What I can't understand is that his supporters can't see his bare-faced lies and manipulation..... I mean, it's SO obvious but there is a huge (yuge?) section of society that actually believes what he's saying.
Ignoarance and Stupidity are sometimes had to seperate. The media has it's role and in the US it can be exceptionally partisan on the right side, the left has it's faults but in many ways they seem to keep it rational. If you are in the circles that only get your media from one sourece then you are in trouble. It's easier to listen and lap it up rather than look for more detailed explanations.
Don't forget the scale of the US - similar to Australia some people will never see more than 10% of it. All you have to do is convince them of what is going on and that it could happen to them.
The level of fear over 9/11 is still huge is a lot of places, it's above rational also and it's ingrained into the pshcye of a nation in places. Despite the amount of gun crime and violence that goes on every day.
[quote=ernie_lynch ]But he's not stupid.
Indeed - I'm not quite sure why people get confused by that one simply because his motivations are so alien to them.
Though regarding his re-election, he has to appeal to more than his core voters who are the ones lapping all this up (and making all the noise supporting him on social media). He has to also appeal to those who might have voted for Bernie - arguably he has to also hope that whoever the Democrats put forward next time fails to encourage people to come out and vote for them in the way Hillary did. It is worth noting that the latest polls already have his approval rating at 36% (a drop of 8 points from his record low for a president on inauguration), and whilst we're all pretty wary of polls now, the margin of error would have to be huge to get him reelected right now.
I mean, it's SO obvious but there is a huge (yuge?) section of society that actually believes what he's saying.
I suspect that it's probably not quite as big as you might think. It's a fairly accepted fact that many of the people who voted for him did so because he was "different" to other mainstream politicians, and they simply thought that they would "give him a chance".
It's a sad reflection of just how disillusioned people have become with mainstream politics/politicians, something which is by no means unique to the United States and has become prevalent throughout much of the West.
Opinion polls show that his approval ratings for a US president in his honeymoon period are historically low.
Of course just like anywhere else in the world there are stupid people in the US, and for those people Trump's apparent stupidity will never be a problem. But for a great many people it obviously will be.
And to be fair despite being notoriously unpredictable few could have imagined just how much damage Trump could do to America in just his first week as US president. I certainly didn't.
EDIT : Something which I forgot to mention is that Trump was massively helped by the fact that the Democrats put forward the worst possible candidate - someone who was considered dishonest and untrustworthy, extremely close to the political/Washington elite and Obama, and who had a completely misplaced sense of self-entitlement.
And to be fair despite being notoriously unpredictable few could have imagined just how much damage Trump could do to America in just his first week as US president. I certainly didn't.
I think plenty predicted at least some of it. What is the hope for now is that there are 3 levels of stops here.
First Congress both in terms of funding and voting down legislation - the wall being a good example of that
Secondly his cabinet - already the stops on torture etc. from people who are just not prepared to implement things like that are welcoming. the end of feb will be interesting when they put forward the ISIS Plan - who will have the political will for another boots on ground war? You can't do it all from the air. Will the US military be comfortable along side the Ruissians - the potential for incedents there is huge.
Thrid is the Courts, though his supreme court pic may help him they might feel the need to remain a little impartial to start with. You would have to expect heavy legal challenges to most of his policies which are close to or which are unconstitutional or just plain illegal.
As for timescales 2018 will be a key time, with low popularity and people still objecting to what he plans a significant shift could go against him. That is when the Repulicans will be getting worried
And to be fair despite being notoriously unpredictable few could have imagined just how much damage Trump could do to America in just his first week as US president. I certainly didn't.
Really? He didn't do enough during the campaign to convince you of just how awful he is?
I guess this is part of the point.... the guy openly admitted to repeated sexual assault in the run-up to the election, for crying out loud, and yet people (in large numbers) still voted for him.
In that example, he brushed it off as "locker-room-talk"..... something that makes no sense and doesn't address the issue in any way shape or form, and yet large swathes of the American public just accepted it and started parroting it back.
