Donald! Trump!

Are you entirely sure "simple" is the word you were looking for?

Geert Wilders isn't going to win the Dutch elections perhaps?

Looks that way. Which is nice.

"I'd quibble about "could of" because all the headlines correctly state "could have""

I let that pass, I think the poster's issues with English comprehension are slightly more fundamental than a slight grammatically embarrassing misquote. 🙂

Meanwhile, it turns out that Defence Secretary Mattis acknowledges that climate change exists and is a destabilising global force, and that it requires a response from the US government. That wouldn't usually be news- it's blindingly obvious, the Pentagon have said as much for at least a decade- but in this administration, well...

“As I noted above, climate change is a challenge that requires a broader, whole-of government response. “If confirmed, I will ensure that the Department of Defence plays its appropriate role within such a response by addressing national security aspects.”

I'm taking that to mean he's planning to invade the EPA and institute regime change.

And the point as made earlier on that return Trump paid the amount of tax that a law made him, this is a law he wants to get rid of. It would mean that he would have paid a fraction of that amount of tax and a lower rate than most working people.

According to the CBO, 64-year olds making $26,500 per year would see their premiums increase by an estimated 750 percent by 2026. While they are on track to pay $1,700 under the current law, the CBO projects the American Health Care Act would force them to pay $14,600. Even if you grant that inflation will allow them to make slightly more money by 2026, that's still about half of their income going to health care.

ouch....

the CBO report it's taken from

[img] [/img]

And the point as made earlier on that return Trump paid the amount of tax that a law made him, this is a law he wants to get rid of. It would mean that he would have paid a fraction of that amount of tax and a lower rate than most working people.

Well, no, because if the previous story was true, that Trump wrote off enough in losses that he [u]could have[/u] avoided having to pay federal income tax for years and years, then the only possible conclusion is that in 2005 Trump paid [b]more[/b] tax than the law made him.

Which is where your chronology falls down, either you have to accept that he paid more than he had to in 2005 or accept that the other story about him was #fakenews

Lefties, digging their own hole since 1917 😉

There is one way to avoid all this confusion isn't there ninfan. He could be open and transparent like every other president. Until then we can only assume he has a lot to hide. That was your Clinton email line wasn't it?

yes he said anything to press your buttons ; he is still doing it and you are still feeding him
WHY?

Because I'm sat waiting at an airport and blowing gaping holes in bad logic passes the time....

If I were to block only one poster it would be Mike - not because I find what he says particularly obnoxious, just because that would get rid of ninfan and chewy at the same time.

Well, the American people will 'never not know' y'all. To paraphrase the double negative quoted by his administration.

Classic sign of a liar or someone with hidden motivation. Choosing to miss direct rather that openly directly answer questions, that's another sign.

Looks that way. Which is nice.

If I were to block only one poster it would be Mike - not because I find what he says particularly obnoxious, just because that would get rid of ninfan and chewy at the same time.

Oh come on, ninfan is an absolute gift to all those who relish right-wingers making fools of themselves. Although unlike Chewwy, for example, ninfan combines making a fool of himself with being spectacularly obnoxious. What's not to like?

[quote=slowoldman ]Yep, ninfan called that one right! Well done Holland.

Though given the context it appears ninfan was actually predicting the opposite. Why don't we wait to see what he claims he was predicting and we'll know the opposite is true.

Cheers Dr J....
The unfortunate elephant in the room for a lot of this is the alt whoever say it 3 times and it's true. Your own bs becomes a verified source.

I always assumed ninfan was just a tugger, now it's obvious he's also a shill.

I types simple back there when I meant to type bawbag, apologies for any confusion.

Are any of the right wing loons on here genuine posters?

looks like it's going to be a day of legal challenges to the new Muslim ban....

Ironically - it's the Donald's own words that are the justification for these challenges .... the fact that he, his office, his staff and advisers kept referring to it as "the muslim ban" betrays it's core purpose, and it's implicit unconstitutionality (unconstitutionalness?).

