"Trump didn't win because lots of people voted for him, he won because lots of people didn't vote for Hillary."
Yeah, important not to lose sight of that.
As an aside I think concerns about a second term are a bit premature. He'll be 75 looking to serve 'till 80 and re-election depends to some degree on his first term not being an utter cluster-****. It's not looking that good good for him so far.
Just living to 80 is an achievement, let alone leading the USA on your twiglight years.
worth 3 mins to read imho
3 minutes wasted
Not even the most liberal of liberals is going to say extreme islamists and/or terrorists are a good thing. They're not going to deny that a problem exists.
However unlike the most right of rightists, they are smart enough to know not all Muslims are extremists and/or terrorists. A blanket ban does nothing. If anything it makes the longer term situation worse.
People do need to drop the business interests "justification".
Does ninfan listen to you? Because he's the only one still chewing that bone. Given i got name checked by ninfan up there, I can't be sure I've never suggested anything like that, but I've certainly dropped it if I ever did - it is a distraction from the real issue, which is i guess why ninfan is clinging to it grimly.
Just in case he needs it spelling out (he usually does) no, that wasn't the crux of the complaints against this order at all. Not even by the lefties I don't think, though I couldn't speak for them
Oh and of course regarding #fakenews then it's tricky when that effectively originates in the office of potus
outofbreath - Member
As an aside I think concerns about a second term are a bit premature. He'll be 75 looking to serve 'till 80 and re-election depends to some degree on his first term not being an utter cluster-****. It's not looking that good good for him so far.
Let's hope during his terms all those interfering busy bodies will be hammered to hilt given the opportunity.
If he serves two terms, which I think he will, at least during that time the world will not be screwed by the so called pc and those interfering foreign policies.
If the Western countries are trying it on again by trying to impose their morals in Asean and S.E.Asia, I can assure you they will be heading for Russia and China with the exception of Singapore (only Western supporter).
Therefore, Trump is the only one that can actually bring good relationship to Asean & S.E. Asia by not getting involved. The more he stays out by not intervening they more they like to do business with him and the better the relationship. All the previous administrations nobody gives a flying dog about them as they are all seen as bullies, same goes to EU and the affiliates. Stay out and stay gone.
A few people said that, sure, and they were wrong. But they weren't speaking for "the lefties" you know
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
"Trump didn't win because lots of people voted for him, he won because lots of people didn't vote for Hillary."Yeah, important not to lose sight of that.
It was a factor but it shouldn't be overstated. Hillary Clinton got almost the identical amount of votes as Obama got 4 years earlier, Trump got 2 million votes more than Mitt Romney did 4 years earlier. The turnout this time was very slightly higher.
There is no doubt however that Hillary Clinton did alienate a lot of potential Democrat voters, which another candidate almost certainly would not have done - especially as the rival Republican candidate was Trump. Clinton was an appalling choice imo.
Therefore, Trump is the only one that can actually bring good relationship to Asean & S.E. Asia by not getting involved.
eh?
the next pledge he needs to fulfill would be that trade war with China...
the shitshow keeps on rolling
It was a factor but it shouldn't be overstated. Hillary Clinton got almost the identical amount of votes as Obama got 4 years earlier,
I'll admit I haven't studied it, but thought it was quite a significant thing - was it just the swing states where it was more an issue (and lots of "anyone but Trump" voting in places like NY and California where they were prepared to ignore how rubbish Hillary was)?
kimbers - Member
Therefore, Trump is the only one that can actually bring good relationship to Asean & S.E. Asia by not getting involved.
eh?the next pledge he needs to fulfill would be that trade war with China...
the shitshow keeps on rolling
That's exactly what it should be same goes to EU.
Stay out and stay gone.
Boarding I think there is a strong dialogue about how Islamic Terrorism isn't really a problem, look at the frequent posts here comparing deaths with gun control issues etc for example. Then imagine that dialed up as the Americans do.
What, make America great again?
