The Trump Presidency

First topic message reminder :

Well, since the last thread got terminated, I thought I'd open a new one as I think Trump's Presidency is potentially quite an important event (one way or the other), so we should talk about it.

Let's at least try to argue points raised rather than sling any personal insults (not that I mind).

To kick off, what on Earth is that Kellyanne Conway doing promoting Ivanka Trump's fashion line and does the Donald seriously think it's OK to weigh in as he's done??? With any luck, some legal eagles will tear Conway down somewhat and someone (anyone!) will convince Trump to stop tweeting. In fact, does anyone in the Administration know what they're doing? A less suitable press officer than Spicer is hard to imagine but to be fair to the guy, it must be difficult fielding media comments when he's having to make it up on the hoof.

As I said to a mod that PM'd me previously - muppets like SF have been allowed to kill this forum previously, you can see by the absurd diatribes above that history is only going to repeat itself.

Trump Is a turd regardless of who he's compared to.

navyblueshorts wrote:

the-goon wrote:So just like Brussels, Trump is vindicated...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/21/swedish-police-investigate-riot-predominantly-immigrant-suburb/

Oooo! High quality article. Nothing in it to suggest it was actually immigrants involved but hey, why not make assumptions?

Riots errupted after the arrest of a local drug dealer, considering the population of Rinkby is 90% immigrant (in 2007, probably higher now) and that rioting by immigrants are not uncommon in areas like Rinkby, it's pretty obvious what is going on. These type of riots were unheard of in Sweden before mass immigration, also adding weight to the fact it was Rinkby locals rioting, rather than Swedes from other areas coming in to riot, which is basically the only other possibility.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rinkeby

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Stockholm_riots

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_social_unrest_in_Sweden

navyblueshorts wrote:

the-goon wrote:What are you on about?

Nice to see you have gone straight for the tried and trusted ad hominems.

Trump said that Sweden was having social issues as a result of their immigration policies over the past number of years. Then within 2 days, there is a riot in one of many ghetto-ised no-zones that the Swedish police themselves are admitting to losing control over.

But hey, if you are against un-check mass immigration you have to be a racist right?

Trump didn't know what he was saying, hence the stupid attempts at explaining thereafter.

It was poorly worded, but he knew what is was talking about. Did you see the video footage?? The "last night in Sweden" refers to the Fox News report, and the "having problems like you wouldn't believe" is the social issues as a result of their immgration policy. It really isn't that complicated. The "last night in Sweden" is very vague, but he clarified it later.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

the-goon wrote:What are you on about?

Nice to see you have gone straight for the tried and trusted ad hominems.

Trump said that Sweden was having social issues as a result of their immigration policies over the past number of years. Then within 2 days, there is a riot in one of many ghetto-ised no-zones that the Swedish police themselves are admitting to losing control over.

But hey, if you are against un-check mass immigration you have to be a racist right?

No, Trump specifically referred to an incident which never existed. A fact he was never interested in checking as it fitted his race-baiting anti immigrant agenda, despite his near daily accusations of FAKE NEWS against major media outlets.

The fact an unconnected incident happened to occur later that he/you feels justifies his remarks & stance is irrelevant.

I've already responded to this in an above post, and Trump has clarified his statements.

You're wrong. He was referring to a Fox news report the night before which DID happen. What happened in Sweden was exactly the issues he was referring to at the rally in the problems Sweden is facing. The fact is that these riots are not uncommon in certain areas of Sweden. He isn't race-baiting, he is stating what is happening.

the-goon wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

the-goon wrote:What are you on about?

Nice to see you have gone straight for the tried and trusted ad hominems.

Trump said that Sweden was having social issues as a result of their immigration policies over the past number of years. Then within 2 days, there is a riot in one of many ghetto-ised no-zones that the Swedish police themselves are admitting to losing control over.

But hey, if you are against un-check mass immigration you have to be a racist right?

No, Trump specifically referred to an incident which never existed. A fact he was never interested in checking as it fitted his race-baiting anti immigrant agenda, despite his near daily accusations of FAKE NEWS against major media outlets.

The fact an unconnected incident happened to occur later that he/you feels justifies his remarks & stance is irrelevant.

I've already responded to this in an above post, and Trump has clarified his statements.

You're wrong.  He was referring to a Fox news report the night before which DID happen. What happened in Sweden was exactly the issues he was referring to at the rally in the problems Sweden is facing. The fact is that these riots are not uncommon in certain areas of Sweden. He isn't race-baiting, he is stating what is happening.

I saw. Basically you gave Trump the pass he won't give others because you favour his rhetoric.

JuliusHMarx wrote:None of that should deflect from Trump's obvious character flaws. Being refreshingly off the cuff does not justify sexism or racism etc. One of the responsibilities of any world leader is to lead by public example. One of the main problems with Trump is that by openly lying, making up events, being sexist (albeit in the past), introducing policies that are borderline racist, or failing to act on racist events etc. he legitimises it for other people. By appealing to the lowest common denominator, he lowers things to that level, when he should be trying to inspire people to rise higher. He has no seeming desire to actually unite the country in the way he says he wishes to, he simply wishes to wallow in the adoration of his fan base.

