I thought as soon as he announced the first member of his cabinet that he was setting up a new ruling elite to contravene the constitution.Originally Posted by docwra
Troubling that anyone who disagrees with him immediately gets the sack. Ask Sally Yates.
Those countries might be mainly muslim but there are many countries that haven't been banned that are also mainly muslim.Which just happen to be mainly Muslim.
He even stated in his election campaign he would ban all Muslims from entering the country, this is just the beginning.
Americans pose far more of a threat to other Americans than anyone else in the world
I really really don't think Trump is upto the job of being president and it is worrying but I still think the media are controlling everything a bit too much.
This video is quite interesting. Not fact checked any of this myself.
[Pedant]Muslims aren't a race. They are a group of individuals who choose Islam as a religion[/PEDANT]
Not its not, its just as biased as anti Trump media - I got about a minute in and had to stop watching. Thn I thought I should see what other shit he was banging on about.
He cites that its not a ban on Muslims, its a ban on countries with terrorists - except Pakistan, Saudi, Nigeria, UAe are not on the list despite producing large numbers of terrorists.
He cites the fact Obama banned Iraqi immigration in 2011 ...... he didnt, he slowed down refugee intake (massively), they were still granting VISAs. And it was only one country. That they were actively engaged in battle in.
Obama spent 8 years dropping bombs on Muslim countries ........ in two wars he inherited from the previous Republican administration. He also managed to remove all of his troops from both countries within those 8 years, hardly war mongering is it?
Refugee intake ....... there wasnt a war in Syria until last year, how can you compare figures from 2010 with today? Germany is taking in 1m refugees this year alone.
His example on Mo Farah? Incorrect, Mo can travel as he has dual nationality, its nothing to do with him being an athlete.
Sadiq Kahn saying Westerners will have to live with terrorism is "UTTER RUBBISH"? I dont remember a tiem whn we didnt have a terrorist threat, be that the IRA, ETA, PLO, Islamic Fundamentalists ........ how is that rubbish?
Canada screening single men? Welcome to November 2015: https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/...-plan-cbc.html
Quoting randoms on Twitter? No comment. Assassination taking long time? Hes pissed off a lot more people than just the Muslims, Im personally more worried about the erosion or freedom of speech and access of the press atm.
And I really cant watch anymore but Ill finish on Israelis being banned from Islamic countries - firstly, Israel is effectively at war with these countries, but more importantly the countries do not advertise themselves as being the leader of the free world, with a constitution promoting freedom of thought and speech. Look up female rights in Iran and Saudi to see how they compare, FFS half the countries on the list are dictatorships.
I get the feeling that this would only work if we could pursuade Ernest Borgnine to drive the Isle of Wight to Portsmouth hovercraft.
What he said,
Anything from Infowars is iffy at best. I'm pretty sure Alex Jones is an antivaxxer and it's always heavily laden with propaganda. Some of the videos are watchable, some of them seem to just be comedy though.
Regarding the erosion of free speech, America is highly unlikely to see that happen since it's enshrined in their law and getting rid of it would be fighting against the constitution and the judiciary, the simple reality is the president doesn't have sufficient power. The irony is though that the recent suppression of free speech within the US has mainly come from the nutjob black bloc, anarchists and far left. It was the far left that handed the whole "ban fake news" to end up being used by the far right, what a farce. Left or right, neither seem to fully encourage true free speech but it remains substantially better in the US than the UK...
As for Israel, well, yes I guess you could say they were at war with a number of Muslim countries but the primary reason for that is not because they question the legitimacy of the existence of Israel or because of the land grabbing or even because of the suffering they are inflicting on the Palestinians, it's because they have no regard for the followers of Judaism. I have a lot of Muslim friends and I know a lot of Muslims by extension. There is a very strong trend of utter contempt for Jewish people from Muslims though. Not all, but I'd say it was a trend sufficient to justify a stereotype of "Muslims seem to dislike Jews". The contempt for Jews shown by a significant number of Muslims goes back before Israel, a long way before. I don't really know any Jewish people so I've no idea if the dislike is shown the other way.
I know a lot of Jews living in Israel. They don't have a hatred of Muslims like the Middle Eastern Muslims seem to have of Jews. I say Middle Eastern, because I have a lot of Morrocan Muslim friends and they are a lot more tolerant. Sure there are some bad apples, but mainly more tolerant.
They do take the piss though... Counterfeit cigarettes are typically known as Hezbollah cigarettes. There was a jew who had such a bushy beard that they nicknamed him Osama. I do understand the plight of the Palestinians in Gaza, they are oppressed, but you have to understand the modern history of Israeli Jews. They have pretty much been at war with the surrounding countries for over half a century. Syria has backed off a bit because they have their own problems. Problem a lot of the Arab countries have is that they sabre rattle for a bit, but Egypt, Jordan and Syria can't forget that they got their asses kicked in 6 days.