I meant more along the lines of the wall, greater military funding, infrastructure funding & built with US steel, immigration control, bringing jobs back to the US
For years people have been complaining about US intervention abroad, I think Trump's US doing less is going to raise even more protest
That 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
Until Trump gets rid of his business interests the accusations are fair and should be investigated. His decisions so far seem to have too many coincidental benefits for his companies. Like you were so fond of saying no smoke without fire.
As the likes of homeland were not consulted How do we know he had enough intelligence to make the call based on facts?
I think Trump's US doing less is going to raise even more protest
if this is doing less, then yeah I think itll not go well
As the likes of homeland were not consulted How do we know he had enough intelligence to make the call based on facts?
I'll try and give you a proper answer on that one.
I suspect that, behind the scenes, what we have just seen with the immigration issue is a clear stamping of authority - that it's disingenuous to allege that homeland wasn't consulted, but instead that the incoming administration was met by a similar response to the Tories in 2010 where every change was seen as impossible and heads of public sector departments sought to delay and water down proposals to the point of open rebellion ("no, we will have to strategise how achievable this is, and it will take 6-12 months to impose any changes")
I reckon that the new leadership decided that this needed to be nipped in the bud, while they still had the advantage of 'shock of capture' and before the blocking opposition had time to act. so signed the order with immediate effect, so that recalcitrant departments had no choice to move on it, hence some short term chaos for long term results.
I meant more along the lines of the wall, greater military funding, infrastructure funding & built with US steel, immigration control, bringing jobs back to the US
You forgot, paying down the deficit and reducing tax. Of course the sums just don't add up and some high tech companies are already worried enough to be drawing up contingency plans to leave the US.
I reckon that the new leadership decided that this needed to be nipped in the bud, while they still had the advantage of 'shock of capture' and before the blocking opposition had time to act. so signed the order with immediate effect, so that recalcitrant departments had no choice to move on it, hence some short term chaos for long term results.
oh the results of this 'blessed ban' will be long term
that it's disingenuous to allege that homeland wasn't consulted
Article from reliable sources clearly stating the head was being briefed on the exec order he was going to implement as he saw Trump on TV signing it.
I reckon that the new leadership decided that this needed to be nipped in the bud, while they still had the advantage of 'shock of capture' and before the blocking opposition had time to act. so signed the order with immediate effect, so that recalcitrant departments had no choice to move on it, hence some short term chaos for long term results.
As. The judge described it not thought through and full of holes. Not properly legally checked etc.
As a short term policy the long term angle doesn't fly.
It's a shit policy that has done nothing to improve the security of the US or the safety of its citizens. All it has done is impacted the lives of people who chose to make a new life there and those unfortunate to be travelling there for work or pleasure or even just transiting through.
Perhaps Trump could ask the fbi, cia and homeland for an update as to what is going on and how nobody from one of the countries on the list has managed to conduct an act of terrorism in the US.
Perhaps Trump could ask the fbi, cia and homeland for an update as to what is going on and how nobody from one of the countries on the list has managed to conduct an act of terrorism in the US.
he gets his daily briefing from fox news.
Its a simple fact that no terrorist from any of the countries on the banned list have killed anyone in the US whilst other muslim countries citizens such as saudi arabia have killed americans. If this ban had been in place 20 years ago not one single american life would have been saved.
Its a simple fact that no terrorist from any of the countries on the banned list have killed anyone in the US whilst other muslim countries citizens such as saudi arabia have killed americans
Then why did Saint Obama put them on the list, and where was the outrage at the time?
Come on ninfan what is the difference here? One list means we scrutinise people a bit more and are careful about trade etc. This one band people who have already been given visa's from returning to the US, it stopped someone who hasn't lived in Iran since she was a hold from attending a conference in the US. It has been interpreted as the first steps to a Muslim ban as that is what Trump loudly shouted he wanted to do.