All of which contributes to his being morally questionable in his acts of office. (Unlike, say, Bill Clinton and his morally questionable acts in the office.)

This report by Amnesty illustrates my above point - https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2017/02/amnesty-international-annual-report-201617/

This thread has given me a f**king headache.

You need drugs to make sense of it.

Tattie Scones RRN wrote:This thread has given me a f**king headache.

You need drugs to make sense of it.

I generally just skip straight to the last line because everything above it almost guaranteed to be "look how clever I am" w*nk

Tattie Scones RRN wrote:This thread has given me a f**king headache.

You need drugs to make sense of it.

Just mute SF. Most of it makes a fair bit of sense when you strip his nonesense out.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

the-goon wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

the-goon wrote:What are you on about?

Nice to see you have gone straight for the tried and trusted ad hominems.

Trump said that Sweden was having social issues as a result of their immigration policies over the past number of years. Then within 2 days, there is a riot in one of many ghetto-ised no-zones that the Swedish police themselves are admitting to losing control over.

But hey, if you are against un-check mass immigration you have to be a racist right?

No, Trump specifically referred to an incident which never existed. A fact he was never interested in checking as it fitted his race-baiting anti immigrant agenda, despite his near daily accusations of FAKE NEWS against major media outlets.

The fact an unconnected incident happened to occur later that he/you feels justifies his remarks & stance is irrelevant.

I've already responded to this in an above post, and Trump has clarified his statements.

You're wrong.  He was referring to a Fox news report the night before which DID happen. What happened in Sweden was exactly the issues he was referring to at the rally in the problems Sweden is facing. The fact is that these riots are not uncommon in certain areas of Sweden. He isn't race-baiting, he is stating what is happening.

I saw. Basically you gave Trump the pass he won't give others because you favour his rhetoric.

What are you talking about? There is no free pass to give. He wasn't clear (I've stated this), hence the need to clarify the following day, but the point he was making is valid (in my opinion). You accused him of lying, he was not. So I was merely defending a man against your false accusation.  

Now we can debate if Sweden's immigration policy has been successful or not, like Trump, I think it has been a failure. The riots are yet another example of this. If you think it has been good, please explain your reasoning.

the-goon wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

the-goon wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

the-goon wrote:What are you on about?

Nice to see you have gone straight for the tried and trusted ad hominems.

Trump said that Sweden was having social issues as a result of their immigration policies over the past number of years. Then within 2 days, there is a riot in one of many ghetto-ised no-zones that the Swedish police themselves are admitting to losing control over.

But hey, if you are against un-check mass immigration you have to be a racist right?

No, Trump specifically referred to an incident which never existed. A fact he was never interested in checking as it fitted his race-baiting anti immigrant agenda, despite his near daily accusations of FAKE NEWS against major media outlets.

The fact an unconnected incident happened to occur later that he/you feels justifies his remarks & stance is irrelevant.

I've already responded to this in an above post, and Trump has clarified his statements.

You're wrong.  He was referring to a Fox news report the night before which DID happen. What happened in Sweden was exactly the issues he was referring to at the rally in the problems Sweden is facing. The fact is that these riots are not uncommon in certain areas of Sweden. He isn't race-baiting, he is stating what is happening.

I saw. Basically you gave Trump the pass he won't give others because you favour his rhetoric.

What are you talking about? There is no free pass to give. He wasn't clear (I've stated this), hence the need to clarify the following day, but the point he was making is valid (in my opinion). You accused him of lying, he was not. So I was merely defending a man against your false accusation.  

Now we can debate if Sweden's immigration policy has been successful or not, like Trump, I think it has been a failure. The riots are yet another example of this. If you think it has been good, please explain your reasoning.

I am debating whether Trump should be held to the same standards he holds others to. Trump's attitude is very clear: he can say whatever he wants, with whatever levels of accuracy, without any verifications of truth or accuracy, and that's ok. Whereas others need to be whiter than white (no pun intended), and even then are probably in the wrong, and face formal & informal presidential sanctions for speaking out or questioning his 'facts' and opinions.

Feel free to start a thread on the merits of various jurisdictions' immigration policies.

SecretFly wrote:

Ent wrote:

What is the latest on Edward Heath? I do not know what you are referring to and as such cannot answer the question if the BBC have reported it.

I did warn Julius that pompous legalese would annoy people.


But in the interests of pursuing my business and attempting to lead witnesses into traps they don't want to fall into, I must insist that questions are answered rather than that more questions advanced.

"I do not know what you are referring to" has potentially a significant impact on the nature of the charge I put before this thread.  Can I presume you did not watch BBC News these last few days? Or is it the case that you may have indeed watched the BBC news but can't recall seeing or hearing any section devoted to Ted Heath?

How to respond to this without resorting to personal insults... I'm afraid I can't.

Fake news
True lies
The battle of the 'flys
Super!
Secret!

I'm touched that you put me on top (shut your face madam) of the lesser fly. Thanks Galted.

Let me tune this here gui-tar a sec.....

