# Trumpy



## devonwoody (27 Jan 2017)

So if Trump gave our Security Depts. information of a massive terrorist attack planned in the UK involving thousands of lives would we ignore because perhaps its source?

I dont think so?


----------



## Rorschach (27 Jan 2017)

No we would investigate and determine it's validity. Never take anything for granted, especially from an exposed, compulsive liar.


----------



## timber (27 Jan 2017)

Rorschach":1ssb68fi said:


> No we would investigate and determine it's validity. Never take anything for granted, especially from an exposed, compulsive liar.



Oh dear oh dear, give the man a chance. Why does Humpty Dumty come to mind when I read the titlehttps://www.ukworkshop.co.uk/forums ... p=1123731#


----------



## Phil Pascoe (27 Jan 2017)

That links seems to go nowhere. I read last night that someone had seen a bumper sticker in th US before the election - "Cheer up! They can't both win."


----------



## El Barto (27 Jan 2017)

devonwoody":3mwf2mb2 said:


> So if Trump gave our Security Depts. information of a massive terrorist attack planned in the UK involving thousands of lives would we ignore because perhaps its source?
> 
> I dont think so?



Is this a serious question? 

The president of the United States doesn't just pick up the phone and share information about possible terror attacks. It would more likely be one of America's security agencies sharing information with their counterpart in the UK, and therefore the source is already more credible as it would probably be confirmed by multiple agencies.

Again, the stupidity of this question does make me wonder if it's genuine.


----------



## El Barto (27 Jan 2017)

timber":36zz4ton said:


> Rorschach":36zz4ton said:
> 
> 
> > No we would investigate and determine it's validity. Never take anything for granted, especially from an exposed, compulsive liar.
> ...



"Giving him a chance" isn't the same as holding him to account for the outrageous and offensive things he's said and done over the past 18 months (or his entire life, depending on how you want to look at it).


----------



## RobinBHM (27 Jan 2017)

phil.p":3tjo7inx said:


> That links seems to go nowhere. I read last night that someone had seen a bumper sticker in th US before the election - "Cheer up! They can't both win."



Very good    

comparison with Saddam:
-Narsissit

-agrees with torture

-likes to manipulate the media

-protectionist state

Although to be fair he isnt talking of invading Mexico only building a wall! (and no mention of WMD as yet) 

To hear Trump say that his Inauguration crowd was so much bigger than Obama's and that media were lying, just makes him appear like a boasting spoilt young teen age kid in a playground.

Whilst it is refreshing to have a non career politician taking power............. I can't see it ending well. What with his 10 minute attention span and other great qualities.

In the short term I may be buying shares in US brickmaking firms, especially those in the Southern states.

I hope Theresa has a fun meeting


----------



## novocaine (27 Jan 2017)

I'm investing in chicken wire and paper mache, which is closer to what the wall will be made off, it only has to last 4 years.  

building a wall that spans 2000 miles, the planning alone will take 3-4 years, by which point he'll be out of power (possibly) and the next president can pull the plug (hopefully)


----------



## Phil Pascoe (27 Jan 2017)

To be fair, the pictures that I saw in the press were basically fraudulent in that one was the front third of the other - they could easily have come from the same photo.


----------



## El Barto (27 Jan 2017)

phil.p":3ngjy94v said:


> To be fair, the pictures that I saw in the press were basically fraudulent in that one was the front third of the other - they could easily have come from the same photo.



Interesting. All the coverage I saw seemed to be pretty honest.

Edit: I'm not saying some news outlets wouldn't capitalise on the lower turnout of Donald's inauguration, but I think they'd be in the minority.


----------



## novocaine (27 Jan 2017)

fag packet calculation time.  
they use a 440x215 block (ok thats metric, just to confuse them) and they go 5m high, thats ~170 million bricks for 2000 miles. 

now back on topic. yes, all information received is investigated, including the odd crackpot ones.


----------



## Jake (27 Jan 2017)

Build it one block high and then swear blind that anyone who claims it isn't 5m high is a MSM shill.


----------



## devonwoody (27 Jan 2017)

Jake":3ip5v20g said:


> Build it one block high and then swear blind that anyone who claims it isn't 5m high is a MSM shill.



Well done Jake this time

edit MY age is telling, I thought you were Jacob. :lol:


----------



## Phil Pascoe (27 Jan 2017)

El Barto":1lp96kf3 said:


> phil.p":1lp96kf3 said:
> 
> 
> > To be fair, the pictures that I saw in the press were basically fraudulent in that one was the front third of the other - they could easily have come from the same photo.
> ...


That's clear enough, isn't it? The ones I saw had the bend in the road on the bottom corner in one and two thirds of the way up in the other.
I thought Richard Littlejohn made a fair comment on the women's protests - many of the women protesting at trumps election were the same women who rejoiced at Clintons, whose record in the sex department wasn't exactly squeaky clean. Maybe they have selective memories?


