Has anybody else noticed that Donald Trump has a comically shit hairstyle? You'd have thought there'd have been some reference to it along the way.
Let's not make this bigger than it really is and don't forget someone might have had their car slightly damaged in all this furore.
Perspective people!
Think I asked for someone to list something positive about Trump about two weeks ago, still waiting......
Something positive about Trump? Easy, I'm positive I don't want him to be the President.
something positive about Trump
based on the gif posted by captain sasquatch, trump does a pretty good impression of Toad of Toad Hall. As does nigel farage, funnily enough
akira - MemberThink I asked for someone to list something positive about Trump about two weeks ago, still waiting......
Bill Maher has one- it's finally made it impossible for the christian right to pretend they're not total hypocrites. Generations of haughty moral supremacy completely gone in a few short months. I don't think that's quite what you were after mind.
I'm predicting Trump wins. The world is just that crazy at the moment.
And he'll lead us all into WW3 🙁
I suppose he's also made every past president look infinitely better,not sure that's a positive though.
Hillary's got a clear lead in the last polls. 350 seats with 270 required. Trump with an 8pc chance of victory according to CNN.
[quote=outofbreath ]Hillary's got a clear lead in the last polls. 350 seats with 270 required. Trump with an 8pc chance of victory according to CNN.
And the polls are never wrong!
"And the polls are never wrong!"
I'll tell you if this poll is correct on Wednesday.
Re polls, a wise man once said, "fool me once, shame on, shame on you. Fool me—you can't get fooled again.". I'd like to think Americans can't be that stupid but I'm not holding my breath anymore.
[quote=BoardinBob ]And the polls are never wrong!
Well I'm going to hang onto the polls being highly predictable in the way they've shifted following various information being released, and it seems unlikely anything else is going to swing them with less than 24hrs to go.
Surely anyone with an ounce of common sense will have given up on Trump after his latest response to the FBI email investigation. Surely the guy has zero credibility, except with a few true (gun toting 😯 ) idiots.
Even his most ardent supporters have to be able to see through the bullcrap.
They must.
They have to, please? 😐
Well maybe yes. But they still won't vote for Hillary will they?
There are still people undecided. Tells you a lot.
Well maybe yes. But they still won't vote for Hillary will they?
They don't have to if they don't turn up or spoil the ballot paper. They don't have to vote for either.
Make it a whole non-event.
edited as pic had a swear in it
They don't have to if they don't turn up or spoil the ballot paper. They don't have to vote for either.
Make it a whole non-event.
Which essentially translates as "I'm happy to go with the majority" which might not be what you want.
Which essentially translates as "I'm happy to go with the majority" which might not be what you want.
Still has to be better than voting for Trump because he's not Clinton.
BoardinBob - Member
I'm predicting Trump wins. The world is just that crazy at the moment.
And he'll lead us all into WW3
Surely you mean that to be the other way around? She's the one threatening war with Russia
A quite extra-ordinary election. I remember standing outside the Rockerfeller centre in NY as Obama won in 2008, a timenfull of hope and look where we have ended up 🙁
I really don't know how the result will go.
Surely you mean that to be the other way around? She's the one threatening war with Russia
And hes the one saying America wont back NATO allies if Russia invades them
I know which outcome Putin would prefer
And the polls are never wrong!
Well 8% chance doesn't mean no chance however the polls are far clearer on the likely result than, say, for Brexit. Trouble is the people do have to make it to the ballot box.
Brexit was a different style of vote though; just a simple majority wins.
US is by 'electoral college votes', so a Clinton win is a more robust prediction.
Still doesn't explain why 60 million Americans think Trump is an electable figure. Pure stupidity.
depressing read here but echoes of what Brexit has stirred up here
If Clinton is in then Merica can say goodbye to S.E. Asia & Asia ...
Last Merican ground in Asia will probably be Singapore.
And hes the one saying America wont back NATO allies if Russia invades themI know which outcome Putin would prefer
No he isn't
http://www.factcheck.org/2016/05/whats-trumps-position-on-nato/
And he's hardly on his own in criticism of NATO members that are not contributing the agreed 2%
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/11/world/europe/11gates.html
NATO. Actually Trump get's my support in his stance, either you spend 2% on defence as you are supposed to or maybe the US won't bail you out.
Glad you can take one liners out of his "policy" statement. Lets review his current statements, Some Iranians made some rude gestures and taunted a US Naval ship should have shot them he said.
World would be better if more countries had nukes he said
Would continue to piss off Iran rather than trying to work together
Reading the Fact Check summary his words are the same on lots of things tremendous amount of money, lots of money, costing us, paying for etc. (remember 350 million is a lot of money people)
He was pulled up on his understanding of NATO budgets with regard to Terrorism spending showing his actual ignorance.
