Printable version of thread

Posted by: Izetta 11th January 2017, 02:58 PM

Either we need a general topic for all of the shit the Trump presidency will inevitably consist of, or we need to talk about the rumours everyone's going wild over right now as it emerges that Trump probably almost certainly has perverted sexual preferences

And more importantly, shady dealings with the Russians and connections to them involving themselves as a result of this coming out and this is probably one of the biggest scandals a President(-elect) has ever been involved in. What could happen as a result of the fallout from this?

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump

His Twitter is just amazing reading (through desperation right now - what sort of political leader handles his public voice like that? Comparing the US to Nazi Germany is... well, there's some horrific irony in there)

Posted by: 🚡🚟🍥-b 11th January 2017, 03:32 PM

I think the rhetoric from his Twitter account will have to change once he actually is inaugurated.

Posted by: popchartfreak 11th January 2017, 04:02 PM

He's going to be the second-most powerful man in the world (depending on what Putin tells him to do) so if he wants to tweet to slag off everyone who criticises him, that would be entirely in character with the experience of his whole life so far. One of my American friends calls him Orange Hitler, so a little bit ironic him frying pan others when he is known to have had Adolph's book on his bedside table for many years to re-read.

My theory is it's Teflon causing the orange-tinting as nothing seems to stick with his Bart Simpson "It wasn't me nobody saw me can't prove anything" denial about things which are on film and plainly true. Habitual liars have problems with reality and re-write everything in their teeeny tiny thicko pea-brain to suit their ego.

Posted by: PeaceMob 11th January 2017, 07:51 PM

This is just the beginning people, the corrupt media are being called out one by one. He's even got the BBC's card marked too, take a wild guess on who briefed Trump about the BBC. Oh happy days. ~fakenews

Posted by: Queen LeQueefa 11th January 2017, 10:10 PM

That is double think.

It is classic propaganda.

He was elected with the help of actual fake news, websites, fake information amd conspiract theories. To deflect, he calls REPUTABLE news agencies fake to doscredit them and have his supporters continue to believe ACTUAL fake news and conspiracies and cite those. Russia wsnted to erode confidence in the system. They succeeded.

I am not the biggest fan of the mainstream media. Hella biased? Yes. Fake? Not quite.

Posted by: Cody Slayberry 11th January 2017, 10:19 PM

I'm getting those bunkers ready

Posted by: popchartfreak 12th January 2017, 01:33 PM

Brian Cox retweeted this. The writer was fighting Hitler and ended up getting executed. I think this explains how people like Hitler manage to succeed in their aims....

https://twitter.com/kevverage/status/819469017706627072

It's Trump, it really is.....

Posted by: 🚡🚟🍥-b 12th January 2017, 02:15 PM

Which Brian Cox, the professor or the actor?

Posted by: PeaceMob 12th January 2017, 03:36 PM

Are you actually comparing Trump to Adolf Hitler, bearing in mind Trump was the only leader recently that supported Israel on the UN security council resolution that critiicised Israeli settlements. Man you liberals are DES-PER-ATE, the smearing nonsense does not work, start telling the truth for once.

Posted by: Queen LeQueefa 12th January 2017, 04:04 PM

I haven't read the article but I assume it refers to methods and the fact he is a populist demagogue who has eroded faith in the institutions. His supporters then believe his claptrap pver fact, leaving him freewill to do as he likes. Also like these other demagogues he functions outside the norm of international relations, meaninf there is more chance of miscalculation on all sides.

Posted by: popchartfreak 12th January 2017, 06:30 PM

Prof Brian Cox, who is intelligent and sane and compassionate..bit of a hero!

Posted by: popchartfreak 12th January 2017, 06:36 PM

No, that's not the point at all (though he DOES admire Hitler, fact). Try reading the article rather than jumping to conclusions. The point of the quote is that Evil people like Hitler are easy to fight because they are so obviously evil. The problem they succeed is because there are very very stupid people for whom facts are irrelevant. Nothing anyone says changes their mind on what is a personal belief based on (usually) bigotry. That is Trump and many of his followers.

Suddenly news organisations are peddling fake news of him and his big mate Vlad (Trump claims) - but when he was trying to get Russia to publish emails on Clinton and inviting them to hack her accounts (this is treason, they would contain sensitive USA-security info) and all sorts of malicious lies were being peddled about Clinton (like paedophile) this was fine cos it wasn't "fake news' - even though it clearly was to anyone with half a brain.

Trump is very very stupid. Obama is thoughtful, inspirational and intelligent. From the sublime to the ridiculous. That's why intelligent people are very worried and disturbed by Trump in a way they wouldnt be, for example, by Ronald Reagan - and he had alzheimers!

Posted by: Cody Slayberry 12th January 2017, 06:42 PM

Says the one poster not posting receipts

oh and look at that, you're a conservative

try again boo, you're not fooling anyone

Posted by: popchartfreak 12th January 2017, 06:43 PM

More of a comment on the nature of people who choose to believe in demagogues against all evidence (and to other, sanity)

Posted by: common sense 12th January 2017, 06:48 PM

What are Trump's sexual preferences anything to do with what sort of President he'll be? If he was peed on by prostitutes then so what? Each to their own I say. It's all fuss over nothing.

Watched his press conference yesterday and he was brilliant. He's a real breath of fresh air although he shouldn't be criticising the security services.

Posted by: Cody Slayberry 12th January 2017, 07:05 PM

1.) Who in their right mind would want to be peed on? It's unsanitary and just doesn't sound good on paper, let alone out of someone's mouth.
2.) I don't think it's sexual preferences that are the main problem (although the normalization of them and the blatant objectification of women are among them) but the fact that Trump has had more scandals pre-inauguration than most presidents DURING their term is honestly scaring me. Are we moving into a post-apocalyptic dystopia? The dystopia part might be surely right.

Posted by: RosaParksMyCar 12th January 2017, 07:12 PM

shut up

Posted by: PeaceMob 12th January 2017, 07:32 PM

Good one Sherlock, yes I'm a conservative, you know it really is good for you to hear a different point of view rather than live in your own echo chamber.

Posted by: popchartfreak 12th January 2017, 08:07 PM

We obviosuly didn't watch the same conference. He was an arrogant, rabid dick who said nothing of substance about anything. And he's about to be President!

I am not bothered about the prostitute movies one bit, whether they exist or not, don't care and it's not relevant to running a country. I AM extremely bothered by his links to Russia, business and otherwise, and he ahs done nothing to allow him to swear his oath next week "to uphold the constitution" - in fact he will be flouting it from day one by not divesting his own business interests, including shitloads (500m) that he woes to foreign governments.

If you want a conspiracy theory, here;s one: he was about to go mega-bankrupt but got leaned on by someone who holds financial power over him to become a pawn of enemy states. Before yo flip a lid, bear in mind he DID ask Russia to hack US Government files, he HAS said Russia is guilty of hacking during the election, and he refuses point-blank to listen to his own country's legal brains to uphold the US constitution and laws, and lies constantly while sucking the metaphorical cocks of the KKK and other racist organisations.

These are all facts. Not fake news. Not desperate liberal whinging. Facts. I refer you back to the article I posted earlier about followers......

Posted by: Queen LeQueefa 12th January 2017, 08:10 PM

It's more the white supremacist desecration of prostitutes peeing on a bed as he knew Obama and Michelle had slept on it. Seriously racist.

It is also more of a comment on Russian interference and the fact they can blackmail a president or could have. This is what should concern people. Focusing on the sex scandal is so very American and so very missing the point.

Posted by: Qassändra 12th January 2017, 09:34 PM

The peeing isn't the scandal, it's the treason allegations involving his campaign backchanneling with Wikileaks and the Russian government.

Posted by: common sense 12th January 2017, 10:32 PM

Did you watch it all, the full hour? I did again on BBC Parliament tonight. He said lots of substance. He's going to build the wall and will start soon rather than wait a year or two and Mexico WILL pay for it, one way or another. There's going to be an inquiry in to the hacking to be completed within three months. He's going to replace Obamacare. He has no business interests in Russia and no loans there. Plenty of substance if you watch in full and not just the bits the anti-Trump media want to show you. He will play no part whatsoever in running his businesses whilst President and his lawyer spoke to explain this. He doesn't even have to separate running his business from the country but is going to anyway. Isn't that a measure of the integrity of the guy? The President and VP are exempt from the conflict of interest rules.

Posted by: common sense 12th January 2017, 10:36 PM

I know that but it's still nothing really and will all be forgotten in a few weeks, after the Inauguration. He said any hacking is wrong and announced an inquiry in to it.

Posted by: Qassändra 13th January 2017, 12:29 AM

Treason through aiding and abetting hacking and conspiring with a foreign power during an election is "nothing really"?

Put it this way - if Jeremy Corbyn won a general election through foreign assistance from the EU which went to every effort to sabotage his opponents, and he was alleged to have been in communication with them and to have encouraged them to continue with it at every stage, would you claim that to be "nothing really"? If he then after winning said it was wrong and announced an inquiry into it, rather than resigning immediately and calling fresh elections on the basis that the prior result was irrevocably tainted, would you consider that a satisfactory response?

Posted by: Suedehead2 13th January 2017, 02:07 PM

No, not at all. All previous presidents have done far more than Trump is proposing. They have sold their business interests. Trump will continue to own his various businesses and it is, therefore, not unreasonable to wonder whether he could take a decision that would potentially damage one of those businesses.

Posted by: Oliver 13th January 2017, 03:01 PM

I still don't understand how he thinks he'll be able to do this? It's like my parents getting an extension on the house and then making our next door neighbour pay for it. It really makes no sense. Mexico have said numerous times they aren't paying for it.

Posted by: Brett-Butler 13th January 2017, 06:28 PM

I've seen a few tongue-in-cheek yet plausible ways that Trump could theoretically make Mexico pay for the wall. The first is to employ only Mexicans to build the wall. Mexico will then be paying for it in 2 ways - firstly those Mexicans will have to pay tax to America for work, and it will cost Mexico in terms of labour that would otherwise be used in order to boost the GDP of Mexico, therefore coming out of Mexico's pocket.

The even more tongue-in-cheek suggestion is that the state of Mexico should make all drugs legal. Therefore they won't need to be made & smuggled over the border by Mexican drug lords, and it ensures the money from the production and sale of these drugs stays in America, rather than being taken back across the border. Then tax the bejesus out of it and use that money to build the wall.

Not that I expect there to be a giant Mexico-wide wall built on the border anyway, I never believed for a moment that would ever happen under a Trump presidency.

Posted by: Silas 13th January 2017, 06:38 PM

This is an outright lie that even his own child has contradicted pre-presidential bid.

The man lies so much if he introduced himself to me a Donald Trump i'd be f***ing sceptical if he was telling me the truth.

Posted by: popchartfreak 13th January 2017, 07:53 PM

sigh.

Trump lies and spouts bluster.

1. He can't force another country to build a wall on American land and he hasn't said how it will be paid for. Mexico have said they won't. Trump can try to bring in protectionist trade laws to attempt to pay for it, but that depends on him actually proposing it and getting it through politically, then organising and building it (not him). Both Mexico and the USA are huge trade partners, and if he wanted to go tit for tat both would suffer. The working class folk working in industry may well have a change of heart as their jobs disappear.

2. Obamacare can be gotten rid of by the right-wing Repubs. They have nothing proposed to replace it. That will mean thousands of dead children, disabled people and older vulnerable people. Note: POOR people, the sort of people who voted for Trump without thinking about what they voted for. If there is no realistic alternative (and Trump has offered nothing) then he will soon find his popularity littered with the ongoing stream of dead and dying until he day the dems win the next election and bring it back. Of course, if you support poor people dying of medical problems that can easily be avoided in a fair society, you may wish to consider moving to the USA and see how you fair as an older immigrant.....

3. Business Interests in Russia. Yes he does. And China. Why do you think all those papers on his desk at the conference were blank? Why do you think he hasn't published any business details? Why do you think he hates the American authorities who are investigating the President-Elect on his tax returns, bearing in mind he hasn't paid anything in 20 years (his own words) and brags about it, having used bankrupt companies (cos he's so rubbish in business) to avoid paying it. Do you believe everyone should pay tax, or do you support the rich not paying tax? Do you believe that living on benefits would be possible without taxpayers?

4. The media are not anti-Trump. They let him off lightly. Journalists doing their job properly would have challenged every lying claim he made during the campaign and hounded him until he told the truth. And Clinton. Clinton's lies were minimal and easily confirmed. Trump just habitually denies everything he doesn't like answering on, even stuff we have seem him do and say live on TV. he is a serial liar. Serial liars lie. You can't trust them or anything they say. How can you tell if Trump is lying? His mouth is open.......

5. The President must not have business interests that can cause him to manipulate the national interest into self-interest. This is law. It's a fact. He hasn't put aside his business interests at all, he just got his sons to manage the company that he still owns. While getting foreign-leaders to stay at his hotels and pocket the cash two months ago. This is easily checkable. You just ask them. Or flick through the hotel checking-in books.

You see, you are denying facts, just as Trump denies facts. Breitbart and other disreputable alt-right media push lies and their fans lap it up as if they were true when they are piss-easy to prove to be lies. But as my original article stated, facts don't mean anything to people who choose to believe something, whether it's true or not is irrelevant, it's the message they love, because they want to believe it, and facts just get in the way.

Thats why smart people hate Trump and what he stands for, and people who are not well-educated and get all their info from The Daily Mail or Trump tweets, are inclined to believe anything any charlatan tells them. That's how Hitler got into power, and how people went aloud with mass murder. Germans weren't any more evil than people in any other country in the 1930's, they were just willingly stupid and ready to believe the first lying evil twat who told them he could solve all the problems caused by foreigners.

That is all....

Posted by: common sense 16th January 2017, 04:01 PM

I'm going to make a prediction now. I reckon the first female president will be Ivanka Trump and not as I've seen some US commentators predict, Chelsea Clinton. She's going to be supporting her father in the White House then may become a senator before a White House run and she has plenty of time yet. That's if Donald doesn't mess things up too much to prevent a Trump having any chance ever again.

Posted by: Qassändra 16th January 2017, 04:25 PM

I reckon if anything the salutary lesson of Hillary Clinton is that the first female president will almost certainly not be someone who could be said to have got there through family ties.

Posted by: common sense 16th January 2017, 04:40 PM

Interestingly, Trump's inauguration is being shown live by both BBC1 and ITV, much to the annoyance of some TV viewers. ITV has never shown one live before, not even Obama's in 2009 so the Donald must be special! All inaugurations up to and including Dubya Bush's were on BBC2 but Obama's was promoted to BBC1.

Posted by: Oliver 16th January 2017, 04:46 PM

They're probably hoping for something hilarious to happen.

Posted by: Silas 16th January 2017, 05:11 PM

Scotland's Sunday Herald gave it a fab write up in the TV section

Posted by: common sense 16th January 2017, 06:41 PM

What did they say? Did they slag off Donald?

Posted by: Silas 16th January 2017, 06:56 PM

They compared it to the TV "The Man In The High Castle"

Think it's safe to say the Herald won't be getting any questions when trumpy next inflicts his unwanted presence upon Scotland

Posted by: Soy Adrián 17th January 2017, 09:07 AM

I just hope it's a windy day.

Posted by: bluesunstorm 20th January 2017, 12:04 AM

Well really, she won. Winning by 3 million votes is winning, it's just that POTUS is not necessarily decided by who wins at least a plurality of a popular vote-unlike Congress members, governors, mayors, etc. It's beating a dead horse now, but having the second place candidate become president is never ease to take-especially when it's misogynistic, bigoted, unintelligent scum like Donald Trump. I don't like the notion that she got where she did because of family ties either. She's always been incredibly accomplished and ambitious, not to mention she worked so hard during two presidential primaries to get the nomination. I've always seen her as completely separate from Bill. I get that many people had problems with her when it came to policy, but she's not a unpopular as many people and the media make her out to be.

Posted by: popchartfreak 21st January 2017, 09:21 AM

so. The Whitehouse website has removed all pages on climate change, LBGT, and other assorted attempts to improve humanity.

Instead, some are reporting, we have a war on Islamic terrorists and Melania's jewellery and clothing lines for sale.

So, The POTUS is using his position to make personal money and drum up populist support by creating enemies everyone can rally round him against.

This goes against the constitution. So the question is - how long before the gutless brainless right-wing Republicans keeping him in office give up and just admit he's doing everything for his own ego and bank account?

Meanwhile some elements of the British press can see a silver lining in the new speeches (if one can call them that): They love the new foreign-born First Lady's clothing range! She's gorgeous they say, never having noticed she's a former model, so that makes the apocalyptic tone of the protectionist, poor-attacking (despite all pretence that it's pro-poor) statements all OK then...

Wonder if they have shares in her clothing line......?

Posted by: Suedehead2 21st January 2017, 10:59 AM

Given his record, shouldn't Melania be referred to as Trump's "current wife"?

Posted by: popchartfreak 21st January 2017, 02:38 PM

maybe she has a large bladder and is secure in her relationship?

Sounds like a skin condition at any rate....

Posted by: Cody Slayberry 21st January 2017, 06:58 PM

So in the first day Trump has showed that he cares more about his friendship with Putin than the f*cking PREAMBLE of the Constitution.

IT'S WE THE PEOPLE. NOT WE THE ALT-RIGHT DEPLORABLES.

Posted by: Qween 21st January 2017, 07:23 PM

We the selected group of people I choose to pander to

Posted by: popchartfreak 21st January 2017, 09:26 PM

I am wrestling with a moral dilemma. As a pacifist I just watched a viral video of a Nazi getting punched, a man who has previously carefully framed questions for discussion (thus avoiding accusations that he is promoting the ideas behind the questions) such as "Should black people suffer genocide" (paraphrase) and "what is the easiest way to carry it out if that's the case" (paraphrase).

I can't condone violence, yet I find myself really happy that someone who appears to condone racist genocide got punched in the face.....

...then someone reminded people on Twitter that being a pacifist and using law and reason to deal with Nazis has a history of being a bit ineffective, what with the mass murder of tens of millions of people and all in the 30's and 40's. American movies, to the contrary, rather approve of punching Nazis, it's traditionally The American Way to show patriotism. Nazi-ism is traditionally not a way to show patriotism, though many currently seem to think it is...

Not to mention Jo Cox' murder by a virtual-Nazi (lets not just call them alt-right or far-right, let's use the old-fashioned name, he did after all feel strongly enough to murder a young mother because he disagreed about foreigners). Anyway, I can't in all conscience retweet the video nor suggest anyone should go and look for it, but I feel slightly less in a dilemma about it now, morally....

Posted by: Qassändra 21st January 2017, 09:28 PM

My point being: would she have likely *only* won by 3 million votes without the 'dynasty' charge against her?

Posted by: Silas 21st January 2017, 09:29 PM

I am LIVING for that video and joyfully retweeted and shared it on Facebook.

Posted by: popchartfreak 22nd January 2017, 09:09 PM

Posted by: PeaceMob 23rd January 2017, 11:28 AM

The intolerant liberal lefties are going down.

Posted by: popchartfreak 23rd January 2017, 12:51 PM

loud intolerant anybodies, left or right, get kicked off planes cos they are very annoying and imposing their views on others who may be going on holiday and don't want it.

That doesn't mean anything in terms of poltiical support.

Can't get more intolerant than someone wanting to murder all black people, however politely they put it. Many Trump supporters hold that view and THEY are going down because they are Nazis. getting angry with Nazis is not intolerance, it's self-survival cos they will commit genocide given half a chance, and Trump says nothing to suggest he disassociates himself from those views. Liberals do NOT condone genocide or violence or intolernace, it's kinda the Entry Password for being Liberal. Nazis love killing people who don't share their view, that's kinda THEIR Entry Password.

"Donald, was Hitler evil and Nazis evil?"

"Yes they were".

That's all he has to say......

He hasn't.

Posted by: Soy Adrián 23rd January 2017, 01:43 PM

Don't feed the troll.

Posted by: PeaceMob 23rd January 2017, 03:45 PM

It's funny how it's always liberal lefties that are the intolerant ones though, remember when Ivanka Trump was berated aggressively on a plane by that guy going on some rant about DT. Just look at what happened after Trump was inaugurated, liberal morons causing criminal damage on America's streets because they didn't get their way.

These are the type of people that accompany liberal lefties

Absolute idiot.

Posted by: Qassändra 23rd January 2017, 03:52 PM

...did you miss the entire Tea Party movement? I didn't see anybody seriously calling for a genocide of Nazis or a wall to keep Donald Trump voters out. Richard Spencer can give you an equivalent for the first, Trump can give you an equivalent for the latter.

Posted by: PeaceMob 23rd January 2017, 04:16 PM

Well maybe that's what liberals need to do, create a movement, get your argument across in a better way rather than relying on the lying mainstream media to get the liberal point of view across and don't get aggressive and violent when things don't go your way, because now most people in the Western world want to see liberalism and socialism out of government power for a long, long time. People have had enough, that's why Brexit and Trump won.