----------



## monkeybiter (27 Jan 2017)

novocaine":16p6coh9 said:


> fag packet calculation time.
> they use a 440x215 block (ok thats metric, just to confuse them) and they go 5m high, thats ~170 million bricks for 2000 miles.
> 
> now back on topic. yes, all information received is investigated, including the odd crackpot ones.



Apparently he's talking about 9m tall, or 16.7m tall, depending on the phase of his brain. According to the BBC. 
Perhaps it will me on rams, height adjustable depending on avocado threat level.
But it will be a good wall, a really good wall. It will be the best wall. It will be a wall.

Perhaps if the Mexicans built it they could lease it to the USofT ?


----------



## novocaine (27 Jan 2017)

306 million or 544 million (approximately). multiply that by 6 for normal bricks.  

obviously they will all be supplied by americas version of B&Q (home depo?) in an attempt to create jobs.


----------



## Jacob (27 Jan 2017)

Plenty of jobs for Mexicans building the wall. And again when they pull it down. Either way the USA pays.
20% tax on imported Mexican goods - Americans pay that too!
What happens a lot with eccentrics like Trump or Boris Johnson is that people say oh yes but he's very clever etc etc. 
I think they are wrong, these people are thick as bricks, they got into positions of power and influence on the back of extremely privileged backgrounds and have no talent whatsoever. Though Boris is a bit of a comedian (credit where credit is due).


----------



## El Barto (27 Jan 2017)

Jacob":ogatz92y said:


> Plenty of jobs for Mexicans building the wall. And again when they pull it down. Either way the USA pays.
> 20% tax on imported Mexican goods - Americans pay that too!
> What happens a lot with eccentrics like Trump or Boris Johnson is that people say oh yes but he's very clever etc etc.
> I think they are wrong, these people are thick as bricks, they got into positions of power and influence on the back of extremely privileged backgrounds and have no talent whatsoever. Though Boris is a bit of a comedian (credit where credit is due).



Agreed. Though Boris's guise of bumbling nitwit mixed with long and clever words is genius. Shame he's still a piece of sh*t.

This is quite an interesting article on Donald and the guy who wrote his book. One of the more interesting facts I took from it that I didn't know is that years before he started claiming that Obama was not born in the US, Donald had lied in the book about where his father was born. Amazing. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/ ... -tells-all


----------



## Jacob (27 Jan 2017)

Copied this from the net - going viral:

It's hard to keep up with the sheer speed and breadth of this . Here's a run down of the week so far and it's only Thursday.
To recap:
* On January 19th, 2017, Donald Trump said that he would cut funding for the DOJ’s Violence Against Women programs.
* On January 19th, 2017, DT said that he would cut funding for the National Endowment for the Arts.
* On January 19th, 2017, DT said that he would cut funding for the National Endowment for the Humanities.
* On January 19th, 2017, DT said that he would cut funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
* On January 19th, 2017, DT said that he would cut funding for the Minority Business Development Agency.
* On January 19th, 2017, DT said that he would cut funding for the Economic Development Administration.
* On January 19th, 2017, DT said that he would cut funding for the International Trade Administration.
* On January 19th, 2017, DT said that he would cut funding for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership.
* On January 19th, 2017, DT said that he would cut funding for the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.
* On January 19th, 2017, DT said that he would cut funding for the Legal Services Corporation.
* On January 19th, 2017, DT said that he would cut funding for the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ.
* On January 19th, 2017, DT said that he would cut funding for the Environmental and Natural Resources Division of the DOJ.
* On January 19th, 2017, DT said that he would cut funding for the Overseas Private Investment Corporation.
* On January 19th, 2017, DT said that he would cut funding for the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
* On January 19th, 2017, DT said that he would cut funding for the Office of Electricity Deliverability and Energy Reliability.
* On January 19th, 2017, DT said that he would cut funding for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
* On January 19th, 2017, DT said that he would cut funding for the Office of Fossil Energy.
* On January 20th, 2017, DT ordered all regulatory powers of all federal agencies frozen.
* On January 20th, 2017, DT ordered the National Parks Service to stop using social media after RTing factual, side by side photos of the crowds for the 2009 and 2017 inaugurations.
* On January 20th, 2017, roughly 230 protestors were arrested in DC and face unprecedented felony riot charges. Among them were legal observers, journalists, and medics.
* On January 20th, 2017, a member of the International Workers of the World was shot in the stomach at an anti-fascist protest in Seattle. He remains in critical condition.
* On January 21st, 2017, DT brought a group of 40 cheerleaders to a meeting with the CIA to cheer for him during a speech that consisted almost entirely of framing himself as the victim of dishonest press.
* On January 21st, 2017, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer held a press conference largely to attack the press for accurately reporting the size of attendance at the inaugural festivities, saying that the inauguration had the largest audience of any in history, “period.”
* On January 22nd, 2017, White House advisor Kellyann Conway defended Spicer’s lies as “alternative facts” on national television news.
* On January 22nd, 2017, DT appeared to blow a kiss to director James Comey during a meeting with the FBI, and then opened his arms in a gesture of strange, paternal affection, before hugging him with a pat on the back.
* On January 23rd, 2017, DT reinstated the global gag order, which defunds international organizations that even mention abortion as a medical option.
* On January 23rd, 2017, Spicer said that the US will not tolerate China’s expansion onto islands in the South China Sea, essentially threatening war with China.
* On January 23rd, 2017, DT repeated the lie that 3-5 million people voted “illegally” thus costing him the popular vote.
* On January 23rd, 2017, it was announced that the man who shot the anti-fascist protester in Seattle was released without charges, despite turning himself in.
* On January 24th, 2017, Spicer reiterated the lie that 3-5 million people voted “illegally” thus costing DT the popular vote.
* On January 24th, 2017, DT tweeted a picture from his personal Twitter account of a photo he says depicts the crowd at his inauguration and will hang in the White House press room. The photo is curiously dated January 21st, 2017, the day AFTER the inauguration and the day of the Women’s March, the largest inauguration related protest in history.
* On January 24th, 2017, the EPA was ordered to stop communicating with the public through social media or the press and to freeze all grants and contracts.
* On January 24th, 2017, the USDA was ordered to stop communicating with the public through social media or the press and to stop publishing any papers or research. All communication with the press would also have to be authorized and vetted by the White House.
* On January 24th, 2017, HR7, a bill that would prohibit federal funding not only to abortion service providers, but to any insurance coverage, including Medicaid, that provides abortion coverage, went to the floor of the House for a vote.
* On January 24th, 2017, Director of the Department of Health and Human Service nominee Tom Price characterized federal guidelines on transgender equality as “absurd.”
* On January 24th, 2017, DT ordered the resumption of construction on the Dakota Access Pipeline, while the North Dakota state congress considers a bill that would legalize hitting and killing protestors with cars if they are on roadways.
* On January 24th, 2017, it was discovered that police officers had used confiscated cell phones to search the emails and messages of the 230 demonstrators now facing felony riot charges for protesting on January 20th, including lawyers and journalists whose email accounts contain privileged information of clients and sources.
And today: the wall and a ban on Muslims entering from a large number of countries and the end to accepting Syrian refugees
If you plan to share, please copy and paste rather than share. You'll reach more people.


----------



## Inoffthered (27 Jan 2017)

El Barto":3myzyq0a said:


> timber":3myzyq0a said:
> 
> 
> > Rorschach":3myzyq0a said:
> ...




Funny how Trump s getting stick for his alleged comments by the same people that stick up for Bill Clinton and his odious wife who are guilty of far worse,


----------



## Jake (27 Jan 2017)

Inoffthered":3a09tmwv said:


> Funny how Trump s getting stick for his alleged comments by the same people that stick up for Bill Clinton and his odious wife who are guilty of far worse,



Please identify the evidence on which you base the suggestion that either of the Clintons engaged in non-consensual sexual activity much worse than Trump's self-admitted to camera behaviour (never mind the rest of the stuff he is accused of).


----------



## El Barto (27 Jan 2017)

Inoffthered":9cwyf289 said:


> Funny how Trump s getting stick for his alleged comments by the same people that stick up for Bill Clinton and his odious wife who are guilty of far worse,



Whoa there. Alleged comments? Are you suggesting that the comments Donald has been quoted as saying, that he tweets and is on video as saying, are actually only alleged? That's a new one. A true Donald supporter if ever I saw one.

I'm not sticking up for the Clintons, I think the DNC nomination being taken from Bernie Sanders was very stupid, but in the grand scheme of things, Hillary is by far the lesser of two evils (out of her and Donald). There's a difference between sticking up for someone and making the right choice - Hilary is that right choice in every respect. And as the other post mentioned, what evidence do you have to support these claims? She has been investigated and cleared by the FBI, targeted by both Wikileaks and Russia (although one could argue that in this case those are the same thing) and yet no criminal charges were brought. So if you've got anything I'd like to hear it.

Yes she represents a lot of what is wrong with politics, yes her interest and ties to big banking are very unappealing, but in terms of criminal activity, there is none. Where she represents what's wrong with politics, Donald represents what's wrong with the world.


----------



## Claymore (28 Jan 2017)

novocaine":7y8k7rw9 said:


> I'm investing in chicken wire and paper mache, which is closer to what the wall will be made off, it only has to last 4 years.
> 
> building a wall that spans 2000 miles, the planning alone will take 3-4 years, by which point he'll be out of power (possibly) and the next president can pull the plug (hopefully)




He has promised to employ cheap Mexican builders :wink:


----------



## devonwoody (28 Jan 2017)

Hi Jacob, you must admit he is a hard worker according to that long list. 

