Trump Moves In

First topic message reminder :

Okay, so the American Election thread has run its course and it has been proven in a bombshell wikileak today that all Intelligence agencies involved (American, Russian, British, French, German, Chinese, Japanese, Australian and Brazilian) are now in total agreement that the election was above board, clean, non-contentious, valid and entertaining.

So onto the special day.  What a celebration we're all going to have tomorrow as the most popular President in the history of Illuminati Conspiracy Theory stands on a half filled podium and puts his hand on the book - that cannot be named lest it offend some of the sensitive Satanist protesters present - and swears allegiance to his family, his business empire, his twitter account and Alex Jones.

I believe he intends to make a conciliatory speech whereby he'll pledge to continue the war on terrorism by suppressing Rosie O'Donnell's freedom of movement and methods of funding.  He might even declare sanctions on Meryl Streep but he secretly loves her so....well, the CIA better keep an eye on that one.  Trump might be caught fraternising with the enemy yet again if she ever accepts the dove's feather of peace and attends one of his many planned orgies at Trump House.

We all waited impatiently for this day and now it's upon us.  Let's hope the marksman is off to the right a little.  Let's hope the bomb fails to go off.  Let's hope the protesters keep away from matches and keep their bras on.  But apart from all that, lets' discuss the bright future ahead under Donald Trump.

SecretFly wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:So you don't/can't actually disagree with the central premise then?

I do disagree with the central premise.  You'd try anything on to get back on the offensive, Top.  But no, you're stuck on a defensive point, and that's where you'll stay.  

You quote your 'facts and figures'.  It was detailed facts and a figures that told us neither Brexit nor Donald would happen.  Oh Dear, the number boys forgot to take into account the long lines of Russian men and women outside the polling booths with the dark glasses and trench coats.    

How could detailed facts tell us Brexit and Trump wouldn't happen? Facts are ex-post, not ex-ante.

Best bit is, despite being a clear dimwit, you revel in self-appointed glory of ignorance. Like denying there's been any change in unemployment in 24 years........all those millions of unemployed westerners must be hiding somewhere very crafty indeed!!

Oh they're not hiding..... didn't many of them just upset your hearty breakfast every morning now for the last seven or eight months?  Haven't you been having indigestion at all the commoner loons coming out of their holes and having the temerity to think their vote should lord it over the justly guidance of yonder Etonian boys from Planet Westminster?

Still driving around your roundabout wondering which exit to take to keep the shine on your pomp, Top.  Good man, no wonder you're dizzy.

ex-post, ex-ante?  Ex-relevant - that's your figure boys - ex-relevant.  But I'm sure their stats say I'm wrong

Start to feel bad now. It's like taking the mickey out of the special kid at school.

Keep squirming around playing the Brand/conspiracy theorist card. You're just making yourself look stupid.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I can answer the first question......Approximately 3/4 million illegals cross the border a year.....

Approximately 43% will return.....

Approximately 150,000 Mexicans are deported each year with criminal convictions..(DHS figures)

Is that three quarters of a million or 3 to 4 million? If the latter it would account for the US' entire population growth rate!!

750,000......

TopHat24/7 wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:So you don't/can't actually disagree with the central premise then?

I do disagree with the central premise.  You'd try anything on to get back on the offensive, Top.  But no, you're stuck on a defensive point, and that's where you'll stay.  

You quote your 'facts and figures'.  It was detailed facts and a figures that told us neither Brexit nor Donald would happen.  Oh Dear, the number boys forgot to take into account the long lines of Russian men and women outside the polling booths with the dark glasses and trench coats.    

How could detailed facts tell us Brexit and Trump wouldn't happen? Facts are ex-post, not ex-ante.

Best bit is, despite being a clear dimwit, you revel in self-appointed glory of ignorance. Like denying there's been any change in unemployment in 24 years........all those millions of unemployed westerners must be hiding somewhere very crafty indeed!!

Oh they're not hiding..... didn't many of them just upset your hearty breakfast every morning now for the last seven or eight months?  Haven't you been having indigestion at all the commoner loons coming out of their holes and having the temerity to think their vote should lord it over the justly guidance of yonder Etonian boys from Planet Westminster?

Still driving around your roundabout wondering which exit to take to keep the shine on your pomp, Top.  Good man, no wonder you're dizzy.

ex-post, ex-ante?  Ex-relevant - that's your figure boys - ex-relevant.  But I'm sure their stats say I'm wrong

Start to feel bad now. It's like taking the mickey out of the special kid at school.

Kind of post that says more about the writer than the target..