Okay, here we go.  Sing after me:

"Come mothers and fathers
Throughout the land
And don't criticize
What you can't understand
Your sons and your daughters
Are beyond your command
Your old road is rapidly aging
Please get out of the new one if you can't lend your hand
Cause the times they are a-changing"

the-goon wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

the-goon wrote:So just like Brussels, Trump is vindicated...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/21/swedish-police-investigate-riot-predominantly-immigrant-suburb/

Oooo! High quality article. Nothing in it to suggest it was actually immigrants involved but hey, why not make assumptions?

Riots errupted after the arrest of a local drug dealer, considering the population of Rinkby is 90% immigrant (in 2007, probably higher now) and that rioting by immigrants are not uncommon in areas like Rinkby, it's pretty obvious what is going on. These type of riots were unheard of in Sweden before mass immigration, also adding weight to the fact it was Rinkby locals rioting, rather than Swedes from other areas coming in to riot, which is basically the only other possibility.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rinkeby

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Stockholm_riots

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_social_unrest_in_Sweden

Thanks for the sources, although I note that one I bothered to read (the last you list) is currently disputed as to its accuracy and neutrality. Wiki is notorious for BS and for being edited by persons with interest - pretty sure George W had some of his info favourably edited by persons traced to the White House (or some other State institution) while he was POTUS, for example.

Trump is using this and things like it as the worst kind of dog whistle politics. In actual fact, I don't think Trump is the issue really; he's just a narcissistic fool. I have more concerns about those surrounding him (Bannon etc) and what they can get up to while Trump's preening himself for the cameras.

the-goon wrote:It was poorly worded, but he knew what is was talking about....

Seriously? I'd be surprised if he knew which was up sometimes. His poorly worded bilge could cause serious issues but I guess he doesn't give a **** either for those potential consequences or for the reputation of the office he's now holding.

Wikipedia is honestly some of the most accurate and well sourced information on the internet. Wonder how many asterisks 'legitimate' news outlets would have if they were honest enough to dispute the accuracy and neutrality of their own reports.

Didn't someone on the boxing board change Wlad's wikipage to say his last fight was against a bear??

And I'm sure it was changed back.

I've twice corrected cricket stats on Wikipedia so I can vouch for its accuracy.

Astronomers had to finally correct the big mistake that claimed Pluto was a Planet.

Now it looks like they might have to correct a big mistake that claimed it isn't one.

I think all that stuff happened away from Wiki.

Wiki got it right though.  It said Pluto has the right to be whatever it wants to be.  It wants to be a planet and should be allowed to be one.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

the-goon wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

the-goon wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

the-goon wrote:What are you on about?

Nice to see you have gone straight for the tried and trusted ad hominems.

Trump said that Sweden was having social issues as a result of their immigration policies over the past number of years. Then within 2 days, there is a riot in one of many ghetto-ised no-zones that the Swedish police themselves are admitting to losing control over.

But hey, if you are against un-check mass immigration you have to be a racist right?

No, Trump specifically referred to an incident which never existed. A fact he was never interested in checking as it fitted his race-baiting anti immigrant agenda, despite his near daily accusations of FAKE NEWS against major media outlets.

The fact an unconnected incident happened to occur later that he/you feels justifies his remarks & stance is irrelevant.

I've already responded to this in an above post, and Trump has clarified his statements.

You're wrong.  He was referring to a Fox news report the night before which DID happen. What happened in Sweden was exactly the issues he was referring to at the rally in the problems Sweden is facing. The fact is that these riots are not uncommon in certain areas of Sweden. He isn't race-baiting, he is stating what is happening.

I saw. Basically you gave Trump the pass he won't give others because you favour his rhetoric.

What are you talking about? There is no free pass to give. He wasn't clear (I've stated this), hence the need to clarify the following day, but the point he was making is valid (in my opinion). You accused him of lying, he was not. So I was merely defending a man against your false accusation.  

Now we can debate if Sweden's immigration policy has been successful or not, like Trump, I think it has been a failure. The riots are yet another example of this. If you think it has been good, please explain your reasoning.

I am debating whether Trump should be held to the same standards he holds others to. Trump's attitude is very clear: he can say whatever he wants, with whatever levels of accuracy, without any verifications of truth or accuracy, and that's ok. Whereas others need to be whiter than white (no pun intended), and even then are probably in the wrong, and face formal & informal presidential sanctions for speaking out or questioning his 'facts' and opinions.

Feel free to start a thread on the merits of various jurisdictions' immigration policies.

Ok, so bar the fact he wasn't clear about what he meant about "last night in Sweden" you have no issue with what he said? Talk about a mountain of a molehill.

Also, who has to be whiter than white, and what evidence do you have that shows these ppl are held to more scruteny by the media than Trump?

An apt username for someone defending Donald Trump.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:An apt username for someone defending Donald Trump.

witty, but not an argument

the-goon wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

the-goon wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

the-goon wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

the-goon wrote:What are you on about?

Nice to see you have gone straight for the tried and trusted ad hominems.

Trump said that Sweden was having social issues as a result of their immigration policies over the past number of years. Then within 2 days, there is a riot in one of many ghetto-ised no-zones that the Swedish police themselves are admitting to losing control over.