If he put Winstons bust back in the White House, Trump has joined my list of friends.


----------



## Doug B (28 Jan 2017)

I read an interesting article on his wall, all the ins & outs of getting it built.
The one thing that did seem most plausible in such a litigious country as America was the very remote chance of any legal challenges being over in his 4 years in office from the landowners.
The article also suggested it would be built from concrete, millions & millions of tons of the stuff, perhaps someone could calculate the amount of trees they'd need to plant to offset their carbon foot print


----------



## Jacob (28 Jan 2017)

devonwoody":1tr0h1q6 said:


> Hi Jacob, you must admit he is a hard worker according to that long list.
> 
> .....


So was Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot et al.


----------



## Rorschach (28 Jan 2017)

devonwoody":22xpnvqo said:


> Hi Jacob, you must admit he is a hard worker according to that long list.
> 
> If he put Winstons bust back in the White House, Trump has joined my list of friends.



That's all it takes, wow you are easily pleased. Don't care about torture, racism, sexual abuse, extreme hipocracy, the list goes on. Just stick the right statue in your office and you are a top chap.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (28 Jan 2017)

If Trump is so odious, how come sufficient numbers of American citizens voted to put him in the White House?


----------



## RobinBHM (28 Jan 2017)

I wonder how much Theresa May enjoyed holding his hand  

What was that catchphase of Paul Daniels.......


----------



## Jacob (28 Jan 2017)

Cheshirechappie":pcffbl2r said:


> If Trump is so odious, how come sufficient numbers of American citizens voted to put him in the White House?


Hitler was quite popular in his day.
History repeats itself - people under stresses and strains of ordinary life lose faith in civilisation and start going tribal - building barriers, blaming and persecuting minorities, falling for crude simplistic solutions offered by megalomaniacs, reinforced by hysterical right wing media, voting conservative, and so on.
People certainly have been let down by the promises of neo liberalism and the lefty 'elitists' have failed to make an alternative case. Sanders probably would have done better than Clinton, if he had had full support from the left and centre.


----------



## Jake (28 Jan 2017)

Cheshirechappie":2xnyzmku said:


> If Trump is so odious, how come sufficient numbers of American citizens voted to put him in the White House?



Difficult to explain and quite worrying isn't it.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (28 Jan 2017)

Jake":1d3l2q56 said:


> Cheshirechappie":1d3l2q56 said:
> 
> 
> > If Trump is so odious, how come sufficient numbers of American citizens voted to put him in the White House?
> ...



This might be a partial explanation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CdqdWYjxBpo

(I think there are other factors, too.)


----------



## Inoffthered (28 Jan 2017)

Jacob":2v34xgij said:


> Cheshirechappie":2v34xgij said:
> 
> 
> > If Trump is so odious, how come sufficient numbers of American citizens voted to put him in the White House?
> ...




Hysterical right wing media? You clearly don't watch the BBC or Sky.


----------



## RobinBHM (28 Jan 2017)

There was me thinking if Trump wanted to sort out Muslim terrorists in the USA he should go and visit Muslim communities and engage with them. 

Apparently the best way to eliminate terrorism is to stop any Muslim from entering the country and torture those that do. Still I cant see how that could possibly play into the hands of ISIS, they wouldnt dream of using martyrdm as a way to expand. What a deep thinking guy!

Got a problem with illegal Mexicans from entering the country, simple build a wall.

Honestly these old style politicians just overthink everything


----------



## El Barto (28 Jan 2017)

Cheshirechappie":2l6kvgc6 said:


> If Trump is so odious, how come sufficient numbers of American citizens voted to put him in the White House?



That is a good question but one without any one answer, and using the fact that he was voted into power isn't an argument against him being an unpleasant human being. The main reason is that American voters see, or saw, him as a way to escape the stagnation of their political system. When so many towns and cities have been hit by globalisation, loss of jobs to automation and have generally been left behind, he offered them a way out and it's clear to see why they took it. I think a lot of voters probably don't agree with what he says and does, but they're also thinking "things might change under him, I'm willing to let those things I disagree with slide if it means I can get a decent job" (or something to that effect). They don't see a man who has defrauded thousands of people and stiffed contractors over decades, or someone who has offended multiple groups. They see someone who is talking big and acting tough and "taking on" the political establishment.

It is also not a question of "if" he is odious. The evidence is right there to see that he is abhorrent. Either you're a decent human being who sees that, or you're as bad as he is.


----------



## El Barto (28 Jan 2017)

RobinBHM":1qs15uz8 said:


> There was me thinking if Trump wanted to sort out Muslim terrorists in the USA he should go and visit Muslim communities and engage with them.
> 
> Apparently the best way to eliminate terrorism is to stop any Muslim from entering the country and torture those that do. Still I cant see how that could possibly play into the hands of ISIS, they wouldnt dream of using martyrdm as a way to expand. What a deep thinking guy!
> 
> ...