So that 750,000 is purely those that tried to get from Mexico to the US by methods that a wall would now stop?
Or does that include those that got temp work permits?
Or ones that came by boat/plane?
Or went through the many tunnels?
Or those that work seasonally on farms etc and return home?

Basically will the wall stop anyone coming or just make those that make the journey more likely to stay once they're in.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:So you don't/can't actually disagree with the central premise then?

I do disagree with the central premise.  You'd try anything on to get back on the offensive, Top.  But no, you're stuck on a defensive point, and that's where you'll stay.  

You quote your 'facts and figures'.  It was detailed facts and a figures that told us neither Brexit nor Donald would happen.  Oh Dear, the number boys forgot to take into account the long lines of Russian men and women outside the polling booths with the dark glasses and trench coats.    

How could detailed facts tell us Brexit and Trump wouldn't happen? Facts are ex-post, not ex-ante.

Best bit is, despite being a clear dimwit, you revel in self-appointed glory of ignorance. Like denying there's been any change in unemployment in 24 years........all those millions of unemployed westerners must be hiding somewhere very crafty indeed!!

Oh they're not hiding..... didn't many of them just upset your hearty breakfast every morning now for the last seven or eight months?  Haven't you been having indigestion at all the commoner loons coming out of their holes and having the temerity to think their vote should lord it over the justly guidance of yonder Etonian boys from Planet Westminster?

Still driving around your roundabout wondering which exit to take to keep the shine on your pomp, Top.  Good man, no wonder you're dizzy.

ex-post, ex-ante?  Ex-relevant - that's your figure boys - ex-relevant.  But I'm sure their stats say I'm wrong

Start to feel bad now. It's like taking the mickey out of the special kid at school.

Kind of post that says more about the writer than the target..

Back at ya Smuggy McSmugson.

Moving on......

Washington Times are reporting Clinton got 800,000 votes from Non-Citizens...

Results of some University study...

The Washington Times is a Conservative paper....

Oh it was probably even more than that.

No it wasn't. It was probably only half a dozen. As opposed to the hundreds of thousands of fake Russian votes Trump got.

FAKE NEWS FAKE NEWS FAKE NEWS!!!

Trump and Teresa day today...

Trump - "Send in May"

Teresa - "Good Morning Mr President"..

Trump - "Send in Miss June....May is dawg-gone ugly.."

TopHat24/7 wrote:No it wasn't. It was probably only half a dozen.  As opposed to the hundreds of thousands of fake Russian votes Trump got.

FAKE NEWS FAKE NEWS FAKE NEWS!!!

That extra half dozen was the extra votes Trump got when that nice Green Party Lady called for a recount on account of all those suspicious looking men with buzz cuts and Russian accents lingering around the voting centres.

That was a laugh.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Trump and Teresa day today...

Trump - "Send in May"

Teresa - "Good Morning Mr President"..

Trump - "Send in Miss June....May is dawg-gone ugly.."

Sometimes, you definitely hit the bull's eye Truss.

Anyone seen the pics of his book shelves in the White House library....??

Not an iota of FAKE NEWS there guaranteed. Why? Because there's only a dozen books and there'll all written by or about Donny T himself!

I'll be disappointed if that great Political Tome 'Horton Hears a Who' isn't one of those books.

navyblueshorts wrote:

profitius wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwmOkaKh3-s
Thats an 1993 interview with the late Sir James Goldsmith. He was one of the wealthiest people in the world and a capitalist. Here he gave the reasons why free trade was a bad thing and gave warnings about what would happen. 24 years later the evidence shows everything he said was spot on.

Basically he said having free trade means companies will flee to the third world creating massive unemployment in 1st world countries. The rich will get richer while the poor poorer. Thats why he also set up an anti-EU party in Britain despite being pro EU earlier in his life. The man could see what was coming.

OK, watched that now. Thanks for the link - actually enjoyed it, which is saying something for someone who thinks economics should be for when you can't sleep. He's a very good speaker. I'm not sure I inherently disagree with anything he proposed really. The issue still is, are you willing to pay significantly higher prices for goods manufactured 'at home'? Or how about vastly reduced pay, but at least a job maybe, in order to keep the cost of goods to what you're used to? That would seem to be the simplistic trade-off for maintaining production, investment etc at home and that's aside from the fact that t!t-for-tat trade barriers will hit exports. Consequences, consequences...