Posted by: Cody Slayberry 23rd January 2017, 04:24 PM

So what exactly was the Women's March, a peaceful protest? A giant slumber party?

Posted by: Qassändra 23rd January 2017, 04:30 PM

1. What do you think the protests were? If everyone on those protests had got 'aggressive and violent' Washington wouldn't exist anymore.
2. "Most people want liberalism and socialism out" doesn't really stack up given, once again, 3 million fewer Americans wanted Trump than wanted Clinton.

Posted by: Cody Slayberry 23rd January 2017, 04:44 PM

Also this "aggression and violence" thing was what Republicans were preaching about for the past eight years. You know, when their rights weren't threatened?

PeaceMob, you need Jesus. PRONTO.

Posted by: Suedehead2 23rd January 2017, 04:56 PM

Perhaps you could post links to the articles in the Mail, Express and Sun putting the liberal point of view across. If you have five years ti spare, you might find one.

Posted by: PeaceMob 23rd January 2017, 06:00 PM

And you've literally just named all of the mainstream media that aren't liberal, that's all there is. Everything else including all the UK news channels e.g. Sky, BBC, ITV, Channel 4 are anti-Brexit and definitely anti-Trump, and now liberals are trying to shut down alternative media that aren't liberal by calling it fake news until that blown up in their face after Trump calling out CNN. Lefty liberals are intolerant until everyone thinks exactly the same way they do.

Posted by: Queen LeQueefa 23rd January 2017, 06:13 PM

BBC attacks Corbyn on a daily basis - one of their reporters was found making up lies about him. They are as conservative as it gets...

Alternative media with alternative fact is made up of lies and conspiracies. That is why it is called fake news.

Posted by: popchartfreak 23rd January 2017, 07:02 PM

You really dont pay attention do you?

Sky is part-owned (at the moment) by Rupert Murdoch one of the biggest right-wing meddlers in the world today, (see Fox News, a hot bed of far-right lies and bias). BBC are controlled by the government of the day and are scared of saying boo to a goose.

What you call lefty, I call "Fact-based respected media". It's no coincidence that those peddling lies and distorted world views get called out by those that use facts and fairly give both sides of an argument (like the BBC, a respected organisation worldwide). The likes of Fox News and Breitbart have only one side to any argument - the view they are pushing.

People fall for it because they are angry after a decade of post-banking-crisis struggling. But it wasnt the liberal media or liberal politicians that caused the crisis. Right-wing politicians allowed it to happen in the first place (see Thatcher/Reagan changing laws). Things dont just magically happen, there are causes and effect. Trump is a result of the banking crisis and the Republicans blocking all democrat attempts to help the poor for 8 years. Only a fool would suppose they have changed their spots suddenly cos a selfish billionaire is in control. One who can't take any sort of criticism no matter how minor. Important stuff just gets ignored (like the peaceful protests with vastly bigger crowds than his own ego-speechifying). This is a fact. Trump lies about it to deflect reality and truth.

Fact. Fact. Fact. fact.

Let's just stick to the UK: number of liberals in prison for murdering or attacking fascists and racists: nil.

Number of fascists in prison for murdering liberals (2) in the last 12 months, number in prison for attacking people for no reason, just because they are right-wing racist dicks (many).

Facts, y'see. Don't cha just hate how snowflakes use facts to argue their case instead of getting aggressive and starting a war - which is what thick racists want, an excuse to send in the fascist troops.

Lefty liberals, BTW, tolerate all the bullshit spouted by people who disagree with them because it's called democracy, and we've had 20 years of Murdoch & co crap. Fascists seem to have a problem with it when it's the other way round and they keep insisting on quoting facts and reason.

Frinstance Nige Garage has been tweeting how proud he is of the bust of Churchill in the White House (Trump is also trying to bring esteem by association with a statue). He keeps quoting Churchill as a British icon. Churchill was massively in favour of a united Europe, and worked towards it as a way of stopping Nazis ever getting power again. So that's a nazi-lover appropriating a British hero anti-nazi.

Fact.

Farage is a fraud and anyone who falls for him or Lying Fraud Trump is an idiot. Or a Right-wing rich-power dominator. Or both.

Now show me facts that prove most of things they say is a fact and the Liberals are lying. If you don't it's because you can't. If you do, I will examine the evidence and give you an opinion on it, calmly and intellectually, based on available facts.

Because this is a democracy. Liberals will be back in power once fools who think the right-wing is there to help them show their true colours, and it's become obvious they just use them to help their own agendas. It's no secret Trump has only ever re-read one book: Hitlers Guide To Fascist Power (not real title). No secret Farage's teachers had issues with him parading and pushing Nazi ideas as a student.

Posted by: Suedehead2 23rd January 2017, 07:03 PM

No I haven't. I left out the Telegraph and the Star. It is also utter nonsense to suggest the BBC coverage of the referendum was biased. It was a fear of accusations of bias that prevented them from exposing the £350m lie.

As for this idea of an anti-Trump bias, it is not bias to report that his claims of a record turnout for his inauguration is a big fat lie. It's called accurate reporting.

Posted by: popchartfreak 23rd January 2017, 07:24 PM

A mere sci-fi TV show called Doctor Who said it better than a whole essay from me:

https://twitter.com/NicholasPegg/status/823131504922529794

Posted by: Silas 23rd January 2017, 09:12 PM

Alternative media is like the press equivalent of alternative facts right? Like Breitbart and Natural News? Or Echo chambers for the deluded as those of us with an IQ of more than 0 and who graduate somewhere other than Google University also know them as

Posted by: PeaceMob 23rd January 2017, 09:26 PM

The Telegraph serve the liberal elite, and The Star doesn't count, that "newspaper" is basically a porn mag. And there is an anti-Trump bias, anyone with open eyes can see that, it's just unfortunate that there are some people who are brainwashed with rage against Trump that they can't see sense past the tip of their nose.

Posted by: Cody Slayberry 23rd January 2017, 09:34 PM

Oh don't worry PeaceMob, I'm pretty sure there are a ton of pro-Nazi newspapers that you can freely read

Posted by: Suedehead2 23rd January 2017, 09:47 PM

The Telegraph was a staunch supporter of the Leave campaign. Their stance on a whole range of issues has consistently been far from liberal.

Posted by: PeaceMob 23rd January 2017, 09:51 PM

Don't be vile, you do realise the official name for the Nazi Party was the National Socialists German Workers Party. I think after the Brexit vote and Trump winning the election and the protests that followed those events who demanded to reverse those democratic decisions, I think we all know who the real fascists are.

Posted by: Brett-Butler 23rd January 2017, 09:57 PM

So much to unpack here from the last few days' conversation, but I'm going to add my traditionally ill-informed my 2 woolongs worth.

First off, I didn't think that this would end up being a controversial stance on BJ even a few days ago, but I am very much on the side of not punching people in the face. Even Nazis. No matter how emotionally satisfying that would be. There's many reasons why I'm against that, but I feel that https://www.popehat.com/2017/01/21/on-punching-nazis/ offers a great rationale why celebrating it is a very bad idea.

As to what to do with Nazis, or anyone else with extreme views, there are 3 options that should be undertaken -

1) Ignore them - it's easier said than done, but the best thing to do is to just pay them no heed, don't respond to them, and don't talk about them to anyone. They need an audience to survive, especially a hostile one, and by depriving them of that, they will have no purpose to exist. I understand that when you come across someone really nasty that you virulently disagree with, there's a truly additive dopamine hit you get when you get to position yourself as morally superior to them, but try to resist it.

However, if they're either too big, or stubborn, or dangerous, to ignore, then move on to points 2 & 3 -

2) Defeat their ideas - the chances are you are never going to make them change your mind. That's okay, that's not really important. What you can do is convince everyone else not to take their side. 1 appearance on Question Time killed the BNP stone dead. Bad ideas shouldn't take long to untangle. As someone posted recently elsewhere, "Extreme views are best defeated by free speech. There is a strong public interest in winning the argument and exposing extremists and bigots for what they are, not making heroes of them by driving them underground where they will continue to thrive in the darker corners of the internet"

and my favourite -

3) Expose them to ridicule - the best way to undermine the nasties is to mock them. Some of the best and funniest satires has done this with no holes barred, be it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hsfYmpDQqA' take on apartheid, or Mitchell & Webb's hilarious & underrated KKK sketch. Sometimes I think that even IS could be defeated if we treated it with ridicule instead of fear, although I may be overstretching my point there. Perhaps if the satire aimed at Trump had been better than some of the pish-poor attempts that came out of America last year, then perhaps he would never have been president.

Posted by: Brett-Butler 23rd January 2017, 10:01 PM

I can't remember who said it, but this quote always stuck in my mind - "the only thing worse than the Religious Right is the Irreligious Right".

Posted by: Brett-Butler 23rd January 2017, 10:07 PM

I'm pretty sure he did that just after his election when http://edition.cnn.com/2016/11/22/politics/donald-trump-disavow-groups-new-york-times/. I don't think anyone's specifically asked him that specific question though, normally it's taken as a given that you hate Nazis, unless you explicitly say otherwise.

Posted by: Brett-Butler 23rd January 2017, 10:09 PM

Have you ever considered a holiday in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea?

Posted by: Qassändra 23rd January 2017, 10:12 PM

LMAO. What the fuck are you on?

Posted by: Qassändra 23rd January 2017, 10:16 PM

Not really true though. The BNP's support went up after their Question Time appearance. And the idea that the Nazis took hold in Germany because the likes of Otto Wels just weren't good enough at rational argument is...well, do you really think a movement gets that much widespread support when it lies in the darker corners of the internet, as fascism did for a solid couple of decades? Because it's not as if free speech alone did much to stop Trump. The man and his views had plenty of exposure. You don't kill weeds with sunlight.

Posted by: Qassändra 23rd January 2017, 10:36 PM

Well now you've so resoundingly settled this argument by just referring to what they called themselves, I presume you will never again question that the Labour Party are the representatives of the workers or that the Liberal Democrats are the true democrats in British politics. After all, they call themselves that, so by your token apparently it never gets to be questioned.

Posted by: popchartfreak 23rd January 2017, 11:19 PM

Peacemob didnt take up my challenge, just ignored it, so case proven m'lud. Spouting flasehoods obviously cut n pasted from online rags as if they were facts.

Nazis. There is a law in the UK against hate speech. Also against murdering those who express an opinion. Nazis have a tougher time actually saying they want to commit genocide. In the USA it's easy.

There were peaceful mass protests in Berlin after the nazis got into power. Newspapers tried mocking and reason. Shit lot of good they did. Freedom of speech is based on the agreement that everyone has a right to an opinion as long as it doesn't hurt others. if your opinion is you wish to commit genocide, advocate genocide, then you lose the right to promote your opinion.

I'm a pacifist wishy washy liberal, but if you can't see the danger that democracy faces from extreme politics which is out to destroy it then you are fooling yourself that everyone will be fine in the end. You only have to look around the world to see that everything is not fine and it can change in the blink of an eye. Sometimes you have to fight for democracy. Those who don't get what they deserve, as much as those who just wanted a quiet life or respected the views of Adolph Hitler deserve eternal damnation for going along with mass murder.

Just to be quite clear: If the Nazis get in power (Trump, whatever he has or hasn't said, has the power to do something about the alt-right Nazis in the USA and I don't believe he will do a thing) after the blacks have been sent to the gas chambers, a whole new industry for American white workers, will follow the Muslims, Native Americans, mexicans, gays, intellectuals, liberals and anyone else seen as an enemy of the State.

That's why it's OK to punch Nazis who are trying to organise the deaths of human beings as an ultimate aim. Better to educate them before they become Nazis, but bitter hatred of fellow human beings is quite hard to shift as a personality trait.

I siuggest everyone look up the writings of this particular individual, and remove the sections that say "black" and "jew" and insert your own name and see how you feel about them being allowed to specifically say you should be murdered, that YOU personally are just a golem, soul-less, and not a human being, and encouraging others to demonise you and subject you to hatred online and in real life. If you say, well they have a perfect right to their opinion, and have already forgotten about Jo Cox, and it doesn't bother you that you might be a target, then fine. If you're not happy with being a target of the hatred yourself, then you are being hypocritical because it's not you who is the target.

Yet.

Posted by: Queen LeQueefa 24th January 2017, 05:45 PM

Trump has revived the Keystone pipeline, what, two/ three days into office?

I DID argue with RAGINGT alt righters I have on my facebook who were trying to say 'it's not their land' vs the native Americans protesting with no hint of irony so I'm not surprised. The alt right thinks everything is theirs, so of course Trump was gonna deliver.

Posted by: Cody Slayberry 24th January 2017, 06:49 PM

Once again proving that Trump only cares about the rights of few

I wouldn't be surprised if some Kristallnacht shit started in the future now

Posted by: popchartfreak 25th January 2017, 10:44 AM

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/jan/24/journalists-charged-felonies-trump-inauguration-unrest

...and so the march towards a Police State, media-controlled America has started....

can't be long before he declares himself President For Life unless his twatty Republican supporters turn on Trump. Granted Trump isn't responsible for this action, so he could always have a word with the police about reporters covering "news" not actually being guilty of taking part in "news", but he won't of course.

Posted by: Qween 25th January 2017, 12:39 PM

I can't help but derive some perverse pleasure from the fact 5 DAYS IN that this has gone so rapidly and unceremoniously to UTTER FUCKING SHIT.

Posted by: Conderella 25th January 2017, 01:17 PM

This usually only takes place in Russia. Awkward

Posted by: Queen LeQueefa 25th January 2017, 03:11 PM

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/25/politics/trump-calls-for-major-investigation-into-voter-fraud/index.html

This is what happens when you vote a mentally unstable person with narcissistic personality disorders into office!! So much was made of hillary's health that he deflected any question of his own - both mental and physical as, let's face it, he is an obese old man who eats McDonald's all the time.

The only good thing about this shitshow is if he is focusing on proving and lying with alternative facts about voter count, inauguration size, etc, then he has less time to fook up he things that actually matter! He is a reality tv star with a narcissistic fragile ego so brittle that he can't live down Hillary reallybwon the popular vote, esp after his tweets r.e Obama/ Romney and the EC!!

Posted by: Snake Got Hissed 25th January 2017, 03:27 PM

The wall with Mexico isn't just because of the zenophobic reasons of stopping immigration, it's also because Trump has studied about Roman Emperors like Hadrian (with Hadrian's Wall) and also American landmarks named after presidents such as Hoover Dam (which wasn't actually built by President Hoover but by President Roosevelt) and wanted to leave his physical mark on America as a power statement. It's unsurprising coming from a man who has lots of skyscrapers named after him, the wall is as much to do with ego and 'showing his place in history' as anything to do with immigration.

I do not doubt that if a Democrat gets in after the next election, what has been built of the wall will be torn down immediately.

Posted by: Cody Slayberry 25th January 2017, 03:41 PM

Normally I'd say the Supreme Court would check it because it's unconstitutional but he'll there aren't any checks and balances anymore. Republicans are probably saying "F*ck the Constitution"

Posted by: dhwe 25th January 2017, 06:37 PM

s/o to the national park service for defying his media blackout. badlands np were tweeting about climate change last night before the tweets were forcibly deleted. @AltNatParkSer was created last night to get around the blackout and today death valley np are tweeting about Japanese American internment.

also my hot opinion on punching nazis is it's ok to punch people for their views if their views are predicated on eliminating your race

Posted by: dhwe 25th January 2017, 06:49 PM

also not to be dramatic/paranoid but i am rly legitimately terrified abt leaving a trace online and knowing that the nsa is snooping and they are now under tr*mp makes me really! anxious abt everything I say/have ever said online lol!! Everything feels like a surreal dystopian nightmare and I have been in a daze since friday

Posted by: Queen LeQueefa 25th January 2017, 07:02 PM

We are now living in a dystopia in the west.

Australia, New Zealand, Japan seem out of it however.

Posted by: popchartfreak 25th January 2017, 07:21 PM

Yes, the backer of Trump (that gay billionaire paypal moron) has purchased New Zealand citizenship so if it all goes tits up he can bugger off there. Apparently, if you're rich the government ignores nationalisation rules like "must live there 5 years". So much for his faith in Trump's USA - it's mentioned that Silicon Valley will empty in the event of a global epidemic, or other catastrophic event, and they will all piss of to New Zealand while the rest of us get on with dying.

Yay for the Parks services staff, legends! I used to work in the British local Parks Dept with staff of a similar mindset, great people.

As for being monitored, the government in the UK have made it legal, so anything you do or say on the net, in tweets, emails or whatever. I wouldn't worry about it, on the grounds that one advantage we have nowadays (it's often used for the forces of anti-democracy) is the ability to fight back en masse via the net and other means.

George Takei is a major advocate of fighting against Trumps' internment camp mouthings. He was interned in WW2 as a boy (with his family and all other Japanese Americans) because he was American Japanese. Oddly, those of German ancestry and Italian ancestry, who happened to be white, were not interned. Funny that.....

Posted by: Queen LeQueefa 25th January 2017, 07:26 PM

WHAT - INTERNMENT CAMPS?!

Whenevr Trump suggests something, it reappears along the line as his latest crackpot scheme!!

Posted by: popchartfreak 25th January 2017, 07:41 PM

He can start with his Alt-Right-Hand-Man Bannon - he is registered to vote in Florida and New York, This is not illegal. VOTING is both is illegal (which he hasn't done), as is registering to live in a State without living there (Bannon is registered to be living at the house of a family of good friends, "No comment" on when he was based there). Oops, awkward, the Donald will look a fool!

Posted by: popchartfreak 25th January 2017, 07:46 PM

just enjoyed this tweet:

Jonathan M. Katz ‏@KatzOnEarth 15h15 hours ago
More
First they came for the Latinos, Muslims, women, gays, poor people, intellectuals and scientists and then it was Wednesday.

It's funny cos it's true....

Posted by: dhwe 25th January 2017, 08:00 PM

lmfao i think you're misunderstanding, they're tweeting about japanese american internment during wwii, which is almost definitely not an accident

Posted by: popchartfreak 25th January 2017, 08:42 PM

I hope so!


But I suspect, ooh he just hasnt got round to it yet, takes a bit of organisation to roundup a few million Mexicans and Muslims, as he threatened in his various rambling campaign speeches.

So far: turned the whitehouse website into a sales opportunity, stopped people contacting the government they elected, cancelled healthcare insurance for 20m poor people, threatened the Mayor of Chicago with sending troops in if he doesn't behave himself, stopped all employees of the government from issuing anything he hasn't approved, stopped Pacific trade deals, ignored science on climate change in favour of lucrative oil deals for himself, stopped women having the right to choose what they do with their bodies (he always did have a thing about pussies - feline obviously I mean) denied media access to the truth, lied about trivia while going apeshit as his ego deflates, contradicted himself about the election results (they were GREAT now they're fraudulent, but clearly stupid as they forgot to target the narrow-win key states that allowed him to grab the Presidency and stupidly spread 3 million voters in the wrong states) and he's agreeing to see that bastion of democratic principle Theresa May (fresh from having her knuckles wrapped by British Courts, which is what Brexiters claimed they wanted) desperate to get some PR from a Trade deal with Trump.

I have no doubt Trump is capable of anything, and Mrs May will find herself metaphorically grabbed her unmentionables as we as a country get royally screwed. Ironic, as the Queen has been confirmed by many present at a bigwig lunch to have said out loud (paraphrase) "Brexit. What's the problem? Just leave". The Queen has gone against the Constitution of our country in expressing a political opinion (as reported in the scummy press), so it's no wonder TM thinks she'll get a bit of that action and ignore British Parliament. Both should resign and trigger a general election.

Posted by: Qassändra 25th January 2017, 11:01 PM

...in what sense? It's all still going to happen. He might throw the odd tantrum but nobody in his party seems willing to stop him on everything he's doing.

Few in the Democrats seem willing to oppose him either, which is legitimately jawdropping. They just WON BY THREE MILLION VOTES FOR CRYING OUT LOUD. THE REPUBLICANS WON IN LARGE PART BECAUSE OF THEIR OPPOSITIONALISM FROM DAY ONE OF OBAMA'S PRESIDENCY JESUS F CHRIST WHY HAVE THEY NOT LEARNED FROM THAT

Posted by: Silas 25th January 2017, 11:30 PM

How is this news to you? You can buy citizenship to like half the former empire. IIRC Malta, Cyprus and the Caymans will all happily sell you a passport. The Aussies too have various visa schemes only open to those of 'special talents or means'

Posted by: Silas 25th January 2017, 11:31 PM

Yeah the most surprising thing for me is that the democrats just rolled over and we're like 'meh'.

Posted by: popchartfreak 26th January 2017, 12:25 PM

New Zealand prides itself on it's fairness, though, so a bit of a furore about it given he clearly HASNT lived there for 5 years... NZ Gov, awks...!

Posted by: dhwe 27th January 2017, 01:30 AM

the white house is publishing a weekly list of crimes committed by undocumented immigrants. every piece of news has been bad so far but this is the first one that positively made my blood run cold.

Posted by: popchartfreak 27th January 2017, 12:26 PM

just preparing the PR ground for the concentration camps....

