ninfan – Member

Wake up call, you all, literally, laughed at the suggestion he could ever become president

I’m still laughing – every time I hear the term “President Trump” being used I chuckle to myself……..it’s so unbelievably ridiculous, and yet it’s true!

I look forward to seeing the United States influence and prestige in global affairs becoming significantly reduced. And judging by the reaction of many foreign governments it’s already started.

Talk about shooting yourself in the foot America! I’m so glad they didn’t choose Hillary Clinton. But then I’m not an American so what do I care 🙂

“The government you elect is the government you deserve” ….. Thomas Jefferson

Northwind – Member

Aye, I’m not denying he’s taking it to new levels. It’s more the left reaction that annoys me than trump tbh, all very toys out the pram type stuff, but I guess that’ll change over time. There’s still shock happening.

@Nipper thanks, looked that up. Didn’t know the book, not big on Feminist fiction.

The trouble for septics is this will never wash with them, in the US healthy wealthy people hate paying for poor ill people.

Rich Democrat voters on East and West coasts won’t pay higher taxes to pay for Healthcare for the less well off. That’s why Obama went with the insurance/Obamacare way.

In other news .. Netanyahu speaking to Trump tonight. Expect announcement on Monday about moving US Embassy to the capital of Israel.

I look forward to seeing the United States influence and prestige in global affairs becoming significantly reduced. And judging by the reaction of many foreign governments it’s already started.

People listen to the US as it’s very powerful economically and militarily. It’s not a popularity contest. China and Russia aren’t powerful because people think they are lead by “good guys”. Trump is going to make the US more powerful economically and militarily.

It’s good to see The Doughnut smashing through politics and moving global relationships forward on a base of business and trade relations, if only we had had the foresight.

The sentiment behind that isn’t actually far off, the left have dissappeared up their own arse, no doubt about that! Not that I agree with the right either, politics on all sides these days is rotten.

+1

Trump is a reaction to 2015/2016 identity politics, in fact, it’s white identity politics.

I look forward to seeing the United States influence and prestige in global affairs becoming significantly reduced. And judging by the reaction of many foreign governments it’s already started.

China and Russia aren’t powerful because people think they are lead by “good guys”.[/quote]

Brilliant….the US’s influence and prestige in global affairs will be based on the same criteria as China’s and Russia’s 😆

Btw jambalaya it’s interesting that you believe Trump will “make the US more powerful economically” because the economic policies which he says he will follow are significantly different to the economic policies pursued by the UK’s Conservative government.

Interesting because you also claim to be a strong supporter of the UK’s Conservative government economic policies.

The contradiction is obvious.

I look forward to seeing the United States influence and prestige in global affairs becoming significantly reduced. And judging by the reaction of many foreign governments it’s already started.

I’m sorry ernie but at times you seem to fall in with Jamby and ninfan as people who just want to watch the world burn.

In other news .. Netanyahu speaking to Trump tonight. Expect announcement on Monday about moving US Embassy to the capital of Israel.

In a doubling down of the politics of division? A monumentally stupid move which will only provoke people and increase tension in the region. I’m not sure what the real objective other than to push for an Israeli only solution which has been proved not to work.

I’m sorry ernie but at times you seem to fall in with Jamby and ninfan as people who just want to watch the world burn.

You think the world is going to burn because the US has elected Donald Trump as president? Get a grip ffs.

Different policies appropriate for different countries ? Isolationism will not suit us hence us going global, we need to focus on the growth regions. US has been exporting far too much wealth at the expense of their own citizens.

Big and strong has always been powerful. Why else would the US spend 3.6% GDP on the military, it’s 20% of their entire government spending ?

You think the world is going to burn

Those nukes make stuff pretty hot when they go off.. maybe even burn everything..

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOzq7hvXGlU[/video]

jambalaya – Member

Different policies appropriate for different countries ?

Oh that’s a good one……the US is a different kind of capitalist country to the UK so it needs different kind of economic policies? 😆

Even Trump Is a Keynesian

“What does the election of Donald Trump mean for macroeconomics? Above all else, it means that the half-century-long challenge to Keynesian ideas is over. The insurgents lost.”

I have no idea what economic policies Trump will actually pursue. I don’t think anyone can be sure about anything when it comes to Trump. I doubt that he’s even sure himself – the whole thing was just a huge ego trip for Trump imo, and the consequences never really seriously considered. I very much doubt that he expected to win, if he had he would never have repeatedly claimed that the result would be rigged.

