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.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:CNN poll....

Is Trump doing a good job..

Agree 38..
Disagree 56..

Seen worse.

How can you agree or disagree with a question?

Scottrf wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:CNN poll....

Is Trump doing a good job..

Agree 38..
Disagree 56..

Seen worse.

How can you agree or disagree with a question?

I don't agree with that.

Yes

Trump's 36 compares to Bush's 25 in 2008.

Just to give some perspective......

rick_dagless wrote:Yes

That's just whataboutery.

Fake news..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Trump's 36 compares to Bush's 25 in 2008.

Just to give some perspective......

And 49% for Obama in 2010.

Before he lost both houses.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Before he lost both houses.

Obama lost both houses, Trump is losing the world.

Galted wrote:

rick_dagless wrote:Yes

That's just whataboutery.

I was filibustering

Low presidential ratings (Gallup)....Trump 36..

Nixon 22...1974
Truman 22..1953
LBJ........36..1968
Clinton...38..1993
Reagan..36...1983.

All Presidents have ups and downs.

Comparing Trump's approval ratings after only 6 months in the job with Nixon's in 1974 is a little desperate, don't you think?

Nixon wasn't President in 53... 68..83...93.

Looking at your input on this thread...It is probably news to you.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:If you were to get rid of every leader that was a dick you wouldn't have many left.

If you are looking for a politician that is whiter than white..I suggest you take your head out of your ass.

Whiter-than-white is one thing - Trump is a whole other ballpark. It's 'arse' by the way. An 'ass' is a kind of donkey .

Ulysses Grant was part of a Ponzi scheme...Warren Harding had the Tea pot dome scandal...Andrew Johnson wanted to bring back slavery and faced impeachment for gridlocking Congress..

I agree Trump is a joke but you have to know who has been in the ball park to know if Trump is a whole new one.

Yes ??

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Nixon wasn't President in 53... 68..83...93.

Looking at your input on this thread...It is probably news to you.

Didn't address my point though, did you?

Nixon is one of five Presidents I used who polled low during their time.

Could have added Carter in 79..

Be less pedantic is my advice.

I'll bite though, let's have a look at your comparisons:

Nixon 22...1974 As I said earlier, desperate to compare Trump after 6 months with Nixon during Watergate.
Truman 22..1953 You're comparing a President that should be in his "honeymoon" phase with a guy at the end of his second term.
LBJ........36..1968 A president coming to the end of a war that the USA was losing vs a president that has inherited a top economy from his predecessor.
Clinton...38..1993 The one anomaly, I suppose. Clinton had just raised taxes for the majority of Americans on 1993, hence the low approval ratings (that are still higher than Trump's)
Reagan..36...1983 Again, a President approaching the end of his first term. These are not fair comparisons and you know it.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Nixon is one of five Presidents I used who polled low during their time.

Could have added Carter in 79..

Be less pedantic is my advice.

But it's a ridiculous comparison, wouldn't you agree?

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Ulysses Grant was part of a Ponzi scheme...Warren Harding had the Tea pot dome scandal...Andrew Johnson wanted to bring back slavery and faced impeachment for gridlocking Congress..

I agree Trump is a joke but you have to know who has been in the ball park to know if Trump is a whole new one.

Yes ??

True, but I'm not sure comparing those, and the 'norms' and behaviours of those times, with Trump in 2017 is a decent comparison is it? Don't U.S. citizens expect a little better these days?

May has -38 rating and Trump has a -18 one..

Miliband regularly polled in the minus 40s.

Compare those if you want.

They're all sh!t then?

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:May has -38 rating and Trump has a -18 one..

Miliband regularly polled in the minus 40s.

Compare those if you want.

Hey Trussman will you at least come out and condemn your man's non anti Nazi stance?

I'm no longer surprised by anything Trump does TBH. Appalled yes, but not surprised. The latest is hardly surprising, I mean these people* played an important role in getting him elected, so he's hardly going to rush to condemn them is he? But yes, one of the worst consequences of Trump's election has been giving racists a feeling of legitimacy.

*word "people" used in the broadest possible sense.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/14/donald-trump-inauguration-protest-website-search-warrant-dreamhost

I mean, this isn't creepy at all. Yay, freedom?

Mad for Chelsea wrote:I'm no longer surprised by anything Trump does TBH. Appalled yes, but not surprised. The latest is hardly surprising, I mean these people* played an important role in getting him elected, so he's hardly going to rush to condemn them is he? But yes, one of the worst consequences of Trump's election has been giving racists a feeling of legitimacy.

*word "people" used in the broadest possible sense.