Posted by: Suedehead2 27th January 2017, 01:21 PM

The order refers to all immigrants, making no mention of whether they are legally in the US or not. I somehow suspect there won't be a corresponding list of, for example, lives saved by immigrants working as doctors etc.

Posted by: PeaceMob 27th January 2017, 09:23 PM

Trump grabs Theresa May by the... hand


Awwww. So cute.

Posted by: Silas 27th January 2017, 10:30 PM

Godwin's law kinda goes out the window when they legitimately copy the actions and policies of Hitler.

Posted by: Queen LeQueefa 27th January 2017, 10:48 PM

My god they look like two decrepits!

Posted by: dhwe 28th January 2017, 03:13 AM

Posted by: dhwe 28th January 2017, 03:15 AM

jk i don't have a trust fund or a sugar daddy so i wouldn't afford rent

Posted by: Cody Slayberry 28th January 2017, 07:39 AM

I wonder what would happen if you me and tyler ever lived together

Posted by: Liаm 29th January 2017, 04:25 AM

A federal judge has blocked the Muslim ban!

Posted by: common sense 29th January 2017, 11:19 AM

A petition to take back the invitation for Trump's visit here because of him banning Muslims from entering the USA now has nearly 20,000 signatures. Ridiculous. It's US policy so nothing to do with us.

Posted by: Brett-Butler 29th January 2017, 11:38 AM

Um, a British Conservative MP who was born in Iraq is one of those affected by the ban travelling into America, in addition to many more British citizens born in the countries affected. I'd say it has more than nothing to do with the British government.

Posted by: Rooney 29th January 2017, 11:43 AM

There's outcry because I'm sure it's not even a legal policy. I'm sure these things have to go through different stages of vetting before getting passed. At this rate Trump could decide he doesn't want Fruit Loops to be eaten in the US anymore. It's completely wrong, and our PM needs to grow a backbone and tell Trump it's out of order.

Posted by: common sense 29th January 2017, 11:50 AM

Yes they usually have to go through legal processes, Congress etc, but Trump's issued an Executive order for it to take effect immediately which he can do in certain circumstances such as for National Security I believe.

Posted by: common sense 29th January 2017, 11:52 AM

As far as I have understood it this morning from Sky News, it's only a Presidential Executive order for a temporary ban for a month until they decide what to do about muslims and terrorism in the longer term.

Posted by: Suedehead2 29th January 2017, 12:07 PM

So, as a resident of London, are you not bothered about the fact that the mayor of your home city has been told he is not welcome to visit a country that is supposed to be one of our closest allies?

Posted by: Doctor Blind 29th January 2017, 12:09 PM

The politicians won't do anything, just look at the SNP and how they overruled Aberdeenshire council when Trump built his gaudy golf club on a protected SSI.

Posted by: Rooney 29th January 2017, 01:05 PM

So banning all Muslims is the answer? Terrorists will be laughing right now, as this is exactly what their ideology preaches. Banning refugees and Muslims from the country is not the way to defeat terrorism.

Can't wait until Trump starts banning Egyptian, Saudi nationals etc. - oh wait, he won't - despite the fact these are countries of origins for real terrorism crimes committed in the US!

Posted by: Iz~ 29th January 2017, 01:16 PM

Even if the judges do overturn it, which... it's going to go through a long process before that happens, he's clearly not going to be deterred. Pugnacious, short-sighted moves like the ban were exactly what we'd feared he'd do.

He's basically ignoring May, even if she does get the balls to go against him, it will only be a concerted effort by his own government that will stop him.

Posted by: Suedehead2 29th January 2017, 01:29 PM

It took some time for Theresa May to criticise this move. The excuse is that she was in the air when it was announced. Her defenders conveniently overlook the fact that we have known for two or three days that it was coming. They claim that she took her time to give it "careful consideration". Older members may remember that when Gordon Brown failed to respond within nano-seconds, he was accused of dithering.

Posted by: common sense 29th January 2017, 02:56 PM

I'm sure exceptions will be made for certain VIP's.

Posted by: Suedehead2 29th January 2017, 03:28 PM

That would be as bad as apartheid South Africa declaring people to be "honorary whites".

Posted by: Cody Slayberry 29th January 2017, 03:51 PM

"if you're from Africa, why are you white?"

Posted by: RosaParksMyCar 29th January 2017, 04:08 PM

it does tho.

Posted by: Rooney 29th January 2017, 04:16 PM

To be fair to Boris Johnson, he's actually speaking quite well about the subject. I do think it's a difficult position for Teresa May to be in, not least because from what I have read this executive order moved at lightning speed and caught most people outside out of the White House off guard. That said, I think she's probably been advised wrongly and didn't act as quick as she should have.

Posted by: Liаm 29th January 2017, 04:17 PM

Theresa May is a spineless c**t, never fails to amaze me... She'd rather be in Trump's pocket and feel special, abandoning her views, than speak up and be strong, she's already abandoned her pro-EU stance to be PM of a nation who voted Brexit.

Posted by: Cody Slayberry 29th January 2017, 04:21 PM

I think what some people fail to realize is that it's not a policy issue that's made this a big problem. The big issue is the umbrella of islamophobia that this casts. Yesterday morning the Iranian government pushed to issue a ban on US citizens as a little tit4tat against Trump's Muslim ban. If that doesn't give you World War II teas than I don't know who will.

Also Trump treating Muslims like how Hitler treated the Jews on Holocaust Remembrance Day is absolutely sickening.

Posted by: Queen LeQueefa 29th January 2017, 04:29 PM

Bias of the right wing press.

There are no dynamic words like dithering for their Darling Theres just distant passive voice suggestions - 'Theresa May faced some criticism' IF they tackle it all all.

Posted by: Queen LeQueefa 29th January 2017, 04:31 PM

'I'll.stand up to Trump'

Err no ya won't.

A couple days later and what d ya know - she had the opportunity annnnd she didn't!

Posted by: The Sultan 29th January 2017, 04:44 PM

I am struggling to understand why Iranian travellers are banned from entering the US from Trump's mindset. Yes, most of the countries do have some terrorist groups operating in them (Libya, Iraq, Somalia, Syria and Yemen particularly) but I wasn't aware Iran had any significant terrorist group presence, and I have not heard of there being any terrorist acts carried out by any extremists from Iran in the news. Not that people from any of these countries should be banned from entering the US (although there should undoubtedly be high security for arrivals from warzones, politically unstable areas and terrorist hotspots, that goes for other politically unstable areas like eastern Ukraine too)

Posted by: Suedehead2 29th January 2017, 06:33 PM

There were reports that Trump was going to do this at least two days before it happened. Even the list of countries was spot on. Therefore she had plenty of time to think about it. It really shouldn't have taken more than about ten seconds to decide the right response and a few minutes to get the wording right.

Posted by: Steve201 29th January 2017, 06:54 PM

The hypocrisy of your last point within the British media is ridiculous - imagine if Corbyn had done exactly this - so many right wing members of the media saying she was just considering it like Dan Hodges!

Posted by: Qassändra 29th January 2017, 07:00 PM

"They're saying Hitler shouldn't visit because he's making Jews wear yellow stars. Ridiculous. It's German policy so nothing to do with us."

Do you have any sense of common humanity whatsoever?

Posted by: Qween 29th January 2017, 07:28 PM

That requires the capacity to think for oneself.

Posted by: Rooney 29th January 2017, 07:44 PM

You're right, I think people knew it was going to happen. What they did not expect was how fast it was to come around. Not that I am defending Teresa May, as she could have handled the situation much better, but by all accounts most people were shocked that it actually happened at the speed it did.

Posted by: Taylor Jago 29th January 2017, 07:46 PM

What I find strange is that despite 15 of the 19 hijackers in 9/11 coming from there, and the fact it's definitely a Muslim country, Saudi Arabia isn't on the list, and Pakistan isn't either. I wonder why...

Posted by: The Sultan 29th January 2017, 07:57 PM

The US seem to have always have had a close relationship with Saudi Arabia - partly because of the oil there perhaps?

Both Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are generally seen as major allies against terrorist groups, so Trump wouldn't want to upset them. But then so is the Iraqi government at the minute too....

Posted by: Silas 29th January 2017, 08:42 PM

And then approved 67.9bn wind turbines along the shore of the course over his strenuous objections. Next!

#SNPBad

Posted by: Silas 29th January 2017, 08:46 PM

Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt, Lebanon. All Muslim states where there was no ban brought into place. All but one of the 9/11 bombers were from these states. (None from Lebanon)



Completely by co-incidence those four states happen to be where Trumpy has business ties. Pure co-incidence.

Posted by: popchartfreak 29th January 2017, 09:52 PM

try telling that to Farage who stuck his nose into USA politics.

It also IS our business who we choose to associate with as a nation, and we don't need any relationship with a racist clod especially one that has said he'd sell photos of one royal family member, and would have f***ed another deceased one - look forward to Prince Charles and Prince William having words with him.

Posted by: popchartfreak 29th January 2017, 09:55 PM

No it won't. What about Sir Mo Farah, or the Tory MP born in Iraq?

Racist. No other word for it. Except for those countries where Trump has hotels, and are genuine supporters of terrorism.

Posted by: popchartfreak 29th January 2017, 09:59 PM

This.

To repeat what I said months ago, she's a cold-hearted woman, very right-wing, just devious and two-faced.

We have abandoned genuinely democratic friends to toady-up with virtual fascists (in aims if not actual achievements yet) and sell weapons to anyone to get business, and start the process to becoming the junior begging partner with a dickhead.

Posted by: popchartfreak 29th January 2017, 10:01 PM

errr, saudi has one of the worst human rights records in the world, does nothing whatsoever for middle east refugees and very much IS behind financing terrorism.

Trump, however, has business interests there.

Posted by: Steve201 29th January 2017, 10:05 PM

I've a feeling world war 3 is a huge possibility in the next few years

Posted by: Danuary 30th January 2017, 10:31 AM

Over a million have now signed a petition to #banTrumpFromUK

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/171928

Posted by: Tinasha 30th January 2017, 10:40 AM

I've donated to the https://www.aclu.org/and https://www.rescue.org charities, to try and do something to help the current crisis in America, if anyone is interested.

Posted by: Doctor Blind 30th January 2017, 11:19 AM

That doesn't change the fact the the SNP WERE once in the man's pockets and are therefore not to be trusted IMO.

Posted by: Brian Quinn 30th January 2017, 07:20 PM

Donald Trump is an amazing man. He has broken the mould of the politically correct politician and listened to what the people want. He walks the talk and is making the World a safer place. I agree with virtually everything he has done so far. In fact he has done more for his Country in one week than Obama did in eight years. If only we had someone like him here in the UK but I'm afraid the damage has already been done by successive laissez-faire Governments. Our only hope here is with a UKIP Government headed by Nigel Farage (the English Trump). I am one of the silent majority who do not go out and demonstrate but prefer the Ballot Box to speak for me. I wish Trump well and will be watching his State Visit on TV.

Posted by: popchartfreak 30th January 2017, 07:38 PM

Done more to damage the country in one week, and democracy and decency. Trump and Farage are Nazi-worshipping racist, spoilt, stupid rich-men's sons. Anyone who fails to see that is of the same ilk, and like all anti-democratic movements will go down in flames.

Democracy is about everyone being equal and having a say. Fascism is about issuing orders to everyone by one man. Trump is bypassing his country's democratic government, and May is attempting to do the same.

Farage is irrelevant. He's a nobody.

have a good day, sweetie.

Posted by: Suedehead2 30th January 2017, 07:53 PM

The silent majority? Leaving aside that millions of us would love Farage to go silent for a while (preferably for the rest of his life), UKIP didn't come remotely close to getting a majority of the votes at the last election, so there are clearly a lot of people who don't think that the party represents their views.

Posted by: Brett-Butler 30th January 2017, 08:00 PM

Welcome to the News & Politics forum! It's always nice to see new people venturing into these regions.

Posted by: Conderella 30th January 2017, 08:44 PM

we need more middle-aged white heterosexual men on the forum and especially their backwards opinions indeed

Posted by: Cody Slayberry 30th January 2017, 09:09 PM

I'm wondering if that's an Ethan alias

Posted by: Steve201 30th January 2017, 10:06 PM

Brian comes into the chart forum checking for Elvis album updates a lot.

Let's face it I don't agree with any things he's just stated but he's as entitled to his opinion as much as anyone else in here.

Posted by: Queen LeQueefa 30th January 2017, 10:23 PM

Absolutely.

Credit where it's due, I disagree with everything that man stands for. However, the Alt Righters on my Facebook do admittedly have a point when it comes to one main thing:

1. That nobody criticised Obama for the actions of US towards Yemen/ arms sales, which is true. However, it's just more of the 'what about...'-ism that they use to support such a flawed candidate.

Posted by: PeaceMob 30th January 2017, 10:39 PM

It's not cool to try to make a point by singling out someone's skin colour and someone's sexuality. Like I said before, liberal lefties are the intolerant ones now.

Posted by: Cody Slayberry 30th January 2017, 11:23 PM

I don't get how it's wrong if liberals single out one person when all the racists/bigots/etc have been doing excatly that to entire marginalized populations?

Posted by: common sense 30th January 2017, 11:47 PM

Well said. If he'd done nothing and there was a big terrorist attack on his watch then everyone would be criticising him. At least he cares about his country and is keeping his election promises and I too look forward to his visit to the UK.

Posted by: The Sultan 30th January 2017, 11:57 PM

Yes I am sure there are some white middle aged heterosexual males on this forum or who want to join the forum who don't support Trump too and we should not discourage any group from joining.

I have been thinking about the flights issue,

On the one hand I can understand why Trump has banned flights from the countries of Somalia, Libya, Syria, Iraq and Yemen, there are major wars going on here and these countries have terrorist groups operating in them like ISIS and Al Shabaab. Unfortunately there is always a chance that some of these groups (followed by only a tiny minority in these countries I may add) are going to try and get members into the US to carry out attacks at a later stage. However there are many innocent people from these countries going to be caught up in this trying to get to and from the US, and cutting off flights will just increase the amount of anti-US feeling in these countries, which plays into the hands of the terrorists anyway and would increase their recruitment.

I have absolutely no idea why flights from Iran in particular have been banned, as Iran is not a terrorist hotspot at all. This would suggest no other reason than anti-Iranian/anti Islamic discrimination, which is completely wrong.

Also the amount of people killed by non-Islamist extremist attacks in the US is much much higher than those carried out by Islamist extremists there.

Gun crime particularly, sorting that out should come first over Islamist extremists, but once again it shows that Trump is more interested in blaming foreigners than sorting domestic gun crime. Where is Trump's measure he pledged to increase access to guns designed to arm innocent people against gun attack threats? Oh no the priority seems to have been had to deal with the more minor foreign terrorist threat first to fit into the rhetoric of blaming foreigners.

Overall I think the ban on flights is counter-productive. The emphasis should be on high security rather than banning.

In terms of refugees, vulnerable groups of refugees should definitely be accepted into the US. They should play their part in accepting refugees, just like other Western nations have. High security measures should be used though.

Posted by: Iz~ 31st January 2017, 12:12 AM

The world is categorically not a safer place under Trump, there is record disapproval and chaos in his mere week and a half in office. He is creating a narrative, as do many dangerous populist leaders, whereby his supporters become mistrusting and hostile towards 'the liberal elite' which has turned out to be code for anyone educated who disagrees with him. He is literally stopping people from coming into America based on their religion and country of origin.

When it's disturbingly not unrealistic to be making parallels with the early reigns of 20th-century dictators with him, I think anyone who gets prissy that the privileged group who overlap largely with the people who somehow support this man are being mocked can firstly go shove it, secondly are not looking for debate and just want to find some way they can try to get on a high horse by saying 'look at these liberals who claim to preach about intolerance but aren't being kind towards my group, a group who are mostly hellbent on tearing down their ideology'. Jesus f***ing wept at this last page.

Posted by: Cody Slayberry 31st January 2017, 12:16 AM

#BanPeaceMobFromBuzzjack2k17

Posted by: Oliver 31st January 2017, 12:16 AM

I actually thought the same thing Cody. Just the aura of that post made it seem like Ethan was back.

Posted by: Queen LeQueefa 31st January 2017, 12:23 AM

We will have to wait and see if he delivers on a policy of non-interventionalism (though I am skeptical), as that could only be a good thing.

Posted by: The Sultan 31st January 2017, 12:23 AM

But surely the anti-Islamic rhetoric by Trump during campaigning, talk of 'banning all Muslims from the US', and the banning of flights now has made the US MORE vulnerable to an attack as the terrorist groups will be able to recruit more members now the small minority of anti US sentiment amongst Muslims will grow into a more significant minority.

Posted by: Qassändra 31st January 2017, 12:34 AM

Banning Muslims from eight countries does more for America than giving health insurance to 20 million Americans? You think it's more important 20,000 brown people don't enter a nation of 300 million than a good chunk of those get treatment for whatever ailments they have?

Posted by: The Sultan 31st January 2017, 01:17 AM

Well to be fair to Trump he had started the repeal of Obamacare with an executive order before this ban on flights and he does say he would make healthcare more affordable, lets see what he does, even though I am confident capitalist healthcare systems like in the US will still remain an unfair one compared to public sector ones like the UK's NHS.

The priority should have been to sort out gun crime when considerably more people are killed by it in the US than Islamist extremists. But of course for Trump blaming those few bad foreigners coming in comes first over those considerably more bad local threats.

Posted by: Conderella 31st January 2017, 07:58 AM

You forgot about age. And yes, being white and hetero and male doesn't make you a Trump supporter at all but the majority who do are. So this is pure deduction and guess work hun.

I don't understand why people are expected to "tolerate" these obvious fascist backwards policies that are being implemented. Especially if the MAJORITY OF THE UNITED STATES VOTED FOR HILLARY. Trump does what Trump wants. He doesn't care about people. If he did he would've acknowledged the mass protests that have been taking place recently in some way. He doesn't give a f***. He's not a leader, he's a dumbass clown who's only there to stroke his ego, or better, have someone stroke it for him. The reality show that aired only for a couple of months a year wasn't enough so he decided to go much bigger.

Posted by: Cody Slayberry 31st January 2017, 08:29 AM

Pav, I'm with you on this. It's just conservatives trying to project the blame onto someone else, namely liberals because only liberals are to blame here.

I'm just saying that they've been going for minorities for decades and they get pissy when we single out the straight white cis male that sticks out like a sore thumb. If that's your only line of defense then BITCH DON'T GO THERE BECAUSE I CAN GO A HELL OF A LOT DEEPER.

Posted by: Silas 31st January 2017, 08:31 AM

Bet you thought punch Richard Spencer was wrong too because he's a nice man





Nah Defo not. Aside from the join date being 2010 the main tip off is the lack of condescension and it doesn't look like a 10 year old vomited the thesaurus onto the page.

Posted by: Silas 31st January 2017, 08:33 AM

Let's not forget white women are as much to blame for this mess

Posted by: introvert 31st January 2017, 09:08 AM

If Trump rules like Hitler, I would rather be dead than getting harshly executed

Posted by: Conderella 31st January 2017, 10:52 AM

Soon they probably won't even be able to even vote so I guess

Posted by: *Tim 31st January 2017, 12:21 PM

Can we talk about the fact that Trump broke a record tho
He is the fastest president to get a disapproval rate of 50% or more
And this was before the ban on those islamic countries as well

Posted by: popchartfreak 31st January 2017, 12:37 PM

Speak for yourself. However, as a snowflake liberal (working class, not elite) I'm pleased to see you speak for tolerance, and look forward to you condemning the views of the 2nd most powerful man in America, the Breitbart man, who wants to destroy democracy (he has stated this in the past), hates Jews (ditto) and Muslims (fairly obviously, with the twisting of facts into propaganda). Please feel free to condemn him right here, and any Nazi-based racist genocidal view.

Attacking an individual for their democratic right to hold a view, while wrong, is less wrong than attacking an entire section of the human race and proposing their extermination and the overthrow of democracy. These people have to be fought against, peacefully, at every opportunity. If one doesn't choose to stand up and speak against or fight against those sort of views then one is implicit in accepting those views as one's own. In much the same way as those who tolerated Hitler, Mussollini, and every other tinpot dictator.

Posted by: Tinasha 31st January 2017, 01:35 PM

I get the whole "everyone is entitled to their own opinions" thing, but holding the opinion that Trump is doing everything right and has already done more for America than Obama is...a choice.

The things happening in America at the moment, are making me genuinely unsettled to the point where I'm getting stressed when I try to sleep, thinking about how the worst is yet to come. Despite many a time where I've felt hugely disappointed, frustrated and shocked, I've never even felt this worried with anything politics related in the UK.

I keep hearing that Trump will possibly impeached before long, and, although Mike Pence is apparently worse than Trump, I do think Trump being impeached will be a positive thing because it will show loud and clear to the conservatives and the rest of America that there is a line, there is a too far.

It's not just his awful views, but how he handles himself which is deeply deeply worrying. His Twitter rants, his outbursts...it's just...odd that (Some of) America voted for him.