But hey, if you are against un-check mass immigration you have to be a racist right?

No, Trump specifically referred to an incident which never existed. A fact he was never interested in checking as it fitted his race-baiting anti immigrant agenda, despite his near daily accusations of FAKE NEWS against major media outlets.

The fact an unconnected incident happened to occur later that he/you feels justifies his remarks & stance is irrelevant.

I've already responded to this in an above post, and Trump has clarified his statements.

You're wrong.  He was referring to a Fox news report the night before which DID happen. What happened in Sweden was exactly the issues he was referring to at the rally in the problems Sweden is facing. The fact is that these riots are not uncommon in certain areas of Sweden. He isn't race-baiting, he is stating what is happening.

I saw. Basically you gave Trump the pass he won't give others because you favour his rhetoric.

What are you talking about? There is no free pass to give. He wasn't clear (I've stated this), hence the need to clarify the following day, but the point he was making is valid (in my opinion). You accused him of lying, he was not. So I was merely defending a man against your false accusation.  

Now we can debate if Sweden's immigration policy has been successful or not, like Trump, I think it has been a failure. The riots are yet another example of this. If you think it has been good, please explain your reasoning.

I am debating whether Trump should be held to the same standards he holds others to. Trump's attitude is very clear: he can say whatever he wants, with whatever levels of accuracy, without any verifications of truth or accuracy, and that's ok. Whereas others need to be whiter than white (no pun intended), and even then are probably in the wrong, and face formal & informal presidential sanctions for speaking out or questioning his 'facts' and opinions.

Feel free to start a thread on the merits of various jurisdictions' immigration policies.

Ok, so bar the fact he wasn't clear about what he meant about "last night in Sweden" you have no issue with what he said? Talk about a mountain of a molehill.

Also, who has to be whiter than white, and what evidence do you have that shows these ppl are held to more scruteny by the media than Trump?

Seriously? Are you keeping up with the cr@p pouring out of POTUS whatsoever?? For example, in a barely veiled (no pun) attack on Muslims, he listed off about 40 'Muslim terrorist attacks' which he blamed MSM for not covering. BBC pointed out in covered something like 35 and 3 or 4 that it didn't weren't terrorist attacks (e.g. the backpacker killing in Oz) or didn't even occuer (an incident in Saudi Arabia). He continually blames MSM for misleading people and not presenting the truth but then gets caught out having to use the phrase 'alternative facts' when blatantly caught lying.

As for what he said, what's going on in Sweden is an utter irrelevance. His is POTUS not POTWorld. He is picking issues elsewhere because they AREN'T happening in the US so he can't justify his blatant ignorance & hatred.

There has been one Muslim terror attack in the US since 9/11 - two home grown Yanks. He tried to ban Muslims from 7 countries due to perceived threat yet none of those 7 countries included the two that supplied all the 9/11 terrorists - Saudi Arabia & Egypt.

There have been more deaths from white supremacist terror attacks since 9/11 than from non-Yank Muslims - but he's not going after white Christians for some reason.....??????

There's been more than one Islamic terror attack on the US, since 9/11, I think. Can't remember how this story ended, but think this attack was inspired by Islamic extremists > San-Bernardino

Check out Islamic-terror (US) on Wiki.

I don't doubt the media are out to get Trump. The BBC are particularly pathetic as they froth over any perceived fault attributed to Trump. True, that he makes a target for himself, but the media reaction is well over the top. Guess it's because he challenges their journalistic integrity. He's right, they are sorely lacking. I used to really respect the BBC, but they are becoming little more than a red-top rag, now. The fact that mainstream media is seriously infected with the liberal darlings probably has much to do with the global hissy fit as well.

Still, it is a joy to see the left/liberals stamp their feet, and and against the democracy they claim to champion. For all his faults, Trump elected as POTUS has very clearly highlighted the blatant hypocrisy of the liberal West.  

Just to add; I'm not a racist, bigoted, misogynistic, anti-Islamic, white supremacist. Neither am I a Trump supporter.

I'm just me  

"He's not going after white Christians for some reason."

Hmmmm, they'd be mostly the folks that voted for him - and, besides, it's hard to deport or not allow in citizens of your own country, born and bred.

But maybe you're right.  Maybe there should be a crusade instead against white Christians.

Oh American-produced Isis are already well into that campaign, aren't they.  It's hard to know which way to look for the truth but it's funny that everyone trips over themselves in trying to forget Israel.

911 - Saudi Arabia and Egypt?   Well that's two of them I suppose.  There was more than two.

Munchkin wrote: 

Just to add; I'm not a racist, bigoted, misogynistic, anti-Islamic, white supremacist. Neither am I a Trump supporter.

I'm just me  

Who is this guy?

Munch something or other. What a joker. He tries to be very reasonable about Trump and the press and yet says he isn't a racist, bigoted, misogynistic, anti-Islam, white supremacist.

This place is a riot. I think he has to be a shill. I'd say at the very least he's a sexist and anti-LGBT-rights clown.

Munchkin wrote:There's been more than one Islamic terror attack on the US, since 9/11, I think. Can't remember how this story ended, but think this attack was inspired by Islamic extremists > San-Bernardino

Check out Islamic-terror (US) on Wiki.

