Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

Nonsense.


If you watch the whole press briefing on a regular basis, you get a feel for Spicer's (not always smooth, but all the better for that) style. There is no way in which that was deliberate.

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39585029#

Maybe he is managing to actually,finally sort out the chaff from the wheat..

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

Amazing how many U turns he has had to make...;)

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

I'm hearing that if you peel off his face mask, Hillary's underneath! :D

---------- Post added at 10:46 ---------- Previous post was at 10:43 ----------

If you live on a diet of Fox News and Breitbart with a sprinkling of InfoWars then you're going to come up with some pretty whacky policies.
To his credit, Trump is now better informed so his decisions are better.
U-turns a plenty yes but better to alter course when you see an iceberg than continue on stubbornly!

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

To be fair, he's not a deity and flexibility is an admirable human trait. Aren't you enjoying the times being more exciting? Things do need a shake up :)

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

I've always said the reason I follow this thread is that Trump is an unknown which makes things exciting. I've given him credit where it's due and criticism when the opposite is needed.

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

Um ok. No need to be quite so defensive old chap; you're amongst friends :)

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

well with friends like............:Peace:

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

I certainly prefer Trump moving more towards traditional American foreign policy rather than his isolationist one during the campaign. Before it was far more conciliatory with Russia and strong against China but that's been switched. Not sure why he has changed his mind, maybe he was never that bothered either way.

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

It is in a politician, I've always viewed the lady is not for turning types as pig headed, irrational and not doing what's best for the country.

I thought it was all for show at first, a carefully orchestrated opportunity for Russia not to lose face after the bombing and normal relations would be resumed in a few months as if nothing had happened. Maybe not :Yikes:

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

Just seen the latest stuff re DT. And especially from Nufc.

I read in American Newspapers, and this is where l get my info.
It stated that US Warships are heading towards NK.
If DT has already sent bombers to Issad.
Then he will send military to other Countries. What we have to realise is. That if DT does decide. And he is a nutter to do this. He will cause a war between the Countries, and get involved as well.

He has already started Bombing a country. Who says he wont bomb another ?

---------- Post added at 18:31 ---------- Previous post was at 18:29 ----------

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.36ab09de784a

---------- Post added at 18:36 ---------- Previous post was at 18:31 ----------

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.36ab09de784a

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

Arthur, It's Assad not Issad.

And you're days behind the times. I saw reports earlier in the week about Warships being sent to North Korea.

Negativity aside Arthur, given your post is riddled with it. What do you think should have happened against a true nutter, that's Assad, when he is gassing his own babies and children with chemical weapons?

Trump's actions was not a real bombing in any sense of the word, it was a warning and it was the right course of action.

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

I'm sure this must be a load of rubbish made up by a lefty fake news outlet. Russia and Trump's team couldn't possibly have colluded in any way, however minor. ;)
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...m-links-russia

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

Sigh, Sean Spicer did not make that claim. Very poor journalism given that GCHQ, rubbished the claims made by the Fox News commentator.

Sean Spicer only relayed what this commentator had said on Fox, he did not make any such claim by himself.

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

What does Russian intelligence asset mean? Seems odd people on his team were talking to them?

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

As the President's official spokesman, perhaps he should validate what a news organisation has said before repeating it.

Repeating something, especially if you are in a position of authority, validates it - it's not an excuse to say 'someone else said it first' (especially in libel cases... ;)).

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

I think we should all take a moment to congratulate GCHQ for their efforts in supporting democracy. And for being the first to spot the Russian links to Trump's team, we can be rightly proud of them. Well done.

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

I disagree.

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

On to something that I hope we can all agree upon. Can we unleash the patriot in you to join me in congratulating the hardworking British men and women at GCHQ for being the first to spot the Russian links to Trump's team?

---------- Post added at 23:47 ---------- Previous post was at 23:40 ----------

Melania Trump's lawyers disagree with you. She recently won damages and costs against the Mail Online and Daily Mail when they repeated incorrect allegations made against her.

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

She did not win, they settled out of court.

Either way we are not discussing any libel case though, so your analogy is irrelevant. I stand by my point that it was not Spicer who made any such claim. Answer is no to your other question because the Russian links story is getting tenuous.

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

The Daily Mail think they were in the wrong...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/arti...p-Apology.html
I disagree...

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

I don't care, it has absolutely no correlation to a claim made by Fox News commentator which was then quoted by Sean Spicer. :rolleyes:

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

funny how the Daily Fail gets such a pounding for getting it all wrong all of the time

until it suits an agenda then it's a viable news source ;)

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

What is the difference between Sean Spicer repeating false information from Fox News and The Daily Mail and Mail Online repeating false information from a website?