You know the 2 things are very different. Can you not find anything about this policy that is in the least unsettling?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-donald-trump-muslim-ban-immigration-iraq-iran-restrictions-travel-islamic-state-us-visa-a7552856.html
So last August Trump was claiming that Obama was the founder of ISIS
[url= http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-barack-obama-isis-latest-speech-terrorism-claims-election-2016-a7184536.html ]Donald Trump calls Barack Obama ‘founder of Isis’ and Hillary Clinton its 'co-founder'[/url]
[i]"In fact, in many respects, you know they honour President Obama, Isis is honouring President Obama. He is the founder of Isis."[/i]
Now less than 6 months later it would fair to say that ISIS is honouring President Trump.......their new recruiting sergeant.
If you wrote that in a novel it would be dismissed as too ludicrous.
mikewsmith - MemberCome on ninfan .....
Are you appealing to ninfan's sensible side? 😆
Its a simple fact that no terrorist from any of the countries on the banned list have killed anyone in the US whilst other muslim countries citizens such as saudi arabia have killed americans.
Yup, it would be interesting to know the criteria used to select the countries of concern in the Terrorist Travel Prevention Act.
Although it doesn't state the criteria in full the below page mentions "foreign terrorist fighters" as being a factor:
https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/02/18/dhs-announces-further-travel-restrictions-visa-waiver-program
Can anyone with better google skills than me find the actual criteria?
Well at least nobody is talking about Russian hotel rooms and the vice Putin has around his balls so who cares about a few Syrians etc
he gets his daily briefing from fox news.
I thought he stated weeks ago he didn't need a daily briefing.
Then why did Saint Obama put them on the list, and where was the outrage at the time?
Even by your limited standards that is pitiful
Come on ninfan what is the difference here? One list means we scrutinise people a bit more and are careful about trade etc. This one band people who have already been given visa's from returning to the US, it stopped someone who hasn't lived in Iran since she was a hold from attending a conference in the US. It has been interpreted as the first steps to a Muslim ban as that is what Trump loudly shouted he wanted to do.
TJs point was specifically about why those countries were on the list of Countries of Concern when none of them have attacked the USA.
Then why did Saint Obama put them on the list
You could start here:
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38798588 ]US travel ban: Why these seven countries?[/url]
"These countries were already named as "countries of concern" after a law passed by a Republican-led Congress in 2015 altered a visa admissions programme.
In December 2015 Congress passed a law - created by senators from both parties, and supported and signed by the White House - that removed waiver benefits for foreign nationals who had visited certain countries since March 2011. The countries were identified as having a terrorist organisation with a significant presence in the area, or the country was deemed a "safe haven" for terrorists".
"The Act, however, unlike Trump's much more broad order, only affected people eligible for the visa waiver programme, rather than suspend all citizens' travel from one of those seven countries".
I thought he stated weeks ago he didn't need a daily briefing.
[url= https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/26/donald-trump-chelsea-manning-traitor-fox-news ]who needs a briefing when you can wake up to fox[/url]
"The Act, however, unlike Trump's much more broad order, only affected people eligible for the visa waiver programme, rather than suspend all citizens' travel from one of those seven countries".
Completely Irrelevant to TJ's point or the wider attacks that were made on Trump alleging that the countries excluded from the ban were on the basis of his business interests
Until those critical of Trump are willing to accept and understand that the left leaning media and news organisations that attacked Trump on this basis were simply wrong, and begin to think critically instead of jumping on every anti-Trump bandwagon that drives past, then their arguments will continue to be irredeemably weakened by fake news.
and while we are on the loss of civilian life and how much better Trump is lets take a look at what could be in store
"I would knock the hell out of ISIS... [and] when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families," the Republican presidential candidate said on Fox & Friends. "I say ISIS is our number one threat, we have a president who doesn't know what he is doing and all he's worried about is climate change, he thinks climate change is something that's going to go kill us."
http://time.com/4132368/donald-trump-isis-bombing/
During a speech at the Decker Auditorium in Fort Dodge, Iowa, Trump said he would go after ISIS oil fields and “bomb the s— out of ’em,” to loud applause.“ISIS is making a tremendous amount of money because they have certain oil camps, certain areas of oil that they took away,” Trump said.