I don't doubt the media are out to get Trump. The BBC are particularly pathetic as they froth over any perceived fault attributed to Trump. True, that he makes a target for himself, but the media reaction is well over the top. Guess it's because he challenges their journalistic integrity. He's right, they are sorely lacking. I used to really respect the BBC, but they are becoming little more than a red-top rag, now. The fact that mainstream media is seriously infected with the liberal darlings probably has much to do with the global hissy fit as well.

Still, it is a joy to see the left/liberals stamp their feet, and and against the democracy they claim to champion. For all his faults, Trump elected as POTUS has very clearly highlighted the blatant hypocrisy of the liberal West.  

Just to add; I'm not a racist, bigoted, misogynistic, anti-Islamic, white supremacist. Neither am I a Trump supporter.

I'm just me  

Interesting that a) you get joy from seeing other people get upset b) you group all the 'liberal West' under one banner (the sort of thing racists do) and c) Trump's hypocrisy is also very evident.

a) that's politics. Would it have been different had Trump suffered ignominious defeat?
b) the 'liberal West' group themselves under the one banner. They like the idea that they're all in the big anti-Trump fight together. Trying to prise them apart is like trying to make split an atom.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Munchkin wrote:There's been more than one Islamic terror attack on the US, since 9/11, I think. Can't remember how this story ended, but think this attack was inspired by Islamic extremists > San-Bernardino

Check out Islamic-terror (US) on Wiki.

I don't doubt the media are out to get Trump. The BBC are particularly pathetic as they froth over any perceived fault attributed to Trump. True, that he makes a target for himself, but the media reaction is well over the top. Guess it's because he challenges their journalistic integrity. He's right, they are sorely lacking. I used to really respect the BBC, but they are becoming little more than a red-top rag, now. The fact that mainstream media is seriously infected with the liberal darlings probably has much to do with the global hissy fit as well.

Still, it is a joy to see the left/liberals stamp their feet, and and against the democracy they claim to champion. For all his faults, Trump elected as POTUS has very clearly highlighted the blatant hypocrisy of the liberal West.  

Just to add; I'm not a racist, bigoted, misogynistic, anti-Islamic, white supremacist. Neither am I a Trump supporter.

I'm just me  

Interesting that a) you get joy from seeing other people get upset b) you group all the 'liberal West' under one banner (the sort of thing racists do) and c) Trump's hypocrisy is also very evident.

The 'liberal West' meaning the West's media. It's all about context, dear boy. What's really interesting is that you pathetically try to mark me as a racist, and probably because I had a pop at the moany liberals.

I certainly take joy at seeing people upset. Any time I see a hypocrite cry, I smile.

Trumps hypocrisy may well be apparent, just as Clintons is, but I'm referring to the hypocrisy of those who claim to be all about free-speech, equality and their democratic rights. The level of hypocrisy really is breathtaking, with the level of irony being off the scale.

SecretFly wrote:a) that's politics.  Would it have been different had Trump suffered ignominious defeat?
b) the 'liberal West' group themselves under the one banner.  They like the idea that they're all in the big anti-Trump fight together.  Trying to prise them apart is like trying to make split an atom.  

a) No, just that it would be the alt-right stamping their feet, showing their hypocrisy. (All of them, obviously, because we only deal in generalisation on this forum.) There would be some who got joy out of that, which would be a poor reflection on themselves.
b) Do they? Are they all antifa, for example? I don't think so.

Munchkin wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Munchkin wrote:There's been more than one Islamic terror attack on the US, since 9/11, I think. Can't remember how this story ended, but think this attack was inspired by Islamic extremists > San-Bernardino

Check out Islamic-terror (US) on Wiki.

I don't doubt the media are out to get Trump. The BBC are particularly pathetic as they froth over any perceived fault attributed to Trump. True, that he makes a target for himself, but the media reaction is well over the top. Guess it's because he challenges their journalistic integrity. He's right, they are sorely lacking. I used to really respect the BBC, but they are becoming little more than a red-top rag, now. The fact that mainstream media is seriously infected with the liberal darlings probably has much to do with the global hissy fit as well.

Still, it is a joy to see the left/liberals stamp their feet, and and against the democracy they claim to champion. For all his faults, Trump elected as POTUS has very clearly highlighted the blatant hypocrisy of the liberal West.  

Just to add; I'm not a racist, bigoted, misogynistic, anti-Islamic, white supremacist. Neither am I a Trump supporter.

I'm just me  

Interesting that a) you get joy from seeing other people get upset b) you group all the 'liberal West' under one banner (the sort of thing racists do) and c) Trump's hypocrisy is also very evident.

The 'liberal West' meaning the West's media. It's all about context, dear boy. What's really interesting is that you pathetically try to mark me as a racist, and probably because I had a pop at the moany liberals.

I certainly take joy at seeing people upset. Any time I see a hypocrite cry, I smile.

Trumps hypocrisy may well be apparent, just as Clintons is, but I'm referring to the hypocrisy of those who claim to be all about free-speech, equality and their democratic rights. The level of hypocrisy really is breathtaking, with the level of irony being off the scale.