Yes I think a higher price to pay for some goods is actually healthier. Getting things for half nothing is great but as far as I'm concerned nothing is free and the costs are added in some way somewhere down the line. In the 1950s a typical American family looked like this. The father went out to work, the mother stayed at home (an women then were a lot happier than todays "free" women), they had about 4 kids a car or two and a house that was easily paid for. Now look at the typcial American family. The middle classes are shrinking every year and all that wealth has flowed out of the country because of a policy of free trade. You would think life should be getting easier because we have machinery that does all the manual labour jobs but the opposite is happening. Serfdom is coming back.

profitius wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

profitius wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwmOkaKh3-s
Thats an 1993 interview with the late Sir James Goldsmith. He was one of the wealthiest people in the world and a capitalist. Here he gave the reasons why free trade was a bad thing and gave warnings about what would happen. 24 years later the evidence shows everything he said was spot on.

Basically he said having free trade means companies will flee to the third world creating massive unemployment in 1st world countries. The rich will get richer while the poor poorer. Thats why he also set up an anti-EU party in Britain despite being pro EU earlier in his life. The man could see what was coming.

OK, watched that now. Thanks for the link - actually enjoyed it, which is saying something for someone who thinks economics should be for when you can't sleep. He's a very good speaker. I'm not sure I inherently disagree with anything he proposed really. The issue still is, are you willing to pay significantly higher prices for goods manufactured 'at home'? Or how about vastly reduced pay, but at least a job maybe, in order to keep the cost of goods to what you're used to? That would seem to be the simplistic trade-off for maintaining production, investment etc at home and that's aside from the fact that t!t-for-tat trade barriers will hit exports. Consequences, consequences...

Yes I think a higher price to pay for some goods is actually healthier. Getting things for half nothing is great but as far as I'm concerned nothing is free and the costs are added in some way somewhere down the line. In the 1950s a typical American family looked like this. The father went out to work, the mother stayed at home (an women then were a lot happier than todays "free" women), they had about 4 kids a car or two and a house that was easily paid for. Now look at the typcial American family. The middle classes are shrinking every year and all that wealth has flowed out of the country because of a policy of free trade. You would think life should be getting easier because we have machinery that does all the manual labour jobs but the opposite is happening. Serfdom is coming back.  

I'm sorry but we need to nip this absolute nonsense in the bud.

From 1993 unemployment has fallen in us and uk with an increase in inflation adjusted household income and average salary.

Inflation adjusted salary from 1950 in usa has also increased significantly.

The world has changed since 1950 it is more expensive. Life expectancy in 1950 usa was 65 it's late 70s for men and 80 for women now - that's a lot of retirement to pay for.

Let's look down one avenue, healthcare - it was absolute crap in 1950 with no treatment for anything aside from aspirin and bed rest, very cheap. The first bypass was done in 1960, nowadays if you have a heart attack they put in stents costing thousands of pounds.

We live longer and better, it costs more. Modern life has many problems, they can not all be laid at the door of globalisation and using some romanticised version of 1950s America (the civil rights movement hadn't even happened for christs sake) as evidence to the contrary is embarrassing and shows a real lack of thought.

Republican administrations were pretty much libertarian governments before Reagan..

Healthcare in the US was pretty much a shambles before LBJ brought in his 65 bill....

Attlee did great things over here......

Ent wrote:

profitius wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

profitius wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwmOkaKh3-s
Thats an 1993 interview with the late Sir James Goldsmith. He was one of the wealthiest people in the world and a capitalist. Here he gave the reasons why free trade was a bad thing and gave warnings about what would happen. 24 years later the evidence shows everything he said was spot on.

Basically he said having free trade means companies will flee to the third world creating massive unemployment in 1st world countries. The rich will get richer while the poor poorer. Thats why he also set up an anti-EU party in Britain despite being pro EU earlier in his life. The man could see what was coming.

OK, watched that now. Thanks for the link - actually enjoyed it, which is saying something for someone who thinks economics should be for when you can't sleep. He's a very good speaker. I'm not sure I inherently disagree with anything he proposed really. The issue still is, are you willing to pay significantly higher prices for goods manufactured 'at home'? Or how about vastly reduced pay, but at least a job maybe, in order to keep the cost of goods to what you're used to? That would seem to be the simplistic trade-off for maintaining production, investment etc at home and that's aside from the fact that t!t-for-tat trade barriers will hit exports. Consequences, consequences...

Yes I think a higher price to pay for some goods is actually healthier. Getting things for half nothing is great but as far as I'm concerned nothing is free and the costs are added in some way somewhere down the line. In the 1950s a typical American family looked like this. The father went out to work, the mother stayed at home (an women then were a lot happier than todays "free" women), they had about 4 kids a car or two and a house that was easily paid for. Now look at the typcial American family. The middle classes are shrinking every year and all that wealth has flowed out of the country because of a policy of free trade. You would think life should be getting easier because we have machinery that does all the manual labour jobs but the opposite is happening. Serfdom is coming back.  