Posted by: Conderella 31st January 2017, 02:29 PM

If he had started shipping these ideas as the main selling point without any competition, ie the democrats, he probably wouldn't have gotten as much support he has. I want to see some stats, if there exist any, of how many people voted for Trump in order not to vote for Hillary.

Posted by: Cody Slayberry 31st January 2017, 07:21 PM

Can we just impeach both Trump and Pence and get Paul Ryan? At least we can have one of the Democrats stick their hand up his ass so it looks like he can actually support human decency.

Posted by: Cody Slayberry 31st January 2017, 07:23 PM

I'm still convinced that the Muslim ban just gave terrorists the win.

Nice knowing you guys, see you on the other side

Posted by: Cody Slayberry 31st January 2017, 07:43 PM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/meet-the-acting-attorney-general-fired-by-trump-and-accused-of-betraying-the-justice-department/2017/01/30/05d4478c-e750-11e6-80c2-30e57e57e05d_story.html?utm_term=.90f8a4ebb6f1

Yeah. Trump just fired an Attorney General because she ruled the Muslim ban to be unconstitutional on the grounds that she "betrayed" the Federal Government. Are you kidding me? Trump fired her because SHE WAS DOING HER F[b]UCKING JOB.[/b] Not only is it blatantly SEXIST that a man would defile a woman because she didn't stand up for him, it devalues the job of the Department of Justice to uphold the rights given by the Constitution and it comes to show that Trump and his supporters only think about themselves.

He's a fucking miserable bitter old man.

Posted by: burbe 31st January 2017, 08:22 PM

Well it's going to make the IS rhetoric of us vs. them more powerful, and therefore the potential for attacks stronger. This ban is a disaster waiting to happen.

Posted by: Silas 31st January 2017, 09:29 PM

I wish this was the most shocking/awful thing that the orange thing has done today. The US Marshals service has been ordered to ignore a Federal Judge. This is VERY VERY VERY dangerous and very much well down the road to fascism and an authoritarian police state.

Posted by: Danuary 31st January 2017, 10:29 PM

Trump's starting to turn into a dictator as I feared then. Disagree with him and risk losing your career.

Posted by: Cody Slayberry 31st January 2017, 10:31 PM

when did the allied powers of ww2 become the new axis powers

Posted by: Silas 31st January 2017, 10:34 PM

Omg i had that exact thought earlier today. It's so true tho. We're cozying up to the giant cheeto and providing arms to turkeys dictator. Our country has gone to the dogs

Posted by: Suedehead2 31st January 2017, 10:59 PM

She was an Obama appointment who was due to lose her job as soon as Trump's nominee is approved. That said, the way she was sacked is worrying. The next incumbent may feel obliged to support Trump regardless of minor matters such as the law and the constitution.

Posted by: The Sultan 31st January 2017, 11:01 PM

China too (although they were Allies in WW1 under a different goverment (which eventually went to Taiwan) before Mao took over) the UK are cosying up too, their human rights record isn't great too.

As my dad said yesterday, what next, a trade deal between the UK and Kim Jong Un of North Korea?

Posted by: The Sultan 31st January 2017, 11:10 PM

To be fair Jeremy Corbyn's last shadow cabinet reshuffle was seen as the same, and it was suggested even on centrist news organisations like the BBC that he was getting rid of those who disagreed with him and putting those in that did agree with him.

At least Corbyn for all his flaws stands for tolerance though.

Posted by: Qassändra 31st January 2017, 11:37 PM

...I'm not at all what you would describe as a Corbyn supporter but comparisons between Corbyn and Trump are so unfounded as to be almost offensive. There's sacking someone because of disobedience (which any leader has the right to do) and sacking someone because they won't argue that your violation of the Constitution is legal.

Posted by: Queen LeQueefa 1st February 2017, 01:48 AM

TBH no matter what's happening that middle/ upper class expression of 'gone to the dogs' is ridiculous. The country is always 'going to the dogs' for someone or other whilst staying int he top10 economies of the world.

Posted by: Doctor Blind 1st February 2017, 04:51 AM

Indeed, almost as bad as cosying up Hungary - an EU member state lest we forget since 2004 - that recently shut down the only media that dared to criticise the Viktor Orbán rightwing government.

The EU have done sweet fuck all to reprimand them about the atrocious treatment of refugees, choosing instead to have endless debates about Brexit.

Posted by: popchartfreak 1st February 2017, 01:53 PM

How about some non-front page developments?

... how about the coincidental bombing of Ukraine that started immediately after the Putin/Trump chat on 28th Jan?

Or the non-suspicious death in his car of the KGB informer believed to be behind the leak about Russian hacking during the US election?

Or the going-to-ground of the British counterpart, possibly worried about turning up in a car park in Tesco one morning in not the best possible health...?

...or the Trump-ordered bombing of families of "IS members" which may or may not include children and teachers. The only good child of dickhead IS member is a dead child of a dickhead IS member, apparently...?

Still, nothing to worry about eh, he knows what he's doing? Getting people killed as it turns out....

Posted by: Chez Wombat 2nd February 2017, 06:48 PM

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-executive-order-christian-pre-marital-sex-same-sex-marriage-abortion-wrong-religious-a7558691.html

Well, I can certainly hope it's not true as nothing has been confirmed so far, but still, good grief...America is literally gonna look like it did in the 1930s by the end of 2017 at this rate.

Posted by: Silas 2nd February 2017, 06:50 PM

If it's signed I fully plan to go have pre-martial gay sex in the bathroom of his hotel. Or the national mall. Haven't nailed the location yet.

Posted by: Conderella 2nd February 2017, 07:09 PM

Good grief. The amount of hypocrisy. I wonder how many abortions did he himself pay for after having pre-/post-/during-marital sex?

Posted by: Cody Slayberry 2nd February 2017, 07:23 PM

At this rate Jesus would have just been born by the end of the summer

Posted by: Cody Slayberry 2nd February 2017, 07:24 PM

I wonder if sprinkling holy water on the White House and Capitol would set it on fire

Posted by: Queen LeQueefa 2nd February 2017, 07:35 PM

So Mike Pence really IS in charge!

Posted by: Brett-Butler 2nd February 2017, 07:56 PM

I have a feeling that that story may turn out to be "fake news", although I could always be wrong. Quite a lot of that would end up being found unconstitutional very quickly.

Posted by: Queen LeQueefa 2nd February 2017, 08:08 PM

Wait until they force through 2 SC justices... then it's ALL on the table.

Posted by: Qassändra 2nd February 2017, 08:11 PM

Did you notice Trump firing his acting Attorney General for refusing to argue for a measure that will likely end up being found unconstitutional very quickly?

Posted by: The Sultan 2nd February 2017, 09:34 PM

-

Posted by: The Sultan 2nd February 2017, 09:42 PM

The only one I agree with is that 'life begins at conception'. Abortion (not in case of rape or incest or if it would risk the life of the mother if it was born should definitely be allowed) is a big argument, if I am being honest I would swing towards pro-life outside those two cases. Depends on the individual case though.

The other two are just completely idiotic and backward to try and say as 'wrong'.

Posted by: Queen LeQueefa 2nd February 2017, 09:52 PM

Pro life?

Isn't it also pro life of the mother or pro life in general to allow abortion and not leave more and more children in care, probably without government support in the US?? Once the sprog is popped, in US the 'pro-lifers' are suddenly unconcerned about its welfare...

Also, life does not begin at conception. It is a collection of cells, and therefore no baby is getting aborted, just cells.

Posted by: The Sultan 2nd February 2017, 10:02 PM

Fair point, maybe not literally at conception.

Yes there also points such as the welfare of the child being in care and the emotional wellbeing of the mother if she does not want the child but has to give birth to it. Very hard to know for me which way I am going to believe on this I think, maybe I was too hasty to swing pro-life.

Posted by: The Sultan 2nd February 2017, 10:50 PM

Plus the fact that risky DIY abortion methods increase in areas with abortion restrictions. On balance it is far more sensible to keep the current rules I think.

I just worry that after reading recently about a premature baby surviving having been born 4 days after the current baby age that abortion is no longer allowed iirc, about whether or not the cut off point should be lowered a little bit.

Anyway there is probably a thread to talk about the abortion debate so sorry for rambling on about it here.

About the new story of this announcement about the Trump administration declaring abortion, pre marriage sex and gay marriage being 'wrong', I really hope it isn't true but we shall see whether it is or not soon enough.

Posted by: Queen LeQueefa 2nd February 2017, 11:16 PM

Unless we have vaginas, our opinions are immaterial in this matter.

Posted by: The Sultan 2nd February 2017, 11:57 PM

Yup and thats why I haven't thought about it much until now tbh, I just think of it in terms of potential human lives being extinguished and it is sad but I agree it is a necessary thing to happen both for the welfare of the child and the mother in abortion cases as I said.

And yes I ageee, the power to change or keep abortion laws should be decided by females, certainly not males like most of the Trump administration.

Posted by: Suedehead2 3rd February 2017, 08:02 AM

Does that mean that women MPs shouldn't have voted on the age of consent for gay men?

Posted by: Queen LeQueefa 3rd February 2017, 08:35 AM

The number of men in politics far outstrips women, and besides, to be perfectly honest only gay men should have had an opinion on that - but that is an impracticability.

Posted by: Suedehead2 5th February 2017, 03:33 PM

As nobody else has done so, I might as well mention the latest lies to come from the Trump camp. One of his advisers, Kellyanne Conway, the woman responsible for the phrase "alternative truth", criticised reporters in a television interview for not mentioning the similarities between Trump's ban on people arriving from seven specific countries with Obama's response to the Bowling Green massacre.

There are several reasons for this "failure". First, there was no Bowling Green massacre in the first place, so Obama couldn't possibly have responded to it. What actually happened is that two people from a place called Bowling Green were convicted of terrorist-related offences. Those offences did not include any plans for attacks on American soil, let alone any actual attack. Obama did not respond to the convictions with a ban. He merely ordered extra checks on would-be arrivals from Iraq as that was the country of origin of the two people concerned.

Of course, she could just have been hopelessly confused and misinformed. On the other hand, it could have been more sinister and a further example of alternative truth. The interviewer didn't challenge her, but that is not really surprising. It is reasonable to assume that the interviewer's initial reaction would have been to think "What Bowling Green massacre? I don't remember such an attack." However, asking her what she was talking about could have made the interviewer look stupid if Conway had gone on to provide further details of a genuine massacre. Therefore, it was probably safer to keep quiet.

As a result, Trump's team - even if accidentally - has now identified a further way of spreading their lies. Just make up an event on the assumption that it is unlikely that an interviewer could possibly prove immediately that said event didn't happen.

While on the subject of Trump's ban, his response to the latest legal judgement against him was typically unpresidential with him describing the judge involved as a "so-called judge". He still seems to think that the president should somehow be above the law. Somebody needs to try and get it through Trump's thick skull that he is bound by the law just the same as anybody else.

Posted by: Conderella 5th February 2017, 03:56 PM

That woman and the whole team is a bunch of class A morons. What else is new

Posted by: Qween 5th February 2017, 04:17 PM

Kellyanne Conway is the TRUE STAR of this wagon train to hell. I have to give her some respect for how masterfully she manipulates the media and how they report stories, even if it's utterly abhorrent and she is doing a huge disservice to herself, her fellow American's, the future of her country and indeed the world and of course her GENDER to boot.

Posted by: Silas 5th February 2017, 06:39 PM

Kellyanne Conjob is terrifying and yet somehow not even the worst thing about this past fortnight

Posted by: Count Olaf 6th February 2017, 03:44 PM

Trump has now said ANY negative poll is fake news...

Extremtly worrying that he can easily disregard anything that disagrees with him just to protect his ego. Of course there is the actual fact that polls are becoming less accurate as has been seen with Brexit and both the UK and US election but, again, the manner in which he makes the point is scary. The fact that he says that ALL negative polls shouldn't be listened to and that he only mentions the polls that are negative to him too.

Posted by: Suedehead2 6th February 2017, 05:54 PM

The American election polls said that Hillary Clinton would win the popular vote. She did.

Posted by: James' Guitar 6th February 2017, 06:03 PM

yes polls are never accurate and social media is never a good signal as to who may be the winning majority.

Posted by: Brett-Butler 8th February 2017, 08:36 PM

So Donald Trump has managed to go all Machiavelli on us with his war on the media, with the media shooting themselves, and more importantly, the entire country, in the foot.

So on Monday, Donald Trump, being Donald Trump, told a blatant lie. He said that terrorist attacks are so widespread that the "dishonest media" weren't even reporting them. A list of 78 attacks were later posted which the White House said the media did not report. Now this list included some terrorist attacks that everyone knows, like the ones in Nice, Orlando & San Bernadino that were hardly off the news when they happened, so the media have been spending the last few days gleefully pointing out that yes indeed, they did indeed cover all of these terror attacks, and have been running articles listing all the times that they did indeed cover these stories. Hey, look at that Trump guy, he's so stupid!

Yet at no point have I hardly anyone make this point - maybe this is exactly what he wanted the media to do.

Think about it - he has just convinced nearly every media to spend the next few days writing about all the terror attacks that have taken place in the past few years, and for the next few days it will be all that will be on anyone's mind. His controversial "Muslim ban" was brought in on the claim that it would stop terrorists from entering the country, and with the media helpfully reminding everyone of all the terrorist attacks that have happened in the past few years (many of which had links to Islamic extremists), he is going to get the public firmly on his side, especially as the Order goes through the courts.

When it comes to Trump and his team, nothing he does is ever by accident. Even the things that look like mistakes are Machiavellian mind games, creating zero-sum games where he cannot lose.

Posted by: Suedehead2 8th February 2017, 08:42 PM

It is also worth looking at any new mad executive orders issued while the press's attention is elsewhere.

Posted by: Qassändra 8th February 2017, 08:58 PM

This point has been made countless times within the media since November! Like, to the point where it's almost a tired meme verging on having been discredited - (try searching "distract from:stephenkb" on Twitter for a track of how long it's been going)

The idea that the Muslim ban was an attempt to distract the media rather than a main policy of his is...not really one that stands up. The man (by a great deal of evidence) generally has the beliefs of the last person he spoke to. His tweets all evidence a man who reacts with a knee jerk rather than careful considered analysis of how he can be Machiavellian. The number of situations where there has been no conceivable advantage in what's he's been tweeting, or his actions...how did it help him to brag about his crowd sizes in front of the CIA Memorial Wall? Certainly not his relationship with the CIA, which was the whole aim of the event.

And for what it's worth the US media is doing a pretty good job of highlighting other stuff that's apparently being distracted from - take the coverage of how the Republicans have painted themselves into a corner over abolishing Obamacare. It may be the case that media coverage and discussion of what he does is helping him, but all the testimony from people who've worked with him, his near-pathological inability to stick to a message (the deeply telling anecdotes from his team pre-election are pretty insightful on this - http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/10/trump-campaign-final-days.html) and how he's responded to immediate scandal is that this is a lizard brain who shoots from the hip rather than engineering a grand strategy.

There isn't a grand strategy here. The US is actually led by a volatile manchild. Which if anything is more terrifying.

Posted by: Qassändra 8th February 2017, 09:04 PM

Bannon however - possibly.

Posted by: Brett-Butler 8th February 2017, 09:12 PM

Oh, I'm well aware of Trump using the distraction strategy throughout his campaign and well into him taking office, but my point is that this one is less of a distraction and more towards playing the media to inadvertently drum up public support for his unpopular executive orders.

Posted by: Doctor Blind 8th February 2017, 10:44 PM

This discussion reminds of the Adam Curtis documentary where he stated that Vladislav Surkov (one of President Putin's advisers) was simply orchestrating a circus of misinformation designed to keep people totally confused and disorientated.

To quote AC

Posted by: Qassändra 8th February 2017, 11:35 PM

My point is that he isn't doing it as a strategy, and never really has been - before or after the campaign. It's a mistake to treat him as a rational actor rather than an instinctive reactor with a hypersensitivity to slights, a thin-skinned pride and a taste for vengeance. He only has strategy to the extent the last person he spoke to has strategy. Even then he is highly prone to revealing 'behind the scenes' justifications in the process of doing the few things that aren't knee-jerk responses - https://twitter.com/alexandraerin/status/823755209537110016 is pretty illuminating in that regard.

Bannon certainly seems to have a grasp of your theory, so it's happening sometimes. But he's not always the last person Trump spoke to - and Trump doesn't always get when not to say what Bannon told him. It would be a real mistake to view everything Trump does through the lens of a Machiavellian conspiracy.

Posted by: Rooney 9th February 2017, 11:56 PM

SEE YOU IN COURT THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!

I genuinely had to double check that was not posted off of a parody account

Posted by: Cody Slayberry 10th February 2017, 12:23 AM

Posted by: Conderella 10th February 2017, 07:59 AM

See you on page 12 of this thread

Posted by: Qassändra 10th February 2017, 12:57 PM

good luck with booking that page 12 u speak of

Posted by: Rooney 17th February 2017, 12:12 AM

http://www.thepoke.co.uk/2017/02/16/donald-trump-talking-uranium-funniestscariest-thing-will-see-day/

Funny that even Fox News is turning on Trump now.

Posted by: Suedehead2 19th February 2017, 10:21 PM

These invented terrorist attacks keep on coming. Now Trump himself is at it...

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/19/sweden-trump-cites-non-existent-terror-attack

Posted by: Cody Slayberry 19th February 2017, 10:23 PM

the MelFest relevancy *.*

Posted by: Doctor Blind 19th February 2017, 10:35 PM

The last terrorist attack in Sweden was actually conducted in January 2016 by a group of neo-nazis on a refugee centre in Gothenburg. The irony-o-meter has probably just blown up in Trump's face and actually improved it.

Posted by: popchartfreak 24th February 2017, 08:54 PM

I came across Trump's "To Do" list on-line.

http://www.rense.com/general37/char.htm

he's getting around to a couple of them at the moment (building up the military), but tick, tick, tick, tick and tick for most already. The man's a fast worker.

Posted by: John Thronton 3rd March 2017, 01:20 PM

Trump truly sucks, he has made way more blunders than his days in the Oval office!

Posted by: Melobrama 16th March 2017, 02:10 AM

So Muslim ban 2.0 has been blocked, again... this and Geert Wilders failing tonight is pleasing news. Just waiting for the inevitable Muslim ban 3.0 now though.

Posted by: Peenus Fly Trap 16th March 2017, 02:19 AM

Lmao!!

Posted by: Cody Slayberry 16th March 2017, 02:52 AM

Which means Trump is going to fire another attorney general and hire someone who he can force to agree with him

Posted by: Silas 16th March 2017, 04:08 AM

Pah hahahahahaha

Posted by: popchartfreak 17th March 2017, 07:08 PM

meanwhile his senior generals are all slowly being implicated in corruption, nazism membership, being paid by the Russian State while still officially covered by US Secrets law, and lying about being registered to vote in 2 states to name just 4. That's just scratching the obvious surface.

It can't be long before the cases against them are pretty watertight, they get targeted, and we get a drip drip of plea bargains as they all turn on the Big Dumbo - although to be fair maybe the only thing Trump is guilty of is greed, gross stupidity and being utterly repulsive as a human being.

Hooray!

Posted by: Riser 21st March 2017, 01:55 AM

My favorite border wall meme

Posted by: Maurice! 24th March 2017, 07:54 PM

Trumpcare vote has been cancelled!

Posted by: Cody Viall 25th March 2017, 05:46 AM

lmao the Trump presidency is like the Cheek 2 Cheek era

completely pointless and a giant flop and the gays aren't here for it, the only people who are here for it are 80 year old white male aristocrats who bathe in taxpayers' money

2020 is America's Joanne

calling it now

Posted by: Peenus Fly Trap 25th March 2017, 12:22 PM

But ain't no one hurr for Joanne either!!

Posted by: ♀Cody Viall♀ 7th April 2017, 04:34 AM

So trump just bombed Syria

Posted by: common sense 7th April 2017, 09:23 AM

Rightly so too. Chemical attacks on civilians cannot go unpunished. He should send ground troops in too and then sort that little idiot out in North Korea. A few missiles there would sort him out.

Posted by: Emperor Silas 7th April 2017, 09:50 AM

That would be war crimes. The Geneva Convention is still a thing


Ooooh actually. Locking him up in The Hague would get rid of him 🤔

Posted by: Suedehead2 7th April 2017, 10:05 AM

Yes, because it's worked so well in Iraq and Libya hasn't it?

Posted by: Rooney 7th April 2017, 11:05 AM

I think military action is the right course of action, and I suspect Clinton would have done exactly the same too if she were President. I don't think it needs ground troops yet, but the situation with Russia and Syria is just a joke. What is the point of sanctions if Russia can just veto them.

It will be interesting to see how the situation plays out now, I guess probably more bombings and the EU getting involved too. Very interesting how the far right/left seem to be against the bombings.

Posted by: popchartfreak 7th April 2017, 11:40 AM

because that worked out so well last time in Iraq.... ISIS anyone? half a million dead? Putin supports Assad. So USA vs Russia? That will work so well, 2 fascist nutters mad at each other.