Love it, my son.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

SecretFly wrote:a) that's politics.  Would it have been different had Trump suffered ignominious defeat?
b) the 'liberal West' group themselves under the one banner.  They like the idea that they're all in the big anti-Trump fight together.  Trying to prise them apart is like trying to make split an atom.  

a) No, just that it would be the alt-right stamping their feet, showing their hypocrisy. (All of them, obviously, because we only deal in generalisation on this forum.) There would be some who got joy out of that, which would be a poor reflection on themselves.
b) Do they? Are they all antifa, for example? I don't think so.

No, the ones stamping their feet are the liberals. Just check out youtube. Trump won. There's no need for his supporters to stamp their feet ... yet.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Munchkin wrote:There's been more than one Islamic terror attack on the US, since 9/11, I think. Can't remember how this story ended, but think this attack was inspired by Islamic extremists > San-Bernardino

Check out Islamic-terror (US) on Wiki.

I don't doubt the media are out to get Trump. The BBC are particularly pathetic as they froth over any perceived fault attributed to Trump. True, that he makes a target for himself, but the media reaction is well over the top. Guess it's because he challenges their journalistic integrity. He's right, they are sorely lacking. I used to really respect the BBC, but they are becoming little more than a red-top rag, now. The fact that mainstream media is seriously infected with the liberal darlings probably has much to do with the global hissy fit as well.

Still, it is a joy to see the left/liberals stamp their feet, and and against the democracy they claim to champion. For all his faults, Trump elected as POTUS has very clearly highlighted the blatant hypocrisy of the liberal West.  

Just to add; I'm not a racist, bigoted, misogynistic, anti-Islamic, white supremacist. Neither am I a Trump supporter.

I'm just me  

Interesting that a) you get joy from seeing other people get upset b) you group all the 'liberal West' under one banner (the sort of thing racists do) and c) Trump's hypocrisy is also very evident.

The 'liberal West' meaning the West's media. It's all about context, dear boy. What's really interesting is that you pathetically try to mark me as a racist, and probably because I had a pop at the moany liberals.

I certainly take joy at seeing people upset. Any time I see a hypocrite cry, I smile.

Trumps hypocrisy may well be apparent, just as Clintons is, but I'm referring to the hypocrisy of those who claim to be all about free-speech, equality and their democratic rights. The level of hypocrisy really is breathtaking, with the level of irony being off the scale.

Love it, my son.

You're welcome, Granda

Are you really liberal just because you think Trump is an abomination?

Scottrf wrote:Are you really liberal just because you think Trump is an abomination?

You could also be a lefty, I suppose, and no doubt there are those who hold to neither label, like me, who don't support him.

A granola-crunching, commie, pinko subversive.

SecretFly wrote:

Munchkin wrote: 

Just to add; I'm not a racist, bigoted, misogynistic, anti-Islamic, white supremacist. Neither am I a Trump supporter.

I'm just me  

Who is this guy?

Munch something or other.  What a joker.  He tries to be very reasonable about Trump and the press and yet says he isn't a racist, bigoted, misogynistic, anti-Islam, white supremacist.

This place is a riot.  I think he has to be a shill.  I'd say at the very least he's a sexist and anti-LGBT-rights clown.

No, not anti-LGBT, even if I don't see the attraction, and try not to be sexist

Munchkin wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Munchkin wrote: 

Just to add; I'm not a racist, bigoted, misogynistic, anti-Islamic, white supremacist. Neither am I a Trump supporter.

I'm just me  

Who is this guy?

Munch something or other.  What a joker.  He tries to be very reasonable about Trump and the press and yet says he isn't a racist, bigoted, misogynistic, anti-Islam, white supremacist.

This place is a riot.  I think he has to be a shill.  I'd say at the very least he's a sexist and anti-LGBT-rights clown.

No, not anti-LGBT, even if I don't see the attraction, and try not to be sexist

Are you against celebrity chefs?

Are you anti-Beyoncé?

Do you like hunting?

You're a strange one for an non-anti-Trumpist?

TopHat24/7 wrote:  Why use 1 sentence when you've time to write 20?

Because it usually takes 20 to prove to you that others don't share your opinions.  You like a world where nobody has an alternate opinion.  You want a 'discussion' on Trump that exclusively ridicules and castigates him and makes unchallenged potentially libellous claims that he's racist; lovely fun threads where everyone gets along because they all have the same opinion.  Unfortunately such a cosy world doesn't exist, Top - yet.  
Maybe in four year's time the control freaks of the media will again find a Leader more to their liking.  And he'll once again pamper them and humour them in the press-conference jaunts.  
But carry on trying to talk up some 606v2 editorial control over 'correct' political opinion.

SecretFly wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Munchkin wrote: 

Just to add; I'm not a racist, bigoted, misogynistic, anti-Islamic, white supremacist. Neither am I a Trump supporter.

I'm just me  

Who is this guy?

Munch something or other.  What a joker.  He tries to be very reasonable about Trump and the press and yet says he isn't a racist, bigoted, misogynistic, anti-Islam, white supremacist.

This place is a riot.  I think he has to be a shill.  I'd say at the very least he's a sexist and anti-LGBT-rights clown.