I'm sorry but we need to nip this absolute nonsense in the bud.

From 1993 unemployment has fallen in us and uk with an increase in inflation adjusted household income and average salary.

Inflation adjusted salary from 1950 in usa has also increased significantly.

The world has changed since 1950 it is more expensive. Life expectancy in 1950 usa was 65 it's late 70s for men and 80 for women now - that's a lot of retirement to pay for.

Let's look down one avenue, healthcare - it was absolute crap in 1950 with no treatment for anything aside from aspirin and bed rest, very cheap. The first bypass was done in 1960, nowadays if you have a heart attack they put in stents costing thousands of pounds.

We live longer and better, it costs more. Modern life has many problems, they can not all be laid at the door of globalisation and using some romanticised version of 1950s America (the civil rights movement hadn't even happened for christs sake) as evidence to the contrary is embarrassing and shows a real lack of thought.

Well you didn't nip it in the bud. Fact is the middle classes are shrinking while the lower classes is growing. They're the main facts I'm interested in not unemployment rates since 1993. As Secretfly pointed out, those unemployment numbers are manipulated by governments.


And of course technology has moved on since the 1950s. I'm pointing out the things that have gone backwards.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Republican administrations were pretty much libertarian governments before Reagan..

Healthcare in the US was pretty much a shambles before LBJ brought in his 65 bill....

Attlee did great things over here......

Healthcare is a shambles now. Here is a libertarian pointing out how insane it is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WnS96NVlMI

Before 1965....Nearly half the pensioners in the Country couldn't get health insurance because they were being charged crazy amounts compared to the young and healthy...Same for disabled people..

I've been critical of obamacare on here but I agree with the sentiment...I also appreciate that whatever problems there are in the US pale in comparison to sixty years ago..

The first responsibility of any Government is to look after its people.

profitius wrote:

Ent wrote:

profitius wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

profitius wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwmOkaKh3-s
Thats an 1993 interview with the late Sir James Goldsmith. He was one of the wealthiest people in the world and a capitalist. Here he gave the reasons why free trade was a bad thing and gave warnings about what would happen. 24 years later the evidence shows everything he said was spot on.

Basically he said having free trade means companies will flee to the third world creating massive unemployment in 1st world countries. The rich will get richer while the poor poorer. Thats why he also set up an anti-EU party in Britain despite being pro EU earlier in his life. The man could see what was coming.

OK, watched that now. Thanks for the link - actually enjoyed it, which is saying something for someone who thinks economics should be for when you can't sleep. He's a very good speaker. I'm not sure I inherently disagree with anything he proposed really. The issue still is, are you willing to pay significantly higher prices for goods manufactured 'at home'? Or how about vastly reduced pay, but at least a job maybe, in order to keep the cost of goods to what you're used to? That would seem to be the simplistic trade-off for maintaining production, investment etc at home and that's aside from the fact that t!t-for-tat trade barriers will hit exports. Consequences, consequences...

Yes I think a higher price to pay for some goods is actually healthier. Getting things for half nothing is great but as far as I'm concerned nothing is free and the costs are added in some way somewhere down the line. In the 1950s a typical American family looked like this. The father went out to work, the mother stayed at home (an women then were a lot happier than todays "free" women), they had about 4 kids a car or two and a house that was easily paid for. Now look at the typcial American family. The middle classes are shrinking every year and all that wealth has flowed out of the country because of a policy of free trade. You would think life should be getting easier because we have machinery that does all the manual labour jobs but the opposite is happening. Serfdom is coming back.  

I'm sorry but we need to nip this absolute nonsense in the bud.

From 1993 unemployment has fallen in us and uk with an increase in inflation adjusted household income and average salary.

Inflation adjusted salary from 1950 in usa has also increased significantly.

The world has changed since 1950 it is more expensive. Life expectancy in 1950 usa was 65 it's late 70s for men and 80 for women now - that's a lot of retirement to pay for.

Let's look down one avenue, healthcare - it was absolute crap in 1950 with no treatment for anything aside from aspirin and bed rest, very cheap. The first bypass was done in 1960, nowadays if you have a heart attack they put in stents costing thousands of pounds.

We live longer and better, it costs more. Modern life has many problems, they can not all be laid at the door of globalisation and using some romanticised version of 1950s America (the civil rights movement hadn't even happened for christs sake) as evidence to the contrary is embarrassing and shows a real lack of thought.