"sort" that idiot in N Korea by dropping missiles? You mean the nutter with nuclear weapons and an itchy trigger finger right next to South Korea, democratic country?

Oh that can only turn out well too. You voted for Brexit didn't you? Obviously not thinking things through is habitual. Either that or you love to see innocent people die, which kind of goes against your first 2 sentences.

Posted by: PeaceMob 7th April 2017, 12:09 PM

I think more military action may be the only way possible now. Assad NEEDS to go.

Also the alt-right are in meltdown over this btw, they're turning against Trump. I think Trump made the right decision here, even better that he didn't feel the pressure to tell the media yesterday exactly how he would respond to the Syrian chemical weapons attack except that he would respond, well now we know.

Posted by: Rooney 7th April 2017, 12:29 PM

I suspect it's because the alt-right want to use Assad to defeat ISIS. Which is absolutely terrible logic.

Posted by: PeaceMob 7th April 2017, 01:39 PM

Spot on.

Posted by: Envoirment 7th April 2017, 03:17 PM

Destorying the base that carried out the chemical attacks was the right choice. The videos from the chemical attack are absolutely heartbreaking and anyone who uses such a thing should have that capability destroyed.

Unfortuantely, tensions with Russia will increase further and ISIS are already taking advantage of a weakening of Assad's power. Increased miltary action may be needed now. It's a big mess of a situation sadly and only ones to suffer will be the people of Syria. I really hope the situation there will be solved in the near future.

Posted by: Brett-Ocat 7th April 2017, 06:14 PM

I don't know enough about the Syrian conflict to make any comment on whether Trump and the US has made the right move by bombing following the chemical attacks, so I am going to do something that no person has ever done on the internet - show a bit of humility by not commenting on something I don't feel qualified to talk about. (Although Assad doesn't seem like a nice fellow).

What I do find interesting however, is the amount of cognitive dissonance that Trump's attacks on Syria have induced across everyone on the political spectrum.
- Many of the far-right/white nationalist/alt-right figureheads (Spencer, Duke, Hopkins, et al) have disavowed him for attacking Syria.
- The liberal leaning news network MSNBC has PRAISED Trump for his actions, and I've seen Tweets from Syrian refugees (highlighted by the BBC) who have also praised Trump for his actions (normally prefaced with the "I've never supported Trump, but..." disclaimer).
- Lots of countries have praised Trump's actions, including some that I hadn't expected to come to their defense (including Germany and Canada).
- the fact that America is fighting against the side that Russia are on is causing much confusion amongst those who called Trump a Putin puppet only yesterday
- All the Republicans who criticized Obama for his actions in Syria in 2013 are now seemingly fine and dandy with attacking it now (although admittedly, many of them weren't fine and dandy with it until relatively recently).

It's interesting times.

Posted by: popchartfreak 7th April 2017, 07:05 PM

well I have some theories for the wide-ranging responses to Trumps bombing.

The Alt-right are trying to spark a wave of anti-Islamic hatred, so handy to have an enemy you can dehumanise and use to drum up patriotic fervour. Trump has actually showed a bit of compassion for once (possibly through his daughter) and has so far done the sensible thing which is hit the machinery causing the atrocities rather than carpet-bomb and make it worse.

That humanises Islam, so obv the right-wing fascists loathe it.

The non-violent non-extreme countries are behind this approach because it's just about the only sensible response without escalation in the region, having failed to get the only peaceful alternative through in the UN thanks to Russia.

Russia are calling the pot black-arse, having been closely involved in causing the deaths of civilians here and elsewhere over the last 2 years, so a bit hypocritical to claim it goes against international convention. Ditto the Republicans slagging off Obama, and Trump slagging off Obama for not doing exactly what he has just done, having urged via Twitter (and with the help of the Repubs) to stop him doing that in the first place, although Obama wanted to show Assad what he would face if he didn't stop the murdering.

Trump, meanwhile, is well aware that the FBI investigations into his traitorous cabinet is about to start picking them off one by one for violations against the Constitution (the President can't do shit to stop this) and the law in general - some of them will spill their guts to avoid a harsher sentence, so there's a real risk the top brains behind it all (Hi Brannon, among several) will be going to prison before long. watergate dragged on for a year or two, I see this one running till the end of the 4 years cos there's SO much more dirt from SO many people. Trump realises he needs to try and get rid of the Russian lovin' cos that is going to come back and bite his arse sometime in the future. A bit of public opinion support may well distract what is going on politically....

Posted by: Bré 🐱 7th April 2017, 07:11 PM

Fairly sure this was part of the reason a lot of people voted for Trump (hence why the alt-right are turning on him to some degree now, because for some reason they deluded themselves into thinking Donald 'you have to go after their families' Trump wasn't going to bomb Syria).

Posted by: danG 22nd July 2017, 01:09 PM

Sean Spicer resigns as press secretary Won't be missed.

Posted by: Brett-Butler 22nd July 2017, 03:10 PM

Well, perhaps by the writers of Saturday Night Live.

Posted by: Suedehead2 22nd July 2017, 04:02 PM

Spicer's replacement is Anthony Scaramucci I hope he will be appointing Len Fandango as his number two.

Posted by: popchartfreak 22nd July 2017, 06:03 PM

Surely he was Christopher Lee in the man with the golden gun?

Posted by: Capybréra 28th July 2017, 05:05 PM

This might not be the right thread for this but the Republicans have officially failed to repeal Obamacare yet again, with a little help from John McCain (proving himself to be one of the more respectable Republicans after all, alongside Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski who also voted against the latest effort). As I understand it the latest bills being rejected by the Senate means if they want to try again any time in the next year they'll need 60 votes to pass it (which is simply not ever happening). Healthcare is safe from being mangled at least until the next midterm elections. Hooray.

Posted by: popchartfreak 28th July 2017, 06:58 PM

hooray to that! It's the right thread for it, as they have tried every crooked wheeler-dealing way of effectively killing poor Americans, including not even telling people elected to vote on these things what they were actually voting for.

McCain should vote that way, I wonder if the twitter-storm of criticism from previous well-wishers and comments of being a hero had an effect. First time Trump has called him a hero, for instance, which says it all.

Posted by: Suedehead2 31st July 2017, 08:21 PM

Ah well, he didn't last long. This White House really is totally dysfunctional.

Posted by: Brett-Butler 8th August 2017, 09:17 PM

If you'd like, I can forward you on the address of the nearest Confessional so you can make your peace with God before the inevitable apocalyptic event that's upon us.

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 8th August 2017, 10:41 PM

Utterly terrifying. We'd better have nothing to do with this conflict when the US goes steamrolling in.

Posted by: popchartfreak 9th August 2017, 09:51 AM

Yeah, Trump, he's sane.

I wonder if the Republicants will suddenly see a sense of urgency to start impeachment proceedings as they face bombs on US territory as Trump's final last desperate action to divert attention from his allegedly treacherous actions now that tweeting and lying doesn't work anymore to hide his forthcoming confirmations of guilt...

Posted by: commonsense 9th August 2017, 10:10 AM

Trump won't do a thing unless North Korea fires first. It's just talk from both sides.

Posted by: vidcapper 9th August 2017, 11:20 AM

The US would like nothing better than an excuse to finally deal with North Korea!

Posted by: Soy Adrián 9th August 2017, 01:17 PM

"Dealing" with them may unfortunately involve having to explain why there is a smouldering pile of ash where Seoul used to be.

Posted by: vidcapper 9th August 2017, 02:37 PM

Are you saying that Trump thinks Seoul is in North Korea, rather than South?

Posted by: Soy Adrián 9th August 2017, 03:24 PM

Not what I meant, but I wouldn't put it past him.

If there is any perceived threat to the North, it will put Seoul in very grave danger. Either by nuclear or by conventional means.

Posted by: Brett-Butler 9th August 2017, 03:45 PM

The bigger issue is that the reason why North Korea has been able to get away with things for so long is that it has the backing of China, so if America was to attack North Korea, then there is the real issue that it could actually kick off a global war. The key to resolving North Korea is to cool ties between the two nations, to the point where China is no longer willing to protect North Korea, so Mr Kim can be overthrown and Korean reunification is possible. I do not think that Mr Trump has the diplomatic nous to do so.

Posted by: Soy Adrián 9th August 2017, 04:55 PM

Yep. China is definitely getting more tired of North Korea, and will continue to do so the more they start to looking like the might actually attack someone. Like you say, that requires the US to look like they're trying to maintain order and talk them down. That... doesn't seem to be the strategy for the current regime.

Posted by: popchartfreak 9th August 2017, 07:31 PM

yes, wars get started over the stupidest thing: man shot on a bridge. a dumbass president trying to finish off something his smarter dad backed out of. withdrawing a warship from protecting islands half a world away. sticking nuclear weapons on an island (near-miss that one, happy ending for an actual potential nuclear war).

That's just recent examples...

2 complete self-obssessed morons could quite easily drag everyone else into their own evil misery.

Posted by: Suedehead2 9th August 2017, 08:25 PM

As far as we know, no country has developed a nuclear weapon that respects national boundaries.

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 9th August 2017, 08:30 PM

Seoul and Incheon are rather close to the border so would be easily reachable targets for attacks from NK and in the line of friendly fire from the US attempting to attack NK

Posted by: popchartfreak 10th August 2017, 11:37 AM

Totally. And that would mean fall-out on NK from SK detonations, and China and Japan from either countries. So, insane leaders apart, no-one would be in favour of any escalation. 2 fat blokes who have never served in the forces and have delusions of grandeur because they know they are not in any way brave, smart and manly (just get minions to do their very dirty work) posturing at one another is 2 fat blokes needing a personal slapping down from more sane people.

Posted by: Suedehead2 24th August 2017, 01:45 PM

Trump's lies have possibly hit another high (or low depending on how you look at it). Earlier this week he interrupted his holiday to address a rally. He then tweeted a photograph of a large crowd and boasted about how popular his rally had been. Just one minor problem. Have a quick look on Google Earth at the area where the rally took place and it will soon become apparent that the buildings in the photograph are nowhere to be seen. The photograph is of a completely different crowd in a completely different part of the country. Why do so many Americans still think this idiot is trustworthy?

Posted by: popchartfreak 24th August 2017, 07:37 PM

Cos they are exactly the same as he is... except not an ageing spoilt rich boy.

That or he has mastered subliminal hypnotism via twitter.

I can't think of any other reason

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 24th August 2017, 09:21 PM

That's before you even consider the content of the speech, coz there was some SELECTIVE AF editing of his post-Charlottesville statement

Posted by: Suedehead2 24th August 2017, 10:06 PM

I can understand why some people worshipped Thatcher. I loathed the woman but she had a clear agenda and, generally, didn't tell blatant lies. That made it harder to argue against her although, believe me, I did so at every opportunity, using facts as much as possible. She was a true believer in the "trickle down theory". Like communism, it sounds perfectly plausible but human nature gets in the way so it doesn't work. Trying to convince true believers - in the trickle down theory or communism - that it doesn't work is another matter.

Trump is something different altogether. He constantly says things that are easily demonstrated to be untrue or contradict something he said just days (or even hours) earlier. So mush of what he says can be debunked very easily but his cheerleaders are just blind to reality.

Posted by: Baytree 25th August 2017, 10:08 PM

Thatcher had strong cabinet members who believed in what she was trying to do and weren't afraid to argue their case if they disagreed, like Keith Joseph, Willie Whitelaw and the late Ian Gow. They kept her in check.

Trump seems to be surrounded by sycophants, scared to open their mouths in case he goes into one of his petty strop and fires them.

Posted by: Capybréra 26th August 2017, 01:38 AM

Bumper day for Trump related news today it seems... all of these stories breaking in just the last couple of hours just to remind us how horrible a person he is in case anyone's forgotten already since the Charlottesville response / every previous day of his presidency:

- Trump has pardoned Sheriff Joe Arpaio who was convicted of criminal contempt after illegally targeting Latinos
- Trump has signed a ban on transgender people serving in the military (is this literally the 50s?)
- Sebastian Gorka, an advisor who has links with a literal Neo-Nazi organisation in Hungary, has resigned - at least that's one piece of good news?

All of this happening just as a massive hurricane is about to hit Texas. wew lad

Posted by: Meatball Cody 26th August 2017, 03:19 AM

I wanna feel sympathetic bc this is about to reach Katrina levels, but then again... Texas voted for Trump... so natural selection I guess

Posted by: popchartfreak 26th August 2017, 11:21 AM

Trump has essentially overturned the legislature who are trying to protect the Constitution with Joe Racist, and if they can't find any way to overturn or prosecute Trump (who appears willing to pardon anyone doing his bidding, regardless of the consequences to the Constitution), the WH is in serious crisis.

Meanwhile, the Republicans continue to support Trump in order to pursue their own agendas which look increasingly Russian-backed as evidence trickles out about individuals. The USA is very much on the brink of having to make a choice about their own government and what to do when it refuses to protect the documents designed to protect the Nation from this very problem. German media are seeing Trump as a fascist, and if anyone should know one when they see one.....

The transgender ban can be repealed by a subsequent President fairly easily, so that very wrong issue can be sorted. The problems above are much more devastating to the USA and it's future.

Trump meanwhile, having slagged off Obama for everything under the sun, including his response to natural disasters, is buggering off to another golfing holiday saying "Good luck" immediately after a 17-day golfing holiday. The Texas brass, who voted against Government finance for a previous Hurricane disaster not in Texas (so caring of them), are now demanding Texas get financial support from the same. Hypocrites much. Good luck getting the fat man off the golf course.....

Posted by: popchartfreak 1st October 2017, 08:11 PM

First they come for the blacks, the Muslims, the Mexicans, the very poor, and then they come for the gays...

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2017/09/27/trump-officials-discrimination-against-gay-employees-is-legal/1/?utm_source=ET&utm_medium=ETFB&utm_campaign=portal&utm_content=inf_677_60_2&tse_id=INF_fc69c9b0a60811e7897b1b4a01a12704

People dying in puerto rico, and the evil racist bigot in charge of the country is golfing for the thousandth time mouthing off about lazy puertoricans

It's going to take years to set right the damage done once this evil moron is impeached.

Posted by: vidcapper 2nd October 2017, 05:31 AM

ISTM no POTUS has attracted such ire since Abe Lincoln in the Southern States.

Posted by: Soy Adrián 2nd October 2017, 08:39 AM

What a bizarre comparison.

Posted by: vidcapper 2nd October 2017, 09:18 AM

At least I can understand why the Confederate States would hate Lincoln, but ISTM Trump is often criticised simply because he rubs 'liberals' up the wrong way, rather than for anything he's actually done?

Posted by: Soy Adrián 2nd October 2017, 11:17 AM

I'm going to ignore that and go straight in with the most "what on earth" Trump news in at least 12 hours.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/353355-trump-dedicates-golf-trophy-to-puerto-rico-hurricane-victims

Posted by: popchartfreak 2nd October 2017, 11:34 AM

No. it's because he's EVIL. He's just ended health insurance for 9 million children. he's done nothing to help Peurto Rico (they have hundreds of billions-worth of troops available) which is an American territory. Peopel are and will be dying. He has the power to prevent it and chooses to play golf instead.

If you think having concerns for the welfare of children's lives is just "rubbing liberals up the wrong way" then your morals are warped or you are misinformed bigstylee and there is no point discussing anything further with you because you are incapbale of seeing what is morally wrong and criticising it.

if you are just unaware, then fine, now you are informed.

Posted by: Poked Pumpkin 2nd October 2017, 11:35 AM

He's absolutely nuts and unbefitting of the presidenxy, as we all said all those months ago.

You cannot hire the world's biggest fat cat and expect him to become a Robin Hood overnight!!

Posted by: popchartfreak 3rd October 2017, 08:04 PM

All Men Are Created Equal. In theory only in the country supposedly usually leader of the free world....

Pink News on UN motion vote:

"It called for the death penalty to be banned “as a as a sanction for specific forms of conduct, such as apostasy, blasphemy, adultery and consensual same-sex relations”, as well as criticising its use on minors, mentally ill people and pregnant women.

The UN motion marks the first time the Human Rights Council has condemned the death penalty for gay people.
Of the 47 countries on the Human Rights Council, 27 voted in favour while 13 states voted against.

The United States voted against the motion, alongside Botswana, Burundi, Egypt, Ethiopia, Bangladesh, China, India, Iraq, Japan, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates."

Posted by: Brett-Butler 3rd October 2017, 09:44 PM

My scepticism meter started ringing when I saw that Japan was on the list of countries that voted against it, as they didn't strike me as the sort of country that would vote against a motion condemning such treatment of gays, so after looking further it http://www.washingtonblade.com/2017/10/03/white-house-un-vote-against-death-penalty-resolution-not-about-gays/ - specifically that it condemns the death penalty in all cases, and calls on all countries to adopt protocols aimed at abolishing the death penalty. Both Japan and the USA are two of the countries that use the death penalty more regularly than others, so you could understand why they would not defend the resolution (the US voted against similar resolutions sans specifically mentioning LGBTs in the past), but as there was no option to partially support a bill, it makes it look like the USA are in support of this treatment of gays, even though that isn't the part of the resolution that they have objected to.

I've made my stance on the death penalty rather clear on this site in the past few years, so I wish that the US would have supported the resolution, but the way their vote's been portrayed by some is quite inaccurate. I have a dislike for these "trick resolutions" that paints legislators in a more nefarious just because they cannot vote on a certain part of a bill or resolution for perfectly legitimate reasons.

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 3rd October 2017, 10:49 PM

Aaaaah, thanks for that extra information! It did seem pretty sinister to see the US & Japan on that list because the rest are pretty much exactly the countries I'd have anticipated would vote against this resolution due to the status of LGBT rights in vast swathes of Africa and Asia.

Posted by: popchartfreak 4th October 2017, 07:48 AM

Thanks for the additional info B-B. I also thought it odd about Japan. That said, trump's USA is attempting to make it legal to discriminate against gays anyway in some areas of life, so they deserve to be named and shamed. They also kill more of their own citizens (as individuals) than anyone else so hardly a shock they would vote against a sane resolution, however it's worded.

Posted by: 28 Brays Later 4th October 2017, 08:45 AM

The anti LGBT discrimination is a Republican problem in general, it's far from unique to Trump... there's a guy coming to be elected to the Senate in Alabama who believes homosexual activity should be illegal (and this is someone who Trump DIDN'T endorse!)

Posted by: vidcapper 4th October 2017, 08:49 AM

But you have to remember that religion still plays a significant role in the US, especially in the more rural areas.

Posted by: Soy Adrián 4th October 2017, 09:31 AM

And you have to remember not to make excuses for inexcusable behaviour.

Posted by: Suedehead2 4th October 2017, 01:02 PM

Sarah Palin endorsed him though.

Posted by: vidcapper 4th October 2017, 01:12 PM

I wasn't excusing it, merely explaining it,

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 4th October 2017, 05:16 PM

There was no explanation necessary. There's no excuse or explanation that can justify homophobia.

Posted by: Poked Pumpkin 4th October 2017, 05:18 PM

We already KNOW they use religion as a crutch for bigoted views.

Posted by: Suedehead2 14th October 2017, 12:59 PM

This sums up the lying toad rather well

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/news/donald-trump-fake-renoir-painting-story-tim-obrien-biography-chicago-institute-trumpnation-book-a8000161.html

Posted by: Chop-part-freak 28th October 2017, 07:29 PM

OK, word is that charges have been filed. No details yet but I'm hoping that my initial prediction in the early part of the year that Trump was a traitor who would be gone by Xmas can still come true. Fingers-crossed!

(Obviously unlikely, watergate was a mild case of bullying and breaking-in and tape-recording in comparison and that took 2 years to sort, but hey, got to be optimistic!)

Posted by: Suedehead2 28th October 2017, 09:47 PM

Don't forget that Trump is the most persecuted politician in the history of this - or any other - planet. He said so himself so it must be true.

Posted by: Poked Pumpkin🎃 28th October 2017, 10:11 PM

This could just be the start ey, like dominos.

Posted by: vidcapper 29th October 2017, 06:54 AM

There's another aspect to this that may have been overlooked : even if Trump was removed somehow, the people who voted for him still remain, and their attitudes may well harden in the face of what they'll probably regard as a 'liberal/leftist plot' to remove the president they chose. Therefore the most important thing is for an absolutely watertight case be built against him, as happened against Nixon.

Posted by: Chop-part-freak 29th October 2017, 08:48 AM

the evidence already in the public domain (errr statements by his actual children and the Man himself) is enough to impeach him, according to American law and the constitution. It's more a case of how much more there is that we don't know.

What his supporters want is irrelevant. The law is the law. The President is a servant of the people not a God pronouncing from on high able to do what he wants. More relevant is how many politicians currently in office go down with him, the corruption could be epic in scale.

Posted by: vidcapper 29th October 2017, 09:49 AM

So why haven't his opponents already started impeachment proceedings against him?



His supporters can't protect him, that's true - but they might be upset enough to vote in someone even more right-wing next time.