No, not anti-LGBT, even if I don't see the attraction, and try not to be sexist

Are you against celebrity chefs?  

Are you anti-Beyoncé?

Do you like hunting?

You're a strange one for an non-anti-Trumpist?

Oh, you've got me on celebrity chefs Think Ramsey can be a prat, although his raging can be entertaining. Nigella Lawson has her good points , and Giada De Laurentiis is just .....

..... I might be a wee bit sexist

Munchkin wrote: Nigella Lawson has her good points , and Giada De Laurentiis is just .....

..... I might be a wee bit sexist

Yeah, I'm pretty sexist too when it comes to those two

Sure, we're all a little sexist, even the women.

SecretFly wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:  Why use 1 sentence when you've time to write 20?

Because it usually takes 20 to prove to you that others don't share your opinions.  You like a world where nobody has an alternate opinion.  You want a 'discussion' on Trump that exclusively ridicules and castigates him and makes unchallenged potentially libellous claims that he's racist; lovely fun threads where everyone gets along because they all have the same opinion.  Unfortunately such a cosy world doesn't exist, Top - yet.  
Maybe in four year's time the control freaks of the media will again find a Leader more to their liking.  And he'll once again pamper them and humour them in the press-conference jaunts.  
But carry on trying to talk up some 606v2 editorial control over 'correct' political opinion.

In order to be defamatory, a statement would have to be capable of lowering the reputation of the individual in the estimation of those who might reasonably have access to that statement.  

I think we're on fairly safe ground when criticising Trump.

Scottrf wrote:Wikipedia is honestly some of the most accurate and well sourced information on the internet. Wonder how many asterisks 'legitimate' news outlets would have if they were honest enough to dispute the accuracy and neutrality of their own reports.

I didn't claim it can't be accurate and informative. I said it isn't always and it has a reputation for being doctored by people with particular interests.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

the-goon wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

the-goon wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

the-goon wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

the-goon wrote:What are you on about?

Nice to see you have gone straight for the tried and trusted ad hominems.

Trump said that Sweden was having social issues as a result of their immigration policies over the past number of years. Then within 2 days, there is a riot in one of many ghetto-ised no-zones that the Swedish police themselves are admitting to losing control over.

But hey, if you are against un-check mass immigration you have to be a racist right?

No, Trump specifically referred to an incident which never existed. A fact he was never interested in checking as it fitted his race-baiting anti immigrant agenda, despite his near daily accusations of FAKE NEWS against major media outlets.

The fact an unconnected incident happened to occur later that he/you feels justifies his remarks & stance is irrelevant.

I've already responded to this in an above post, and Trump has clarified his statements.

You're wrong.  He was referring to a Fox news report the night before which DID happen. What happened in Sweden was exactly the issues he was referring to at the rally in the problems Sweden is facing. The fact is that these riots are not uncommon in certain areas of Sweden. He isn't race-baiting, he is stating what is happening.

I saw. Basically you gave Trump the pass he won't give others because you favour his rhetoric.

What are you talking about? There is no free pass to give. He wasn't clear (I've stated this), hence the need to clarify the following day, but the point he was making is valid (in my opinion). You accused him of lying, he was not. So I was merely defending a man against your false accusation.  

Now we can debate if Sweden's immigration policy has been successful or not, like Trump, I think it has been a failure. The riots are yet another example of this. If you think it has been good, please explain your reasoning.

I am debating whether Trump should be held to the same standards he holds others to. Trump's attitude is very clear: he can say whatever he wants, with whatever levels of accuracy, without any verifications of truth or accuracy, and that's ok. Whereas others need to be whiter than white (no pun intended), and even then are probably in the wrong, and face formal & informal presidential sanctions for speaking out or questioning his 'facts' and opinions.

Feel free to start a thread on the merits of various jurisdictions' immigration policies.

Ok, so bar the fact he wasn't clear about what he meant about "last night in Sweden" you have no issue with what he said? Talk about a mountain of a molehill.

Also, who has to be whiter than white, and what evidence do you have that shows these ppl are held to more scruteny by the media than Trump?

Seriously? Are you keeping up with the cr@p pouring out of POTUS whatsoever?? For example, in a barely veiled (no pun) attack on Muslims, he listed off about 40 'Muslim terrorist attacks' which he blamed MSM for not covering. BBC pointed out in covered something like 35 and 3 or 4 that it didn't weren't terrorist attacks (e.g. the backpacker killing in Oz) or didn't even occuer (an incident in Saudi Arabia). He continually blames MSM for misleading people and not presenting the truth but then gets caught out having to use the phrase 'alternative facts' when blatantly caught lying.

As for what he said, what's going on in Sweden is an utter irrelevance. His is POTUS not POTWorld. He is picking issues elsewhere because they AREN'T happening in the US so he can't justify his blatant ignorance & hatred.

There has been one Muslim terror attack in the US since 9/11 - two home grown Yanks. He tried to ban Muslims from 7 countries due to perceived threat yet none of those 7 countries included the two that supplied all the 9/11 terrorists - Saudi Arabia & Egypt.