He continued: “They have some in Syria, some in Iraq. I would bomb the s— out of ’em. I would just bomb those suckers. That’s right. I’d blow up the pipes. … I’d blow up every single inch. There would be nothing left. And you know what, you’ll get Exxon to come in there and in two months, you ever see these guys, how good they are, the great oil companies? They will rebuild that sucker, brand new, it will be beautiful.”
http://www.businessinsider.com.au/donald-trump-bomb-isis-2015-11
and just to add a flavour of corruption in there remind me of who is Sec of State used to work for?
Jobs for the boys?
(Of course this was all campaign talk we shall see what his plan is in 30 days)
Completely Irrelevant to TJ's point or the wider attacks that were made on Trump alleging that the countries excluded from the ban were on the basis of his business interests
Completely relevant, he has brought intense speculation on any decison he makes by chosing to retain significant business interestes around the world which can lead to claims that his foreign policy is influenced by his interest in lining his own pocket - see the Pipeline which he owns a stake in. He had every opportunity to make all of this speculation go away by doing the decent and sensible thing of accepting the role requires you to be beyond reproach. Given his lengthy rants about swamp draining and removing people having a self interest he needs to lead by example.
The US mainstream media is absolutely devastated that their continual attacks on trump during 2016 made absolutely no difference to the election result. They are realising how ineffectual they are, that hurts. Murdoch's not stupid, he's put a Trump supporter into the Prime Time News slot.
They are realising how ineffectual they are, that hurts. Murdoch's not stupid, he's put a Trump supporter into the Prime Time News slot.
reinforcing that Murdoch isn't interested in news just influence pedalling and propoganda.
The countries were identified as having a terrorist organisation with a significant presence in the area, or the country was deemed a "safe haven" for terrorists".
Bloody paraphrase. Why don't they just list the ****ing criteria which is what the headline promises. 🙁
When May and Johnson roll out that 'special relationship' line, do you think they remember that its actually based on the shared values of our 2 nations...?
The pair of them make me sick to the very core.
i personally hope the Queen refuses to meet Trump, but given that wont happen the best I can hope for is that every londoner who opposes the hateful retoric he comes out with lines the route of his journey and shows him the absolute distain we have for him.
I probably won't make it down to London, but I may make a special trip to his golf course next time im in Aberdeen, and take a huge dump in the 18th cup...
Off topic slightly, but I was totally against scottish independence when we voted for it. With out new 'leaders', combined with Brexit, I honestly feel there is no way I could not vote yes if there was a rerun of the vote in the near future. These people just don't represent me or my values.
I see that the Canadian mosque shooter was a fan of sugary soft drinks
and racist shitbags
[img] 
[/img]
The US mainstream media is absolutely devastated that their continual attacks on trump during 2016 made absolutely no difference to the election result.
R4 Today Prog said the media are devastated because they gave Trump way more airtime than Clinton because he was so newsworthy and it turned out there's no such thing as bad publicity and that air time helped him win.
IIRC Hilary Budget was 1 bill, trums was half that. The airtime Trump got from the mainstream media was half that and the free coverage Trump got in the media purely by saying outrageous things made up for the Shortfall.
Sounded plausible to me.
[quote=ninfan ]I suspect that, behind the scenes, what we have just seen with the immigration issue is a clear stamping of [s]authority[/s] feet like a toddler
Fixed
The airtime Trump got from the mainstream media was half that and the free coverage Trump got in the media purely by saying outrageous things made up for the Shortfall.
As if that wasn't his plan all along 🙂
Completely Irrelevant to TJ's point or the wider attacks that were made on Trump alleging that the countries excluded from the ban were on the basis of his business interests
Well I've no idea which countries Trump has business interests in. It seems evident to me that the existing list was quickly picked up in order to push out a "promise" in the first few days of his Presidency.
I probably won't make it down to London, but I may make a special trip to his golf course next time im in Aberdeen, and take a huge dump in the 18th cup...