But I do know that even if he does pursue some fairly effective economic policies the fact that the American people have chosen a man who boasts of sexually assaulting women, calls Mexicans rapists, mocks the disabled, and is generally odious and obnoxious, will affect the United States influence and prestige in global affairs.

ernie_lynch – Member
But I do know that even if he does pursue some fairly effective economic policies the fact that the American people have chosen a man who boasts of sexually assaulting women, calls Mexicans rapists, mocks the disabled, and is generally odious and obnoxious, will affect the United States influence and prestige in global affairs.

I don’t see why President Trump cannot influence the world. He can. Trust me he can. For whose good I don’t know but it will definitely be good for Merican because they have sank so low the only way is up.

Globally nobody cares about his private life because in other part of the world they are worst, really nobody cares … They just laugh but will continue doing business with him. They want business.

Oh ya consider yourself lucky and blessed because Merican and British are cousins.

You think the world is going to burn because the US has elected Donald Trump as president? Get a grip ffs.

stop being so literal FFS…. you want to see the US do badly that was the point. It may suit your politcal narrative but it’s not going to be good for the world long term. Also like a drug withdrawal coming off quick never ends well.

At least I am in good company with those who said he could not win. BBC Newsnight

[video]http://youtu.be/OrpjGdiP7sQ[/video]

Size counts ernie 🙂 yes it is a different sort of capitalist country, it has no welfae state for a start.

ernie_lynch – Member
Get a grip ffs.

😆

mikewsmith – Member
stop being so literal FFS…. you want to see the US do badly that was the point. It may suit your politcal narrative but it’s not going to be good for the world long term. Also like a drug withdrawal coming off quick never ends well.

It will be good for the world. It will be. The world needs this sort of change otherwise the world will sleep walk into an even bigger mess than now. The drug withdrawal is only for those who are addicted to drugs innit. They have been brainwashed so badly they are now struggling to cope with the change in the political and economy environments. If these people insist on having their “addiction” they will suffer pretty much for the next 8 years intensely.

I’ll just move this one over here

he tried to explain to me … it was very hard for me to sit still trying to pretend I know what he was on ..

you want to see the US do badly that was the point.

I want to see the US’s hegemony/global dominance reduced – I don’t think it’s healthy, a view shared by very many people across the world. Why should the US president have so much global power when so few people in the world get to choose who he or she is?

Under George Bush the US administration was openly talking of “full-spectrum dominance”…… see the “Project for the New American Century”.

And yes, I think it would be very good for the world long term, and democracy, if the US’s influence and prestige in global affairs was reduced.

EDIT : And btw I don’t think having a warmongering hawk like Hillary Clinton would have been “good for the world long term”. I believe the complete opposite in fact.

EDIT 2 : My first choice for US president would have been Bernie Sanders, my second choice was Trump.

mikewsmith – Member

I’ll just move this one over here

… he tried to explain to me … it was very hard for me to sit still trying to pretend I know what he was on ..[/quote]
O c’mon do you really want to listen to C plus plus and all those tech jargon? I mean they even IM each other in the office can you believe that … 😆

Ernie, I can’t believe that you are so stupid so as to be pleased that Trump will hurt Americas prestige and image when his economic policies will actually hurt real people in the developing world.

You have the trappings of an actual Marxist, that is alleigiance to your ideology at the expense of people.

Main problem with Trump reducing the US influence is it’s BS.
Supporting Isreal in moving the US Embassy – petrol + fire
Agression towards China – petrol + fire
Very relaxed attitude towards Russia and destablising NATO – petrol + fire
Desire to wipe IS off the map – you get the point…
He wants to cripple the Mexican economy which in turn will push more migrants to the US.
The “policy” statements don’t make any sense

I have no problem with global powers so long as they keep to themselves but this is just an ideal. Hence, I prefer them all to be balance and respectful of each other …

and here is why he will never get it

Donald J. Trump ? @realDonaldTrump
Watched protests yesterday but was under the impression that we just had an election! Why didn’t these people vote? Celebs hurt cause badly.