Well you didn't nip it in the bud. Fact is the middle classes are shrinking while the lower classes is growing. They're the main facts I'm interested in not unemployment rates since 1993. As Secretfly pointed out, those unemployment numbers are manipulated by governments.


And of course technology has moved on since the 1950s. I'm pointing out the things that have gone backwards.

More guff, middle class is a very ambiguous term and the breakdown is entirely dependent on how you measure it. Regardless of the definition you use the contracture in the middle class isn't everyone moving into the lower bracket - a higher percentage move into the higher bracket.

Poverty rates are lower than the 50s too, significantly in fact.

You can't just ignore evidence as it disputes your sweeping statements.

The world has changed, not just technology and an ignorant romanticised view of 1950s America is not evidence you can use to criticise globalisation.

I don't know what you're so up in arms about, Ent. I'm enjoying reading on the Alternative Facts: 1950s edition. I'm currently up waiting for the release of the next chapter where we learn that in the 50s minorites were so loved that the government set up special taps for them to drink water from, and restaurants to eat at. Then we'll find out the Civil Rights movement was actually just a time were music genres exploded.

Ent wrote:

profitius wrote:

Ent wrote:

profitius wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

profitius wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwmOkaKh3-s
Thats an 1993 interview with the late Sir James Goldsmith. He was one of the wealthiest people in the world and a capitalist. Here he gave the reasons why free trade was a bad thing and gave warnings about what would happen. 24 years later the evidence shows everything he said was spot on.

Basically he said having free trade means companies will flee to the third world creating massive unemployment in 1st world countries. The rich will get richer while the poor poorer. Thats why he also set up an anti-EU party in Britain despite being pro EU earlier in his life. The man could see what was coming.

OK, watched that now. Thanks for the link - actually enjoyed it, which is saying something for someone who thinks economics should be for when you can't sleep. He's a very good speaker. I'm not sure I inherently disagree with anything he proposed really. The issue still is, are you willing to pay significantly higher prices for goods manufactured 'at home'? Or how about vastly reduced pay, but at least a job maybe, in order to keep the cost of goods to what you're used to? That would seem to be the simplistic trade-off for maintaining production, investment etc at home and that's aside from the fact that t!t-for-tat trade barriers will hit exports. Consequences, consequences...

Yes I think a higher price to pay for some goods is actually healthier. Getting things for half nothing is great but as far as I'm concerned nothing is free and the costs are added in some way somewhere down the line. In the 1950s a typical American family looked like this. The father went out to work, the mother stayed at home (an women then were a lot happier than todays "free" women), they had about 4 kids a car or two and a house that was easily paid for. Now look at the typcial American family. The middle classes are shrinking every year and all that wealth has flowed out of the country because of a policy of free trade. You would think life should be getting easier because we have machinery that does all the manual labour jobs but the opposite is happening. Serfdom is coming back.  

I'm sorry but we need to nip this absolute nonsense in the bud.

From 1993 unemployment has fallen in us and uk with an increase in inflation adjusted household income and average salary.

Inflation adjusted salary from 1950 in usa has also increased significantly.

The world has changed since 1950 it is more expensive. Life expectancy in 1950 usa was 65 it's late 70s for men and 80 for women now - that's a lot of retirement to pay for.

Let's look down one avenue, healthcare - it was absolute crap in 1950 with no treatment for anything aside from aspirin and bed rest, very cheap. The first bypass was done in 1960, nowadays if you have a heart attack they put in stents costing thousands of pounds.

We live longer and better, it costs more. Modern life has many problems, they can not all be laid at the door of globalisation and using some romanticised version of 1950s America (the civil rights movement hadn't even happened for christs sake) as evidence to the contrary is embarrassing and shows a real lack of thought.

Well you didn't nip it in the bud. Fact is the middle classes are shrinking while the lower classes is growing. They're the main facts I'm interested in not unemployment rates since 1993. As Secretfly pointed out, those unemployment numbers are manipulated by governments.


And of course technology has moved on since the 1950s. I'm pointing out the things that have gone backwards.

More guff, middle class is a very ambiguous term and the breakdown is entirely dependent on how you measure it. Regardless of the definition you use the contracture in the middle class isn't everyone moving into the lower bracket - a higher percentage move into the higher bracket.

Poverty rates are lower than the 50s too, significantly in fact.

You can't just ignore evidence as it disputes your sweeping statements.

The world has changed, not just technology and an ignorant romanticised view of 1950s America is not evidence you can use to criticise globalisation.

Where did I say everything was better in the 50s? I'm saying, if an average man could support a family easier in the 50s than today, there's something seriously wrong.

