florida.

On balance I tend to agree with Michael Moore on this subject and Trump will win (all things remaining equal). Given that he will be outspent massively in these key states and the Democrats will have tens of thousands of people on the ground to Trump tens it will be remarkable if he did.

I am glad I am not over there... pretty depressing stuff whichever way it goes.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-moore/5-reasons-why-trump-will-_b_11156794.html

[Barnared]

"I am glad I am not over there... pretty depressing stuff whichever way it goes"

Aye but would we not say that regardless of who was running.

[Barnared]

http://youtu.be/GZPTA1q7GuA

[Barnared]

It's when the biggest laughs are reserved for 'our' politicians, that you know things are really phuked up XD

http://youtu.be/9uWAdJFhBK4

[Brian Grantland]

But the Mexicans are wanting to vote Trump. I work with one (hes a Texican)and he says all his friends are in the same boat. The support for Trump round him is huge and there is a massive Mexican community there.

I think you'll find the vast majority of Mexicans do not support Trump.

[Barnared]

I think you'll find the vast majority of Mexicans do not support Trump.

Not the ones in Mexico anyway

[StandfreeFM]

Right, this joke has gone far enough. Shirley they are nae really going to make this sleazy conman the President of the US...

[Psaw]

S crew liberal democracy. Even a constipated monkey would be better. Break the mould, GO FOR IT DON.

[Pacman1903]

It just said on Reporting Scotland that groups have taken to the streets (in Scotland) in protest

Get a f@cking life

[mondo_notion]

I don't like the guy but give him a chance I say. He has made some big promises though and that will come back to haunt him when he can't deliver.

[Jupiter]

He's not my idea of a good president, but he's vastly preferable to crooked Hillary who really should be in jail.

[leontrotsky]

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

[Jupiter]

The start of newsnight last night was very funny. They're not laughing now.


https://youtu.be/OrpjGdiP7sQ

[Pacman1903]

^^^^^^^

Funny

[scobiemacd]

What's the script with the young Trump lad? Is he autistic or something? Always looks away in his own wee world.

[Skacel]

What's the script with the young Trump lad? Is he autistic or something? Always looks away in his own wee world.

Future serial killer

http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/headhuntershorrorhouse/images/2/2d/Michael_Myers_-_1963.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20091024170857

[Stupie82]

The start of newsnight last night was very funny. They're not laughing now.


https://youtu.be/OrpjGdiP7sQ

It only goes to show how out of touch the media, celebrities and politicians are with the public. They all buried their heads in the sand and thought that every single person thinks like they do and would be influenced by their views and rhetoric. Regardless of the consequences the US and the world may face, its the constant lying and being so far out of touch that has led to this man being president.

[Jupiter]

Future serial killer

http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/headhuntershorrorhouse/images/2/2d/Michael_Myers_-_1963.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20091024170857

He's got a big lion

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C2xNkXXXAAAUYck.jpg

[Stupie82]

I see he has pulled the US out of the TPP and hopefully the same will come with TTIP as well. I have to say one thing, he hasn't beaten around the bush on this one. That said, i think pulling them out of TTP and the rhetoric about islands in the south China sea wont do much for US and Chinese relations. Potentially another Pacific flash point in the making.

[sancho_panza]

I see he has pulled the US out of the TPP and hopefully the same will come with TTIP as well. I have to say one thing, he hasn't beaten around the bush on this one. That said, i think pulling them out of TTP and the rhetoric about islands in the south China sea wont do much for US and Chinese relations. Potentially another Pacific flash point in the making.

Personally, I find this "free trade agreements are destroying society, let's scrap them all and sign loads of new free trade agreements" line you get from both Trump and Brexit supporters pretty baffling. I get the left-wing argument against free trade and I understand the alternative argument for more free trade, but Trump and Farage seem to be intent on trashing free trade and supporting it simultaneously.

In fact Trump's real objection to existing free trade agreements seems to be little more than the fact that he didn't personally negotiate them himself - he isn't arguing against free trade so much as he's arguing he'll negotiate better deals (which of course he won't because his idea of diplomacy is issuing ultimatums and threatening trade wars every five minutes).

[Getintaethem]

Personally, I find this "free trade agreements are destroying society, let's scrap them all and sign loads of new free trade agreements" line you get from both Trump and Brexit supporters pretty baffling. I get the left-wing argument against free trade and I understand the alternative argument for more free trade, but Trump and Farage seem to be intent on trashing free trade and supporting it simultaneously.

In fact Trump's real objection to existing free trade agreements seems to be little more than the fact that he didn't personally negotiate them himself - he isn't arguing against free trade so much as he's arguing he'll negotiate better deals (which of course he won't because his idea of diplomacy is issuing ultimatums and threatening trade wars every five minutes).

The free trade deals that have been signed by the US are pushing US companies to close down their US operations and go abroad. Factories and offices have been closing down all over the US. Cars manufacturing has got a lot of news with them closing factories in the US and investing in Mexico but it has been happening in many sectors. US companies manufacture in Mexico, for example, cheaper than they could in order to them sell those products back to the US.

Who wins in this scenario? Mexico, big business and the banking sector as they increase their profits at the expense of US jobs... i.e. real people's livelihoods. In the US wages go down and people get poorer.

He already has the car manufacturers stopping their plans around exporting jobs to Mexico. More will follow as they come to realise that it does not make economic sense to do so. Mexico will be able to compete but not because they pay their workers a fraction of the US minimum wage.

Trump is actually for free trade in general because it cuts tariffs and makes doing business in different countries easier. That is why the US will do a free trade deal with the UK as he will protect the interests of the US (and the UK can protect their interests) while at the same time making it easier and cheaper for both the US and UK to do more business together.

[sancho_panza]

The free trade deals that have been signed by the US are pushing US companies to close down their US operations and go abroad. Factories and offices have been closing down all over the US. Cars manufacturing has got a lot of news with them closing factories in the US and investing in Mexico but it has been happening in many sectors. US companies manufacture in Mexico, for example, cheaper than they could in order to them sell those products back to the US.

Who wins in this scenario? Mexico, big business and the banking sector as they increase their profits at the expense of US jobs... i.e. real people's livelihoods. In the US wages go down and people get poorer.

He already has the car manufacturers stopping their plans around exporting jobs to Mexico. More will follow as they come to realise that it does not make economic sense to do so. Mexico will be able to compete but not because they pay their workers a fraction of the US minimum wage.

Trump is actually for free trade in general because it cuts tariffs and makes doing business in different countries easier. That is why the US will do a free trade deal with the UK as he will protect the interests of the US (and the UK can protect their interests) while at the same time making it easier and cheaper for both the US and UK to do more business together.

Manufacturing moves out of the US (and the UK) because companies can manufacture products more cheaply abroad. Scrapping trade agreements isn't going to change that. We don't have a free trade agreement with China, for instance, but we've still seen our manufacturing industries decline in the face of Chinese competition. What Trump is actually doing here is a variation of the old nationalist electoral strategy of pretending the government was selling the native population out in negotiations with other countries and that only he has the power to stand up for Americans.

His line on this is that he can essentially use protectionist threats to force businesses to stay within the US if they still want to access the American market. That's the exact opposite of free trade. What you've essentially said here is that he supports free trade but is only embracing protectionism to protect American workers, but that's the very definition of protectionism. You either believe the principles of free trade will benefit society overall or you don't. Either position is fine, but we can't credibly pretend to support both things at the same time.

We're also ignoring the other side of the equation here: consumers. Trump claims to be in favour of protecting the poorest in society, yet slapping tariffs on imports will drive up prices for ordinary Americans. To pretend that he has unlimited capacity to impose ruinous tariffs on any business that doesn't do what he wants is completely disingenuous for that reason.

[Getintaethem]

"You either believe the principles of free trade will benefit society overall or you don't. Either position is fine, but we can't credibly pretend to support both things at the same time."

You describe free trade as a light switch - either on or off. But that is not true. Countries protect their own interests in free trade deals all the time. On the one end you have total free trade and access to markets and on the other you have limited free trade in certain markets (products and services) and very limited access to markets. There is a spectrum of "free trade" deals out there. The free trade in the EU, for example, does not cover Services to any great extent. And why? One of the reasons is protectionism. And another reason for free trade deals can in themselves be to protect a set of countries interests against another set. This can be seen with the EU again with agriculture. France wanted to protect its farmers (that is why we pay huge subsidies to farmers around Europe) but also protect farmers from lower cost producers around the world - like Africa. So a significant consequence of the EU free trade is in fact protectionism.

What Trump is saying is lets have free trade but he wants to make US companies stay in the US and not ship jobs out of the US. You may like or dislike his version of protectionism but to say the principles of free trade are always free trade and free access to markets for products and services and there not being a large chunk of protectionism in those agreements is almost universally untrue. Free trade brings lots of advantages but the mind set on the whole of countries entering into these negotiations is to gain as much of the advantages for their country as possible while at the same time protecting as much of their existing economies as possible.

Politics is more than just economics. If you as a country, for social reasons, put a minimum wage that is 10 times more than another country and a company can easily move production from one country to another then they will do it. Trump is against this and also against what he has called "bad" free trade deals that the US has signed that have exasperated the problem because it is easier to move with free trade deals in place. For example, the US has shipped a large part of its manufacturing base to China, but on the whole what they have done is sign agreements with third party chinese companies to manufacture products or components on their behalf. Whereas in Mexico, the US companies have built, owned and operated these factories - the free trade deal has made the Mexican market easier for this to happen.