I don't really understand Islam that much so can't comment on why Shia's and Sunni's seem to hate each other almost as much as they hate Jews. perhaps someone can educate me.
Personally I don't have a problem with anyone. Just want a quiet life.
I'm not sure we can get that with Trump though.
Incidentally this day last year, he was nominated for the "Nobel Peace Prize"
See Bercow has let his ego run its mouth off again about trump.
Where was all this anger and disgust when all the other crapbags from around the world have been here.
Bercow is still an MP though, he is entitled to represent his constituents ..........
Anyway, back to the mental cheeto face:
Donald Trump says any negative polls about him are "fake news": http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7564951.html
New York Times also is "fake news" (for two years no less) apparently: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7566821.html
Orlando and San Bernardino, Nice and Paris in France, and Brussels terrorist attacks were "under-reported": http://www.politico.com/story/2017/0...attacks-234718
The judiciary dont know what they are talking about either .......... these are stages number 2 and 3 in the well known book "Implementing a Fascist Regime for Dummies"
I get the feeling that this would only work if we could pursuade Ernest Borgnine to drive the Isle of Wight to Portsmouth hovercraft.
But being speaker should remain impartial?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
didnt see the wee dwarf get such a stiffy over much worse tossers in the past.
what he said
Agreed, but in what way does denying the leader of America anything actually represent them? A better question still is, as an elected individual his duty is to do what is best for the people - in what way does this do the people any good?
Well, I don't really see a problem here. The polls pre-election were wrong and if you remove California from the voting totals he had the popular vote as well. I honestly think these polls are bullshit; look at Brexit as well. It will be interesting to see how Merkel and Le Pen fair in comparison with their polls to see if the trend of polls being wrong continue.
Probably because even the New York Times isn't totally clean of agenda driven reporting that is devoid of fact, though I do think objecting to articles by crying fake news is a bullshit method. Next every article will be responded to with "yeah well you're a big poopy face" or "no ur mom"
Well, that is entirely opinion really. There isn't a very easy way of assessing the coverage levels on anything. I guess if you took a lot of time you could take the major news organisations and count headlines and mentions for the first month of something occurring but it's not really valid since it also depends on what else is going on that might be more important subsequently. I have to say the media was a little light regarding the implications of the Apple case relating to San Bernardino but that's not really to do with the actual events.
That's pretty ludicrous. So far, Trump has not done anything he a) didn't say he was going to do and b) infringes on the rights of US citizens.
The media is creating a shitstorm about how terrible everything is and it's all completely and utterly exaggerated and nonsense. Before I go on, the whole "fake news" is a massive problem from all sides. "Fake news" changes definition dependent on who is complaining about it - the far left gave birth to the term complaining that "fake news" is responsible for Trump winning, Brexit and the rise of "populism".
Its now been turned back against the same places that initially complained about it because everyone in the news is guilty of inadequate research on stories. The simple fact remains if you break a story or even aggregate a broken story that appears to be legitimate, until more facts are gathered it's highly liable to be untrue. Journalists have to balance out probability and perhaps they're a little too trigger happy with printing things. I don't think "fake news" needs to be blocked or anything, I simply think all journalism needs to be subject to a requirement that if a story is published which turns out to be false, a retraction must be published of equal prominence IE if a front page headline comes out "BUDDHIST TERRORISTS MURDER KITTENS AT CAT HOME" and it's complete bullshit, the retraction must be a front page headline "BUDDHISTS DID NOT DO WHAT WE SAID THEY DID".
The bigger problem is all this anti-trump rhetoric is just annoying people who voted for him and even a lot of people on the fence. It's getting to the point that if Trump did declare himself new emperor of America, a bunch of people wouldn't give a shit because they'd think it was just more media bullshit.
I will say the prioritisation of deportation for those charged with crimes seems to lack due process.
... meanwhile the UK Government is going to spend 60 million on an anti-right propaganda campaign. Why can't they just fix the ****ing roads...
(Cached link because I don't subscribe to The Times so it might be
http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...&ct=clnk&gl=uk )
That "any negative polls" is a direct quote i.e. he actually said it. You dont see a problem with POTUS writing off any negative press as fake? Its not just pre-election polls (which were inaccurate, not fake) , its whats getting reported right now.
Sorry, it wasnt a problem in the quote above? I personally think any movement towards not having to answer to the press is scary as fcuk, where is the check and balance without it?Probably because even the New York Times isn't totally clean of agenda driven reporting that is devoid of fact, though I do think objecting to articles by crying fake news is a bullshit method.