Who had 8 days in the how long will it take Trump to run into legal troubles sweepstakes.

Obama's administration was sued more than 50 times..

It's politics..

To make an omelette you break eggs...If he can make the US a safer place good luck to him....I have my doubts....

9/11 changed everything..and Trump is a New Yorker...

Never forget that..

It was also 16 years ago.

All this accomplishes is feeding the propaganda machines of those its aimed at. As well as appealing to the lowest common denominator.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Obama's administration was sued more than 50 times..

It's politics..

To make an omelette you break eggs...If he can make the US a safer place good luck to him....I have my doubts....

9/11 changed everything..and Trump is a New Yorker...

Never forget that..

Re. Trump's nonsensical anti-Islam order. I can sort of understand why, on the face of it (but only at that level), preventing nationals from the countries listed entering America seems to make a bit of sense. However, let me see....the nationals from which country commissioned and flew planes into the World Trade Center? Osama Bin Laden was what nationality? One of the countries that most actively funds madrassas and mosque building elsewhere in the world is which, exactly?

Truss: 9/11 wasn't commissioned by anyone from the countries listed.

There's no problem with support for radical Islam in Pakistan? No-one from Russia (Chechnya etc) is likely to be an issue? No-one from any of the former Soviet republics might be an issue?
No-one wanting to damage the U.S. from the outlawed countries would, for example, have their nationality changed to that of another nation and then enter the U.S. to kill?
No-one born and bred in the U.S., having wacky anti-U.S. thoughts and being so disgusted with this sort of legislation, takes that extra step and shoots a dozen people in a shopping mall somewhere?

This man is a moron, pathetic and isn't worthy of the office he now holds.

You don't have to tell me who was behind 9/11..

But I can forgive anybody from the Big Apple that doesn't think too rationally about Muslims....

I can accept ordinary citizens being scarred by that day.

But Trump isn't an ordinary citizen. He's the president and the leader of any nation needs to be able to put aside their personal opinions and govern for the benefit of all.

GSC wrote:I can accept ordinary citizens being scarred by that day.

But Trump isn't an ordinary citizen. He's the president and the leader of any nation needs to be able to put aside their personal opinions and govern for the benefit of all.

Trump was just a citizen when it happened. .

Experience moulds people....It makes us who we are....

And good leaders need to be able to look past that when making major decisions.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

GSC wrote:I can accept ordinary citizens being scarred by that day.

But Trump isn't an ordinary citizen. He's the president and the leader of any nation needs to be able to put aside their personal opinions and govern for the benefit of all.

Trump was just a citizen when it happened. .

Experience moulds people....It makes us who we are....

No excuse.

The Trump Administration: of the ignorant, by the ignorant and for the ignorant.

Ent wrote:

profitius wrote:

Ent wrote:

profitius wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

profitius wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwmOkaKh3-s
Thats an 1993 interview with the late Sir James Goldsmith. He was one of the wealthiest people in the world and a capitalist. Here he gave the reasons why free trade was a bad thing and gave warnings about what would happen. 24 years later the evidence shows everything he said was spot on.

Basically he said having free trade means companies will flee to the third world creating massive unemployment in 1st world countries. The rich will get richer while the poor poorer. Thats why he also set up an anti-EU party in Britain despite being pro EU earlier in his life. The man could see what was coming.

OK, watched that now. Thanks for the link - actually enjoyed it, which is saying something for someone who thinks economics should be for when you can't sleep. He's a very good speaker. I'm not sure I inherently disagree with anything he proposed really. The issue still is, are you willing to pay significantly higher prices for goods manufactured 'at home'? Or how about vastly reduced pay, but at least a job maybe, in order to keep the cost of goods to what you're used to? That would seem to be the simplistic trade-off for maintaining production, investment etc at home and that's aside from the fact that t!t-for-tat trade barriers will hit exports. Consequences, consequences...

Yes I think a higher price to pay for some goods is actually healthier. Getting things for half nothing is great but as far as I'm concerned nothing is free and the costs are added in some way somewhere down the line. In the 1950s a typical American family looked like this. The father went out to work, the mother stayed at home (an women then were a lot happier than todays "free" women), they had about 4 kids a car or two and a house that was easily paid for. Now look at the typcial American family. The middle classes are shrinking every year and all that wealth has flowed out of the country because of a policy of free trade. You would think life should be getting easier because we have machinery that does all the manual labour jobs but the opposite is happening. Serfdom is coming back.  

I'm sorry but we need to nip this absolute nonsense in the bud.