There is also a heavy dose of realism here. If a country like the US signs deals that ship a great swathe of manufacturing jobs to another country then the politicians that support that will be out of a job. Hence why Trump won the "rust belt" states and has been elected.

So you may like Trumps version of protectionism in free trade or dislike it but pretty much all countries utilise one form of protectionism or another inside or outside free trade deals - this is not unique to Trump.

[sancho_panza]

So you may like Trumps version of protectionism in free trade or dislike it but pretty much all countries utilise one form of protectionism or another inside or outside free trade deals - this is not unique to Trump.

Obviously no country applies free trade principles universally without exception, but that's not what we're talking about with Trump. We're talking about characterising his overall trade policy. He claims to be in favour of free trade (and you seem to take him at his word on this) yet his actions repeatedly signal the opposite is true. He's scrapping free trade agreements on the basis that it will supposedly protect American jobs. He's threatening a trade war with Mexico unless they agree to fund his vanity wall on the border. He's threatening businesses that move their operations outside of the United States with a loss of market access (and so on).

This isn't anything new, you see it frequently with politicians like Trump and Farage. They realise that "free trade" is treated by a large chunk of public opinion as something broadly positive, so they claim to support it, but in reality their policies consistently undermine it in an attempt to win support from nationalists. And as I said above, this doesn't do the poor of America any favours if his trade policy drives up prices for consumers.

More to the point, it likely won't even protect jobs in the first place. If you threaten any company that moves its operations abroad with a loss of access then what company in their right mind would choose to locate themselves in the US? If you put up barriers to the rest of the world and damage business conditions by losing access to external markets then what does that do to FDI? It's potentially a crude way of keeping a small number of employers in the country and a guaranteed way to damage job creation (and therefore employment in the long run). But from Trump's perspective, it sounds good to his core electorate so that's all that matters.

[Getintaethem]

Well we can disagree - which is cool. No problem with that.

You mention that the poorest suffer because their products go up in price. This is not really so, because there is competition from companies that are based outside of the US. What is happening in reality is these companies are not usually lowering prices, they are taking more profits. More profit to the investors, more bonuses to the bosses. i.e. I am alright Jack attitude from big business. A good example is the car industry. Ford did not lower the prices of the cars that were made in Mexico - they just took more profit from each car sold. We see the evidence of this through wealth inequality in the US getting worse every year. In 1980, the top 1% controlled about 8% of US income, now they control 20%. For the lowest 50%, they controlled 18% of US income, now they control 12%. The middle classes have reduced in size over that time. The majority of people are getting poorer. Median incomes are lower now than they were in 2000 (adjusting for inflation). If nothing changes then for the first time in history peoples children will be poorer in the US than their parents. If you are worse off now than you were a few years ago, even if a product is cheaper - you are still worse off.

The reality also is that if you have no job or have a lower paid job then you cannot buy the stuff made outside America in the first place. Also, if taxes are raised as they have been in the US to pay for unemployment and to "kick start" the economy then a $20 saving on a fridge freezer could be in actual fact a $50 overall cost to a household. i.e. you save $20 but you have paid $70 in higher taxes - that is assuming that products were cheaper.

The sort of jobs that the US are making is not replacing high skilled middle/blue collar worker jobs with like for like replacements - the jobs created are more part time or low paying. A factory closes and the people that can get jobs are either on temporary contracts or lower paid than what they were on before. 1 in 10 jobs in the US is now filled by a temp agency.

You also have to look at this policy in context with his other policies. For example, he will enable companies that have offshored profits to avoid tax take them back into the US - with a one off 10% tax rate on those profits. Trump will also lower corporate tax rates to 15%. So lots of these companies in the US will take trillions of dollars onshore. That money needs to go somewhere and as he is going to get more companies investing in industries like manufacturing the US will start to see well paid jobs coming back into the country.

So it is a carrot and stick. You take production and your money back into the country and we will give you lower taxes and less regulation. You decide to put production overseas then we will deem that you are not assisting the country and we will tax you. The companies are free to do 3 things 1) take their production and money back into the US 2) move completely out of the US and set up lock stock and barrel in another country or 3) stay in the US and move production outside the US and get taxed.

I believe a Governments job to protect the interests of its citizens over and above interests of big business and other countries. You can call this nationalism if you want. I do not really care for labels personally.

[naetaebashersallowed]

He already has the car manufacturers stopping their plans around exporting jobs to Mexico. More will follow as they come to realise that it does not make economic sense to do so. Mexico will be able to compete but not because they pay their workers a fraction of the US minimum wage.

.

It is not all black and white regarding jobs going out of the US.
If you take the car companies that manufacture cars in Mexico, obviously labour costs in Mexico are cheaper than the US however it was mentioned that Chevrolet made the Cruz version of their car in Mexico because the Mexicans had negotiated deals with around 50 countries and the US only had deals with around 20 countries.

Chevy manufactured their larger vehicles for the home market in the US and smaller cars like the Cruz would more likely be exported so they are made in Mexico.

[Getintaethem]

It is not all black and white regarding jobs going out of the US.
If you take the car companies that manufacture cars in Mexico, obviously labour costs in Mexico are cheaper than the US however it was mentioned that Chevrolet made the Cruz version of their car in Mexico because the Mexicans had negotiated deals with around 50 countries and the US only had deals with around 20 countries.

Chevy manufactured their larger vehicles for the home market in the US and smaller cars like the Cruz would more likely be exported so they are made in Mexico.

I agree with this. However, the US still imported over 2M vehicles from Mexico and Canada last year from US car companies. The ease of doing business in other countries outside the US is also a factor. For example, (over and above trade deals), the regulations around manufacturing in the US are far higher than in Mexico. Hence why Trump is going to reduce unnecessary regulations by 75% which increases costs of manufacturing in the US, add new trade deals or re-negotiate existing ones and stop currency manipulation by other countries to make their products manufactured there (i.e. protectionism even when countries have free trade deals with the U.S.) artificially cheaper than US built products.

[Stupie82]

Worrying....

America's immigration system has been plunged into chaos and confusion in the wake of strict travel restrictions on people from seven Muslim-majority nations.

President Trump's sweeping executive order for "extreme vetting" means no visas are being issued for 90 days to migrants or visitors from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.

But the ban is also affecting permanent, legal US citizens who were born in these countries. Those who were not on American soil when the decree came into effect are not able to re-enter for three months - separating them from their families and putting their jobs at risk.


Some green card holders who were flying home to the US when the executive order was signed have been taken into custody at airports upon arrival - with dozens of immigration lawyers attempting to help the stranded.

A judge has ruled those who have already landed in the US with valid visas can be temporarily allowed to stay in the country.

As of Saturday night, customs and border protection officials had denied entry to more than 170 people.

Others who were about to board flights back to America have been told they cannot travel - and the Homeland Security Department has been contacting airlines and recommending them to deny boarding to certain passengers.

Enforcement of the executive order for those landing in the States has been described as patchy and disorganised, and some American airports have been more lenient than others.

[Pacman1903]

This is nothing new for America they have form

Roosevelt banned Jews entering during the war. Boats were turned back to Europe on arrival to the US. How many of them were killed on return to Europe. A lot is the answer according to the record books.. What trump is doing is no better or worse than that

Communists have been banned in the past between 1950 and 1993 there were laws against them entering

This is also the second time Iranians have been banned from entering as they were banned in 1980

HIV or aids victims were banned from entering by Reagan in 87 and that law was only lifted in Obamas term in 09


Its nae a Trump thing as its being made out to be.

Its a Yank thing y'all





Edit, next time I go to America I cant wait for immigration. Last time I went my Libyan, Algerian and Egyptian visas among other Arabic writing went down a treat when entering at Newark. Interrogated for 20 mins. I have double the amount of Arabic in it now along with stamps and visa from around the globe. Might book a trip over for a laugh.

[ILikeJam]

This is nothing new for America they have form

Roosevelt banned Jews entering during the war. Boats were turned back to Europe on arrival to the US. How many of them were killed on return to Europe. A lot is the answer according to the record books.. What trump is doing is no better or worse than that

Communists have been banned in the past between 1950 and 1993 there were laws against them entering

This is also the second time Iranians have been banned from entering as they were banned in 1980

HIV or aids victims were banned from entering by Reagan in 87 and that law was only lifted in Obamas term in 09


Its nae a Trump thing as its being made out to be.

Its a Yank thing y'all





Edit, next time I go to America I cant wait for immigration. Last time I went my Libyan, Algerian and Egyptian visas among other Arabic writing went down a treat when entering at Newark. Interrogated for 20 mins. I have double the amount of Arabic in it now along with stamps and visa from around the globe. Might book a trip over for a laugh.


Could you nae just get a second passport and keep it 'stampless'?

[Getintaethem]

Funny how what Obama did (as detailed in this article) was not even mentioned in the MSM but what Trump has done is the worst thing that anyone has ever done ever in the world... ever.