Similar things re: tax returns, nepotism, business interests, Russia etc etc, even the bloody inauguration crowd issue...... it seems like he can say whatever he likes, regardless of how outrageously untrue/offensive/illegal it is, and a large part of the population not only believe it, but start repeating it as truth.
It's bloody scary.
and guess what somebody has bought the domain
http://alternativefacts.com/
Worth a click to see where it goes
Really? He didn't do enough during the campaign to convince you of just how awful he is?
Yes I was aware that he is an unpleasant person. I just didn't think he would hit the ground running when it came to alienating the whole world, I couldn't have predicted that he would do quite so much damage in just his first week.
I can't say that I'm complaining btw, less than 0.001% of the world's population voted for Trump, it really is time that the rest of 99.999% didn't allow just one man have so much power and influence, it is neither democratic nor healthy.
This should act as a well overdue wakeup call.
What I dont get is his twitter fb trolling.
I work for a company with 100m budget employing a couple of k people, the boss is leveheaded (as you'd expect) but no way, not a chance would anyone think letting him send a stream of messages out would be idea.
Yet here we have this guy top job in the world and he's a twitter troll!!
teamwork?
Gen. John F. Kelly, the secretary of homeland security, had dialed in from a Coast Guard plane as he headed back to Washington from Miami. Along with other top officials, he needed guidance from the White House, which had not asked his department for a legal review of the order.Halfway into the briefing, someone on the call looked up at a television in his office. “The president is signing the executive order that we’re discussing,” the official said, stunned.
White House officials in the meantime insisted to reporters at a briefing that Mr. Trump’s advisers had been in contact with officials at the State and Homeland Security Departments for “many weeks.”One official added, “Everyone who needed to know was informed.”
But that apparently did not include members of the president’s own cabinet.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/29/us/politics/donald-trump-rush-immigration-order-chaos.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=a-lede-package-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
Of course the NYT is just a hot bed of leftie radicalism...
How long will some of the cabinet last?
He's obviously been too busy for his spray tan and his hair dye sessions
Trump stands for Trump I.e. himself, and no one else. He's simply an egotoctistical old man and is just doing what he wants. Hardly surprising his actions at present. Nevertheless, his voters won't care about the carnage since they mostly live outside the big cities anyway. He'll still be getting their support with these actions.
What is hurting him the most though is the fact he classes himself as a New Yorker and currently New York hates him for what he's done to their city (essentially closed it down pre elections with all his entourage etc) and his beliefs. I have a fair bit of family in New York and it's funny to hear their view of what's going on.
Ex-MI6 head on R4 just said Trump is playing into jihadists hands
.
sadly our PM wont stand up to him so we get tarred with that same brush
[img] 
[/img]
How can people who read US Today be considered stupid? Our intelligentsia read The Scum
US embassy in London saying that dual British nationals are still banned
I thought Johnson had got us an assurance saying that wasnt the case?
Per US Presidential Executive Order signed on January 27, 2017, visa issuance to aliens from the countries of Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen has been suspended effective immediately until further notification.If you are a national, or dual national, of one of these countries, please do not schedule a visa appointment or pay any visa fees at this time.
If you already have an appointment scheduled, please DO NOT ATTEND your appointment as we will not be able to proceed with your visa interview. Please note that certain travel for official governmental purposes, related to official business at or on behalf of designated international organizations, on behalf of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or by certain officials is not subject to this suspension.
Humiliating for Johnson as he is about to be grilled by MPs....
I thought Johnson had got us an assurance saying that wasnt the case?
Jamby said it was fixed!!
As the previous article I linked said the head of Homeland was being briefed when he saw trump sign the think on TV, he wasn't consulted.
The guidance to the heads of department was non existent and they were expected to be ruling on it on the spot. Ill conceived, poorly written, legally dubious at best so 1/10 for his first go.
That much fake tan just ain't healthy.
[img] 
[/img]
Foreign Office saying US embassy have got it wrong
Banshambles ?
kimbers - Member
Foreign Office saying US embassy have got it wrong
So who is paying for the cancelled trip?