White House vows to fight media ‘tooth and nail’

Mr Trump spent his first day in office berating the media over their coverage of his inauguration, using a bridge-building visit to CIA headquarters on Saturday to air grievances about “dishonest” journalists and overstating the size of the crowd that gathered on the National Mall as he took the oath of office.

Mr Trump said throngs “went all the way back to the Washington monument,” despite photos and live video showing the crowd stopping well short of the landmark.

In Sunday morning interviews, top advisers defended Mr Trump’s anger at journalists for correctly reporting that his inauguration drew a smaller crowd than Barack Obama did eight years ago.

President Donald Trump’s team says his inauguration was watched by more people than any other. It wasn’t.
Chief of staff Reince Priebus told Fox News Sunday that Mr Trump was trying to keep the media “honest” when they levied charges of false reporting the day before.

“The point is not the crowd size. The point is the attacks and the attempt to delegitimise this president in one day. And we’re not going to sit around and take it,” Mr Priebus said.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-23/donald-trump-says-womens-marchers-should-have-voted/8202274
We could write an entire book on the tactics they are using here, lies, deflection and hiding. The real worry is what is going on when he signs the bills. #DeludedSadFace

EDIT 2 : My first choice for US president would have been Bernie Sanders, my second choice was Trump.

I saw quite a few interviews with people who did exactly that, supported Bernie in the Primaries but voted for Trump.

So, it turns out that the “2017” photo was taken an hour before the inauguration, whereas the “2009” one was just before the ceremony started

#fakenews caught out once again

where is your source for that ninfan?
http://fortune.com/2017/01/22/dc-transit-statistics-inauguration/
http://europe.newsweek.com/trump-inauguration-numbers-how-many-attended-545467?rm=eu

Metro Ridership lowest for an inauguration in at least 12 years

Metro’s ridership numbers from this morning illustrated what many riders were seeing: sparse crowds and less hassle than usual for an Inauguration Day.

By 11 a.m., Metro said 193,000 trips had been taken on Metro on Inauguration Day. By contrast, ridership for President Obama’s 2009 inauguration was nearly three times that: 513,000 trips by 11 a.m. Friday’s ridership was the lowest for an inauguration in more than 12 years, with 2005 figures edging out this morning’s by about 4,000.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dr-gridlock/wp/2017/01/20/inauguration-2017-your-guide-to-metro-road-closures-biking-buses-and-more/?utm_term=.8c3dfb20d7cf
Why did el presidente use the wrong pic on twitter? Why did the white house head of propoganda feel the need to lie about numbers? Does it change the fact he has incredibly low approval ratings for an incoming president?

Not an empty seat in the house…

Straw man

I said the photographs – which many had pointed to as symbolic/proof – were taken at different times of day, with the 2009 one closer to the ceremony. (Source: Time)

You also seem to be using the metro statistics to ‘prove’ something that was never claimed – another straw man – I will put this down to horrifically poor reporting of what the WH press sec actually claimed, his exact words were

“This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration — period — both in person and around the globe”

He didn’t claim the crowd was bigger, he claimed that the combined global audience was bigger

The same empty spot in the middle also appeared in sworn in for ex-President Obama second term. i.e. that spot is deliberately left empty even during ex-President Obama second term sworn in with his family standing behind him. I don’t know exactly the reason for some of the empty spots but it was the park’s management that wanted them empty or something …

The whole place does not look that empty to me. Compare to the empty spaces that you can see from miles away.

Compare …

1st President Obama inauguration. (notice girls height)

The middle patch could still be occupied then.

No ninfan the preciuous little darling that is the president can’t cope with the fact people don’t actually like him. Was the global audiance bigger? In person it was down, on US tv is was down

What about TV viewership?

Nielsen estimates 31 million people in America watched TV coverage of the inauguration.

That audience total, measuring continuous coverage by 12 broadcast and cable networks, did beat the 20.6 million who viewed Mr Obama’s second inauguration in 2013.

But a president’s second swearing-in typically sees a drop-off in viewership. Mr Obama’s first inauguration in 2009 was seen by 37.8 million people.

The most-watched inauguration since 1969 was President Ronald Reagan’s first oath-taking in 1981, which was seen by 41.8 million people.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-22/just-how-big-was-donald-trumps-inauguration-crowd/8201382
Where are you getting the global figures from, you would think they would have used these to make their point…
anyway how did you like the fact they got somebody to rip off the cake they did for Obama?
#fakenews…
to reuse a song lyric

“Humans against killing: that sounds like a junkie against dope”.