Like or loathe Trump, this story just proves the control, misinformation and false news that runs are the core of the MSM in America... and as the BBC has reported this story in pretty much the same way - with our own MSM.

https://sethfrantzman.com/2017/01/28/obamas-administration-made-the-muslim-ban-possible-and-the-media-wont-tell-you/

[Stupie82]

The biggest difference here is that although Obama started the process of restricting visas, he didnt do it based on religion. Trump has specifically said this is a "Muslim ban". Same when Carter banned Iranians, it was a ban on Iranians, not Muslims and there is a significant difference. He even said during his campaign “we need a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on.”

He also said that this is a ban on countries that harbor terrorists and train terrorists yet the mighty Saudi Arabia isnt on the list...

Im not jumping on the bash Trump bandwagon, but this is a disgrace. As rightly pointed out by Pacman, he isnt the first president to place bans, but that doesn't make it any less worrying.

[Getintaethem]

The biggest difference here is that although Obama started the process of restricting visas, he didnt do it based on religion. Trump has specifically said this is a "Muslim ban". Same when Carter banned Iranians, it was a ban on Iranians, not Muslims and there is a significant difference. He even said during his campaign “we need a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on.”

He also said that this is a ban on countries that harbor terrorists and train terrorists yet the mighty Saudi Arabia isnt on the list...

Im not jumping on the bash Trump bandwagon, but this is a disgrace. As rightly pointed out by Pacman, he isnt the first president to place bans, but that doesn't make it any less worrying.

His rhetoric through the campaign notably changed as the campaign went on, and he left the banning on Muslims line months ago - well before the polls opened. For him or against him, if you looked at Trump's strategy throughout the campaign, his modus operandi was to say something extreme, get the conversation onto that topic and slowly ease his position back to a less radical position. Like it or not - his strategy worked. People went from, I cannot support that to a, oh well - I can stomach that new position.

Look at the build the wall as another example. He was going to build the wall and Mexico was going to pay for it. Now this has changed to he will build the wall and Mexico will pay the US back for it. This will change to he will build the wall and he will try and show how Mexico has recompensed the US although it wont stand up to scrutiny. Although, then it wont matter. He is basically using a line now that Clinton agreed to a few years back. But it became the symbol of his campaign. He did this time and again through the primaries and in the election.

If you look at the executive order - it does not mention any religion, it also only mentions 1 country (not all the countries mentioned explicitly by Obama) and thirdly, it has affected every religion... including Christians that tried to get into the US. So hardly an attack on all Muslims considering the vast majority of Muslims do not even live in that country and the ones that do, the majority could not afford to travel to the US.

I am not saying what he has done is worrying or not, nor have I said that he is right or wrong. On the same theme, the same is true of what Obama did. The media's reporting of this is tantamount to "false news" - they did not report what Obama did but have jumped on what Trump has done as being completely beyond the pale. Read the article I posted above, good summary of someone who was completely against Trump from what he heard in the news but then went on to read the executive order and the history of what Obama did and comes to the same conclusion as myself.

[Pacman1903]

Could you nae just get a second passport and keep it 'stampless'?

I do have a second stampless passport. Just want a laugh. 20 mins untill the guy asked who i worked for and i told him the American company, he then closed my passport and said "welcome to the US Mr Pacman, enjoy your time here"

[Jupiter]

People are always complaining about the wrong things. How many of the million muppets who signed that anti Trump petition complained about the Russians bombing Syria which killed thousands of Muslims? That was much worse than anything Trump has done.

[Mason89]

Whatabouttery

[InversneckieDob]

People are always complaining about the wrong things. How many of the million muppets who signed that anti Trump petition complained about the Russians bombing Syria which killed thousands of Muslims? That was much worse than anything Trump has done.

Well, me for one? :?

[Stupie82]

People are always complaining about the wrong things. How many of the million muppets who signed that anti Trump petition complained about the Russians bombing Syria which killed thousands of Muslims? That was much worse than anything Trump has done.

I would imagine quite a lot of them, myself included. That is of course worse than what Trump has done, but give the man some time. I'm sure it wont be long before he hits similar headlines, just like most of his predecessors.

[Pacman1903]

Ach just let him come over. Better as a friend than an enemy

[ragnarok]

Whichever 'side' you are on, the media has largely abandoned any pretence of balance, fact based reporting. The 'fake news' scare was laughable. Articles which present undeniable falsehoods are one thing - calling something fake news because you disagree with the conclusion drawn from certain facts is just an attempt to push one agenda at the expense of others and both sides are at it.

The media has been anti-Trump from the get go and so far they have failed miserably despite already throwing the kitchen sink at him to prevent his election. Apparently the new strategy now that he has taken office is more of the same. Even if you hate Trump, this must seem counterproductive. Polls suggest that 'extreme vetting' is broadly popular with the U.S. public. So it seems to be the same small segment of the population that rages at every news story.

Trump's 'Muslim ban' (the EO doesn't actually say anything about religion) is evidently poorly drafted and poorly executed. But there's nothing particularly shocking or unprecedented in its aims. It's a temporary ban that has been introduced while the current administration determines its policy in relation to the future vetting of refugees from those countries.

But for the most part this is a storm in a teacup. A couple of hundred people have been affected. I'm sure it sucks for them but the media reaction has been disproportionate.

[Pacman1903]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2017/jan/30/trump-travel-ban-executive-order-world-protests-live

Dinna speak out against him or he will fire your ass

[Pacman1903]

http://i65.tinypic.com/9uohds.jpg

http://i67.tinypic.com/2e4do36.jpg

So you attend a serious "mock outrage" demo and you have these little nuggets of wisdom to share. Deary me


But on a lighter note they are funny


Edit- Id be really surprised if members of the goon brigade haven't rocked up for "the cause". D@cks

[mondo_notion]

Not a bad turn out at the Castlegate last night.

http://i63.tinypic.com/2w69q47.jpg

[ragnarok]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2017/jan/30/trump-travel-ban-executive-order-world-protests-live

Dinna speak out against him or he will fire your ass

Reading that live feed, I wonder if the liberal media intend to keep this up for the whole of Trump's presidency - scrutinising every act and looking for an angle to attack Trump. This has already been shown to be wholly ineffective as it merely creates another internet echo chamber where people who are outraged exclaim how outraged they are to each other.

[Getintaethem]

Reading that live feed, I wonder if the liberal media intend to keep this up for the whole of Trump's presidency - scrutinising every act and looking for an angle to attack Trump. This has already been shown to be wholly ineffective as it merely creates another internet echo chamber where people who are outraged exclaim how outraged they are to each other.

Most SIVS (Snowflake, Ignorant, Virtue Signallers) - don't let facts get in the way of a good protest.

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/6-F2HKLzB6c/hqdefault.jpg

[sancho_panza]

Trump's 'Muslim ban' (the EO doesn't actually say anything about religion) is evidently poorly drafted and poorly executed. But there's nothing particularly shocking or unprecedented in its aims. It's a temporary ban that has been introduced while the current administration determines its policy in relation to the future vetting of refugees from those countries.

It's a completely pointless gesture that disrupts thousands of people's lives simply to make a politician more popular with his core electorate. The idea it has some kind of reasoned pragmatic basis is laughable given the way it was implemented. Vetting is fine, in fact most people (except the minority on the extreme end of the liberal scale) would accept vetting. But slapping arbitrary travel bans on people at short notice is ridiculous. There's no security justification for it whatsoever, the only reason it was done in this way is to signal to Trump's supporters that he's taking care of the problem.

The wider debate about whether vetting is a good idea or not, whether the protesters are idiots (plenty of them are), and all the rest of it is actually beside the point. It was a knee-jerk decision, made for the worst of reasons and executed appallingly. Of course he's going to get stick for it - the media wouldn't be doing their job otherwise.

[Getintaethem]

It's a completely pointless gesture that disrupts thousands of people's lives simply to make a politician more popular with his core electorate. The idea it has some kind of reasoned pragmatic basis is laughable given the way it was implemented. Vetting is fine, in fact most people (except the minority on the extreme end of the liberal scale) would accept vetting. But slapping arbitrary travel bans on people at short notice is ridiculous. There's no security justification for it whatsoever, the only reason it was done in this way is to signal to Trump's supporters that he's taking care of the problem.

The wider debate about whether vetting is a good idea or not, whether the protesters are idiots (plenty of them are), and all the rest of it is actually beside the point. It was a knee-jerk decision, made for the worst of reasons and executed appallingly. Of course he's going to get stick for it - the media wouldn't be doing their job otherwise.

If a company was making defective products, they stop until they work out what is wrong with their system. That is not just pragmatic it is the only right thing for the company to do. The US has already found trained terrorists that have been allowed into the US as refugees (trained terrorists that made road side bombs that were filmed getting guns in the US) and let in as not being a " threat to the US". The current system is clearly not working and Trump has said that for 90 days he will do this in order to make sure the US citizens are protected... i.e. he is doing his job. Under Obama there was more vetting of people from 6 countries and he threw out more people that had got into the country than any other president.

So it is a temporary ban on Syrian's entering the country in order to check that enough is being done to protect US citizens. You could say that this is a terrible thing. Syria would never stop another countries citizen's from entering their country would the? Well, they do. They stop Israeli's. Not just a temporary ban. A total ban. As does Iran, Lebanon, Yemen, Sudan, Saudi Arabia and Libya.