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

Agree. Not just Daily Mail, other newspapers have had a bashing on this site, the guardian to name another. And now conveniently that they are Anti-brexit or Anti-Trump, they're rags of stories told by saints, as you say, because they align with a negative agenda and it's pathetic.

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

The best thing is not to read such one sided tripe.;)

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

but if you only read the other side where does that leave you [is there a paper that is neutral]? and if any one suggests the FT i will puke

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

For me personally Trump has made some beginner's error's which is fine as politically he is a beginner and as he is spending longer in the job is realising that talk when your not in office and what has to be done when your in office are worlds apart. Has he made some unforced error's yes he has and it does no one any good trying to pretend he hasn't but he does appear to be slowly learning and may eventually become a decent president.

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

Or read it from both sides and then form a well informed view. ;)

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

Sadly 90 per cent of the newspapers are one sided now in their views whether its right or left as the days of neutral and independent journalism are sadly quite a rarity these days.

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

That's a good idea Mick, give it a go ! ;)

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

Well perhaps you ought to apply that sentiment to yourself as well Mr K.;)

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

I repeat, Spicer did not make or repeat a line as if he was making such a claim, he quoted what the commentator had said and cited him. Just like I have quoted your post above and cited you, just because I have included your quote in this post does not mean, what you have said has come from me also.

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

Wow!

How is showing that the Daily Mail apologised to Melania Trump and paid her damages and fees an agenda?

Anyhoo, on a lighter note, any truth in the rumour that Mar-a-Lago is going to be redesignated as "Golf Course One"? ;)

---------- Post added at 11:51 ---------- Previous post was at 11:48 ----------

The difference is you are acting as an individual, and he is acting, when he says these things, as the official spokesman of the White House and the President of the USA, and putting forward the official position of the President - that's his job...

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

I'm pleased you raised that point. I was a bit like the kids at school hoping someone else would raise their hand to ask the obvious question. :)

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

You said this last time this cropped up and I will tell you again. I don't need a lecture on job of White House press secretary. It does not change the fact he did not make the claim.

---------- Post added at 12:03 ---------- Previous post was at 12:02 ----------

Still irrelevant though !

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

I think it may have been Hugh or someone else who suggested The Times and Reuters.

---------- Post added at 12:16 ---------- Previous post was at 12:04 ----------

Hugh's not lecturing you Mick, he's simply having a debate with you and ensuring that things are sufficiently clear for other forum members without your knowledge to follow.
Spicer gave the commentator credence by quoting him. It would be a reasonable assumption by viewers that the President's spokesman would not have quoted Fox New if he hadn't some kind of due diligence. If the US President can't afford the resources to do such a thing, who can?

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

what do they say - to assume is to make an ass- of- u- and me

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

No he didn't.

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

[QUOTE=Hugh;35894810]Wow!

How is showing that the Daily Mail apologised to Melania Trump and paid her damages and fees an agenda?

.........

are you familiar with the tale of the boy who cried wolf :)

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

No to which thing - giving him credence or quoting him?

---------- Post added at 13:58 ---------- Previous post was at 13:54 ----------

I'm aware of that saying but I believe that viewers would have assumed some degree of verification from the President's official spokesperson and that this would not be an unreasonable assumption to make given his level of responsibility.
What did you think of the source suggestions?

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

Whatever's happened to all those huge demonstrations the media were predicting following Trump's victory. You know, all the massive, violent, anti-Trump protests which we were told were in the offing and would rock the Whitehouse. Maybe they've gone the same was as all those ridiculous project fear Brexit predictions... :D

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

They changed tact. The last big campaign was to attend townhall meetings with members of congress to put pressure on them not to repeal Obamacare.

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

Oh, you mean yet another failure?

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

But we were warned of imminent and widespread social disorder, plus droves of people leaving the US immediately and other things. Doesn't look like any of that materialised and I'm not sure the sort of people who'd resort to riots would be the type who'd attend town hall meetings. ;)

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

George Soros is on an 'economy drive'? ;) (no chance!)
The liberal protesters have come to their senses? (extremely doubtful)
The illuminate are on their annual holiday? (Oh, dear; that one won't go down well ;))
Hillary's actually still in charge, secretly running the shadow government, and word's got out to the protesters?


Other than the above; I'm out! :D

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

Ha ha. Re your final point: Trump has junked all those foreign policies that got him elected (build a wall, Nato is obsolete, don't get involved in the Middle East, adopt a two-nation Chinese policy, move embassy to Jerusalem) and is now following the Hillary Clinton playbook. No bad thing.