There have been more deaths from white supremacist terror attacks since 9/11 than from non-Yank Muslims - but he's not going after white Christians for some reason.....??????

There has been one Muslim terror attack in the US since 9/11- FAKE NEWS. hahahaha. You acuse Trump of lying and you lie within the same post. San Bernadino, Orlando, Ohio State, the Minasota shopping mall, Boston bombings, all Islamic terror attacks.

You are a joke. You discredit yourself by being a hypocrite.

As for Wiki, you can see the sources they use, and judge the creditibility of that information yourself. Mainstream media outlets aren't that transparent. You just don't like what is out there because of your political ideology, and want to discredit the information rather than review your beliefs.

Regarding Sweden, he used them as an example of what corrupt politicians who care more about virtue signalling than their own ppl can destroy a country with an insane immigration policy. He is saying, I'm not that, and here's why: Sweden.

To me this self evident, I honestly do not understand how you don't get this.

the-goon wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

the-goon wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

the-goon wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

the-goon wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

the-goon wrote:What are you on about?

Nice to see you have gone straight for the tried and trusted ad hominems.

Trump said that Sweden was having social issues as a result of their immigration policies over the past number of years. Then within 2 days, there is a riot in one of many ghetto-ised no-zones that the Swedish police themselves are admitting to losing control over.

But hey, if you are against un-check mass immigration you have to be a racist right?

No, Trump specifically referred to an incident which never existed. A fact he was never interested in checking as it fitted his race-baiting anti immigrant agenda, despite his near daily accusations of FAKE NEWS against major media outlets.

The fact an unconnected incident happened to occur later that he/you feels justifies his remarks & stance is irrelevant.

I've already responded to this in an above post, and Trump has clarified his statements.

You're wrong.  He was referring to a Fox news report the night before which DID happen. What happened in Sweden was exactly the issues he was referring to at the rally in the problems Sweden is facing. The fact is that these riots are not uncommon in certain areas of Sweden. He isn't race-baiting, he is stating what is happening.

I saw. Basically you gave Trump the pass he won't give others because you favour his rhetoric.

What are you talking about? There is no free pass to give. He wasn't clear (I've stated this), hence the need to clarify the following day, but the point he was making is valid (in my opinion). You accused him of lying, he was not. So I was merely defending a man against your false accusation.  

Now we can debate if Sweden's immigration policy has been successful or not, like Trump, I think it has been a failure. The riots are yet another example of this. If you think it has been good, please explain your reasoning.

I am debating whether Trump should be held to the same standards he holds others to. Trump's attitude is very clear: he can say whatever he wants, with whatever levels of accuracy, without any verifications of truth or accuracy, and that's ok. Whereas others need to be whiter than white (no pun intended), and even then are probably in the wrong, and face formal & informal presidential sanctions for speaking out or questioning his 'facts' and opinions.

Feel free to start a thread on the merits of various jurisdictions' immigration policies.

Ok, so bar the fact he wasn't clear about what he meant about "last night in Sweden" you have no issue with what he said? Talk about a mountain of a molehill.

Also, who has to be whiter than white, and what evidence do you have that shows these ppl are held to more scruteny by the media than Trump?

Seriously? Are you keeping up with the cr@p pouring out of POTUS whatsoever?? For example, in a barely veiled (no pun) attack on Muslims, he listed off about 40 'Muslim terrorist attacks' which he blamed MSM for not covering. BBC pointed out in covered something like 35 and 3 or 4 that it didn't weren't terrorist attacks (e.g. the backpacker killing in Oz) or didn't even occuer (an incident in Saudi Arabia). He continually blames MSM for misleading people and not presenting the truth but then gets caught out having to use the phrase 'alternative facts' when blatantly caught lying.

As for what he said, what's going on in Sweden is an utter irrelevance. His is POTUS not POTWorld. He is picking issues elsewhere because they AREN'T happening in the US so he can't justify his blatant ignorance & hatred.

There has been one Muslim terror attack in the US since 9/11 - two home grown Yanks. He tried to ban Muslims from 7 countries due to perceived threat yet none of those 7 countries included the two that supplied all the 9/11 terrorists - Saudi Arabia & Egypt.

There have been more deaths from white supremacist terror attacks since 9/11 than from non-Yank Muslims - but he's not going after white Christians for some reason.....??????

There has been one Muslim terror attack in the US since 9/11- FAKE NEWS. hahahaha. You acuse Trump of lying and you lie within the same post. San Bernadino, Orlando, Ohio State, the Minasota shopping mall, Boston bombings, all Islamic terror attacks.

You are a joke. You discredit yourself by being a hypocrite.

As for Wiki, you can see the sources they use, and judge the creditibility of that information yourself. Mainstream media outlets aren't that transparent. You just don't like what is out there because of your political ideology, and want to discredit the information rather than review your beliefs.

Regarding Sweden, he used them as an example of what corrupt politicians who care more about virtue signalling than their own ppl can destroy a country with an insane immigration policy. He is saying, I'm not that, and here's why: Sweden.

To me this self evident, I honestly do not understand how you don't get this.

As Macbeth says of life, "full of sound of fury. Signifying nothing."