From 1993 unemployment has fallen in us and uk with an increase in inflation adjusted household income and average salary.

Inflation adjusted salary from 1950 in usa has also increased significantly.

The world has changed since 1950 it is more expensive. Life expectancy in 1950 usa was 65 it's late 70s for men and 80 for women now - that's a lot of retirement to pay for.

Let's look down one avenue, healthcare - it was absolute crap in 1950 with no treatment for anything aside from aspirin and bed rest, very cheap. The first bypass was done in 1960, nowadays if you have a heart attack they put in stents costing thousands of pounds.

We live longer and better, it costs more. Modern life has many problems, they can not all be laid at the door of globalisation and using some romanticised version of 1950s America (the civil rights movement hadn't even happened for christs sake) as evidence to the contrary is embarrassing and shows a real lack of thought.

Well you didn't nip it in the bud. Fact is the middle classes are shrinking while the lower classes is growing. They're the main facts I'm interested in not unemployment rates since 1993. As Secretfly pointed out, those unemployment numbers are manipulated by governments.


And of course technology has moved on since the 1950s. I'm pointing out the things that have gone backwards.

More guff, middle class is a very ambiguous term and the breakdown is entirely dependent on how you measure it. Regardless of the definition you use the contracture in the middle class isn't everyone moving into the lower bracket - a higher percentage move into the higher bracket.

Poverty rates are lower than the 50s too, significantly in fact.

You can't just ignore evidence as it disputes your sweeping statements.

The world has changed, not just technology and an ignorant romanticised view of 1950s America is not evidence you can use to criticise globalisation.

Of course he can!

Have you not watched the news recently or seen how this lot operate? He, SF, Trump, WH Press Sec, there'll all the same ilk.

When facts dispute your conspiracy theory just shout - FAKE NEWS FAKE NEWS FAKES NEWS!!

There is literally nothing and nobody Truss won't apologise for so long as they're American PMSL

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Ent wrote:

You can't just ignore evidence as it disputes your sweeping statements.

The world has changed, not just technology and an ignorant romanticised view of 1950s America is not evidence you can use to criticise globalisation.

Of course he can!

Have you not watched the news recently or seen how this lot operate? He, SF, Trump, WH Press Sec, there'll all the same ilk.

When facts dispute your conspiracy theory just shout - FAKE NEWS FAKE NEWS FAKES NEWS!!

FAKE NEWS Top!

As Ent says: "The world has changed".

It HAS changed.

And the people who have been comfortably smug now for many decades (namely backscratching 'career' politicians, 'philanthropic "Globalist"' political donors and their Wormtongue vulture lobbyists) don't like it.

GSC wrote:And good leaders need to be able to look past that when making major decisions.

9/11 decimated New York.....Enough to give anybody a negative view of Muslims..

Leave it out..

He wants to keep the USA safe..and he can waterboard anyone he likes if it means doing that..

America has decimated half of the middle east, wonder why a fair number of them then get a bit angry towards the US?

Hero wrote:America has decimated half of the middle east, wonder why a fair number of them then get a bit angry towards the US?

Terrorism is never justified..

Neither is persecution.

Hero wrote:America has decimated half of the middle east, wonder why a fair number of them then get a bit angry towards the US?

America AND pals.  America AND pals.  As they've been doing both before and since the last World War.

So Trump says let's try to end the more vicious wars there (by attacking the up-to-now suspiciously well funded Isis propaganda and war machine), and perhaps offer a real home back to the millions of displaced people from that part of the world.

'Trump is SATAN!!!!  He want Syrians and other peoples from that region back in the Homes they've had to vacate because of a mostly Western funded Civil War!!!  Damn him!  The Ruthless Dog.'

3,000 lives lost...
83,000 jobs lost...
60 billion cost to New York....

I'm not interested in tit for tat..

Trump is a New Yorker....Muslims decimated New York.....(However perverted their version of islam was)

People carry baggage from experiences....We all carry some

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:3,000 lives lost...
83,000 jobs lost...
60 billion cost to New York....

I'm not interested in tit for tat..

Trump is a New Yorker....Muslims decimated New York.....(However perverted their version of islam was)

People carry baggage.

Muslims AND pals.........................

I see 1 million people have signed a petition to try to stop Trump coming to the UK...

Mustn't have seen May holding hands with Trump....

Looked like Reagan and Thatcher again..

Funny how all these Muslim 'refugees' don't like western culture yet are desperate to get to the USA or mainland Europe(mainly U.K. So they can sponge of benefits). If the western world is so against their beliefs why don't they relocate to Muslim majority countries e.g. Saudi Arabia has plenty of space in their country... but h I forget these Muslims pretend they are against western culture yet claim they move to the West for more freedom.