I watched American History X again yesterday and it's brilliant in the way it highlights the indoctrination of people looking for an excuse for their lives most of whom lack the intelligence to see the hypocrisy of their views. It's exactly the same with Donald Trump, these people like you say will feel legitimised because of him, he's very much the Cameron of the piece.

Gwlad wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:May has -38 rating and Trump has a -18 one..

Miliband regularly polled in the minus 40s.

Compare those if you want.

Hey Trussman will you at least come out and condemn your man's non anti Nazi stance?

It sounds like you don't know what happened at the rally.

Please educate us, Mikey.

Pr4wn wrote:Please educate us, Mikey.

A peaceful protest ruined by BLM again, and then people got hurt, again. It's their right to protest whether you agree or disagree and the so-called good tolerant people didn't allow them that right. This isn't my perspective by the way. I'm lucky to have friends from all over the world and USA happens to be one part. Of course I may have misunderstood Gwlad too and the reply was unnecessary.

No mention of the terrorist that drove his car into protesters then? Doesn't sound very peaceful to me.

Well if they hadn't been counter protesting then they wouldn't have been there to be run over would they prawn?

Common bleeding Sense Ayup to the Nigel

mikey_dragon wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:Please educate us, Mikey.

A peaceful protest ruined by BLM again, and then people got hurt, again. It's their right to protest whether you agree or disagree and the so-called good tolerant people didn't allow them that right. This isn't my perspective by the way. I'm lucky to have friends from all over the world and USA happens to be one part. Of course I may have misunderstood Gwlad too and the reply was unnecessary.

The KKK and the Nazi supporters turned up with assault rifles, baseball bats and other weapons and were marching through the town chanting racist slogans. It was not a peaceful march in the slightest.

Lets pretend that it was peaceful, and that they never turned up with weapons. Why can't BLM and normal folk who oppose racism turn up to counter protest? If I remember rightly the brown shirts (british union of fascists) in London tried to march through the streets chanting racist stuff. It was people who opposed racism who confronted them and showed that their racist views were not welcome. And thankfully due to people opposing racism we don't have the KKK or similer large organised racist groups in London ( although its unfortunately seeping back in).

you say it was their right to protest but I think some people confuse the meaning of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech and hate speech are two very different things. Inciting violence or spreading racist views is not freedom of speech and thus should be opposed.

I'll leave you with a quote from Edmond burke;
'The Only Thing Necessary for the Triumph of Evil is that Good Men Do Nothing'.

Muscular-mouse wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:Please educate us, Mikey.

A peaceful protest ruined by BLM again, and then people got hurt, again. It's their right to protest whether you agree or disagree and the so-called good tolerant people didn't allow them that right. This isn't my perspective by the way. I'm lucky to have friends from all over the world and USA happens to be one part. Of course I may have misunderstood Gwlad too and the reply was unnecessary.

The KKK and the Nazi supporters turned up with assault rifles, baseball bats and other weapons and were marching through the town chanting racist slogans. It was not a peaceful march in the slightest.

Lets pretend that it was peaceful, and that they never turned up with weapons. Why can't BLM and normal folk who oppose racism turn up to counter protest? If I remember rightly the brown shirts (british union of fascists) in London tried to march through the streets chanting racist stuff. It was people who opposed racism who confronted them and showed that their racist views were not welcome. And thankfully due to people opposing racism we don't have the KKK or similer large organised racist groups in London ( although its unfortunately seeping back in).

you say it was their right to protest but I think some people confuse the meaning of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech and hate speech are two very different things. Inciting violence or spreading racist views is not freedom of speech and thus should be opposed.

I'll leave you with a quote from Edmond burke;
'The Only Thing Necessary for the Triumph of Evil is that Good Men Do Nothing'.

Im afraid that evil has already prevailed in the USA.

Perhaps the only good thing about Trump's America is that it might actually give rise to a protest movement amongst young liberals which we haven't seen since Vietnam. His not so subtle form of bigotry may rebound and bite him in the toupee.

Pr4wn wrote:I'll bite though, let's have a look at your comparisons:

Nixon 22...1974 As I said earlier, desperate to compare Trump after 6 months with Nixon during Watergate.
Truman 22..1953 You're comparing a President that should be in his "honeymoon" phase with a guy at the end of his second term.
LBJ........36..1968 A president coming to the end of a war that the USA was losing vs a president that has inherited a top economy from his predecessor.
Clinton...38..1993 The one anomaly, I suppose. Clinton had just raised taxes for the majority of Americans on 1993, hence the low approval ratings (that are still higher than Trump's)
Reagan..36...1983 Again, a President approaching the end of his first term. These are not fair comparisons and you know it.

Eisenhower was in the 30s..when he assumed office...Like Carter I left him out as well.