Trump against fakenews….

“This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration — period — both in person and around the globe”

He didn’t claim the crowd was bigger, he claimed that the combined global audience was bigger

in person

He definitely did.

The source of the photos I saw said they were taken about 25 minutes apart. I don’t know the time of the ceremony, but I doubt that 25 minutes would be that different.

Nielsen estimates 31 million people in America watched

Straw man again

Read what the whitehouse press sec said once again

“This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration — period — both in person and around the globe”

but I doubt that 25 minutes would be that different.

Got any data on crowd build up or dispersal times to back that opinion up with? Otherwise it sounds like you are accepting what I said was true, that the 2009 photo was taken much closer to the time of the ceremony than the 2017 one, although this wasn’t mentioned in most of the press articles that carried the pictures – so, like we said #fakenews

“This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration — period — both in person and around the globe”

Well done, we are back to ninfan’s I’m wrong but not going to admit it. Find me the numbers, show us the numbers, let us have the facts so we can decide for ourselves or is the facts whatever the press sec blows up you?

both in person and around the globe

Got any data on crowd build up or dispersal times to back that opinion up with?

We already have all the numbers that mean unless teleportation has been invented it was not the biggest in person. Not sure how you can have missed that?
Around the globe how is that fact being substantiated? You know evidence. Unless you have some get back under the bridge.

“Both in person and around the globe”

“Both in person, and around the globe”

Different things, non – like helping your Uncle Jack off a horse.

Try applying some of that thought process to what you’re arguing ninfan.

I see you haven’t refuted my 1st point, as you can’t.

Otherwise it sounds like you are accepting what I said was true, that the 2009 photo was taken much closer to the time of the ceremony than the 2017 one

I’d argue that 25 minutes isn’t much closer, and that I doubt that the number of people that would be required to make it the largest ever audience in person could of appeared in that time.

Lets be honest, if Trump and Spicer want to argue about the crowds its much easier to point at the protests and say that put people off/stopped people arriving etc, instead of playing the shite fakenews card.

FFS ninfan your adding puntuation to a spoken answer and yet again you spending your time debating the tiny point rather than the issues. Where are the numbers that support what was said? Either way, in fact any way at all.
They DO NOT EXIST otherwise we would be reading them.
It really does just sum up your nothing but a a pathetic troll as you would have to be completely deluded to believe the stuff your posting these days.

whatnobeer – Member

Try applying some of that thought process to what you’re arguing ninfan.

I see you haven’t refuted my 1st point, as you can’t.

Otherwise it sounds like you are accepting what I said was true, that the 2009 photo was taken much closer to the time of the ceremony than the 2017 one

I’d argue that 25 minutes isn’t much closer, and that I doubt that the number of people that would be required to make it the largest ever audience in person could of appeared in that time.

Lets be honest, if Trump and Spicer want to argue about the crowds its much easier to point at the protests and say that put people off/stopped people arriving etc, instead of playing the shite fakenews card.

Two attractions that can be crowd puller for the Presidential inauguration.

The first one President Obama being the first African-American that becomes the President.

(actually he is mixed and there were at least 3 other Presidents like him previously with African heritage, but they just did not have his “look” and if I am not mistaken the founding father Jefferson was one of them with mixed race African heritage, so I don’t know what the big deal is tbh)

The second attraction is President Trump being the outspoken person he is also draw in the curiosity from all over the world.

Therefore, they can both attract large crowds by comparison to Bush or Clinton.

Finally, let’s be honest President Trump is being inaugurated in Washington so do you expect the opposition to cheer for him? 😆

I mean look at them protesting outside during the inauguration.

NY Times reports both photos taken 45 minutes before inauguration…

The second attraction is President Trump being the outspoken person he is also draw in the curiosity from all over the world.

Therefore, they can both attract large crowds by comparison to Bush or Clinton.
Finally, let’s be honest President Trump is being inaugurated in Washington so do you expect the opposition to cheer for him?
His US TV audiances were also down, want to carry on down this road? Bring some actual facts with you

Lifer – Member
NY Times reports both photos taken 45 minutes before inauguration…

If I am not mistaken both President Trump & ex-President Obama did better than ex-President Clinton and ex-President Bush …