Posted by: Suedehead2 29th October 2017, 11:21 AM

Politically it makes sense not to start impeachment proceedings until there is clear public support for them. I don't think that point has been reached yet.

Posted by: Poked Pumpkin🎃 29th October 2017, 11:46 AM

Because the Republicans control the House and with Mad Pence the Senate. Why not wait instead?

Posted by: Soy Adrián 29th October 2017, 05:57 PM

I wouldn't expect anything to get seriously moving until after the midterms. It's unlikely that the GOP will lose the Senate as the majority of seats being contested are already Democrat-held in a real mixed bag of states, but if they perform relatively poorly a lot more people may wonder if continuing to support Trump is worth their while. If it ever comes to that, we can only hope that whatever brings Trump down also implicates Pence.

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 29th October 2017, 06:07 PM

Nothing will happen until the Republican Party remember where they put their spines.

Posted by: Soy Adrián 29th October 2017, 06:14 PM

That's my point - they won't do anything until they're sure that it's in their interests.

The only Senators who have really dared to criticise or undermine Trump in any meaningful way are those who aren't up for reelection in 2018, because it will be incredibly difficult for an anti-Trump incumbent to survive a primary challenge in most states.

Posted by: Chop-part-freak 29th October 2017, 08:26 PM

Nixon wasn't impeached on day one. the court case went on and on, people went to jail, and they spilled their guts, and then Nixon resigned. Then he was pardoned by Ford.

I daresay we can expect the same, and Pence will pardon Trump (unless he goes down with the ship too).

PS the only way they could vote in someone more right-wing than Trump and Pence would be to elect an actual Nazi with a swastika.....

PPS Trump has tweeted he is being targeted by evil conniving Democrats/Clinton and has demanded his followers "DO SOMETHING".

Bordering on begging his loyal Nazi followers to go out and shut them up permanently in a concrete shoes sort of way....

He's really not helping his case because a disrespect for the law (who aren't necessarily Democrats anyway, Comey certainly won him the election and he showed his gratitude by firing him) is just further evidence that he has stuff to hide. An innocent man would just let facts speak for him, not beg Cult Of Trump followers to do it for him. That's with an "L' not an "N", I stress, in the capitalised bits.

Posted by: Soy Adrián 30th October 2017, 12:36 PM

Paul Manafort, Trump's campaign chief, has surrended to the FBI as part of the investigation.

This is big.

Posted by: Poked Pumpkin🎃 30th October 2017, 12:39 PM

They all have great lawywrs though.

I'll believe it when I see Trump resigning or testifying tbh!

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 30th October 2017, 12:42 PM

Huge development. Be interesting to see the reaction of Fox/his base and the spineless republicans

Posted by: Chop-part-freak 30th October 2017, 01:06 PM

Yes. In the hypothetical future result of a President proven and found guilty of treason and lies how exactly could media that supported his every move every inch of the way crawl their slimy way out of it without looking equally as morally corrupt and bankrupt. Rupert Murdoch, for instance, in his quest to rule the media in Europe via Sky so he can poison the media here as well as the USA with outright lies and racism in order to get richer and richer and more powerful. Of course that could just be a happy bi-product of a dearly conscientious and caring man who just happened accidentally to run very right-wing papers and news stations that have been found guilty of hacking the phones of teenage murder victims, accusing innocent victims of police uselessness and subsequent cover-up corruption of causing their own deaths, and so on.

Just bad luck, obviously.

Posted by: Poked Pumpkin🎃 30th October 2017, 01:23 PM

Two charged with conspiracy against rhe US!!

Posted by: Brébino 8th November 2017, 01:20 AM

I don't know if there's a better thread to put this in, but some excellent news tonight as Danica Roem has won a seat in Virginia's House of Delegates to become the first transgender person ever elected to a state legislature in the US (unseating a massively anti-LGBT incumbent in the process). Good results for Democrats seemingly across the board in the elections going on tonight, hopefully this bodes well for 2018.

Posted by: vidcapper 8th November 2017, 06:35 AM

Yes, how dare he muscle in on the Left's turf...

Posted by: Popchartfreak 8th November 2017, 10:42 AM

Schoolyard "you too" response. How about some actual examples on how the left is in any way similar (and I presume you mean hard left, rather than centrist-slightly-wishy-washy-liberal-left....)

Or you could just deny and prove anything I said is a lie or any way inaccurate (Hint: you won't be able to)...

ya boo hiss you too, I'm going to tell my mum of you.

Posted by: vidcapper 8th November 2017, 10:46 AM

You did notice my smiley, right?

But if you really want an example anyway, in one word 'Venezuela'
.

Posted by: Buttered Muffin 8th November 2017, 10:58 AM

Oh, that old chestnut...

Venezuela is not purely socialist for one.

Secondly, it was doin fine until the USA sought to cripple it. Not many countries are going to survive that.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 8th November 2017, 08:44 PM

a sarcastic response to a comment you are unable to provide evidence against is still a schoolyard jibe, smiley rolleyes face or not (because it isn't actually a joke).

We were talking about the USA (and genuine democracies) not troubled states. So now give an example from the USA or UK where a left-wing politician has been colluding with Russians or enemy states. I think you'll find they are all right-wing though happy to be corrected with examples (cough, George Galloway cough)

Posted by: Brett-Butler 8th November 2017, 11:27 PM

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Althea_Garrison, who was elected to the Massachusetts House of Representatives in 1992 as a Republican, says hello.

Posted by: Suedehead2 8th November 2017, 11:35 PM

That Wiki page states that she was not openly transgender until after she was elected. Danica Roem is the first openly trans candidate to be elected.

Posted by: vidcapper 9th November 2017, 06:42 AM

How many times have I heard *that* one - "It hasn't worked because it's not 'real' socialism'.

The kind of socialism that pioneers like Marx etc envisioned simply *cannot* work because it attempts to crush everyone into a 'one size fits all' mold, which runs completely counter to human individuality. Talented people have no opportunity for advancement, while the lazy are protected from the consequences of their sloth.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 9th November 2017, 08:12 AM

While in capitalism its not what you know its who you know? They both work roughly on that principle.

Do you have a job? It seems a strange statement given such low unemployment and unfilled vacancies. I know when i was on the dole i had to not mention my degree in order to end up working in factories just to get some money rather than wait for something more suitable for someone of my immense talents and skills to come along.....

Posted by: Brett-Butler 9th November 2017, 08:24 PM

Do you count being a host of a talk show on Putin's propaganda network, Russia Today, as collusion with the Russians? If so, then as of today you can add http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/homenews/15652599.Salmond_to_host_TV_show_on_Russian_propaganda_channel/ to that list.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 10th November 2017, 08:47 AM

collusion? hmmmm. Makes you less reputable if you are being paid by the Russian State. That's Trump's entire administration's problem (ker-CHING!)

A bit like criticising prostitution when you get paid by a brothel. So you just avoid the entire subject entirely and answer an entirely different question instead. Entirely.

Posted by: Buttered Muffin 10th November 2017, 12:35 PM

It is true.

Now please respond to how any country wouls hold up under economic attacks from U.S when the economy. Oops.

Posted by: vidcapper 10th November 2017, 12:40 PM

Do you have a specific economic attack in mind, or are you just fishing?

Posted by: Buttered Muffin 10th November 2017, 12:48 PM

You never do any research and just say the other pwrson is wrong. Why?

http://www.mintpressnews.com/us-led-economic-war-not-socialism-tearing-venezuela-apart/218335/

I give you one. Do the rest o the research yourself.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 25th November 2017, 10:13 AM

I see the USA is one of 3 countries (Hi Ukraine!) voting to condemn nazism in a UN resolution on the grounds that it might inhibit freedom of expression.

Oh, if only FDR had seen the light and realised that Hitler was just expressing his opinion that exterminating millions of human beings is just a perfectly justifiable lifestyle choice......

Or, the White House is a fan of Nazis.

One or the other.

Posted by: Suedehead2 25th November 2017, 10:27 AM

I assume you mean "not voting"

Posted by: vidcapper 25th November 2017, 11:33 AM

I certainly hope so!

Posted by: Popchartfreak 25th November 2017, 03:42 PM

Yes not a not in there not-ably

Posted by: Brett-Butler 25th November 2017, 04:22 PM

The same resolution comes up every year in the UN, and every year the USA votes against it (including several times under President Obama when he was in office) on free speech grounds. The only reason it's even got attention this time around is because of the confirmation bias it maintains amongst those who want to view Trump as Hitler. PBS have an interesting article about this, and linking it to another UN article that the https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/u-s-opposes-nazi-speech-but-will-vote-no-at-un-to-banning-it.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 25th November 2017, 08:39 PM

Just to be clear. I don't view trump as Hitler. I view him as a confirmed fan of Hitler: source his ex wife and consistent support of Nazis. Racist. Sexist. Sexual predator accusations. Anti gay legislation. Anti poor legislation. Pro billionaire legislation. Pro Russian investigation ongoing. But not Hitler. He's far too thick dumbass moronic to be Hitler. That takes organisational skills.

Posted by: Brébino 25th November 2017, 10:18 PM

It's true that this isn't a new thing exclusive to Trump but it's not like we haven't already seen Trump refusing to condemn Nazis *cough* Charlottesville *cough*.

Posted by: Suedehead2 25th November 2017, 10:34 PM

He also took rather a long time to comment on his endorsement by a former Grand Master of the KKK.

Posted by: Brett-Butler 26th November 2017, 12:56 AM

It depends if you consider http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/mar/02/donald-trump/trumps-absurd-claim-he-knows-nothing-about-former-/. Nonetheless, it led to one of the most bizarre episodes of an already bizarre campaign, especially given that 4 days after he disavowed him, he claimed to have never heard of him, despite leaving the Reform Party back in 2000 because the same fellow had infiltrated that party.

Posted by: vidcapper 26th November 2017, 06:37 AM

What does that say about those who voted for him?

Posted by: Cody Cranberry 26th November 2017, 06:49 AM

One of three choices:

A.) they’re a Nazi (which is right about 60-70% of the time)
B.) they’re a supporter of Nazis
C.) they simply don’t care about anything, especially a good 85% of now disenfranchised Americans

I mean, hell, 95% of them believe the Second Amendment is more important than the first. THE FIRST.

Posted by: vidcapper 26th November 2017, 07:10 AM

ISTM you're taking this Nazi analogy a little too literally.

Most Trump voters are probably just conservative Christians, using their vote to protest against the ever more pervasive power of the Left over the media.

Also, I don't think the number of an Amendment is any indication of its intended priority.

Posted by: Cody Cranberry 26th November 2017, 07:25 AM

There was LITERALLY a violent riot that involved Neo-Nazis a couple months ago. Saying that this is an analogy is inaccurate because they’re still LIVING AMONG US.

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 26th November 2017, 07:31 AM

When it’s the grand master of the KKK, 30 mins to disavow that f***er is a long time. 2 days is a lifetime

Posted by: vidcapper 26th November 2017, 07:55 AM

My gripe was against your estimation of the % of Trump supporters who are neo-nazis, not that they don't exist at all.

Most people would not equate mere resistance to political correctness as a sign of someone being a 'secret Hitler-lover'. Also, they don't need to be told by the Left that being prejudiced is wrong, and indeed actively resent being patronised that way.

Posted by: Suedehead2 26th November 2017, 10:02 AM

I would consider two days to be a long time in this case, yes. Anybody with an ounce of common sense would have rejected DUke's endorsement within hours.

Posted by: Brett-Butler 26th November 2017, 10:55 AM

Looking back at my very late night post with fresh eyes, I realise that I didn't make it clear that I did feel that he took too long to unequivocally condemn Duke, so consider this an addendum to that post.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 26th November 2017, 11:21 AM

Trump has been supported by Fox and Breitbart, both peddlers of lies and with links to Putin and/or wikileaks (who are fed propaganda by Putin). The evil son of a bithch running Breitbart has said he wants to destroy the American system and he doesn't care who he hurts to do so, ESPECIALLY blacks, gays, Muslims, latinos....

They have supported and been involved in trumps policies, campaign and in the White House.

Arguing about the numbers of people who are and aren't Nazis among the voting public is irrelevant when the facts are he supports racist organisations, gets money from them, has racist policies (currently rounding up Latinos en masse, refusing to support equality - THE CENTRAL CORE OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE IS THAT ALL MEN ARE CREATE EQUAL. Without that there is no United States Of America, it's just another vaguely democratic country with an inflated sense of importance and warped values where poor people are left to die (this is happening daily unreported because individuals aren't news).

Plus, people are dumb as f*** and believe any old crap they are told when they are desperate. That they have voted in someone who will make them even poorer and weaker is of no comfort whatsoever. The human race recycles this old plot on an ongoing basis, thinking any change is better than no change - not understanding that the reason they are f***ed over in the first place is the rich people with power, or dumb people with power, or both. Obama tried to help, but the Republicans destroying as much as they can right now were the ones blocking progressive legislation for the last 8 years, and willing to continue to do so even if it means collaborating with Russians (see ongoing court cases which will dominate the media there for the next year or two).

So, no this is not about PC at all, you just don't grasp the seriousness of the threat going on to the whole American way of life and idealised democratic self-belief. Watergate sent America into political shock. That was a piss in the ocean compared to Trumpgate.

Posted by: vidcapper 26th November 2017, 02:45 PM

The one written by people who considered blacks 'untermensch', you mean?

Posted by: Popchartfreak 26th November 2017, 05:33 PM

Yes that one. Whatever slave-owning rich people who wrote it actually believed at the time, it became to be taken literally as a source of national pride, not least errr having a Civil War over it.

PS the openly racist side lost.....

Posted by: vidcapper 27th November 2017, 06:47 AM

That's not the impression I ge,t from all the b1tching about Trump I read here...

Posted by: Popchartfreak 27th November 2017, 08:15 AM

errr no logic to your statement. It's not bitching BTW, it's a clear warning of a dangerous unhinged racist, nazi-supporting egotist spoilt rich billionaire who raped his wife because she recommended a bad hairdresser.

Perhaps you don't see those as serious character flaws in a leader of the free world, and perhaps things like becoming a traitor to get elected is fine as long as you piss off liberals. Anything is fine as long as you can upset a few smug liberals, eh? It's only people's lives and the future of democracy what does that matter in comparison to the important thing, which is to get rid of that nasty PC equality crap. Who needs equality and reason, eh?!

Posted by: vidcapper 27th November 2017, 09:46 AM

The only part of that which is unequivocally true is the billionaire bit.



Hyperbole again. Well, two can play at that game!

I regard political correctness as akin to Orwellian 'Newspeak' which sought to eliminate opposition by changing the language to make dissenting opinions impossible to express.

Posted by: Soy Adrián 27th November 2017, 10:35 AM

I mean... when the main 'dissenting opinion' against what you call political correctness is the President of the United States, you can't really claim to be an underdog any more.

This thread hasn't been updated in a few months, but if you wanted proof that Trump is a wannabe fascist dictator:

https://np.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/5stvbn/president_trump_is_notsosubtly_threatening_the/ddhsyue/?st=iyybl5hw&sh=4196c529

Posted by: Popchartfreak 27th November 2017, 01:10 PM

Everything I put on threads about Trump is verifiable fact because I don't want to get sued.

His wife said he raped her following a strop about his hair.

His wife said he re-read Hitler's book constantly.

He has supported the KKK and Nazi parties in murders

He has called for the death penalty for 5 innocent young black men EVEN AFTER HE KNEW THEY WERE INNOCENT.

H e has gone bankrupt many times, been in hundreds of court cases (lost), and is in many current sex court claims.

Feel free to find proof refuting any of these things, or continue to stick your head in the sand because the anti-PC brigade are so desperate to get rid of equality that they will back dictators, sex attackers (self confessed), Putin, Wikileaks, anti-equal-rights legislation and legislation that attacks the very people they claim to care about.

Sadly, you won't be able to, because it's all true - not that daily mail readers would know, as the billionaire foreign-living (for tax purposes) owner of the Mail and his lackeys are part of the campaign....

Hugs and kisses.

Posted by: vidcapper 27th November 2017, 03:04 PM

PC is the *enemy* of equality - that's why it need to be resisted. It is intolerance masquerading as tolerance.

Just watch what happens when a public figure makes a non-PC remark, even accidentally : social media goes into overdrive to castigate them - that is intolerance personified!

Posted by: Cody Cranberry 27th November 2017, 03:12 PM

And racism/sexism/homophobia/transphobia/ableism, etc etc isnt’???

While I do agree with you that PC culture is generally toxic and full of overreactions, there’s a little thing called manners that I think all people should have, especially public fivures.

Maybe you should use them sometime.

Posted by: vidcapper 27th November 2017, 04:28 PM

I never said they *weren't* examples of intolerance (though I've never even heard of 'ableism' ).

What I object to is when some random group invents an '-ism' for themselves, and claims it entitles them to special treatment/protection from criticism.

Come to think of it, I've just declared Leavers a 'protected minority' (well we are on this forum, anyway), and Leaver-ism now makes us immune from criticism....



Excuse me? I may post controversial opinions, but I always endeavour to do so in a polite way. I only resort to rudeness in retaliation.

As for manners, they are something that should be taught by parents, not enforced by law.

Posted by: Soy Adrián 27th November 2017, 05:01 PM

You can really tell that you've never faced any actual oppression or discrimination in your life.

I see you haven't bothered to comment on the link I posted before - any thoughts?

Posted by: Popchartfreak 27th November 2017, 09:29 PM

OMG, someone worries about hurting someone's feelings - hang the bast*rds!

Or, let's say, make a non-PC remark now as an example and watch the Brexit brigade go into full throttle:

How can you tell when a Brexit-supporter is lying?

The mouth's open.

How can you make a Brexit supporter confused?

Ask them to walk and talk at the same time.

See, offending people is piss easy, anyone can do it. It's also piss-easy not to do it.

PS, I'm not PC in real life, I'm very tolerant of everyone, even those mouthing racist, homophobic "jokes" etc, and I'm inclined to make observations which some might see as offensive (I see them as being overly sensitive for observations that are not inaccurate and not meant with any malice whatsoever). That, however, doesn't mean I would dream of hurting anyone's feelings, and those in public have a responsibility. It's not the fault of considerate people that twats like Boris Johnson have no consideration for other people. So stop trying to blame others for pointing out their faults. As I demonstrated above, it's very easy to lump anyone you don't agree with into a blanket joke reference.

Posted by: vidcapper 28th November 2017, 06:46 AM

Does bullying at school count?

There was a *lot* of into at that link - did you seriously expect me to plough through it all?




This leads to another issue.

As you know, many older people were raised at a time when attitudes that would be considered racist now, were nothing out of the ordinary then. Even if they do retain such beliefs, most are too polite to express them openly.

What tends to annoy people most though is being told what to believe. Show me someone who claims to like being told what they should believe, and you'll be showing me a liar. Either way, surely its better for people to decide on their own to change their attitudes, rather than being intimidated into concealing them by laws. It's like forced religious conversions - people may put up an appearance of conversion to save themselves from persecution, but they haven't really changed.

The point is - does this make them as racist as someone who, say firebombs a gay bar, or beats up an immigrant?

Posted by: Suedehead2 28th November 2017, 08:38 AM

We are all constantly being told how much we love the royal family. I never have, and never will.

Posted by: vidcapper 28th November 2017, 10:27 AM

You're not a fan of The Smiths, by any chance?

Seriously though, the alternative of an elected head of state is not appealing, especially given who this thread is about!

Posted by: Popchartfreak 28th November 2017, 12:45 PM

The point actually is, no-one is forcing anyone to believe anything. What we are doing is pointing out blatant lies and discrimination (and yes illegal actions). Believing something is fine as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. Do snowflake liberal namby pambys actually hurt or harm you in any way whatsoever? No.

Does inflammatory race hatred nazi, KKK activists who want to actually murder all black people from the face of the USA harm people? Yes.

Your choosing to focus on some oddball moans about trivia rather misses the vital point entirely, and you still never say "well I know it's wrong to slur people due to the colour of their skin, and I totally support equality, but this tweet/news item/whatever is a little bit OTT don't you agree?" At which point we prob would agree.

It's the attempt to ignore serious issues under one blanket condemnation of PC as something bad (it isn't) that is everybody's ongoing problems with your comments. The only bad side of PC is where some people choose to mouth off at trivial matters of little consequence, or perhaps misunderstand the purpose of humour.

Posted by: vidcapper 28th November 2017, 02:52 PM

But by passing laws to criminalise the expression of certain (unpleasant) opinions, free speech is being undermined, as it must include the freedom to be offensive, or why even bother?


If they *act* on it, yes.

I've always found it ironic that they complain about the presence of blacks, when it was people just like them who brought them over in the first place!



This goes back to what I was saying recently - you expect me to explicitly state, line by line, my views on *everything* related to race & intolerance, and if I don't you automatically assume the worst of me - which, ironically, is itself is a form of pre-judging...



That's partly because I don't believe political correctness is necessary.

Most people behave considerately to others by default, so don't need to be told - and the few that don't, aren't going to change their opinions through 'nagging', so ISTM therefore that PC has no real purpose.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 28th November 2017, 08:55 PM

Drifitng off topic here.