I'll take my desperation over your rebuttal.

Wouldn't have voted for Trump but what a force of nature.

Won the Presidency despite every disadvantage going.

Sometimes an adult needs to take a mic/twitter off Trump for his own sake. This is one of those times.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:I'll bite though, let's have a look at your comparisons:

Nixon 22...1974 As I said earlier, desperate to compare Trump after 6 months with Nixon during Watergate.
Truman 22..1953 You're comparing a President that should be in his "honeymoon" phase with a guy at the end of his second term.
LBJ........36..1968 A president coming to the end of a war that the USA was losing vs a president that has inherited a top economy from his predecessor.
Clinton...38..1993 The one anomaly, I suppose. Clinton had just raised taxes for the majority of Americans on 1993, hence the low approval ratings (that are still higher than Trump's)
Reagan..36...1983 Again, a President approaching the end of his first term. These are not fair comparisons and you know it.

Eisenhower was in the 30s..when he assumed office...Like Carter I left him out as well.

I'll take my desperation over your rebuttal.

Wouldn't have voted for Trump but what a force of nature.

Won the Presidency despite every disadvantage going.

So absolutely no response of substance at all?

Gwlad wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:May has -38 rating and Trump has a -18 one..

Miliband regularly polled in the minus 40s.

Compare those if you want.

Hey Trussman will you at least come out and condemn your man's non anti Nazi stance?

This thread is full of straw men and no men..

Happy to debate but please give me an argument to tuck into...

GSC wrote:Sometimes an adult needs to take a mic/twitter off Trump for his own sake. This is one of those times.

Looking at Corbyn I think we are in new times..

Social media killed the Tories at 2017..

But Trump needs to think before he tweets for sure.

Effective way of reaching the edges combined with trashing/demeaning the mainstream media.

But the rules change somewhat when you're actually in charge. Trumps still trying to brute force his way though situations that take tact.

Social media is a godsend when the msm is against you..

Trump is a narcissist..A charismatic big kid that wants to be loved..He wants to be called President but doesn't want the job. I said all this on the old thread.

.. Charisma is very attractive and powerful and can't be bought.

Corbyn has a quality that May doesn't..Trump has something Clinton doesn't...Cameron had something Miliband didn't have.

It helps when picking leaders...Corbyn and Trump on paper are unelectable.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:I'll bite though, let's have a look at your comparisons:

Nixon 22...1974 As I said earlier, desperate to compare Trump after 6 months with Nixon during Watergate.
Truman 22..1953 You're comparing a President that should be in his "honeymoon" phase with a guy at the end of his second term.
LBJ........36..1968 A president coming to the end of a war that the USA was losing vs a president that has inherited a top economy from his predecessor.
Clinton...38..1993 The one anomaly, I suppose. Clinton had just raised taxes for the majority of Americans on 1993, hence the low approval ratings (that are still higher than Trump's)
Reagan..36...1983 Again, a President approaching the end of his first term. These are not fair comparisons and you know it.

Eisenhower was in the 30s..when he assumed office...Like Carter I left him out as well.

I'll take my desperation over your rebuttal.

Wouldn't have voted for Trump but what a force of nature.

Won the Presidency despite every disadvantage going.

Get some help

Pr4wn wrote:No mention of the terrorist that drove his car into protesters then? Doesn't sound very peaceful to me.

No it isn't peaceful, but that was my point. It was peaceful until BLM and ANTIFA turned up to cause trouble, then the white supremacists retaliated. For some reason only the one culprit gets singled out again and it isn't BLM or ANTIFA. The right wing protestors could have had their say but the left wing didn't want to allow them that; once the left stop viewing the right (not far right extremism, just right wing) as the anti-Christ then I feel we'll have some peace and unity .

Muscular-mouse wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:Please educate us, Mikey.

A peaceful protest ruined by BLM again, and then people got hurt, again. It's their right to protest whether you agree or disagree and the so-called good tolerant people didn't allow them that right. This isn't my perspective by the way. I'm lucky to have friends from all over the world and USA happens to be one part. Of course I may have misunderstood Gwlad too and the reply was unnecessary.

The KKK and the Nazi supporters turned up with assault rifles, baseball bats and other weapons and were marching through the town chanting racist slogans. It was not a peaceful march in the slightest.

Lets pretend that it was peaceful, and that they never turned up with weapons. Why can't BLM and normal folk who oppose racism turn up to counter protest? If I remember rightly the brown shirts (british union of fascists) in London tried to march through the streets chanting racist stuff. It was people who opposed racism who confronted them and showed that their racist views were not welcome. And thankfully due to people opposing racism we don't have the KKK or similer large organised racist groups in London ( although its unfortunately seeping back in).

you say it was their right to protest but I think some people confuse the meaning of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech and hate speech are two very different things. Inciting violence or spreading racist views is not freedom of speech and thus should be opposed.