Yes it's pretty insane. Especially considering that terrorism by Muslims or Muslim-Americans makes up a tiny portion of murders committed in the US each year. This isn't the most up to date fact but consider last year mass shootings killed 136 people. Compare that with the 50 people killed in America from September 11th 2001 to the end of 2014 by Muslim related terrorism... :?


----------



## Jacob (28 Jan 2017)

El Barto":1zsg2hxv said:


> RobinBHM":1zsg2hxv said:
> 
> 
> > There was me thinking if Trump wanted to sort out Muslim terrorists in the USA he should go and visit Muslim communities and engage with them.
> ...


USA toddlers have shot more yanks than terrorists. Lock em up the nasty little psychopaths!


----------



## El Barto (28 Jan 2017)

Let's not forget that they're white toddlers...


----------



## RobinBHM (28 Jan 2017)

Given Trump is pro gun lobby itd not likely to reduce.

In USA 2017 1,120 deaths by guns, 25 mass shootings (up to Jan 27th)

http://www.gunviolencearchive.org

not as bad as Honduras though!


----------



## HappyHacker (28 Jan 2017)

Given the choice of Trump or Clinton I think even I may have voted Trump. Can he really do much worse than some of his predecessors?


----------



## iNewbie (28 Jan 2017)

Cheshirechappie":3t7exjjd said:


> If Trump is so odious, how come sufficient numbers of American citizens voted to put him in the White House?



a) They're stupid
b) They swallowed that line about Hilary's emails.
c) both the above.


----------



## Jacob (28 Jan 2017)

HappyHacker":c1cf7n53 said:


> .. Trump. Can he really do much worse than some of his predecessors?


Yes . He's well on the way and it's only week one.


----------



## Jacob (29 Jan 2017)

http://www.theonion.com/article/fbi-unc ... d-en-35788


----------



## gregmcateer (29 Jan 2017)

Inoffthered":303fqzkb said:


> Jacob":303fqzkb said:
> 
> 
> > Cheshirechappie":303fqzkb said:
> ...



Just possible that Jacob was referring to Fox News or several other in the good ole U S of A, rather than our slightly more restrained and balanced news media


----------



## Jacob (29 Jan 2017)

gregmcateer":38b94a12 said:


> Inoffthered":38b94a12 said:
> 
> 
> > Jacob":38b94a12 said:
> ...


Them, but as far as we are concerned we have the Mail, Express, Telegraph, Sun. Hateful rags, divisive, dishonest, owned by non dom tax dodging mega-millionaires with no interest in civilisation as such.


----------



## RobinBHM (29 Jan 2017)

Unlike the Guardian who are ......oh no are just the same:

'Guardian Media Group’s use of a tax-exempt shell company in the Cayman Islands'

'hundreds of millions GMG has invested in offshore hedge funds over the years'

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/04/wi ... angements/


----------



## Jacob (29 Jan 2017)

RobinBHM":szo0x4j3 said:


> Unlike the Guardian who are ......oh no are just the same:
> 
> 'Guardian Media Group’s use of a tax-exempt shell company in the Cayman Islands'
> 
> ...


Gaurdian is a not for profit trust: read all about it https://www.theguardian.com/the-scott-trust
https://www.theguardian.com/gmg/2015/jul/23/faqs
"The Trust forms part of a unique ownership structure for the Guardian that ensure editorial interests remain free of commercial pressures"
As compared to say the Telegraph which is owned by a pair of eccentric non-dom billionaires with a strong right wing agenda http://www.private-eye.co.uk/street-of-shame


----------



## El Barto (29 Jan 2017)

RobinBHM":1j9tspzy said:


> Unlike the Guardian who are ......oh no are just the same:
> 
> 'Guardian Media Group’s use of a tax-exempt shell company in the Cayman Islands'
> 
> ...



Very interesting points there - I wasn't aware of them. But, and without mitigating these claims if true, the whole thing would carry a bit more weight if it wasn't written by someone quite so biased by such a biased magazine. Know what I mean? Again, not defending the GMG, but it'd be more interesting and pertinent to read it from the view of a neutral.


----------



## Jacob (29 Jan 2017)

The Spectator is a weekly British conservative magazine. It was first published on 6 July 1828, making it the oldest continuously published magazine in the English language. It is currently owned by David and Frederick Barclay who also own The Daily Telegraph newspaper, via Press Holdings.

The Guardian is not perfect - many think it is too poncey lefty London elitist. It's certainly got a down on poor old Corbyn.

Whatever your point of view in USA or UK I think they both have a serious problem with the media - so much controlled by so few, with a huge influence over Brexit and Trump results. 

Viz is pretty safe.