But anyway, free speech doesnt include the right to incite violence and murder. That is evil. If you can't see that then you are condoning it. At which we go full circle to previous discussions, and it's pointless repeating it.

If you don't condone it, say so. It takes seconds to make your view quite plain. Literally about 10 seconds. If you can't be bothered to clarify your position why should anyone care what you think when all you do is drone endlessly on about people trying to make the planet a better place being "PC" and "snowflake" as if they are something the world needs to get rid of, and yet support the right of people to make it a worse, hate-filled place and never condemn any of them when they DO commit atrocities.

As I say, take seconds of your time. You can't bother, why should we assume otherwise. People draw conclusions just as you seem to draw conclusions on everyone in the world who is vaguely liberal leaning as being something you are against and look for posts (usually in vain) to try and justify your world view.

Basically, like most of the Trump-type-supporters, you are relentless in accusations, and light on facts and reality.

Posted by: Cody Cranberry 28th November 2017, 09:16 PM

Threatening genocide and jeopardizing the safety of an entire race IS ACTING ON IT.

Posted by: vidcapper 29th November 2017, 06:57 AM

Of course I condemn violence - I'm saddened that anyone would think I wouldn't.

The thing is - I am able to separate the free-speech right to say such things, while still condemning those who actually do. A concept that seems impossible for you to grasp.




*Plotting* genocide would be acting in it, merely threatening it is just posturing.

e.g. who hasn't casually said 'I want to beat such-and-such a person up', but if you actually hired a gang of thugs to do so, then that would be a crime, while the former wouldn't be.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 29th November 2017, 08:41 AM

...and the concept of a link between allowing hate speech and people acting on it is equally impossible for you to grasp because you put the ideal of unlimited freedom of speech (which doesnt exist anywhere in the world and never has in the whole of human history) ahead of your supposed (unexpressed until above) concern for the victims of violence. There is a link, blatantly obvious, 100% proven throughout history, of hate speech and violence. we see it on the news every bloody day for God's sake.

Second-point, hate speech without action is just as hurtful, it's emotional distress which is being caused. You have a daughter? Presumably you would be very happy with anyone mentally abusing her, calling her a useless waste of space, someone the planet wants to be rid of, and people campaigning to have her murdered, stop her getting the best jobs, all in the name of free speech, because it doesn't matter it's better to have free speech even hate speech?

Now, no changing the subject. Are you or are you not in favour of everyone in Buzzjack being able to express our free views along those lines about your daughter and no matter what we say you are OK with that? (a daughter who we have never met, and you profess to hold views that do what's best for her)

I sincerely hope you are not OK with that, BTW, and point made.

Posted by: vidcapper 29th November 2017, 09:30 AM

My belief is along the lines of the famous quotation 'I Disapprove of What You Say, But I Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It'


'The above is why we have libel/slander laws. You can say what you want, but if it is deemed harmful, you will have to defend it in court, and if necessary, pay a high price. Remember the David Irving case.



I address this in my above answer.

FYI, I don't have a daughter anyway.

Posted by: danVember 29th November 2017, 05:19 PM

In the latest episode of 'Can Donald Trump get any worse?' he's now retweeted Islamophobic videos from far-right wing party / hate group Britain First, an action that's been condemned by Downing Street.

Posted by: vidcapper 29th November 2017, 05:23 PM

I assume they were videos showing ISIS atrocities?

Posted by: danVember 29th November 2017, 05:42 PM

also, the videos are apparently fake

Posted by: Brett-Butler 29th November 2017, 05:51 PM

The last one definitely is - https://nos.nl/artikel/2205150-trump-trapt-in-nepnieuws-en-retweet-nederlandse-anti-moslim-video.html.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 29th November 2017, 07:49 PM

So, you are threatening to use slander/libel laws at the same time you are saying you want no-holds-barred free speech involving incitement to murder. Make your mind up, you either believe in total utter free speech, or all you are doing is arguing about where the boundary lines are. I say paedophilia, murder, rape, racism are all pretty good boundary lines to draw. How about you? Everyone should be free to collect photos or encourage others to do the above?

That, BTW is what hate speech is all about. People wanting to bring it on inciting much more stupid people to do what they know they will go to prison for. So it's JUST AS BAD!

No daughter? Goodo, that moral dilemma isnt one you have to deal with then. Which may explain some of your opinions.

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 29th November 2017, 08:08 PM

Actually threats are against the law. Section 4 of the Public Order Act 1986

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64

Racially motivated threats are also covered under hate crime statutes.




Nope! Just fake bullshit peddled by a racist skid mark on trial for hate speech next month in Belfast.

Posted by: vidcapper 1st December 2017, 02:56 PM

Trump set to come to UK in FEBRUARY

Calls for US president to be ARRESTED if he defies fury over 'racist' retweets to make low-key trip - as May minister says he is 'deeply uncomfortable' about visit

I know you don't like the Mail, but I thought it was worth posting this anyway...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5135659/Trump-visit-Britain-FEBRUARY-despite-spat-PM.html

Posted by: Popchartfreak 2nd December 2017, 09:25 AM

In even more serious developments we can now say another of Trump's former cronies has pleaded guilty to lying about illegal Russian meetings before taking office. Trumpgate is building nicely.

As I said at the start of the year, they all clearly guilty from evidence already in the public domain (never mind what we don't know) and the first to plead guilty get the lighter sentences in exchange for co-operating in investigations. Very much looking forward to Jared Kushner & the Trump juniors having the opportunity to prove their innocence in a court of law. I wonder if Trump will suddenly deny they are his children and that it's all their own fault, as he has with the latest guilty pleader.

Of course he could try giving them all Presidential pardons but errr that would look like he has something himself to hide from the American people and American justice.

Posted by: Doctor Blind 3rd December 2017, 12:55 PM

Quite enjoying this from the guy who got "Masterchef Synesthesia" to #37 in the summer of 2011. Once In Trump's Lifetime...

Posted by: Popchartfreak 3rd December 2017, 04:01 PM

Hard to keep up with events in the USA right now, it's so f***ing huge.

The Repubs passed a massive hundreds of pages tax Bill in the middle of the night with clauses written in child's crayon (I may be wrong on that point) which nobody had time to read, and which essentially taxes all of their supporters to finance the rich tax cuts, while also bunging in hidden regulation like killing healthcare, opening up pristine protected Artic wilderness to oil companies, and oh yes, Trump companies getting shitloads of cash in donations immediately afterwards.

His followers not that happy, at least the ones not too dumb to realise what he's done.

Meanwhile, Trump tweeted about Flynn, and immediately his lawyer tried to say that he, an experienced legal man, used the twitter account of the President of the USA to write in flawless Trumpese accidentally in which he admitted to Obstruction Of Justice, a criminal offence. One or both of them is going to be having chats with the FBI who take a rather serious view about being lied to, OK it might be down the line but the tweet exists and can't be withdrawn (by law anything on a Presidential account remains the property of the people of the USA).

Trump is either mentally unfit or the dumbest motherclucking dumbass of historically huge dumbass mothercluckers, you know, it's getting fairly obvious even to his supporters.....

Still, gotta laugh, eh?

Posted by: CodySleighBell-y 3rd December 2017, 04:19 PM

but... her emails!!!1!1!1!1

I’ve honestly become so numb to these. I’m just counting until Earth experiences another mass extinction by nuclear war.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 3rd December 2017, 08:51 PM

I'm hoping it's a very small asteroid landing on his golf course in Florida while he's playing in a direct hit on his head. What a fantastic Hole-In-One that would be! The only extinction event would be for LOSERS! Sad!

Posted by: ChRiMbO LeG PiPe 3rd December 2017, 08:54 PM

Bill Clinton's impeachment began with a trial of tarnishing a wman's reputation after she said something about inappropriate behaviour was it?

Now Trump, well his lawyers, has a trial on the SAME by a former Apprentice contestant. Let's see if this latest scandal sets up an inpeachment movement, well, another one.

Posted by: Cal 3rd December 2017, 09:36 PM

He won't be impeached. Republicans and their supporters would look ridiculous if they go against him now seeing as we ALREADY KNEW ALL OF THIS when he was a candidate. If he ever goes it will be a resignation because of his ego. He'll spin it as the nasty Democrats taking down a legitimate President. And you know what the funny thing is? His supporters will believe him and the United States will go into the next election and elect another fucking sociopath. The Democrats are up shit creek without a paddle and I have very little faith that they will pull something out of the bag for 2020.

Posted by: vidsanta 4th December 2017, 07:29 AM

None of this would be happening if the Democrats could have come up with a better candidate than Hilary!

Posted by: Popchartfreak 4th December 2017, 08:06 AM

Ah so it is Hilary Clinton's fault after all. Serves them right for trying to get a woman elected, the most-qualified candidate for President ever - but she made the fatal mistake of pissing off Putin bigtime, who then threw all of Russia's propaganda weight behind a moron traitor.

So yes, entirely the Democrats fault then. I think they won the popular vote even then......(and you do seem quite keen on people who got 52% of the popular vote having 100% control on policies...) ?

On the previous point this was replying to: There are mid-term elections and the whole structure of politics could change. Trump is only safe because he's backed up by Republicans who are equally implicated in dirt and money from corporations backing Trump. If the slim lead goes then so does his ability to avoid the pressure that's building up. Given Clinton errr actually won more votes, it wouldnt take a brilliant mathematician to work out that the most unpopular President in history (for the his first 12 months) is on shaky ground, not to mention the FBI will be coming after him just for the email he posted this week alone.

Posted by: CodySleighBell-y 4th December 2017, 08:11 PM

apparently #TrumpImpeachmentParty is trending on twitter burn y’All Pence is even worse

gotta go make another trending tag

Posted by: vidsanta 5th December 2017, 06:29 AM

IMO her biggest gaffe was the 'Deplorables' comment - hard to imagine a better way of uniting your opponents against you, than insulting them!

As for the 'Russian influence', I can't imagine the sort of middle-America voters who backed Trump, going for that.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 5th December 2017, 07:51 AM

She said basket of deplorables. Was stupid enough to use a private email server.

That's pretty much it as far as mistakes go.

That's nothing compared to what Trumpo has done. It's just that a large proportion of people are dumb and would rather see an idiot reality TV racist traitor elected rather than a woman or a black man, both of whom are amongst the best Presidential candidates in living memory. Trump is far and away the least-qualified and least-sane in history. Reagan had alzheimers and he beat him on both counts....

Posted by: Popchartfreak 6th December 2017, 05:05 PM

In todays developments, the FBI have found Deutsche Bank co-operating with the demand to see Trump's financial details. That might prove illuminating, not least the several hundred million he borrowed from them (and not paid back).

But to divert attention he's recognising Jerusalem as the Israeli capital (to inflame the Arab world, still hoping it's his "Get Out Of Jail Free" card if he can find a scapegoat to focus on) and also come out in favour of work-place discrimination as the freedom of employers to pick who they want.

What a lovely fellow he is.

Posted by: Suedehead2 6th December 2017, 06:52 PM

The BBC's supposedly balanced report in their news bulletins had a Trump apologist saying that Trump understood the Middle East. No other opinions were aired. They could have spoken to any number of people who have spent a lifetime trying to understand the Middle East, but who were still baffled at times. They might have been slightly doubtful that Trump could suddenly have become such an expert.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 6th December 2017, 08:51 PM

Yes, I have become very annoyed with the BBC dumbing-down of reporters who invite extremists on TV to air their corrosive views and lies and just smile as if it's an item about soap powder preferences, unchallenged. I'm sat there screaming at the TV, "Just state fact xxx or ask him about yyyy you dumb f***er".

And then I have to go and wipe my mum's arse in the realisation that what I am doing is far more worthwhile than what he or she is doing.

Posted by: ChRiMbO LeG PiPe 6th December 2017, 08:58 PM

Reminds me of the equal marriage 'argument', when BBC constsntly paraded incensed ministers on tv and ... that was it,not counter views ... and then more or less ignored the vote when it went through. Guss they were lookin for a USA style divide there for some reason.

Posted by: Michael Bubré 12th December 2017, 11:51 PM

The results of the Alabama Senate election are imminent. I hold very little hope that Alabama is going to deliver a defeat for Republicans even with a candidate as repulsive as Roy Moore but the polls have been surprisingly close so there's a glimmer of hope.

Posted by: Candlelit Snow 12th December 2017, 11:59 PM

Same here

Posted by: Michael Bubré 13th December 2017, 03:27 AM

...and the glimmer of hope came through. Roy Moore get fucked. Miracles do happen *.* Democrats' chances of winning the Senate next year just got a lot better.

Posted by: Candlelit Snow 13th December 2017, 03:38 AM

JESUS MAN ALIIIVE NO WAY!!$

Posted by: vidsanta 13th December 2017, 06:53 AM

My pet hate is when politicians are interviewed, and the interviewer lets them get away with lies and/or prevarication.

Perhaps MP's should be interviewed while connected to a polygraph & and electric shock generator - every time they lie, they get a shock double the time before...

Of course, this might result in a *lot* of by-elections.

Posted by: CodySleighBell-y 13th December 2017, 07:42 AM

me last year: *questioning why humans are the apex species*

13 months later...

Alabama:

Posted by: Popchartfreak 4th January 2018, 06:54 PM

Hilarious news today, as Bannon goes apeshit on the Trump "Traitorous" behaviour.

Bear in mind that both Bannon and Trump are supporters of racists, child-rapist accused, and far worse and former best-buds. But egotistical, nasty, vindictive racists gotta be true to their nature and it's going to be fabulous watching them tear each apart in court. Main difference is Bannon is sly, cruel and devious and smart with a plan to kill off the American political system and alienate non-whites and anyone who supports them, while Trump is stupid, pathologically egotistical, conscience-free, empathy-free, useless and aggressive.

Should be SUCH fun.

Posted by: Cheeselog 4th January 2018, 07:17 PM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42570555

Posted by: Shia LeMuffQueef 4th January 2018, 07:35 PM

Trump 'befuddled' by his victory
In an article for NYMag adapted from his book, Wolff describes the amazement - and dismay - in the Trump camp at his November 2016 election win.

"Shortly after 8pm on Election Night, when the unexpected trend - Trump might actually win - seemed confirmed, Don Jr told a friend that his father, or DJT, as he calls him, looked as if he had seen a ghost. Melania was in tears - and not of joy. There was, in the space of little more than an hour, in Steve Bannon's not unamused observation, a befuddled Trump morphing into a disbelieving Trump and then into a horrified Trump. But still to come was the final transformation: Suddenly, Donald Trump became a man who believed that he deserved to be, and was wholly capable of being, the president of the United States."

From BBC/ NYT

Who called Trump not expecting AND not wanting to win? He wad playing to lose, but Hillary was such a bad candidate that she still lost! #berniewouldawon

Posted by: Berrier Cody 4th January 2018, 11:21 PM

was it the realization that he turned humanity into a soon to be extinct species

Posted by: vidcapper 5th January 2018, 06:34 AM

I thought that was Kim Jong-un's ambition?

Posted by: Soy Adrián 5th January 2018, 09:37 AM

North Korea have been doing this for years and know full well that they'd be pulverised as soon as a nuclear conflict broke out. Trump is unique to American presidents in that he doesn't seem to understand that nuclear war isn't worth contemplating.

Posted by: vidcapper 5th January 2018, 10:19 AM

I have to disagree there - ISTM he's no different to any Cold War president, in that he would only consider it in retaliation, not initiate it.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 5th January 2018, 10:28 AM

No, he's clearly mentally ill, and experts are as we speak being consulted behind the scenes (being reported in reputable US newspapers). He has no grasp of reality, cant even accept photographic proof as evidence of things that actually happened, and even his nasty disgusting cronies see that he's nuts.

Cold War Presidents were sane, give or take the odd one with alzheimers.

On a lighter note, the divine Ms M...

"Nancy Sinatra and Joss Whedon liked

Bette Midler
‏
Verified account

@BetteMidler
11h11 hours ago
More
Trump & Bannon have turned on each other BIGLY. It’s impossible to pick a side. It’s as if Cancer & Ebola got into a fight."

Still a legend.

Posted by: vidcapper 5th January 2018, 10:36 AM

Surely that judgement is best left to professional psychiatrists though, rather than just people who don't like his politics, or him personally?

Posted by: Suedehead2 5th January 2018, 04:09 PM

I assume they are the "experts" mentioned in John's post.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 5th January 2018, 07:10 PM

good assumption!

Posted by: Shia LeMuffQueef 6th January 2018, 04:02 PM

Has anyone seen the 'gorilla channel' meme going arouns, and Trump's reply that he's 'like, really smart' and 'a stable genius'

Posted by: vidcapper 6th January 2018, 04:07 PM

Yet another new nickname? You change them more often than politicians change their opinions.

Posted by: Suedehead2 6th January 2018, 04:15 PM

I saw the article yesterday. The first paragraph is almost believable before it gets gradually sillier thereafter.

I think it's fair to assume that anyone who feels the need to tweet that they are really smart probably isn't.

Posted by: vidcapper 10th January 2018, 08:00 AM

Trump working short hours?

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/gywwpq/every-american-should-be-working-the-same-short-hours-as-trump

I find this extremely ironic - the liberal/left complain about everything he does, yet say he isn't doing *enough* of it? :

Posted by: Soy Adrián 10th January 2018, 09:23 AM

That's a seriously impressive way of spinning it.

Posted by: vidcapper 10th January 2018, 10:13 AM

Mine, or theirs?

Posted by: Soy Adrián 10th January 2018, 10:25 AM

What do you think?

Regardless of anyone's opinion on the President's agenda - it's only reasonable to assume that they should be putting the work in.

I look forward to the day when you don't try and defend him.

Posted by: vidcapper 10th January 2018, 11:17 AM

I thought it best to make sure.



Defend him? He is a thoroughly odious character - the most I've ever said is that he was slightly the lesser of two evils.

Getting back to my original comment - since the perception here seems to be that everything he does is wrong, surely you wouldn't want him to do *more* of that?

Posted by: Soy Adrián 10th January 2018, 12:25 PM

You frequently make bizarre contortions to try and turn the criticism back around to his opponents - that's defending him.

As for the latter point, I literally just explained why. In the post you quoted.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 12th January 2018, 10:16 AM

An interesting tweet to racist Trump (calling African nations and central Americans "shitholes") while inventing an excuse to avoid demos in the UK against him. I havent checked these facts, in much the same way that most British journalists havent. See, journalism is a piece of piss any moron can do it these days - presumably why they employ people on low wages to avoid inconvenient truths.

Kay Burley Retweeted Donald J. Trump
So, to be clear:
1. It was Bush who did the relocation deal, not Obama
2. Central London site owned by Duke of Westminster not US
3. South London is not a shithole*

(* just to clarify, Vauxhall is good enough for MI5, and is a short walk from Houses Of Parliament)

Posted by: vidcapper 12th January 2018, 12:04 PM

Are you saying you'd be happy for him to visit, then?

Or do you want him not to, just so you can accuse him of cowardice?

You can't have it *both* ways!

Posted by: Popchartfreak 12th January 2018, 01:51 PM

I'm calling him a liar. A huge f***ing liar who makes things up to suit his twisted personality. I thought that was pretty obvious.....

Posted by: vidcapper 12th January 2018, 02:50 PM

I never would have guessed you felt that way.

BUt what does that have to do with whether he should visit the UK?

He is a Head of State, and should be treated with the same dignity any other visiting HoS would receive - after all, there have been worse examples than him...

Posted by: Suedehead2 12th January 2018, 03:21 PM

This is a democracy where we have a right to demonstrate against visiting heads of state, as happened when, for example, the Chinese president came on a state visit. Trump should not be exempt from that just because his country happens to be an ally.

As for the relevance of the point about him being a liar, that should be fairly obvious. His excuse for not coming is clearly another lie.

Posted by: Shia LeMuffQueef 12th January 2018, 03:22 PM

Hillary was more neoliberal politics, but is FAR preferable to Trump. The only way Trump will be a blessing in disguise is if Sanders gets in in 2020 afterall.

Posted by: Shia LeMuffQueef 12th January 2018, 03:24 PM

Most journalists have awful grasps of spelling and grammar - some sports page is TERRIBLE and reads like they don't know the languagr.

A lot of journalism is now clickbait and/or, look at what these Twitter users said r.e... with no critical commentary, just a clickbait headline supporting the editorial line - people HATE Eastenders, blah blah blah

Posted by: vidcapper 12th January 2018, 04:17 PM

Oh of course - surely no-one could think I'd disagree with that?

Posted by: Soy Adrián 12th January 2018, 05:33 PM

I love irony.

Posted by: Shia LeMuffQueef 12th January 2018, 05:36 PM

I'm on a FORUM, not pumpin oot articles x

Posted by: The Snake 12th January 2018, 06:53 PM

When Trump become President I had hoped he would become better and that all the previous offensive comments were going to be in the past.

That hope has gone now.

Btw does anyone know how his industrial/building pledge is going at the minute. He said he was going to improve America's infrastructure, is there any sign of that happening?