We need real-time blood-pressure monitoring of The Orange One..... it would be great to quantify just how much each challenge to his (imagined) omnipotency p*sses him off.

A challenge from an Obama appointed, ethnic minority, atourney general from Hawaii has got to really get him REALLY fired-up 😀

As for the tax return: is anyone doubting that the leak came from him?

He's obviously leaked the only page that show him paying any tax in an effort to shut people up - but apparently he either didn't realize/remember that he is on record as intending to abolish that tax category, or care.

Given his tweeting behavior, I suspect that he leaked this personally, without taking advice. Although, when you look at who his advisers are, I suppose anything is possible....

So, as I read it, ninfan is claiming (using another isolated document) that Doughnut pays his taxes.

Didn't the Orange Bloater claim that avoiding paying taxes makes him "smart"?

So how does ninfan feel about, by his own logic, his hero actually being a bit thick?

And would he care to deal with his attempt to prove a point by cherry-picking a statistic which actually indicates the opposite argument (rise in USA employment figures)?

Although, given ninny's history of ignoring difficult embarrassments, I'm not holding my breath.

Geert Wilders loses, jolly good. Not all countries as misguided as America thankfully.

Federal Judges 2: Republicans 0

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/03/15/us/politics/trump-travel-ban.html
Well the downside for being so damm honest and transparent is that people might take what you say as what you mean...

[img] [/img]

“For instance, there is nothing ‘veiled’ about this press release,” Judge Watson wrote, quoting a Trump campaign document titled “Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.”

Another so-called expert who needs to be educated on how 'calling for' something offers no insight into what you actually want to happen... 🙂

So, as I read it, ninfan is claiming (using another isolated document) that Doughnut pays his taxes.

No, go and read what I said, that the tax return [i]disproves[/i] the narrative, i.e. That it proves that [i]either[/i] Donald paid more than he legally had to [b]or[/b] the story that Donald wrote off losses big enough that he [i]could[/i] avoid taxes for eighteen years was untrue.

As for Holland, you now seem to be celebrating because someone to the right of the Tories, someone who actually says that if immigrants don't like it there they can sod off back home, beat someone to the tight of Nigel Farage into second place.

And you think that's a win for progressive politics 😆

My real favourite part is

“This ruling makes us look weak, which by the way we no longer are, believe me,” Mr. Trump said, to mounting cheers from a loyal crowd.

Trump paid $38m in taxes in 2005 and at a much higher rate than say someone like Mitt Romney. Avg American pays roughly 10% in Federal Taxes.

Source Jamby? Trump paid under the minimum payment rules and as suggested could well have leaked his own client copy. Maybe if he released all the rest people might believe him. Kind of easy isn't it.

That it proves that either Donald paid more than he legally had to or the story that Donald wrote off losses big enough that he could avoid taxes for eighteen years was untrue.

First case: what I said.

Second case: er, what I said...

I'm happy that Wilders obtained such a low result because he's a poisonous little squit. Nice to see that the voting public of his own country agree with me.

"Although, given ninny's history of ignoring difficult embarrassments"

Or to put it another way, Ninfan only disputes the statements that are untrue. When true things are said he doesn't dispute them and you find that frustrating because you'd really like him to start being wrong a bit more.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39287656

"unprecedented judicial overreach"? Well that's what you get with unprecedented stupid executive orders I guess. Donny's suggestions that he'll reissue the original travel ban tell you all you need to know about the level of thought process going on - I presume he's forgotten that one got knocked back for different reasons?

Trump talking about his allegations that Obama wiretapped him, he's such a joke.

"Let's see whether or not I prove it," Trump said. "I just don't choose to do it right now."

[quote=outofbreath ]Or to put it another way, Ninfan only disputes the statements that are untrue. When true things are said he doesn't dispute them and you find that frustrating because you'd really like him to start being wrong a bit more.

Well you could put it that way, but it would be more accurate to point out that he ignores it when he's already been proved wrong, which is what the context of that was saying. The only frustrating part is when he then descends into semantics in an attempt to defend his position.