Wonder how much this little charade has cost the US economy with missed/lost business and cancellations.
No 10 now blaming the queen
apparently May was just passing on an invite from her Maj
despite claiming the invite was decided by a mysterious government committee 30 mins ago 🙄
Signatures are flying onto that petition. 2 mil by tea time? I can see the queen having a cold if he comes over and as he wont meet Charles we could send Edward
Good comment from the Guardian
bothered to look up what Israel's entry policy is in light of all the hoo-ha created by Trump. I found the attached article which is illuminating.What moral arguments are left for Trump if Israel has not taken an equivalent stance from within the heat of the fire?
Roflmao
"To be clear, this is not a Muslim ban, as the media is falsely reporting."
Don't worry The Donald, I'm sure some brave patriotic souls can bypass the libtard MSM and reveal the truth on Twitter.
[img] 
[/img]
-- https://twitter.com/DrDavidDuke/status/825456106898128897
Isreal is a very good example. Customs there is a long detailed process but they are open to consider anyone. Contrast that to very many Arab countries where if you have an Israeli etry stamp in yoir UK passport you'll be refused entry. Malayasia caused a fuss last year when they denied visas to the Isreali youth windsurfing team who had entered the World Championships. There is an outstanding query about what will happen with the 2022 football World Cup in Qatar if Isreal qualify or if Isreali fans wish to attend.
.... of a state that operates a system of apartheid and regularly flouts international lawjambalaya - Member
Isreal is a very good example.....
I think youll need to come up with a better example of a country that maintains peaceful relations with the muslim world
I can see the queen having a cold if he comes over and as he wont meet Charles we could send Edward
We should send Philip in, he will sort him out.
True Jamby, however that doesnt make Donald right.
It says something when Israeli policy appears to be more level headed than your own.
Contrast that to very many Arab countries where if you have an Israeli etry stamp in yoir UK passport you'll be refused entry. Malayasia caused a fuss last year when they denied visas to the Isreali youth windsurfing team who had entered the World Championships
Malaysia is an Arab country? Everyday's a schoolday!
It's a #jambafact
Civilians indiscriminately killed in drone strikes or indiscriminate travel ban- which will radicalise more people?
I can see the queen having a cold if he comes over and as he wont meet Charles we could send [s]Edward[/s] Jedward
"Civilians indiscriminately killed in drone strikes or indiscriminate travel ban- which will radicalise more people?"
In Brighton, the latter.
Civilians indiscriminately killed in drone strikes or indiscriminate travel ban- which will radicalise more people?
I didn't realise Trump has halted all the drone strikes. When was that announced?
Foreign Service officers planning dissent over immigration ban
[url= https://lawfareblog.com/breaking-news-full-text-draft-dissent-channel-memo-trump-refugee-and-visa-order ]Full Text of Draft Dissent Channel Memo on Trump Refugee and Visa Order[/url]
Meanwhile Trump tweets that there are "Bad Dudes" out there!
Trump is droning! shit the bed! Shame I thought he was going to be different but it turns out he's JUST LIKE every other US Prez.
Meanwhile Trump tweets that there are "Bad Dudes" out there!
Does this mean he might be in danger of being kidnapped by ninjas?
[img] 
[/img]
ctk - MemberCivilians indiscriminately killed in drone strikes or indiscriminate travel ban- which will radicalise more people?
Try- civilians indiscriminately killed in drone strikes PLUS indiscriminate travel ban. Obviously the latter will radicalise more (and where it doesn't radicalise, will erode support- which increases the odds of radicalised people achieving their goals.
Iran test fires yet another ballistic missile - Obama's deal really was extraordinarily stupid and we signed it too 😐
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/01/30/iran-conducts-ballistic-missile-test-us-officials-say.html
Fox News you say....