Back on the 24th June last year trump posted a tweet "Just arrived in Scotland. Place is going wild over the vote. They took their country back, just like we will take America back. No games!."
I can't really post my reply as I imagine I'd get a ban for my language but it did include a pic of our night time Mtb ride over his turnberry course, it's a cracking place for a ride and the kickers on the bunkers are great fun for comedy spills n' crashes - you also get chased by security in golf carts which just adds to the childish fun especially when you head right for them with 3000w of blinding light.
@slowoldman It's been fairly well documented, it doesn't include any country on that list but does include several others in the region. Look out for some nice things for Turkey next. See also Tiawan and hotel devlopment and the Dakota pipeline.
Given how high Jamby and Ninfan were willing to jump to find a conclusion about Clinton they seem very reluctant to look in the direction of this one 😉
As Jamby indicated, don't be a trouble maker, suck up and keep with the in crowd. Don't challenge him or he won't be nice to you.Murdoch's not stupid, he's put a Trump supporter into the Prime Time News slot.
So what do people make of this 1 in 2 out policy?
On the face of it, it sounds like a reasonable idea. A good way to trim slack. Needs to be used without an agenda though. And if it is used with and agenda, could result in some silly laws/regulations getting implemented just so they could repeal others.
It's also interesting, as if you google it, you come up with this, https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/one-in-two-out-statement-of-new-regulation so just something that's been stolen from elsewhere. An indication that trump actually admires and knows more about he Europeans than you think?
Anybody know the policy in the link is viewed as a positive thing, and anything you would point to as successful use of the policy.
Dunno what I'm asking there, just curious about it..
I'd say it's nothing more than a soundbite. Does it mean that you have to find 2 things to get rid of if you need to regulate a sector more? Remember increasing regulation in banking - it was needed due to lax regulation. Yes get rid of the redundant but not the important.
It's a very well trotted out line that things are too highly regulated but when asked which ones people want rid of they are short of a long list. Some large corporations generally want rid of the ones that stop them [s]hiring[/s] firing quickly and from having to justify why you employed John instead of the 25 other better qualified candidates who were women/minorities/disabled.
Some people want rid of pesky things like environmental regulation that stops them burning waste in the open.
Find a long enough list of bad regulations and work on them rather than an arbitary target.
And after the light relief:
Note also the most frightening escalation last night was that the DHS made it fairly clear that they did not feel bound to obey any court orders. CBP continued to deny all access to counsel, detain people, and deport them in direct contravention to the court’s order, citing “upper management,” and the DHS made a formal (but confusing) statement that they would continue to follow the President’s orders. (See my updates from yesterday, and the various links there, for details) Significant in today’s updates is any lack of suggestion that the courts’ authority played a role in the decision.
That is to say, the administration is testing the extent to which the DHS (and other executive agencies) can act and ignore orders from the other branches of government. This is as serious as it can possibly get: all of the arguments about whether order X or Y is unconstitutional mean nothing if elements of the government are executing them and the courts are being ignored.
[url= https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/trial-balloon-for-a-coup-e024990891d5#.y3t21a5vn ]DOOOOOOOOMED![/url]
The two articles he mentions at the beginning are brain meltingly terrifying too
Whereas at the same time the AG is instructing staff not to waste time defending any action against the Exec Order
"The Department of Justice will not present arguments in defence of the executive order," she said.
Ms Yates is due to be replaced by Mr Trump's nominee, Jeff Sessions.
In a letter to employees published by US media, she noted that the order had been challenged in court in a number of jurisdictions.
"My responsibility is to ensure that the position of the Department of Justice is not only legally defensible, but is informed by our best view of what the law is," she wrote.
"I am responsible for ensuring that the positions we take in court remain consistent with this institution's solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what is right."
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38805343
Maybe she is playing a bit of politics but could also be the case that she really doesn't want to waste time and effort making her staff look like idiots trying to defend something they can't (perhaps because no legal guidance was taken on the issue)
Hundreds of US diplomats around the world are set to formally criticise President Donald Trump's immigration restrictions, officials tell the BBC.