Or simply imagine he was so desperate to give Clinton the same benefit of the doubt

I just don't choose to do it right now

I think we've heard that one before - translation appears to be that "right now" means "ever". Though it seems that such statements are sufficient to get him off the hook with his loyal supporters.

I'm certainly not about to get all complacent about the next election (or even the chances of him making it that far), though surely the Democrats can't find somebody as awful as Hillary next time. But it does seem his motivation is getting adulation rather than getting the support of a majority of the population, and his current statements and rallies are getting him that, so I suspect he's unlikely to change.

Also from Trump his dad could beat your dad up and he's got the best toy at his house but you can't see it cos he's not allowed to bring it outside.

American pays roughly 10% in Federal Taxes

I think the rate is more like 27% as a total tax take, those figures show that in 2005 at least he paid about 23%. I suppose it at least reveals the year that the Trump organisation are content to reveal to the public (it shows a tax return they think is sufficiently high to avoid having to comment on it) what the missing pages or indeed the missing years and years show is highly likely to be entirely different I'd have thought

We've been thrown a bone

I think you meant

tch

Aracer that's filthy, probably going to lead to a ban.

meh

Though given the context it appears ninfan was actually predicting the opposite

[img] [/img]

As for Holland, you now seem to be celebrating because someone to the right of the Tories, someone who actually says that if immigrants don't like it there they can sod off back home, beat someone to the tight of Nigel Farage into second place.

ninfan is right - well, it had to happen eventually. But there's a lot of crap written about Holland - how it's a bastion of liberalism and tolerance. It's not now, and it never has been.

He lost. Bigly.

The largest gains were made by the pro-immigration Greens, so it seems your assertion about Holland's non-liberalism doesn't actually match what's happening in the real world.

Try again.

He lost. Bigly.

Third biggest party became second biggest party - Failure

The largest gains were made by the pro-immigration Greens

Eighth biggest party becomes sixth biggest party - Success

😆

America spending more on security at trump tower than the whole of the arts/humanities budget, America is getting dumber every second that man is in charge.

So they are massively cutting science and arts funding and stated that this is part of "draining the swamp" in the press conference.

So scientists and the arts are part of the corrupt swamp now? I find that pretty offensive to be honest, not to mention crass and anti-intellectual.

Well, there's always China - and Trump is helping them pull ahead now.

Try again

Hate to say it, but ... what ninfan said.

America is getting dumber every second that man is in charge.

Just the way he (and his ilk) like it.

DrJ - Member
Try again
Hate to say it, but ... what ninfan said.

Went and looked.

I accede the point.

Thankfully, as he is loathed so much by all the other parties involved, he hasn't a hope of getting within a sniff of power in what needs to be a coalition government.

Whilst it's true that the Greens didn't get the largest increase, it was still much more than anyone expected.

So in terms of getting his hands on the levers of power, yes, he did lose.

I note he's saying "next time", but a week is a long time in politics. For now, the creeping tide of slime is halted.

Third biggest party became second biggest party - Failure

Eighth biggest party becomes sixth biggest party - Success

[quote=Mr Woppit ]Whilst it's true that the Greens didn't get the largest increase, it was still much more than anyone expected.

Actually it appears they did - they gained 10 seats or to put it another way a gain of 250%. Wilders' party only gained 5 seats, which was not only far less than expected, they also got a lower share of the vote and less seats than in 2010, hence "next time" is probably wishful thinking, his peak appears to have come and gone.

I'd rate your assessment far more accurate than ninfan's on that basis. There might be a slight shift to the right in general, but it's far from a shift to nationalism.

edit: and looking at the likely coalition, whilst it might have a centre right PM, the majority of seats in it will belong to slightly left of centre parties. PVV might have won more seats, but its won some of them from the ruling VVD and given it will be shut out of the coalition, in doing so it's probably shifted the ruling coalition to the left 😆

There might be a slight shift to the right in general, but it's far from a shift to nationalism.

True, but my point was that NL is already pretty far to the right on a number of issues. A few people live on canals and smoke weed; a whole lot more live in houses and dislike immigrants.