So, we are saying what the US is doing, which is a reasonable action for a short period of time is terrible but where are all the protests about what is happening with Israelis? Where are all the news items? Are the media really doing their job? No. And where was the media stories when Obama put extreme vetting into place on the 5 other countries listed against the Trump story that Trump has not even banned?

[Pacman1903]

Reading that live feed, I wonder if the liberal media intend to keep this up for the whole of Trump's presidency - scrutinising every act and looking for an angle to attack Trump. This has already been shown to be wholly ineffective as it merely creates another internet echo chamber where people who are outraged exclaim how outraged they are to each other.

The Guardians live vidiprinter type thing is riddiculous.

As you say, will it last 4 years

[The_Verninator]

The whiny liberal lefty wing nutjobs just can't stand it can they.

They better get used to it.

As usual the silent majority just sit back and get on with life.

[Jupiter]

The media are being ridiculous. They spent the last 8 years fawning over Obama like a bunch of love sick schoolgirls.

[Mason89]

Obama isn't the president & neither is Hilary. Trump supporters are getting to be a bit like Theresa May, who can't utter a single sentence without it containing the word 'Corbyn'

Trumps a dick. If people want to point that out, then that's fair enough imo.

[ragnarok]

Obama isn't the president & neither is Hilary. Trump supporters are getting to be a bit like Theresa May, who can't utter a single sentence without it containing the word 'Corbyn'

Trumps a dick. If people want to point that out, then that's fair enough imo.


It's not like you to hold an incumbent to a different standard than his predecessors simply because you don't like him ;D :D

Who here is a 'Trump supporter'? Just pointing out that Partisan politics appears to be reaching a boiling point, if it hasn't already.

[Getintaethem]

Trumps a dick. If people want to point that out, then that's fair enough imo.

This sums up the issue. They are not meant to be protesting that Trump is a dick. They are meant to be protesting his immigration policy - which they claim they are doing.

However, if they protest against his temporary ban, why have they not protested against the 16 Muslim countries that have a non time limited blanket ban against people that are from Israel, or the blanket bans by 7 Muslim countries that stop anyone from entering if they have the audacity to have even visited Israel, or even if you have a used or unused Israeli visa on your passport.

But you are right, this is a protest against Trump masquerading as a protest against his policy. Thing is they have chosen the wrong thing to protest because the protesters through their lack of protesting against Muslim countries are being hypocritical and the majority of the US's own citizens agree with Trump. Surely it would have been better waiting until Trump was in a weaker position on a specific policy and then protest that cos if they just continue protesting on everything he does they will lose more and more support and when they do have a strong case against him their protests will fall on deaf ears. imo.

[sancho_panza]

If a company was making defective products, they stop until they work out what is wrong with their system. That is not just pragmatic it is the only right thing for the company to do. The US has already found trained terrorists that have been allowed into the US as refugees (trained terrorists that made road side bombs that were filmed getting guns in the US) and let in as not being a " threat to the US". The current system is clearly not working and Trump has said that for 90 days he will do this in order to make sure the US citizens are protected... i.e. he is doing his job. Under Obama there was more vetting of people from 6 countries and he threw out more people that had got into the country than any other president.

So it is a temporary ban on Syrian's entering the country in order to check that enough is being done to protect US citizens. You could say that this is a terrible thing. Syria would never stop another countries citizen's from entering their country would the? Well, they do. They stop Israeli's. Not just a temporary ban. A total ban. As does Iran, Lebanon, Yemen, Sudan, Saudi Arabia and Libya.

So, we are saying what the US is doing, which is a reasonable action for a short period of time is terrible but where are all the protests about what is happening with Israelis? Where are all the news items? Are the media really doing their job? No. And where was the media stories when Obama put extreme vetting into place on the 5 other countries listed against the Trump story that Trump has not even banned?

Assad also barrel bombs his own citizens and has only managed to stay in power because Putin, who Trump seems to admire, provided him with military support. Using Syria as a benchmark for whether a policy is justified or not isn't particularly sensible at the best of times. Essentially what you're doing here in the last two paragraphs is making a standard appeal to double standards (i.e. making the case the media are being unfair to Trump in comparison to Obama) rather than actually judging the policy on its own merits. As an argument that only works if you're arguing against someone who supports Obama - it serves little to no purpose in any other situation.

If Trump wanted to implement extreme vetting then the sensible way to do it is to have a proper investigation of the existing system, address its faults, and make changes accordingly. What he's done is make a grand populist gesture that has no security justification whatsoever, simply for the sake of appeasing his supporters. You've claimed this is justified because it stops the flow of individuals into the US until the system can be improved. If that were the actual justification for it then he's left out virtually every country that has had links to terrorists who have carried out attacks in the US (citizens from Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Egypt, UAE, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Afghanistan and Pakistan have been involved in terrorist attacks in the US, none of these countries are on the list). It's far-fetched in the extreme to think this is tangibly going to prevent a terrorist attack at some point down the line.

It was also carried out without authorities being properly informed in advance, leading to chaos in the way it was implemented. It disrupted thousands of people's lives and therefore carried a large cost for minimal gains (if any) in security. It's incredibly divisive and risks inflaming tensions and leading to future attacks among the random nutcases who are already in the US already or who come from countries that are completely unaffected by the ban. And so on and so on. It's the sort of policy I expect we'll one day describe as "Trumpian" - counter-productive, hopelessly ineffective, poorly implemented, but wildly popular with his supporters.

[Getintaethem]

Assad also barrel bombs his own citizens and has only managed to stay in power because Putin, who Trump seems to admire, provided him with military support. Using Syria as a benchmark for whether a policy is justified or not isn't particularly sensible at the best of times. Essentially what you're doing here in the last two paragraphs is making a standard appeal to double standards (i.e. making the case the media are being unfair to Trump in comparison to Obama) rather than actually judging the policy on its own merits. As an argument that only works if you're arguing against someone who supports Obama - it serves little to no purpose in any other situation.

If Trump wanted to implement extreme vetting then the sensible way to do it is to have a proper investigation of the existing system, address its faults, and make changes accordingly. What he's done is make a grand populist gesture that has no security justification whatsoever, simply for the sake of appeasing his supporters. You've claimed this is justified because it stops the flow of individuals into the US until the system can be improved. If that were the actual justification for it then he's left out virtually every country that has had links to terrorists who have carried out attacks in the US (citizens from Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Egypt, UAE, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Afghanistan and Pakistan have been involved in terrorist attacks in the US, none of these countries are on the list). It's far-fetched in the extreme to think this is tangibly going to prevent a terrorist attack at some point down the line.

It was also carried out without authorities being properly informed in advance, leading to chaos in the way it was implemented. It disrupted thousands of people's lives and therefore carried a large cost for minimal gains (if any) in security. It's incredibly divisive and risks inflaming tensions and leading to future attacks among the random nutcases who are already in the US already or who come from countries that are completely unaffected by the ban. And so on and so on. It's the sort of policy I expect we'll one day describe as "Trumpian" - counter-productive, hopelessly ineffective, poorly implemented, but wildly popular with his supporters.

Trump bans citizens of a country for 90 days that obviously have major issues. Syria and 14 or so other countries have a total ban on Israelis from their country - but not a peep from protestors or the media. The head of state for Saudi was even given a state visit.

I am not saying don't judge Trump. I am saying judge him by the same standards as you judge others - no more or less.

The list is not Trumps. The list is Obama's where Obama put restrictions on visas of citizens from those countries. Obama's decision already affected thousands of people - where was the outcry? It was originally put together by the Obama administration because they said that terrorist training was going on in those countries. If you have a problem with the list then you should have brought it up with Obama (where were the demonstrations and the media onslaught?) Trump has just extending the restrictions (for a limited period of time).

Saying that this executive order wont work because it does not deal with every threat is like saying stopping smoking is no use cos it does not stop the threat from skin cancer.

I am sure that the implementation has not been perfect but more advise will be given and there will be a sensible correction. If more countries are found to be an issue then I am sure more countries will be included in some future plans. This is an executive order, put in place in order reduce a threat and to take some time to research what is going on and decide what needs to change. Far better to take action like Trump that the actions taken by the countries on the continent. You may not like it, fair enough, but it was an election promise.

It is also pretty clear that Trump’s actions are about more than just national security. It was a clear campaign pledge that was perhaps a key reason for his electoral victory, and so he is arguably democratically and morally obliged to follow up on his promise. It seems putting forward policies, getting elected on that platform and executing them is a problem to a large section of society. Tough titty.

[Mason89]

Tough titty is about right but it's also the reason democracy will be the downfall of the west. Out of Europe because racist spongos hate that polish guy working 80 hour weeks? Tough titty. Ruled from London by a political system which is clearly failing? Tough titty. We're all doomed but that's just tough titty

[Pacman1903]

I am saying judge him by the same standards as you judge others - no more or less.
y.

Good luck with that. He is only getting the amount of sh@t because people dont like him as a person. This is just an excuse to berate him more (but not others like you say). The world has many dislikeable people who have done alot worse than Trump but theres no Castlegate protest (complete with "Dont sell Mcginn sign". A sign that shows the seriousness of the bloody demo)

I think the mock outrage that has came with his election is f@cking hillarious. Demos in Aberdeen, Demos is Glasgow etc. Utterly pointless and you should have went to the boozer and did something productive.