Trump needs to wipe out the dreadful Muslim religion it's a plague on the world

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I see 1 million people have signed a petition to try to stop Trump coming to the UK...

Mustn't have seen May holding hands with Trump....

Looked like Reagan and Thatcher again..

I noticed she pulled her hand away again quite quickly (tactfully while they were briefly obscured by a pillar). As in "I want us to be friends...but not that friendly"... I think she was letting him know she has no intention of being Ginger Rogers to his Fred Astaire...or something along those lines...

As to Trump coming to the UK...the guy's gotta check his golf courses are doing okay.

Its just like when the same people protested about the BBC letting Nick Griffin appear on Question Time. Let the guy come and say what he has to say...and if he makes himself look a prat then their views will be confirmed.

I think he'll find UK citizens a bit more sceptical and less easily won over by slogans than Americans.

Jermaine2015 wrote:Funny how all these Muslim 'refugees' don't like western culture yet are desperate to get to the USA or mainland Europe(mainly U.K. So they can sponge of benefits). If the western world is so against their beliefs why don't they relocate to Muslim majority countries e.g. Saudi Arabia has plenty of space in their country... but h I forget these Muslims pretend they are against western culture yet claim they move to the West for more freedom.

Trump needs to wipe out the dreadful Muslim religion it's a plague on the world

You're a f*cking idiot.

Jermaine2015 wrote:Funny how all these Muslim 'refugees' don't like western culture yet are desperate to get to the USA or mainland Europe(mainly U.K. So they can sponge of benefits). If the western world is so against their beliefs why don't they relocate to Muslim majority countries e.g. Saudi Arabia has plenty of space in their country... but h I forget these Muslims pretend they are against western culture yet claim they move to the West for more freedom.

Trump needs to wipe out the dreadful Muslim religion it's a plague on the world

Congratulations - you just won the internet with your awesome powers of sweeping generalisation!

You may as well say all Germans need to be wiped out because some of them are neo-Nazis and would welcome the creation of a Fourth Reich. In fact it was exactly that type of thinking that led to the rise of the Nazi party.

Also you might want to do some research into benefit fraud in the UK. Pretty much every news story you see about it features white people who were born in the UK.

dyrewolfe wrote:

Jermaine2015 wrote:Funny how all these Muslim 'refugees' don't like western culture yet are desperate to get to the USA or mainland Europe(mainly U.K. So they can sponge of benefits). If the western world is so against their beliefs why don't they relocate to Muslim majority countries e.g. Saudi Arabia has plenty of space in their country... but h I forget these Muslims pretend they are against western culture yet claim they move to the West for more freedom.

Trump needs to wipe out the dreadful Muslim religion it's a plague on the world

Congratulations - you just won the internet with your awesome powers of sweeping generalisation!

You may as well say all Germans need to be wiped out because some of them are neo-Nazis and would welcome the creation of a Fourth Reich.

It's not a discussion about Germany or racist Germans but feel free to pass on your grievances to Angela Merkel...

dyrewolfe wrote:

Jermaine2015 wrote:Funny how all these Muslim 'refugees' don't like western culture yet are desperate to get to the USA or mainland Europe(mainly U.K. So they can sponge of benefits). If the western world is so against their beliefs why don't they relocate to Muslim majority countries e.g. Saudi Arabia has plenty of space in their country... but h I forget these Muslims pretend they are against western culture yet claim they move to the West for more freedom.

Trump needs to wipe out the dreadful Muslim religion it's a plague on the world

Congratulations - you just won the internet with your awesome powers of sweeping generalisation!

You may as well say all Germans need to be wiped out because some of them are neo-Nazis and would welcome the creation of a Fourth Reich. In fact it was exactly that type of thinking that led to the rise of the Nazi party.

Also you might want to do some research into benefit fraud in the UK. Pretty much every news story you see about it features white people who were born in the UK.

Whether white peoples commit fraud or not is it's relevant. It's their country.

superflyweight wrote:

Jermaine2015 wrote:Funny how all these Muslim 'refugees' don't like western culture yet are desperate to get to the USA or mainland Europe(mainly U.K. So they can sponge of benefits). If the western world is so against their beliefs why don't they relocate to Muslim majority countries e.g. Saudi Arabia has plenty of space in their country... but h I forget these Muslims pretend they are against western culture yet claim they move to the West for more freedom.

Trump needs to wipe out the dreadful Muslim religion it's a plague on the world

You're a f*cking idiot.

Thanks pal...hidden Muslim