A "dissent cable" has been drafted for senior state department officials.
The White House said those complaining should "get with the programme".
In the wake of Mr Trump's ban on nationals from seven Muslim-majority countries, ex-President Barack Obama has spoken out against discrimination "based on faith or religion".
In a statement his spokesman, Kevin Lewis, said Mr Obama was also "heartened" by the level of engagement taking place across the country.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38799796
and the Donald taking a few lessons from the level of STW argument of stop complaining and get on with doing (the illegal) thing that you clearly don't agree with.
Lets hope some consensus is reached or it makes it to a proper court action.
and not to just be doing a running commentary but he just fired the acting AG for not doing what she was told
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/30/justice-department-trump-immigration-acting-attorney-general-sally-yates
Starting to channel Nixon already
I wonder if Trump will comment on Putin's new tolerance of domestic violence policies?
and not to just be doing a running commentary but he just fired the acting AG for not doing what she was told
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/30/justice-department-trump-immigration-acting-attorney-general-sally-yates
He's probably right in this one, if she was obstructing the desires of The Doughnut and betraying him, then she needed to go. How would he get any legislation through if the Democrats keep blocking his way? The Doughnut knows best and he should be allowed to control the democratic process. It's what the people voted for after all.
He is, after all, a Repulican and not a Republican't.
He was complaining that the democrats were blocking things for political reasons.....Ummm does he understand he this works?
The sacked AG had been asked previously, by Trump's candidate for AG, what she would do if she was asked to carry out an order from the President which she thought was illegal and she replied her duty was to the constitution not the office of president so hardly a shock on this matter
This is hilarious, just hilarious..
[img] 
[/img]
Not on Trump's side but in this case he had no choice. The AG forced his hand.
Obviously doesn't go for the dominatrix option
Well [url= https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3438879/Letter-From-Sally-Yates.pdf ]this letter[/url] from the (now ex) acting Attorney General would indicate that her position was that the legality of the EO was doubtful and that to avoid potential litigation it should not be acted upon. That is somewhat different from simple disagreement.
Shall we have a sweepstake on how long it is before someone tries to impeach Trump? The Huffington Post (OK, pretty left wing for a US paper) seems to think [url= http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-inevitability-of-impeachment_us_588e8d52e4b0b065cbbcd09f ]it's inevitable[/url]
She may have forced his hand (and she knew she only had a week or so left) but the main issue appears to have been they didn't bother to legally check the order before it was signed.
Own goal for Trump on that one, she got to send a great letter out too setting out why she was going to get fired for doing the right thing. Be interesting to see how vigoursly any of the team defend the cases that are coming.
The your for us or against us spiel it ratcheting up now along with the complete screwing of the timelines about whats going on.
I wonder if Delta fancy a defamation case for being accused of causing the disruption on Saturday when their computers went down on Sunday 🙂
This really does have the feeling of a totalitarian regime, now.
Meanwhile, on Twitter:
[url= https://mobile.twitter.com/journalaltfacts ]Journal of Alternative Facts[/url]
Not on Trump's side but in this case he had no choice. The AG forced his hand
Of course he had a choice. He just chose to take the dictatorial route.
This is the swearing in oath that Trump took just eleven days ago:
"[i]I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.[/i]"
So he sacks someone who is holding him to that oath?
Note that her replacement is also an Obama appointee, Congress has yet to approve Trump's nominee for the post.
She deliberately (and correctly) forced his had. He was not in control, she was. She is the winner there.
Hmm...
Sacking members of the judiciary who you don't agree with.
I'm not sure what chapter of Fascism for Dummies that is from but its one of the first ones, its beside controlling the media I think.
Not bad after less than a fortnight in office
Meanwhile Hague & Johnson have said that it's fine for the Queen to host Trump because she met Mugabe and Caucescu
As if that's some kind of example that this is a good idea 😯
As if that's some kind of example that this is a good idea
So neither Hague nor Johnson have very high opinions of The Doughnut either. 😆
it's simply using the ninfan logic that everyone has done something so you can't criticise anyone....