"I didn't realise Trump has halted all the drone strikes. When was that announced?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/donald-trump-us-military-attack-yemen-civilians-women-children-dead-a7553121.htm l"
I think that's the point isn't it. Everyone's cool with killing people in Yemen, but you inconvenience them and the world goes hysterical.
Malaysia is an Arab country? Everyday's a schoolday!
Read it again. Arab countries sentence 1. Sentence 2 a different example, is an Asian Muslim country. Banning youth windsurfers eh ? Where is the international outcry ? Note Gulf countries will stop you entering if you are a Brit with an Isreali stamp in your passport for example if you'd taken a holiday in Eilat.
Yeah, whatabout that?
Or is it not actually whataboutery, but a suggestion that it's good for the US to be more like Arab countries in its foreign relations?
"Try- civilians indiscriminately killed in drone strikes PLUS indiscriminate travel ban. Obviously the latter will radicalise more"
Obviously?
When you kill someone you radicalise their entire extended family and their friends.
There was a classic documentary on the Viet Cong. It struck me that not one of the people interviewed joined for the cause. In every case it was a straight reaction to American Military Attacks.
You really can't overstate how counter productive killing people is.
[quote=outofbreath ]You really can't overstate how counter productive killing people is.
Yeah, it results in arseholes being elected as POTUS 😈
Yes NW the latter will radicalise more. (As long as Trump keeps it up for 2 terms)
has it been posted that Obama restricted movement from these countries in 2011.
"Yeah, it results in arseholes being elected as POTUS"
Well yeah. A handful of Saudi ****wits have directly dictated US foreign policy for the best part of 20 years. It's mental.
[img] 
[/img]
Jamba today
poah - Memberhas it been posted that Obama restricted movement from these countries in 2011.
Various people have posted it, but luckily we've already established that it's untrue.
"has it been posted that Obama restricted movement from these countries in 2011."
Yeah. But a cynic might say Obama wanted it done on the quiet 'cos he didn't think it would play well with his voters, whereas Trump wants to shout it from the rooftop 'cos he thinks it will play well to his voters.
Boris Johnson complaining about WW2 comparisons Being unhelpful in parliament !!!!
😯
Theresa the Appeaser and our cowtowing to trump is an embarrassment
I think that's the point isn't it. Everyone's cool with killing people in Yemen
I don't think everyone is cool with that at all. Particularly in Yemen, which is undoubtedly why Yemen was on the ban list. And I don't think everyone was cool with it under previous administrations either.
My point was that those haven't stopped. It's not drone strikes OR travel bans, it's drone strike AND travel bans. Travel bans may seem minor by comparison, but they effect a hell of a lot more people and could make potential allies into enemies.
What I find odd is that he publicly campaigned on a promise to ban Muslims. It was on his campaign website. He made a big speech about it.
But now that he has brought in this ban he is suddenly angrily telling everyone it's not a #MuslimBan and that the darned liberal MSM are lying. What's that about? Presumably at some point some advisor has pointed out that a ban on religious grounds would be a huge violation of the US constitution?
(Mind you, he also campaigned on killing the civilian families of terrorists, so I'm sure he'll be happy to publicly applaud the women and children killed in that Yemen raid?)
"Various people have posted it, but luckily we've already established that it's untrue."
Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015
poah - Member
has it been posted that Obama restricted movement from these countries in 2011.
Yep several times but it's been exposed as fakenews - spread by trump himself...
Obama issued a ban on visas for unvetted Iraqis for 6 months, it did not include green card holders as trump's does
We gave up our bollocks after WW2 you may be surprised that they don't grow back... don't expect any UK politician to incur the wrath of Donald (we need his sodium chicken don't ya know)
Please nobody state Brexit indicates bollocks it's the opposite.
"I don't think everyone is cool with that at all."
Everyone's cool was a very poor choice of phrase, my point was relatively less concerned.
There's a million strong petition against the Ban on travel from Countries of Concern. Plus protests in the Uk. There has been barely a whisper about the Yemen bombing.
Both during the Trump administration.
so Obama didn't restrict travel from Iraq in 2011 for 6 months then?