I think it's becoming clearer that Putin would prefer a trump president taking a hands off isolationist approach to things, letting Russia get stuck in where it wants to. Not to sound like a conspiracy nut but the Trump/Russian Bank data traffic (very likely it was 2 way communication) doesn't sit that well does it.
But time for the one poll that matters, my American friends facebook feeds are pushing the don't be complacent line at the moment, if you don't want to wake up to a Trump President make sure you vote Clinton. It's not the lesser of 2 evils it's the sane choice!
Donald Trump is a racist, sexist, isolationist, self centred, hot headed narcacist who will in reality only ever act in his own self interest.
Donald Trump is a racist, sexist, isolationist, self centred, hot headed narcacist who will in reality only ever act in his own self interest.
Pretty much the same tired left wing rhetoric that we heard about Reagan and every right wing president since - ever heard of the boy who cried wolf?
Can you say which ones he isn't Ninfan?
Never met the bloke, and I've learned enough in life to understand that a persons public and media persona often isn't representative of their true character- just look at Jimmy Savile...
lol 🙂
Certainly true Saville did seem to do his best to hide things.
I've learned that if you outwardly show and demonstrate that you are
racist, sexist, isolationist, self centred, hot headed narcacist who will in reality only ever act in his own self interest.
Chances are in private you don't run a sanctuary for lost kittens and do the gardening for your grandma for free.
But feel free to blanketly defend him.
@mike Channel 4 news tonight (avail on YouTube) had a piece on Russia, the real issue for them is that Clinton has been very agressive in her langauge towards Russia so its more that they are anti-Clinton than pro-Trump.
Chances are in private you don't run a sanctuary for lost kittens and do the gardening for your grandma for free.
yeah, but on the other side he's hardly up against the Virgin Mary is he?
few pages back
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/cover_story/2016/10/was_a_server_registered_to_the_trump_organization_communicating_with_russia.html?utm_content=inf_10_2641_2&wpsrc=socialedge&tse_id=INF_3a2cc8909fd611e6bd3ee3ca348530db
Why is a prominent Pro Putin bank who are basically the Russian overseas development fund communicating with the Trump organisation?
Our very own FS has some strong views on Russia
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/12/boris-johnson-accused-of-stoking-russophobic-hysteria-over-syria/
Going soft on Russia over Ukrane, Syria and the Malysian Airways plane isn't going to play well overseas with the US's actual allys.
Wouldn't the US and Russia being more friendly be a good thing?
yeah, but on the other side he's hardly up against the Virgin Mary is he?
oh bless, you really are crawling right up there aren't you.
Wouldn't the US and Russia being more friendly be a good thing?
That's the way I see it too - We spent Decades Facing off against Russia, we won the Cold War (Thanks Maggie and Ronnie) Russia are quite simply no longer the existential and expansionist threat to western democracy that they were. Short of some minor territorial disputes with people trying to poke a stick at a sleeping bear and drag us into it, its Time to move on.
Partly agree but you can't take one issue out of the whole foreign policy spectrum. If as you say Russia isn't a threat then people can afford to be tough on them.Russia are quite simply no longer the existential and expansionist threat to western democracy that they were. Short of some minor territorial disputes
The minor outstanding issues - The invasion of a soverign state (Ukrane)
Arming rebels with the weapons that shot down MH17
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17
Then working to cover it up
Syria
Agression around it's borders
Overall and massive control of the gas supply to western europe
Press opression and the elimination of ploitical opponents
If you want to overlook all of than then be my guest. Russia aside Trump is a significant threat to the middle east, and at best a serious unknown quantity who has failed to show any kind of restraint, diplomacy or forethought. These are not qualities that go well on the world stage or in times where cool heads and calm actions are required.
Trump is a significant threat to the Middle East
Can you really say that with a straight face after Obama and Clintons involvement in Iraq (arguably drawing down too early and without securing a stable government, resulting in the rise of IS) Syria, Libya, Egypt etc
These are not qualities that go well on the world stage or in times where cool heads and calm actions are required.
Again, were back to the same old rhetoric from the Reagan era, that was supposed to drive us into confrontation with Russia and nuclear war. We're still here.
(arguably pulling out to early and without securing a stable government, resulting in the rise of IS)
OK that old one
Was Obama responsible for the timing of the withdrawal?It was President George W. Bush who signed the Status of Forces agreement in 2008, which planned for all American troops to be out of Iraq by the end of 2011.