Headlines on every major channel and front page of every newspaper? Buildings changing colour and people changing their facebook profile pics in "support"?Well, that is entirely opinion really
Venezuela is under reported, the financial situation in Greece is under reported, Ukraine is under reported. Terrorist attacks are over reported and over sensationalised if anything, but I guess thats the point.
Apart from fire a judge that didnt agree with him despite her being correct, claiming other judges dont know what they are talking about, ignored the Geneva Convention, attempted to censor the EPA, National Parks and NASA, reinstated Keystone and Dakota. Dont remember any of that in his campaign.That's pretty ludicrous. So far, Trump has not done anything he a) didn't say he was going to do and b) infringes on the rights of US citizens.
He has failed to prosecute Hilary or produce any evidence about voter fraud like he promised though, even his ban on all Muslims has turned out to be watered down, hes also U turned on gay marriage.
Im sorry, but every politician in my lifetime has been subject to the scrutiny of the press and his peers, without this you are rapidly heading towards dictatorship.
This guy is not only refusing to answer questions he doesnt like, hes physically undermining the validity of what the press do with all these accusations of "fake news". Intelligent people might see that its just posturing but I bet theres a lot of folks in the US who dont trust the counter view any more, and thats a dangerous place.
To go further and try to implement legislation thats clearly against the US constitution/UN legislation and then go on to say that the lawmakers are incorrect (how long before we get "fake law" anyone?) looks a lot like an attempt to gain ultimate power through discrediting anyone that can speak out against you. Ive never seen anything like this in the western world, but whats really scary is how many of the dumb fcuks that voted for him are actually lapping it up ......
I get the feeling that this would only work if we could pursuade Ernest Borgnine to drive the Isle of Wight to Portsmouth hovercraft.
That is as ridiculous as saying if you remove England from the last general election Ed Miliband had the popular vote...
2004 - on : 1999 S14a 398bhp 378lb/ft
2010 - on : 2007 RX8 PZ
1998 - 2004 : 1991 S13
4m people voted for ukip and they got 1MP here, same thing !
The actual figures are 289000 different, it was really close. Our voting system is pretty broken as well though, but it's all in the name of having "stability"...
Trump has the words though, he's got the best words.
Seriously taking what he says too literally doesn't work out though and it goes to the problem of the term "fake news" - the definition of fake news is flexible as **** and defined contextually. It can refer to anything from unverified reports to complete inaccuracies. I wish nobody had ever started using it.
As for Emperor Trump writing off negativity, he's kinda been forced into that position. The mainstream media is unquestionably against him and has spewed both bullshit and fact out against him relentlessly. It's got to the point where he's basically just saying "it's more fake bullshit, remember the CIA saying 'guys trust us, Russia ****ed with the election but we can't show you the proof!' it's the same thing as that, it's all fake". Trump is partly to blame, but really your anger should be with the media for being so prepared to just print any hit piece for their own agenda while refusing to accept it degrades the trust in their words.
Nobody has ever been required to answer the press, they just usually do because it's in their interest to do so. The press has established an environment where it's acceptable to not answer them properly - it's bullshit, but it's also their fault. If they'd done due diligence with all their reporting beforehand and actually hit Trump on real things, well, Hillary might have got in which would've been awful but Trump wouldn't be able to get away with dodging and redirecting. The press haven't been fair and balanced, they've been one sided and bias but they also haven't actually really gone for Trumps actual policies that aren't good properly. Example here, if I ran a news place, my front page would've been plastered with shit about the TPP withdrawal because it has immense implications, instead they were too busy talking about a comedian making fun of his son. It's ****ing absurd.
Venezuela doesn't really impact anyone outside of Venezuela. Harsh as it might sound, people don't care. The social media impact isn't reporting. Like I said, you don't have a valid comparison to other events - one doesn't exist. It appears to have been adequately reported, but someone has determined it wasn't. I don't live in the US but I do have plenty of friends who do and regarding European terrorist attacks they were often the last to know. I accept that may be because they don't stay well enough informed, but in general the US reports on things that directly affect the US and even big events elsewhere are secondary.
I think you mean he got rid of the Attorney General - a position heading the DoJ. The DoJ is all about law enforcement and she told those in the DoJ to ignore an executive order. She overstepped her authority. To put this in perspective, it's like the police commissioner telling all the police to ignore a law that is put in place. It's not how it works. As far as I'm aware, he hasn't ignored the Geneva convention but called it a problem which I'm hard pressed to disagree with; I'm fortunate enough never to have had to serve in combat but I can understand that being faced with brutality and a total disregard for life while watching people you are friends with end up dead might make it a little difficult to follow 'rules of war' while the other side has none and it's a farce that people fight for their country in wars they didn't want to go to only to come home and be judged by people who have no concept of the challenges they faced.