But anyway this mock outrage that his election has caused the world over shows the state the world is in.

Remember guys, he was voted in by the people that matter. His own people. Nae people who dinna matter, the people that dinna like him,the people who like to wave signs, touchy f@cks protesting the world over, nicola sturgeon, Peirce Morgan,the statue of liberty as its a f@cking statue and the rest. They are all irrelevamt

Hes was voted in,deal with it. Sit back and enjoy the hysteria because its a hoot. If i get as good a laugh as i am now in 4 years, ill be chanting "4 more years, 4 more years, 4 more years"(even though im irrelevant)

[Getintaethem]

Tough titty is about right but it's also the reason democracy will be the downfall of the west. Out of Europe because racist spongos hate that polish guy working 80 hour weeks? Tough titty. Ruled from London by a political system which is clearly failing? Tough titty. We're all doomed but that's just tough titty

so we should not have democracy because the people are too stupid to vote the way you want them to vote?

[kigoretrout]

so we should not have democracy because the people are too stupid to vote the way you want them to vote?

By Christ, this will be the first time I agree with Mason !Not that we shouldn't have democracy but I don't think he was saying that . But that democracy has one hell of a fight on its hands right now. Democracy only works when as usually happens the racist hang em high brigade can't be arsed getting off their arses to vote. Cos all the politicians are the bleedin same aren't they. World wide recession and a race to the bottom brings out the very worst in people. Nazi Germany anyone ?Popular far right figures become just that,popular that is with cretins and legitimise those deluded idiots beliefs that what they believe in is not only popular but also right. Have you witnessed the brexit anti brexit debates on question time. Truly frightening and depressing all in one.Trump was voted democratically. I believe he actually got less votes than Clinton so work that out. He is a dangerous clown not only for the USA but also the world. I think people everywhere have every right to voice their concerns.

[redscot]

By Christ, this will be the first time I agree with Mason !Not that we shouldn't have democracy but I don't think he was saying that . But that democracy has one hell of a fight on its hands right now. Democracy only works when as usually happens the racist hang em high brigade can't be arsed getting off their arses to vote. Cos all the politicians are the bleedin same aren't they. World wide recession and a race to the bottom brings out the very worst in people. Nazi Germany anyone ?Popular far right figures become just that,popular that is with cretins and legitimise those deluded idiots beliefs that what they believe in is not only popular but also right. Have you witnessed the brexit anti brexit debates on question time. Truly frightening and depressing all in one.Trump was voted democratically. I believe he actually got less votes than Clinton so work that out. He is a dangerous clown not only for the USA but also the world. I think people everywhere have every right to voice their concerns.


"Democracy only works when as usually happens the racist hang em high brigade can't be arsed getting off their arses to vote. "

Phucking hell......you really have a problem with democracy. XD

[Getintaethem]

"Democracy only works when as usually happens the racist hang em high brigade can't be arsed getting off their arses to vote."

So again it is put forward as an argument that democracy only works when certain people don't vote or certain people who do not share your opinion don't vote. That is one step away from not allowing them to vote - i.e. what fascists actually did.

It is also a strange definition of democracy - relying of people not voting. It is also a strange definition of racism but one often put forward when people cannot win an argument - call them racist. I presume that everyone who voted for Brexit is a racist.

"I believe he actually got less votes than Clinton so work that out." Simple, they have a electoral college system not a popular vote system.

"He is a dangerous clown". This is your opinion - not fact. The electorate in the US disagreed with you.

[kigoretrout]

No I have a problem when racists with far right anti immigration agendas are allowed to vote in a referendum on a single issue policy. Clumsily and somewhat inelegantly put I agree. Perhaps I should have said Democracy only produces a result beneficial to the majority of society when it isn't hi jacked by people who have never voted in their puff. And I am fed up of the smug clowns saying its the fault of the neo liberal intelligensia and this is a kick up the arse and its good the ordinary man is being listened to. Well not if you are a racist pr..ck it aint. Apologies if I have come onto a Trump discussion to talk about Brexit. I will take my leave.

[redscot]

No I have a problem when racists with far right anti immigration agendas are allowed to vote in a referendum on a single issue policy. Clumsily and somewhat inelegantly put I agree. Perhaps I should have said Democracy only produces a result beneficial to the majority of society when it isn't hi jacked by people who have never voted in their puff. And I am fed up of the smug clowns saying its the fault of the neo liberal intelligensia and this is a kick up the arse and its good the ordinary man is being listened to. Well not if you are a racist pr..ck it aint. Apologies if I have come onto a Trump discussion to talk about Brexit. I will take my leave.


The only smug clowns i can see are the ones that are ignoring democracy ...

[Getintaethem]

"Democracy only produces a result beneficial to the majority of society when it isn't hi jacked by people who have never voted in their puff."

You did it again! Democracy by definition is one man one vote. You cannot redefine democracy to be one man one vote (unless that man disagrees with you - then they shouldn't vote cos they are idiots/racists or whatever other insult you can throw at them).

So within Democracy you have the right to persuade people to change their opinions but you have no right to say that democracy only works when people vote the way you want them to.

[Mason89]

so we should not have democracy because the people are too stupid to vote the way you want them to vote?

Pretty much, aye. Look at the d!cks that are exploiting that just now.

[Getintaethem]

Pretty much, aye. Look at the d!cks that are exploiting that just now.

Yep the alternative is so much better than democracy. We could have Kim Jong-Un who shoots his closest political allies and has let we say a laisse faire attitude to human rights or Nguema who is accused of eating his enemies or Eritrea who has an even worse human rights record that Kim Jong-Un or Lukashenko who thinks Hitler was not too bad a guy....

or perhaps Assad or Karmiov or Bashir or Mugabe...

All sound guys that are clearly so much better than democracy and Trump.

[Mason89]

Whatabouttery again.

It's not working. Saying it works slightly less worse than other places isn't exactly helping. I'm needing solutions & the only viable one I can see, is putting me in charge for a while

[Getintaethem]

Whatabouttery again.

It's not working. Saying it works slightly less worse than other places isn't exactly helping. I'm needing solutions & the only viable one I can see, is putting me in charge for a while

Hmm. You brought up that democracy was screwed in a thread about Trump. Replying to your "idea" with valid reasons why the alternative is worse is not whatabouttery... although I realise it is your new favourite word. :P

As for slightly less worse here or the US than North Korea, Syria or any of the other tin pot dictator countries. Oh my good lord - what a statement to make.

As for you being in charge, I think you have demonstrated very clearly why dictatorships are a terrible bad idea. ;D

[Mason89]

Syria seemed to be doing a bit better before some western democracy was thrust upon it. North Korea is a special case.

Can you give me historical examples of where democracy has been a roaring success? :)

[Pacman1903]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/01/yemen-strike-eight-year-old-american-girl-killed-al-awlaki

This sums up the ill feeling toward him

The headline "8 year old girl killed in strike approved by trump"

Open the story, she "may" have been killed in the strike.

It was Obamas idea for the strike also

[Jupiter]

Syria seemed to be doing a bit better before some western democracy was thrust upon it. North Korea is a special case.

Can you give me historical examples of where democracy has been a roaring success? :)

When did Syria ever have western democracy thrust upon it? It was the Russians who were dropping loads of bombs on it.

[Getintaethem]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/01/yemen-strike-eight-year-old-american-girl-killed-al-awlaki

This sums up the ill feeling toward him

The headline "8 year old girl killed in strike approved by trump"

Open the story, she "may" have been killed in the strike.

It was Obamas idea for the strike also

One thing is for sure, Canada is royally screwed with Trump in the Whitehouse. They are busy putting up taxes while the US will lower them, increasing the costs of energy while the US will lower them and stopping visas for bogus immigrants while the US is increasing them. US companies will be moving back and Canadian companies will be moving operations to the US. Canada will lose jobs and its economy will be in the gutter well before they can vote out that Castro loving fool.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/01/canada-mexico-immigrants-visas-asylum-tourism

[fatshaft]

One thing is for sure, Canada is royally screwed with Trump in the Whitehouse. They are busy putting up taxes while the US will lower them, increasing the costs of energy while the US will lower them and stopping visas for bogus immigrants while the US is increasing them. US companies will be moving back and Canadian companies will be moving operations to the US. Canada will lose jobs and its economy will be in the gutter well before they can vote out that Castro loving fool.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/01/canada-mexico-immigrants-visas-asylum-tourism
Don't agree with a single part of that.

Quite the opposite, people are looking *to* Canada rather than wanting to escape it.

[Getintaethem]

Syria seemed to be doing a bit better before some western democracy was thrust upon it. North Korea is a special case.

Can you give me historical examples of where democracy has been a roaring success? :)

The civil war happened in Syria because of the lack of human rights not because a western democracy was thrust upon it. Remember the Spring uprising of people fighting against their dictators. That sort of thing has not happened in proper democracies for a while so I guess you can measure success by the lack of civil wars in comparison to places (i.e. dictatorships) that have had them and still do.

North Korea is not a special case. In fact it is so low down the dictatorship league in terms of killing its own citizens and human rights that it will probably be relegated this season. You only think it is really bad (in comparison to the other despots around the world) because of the publicity it gets being in between the Western democracies and the old communist block.