Posted by: Shia LeMuffQueef 12th January 2018, 06:58 PM

In short: no.

He paid lip service to the plan after the railway disaster recently, but the main focus has been on a tax cut for himself and his rich pals.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 12th January 2018, 07:22 PM

quite the reverse. The poor areas, as expected, have been hammered by no support, by Trump making gazillions on cheap imports, on allowing oil drilling (his companies benefit), on getting the taxpayer to fund weekly trips to boost his own hotels, on not including any nations on his Muslim "ban" list that he has business interests in (even when they have more of a case to harbour terrorists than then one's he has picked on for no reason, shitloads of deals in his family with Russia, just appointed 2 senior jobs to Deutschesbank men (whom he owes hundreds of millions to) and so on and so on. basically the job is his own cash cow and that's all he cares about. This is illegal but the equally corrupt Republicans are able to hold back the damn at the moment (they get backhanders from associated organisations).

Most corrupt American politician ever, by far. In a class of his own. THE BEST.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 12th January 2018, 07:25 PM

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DTWjcvdWkAI5Mi-.jpg:large

Trump's Map Of The World...

Posted by: Suedehead2 12th January 2018, 08:35 PM

Be fair, he hasn't allowed oil drilling everywhere. He has made exceptions for some places. I'm sure the fact that he owns properties in those places is just a coincidence.

Posted by: vidcapper 13th January 2018, 06:46 AM

When I'm posting, Buzzjack highlights misspelt words...



Does building a big wall count?

Posted by: Popchartfreak 13th January 2018, 09:20 AM

Yes, Florida has been excepted because Michael Moore was creating a company to start drilling adjacent Mar a Lago

What a hypocrite Trump is, drilling anywhere is fine but not if he stands to lose money out of it. Crook!

Posted by: Shia LeMuffQueef 18th January 2018, 07:30 PM

HAve you seen the LIES from his doctor now, with Trump GROWING in height at age 70 and with his weight obviously lowered? Incredible and incredibly petty, just like we should expect from Trump.

Posted by: Doctor Blind 18th January 2018, 07:36 PM

..plus if he had actually a healthy diet he'd live to 'like 200', he's just got 'really great genes' - yeah nice one doc, enjoy your payoff.

Posted by: Shia LeMuffQueef 18th January 2018, 07:44 PM

I didn't even think it was legal for a doctor to lie like that!

I wonder what happened - Trump steps in, says alright, here's the deal, for this amount of money you say this script?

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 18th January 2018, 07:45 PM

On the corruption side, FBI are now investigating the NRA for being a funnel for money to Trump's campaign.


I hope they shut that f***ing shit show the f*** down! The collapse of the NRA would pull so much money out of republicans that we might actually get a proper bit of progress on Gun Control in America.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 18th January 2018, 08:11 PM

Totally agree.

Posted by: Suedehead2 18th January 2018, 10:00 PM

There's certainly something not right about his claimed height and weight. It's a bit like North Korea's claim that Kim Jong-Un scored eleven holes in one in his first ever round of golf.

Posted by: vidcapper 19th January 2018, 06:45 AM

There's about as much chance of that, as shutting down capitalism itself.

Besides, that wouldn't stop private donations by gun owners. Not to mention the issue of the 2nd Amendment...

Posted by: Popchartfreak 19th January 2018, 07:55 AM

There's nothing in the US constitution about having mass-killing weapons of war which weren't invented when it was written. That's just how the NRA choose to interpret it. Given Trump's disregard for the US constitution (and the NRA's acceptance of that) they have already lost any moral argument they may have thought they had. What they are doing is picking and choosing the parts of the constitution that suit their agenda, and the rest of population are just as justified in doing the same once it becomes very clear what has been going on with the Republicans.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 19th January 2018, 09:23 AM

speaking of not believing in the US constitution, specifically the "all men are created equal" bit, and as Trump heads to the golf course as the US government starts to shut down from inaction by Republicans, here's a tweet with todays Trump latest bit of satanic hatred:

"The President who was spanked with a copy of Forbes by the porn star with whom he had adulterous, unprotected sex 4 months after his 3rd wife gave birth now wants to allow "Christian" doctors and nurses to deny healthcare to LGBT people because they disapprove of that lifestyle."

So, killing people because they are gay is now US policy. That's to add to killing people because they are poor.

Trump is actually evil, official. Not just dumb, racist, hateful. Evil.

Posted by: vidcapper 19th January 2018, 09:51 AM

That's a red herring, since there was obviously nothing about *not* having them, either.



Either way, nothing is going to change, as there is zero chance of getting 34 States to approve the repeal of the 2nd Amendment.

Also, most gun deaths are caused by criminals who are not exactly known for obeying laws, no matter how they are drafted...

Posted by: Soy Adrián 19th January 2018, 10:14 AM

Killing someone with a gun does tend to be a criminal offence, yes.

Posted by: Suedehead2 19th January 2018, 10:29 AM

It's not a red herring at all. It is a simple fact that the drafters of the amendment did not envisage the type of weapons available today. Therefore, they didn't consider whether the amendment needed to be worded differently.

Of course, NRA types also ignore the opening words of tha amendment, viz "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State...". The USA now has a well regulated militia in the armed forces. Arguably, therefore, the individual right to bear arms has been superseded.

Posted by: vidcapper 19th January 2018, 10:51 AM

I meant people who were already criminals, prior to shooting someone - which you surely knew perfectly well.



Then how do you explain it not being changed since, despite ample opportunity?




And AIUI that very argument has been put before the US Supreme Court, to no avail.

Posted by: Suedehead2 19th January 2018, 10:58 AM

You seem to thunk changing the US Constitution is simple. It really isn't.

I'm not aware of a Supreme Court ruling on the armed militia bit. O doubt it would get anywhere at the moment as there is a right-wing majority.

Posted by: vidcapper 19th January 2018, 11:24 AM

My post I quote above surely proves I am perfectly well aware of that.

Posted by: Soy Adrián 19th January 2018, 12:01 PM

I'd be interested to see figures on how many gun deaths were caused by people who were already violent offenders.

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 19th January 2018, 08:07 PM

Overlooks the number of suicides by firearms by focusing purely on statistics like those. America has a much higher suicide rate than equivalent nations and a large number of those are committed with firearms. Suicide rates have fallen where gun control has been introduced.

Gun Control is about more than just pure crime statistics.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 19th January 2018, 08:14 PM

Prove that. I was under the impression that most deaths were relation-related or at least the victims were known to the killers.

More Americans were killed by toddlers in 2017 than by terrorists.

I believe the original point was for "more sensible" gun control, not "an end to". That is well within the constitution as each state has it's own laws.

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 19th January 2018, 09:38 PM

It's unrealistic to think that the US will have UK style gun control. But the NRA is blocking some really sensible moves like compulsory background checks, closing the gun show loop hole, waiting periods and removing high capacity military weapons from general sale. Moves that are well supported amongst both the American populous and among American gun owners.

Posted by: Shia LeMuffQueef 19th January 2018, 09:39 PM

What does the NRA get out of challenging gun free school zones etc? Doesn't make sense.

Posted by: vidcapper 21st January 2018, 11:42 AM

A new twist?

If only it was from a more reliable source, though...

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/01/18/worse-than-watergate-shocking-house-intel-memo-allegedly-reveals-fisa-abuse-by-senior-doj-and-fbi-officials/

Posted by: Popchartfreak 21st January 2018, 11:59 AM

Sorry, it's Breitbart. They dont deal with news, only propganda, so I'm not prepared to dignify any post with a hit to keep them in business.

It'll be bullshit anyway.

Posted by: vidcapper 21st January 2018, 03:06 PM

So it's OK if I treat stories from the Guardian that way?

Posted by: Shia LeMuffQueef 21st January 2018, 03:26 PM

No.

Breitbart is literally an extreme right wing fake news page. It is like the genesis of fake news. Now we kiw what type of exho chamber sources you read.

Posted by: vidcapper 21st January 2018, 03:48 PM

I didn't seek it out - the link was in a usenet post I read.

Trump should be called out for what he has *actually* said & done, but not for hearsay as well.

Posted by: Soy Adrián 21st January 2018, 05:01 PM

I completely agree.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/01/15/opinion/leonhardt-trump-racist.html?_r=0

Posted by: Popchartfreak 21st January 2018, 08:33 PM

You can believe what you like. You can believe UFO's piloted by pink elephants buss round the skies of Europe.

I will ask for PROOF...but you can continue to believe it..

Posted by: vidcapper 22nd January 2018, 07:31 AM

No-one is denying that he has made racist comments, but given the US 1st Amendment, they cannot be used against him in any attempt at impeachment.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 22nd January 2018, 09:14 AM

There's plenty of other stuff he is guilty of for that.

And they key part of the US constitution is still "All men are created equal" not "All rich sons of bitches are free to screw everyone else and ignore the law".

Posted by: vidcapper 22nd January 2018, 10:01 AM

You'd think that sort of stuff would stop him becoming POTUS in the first place.



True enough - that's a lawyer's job.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 22nd January 2018, 02:12 PM

What, you mean like the much milder, less crooked, impeached Richard Nixon was stopped being elected for crimes he hadn't committed? He committed the crimes while President......

Trump's predate his Presidency and have continued since.

Posted by: Soy Adrián 26th January 2018, 10:31 PM

It's come out today that Trump tried to get special prosecutor Robert Mueller fired last June, but his counsel refused and threatened to resign rather than carry out the order.

Not suspicious at all...

Posted by: Crazy Chris 27th January 2018, 05:29 PM

Trump's interview with Piers Morgan is tomorrow at 10pm on ITV1.

Posted by: Suedehead2 27th January 2018, 05:44 PM

I think I'm rearranging the fruit bowl at that time.

Posted by: vidcapper 30th January 2018, 03:44 PM

Alas, this one isn't true, but it is amusing :

******************

Judy Wallman Trump, a professional genealogical researcher in
southern California, was doing some personal work on her own family tree.
She discovered that President Donald Trump's great-great-uncle, Remus Trump,
was hanged for horse stealing and train robbery in Montana in 1889. Both
Judy and President Trump share this common ancestor.

The only known photograph of Remus shows him standing on the
gallows in Montana territory. On the back of the picture Judy obtained
during her research is this inscription: “Remus Trump, horse thief, sent to
Montana Territorial Prison 1885, escaped 1887, robbed the Montana Flyer six
times. Caught by Pinkerton detectives, convicted and hanged in 1889.”

So Judy recently e-mailed the President for information about
their great-great-uncle, Remus.Believe it or not, President Trump's staff
sent back the following biographical sketch for her genealogy research:

“Remus Trump was a famous cowboy in the Montana Territory. His
business empire grew to include acquisition of valuable equestrian assets
and intimate dealings with the Montana railroad. Beginning in 1883, he
devoted several years of his life to government service, finally taking
leave to resume his dealings with the railroad. In 1887, he was a key player
in a vital investigation run by the renowned Pinkerton Detective Agency. In
1889, Remus passed away during an important civic function held in his honor
when the platform upon which he was standing collapsed.”

*****************

Apparently it's been doing the rounds in various forms for years : https://www.snopes.com/politics/humor/horsethief.asp

Posted by: CodyOfTheWoods 30th January 2018, 04:04 PM

oh my god the narcissism I’m SCREAMING

I feel sorry for her

Posted by: Popchartfreak 30th January 2018, 08:07 PM

more importantly, despite a democratic decision taken by all US politicians to impose sanctions on Russia, and CIA warnings that they will attempt to influence the mid-terms, Trump has refused to impose sanctions.

So, he's not a Russian agent and they have nothing on him at all, no sirree. Not a bit. Not a pissing tape, not corrupt evidence of collusion not a thing nada. He is overturing American democratically-arrived votes and call himself King because he has nothing to hide. Totally not guilty of anything, and not trying to subvert FBI questionning of people who have admitted their guilt in colluding with Russia. I'm sure those just waiting to be taken to trial are just innocent, too. Nothing to see here at all. Trump has just been an innocent dupe. When he called out to the Russians during the Presidential campaign to find dirt on Hillary Clinton I'm sure it was just a figure of speech. When he went to Judge Miss Bolsheviks in Moscow it was just a warm gesture by non-Business partners, because Trump is always happy to go out of his way for ventures that dont involve making money or golfing.

Totally innocent.

Posted by: vidcapper 1st February 2018, 03:11 PM

What form would that influence take, I wonder?

Posted by: Popchartfreak 1st February 2018, 07:29 PM

same as last time of course.

Posted by: vidcapper 2nd February 2018, 06:53 AM

There were plenty of allegations, but without proof, they are just mudslinging...

Posted by: Popchartfreak 2nd February 2018, 09:55 AM

There is enough fact in the open already (and there is an investigation ongoing with people involved having already pleaded guilty) to treat is as fact that there has been collusion with Russians. You either believe that trump is utterly innocent of everything he is being accused of along with his supporters who get fired on a regular basis for refusing to bend the knee in worship to all his illegal doings, or there is a conspiracy involving all judges, FBI, CIA, British intelligence, politicians, military against Trump and all those dead Russians involved in the those leaked papers investigating Russian links were just co-incidence. Dead bodies and masses of data on targeted propaganda bots based in Ukraine is a pretty strong suggestion that it isn't mudslinging.

Feel free as usual to ignore evidence though and stick your head in the sand because it suits your world view, and I will refer you to your quote in the EU thread as being key to everything, so it's a bit ironic that you fail to recognise threats to democracy and due process....

Posted by: vidcapper 2nd February 2018, 10:15 AM

Pardon me if I believe that proof in *court* is what matters...

Posted by: Soy Adrián 2nd February 2018, 03:10 PM

You know full well that investigations like this take years. The evidence that has already emerged is pretty damning - I daresay that if it were Clinton in the same position, you wouldn't be so desperate to wait until it's all finished.

Posted by: vidcapper 2nd February 2018, 03:23 PM

However damning the evidence might be, the principle of innocent until proven guilty *must* apply.

I would feel the same way whoever it was.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 2nd February 2018, 09:50 PM

and yet you read and defend The Daily Mail who find everyone guilty of anything they dont agree with, with nothing having been proven. Hypocritical much. Why aren't you criticising them? They virtually have to write weekly apologies (hidden away on page 347)...

Why do you believe Leaver politicians who have proven nothing and offered no evidence?

Why do you defend someone where there is already clear evidence, court or not? The point isn't that he hasn't been found guilty in a court yet, it's that he's doing his best to kill off the investigation because he's President. If you happily support every leader then please explain why you have expressed views against some political leaders who have also not (yet) been found guilty in a court of law of anything? Picking and choosing....

Posted by: vidcapper 3rd February 2018, 06:57 AM

The Daily Mail is not a court, therefore it's rantings carry no legal weight.

IRO Brexit, nothing can be proved either way until years after we have formally left - ask me again in 5 years time.

RE 'Picking & choosing' - did you have specific examples in mind?

Posted by: Suedehead2 3rd February 2018, 12:36 PM

One of these days the rantings of the Daily Mail will lead to a case being thrown out of court on the ground that its coverage has denied the defendant a fair trial. We can only hope that the defendant is someone who is genuinely innocent of any offence - and that they successfully sue the Mail for substantial damages as a result.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 3rd February 2018, 04:49 PM

1. Yet you continue to argue that criticisms of Trump are not justified because he hasnt been found guilty (yet) but it's OK when the gutter press print provable lies and you don't condemn them. If you were being fair and consistent you would criticise everyone equally for crossing the line.

Example:

(3. Not one of yours but I'll give you the fair opportunity to make your opinion clear) How about that Bristol landlord that was accused and vilified for being a murderer and potential evil paedophile, found guilty in the gutter press...oops he was entirely innocent. You must agree that was reprehensible and the press were wrong to convict by media? They should just print the facts, not make assumptions? Not have an opinion about individuals caught up by chance in wrongdoings not of their making? Equally the Media is justified to report there is an investigation ongoing in the USA by the FBI which involves guilty staff working for Trump. That is a fact and should be reported?

2. No, I'll ask you in 12 months time because is that we were promised in the referendum. There is nothing on record about benefits not being visible until 2023 (or whatever date that is put back to fit in with ongoing changes in stance by the liars who made the vague promises). We were told we could stay in the single market and it would all be sorted in 2 years. Are you calling them liars as well?

3.

Posted by: vidcapper 4th February 2018, 07:17 AM

I am very much against trial-by-media, but unfortunately where Trump is concerned, that gets misconstrued as support for him.

2. You don't need to wait 12 months for my answer to that - I can tell you now what my answer will be : 'It's too soon to tell'

Posted by: Popchartfreak 4th February 2018, 09:45 AM

Your response would have more weight if you actually ever did condemn the gutter press for doing what you claim we are doing for Trump. As I've yet to see the evidence of your claim forgive me if I'm not entirely convinced.

I repeat, Trump is under investigation by the FBI and has admitted wrong-doings in his tweets and campaigning and is accused of multiple sex attacks (court cases pending because he's President and can avoid them) and has admitted grabbing women by the pussy whenever he feels like it because he's wealthy and famous. He called on Putin to discredit Clinton (failed to) and has disregarded instructions by democratic decision to put Russia on hold. Members of his inner circle have pleaded guilty to illegally meeting and working with Putin's cronies.

That is not trial by media, that is reporting facts. Do you have a problem with those facts being reported? Cos that's propaganda if you do.

Posted by: vidcapper 4th February 2018, 10:00 AM

We seem to be stuck in a pattern - you accuse me of something, then challenge me to condemn what you accuse me of. I then agree that I condemn it, and that settles it - but only until the next time you accuse me of supporting something I don't.

And just to make it clear, I do condemn the gutter press for doing the above - it's just very wearying to have to do it *every single time*!

Posted by: Popchartfreak 4th February 2018, 10:03 AM

Try answering the questions then.

Posted by: vidcapper 4th February 2018, 10:04 AM

What, so you can just accuse me of being brainwashed by the Mail again?

Posted by: Popchartfreak 4th February 2018, 10:49 AM

Why would answering those questions lead to that? I also dont accuse you of being brainwashed, I accuse you of not reading material from a wide variety of sources, which you have confirmed is accurate. All I'm doing is pointing out the illogic in your beliefs, say one thing then contradict yourself.

It's easy, as always, let me do it for you:

"Yes, under free speech, reporting those facts about Trump is entirely justifiable and speculating on the ongoing investigations. Until he's found guilty in a court of law that he has committed treason, though, it's fair to give him the benefit of the doubt, but he's definitely guilty of the facts as printed, which are not made up lies, unlike almost everything Trump says and claims (provable in every case)"

You can still love him to bits and choose to believe in his racist policies if you want, and suggest we all wait till he's found guilty (quite rightly) but you can't in any way object to verifiable facts being published and call it "bias". It's called "reporting".

Posted by: Doctor Blind 5th February 2018, 10:16 PM

Dow Jones reaches record highs. Trump: DOW up record high thanks to my presidency.
Dow Jones falls by largest margin in 1- day EVER (down 10%, 1600 points). Trump: *Silence*

Posted by: vidcapper 6th February 2018, 06:48 AM

Unfortunately his ego never changes size.

It's a wonder no-one here has tried to blame it on Brexit...

Posted by: vidcapper 6th February 2018, 03:00 PM

Duplicate - please delete.

Posted by: vidcapper 6th February 2018, 04:24 PM

More cynical exploitation by Trump?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42952519

An NFL star's death by an alleged drunk-driver has sparked a political row after it emerged the suspect was in the US illegally.

Indiana police say the driver who killed NFL player Edwin Jackson was a Guatemalan who had been deported twice.

Manuel Orrego-Savala, 37, was allegedly drunk when he crashed his vehicle into Jackson, 26, and an Uber driver standing by the roadside, killing both.

President Donald Trump tweeted his death was a preventable tragedy.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 6th February 2018, 09:57 PM

every drunk driver killing is a preventable accident, as is every accidental and deliberate gunshot killing. As he'd been deported twice it's fair to assume he was being chucked out long before Trump's legislation, and that he was back shows that thousands of miles of coastline are a bit of a problem to patrol.

So, yes, cynical exploitation as usual.

Posted by: vidcapper 7th February 2018, 06:34 AM

Much as I hate to be pedantic [Oh, who am I kidding ], a *deliberate* gunshot killing cannot, by definition, be an accident.

I agree about the cynical exploitation part.

Posted by: Doctor Blind 8th February 2018, 09:28 PM

23,860.46
−1,032.89 −4.15%

The Dow Jones is plummeting again! What happened to those record highs eh Donald?

Posted by: vidcapper 9th February 2018, 07:48 AM

Classic leader's mistake - claiming credit for something that is out of your control!

Posted by: Popchartfreak 19th February 2018, 05:29 PM

a top aide to Trump's Presidential campaign is about to plead guilty to fraud and co-operate with the Mueller investigation. Source: LA Times.

Tick, another one bites the dust.

Hello Donald, busy golfing again now the weekend's over after that pesky school shooting spoiled your fun? If only staff hadn't told him it would look bad to go golfing in Florida and he ended up having to watch Oprah instead...