"The agreement lays out a framework for the withdrawal of American forces in Iraq — a withdrawal that is possible because of the success of the surge," he said in a joint press conference with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki at the time.
Still, many had real concerns al Qaeda wasn't done for. And there were some, including U.S. senators, saying the troops should stay just in case things went downhill. They say Obama should have sold the idea, hard, to Maliki.Iraq analyst Kirk Sowell said Obama never really tried.
"This is one of the criticisms of Obama — that he sort of wanted the negotiations to fail," Sowell said, "and, so, he didn't even talk to Maliki until it was basically all over."
The State Department's lawyers said troops couldn't stay in Iraq unless the Iraqi parliament authorized them to do so, including granting them immunity from Iraqi law. The Iraqi parliamentarians would never OK such a decision, with Iraqi popular opinion staunchly against U.S. troops staying.
Sowell saw State's decision as a deliberately insurmountable obstacle.
"It was a barrier that was very high," he said, "and there was no way it was going to be jumped over."
But, does Obama bear responsibility for the timing of the troop withdrawal? On balance, no.
He was following through on an agreement made by Bush and abiding by the will of the Iraqi and American people.
http://www.npr.org/2015/12/19/459850716/fact-check-did-obama-withdraw-from-iraq-too-soon-allowing-isis-to-grow
Did the withdrawal of troops lead to the rise of ISIS?Back then, in 2011, there was no ISIS. The group didn't exist under that name yet. There was just their predecessor, al Qaeda in Iraq, which had been at the forefront of the terrible insurgency in Iraq. But many thought it was licked.
"All of the intelligence that we had gathered, all of the results of the surge, all of the detainees we had in our detention system, all of the information we had coming to us from people on the ground, from the tribes indicated that al Qaeda in Iraq was defeated," said Ret. Col. Peter Mansoor, who served in Iraq.
One of those tribal leaders, Sheikh Hamid Taees, told me: "In May of 2006, I worked closely with the American side to rid Anbar of terrorism and al Qaeda, and actually we killed a large number of al Qaeda fighters."But by the time of that comment, early in 2014, al Qaeda was beginning to get a grip on Sunni areas again, including that province of Anbar.
Many Sunni sheikhs say once the American soldiers left, the minority Sunni population of Iraq suffered under a government dominated by the Shiite majority. That government stopped paying most of them, and even arrested many.
The Short Answer:1. No, Obama shouldn't shoulder the full burden for the timing of the withdrawal of troops;
2. Yes, a significant American troop presence would have helped slow the growth of ISIS
But with the significant caveat that there were many other factors that enabled ISIS to become strong — and they weren't all predictable in 2011.
So in summary if he could have got past GWB's timetable, convinved the Iraqi's to be "occupied" and seen the future or found a way to make the Iraqi government train it's troops and sort out the corruption and divides then maybe it could have been averted.
Your one liner just like trumps near exact same comment fails to even basically investigate or examine the facts or details of what was going on (Such as blaming Obama for sticking to stuff that was virtually set in stone to defeat a threat that didn't exist at the time)
It's not been perfect but tearing up the Iran peace deal would be a huge step backwards, open agression and short fuses will not help.
Syria, Lybia and Egypt are not simple porblems, has Trump actually managed to say what he would do differently? Is it an improvemnt or just more one liners like different you bad bad woman just different?
I admire that you can so staunchly hold your absolute hatred of Hillary Clinton and stick to the minutest details while ignoring so many facts.
Did you get your T-Shirt before they were withdrawn?
[img] 
[/img]
You seem to be pretty much agreeing with me that he could have done more, butin a half hearted manner, hidden somewhere between death by cut and paste.
Do you fancy tackling Obama/Clintons massive successes in Egypt, Libya and Syria next?
Regardless, to plaster Trump as a threat to the Middle Eastern security after the decades of complete cluster **** of US middle eastern policy requires the type labyrinthine twisting and turning a blind eye to ignore Clinton's involvement that you could probably get a job as an accountant for her charitable foundation
[quote=ninfan ]You seem to be pretty much agreeing with me that he could have done more, butin a half hearted manner, hidden somewhere between death by cut and paste.
I'm certainly not a supporter or the USA's adventures in the Middle East but the options were
a) do nothing
b) charge in like a bad game of Risk
c) Play the game behind the scenes, secret stuff etc
The Obama administration picked up the mess from the Bush era. They couldn't do nothing and conversely the public support was not there for full scale intervention, so the played the only game they can.
Trump I fear, is a real life Leroy Jenkins. Everyone else will be hanging back trying to come up with a plan, and he'll come in late to the meeting, scream some rhetoric then go charging in with no heed to common sense.