Scottish protesters getting a bit of humour in. He ain't even been to Scotland as Potus yet.
Best signs
"Oi Trump - gonnae no do that" ( chewin the fat reference)
"Chapati tae yer heid ya bam" ( held by a chap of asian subcontinent descent)
"Yer Maw was an immigrant you absolute roaster"
"Bams against the ban"
"away and shite donald"
"Trumps heart is colder than Scotland"
[quote=kimbers ]Meanwhile Hague & Johnson have said that it's fine for the Queen to host Trump because she met Mugabe and Caucescu
A fine piece of whataboutery, which almost matches anything I've seen on FB (replied last night to somebody who was saying "give him a chance, and what about Watergate" 🙄 )
I was amused to see that boneheaded nitwit currently in charge of presenting to the press corps, whilst announcing that anybody who didn't agree with Trump should "get with the programme", sounded almost exactly like...
[img] 
[/img]
[quote=whitestone ]Shall we have a sweepstake on how long it is before someone tries to impeach Trump? The Huffington Post (OK, pretty left wing for a US paper) seems to think it's inevitable
I was minded to think such talk was just hopeful but unrealistic, however having seen the way he is acting I now tend to agree with THP.
[quote=Mr Woppit ]I was amused to see that boneheaded nitwit currently in charge of presenting to the press corps, whilst announcing that anybody who didn't agree with Trump should "get with the programme", sounded almost exactly like...
I'm thinking more of:
[img] 
[/img]
[i]She deliberately (and correctly) forced his had. He was not in control, she was. She is the winner there. [/i]
Totall agree @thm. She made a great move with big impact. Yet again, shows he's a total novice in this role.
All jokes aside though about him...he has the potential to create quite a nasty situation. I've even wondered if he'll be 'taken out' (somehow) by his own nations security to avoid catastrophic problems. His actions could create seriously nasty responses from different areas of the world since he's already playing into the hands of the anti-Amnerican propoganda machine.
And then there's this...
now we have the chief of LAPD police signalling his readiness to refuse Trumps instructions
http://usuncut.com/news/lapd-police-chief-just-openly-rebelled-trumps-immigration-orders/
A fine piece of whataboutery
Here's a bit more whataboutery. If the UK was willing to join in the destabilizing of Iraq and the obviously unwinnable fight in Afghanistan purely to keep on the right side of the USA, why wouldn't we grant a State visit to Trump?
Is keeping the States onside a sensible Foreign policy aim? If so we have to suck it up.
That's a assuming a visit is desirable to either side given the protests.
If the UK was willing to join in the destabilizing of Iraq and the obviously unwinnable fight in Afghanistan purely to keep on the right side of the USA, why wouldn't we grant a State visit to Trump?
As said before, we look at events now not the past. If you go back far enough you will be able to justify anything because somebody did something. Since that war the UK has had 3 PM's and a few elections.
[URL= http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v734/vwempi/Mobile%20Uploads/2017-01/9B2FD0A9-7BA5-4FA9-B2DB-E41BE7E315B1.pn g" target="_blank">
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v734/vwempi/Mobile%20Uploads/2017-01/9B2FD0A9-7BA5-4FA9-B2DB-E41BE7E315B1.pn g"/> [/IMG][/URL]
Nice vacuum to push your crazy ideas through
If the UK was willing to join in the destabilizing of Iraq and the obviously unwinnable fight in Afghanistan purely to keep on the right side of the USA, why wouldn't we grant a State visit to Trump?
As said before, we look at events now not the past. If you go back far enough you will be able to justify anything because somebody did something. Since that war the UK has had 3 PM's and a few elections.
I'm not justifying a state visit - I'm saying that if we look at the past we can predict that a state visit is probably going to happen unless Trump decides it's too embarrassing to run the gauntlet of protests.
Nice vacuum to push your crazy ideas through
Isn't it normal in the states to replace top Civil servants when the Administration changes?
If so, I think the UK system is better - the Civil servants are a-political and stay on.