He did but only unvetted refugees not green card holders
Obama's 2011 restrictions were only on refugees and SIV holders, it wasn't a blanket ban (and at no time did the flow of these groups actually stop). It's a ridiculous comparison
outofbreath - MemberTerrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015
...didn't ban anyone and only affected people who were eligible for the VWP- ie, nationals of countries in good regard, including us. But even if affected, it just meant you had to apply for a visa like travellers from all countries outwith the VWP do anyway
But we already covered all that.
I understand what you are getting at outofbreath and I'm not sure what the answer is.
I suspect there is a bit of cognitive dissonance at play - something happening in a far of land versus something happening at your local airport?
And I think many people accept that drone strikes etc are a [i]little[/i] more nuanced if you accept the narrative that they are targeting "bad dudes" who live and hide with civilians. Plus criticising the military is seen as very unpatriotic by a lot of Americans.
As an anecdote, I randomly watched the pivotal scene from [url=
of Engagement on YouTube[/url] the other day, where the marine commander orders his troops to open fire and massacre the civilian crowd in Yemen because there are snipers hiding amongst them. Read the comments under that video for an insight into how some people view that (fictional) action. Scary!
The thing i haven't heard at all is if banning certain people from entering the USA actually reduces the terror risk?
I mean, an organisation like ISIS has the resources to get people into the country surely, or to simply recruit people with the right passports??
"...didn't ban anyone"
You said there were no restrictions of any kind. There were. I've identified them, you've now admitted there were, so I'm happy.
Maxtorque - they can probably find recruits with US passports and easy access to guns.
It strikes me that this ban is a public slap in the face for the intelligence services. If trump trusted them to do their job and spot the "bad dudes" he wouldn't need to pull up the drawbridge.
Well at least it gives his adoring followers the feeling that he's tackling the bad dudes. In 90 days he'll probably just say "OK we've figured out what the heck is going on", lift the ban and pretend it made a difference.
"Max torque - they can probably find recruits with US passports and easy access to guns."
Or just go via another country.
I don't think this law is intended to solve any problem beyond the problem of making Trump look like he's 'doing something' to people who might vote for him. ...and maybe in a democracy, that's a good reason.
"In 90 days he'll probably just say "OK we've figured out what the heck is going on", lift the ban and pretend it made a difference."
This, I think. They'll tweak the visa application system in some trivial way and Trump will be able to say he sorted it all out, when Obama couldn't.
Even so I'm not sure this whole farce will be a vote winner.
Maxtorque - they can probably find recruits with US passports and easy access to guns.
I don't think they can, certainly not easily, otherwise you'd be seeing attacks on American soil much more frequently.
The travel ban is just a bone to his supporters. I very much doubt it'll make American's safer, but it might make some of them "feel" safer. Does anyone honestly think Trump and the people who elected him care about world opinion on this (the world's left opinion mostly) or about our petitions.
thepurist
they can probably find recruits with US passports and easy access to guns.
Don't be silly, it's not like America is overflowing with cheap, easily accessable high power firearms now is it. oh, wait a minute..........
The list of countries has been lifted straight from Obama's "cause for concern list".
Sam Harris on the ban, worth 3 mins to read imho
https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/a-few-thoughts-on-the-muslim-ban
Sean Spicer is live
he sounds just like this
DrJ - Member
Malayasia caused a fuss last year when they denied visas to the Isreali youth windsurfing team who had entered the World Championships
Malaysia is an Arab country? Everyday's a schoolday!
Jamba did not say that.
Jamba is correct regarding M'sia.
Yes, M'sians (proven in the passport) are banned from traveling to Israel.
Israeli are also banned from entering the country.
Discrimination (in your face type) is a way of life in M'sia but if you are tourist you don't see that ...
outofbreath - MemberYou said there were no restrictions of any kind. There were. I've identified them, you've now admitted there were, so I'm happy.
Oh come [i]on[/i]. Having to apply for a visa like everyone in the world outwith the VWP zone is what we're talking about. That's not an extra restriction, it's business as normal for 6 out of 7 of the countries in the world.