----------



## RobinBHM (29 Jan 2017)

The Guardian isnt a trust it is a Ltd company called The Scott Trust Ltd.

http://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2015- ... ott-trust/


----------



## Jacob (29 Jan 2017)

RobinBHM":38jiyfqn said:


> The Guardian isnt a trust it is a Ltd company called The Scott Trust Ltd.
> 
> http://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2015- ... ott-trust/



Jonathan Cook writes for the Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/profile/jonathancook
Shows how unbiased they can be!!


----------



## Inoffthered (29 Jan 2017)

El Barto":87xxcwsk said:


> RobinBHM":87xxcwsk said:
> 
> 
> > Unlike the Guardian who are ......oh no are just the same:
> ...



Very interesting points there - I wasn't aware of them. But, and without mitigating these claims if true, the whole thing would carry a bit more weight if it wasn't written by someone quite so biased by such a biased magazine. Know what I mean? Again, not defending the GMG, but it'd be more interesting and pertinent to read it from the view of a neutral.[/quote


Thats right, you dont like the message so you choose not to believe it. Any independent research would open your eyes but brace yourself for the realisation that the Grauniad is funded by the sort of rapacious city slickers that you so love to criticise. Jacobs attempt to justify it using the myth of non profit making trust is also another (typical) sleight of hand in a vain attempt to avoid the truth. If the Grauniads intention was indeed to be a not for profit organisation, they could operate as such in the UK and pay tax on their investment earnings, not hide in the Caymans. Of course, being based in a tax haven doesn't stop the Guardian from slagging off anyone and everyone else that hides their wealth off shore and avoids tax, because the investment funds associated with the Scott Trust do not pay tax.


In some respects it is similar to the criticism of Trump and his wall. You didn't seem to have much a problem when Clinton erected his fence (a project continued by Obama) but the minute Trump does anything similar there are howls of outrage. 

Similarly, a nutter mudered Jo Cox and every leotard blamed UKIP and brexiteers. If anyone right of centre called for the assasination of Corbyn or junker there would be squeals of outrage and attempts to forge a link with the nazis but it appears to be ok for Guardian and Times journalists to send such tweets. So much for Hope not Hate eh,,just saying......

There is a word that fits ...hypocrisy. I 'd give you a definition but you probably wouldn't accept it so i suggest you use a dictionary of your own choice.


----------



## El Barto (29 Jan 2017)

Inoffthered":3k2lehuk said:


> El Barto":3k2lehuk said:
> 
> 
> > RobinBHM":3k2lehuk said:
> ...



Who said anything about not believing it? I was saying it'd be more palatable if the whole thing wasn't so heavily, almost spitefully, biased. It's not a criticism of the story but the writer and how it's written. It's an argument that could be made about certain journalists and publications no matter which way they lean.

The fences erected under Clinton/Bush and Donald's 2000 mile wall aren't particularly similar. It's also a pretty flawed argument that "I didn't seem to have a problem with them then" (though I like how you suggest that you know me by stating that).


----------



## jnw010 (29 Jan 2017)

One things for sure, Trump is going to do things differently! 
The extreme liberal reaction is bit of an eye opener though. Much like anyone who voted Brexit must be stupid and racist, so Trump supporters must be women hating nazis, or summat. 
I can't help thinking that the harder these extreme liberals screech their hate, the further they'll push the middle ground to the right.


----------



## Jacob (29 Jan 2017)

"Extreme liberals" - that's a new one! :lol: What about "extreme supporters of civilisation" ?

You might not have noticed, but Trump is showing distinct signs of being stupid and racist.


----------



## BearTricks (29 Jan 2017)

Cheshirechappie":8en00hpu said:


> If Trump is so odious, how come sufficient numbers of American citizens voted to put him in the White House?



They didn't. Clinton got more individual votes, but the electoral college system means that the person with the most votes doesn't necessarily win.

That said, historically there have been more than a few occasions where large groups of people have happily voted for someone 'odious'. I think it's probably best to be careful about assuming that just because someone has a large following, that following must be right.


----------



## Jake (29 Jan 2017)

Inoffthered":210ks22k said:


> Thats right, you dont like the message so you choose not to believe it. Any independent research would open your eyes but brace yourself for the realisation that the Grauniad is funded by the sort of rapacious city slickers that you so love to criticise. Jacobs attempt to justify it using the myth of non profit making trust is also another (typical) sleight of hand in a vain attempt to avoid the truth.



Are you claiming it is for profit? Please state who benefits from dividends sent outside the GMG structure, how, and who benefits.



> If the Grauniads intention was indeed to be a not for profit organisation, they could operate as such in the UK and pay tax on their investment earnings, not hide in the Caymans.



Now you are just ranting. There is no logical connection between (a) whether they are not for profit and (b) whether (like every other media organisation and indeed most financial structures) they are based off shore. 