But if you want to compare roaring success of democracy - look no further than the economies of South and North Korea or their human rights records.

How do you measure success? There are several variables. I guess one fundamental measure of success that we would both agree on is how many of your own citizens are killed by the Government (whether democratic or dictatorship). Dictatorships. Germany - Hilter - killed a mere 17 million (although he needed to invade a few other countries to get that number up - a bit of a cheat), Stalin beat him in the killing of innocents by a whopping 6 million. But in first place and the Barclays Despot of the Century was Mao who beat both put together and then doubled it to almost 80 million. That's not to mention Japan, Turkey, Cambodia, Ethiopia and Nigeria who were the minnows of the league only killing between 1 and 5 million of their own people. Amateurs.

With the rise of the UN and Nato mass killings of citizens has gone out of fashion with dictators, as annoyingly they seem to get deposed, so they have fallen back on the lesser crime of human rights infringements.

Well the top spots for human rights infringements go to the dictators as well. Zimbabwe, Sudan, North Korea, Burma, Saudi Arabia, China, Iran, Eritrea and the list goes on and on and on.

The countries with the best human rights records are not dictatorships - they are democracies. Countries like New Zealand, Iceland, Denmark, Finland, Luxembourg and Canada.

So democracy can be seen as a success purely cos we don't kill our own citizens or suffer from the human rights issues that happen with dictatorships. A rip roaring success if there ever was one.

But wait, all the evidence that is needed that democracy does not work is Trump (Monster) that stops entry to his country to protect his own citizens (i.e. he wants to protect the human rights of his own people), for 90 days until they can put better controls in place, from countries that already had visa restrictions forced on them by Obama (Saint), where there are active terrorist training grounds whose terrorist groups have said they want to export those terrorists to kill Americans (in an act that is supported by the majority of the American people) and when those terrorist groups have already successfully killed citizens of European countries.

But us Brits would not support such a monster - we even have a petition signed by lots of people that say we dont' want him to visit. Except the majority of people in the UK support him coming. Damned democracy.

[Getintaethem]

Don't agree with a single part of that.

Quite the opposite, people are looking *to* Canada rather than wanting to escape it.

Yer, like all the celebrities in the US that were going to move *to* Canada if Trump won, but have surprisingly stayed put.

I know Canada quite well, in fact, and the companies are struggling and if things don't improve will be forced to move to the US. So, it may be your view, unfortunately it is not one based on fact but opinion. Ontarios cap and trade scheme for example, is increasing energy prices so high that manufacturers in Ontario are not able to compete against other countries.

Trump is going to cut regulations while Canada is adding new expensive regulations that is going to cripple businesses.

" Automatic Coating, which is a supplier to the U.S Navy, is being constantly courted by U.S jurisdictions that want to lure it south of the border. U.S. jurisdictions have been begging the company to move south. “We want to stay here but we feel like we’re being pushed out, ” Ms. Bamford says. “We honestly don’t know whether to pick up and leave or stay and fight.” "

There is a difference between media spin and reality.

[Mason89]

The civil war happened in Syria because of the lack of human rights not because a western democracy was thrust upon it. Remember the Spring uprising of people fighting against their dictators. That sort of thing has not happened in proper democracies for a while so I guess you can measure success by the lack of civil wars in comparison to places (i.e. dictatorships) that have had them and still do.

North Korea is not a special case. In fact it is so low down the dictatorship league in terms of killing its own citizens and human rights that it will probably be relegated this season. You only think it is really bad (in comparison to the other despots around the world) because of the publicity it gets being in between the Western democracies and the old communist block.

But if you want to compare roaring success of democracy - look no further than the economies of South and North Korea or their human rights records.

How do you measure success? There are several variables. I guess one fundamental measure of success that we would both agree on is how many of your own citizens are killed by the Government (whether democratic or dictatorship). Dictatorships. Germany - Hilter - killed a mere 17 million (although he needed to invade a few other countries to get that number up - a bit of a cheat), Stalin beat him in the killing of innocents by a whopping 6 million. But in first place and the Barclays Despot of the Century was Mao who beat both put together and then doubled it to almost 80 million. That's not to mention Japan, Turkey, Cambodia, Ethiopia and Nigeria who were the minnows of the league only killing between 1 and 5 million of their own people. Amateurs.

With the rise of the UN and Nato mass killings of citizens has gone out of fashion with dictators, as annoyingly they seem to get deposed, so they have fallen back on the lesser crime of human rights infringements.

Well the top spots for human rights infringements go to the dictators as well. Zimbabwe, Sudan, North Korea, Burma, Saudi Arabia, China, Iran, Eritrea and the list goes on and on and on.

The countries with the best human rights records are not dictatorships - they are democracies. Countries like New Zealand, Iceland, Denmark, Finland, Luxembourg and Canada.

So democracy can be seen as a success purely cos we don't kill our own citizens or suffer from the human rights issues that happen with dictatorships. A rip roaring success if there ever was one.

But wait, all the evidence that is needed that democracy does not work is Trump (Monster) that stops entry to his country to protect his own citizens (i.e. he wants to protect the human rights of his own people), for 90 days until they can put better controls in place, from countries that already had visa restrictions forced on them by Obama (Saint), where there are active terrorist training grounds whose terrorist groups have said they want to export those terrorists to kill Americans (in an act that is supported by the majority of the American people) and when those terrorist groups have already successfully killed citizens of European countries.

But us Brits would not support such a monster - we even have a petition signed by lots of people that say we dont' want him to visit. Except the majority of people in the UK support him coming. Damned democracy.

I don't have the attention span to read all that.

Tough titty

[Aldo1983]

Good luck with that. He is only getting the amount of sh@t because people dont like him as a person. This is just an excuse to berate him more (but not others like you say). The world has many dislikeable people who have done alot worse than Trump but theres no Castlegate protest (complete with "Dont sell Mcginn sign". A sign that shows the seriousness of the bloody demo)

I think the mock outrage that has came with his election is f@cking hillarious. Demos in Aberdeen, Demos is Glasgow etc. Utterly pointless and you should have went to the boozer and did something productive.

But anyway this mock outrage that his election has caused the world over shows the state the world is in.

Remember guys, he was voted in by the people that matter. His own people. Nae people who dinna matter, the people that dinna like him,the people who like to wave signs, touchy f@cks protesting the world over, nicola sturgeon, Peirce Morgan,the statue of liberty as its a f@cking statue and the rest. They are all irrelevamt

Hes was voted in,deal with it. Sit back and enjoy the hysteria because its a hoot. If i get as good a laugh as i am now in 4 years, ill be chanting "4 more years, 4 more years, 4 more years"(even though im irrelevant)

I don't understand your point. People don't like him as a person because he's a dick so why would they like him as a president?

You could also argue that he was voted in with the system and not by the people since he didn't actually win the popular vote.

Those voting for him have their own agendas. My sister in law and her family, despite being half Mexican, voted for him but they are also hardcore creationists and bigoted.

[Jupiter]

One thing is for sure, Canada is royally screwed with Trump in the Whitehouse. They are busy putting up taxes while the US will lower them, increasing the costs of energy while the US will lower them and stopping visas for bogus immigrants while the US is increasing them. US companies will be moving back and Canadian companies will be moving operations to the US. Canada will lose jobs and its economy will be in the gutter well before they can vote out that Castro loving fool.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/01/canada-mexico-immigrants-visas-asylum-tourism

Canada is screwed with or without Trump. That airhead Trudeau is doing a great job of mucking things up himself. And there is something a bit banana republic about having a prime minister whose Dad was also PM.

[Pacman1903]

I don't understand your point. People don't like him as a person because he's a dick so why would they like him as a president?

You could also argue that he was voted in with the system and not by the people since he didn't actually win the popular vote.

Those voting for him have their own agendas. My sister in law and her family, despite being half Mexican, voted for him but they are also hardcore creationists and bigoted.

If he was a likeable guy before he was president he would not be copping the flack he is now.

Its just fuel to the fire of hatred toward him

I for one dinna give a f@ck. I spend 6 months in the Shire and 6 months in the Atlantic

It does not affect me. Trump doesnt put me up nor down so i dinna really care

But it makes good reading

But i do get a laugh at the hysteria. So keep it up folks. Its a hoot

[Jupiter]

I'm enjoying Trump being president. He is hilarious and annoys all the right people. 4 years of crooked Hillary would have been grim & miserable.

[Getintaethem]

I don't have the attention span to read all that.

Tough titty

Whatabouttery at its finest, although your obvious intellectual weaknesses are none of our concern.

[Mason89]

Whatabouttery at its finest, although your obvious intellectual weaknesses are none of our concern.

Ooft, more whatabouttery.

[Getintaethem]

I don't understand your point.

I note that you are incapable of making a point of your own other than slagging people as being "dicks" or "creationists" or being "bigots". Perhaps that is why you cannot understand perfectly simple lines of logic. As the expression goes, if you cannot win an argument play the man.

[Getintaethem]

Ooft, more whatabouttery.

Owned.

[Getintaethem]

Canada is screwed with or without Trump. That airhead Trudeau is doing a great job of mucking things up himself. And there is something a bit banana republic about having a prime minister whose Dad was also PM.

Could not agree more... a father that drooled over Castro gives more evidence to your banana republic thought.