I'll leave you with a quote from Edmond burke;
'The Only Thing Necessary for the Triumph of Evil is that Good Men Do Nothing'.

Hi mouse. As did ANTIFA and BLM; here's an interesting view on ANTIFA http://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/14/us/what-is-antifa-trnd/index.html

They should oppose racism, but I don't think a statue of general lee, or a flag, is racist. I don't want hate speech to be aired either, but it's their right, and it's why we have had it in London too - just not often from white people. I agree with you that spreading racists views should be more opposed as hate speech often incites violence and more racist views.

Is that quote about a particular person? I actually have some questions about Trump, which is why I popped on here.

So my question about Trump is, what has he said to make people believe he is a climate-change denier? What does the term climate-change denier even mean? I thought those who deny it weren't actually denying, they were denying that it is a man made phenomenon, and more of a natural one?

mikey_dragon wrote:So my question about Trump is, what has he said to make people believe he is a climate-change denier? What does the term climate-change denier even mean? I thought those who deny it weren't actually denying, they were denying that it is a man made phenomenon, and more of a natural one?

It's what he's done not said. Look at his cabinet.

Scottrf wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:So my question about Trump is, what has he said to make people believe he is a climate-change denier? What does the term climate-change denier even mean? I thought those who deny it weren't actually denying, they were denying that it is a man made phenomenon, and more of a natural one?

It's what he's done not said. Look at his cabinet.

Yeah he's lifted a lot of restrictions on use of fossil fuels, etc. previously put in place right? I was thinking more what guys like Dicaprio have said about him, that he denies science (in regards to climate change).

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Gwlad wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:May has -38 rating and Trump has a -18 one..

Miliband regularly polled in the minus 40s.

Compare those if you want.

Hey Trussman will you at least come out and condemn your man's non anti Nazi stance?

This thread is full of straw men and no men..

Happy to debate but please give me an argument to tuck into...

"We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides."

and

"Racism is evil. And those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including KKK, Neo-Nazis, White Supremacists, and other hate groups are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans. Those who spread violence in the name of bigotry strike at the very core of America."

mikey_dragon wrote:

Muscular-mouse wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:Please educate us, Mikey.

A peaceful protest ruined by BLM again, and then people got hurt, again. It's their right to protest whether you agree or disagree and the so-called good tolerant people didn't allow them that right. This isn't my perspective by the way. I'm lucky to have friends from all over the world and USA happens to be one part. Of course I may have misunderstood Gwlad too and the reply was unnecessary.

The KKK and the Nazi supporters turned up with assault rifles, baseball bats and other weapons and were marching through the town chanting racist slogans. It was not a peaceful march in the slightest.

Lets pretend that it was peaceful, and that they never turned up with weapons. Why can't BLM and normal folk who oppose racism turn up to counter protest? If I remember rightly the brown shirts (british union of fascists) in London tried to march through the streets chanting racist stuff. It was people who opposed racism who confronted them and showed that their racist views were not welcome. And thankfully due to people opposing racism we don't have the KKK or similer large organised racist groups in London ( although its unfortunately seeping back in).

you say it was their right to protest but I think some people confuse the meaning of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech and hate speech are two very different things. Inciting violence or spreading racist views is not freedom of speech and thus should be opposed.

I'll leave you with a quote from Edmond burke;
'The Only Thing Necessary for the Triumph of Evil is that Good Men Do Nothing'.

Hi mouse. As did ANTIFA and BLM; here's an interesting view on ANTIFA http://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/14/us/what-is-antifa-trnd/index.html

They should oppose racism, but I don't think a statue of general lee, or a flag, is racist. I don't want hate speech to be aired either, but it's their right, and it's why we have had it in London too - just not often from white people. I agree with you that spreading racists views should be more opposed as hate speech often incites violence and more racist views.

Is that quote about a particular person? I actually have some questions about Trump, which is why I popped on here.

The issue with the statue is that this is a man who fought to keep slavery in the usa, he fought against black people and other minorities from being free men and having basic rights. Now what people didn't like was firstly having a statue honouring him and secondly making that statue be a public statue on public land resulting in the taxpayer (including black people and minorities) having their taxes used for the upkeep of this statue. That is why the statue was scheduled to be removed.

You don't see any Hitler statues in Germany because his views are something that the German people are extremely opposed to now and the same is of charlotesville, they don't want a statue of a man who killed black people just because of the colour of their skin and who fought to keep slavery in the usa.