Maybe, but not only is that not particularly reflected in the election result (VVD and PVV are the two main right of centre parties and their combined vote declined), it's certainly not going to be reflected in the coalition.

That's based on a very quick amateur assessment of the political alignment, I don't know much about NL politics. But CDA appears to be slightly to the left and they will also likely bring in one of SP or GL both of which are clearly to the left. D66 seems harder to place - I'm tempted to describe their political position as "rational".

they also got a lower share of the vote and less seats than in 2010,

Pointless cherry picking when you realise that the [u]last[/u] election was actually in 2012

😆 congratulations on spotting that ninfan. I'm not going to give you the joy of arguing with you other than to point out how spectacularly you've missed the point in your eagerness to pick up on an apparent mistake 😆

Nonsense, for a start, the ruling party only retained power by moving right

“I understand that people think: if you reject our country fundamentally, I’d rather see you go. I have the same feeling. Act normal or leave,”

Can you imagine Rutte campaigning on that in 2010 or 2012?

“I understand that people think: if you reject our country fundamentally, I’d rather see you go. I have the same feeling. Act normal or leave,”

Is that a right wing view? I'd imagine life wasn't great in Soviet Poland if you didn't tow the line.

"Normal", eh? What's "normal", then?

Shock news of the day:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39297439

Now can Obama sue him, not for money or anything just to make a point.

Corrupt system is conspiring against him again! Fake news!! SAD!

Obama is probably just tutting and keeping his head down and trying to get on with his life.

That said, he has very strong ethics, so it would be nice to see him sue, and give the proceeds to things that trump hates, like education, health, the arts or charities for the under privileged.

That would be a stonker of a move.

People who have said that Trump Tower was definitely not under surveillance:

- former President Barack Obama
- FBI Director James Comey
- ex-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper
- ex-CIA Director John Brennan
- Republican chairman of House intelligence committee, Devin Nunes
- Republican John McCain, who chairs Senate Committee on Armed Services
- House Speaker Paul Ryan
- Former White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough

People who say it definitely was:

- Trump

Lolz 😀

Opinion is divided on the subject

Now can Obama sue him, not for money or anything just to make a point.

I don't think you can sue the president?

have checked - apparently it's a bit of a grey area for the Donald: he has broad protection against civil suits, however:

"the President can indeed be sued for alleged actions that took place prior to taking office or that are not related to the Presidency"

Given that he has a habit of sending his own tweets (ie: not through his communications team), from his personal account, and this one relates to something that happened before he was president..... I think the door is open.

Let's all sue the president!! 🙂

People who have said that Trump Tower was definitely not under surveillance:

- former President Barack Obama
- FBI Director James Comey
- ex-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper
- ex-CIA Director John Brennan
- Republican chairman of House intelligence committee, Devin Nunes
- Republican John McCain, who chairs Senate Committee on Armed Services
- House Speaker Paul Ryan
- Former White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough

Yup all these sensible people with experience of such things are lying or wrong but bawbags saw something on brietbart and he's definitely right. No evidence from Trump so far or anyone else, hows that Russia situation going?

hows that Russia situation going?

I believe that we are still waiting for evidence of any ties from Clinton, or anyone else,

what has it got to do with Clinton ? I thought Trump was the President .

Enjoying trump's favourite Irish proverb, taking a verse from a Nigerian poets work out of context.

Well cctv cameras are all over the shop, there's probably a building next door with cctv that accidentally gets a bit of turd tower in the shot.

It's probably a Starbucks or something.

Is that wire tapping? No

Is that the game he's playing, you better biggly betcha!

The cctv inside trumpton is probably part of a Chinese or Russian bot net.

Trump is to stupid to even need covert surveillance.

He posts most of his dhioreaha directly onto Twitter.

Maybe he's an unfortunate puppet of the lizard people, and just has to do as he's told... send us a sign, Donald.

I believe that we are still waiting for evidence of any ties from Clinton, or anyone else,

right on cue ninfan. do you work to a bonus scheme?

And to add the point that it's not about meet people it's the lies when asked. Or for sessions just dropping himself in it.