[Mason89]

owned.

:D

[Getintaethem]

I'm enjoying Trump being president. He is hilarious and annoys all the right people. 4 years of crooked Hillary would have been grim & miserable.

It's marvellous.

[Aldo1983]

I note that you are incapable of making a point of your own other than slagging people as being "dicks" or "creationists" or being "bigots". Perhaps that is why you cannot understand perfectly simple lines of logic. As the expression goes, if you cannot win an argument play the man.

Very simple really, he IS a dick, my brother in law, his wife and her family ARE creationists and they ARE bigots. Unless you know differently about my brother in law?

If you do then fair enough but if you don't then I've no idea what you are on about to be honest.

[Getintaethem]

Milo on the riots that stopped his 1st Amendment right to free speech. Crazy that words are feared so much by certain groups that they believe that violence is the answer.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWo5F9vPNI0&feature=youtu.be

[Getintaethem]

Very simple really, he IS a dick, my brother in law, his wife and her family ARE creationists and they ARE bigots. Unless you know differently about my brother in law?

If you do then fair enough but if you don't then I've no idea what you are on about to be honest.

because it does not matter if they are any of those things, you are justifying your own opinions not by making clear and concise arguments about the facts and drawing conclusions based on them (whether people agree or disagree with those conclusions - people can respect that) but you are just slagging people off based on your or their beliefs. e.g. just because Jimmy is a dick it does not follow that his views on drink driving are wrong or that Fred is a sound guy it does not follow that his views on education are right.

[Mason89]

That surely doesn't apply to creationists, pro lifers etc

[Aldo1983]

because it does not matter if they are any of those things, you are justifying your own opinions not by making clear and concise arguments about the facts and drawing conclusions based on them (whether people agree or disagree with those conclusions - people can respect that) but you are just slagging people off based on your or their beliefs. e.g. just because Jimmy is a dick it does not follow that his views on drink driving are wrong or that Fred is a sound guy it does not follow that his views on education are right.

That's incoherent nonsense. They are creationists but that doesn't necessarily make them dicks, the bigoted part does. Unfortunately it comes hand in hand with their beliefs. I made a point about people I know personally. They don't want Muslims or gays in America and they believe I'll go to hell along with everyone else that doesn't believe in God.

As for the originals point that Pacman made...It didn't make sense to me because he stated that people don't like trump because he thought he was a dick before he became president. So why would they think otherwise now?

[The_Verninator]

Look let's be honest - most people think he's a bit of a dick - i like that to be honest.

I think it's hilarious he's in power.

And the Clinton's are not.

[Pacman1903]

That's incoherent nonsense. They are creationists but that doesn't necessarily make them dicks, the bigoted part does. Unfortunately it comes hand in hand with their beliefs. I made a point about people I know personally. They don't want Muslims or gays in America and they believe I'll go to hell along with everyone else that doesn't believe in God.

As for the originals point that Pacman made...It didn't make sense to me because he stated that people don't like trump because he thought he was a dick before he became president. So why would they think otherwise now?

What im saying is would the sh@t that trumps getting be as much if he was a likeable guy prior to being president, for example Santa or buc even if they carried out the same policies. I doubt it. He was hated by many(alot who are irrelevant) and the mass hysteria around his policies is huge. I just dont believe this would be the case if it wasnt him.

Im not saying folk would change their mind just because hes president. Im just say the hysteria is higher as it is him

[Aldo1983]

What im saying is would the sh@t that trumps getting be as much if he was a likeable guy prior to being president, for example Santa or buc even if they carried out the same policies. I doubt it. He was hated by many(alot who are irrelevant) and the mass hysteria around his policies is huge. I just dont believe this would be the case if it wasnt him.

He's doing the things he's doing on the back of who he is though. Buc wouldn't all of a sudden carry out the same policies as Trump has.

Getintaethem really doesn't make sense though. It's like saying you can't find Hitler a dick purely based on him hating Jews and disabled people.

[Getintaethem]

Getintaethem really doesn't make sense though.

That's rich.


It's like saying you can't find Hitler a dick purely based on him hating Jews and disabled people.

Eh? Best to stick calling people dicks, bigots and other names. You are better at that than logic.

[Aldo1983]

That's rich.



Eh? Best to stick calling people dicks, bigots and other names. You are better at that than logic.

[QUOTE=Getintaethem;38423346]That's rich.

There weren't any other names that weren't actually factual or justified.

Here's another though, "snowflake". Best describes you and ironically it's the over used right wing term for someone who is offended all the time.

Jesus and Trump loves you :heart:

[Brian Grantland]

What im saying is would the sh@t that trumps getting be as much if he was a likeable guy prior to being president, for example Santa or buc even if they carried out the same policies. I doubt it. He was hated by many(alot who are irrelevant) and the mass hysteria around his policies is huge. I just dont believe this would be the case if it wasnt him.

Im not saying folk would change their mind just because hes president. Im just say the hysteria is higher as it is him

you lost your **** when someone reported you to the sspca over your cat

I'd love to see your reaction if your 5 year old child was handcuffed as a 'terrorist threat' in immigration.

[Pacman1903]

That affected me though.

How many of the mock outragers in the Castlegate or Glasgow had their 5 year olds in handcuffs. In fact how many 5 years old have been in hand cuffs. The hysteria is powered by the dislike for him and not his policies

[Stupie82]

That affected me though.

How many of the mock outragers in the Castlegate or Glasgow had their 5 year olds in handcuffs. In fact how many 5 years old have been in hand cuffs. The hysteria is powered by the dislike for him and not his policies

The hysteria is mainly due to the establishments dislike for him. Control of the MSM and the twisting of facts has made people despise him even more and its all come from the press. Thatcher was portrayed as some sort of hero and she was a right c*nt! My own feelings on him is he a few sandwiches short of a picnic and because of that I think he will be a poor POTUS, but thats based on my own interpretations, not one made by the media.

[Pacman1903]

If people are so bothered by other people throughout the worlds issues brought on by people in power why are there no protests against people like for example Isaias Afewerki in Eritrea for his torturous ways, José Eduardo dos Santos here in Angola for his keep the poor exceptionally poor(80% of Angolans live off less than 2 dollars a day) while I get rich as f@ck,keeping money away from the people who have it and thieving from the countries economy attitude,Bashar al-Assad for his torturous ways, Robert Mugabe for his rapey, torturous and beating ways he get his business done. All worse than anything Trump has done

Surprise surprise, there are none because its selective mock outrage that is fuelled by the dislike of the man and not his work. Its nothing to do with the people affected as much as they try and tell you it is its all about Donald as a man

[Getintaethem]

[QUOTE=Getintaethem;38423346]That's rich.

There weren't any other names that weren't actually factual or justified.

Here's another though, "snowflake". Best describes you and ironically it's the over used right wing term for someone who is offended all the time.

Jesus and Trump loves you :heart:

You need help.

[Getintaethem]

I'd love to see your reaction if your 5 year old child was handcuffed as a 'terrorist threat' in immigration.

That's not going to happen in the US, but it could happen in say Iran. I am also pretty sure there would not be mass demonstrations in Aberdeen, Edinburgh, Glasgow and all the other cities about it if it did happen - and I am a British citizen.

[Getintaethem]

There weren't any other names that weren't actually factual or justified.

Calling people names to try and prove a point is about as logical as sowing seeds in the vacuum of space and expecting a harvest.

As an example, people don't like Sturgeon because she's a bitch so why would they like her as a first minister? Those voting for her have their own agendas. A guy I went to school with is a big SNP supporter but he is a hardcore racist and holocaust denier.

No different to your original statement but changed to Sturgeon and the SNP. A statement that is also either factual or justified. Does not prove a damn thing.

[Brian Grantland]

That's not going to happen in the US, but it could happen in say Iran. I am also pretty sure there would not be mass demonstrations in Aberdeen, Edinburgh, Glasgow and all the other cities about it if it did happen - and I am a British citizen.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/e25e4407-f052-37f5-acad-ff8d6e0386a7/ss_5-year-old-iranian-american.html

and the press secretary said

“To assume that just because of someone’s age and gender that they don’t pose a threat would be misguided and wrong.”

facts are obviously difficult for someone with your political leanings

[Pacman1903]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/e25e4407-f052-37f5-acad-ff8d6e0386a7/ss_5-year-old-iranian-american.html

and the press secretary said

“To assume that just because of someone’s age and gender that they don’t pose a threat would be misguided and wrong.”

facts are obviously difficult for someone with your political leanings

Notice there is no person attached to the "identified as a possible threat" quote because its more than likely made up. Who said that? I want to know. I would also like to hear the full story instead of a paragraph that proves nothing

No handcuffs mentioned either. Whats next, they will be stomping babies because they are a waste of bullets.

[Aldo1983]

Calling people names to try and prove a point is about as logical as sowing seeds in the vacuum of space and expecting a harvest.

As an example, people don't like Sturgeon because she's a bitch so why would they like her as a first minister? Those voting for her have their own agendas. A guy I went to school with is a big SNP supporter but he is a hardcore racist and holocaust denier.

No different to your original statement but changed to Sturgeon and the SNP. A statement that is also either factual or justified. Does not prove a damn thing.

But my brother in law is a creationist and a bigot. So what the **** you getting your knickers in a twist for?