> Of course, being based in a tax haven doesn't stop the Guardian from slagging off anyone and everyone else that hides their wealth off shore and avoids tax, because the investment funds associated with the Scott Trust do not pay tax.



Half a logical point here. But given the conservative right wing press is all off-shore it would be suicidal for GMG to put itself vulnerable to taxation which none of the conservative press would face. The rules on tax avoidance have to be changed, and at least the Guardian speaks against its owners interests in saying so.




> In some respects it is similar to the criticism of Trump and his wall. You didn't seem to have much a problem when Clinton erected his fence (a project continued by Obama) but the minute Trump does anything similar there are howls of outrage.



I think you are referring to a GW Bush project,



> Similarly, a nutter mudered Jo Cox and every leotard blamed UKIP and brexiteers.



Unfair, but the politics of resentment and division sustain fuel and (in their own minds) self-legitimise the extremists. Same to equally vile effect on the other side of political spectrum (Baader, IRA)



> If anyone right of centre called for the assasination of Corbyn or junker there would be squeals of outrage and attempts to forge a link with the nazis but it appears to be ok for Guardian and Times journalists to send such tweets. So much for Hope not Hate eh,,just saying......[



Are you suggesting Murdoch/Times is left wing?


----------



## Jacob (29 Jan 2017)

...



> Similarly, a nutter mudered Jo Cox and every leotard blamed UKIP and brexiteers.


...Leotard? You mean libtard? :lol: I'm a libtard (I think) I'm not a leotard.
Cox's murderer was a Britain First supporter. At least that's what he shouted. Maybe he was an undercover leotard trying to discredit Britain First?
Libtards arise!! Proud to be libtard.


----------



## Jacob (29 Jan 2017)

What's particularly scary about the Trumptards is that there are a lot of them who would say that they are 'just obeying orders'.


__________________________
Libtards of the world unite


----------



## RobinBHM (29 Jan 2017)

I see Trumps immigration ban is causing an uproar.

I wonder if he wont last long but will blame everybody else for his failure


----------



## jnw010 (29 Jan 2017)

Jacob":3sraedj5 said:


> "Extreme liberals" - that's a new one! :lol: What about "extreme supporters of civilisation" ?
> 
> You might not have noticed, but Trump is showing distinct signs of being stupid and racist.




Extreme supporters of civilisation. That'll be the ones setting fire to a limo, throwing trash cans through windows, and talking about blowing up the Whitehouse? Very civilised. 

I wouldn't say Trump is stupid. He comes out with some crazy stuff, but you can't deny that it has been very effective at getting media coverage and getting heard. He's pretty much come from nowhere (politically) and won the presidency. 

My point is screeching abuse isn't going to work. Intelligently pulling apart his policies, offering better answers would. 
None of these protests seem to have offering that yet. The left need to find a voice that can articulate a view, rather than just name calling.


----------



## Jacob (29 Jan 2017)

jnw010":2hqgasib said:


> ..
> I wouldn't say Trump is stupid. He comes out with some crazy stuff, but you can't deny that it has been very effective at getting media coverage ...


Dunno I think he is obviously utterly stupid. 
Any maniac can get media coverage if they try hard enough.
Here's a couple:















__________________________
Libtards of the world unite


----------



## monkeybiter (30 Jan 2017)

jnw010":mzdr76yy said:


> Intelligently pulling apart his policies, offering better answers would.
> None of these protests seem to have offering that yet. The left need to find a voice that can articulate a view, rather than just name calling.



Unfortunately that approach, no matter how rational, well behaved and civilised, won't have any impact on the sort of people that have fallen for DT's 
populist playground name-calling and bullsnot. 
What worries me, in the longer term than the 4 years of retrograde motion, is that the politicians both sides of the pond don't seem to be even trying
to hide their lies, with the brexit campaigns over here, and over there, even after he won they're being fed 'alternative facts' and it will work.


----------



## bugbear (30 Jan 2017)

monkeybiter":10cuo270 said:


> What worries me, in the longer term than the 4 years of retrograde motion, is that the politicians both sides of the pond don't seem to be even trying
> to hide their lies, with the brexit campaigns over here, and over there, even after he won they're being fed 'alternative facts' and it will work.



Agreed - the notion that a politician might be the least embaressed to not keep a campaign pledge is so old fashioned.  

BugBear


----------



## Jacob (30 Jan 2017)

monkeybiter":d2x2s3qz said:


> jnw010":d2x2s3qz said:
> 
> 
> > Intelligently pulling apart his policies, offering better answers would.
> > None of these protests seem to have offering that yet. The left need to find a voice that can articulate a view, rather than just name calling.



They have Sanders (who might have beaten Trump if he had had support from the democrats), we have Corbyn - his day may yet come in spite of the intense vilification from the media. 
Both patently honest, both promoting a very moderate and civilised democratic socialist agenda, both deeply hated by conservatives.
The grotesque nonsense of Trump might bring people to their senses.