Regarding the environment, Trump made it pretty clear prior to election he didn't buy into environmentalism and, to be honest, there is enough bullshit floating around that stuff to deem it highly dubious. Basic example is the commonly cited 'fact' that "97% of scientists agree that climate change is man-made" which is total bullshit and in reality is "of 400 papers the ~30% that named a cause of climate change all put it at the feet of mankind". He's not exactly censoring them, just trying to reduce some of the bullshit being spewed. Even NASA and NOAA have been accused of data manipulation regarding climate change and there's enough surrounding evidence to make it highly suspicious.
The pipelines, as far as I know, might balls up land but will also create jobs and revenue. I'm not well informed enough to say whether that is or is not in the interest of citizens.
While I don't expect him to find evidence of voter fraud nor prosecute hillary, it's still early days. An outright "Muslim Ban" was never going to happen because there are American citizens who are Muslims and banning them would most definitely be unconstitutional. As for a u-turn, I'm not sure about that. I knew he said he was willing to consider changing rules on gay marriage (or reversing the right) but that's like saying "I'm willing to think about spitting on rats" - it doesn't mean you'll do it, it doesn't even mean you'll take steps to think about it, just that if it comes up you're flexible.
But he isn't doing that. The press are undermining themselves with their agenda drives and ultimately Trump does have to answer serious questions. The power of the President is not ultimate, he is accountable and his own party can throw him out. Right now he's taking a heavy hand and the result is exactly this "OH GOD EMPEROR TRUMP NEW HITLER WTF HELP EVERYTHING IS FALLING APART". Nothing is going wrong, it's all business as usual and moreover, nobody has stepped back and been like "guys look, he's been in for a month, maybe we should just let him settle into his part and hope for the best, I'm sure it'll be fine in a few weeks". Instead it's all negativity, hate, anti-Trump rhetoric.
Yes, refer to 49.87% of American voters as "dumb fcuks" that's helpful to any debate.
As I said before, he hasn't done anything against the US constitution. There is no such thing as "UN legislation" - they don't have authority over sovereign nations (thank god). Questioning the interpretation of laws by the judiciary is business as usual. If a government implements a law and the judiciary misinterprets it or throws it out, the government has the power to a) file an appeal or b) rewrite/redraft the legislation and put it into place again. This is how democracy works and there is nothing surprising that the usual process is occurring in the US right now. Regarding discrediting those who object, that's exactly what everyone has been doing to Trump before he even did anything - discredit him. Like I said, it's a bullshit method he's using against the press, but the press has been using bullshit methods against him. Ultimately though, as I said, the powers invested within the president are heavily limited. The US is set up in a way that rejects the formation of a dictatorship by putting enough hoops and hurdles in the way that a would-be dictator is going to end up tripping up and mangling themselves. Stop panicking, nothing is going wrong, nothing is going to break. If and when Trump actually tries to do something genuinely against the constitution or suppress speech, then I'll gladly change my opinion...
... though I'll probably still think Hillary was worse unless the idea of another cold war with Russia seems exciting...
We're already there. It's just without the full on nuclear threat offered last time.
The real problem is people on both sides are adamant the other side are wrong and will not entertain any conversation of viewpoint to the contrary
Trump has got plenty of reason to be doing what he is doing, he has a lot of support from folk that are unhappy - ok a lot of it at the moment is misguided and seemingly rushed but i dont blame him for trying.
Same with brexit, apparently all leavers are lowlife thick scum... the leavers retaliate with remainers are opinionated lefty snowflakes.
Goes all the way back to the parties themselves, Tories are scum ect.. labour are for workshy ****ers, libdems are for loosers (well this is prob right!)
There was a really good piece in the back of autocar a few weeks back in a column. The chap was discussing why car makers generally dont slag off competitors cars as they know its much better to get people on yourside by showing your strengths rather than slagging off the competitors. He was right, if only politics were like this.
I genuinely don't think Russia is a threat right now at all. I think Putin does what's best for Russia and Russians, at least in his view, but the media have decided to make Russia a scapegoat for bad things. I mean come on, first Russia manipulated the US election, then Russia was pushing propaganda on the EU to fuel populism, then Russia was manipulating the migrant crisis and making migrants commit crimes? Sorry I just don't believe Russia has the influence or interest to be so heavily involved in this stuff without some direct profit to them.
Oh meanwhile Russia is evil for bombing Syria on behalf of Assad. Their ally, Assad. Looks a bit like how the UK bombed Iraq on behalf of Bush. Our ally, Bush.
It's very hard in politics to directly show strengths if you aren't in control and very easy to be criticised for things if you are. Its sort of inevitable that politics regresses into a shitthrowing competition
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