[Mason89]

Calling people names to try and prove a point is about as logical as sowing seeds in the vacuum of space and expecting a harvest.

Joey Barton ASC

[Pacman1903]

Just noticed the was a link in the link BG min. Anyway reportedly handcuffed with no proof.

[Pacman1903]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-38863431#

Trumpys gonna be annoyed after omitting Egypt from the list now

[Getintaethem]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/e25e4407-f052-37f5-acad-ff8d6e0386a7/ss_5-year-old-iranian-american.html

and the press secretary said

“To assume that just because of someone’s age and gender that they don’t pose a threat would be misguided and wrong.”

facts are obviously difficult for someone with your political leanings

Read the post again. It was in reply to your post when you said if "your 5 year old kid". It is not going to happen to "my 5 year old kid in the US" but it could happen in Iran.

In English it is called the "subject of the sentence". Clearly you misunderstood the subject of the sentence to mean any 5 year old kid. English is obviously difficult to understand for someone with your political leanings.

[Getintaethem]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-38863431#

Trumpys gonna be annoyed after omitting Egypt from the list now

one step at a time ;)

[Getintaethem]

But my brother in law is a creationist and a bigot. So what the **** you getting your knickers in a twist for?

And the guy at my school was a racist and holocaust denier. So what's your point caller?

[Getintaethem]

Notice there is no person attached to the "identified as a possible threat" quote because its more than likely made up. Who said that? I want to know. I would also like to hear the full story instead of a paragraph that proves nothing

No handcuffs mentioned either. Whats next, they will be stomping babies because they are a waste of bullets.

So "facts are obviously difficult for someone with your political leanings" was the quote from the guy who posted the link. Forgetting that he misread my post originally, let's look at the facts to this story.

Notice how the quote by the Trump guy is not explicitly about this incident but in general. Considering that terrorists have used children as suicide bombers around the world, the quote in of itself is factually correct. However, the writer skilfully ties the two together by saying that it was said after the incident to make out that it was explicitly said about this incident. There is no mention of this incident, in the quote, or that she was put in handcuffs but is a great way of adding substance to a story which sole purpose is to mislead.

Getting onto the specific incident. The girl had a visa to visit the US. She is not a US citizen nor a green card holder as has been widely reported. Unfortunately, the family's visas were revoked mid flight and the family were detained and sent home. The father in fact said that border protection were very kind and nice to them. The girl was not handcuffed. Shock horror... remember "facts are obviously difficult for someone with your political leanings". The substance of the whole story is made up i.e. fake news.

Now this incident is unfortunate and the practice of stopping people from entering the US if they have a valid visa and are in transit has stopped (based on Trump's executive order). However, countries still have the right, throughout the world, to revoke visa's at any time (even if the subjects are in transit) for a multitude of reasons. It is also a fact that even if you have a valid visa that does not give you an automatic right to enter a country. At border's throughout the world, if border protection suspect that you are entering the country for some reason other than what your visa allows (e.g. to work or to stay longer than the visa allows) you will get refused entry and sent home. No proof is needed, these people are not innocent until proven guilty - there just needs to be a suspicion. Many of these people are innocent and these events are also unfortunate when it affects them.

It is quite ironic that the only laws that were violated, in this whole incident, were the family's rights to privacy. Taking pictures of the family in immigration is against the law and making up stories around what happened to them is also against the law. The person that originally tweeted the photo, deleted it. Probably, and I am guessing here, when they realised that they had broken the law.

[Aldo1983]

And the guy at my school was a racist and holocaust denier. So what's your point caller?

You missed the point big time. Actually there wasn't really a point, just a comment on something that was fact. You made no sense at all and you are still continuing to make no sense. Bizarre.

[Getintaethem]

You missed the point big time. Actually there wasn't really a point, just a comment on something that was fact. You made no sense at all and you are still continuing to make no sense. Bizarre.

So it has taken several posts pointing out how ridiculous your post was for you to now admit that your post did not have a point to it. We got there in the end.

[Aldo1983]

So it has taken several posts pointing out how ridiculous your post was for you to now admit that your post did not have a point to it. We got there in the end.

Must be difficult for you at a game and everyone is singing in unison about Sevco.

Do you turn around and tell them all off for name calling before bleeting on about some guy you are at school with?

[Pacman1903]

I was reading they(the Trump haters) are trying to say he has dementia because he has some these symptoms....

"trouble finding the right words"
"disorientation, inability to speak or understand, making things up.”
"irritability"
"poor judgement"
"lack of empathy"


I think they are clutching at straws. Which president hasn't shown signs of the above. The media will say anything

[Mr_Grieves]

He would be the perfect candidate for the Sevco job, the knuckle dragging racist and sectarian vermin would love him.

He's an expert at avoiding paying tax as well.

[Aldo1983]

So the crazy ******* tells everyone Obama rigged his flat then doesn't back it up. Next thing the CIA say it didn't happen so he blames GCHQ but doesn't back it up. When they say it's a load of pish the Trump administration replies that it won't mention it again!

Who is actually in charge?

[The_Verninator]

Any leader who is a narcissistic whackjob gets a thumbs up in my book

Go Your Trumpness...nuke somebody - you know you want to

B)

[Getintaethem]

So the crazy ******* tells everyone Obama rigged his flat then doesn't back it up. Next thing the CIA say it didn't happen so he blames GCHQ but doesn't back it up. When they say it's a load of pish the Trump administration replies that it won't mention it again!

Who is actually in charge?

This whole tapping of Trump thing is to take the media attention off of his team and Russia. The Russian story has been dropped and everyone is talking about this instead. As a piece of media management it worked.

[Jupiter]

Trump is meeting mad Mrs Merkel today. I'd like to be a fly on the wall in that room.

[Stupie82]

Trump is meeting mad Mrs Merkel today. I'd like to be a fly on the wall in that room.

Apparently he didnt want to shake Merkel's hand and in Trump fashion, didnt !

Personally I think the man is a buffoon, a potential disaster waiting to happen. Anyone who slashes 33% off of their environmental budget in this day in age, in favour of military spending is a worry. All these people who applaud his narcissism and stupidity may regret it one day.

[Pacman1903]

Apparently he didnt want to shake Merkel's hand and in Trump fashion, didnt !

Personally I think the man is a buffoon, a potential disaster waiting to happen. Anyone who slashes 33% off of their environmental budget in this day in age, in favour of military spending is a worry. All these people who applaud his narcissism and stupidity may regret it one day.

He makes for good reading though. The papers bavent been boring have they

[Stupie82]

He makes for good reading though. The papers bavent been boring have they

Very true, but feeding him only encourages him. The man is a clearly not right upstairs and as entertaining as it is to watch the most "important" leader in the world make a cuunt of himself, its unsettling. He will truly rile someone eventually and i fear the fallout from it. Its fun for now, but when the laughter stops and it turns to more serious rhetoric and actions, it will be a rough ride.

[Pacman1903]

Very true, but feeding him only encourages him. The man is a clearly not right upstairs and as entertaining as it is to watch the most "important" leader in the world make a cuunt of himself, its unsettling. He will truly rile someone eventually and i fear the fallout from it. Its fun for now, but when the laughter stops and it turns to more serious rhetoric and actions, it will be a rough ride.

He is absolutely nae wired up right.

[Aldo1983]

Apparently he didnt want to shake Merkel's hand and in Trump fashion, didnt !

Personally I think the man is a buffoon, a potential disaster waiting to happen. Anyone who slashes 33% off of their environmental budget in this day in age, in favour of military spending is a worry. All these people who applaud his narcissism and stupidity may regret it one day.

Only people that like him are racist Christians. The joke was over long ago.

[Pacman1903]

Only people that like him are racist Christians. The joke was over long ago.

I like him but im nae christian

[Aldo1983]

I like him but im nae christian

And racists that like The Christians.

[Pacman1903]

Syria bombed

North Korea, Navy got their missiles locked on it

Afghanistan, bombed with the biggest bomb ever to be dropped in combat that is non nuclear


Trumps Military on tour, coming to blow the sh@t of a town near you soon


https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/13/us-military-drops-non-nuclear-bomb-afghanistan-islamic-state

[Stupie82]

Trump obviously starting to realise that bombing countries makes money!!

[Getintaethem]

Trump obviously starting to realise that bombing countries makes money!!

They must be making a lot cos the middle east has cost them over $15trillion since George W Bush's illegal "war on terror". The same war on terror that saw the rise of ISIS as one of the world's most successful terror organisations ever. If Carslberg made policies... it would not be anywhere near that one.

[Aldo1983]

They must be making a lot cos the middle east has cost them over $15trillion since George W Bush's illegal "war on terror". The same war on terror that saw the rise of ISIS as one of the world's most successful terror organisations ever. If Carslberg made policies... it would not be anywhere near that one.

So as a Trump fan, what's your theory on why out of the blue they have dropped the biggest bomb since Nagasaki? Expiry date up soon? I assume you will know being the fountain of all knowledge on here.

[Getintaethem]

So as a Trump fan, what's your theory on why out of the blue they have dropped the biggest bomb since Nagasaki? Expiry date up soon? I assume you will know being the fountain of all knowledge on here.

Is it out of the blue? During the campaign he said repeatedly he was going to bomb the **** out of ISIS.