The good news is; we are unlikely ever to see Paul Nutter PhD as PM. But then who knows - we live in very strange times. :shock:


----------



## Random Orbital Bob (30 Jan 2017)

I have "quiet" hope because if you think about it, the growth of liberalism (or lets just call it civilisation because that's really what it is), has been won over many centuries and has survived a great many attempts to thwart it including of course 2 recent world wars.

If people really believe that a complete waste of oxygen like Trump is going to bring down an entire cultural framework, despite right wing rumblings in Europe and sabre rattling from Russia, all the evidence is to the contrary when viewed in a historical context.

It's a blip (a worrying one I grant you) but it is a flash of madness which is driven by unprecedented access to mass communication. People are being influenced in new and rapid ways (social media etc) that society hasn't really caught up with yet.

What I wonder is how much pain will we all have to endure in order to "prove" that lurching to the right is incorrect strategy for economic and social progress. How long will the blip be before it self corrects?

But mark my words, a lunatic like trump wont last. You simply cannot occupy an office like the presidency of the US and disrespect it to the extent he is doing, without the checks and balances eventually removing the cancer. That's the way society functions. Society is way more powerful than any individual.


----------



## stuartpaul (30 Jan 2017)

Random Orbital Bob":hz3rae18 said:


> ....
> But mark my words, a lunatic like trump wont last. You simply cannot occupy an office like the presidency of the US and disrespect it to the extent he is doing, without the checks and balances eventually removing the cancer. That's the way society functions. Society is way more powerful than any individual.


Sorry Bob, - whilst I'd love to agree with you there is a need to understand just how polarised American politics is. For example, the subject of abortion is completely divisive and I find it difficult to understand how in the second decade of the 21st Century that attitudes can be so backward. I don't claim to have any special insight but I do have a number of close friends out there at both ends of the spectrum and the gulf between views is frighteningly large.

Quite how the next year or so will go is likely to be 'interesting' to say the least. And the UK's 'special relationship' means diddly squat.


----------



## RobinBHM (30 Jan 2017)

It seems ironic that a country with a population started largely by settlers from other countries should now be shutting its borders.

Given the huge problems with gun crime and race issues in the US, terrorism should be a bit further down the list in priority. 

Clearly DT thinks having simplistic views, like the views that might be passed around on a Friday night in the pub can translate into positive action. We should allow DT to come for a state visit it will be a good opportunity for his dumb ideas to be seen over here.


----------



## Nelsun (30 Jan 2017)

His recent comments about how, in Iraq, the US should "keep the oil" and how they may "get another chance" are about the most worrying thing he's said to date IMO. It beggars belief how the words come out of his mouth:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOsWcEoKfp4

This is made even more worrying when you appoint the CEO of Exxon as the new... Secretary of State!

My forehead is starting to bruise from all the facepalming I've been doing since 20th January.


----------



## dzj (30 Jan 2017)

Ever since Mr. Reagan's second term in office when he was in the clutches of Alzheimer's
and the presidency of Bush the Younger, I seriously doubt that elected officials over there are the ones 
actually running things.
It will be interesting to see if there will be substantial changes in the US under Mr. Trump, or will the
inertia of the world's largest economy have a mind of its own.


----------



## El Barto (30 Jan 2017)

RobinBHM":2f3k1z3f said:


> It seems ironic that a country with a population started largely by settlers from other countries should now be shutting its borders.
> 
> Given the huge problems with gun crime and race issues in the US, terrorism should be a bit further down the list in priority.
> 
> Clearly DT thinks having simplistic views, like the views that might be passed around on a Friday night in the pub can translate into positive action. We should allow DT to come for a state visit it will be a good opportunity for his dumb ideas to be seen over here.



It's completely ironic, and painfully hypocritical. But that's the GOP for you. Jared Kushner (Donald's son in law and advisor) is something like a second generation immigrant. That is a very short amount of time to forget his own roots and back a ban on immigration. Donald's own parents were immigrants. America is a country founded by immigrants. The only difference between now and then is that a vast amount of refugees have been displaced because of America's invasions and conflicts aboard. That's irony.

Here is a tweet from Mike Pence before he was Donald's running mate:






Here is one from Paul Ryan from August 2016:






That their original beliefs were so swiftly dropped at the faintest glimpse of power is shameful. There are at least still republicans out there who continue to back their convictions (John McCain the most obvious example), but unfortunately they're in the minority and do not have the president's ear.


----------



## lurker (30 Jan 2017)

Mods: Time to lock this thread so we can all get back to arguing about sharpening.


----------



## El Barto (30 Jan 2017)

lurker":3byi8y0l said:


> Mods: Time to lock this thread so we can all get back to arguing about sharpening.



+100000000000


----------



## Random Orbital Bob (30 Jan 2017)

Agreed. Now...scary sharp...what a load of rubbish......


----------