The thing i haven't heard at all is if banning certain people from entering the USA actually reduces the terror risk?
I think we did cover that one, and in any case the answer appears to be that this ban wouldn't affect anybody who has committed terrorist acts in the USA since [b]and including[/b] 9/11.
Clearly it is just pandering to his supporters, but we need to distinguish here between his core support who will vote for him in 2020 even (or possibly even more) if he commits multiple acts of genocide, and those who just happened to vote for him this time (because they wanted something different?) The former group are the ones supporting him on social media etc. and whilst he appears to be happily doing what that bunch (who are mostly bigoted in some way) want, they're irrelevant. The latter group might pay attention to protests and be influenced by them.
But it's far more than that - Trump didn't win because lots of people voted for him, he won because lots of people didn't vote for Hillary. All that is required is for the protests to influence some of that group who are inclined more towards the protestors
Jamba is correct regarding M'sia.Yes, M'sians
Oh! You little tinker!
However the original accusation by the lefties was that the list of countries involved was driven by Trumps business interests
[b]That[/b] allegation is completely and utterly shut down by the fact that the list of countries of concern was drawn up under the Obama government,
So, Northwind, Aracer - would you accept that the outrage bus that was set off in light of that allegation was wrong/false/#fakenews
A few people said that, sure, and they were wrong. But they weren't speaking for "the lefties" you know. And now a lot of people want to use it to divert from the real story.
outofbreath - MemberI don't think this law is intended to solve any problem beyond the problem of making Trump look like he's 'doing something' to people who might vote for him. ...and maybe in a democracy, that's a good reason.
I don't know why you keep banging on about Trump only acting the way he has been in the last week to win votes. And also apparently claiming that it's all working out very well for him.
First of all the election campaign is over - and he got sufficient votes to win it.
And secondly, Trump isn't simply alienating people across the world in foreign countries he is also alienating voters in the US. In fact the disapproval he is now facing from US voters is unprecedented.
[url= http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/01/30/gallup-donald-trump-reaches-majority-disapproval-rating-in-record-time/ ]Gallup: Donald Trump reaches majority disapproval rating in record time[/url]
Note :
[b][i] For reference, it wasn’t until August 2011 that Barack Obama reached a majority disapproval in the daily survey, while George W. Bush didn’t reach a majority disapproval until his second term in June 2005, according to Gallup’s data.[/b][/i]
Furthermore I doubt that Trump gives a monkeys whether he is loved or loathed, just as long as people notice him. He craves attention and power, something he's had his entire life.
Trump is a performer, a showman, and a vain egotistic man. As I've said previously I don't doubt that he is highly intelligent, what is in doubt imo is his mental health. I think it's because he behaves irrationally and does things which are clearly damaging to the US that people assume that he must be stupid.
In that context I think an analogy with Hitler probably has some merit. No one would suggest that Hitler was "stupid" although his mental health is another matter. Hitler too was motivated not so much by rational thought but by the need to satisfy his ego and a desire for power, control, and influence.
Now I am not suggesting for a minute that Trump is "like" Hitler or as "bad" as Hitler, I don't of course believe that - Trump is nothing like Hitler. I am simply pointing out that someone can be highly intelligent and yet also irrational. Don't assume that because Trump is intelligent, and successful, that everything he does is rational and/or not destructive.
IMHO
People do need to drop the business interests "justification". Trump ran for President to satisfy his ego. Gates, Allen, Dell, Buffett, Zuckerberg all have far more money than Trump but he is POTUS and he did it against all the odds.
edit: I see ernie's post crossed mine re Trumps raison d'etre ... he is going to do what he said he'd do as he sees thats the way to get relected in 2020.
jambalaya - Memberhe is going to do what he said he'd do
What, make America great again?
Methinks not. But we'll have to wait and see. It's very early days but his first week doesn't imo appear to have been particularly inspirational in suggesting that he will achieve that goal.