---------- Post added at 23:22 ---------- Previous post was at 22:11 ----------

150 demonstrations across the US today as protestors try to get Trump to disclose his tax return.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39610443

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

The wall building has not been abandoned
Trump policy* to move the embassy to Jerusalem has not been abandoned
Trump fully supports Israel; Obama couldn't care less
Sanctuary cities are being dealt with
Illegal Mexican border crossings are down a reportedly 60% since Trump took office (not checked the figures)
US overseas abortion funding has been stopped
He is also cutting funding to abortion in the US http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7683786.html
Bathroom laws are moving from federal to individual state law
As promised, a Supreme court judge has been appointed who believes in traditional moral standards.
I'm not aware that the travel ban and increased vetting has been abandoned; just held up by the politically correct liberals.
He is increasing military spending
* I believe that policy has been around for years, but no one, except Trump, has had any serious interest in making it happen, if possible.


Wow, that really is the Hilary Clinton playbook (not) :)

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

I was talking about foreign policy and in this I am sure you will agree he is closer to the Clinton Playbook than the policies he was elected on. And that's no bad thing.
Once someone ceases seeing the world through the eyes of Fox News or Breitbart, as Trump has done, their policies become a tad more sensible.

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

When the 'red line' was crossed under Obama, why did he not do the same as Trump? Hilary is effectively an Obama clone.

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

Seriously Andrew your trying to imply Trump is following the clinton foreign policy line which was just an extension of the obama line which Trump has clearly not followed so far nor looks like doing anytime soon. Obama and his disinterest is why we have the situation with North Korea and it's why Russia has taken more aggressive steps then it was before Obama and lets not mention the total mess he created in Syria. Obama was a foreign policy disaster and clinton would have managed to be worse given her attitude that baiting Russia was a good idea, the further Trump stays away from their line the better for all of us.

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

Before the campaign Clinton wanted to have interventions in Syria and Trump didn't. He said it would help start WW3 and provoke Russia. He also criticised Obama over even attempting to intervene in Syria.

Trump, against Clinton's thinking, wanted to label China a currency manipulator. He didn't do that either.

He's certainly moving closer to the traditional American foreign policy for which he should be commended imo.

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

As always, you put it better than I can and yes, that's the point I'm trying to make.

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

Clinton was only interested in provoking Russia if something wasn't going to do that she wasn't interested and obama did lots of talking and very little action assad called his bluff and nothing happened. Trump is not an extension of their foreign policy line at all and his relationship with putin makes it harder for Russia to play the victim removing some of their advantage that they had before.

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

http://blogs.cfr.org/zenko/2017/01/0...opped-in-2016/ https://www.theguardian.com/politics...u-need-to-know 3,000 airstrikes in Syria in 2016, and the same amount in 2015, seems to be a bit more than "very little action"...

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

But still did nothing when Assad gassed his own people first time round, despite drawing a red line. So 'very little action' is a accurate description.

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

And we go round in circles again, as he believed he needed Congressional support, and wasn't going to get it, but you disagree....

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

He had been president for a while and didn't know the system but the guy whose been in the job less then six months knew the system, whose the crap president again?.

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

Or.....

One wanted to follow the agreed process when there was uncertainty and difference of opinion, and the other doesn't give a crap what others think...

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

Interesting article here about it.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/why-ob...16-1?r=US&IR=T

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

This makes interesting reading.

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

1. Nato
Electioneering Trump: Nato is obsolete.
Hillary Clinton & Presidential Trump: Keep Nato, it plays a vital role.

2. China
Electioneering Trump: Will designate China a currency-manipulator on his first day in office.
Hillary Clinton & Presidential Trump: Don't designate China a currency-manipulator.

3. Syria
Electioneering Trump: Less involvement than Bush in Syria, adopt an America-first policy, fate of Assad in the hands of the Syrian people.
Hillary Clinton & Presidential Trump: Global policeman.
"Indeed, Trump seems to be carrying out precisely the same policy toward Syria that Clinton promised, not only during the campaign but also in an interview just hours before the strikes."

4. Russia
Electioneering Trump: Happy to praise Putin.
Hillary Clinton & Presidential Trump: Traditional wary approach.
"What this suggests is that to whatever extent Trump’s campaign and initial administration might have been “pro-Russian”, its current orientation is the same as Clinton’s..."

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

It's not same as Clintons Andrew, far from it. You have posted inaccurate stuff there on both Trump and Clinton policies during the campaign. It's all irrelevant either way, she lost (thankfully).

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

If you just post the general headlines it looks very similar but if you delve deeper then a puddle huge differences become obvious and the massive change in approach and policy is also obvious. Just one to get you started Trump is still pushing for all NATO members to pay their fair share and that failure to do so will have consequences.

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

What is the massive change in approach? Pushing for NATO to pay their fair share is standard as well, Trump is more vocal on it certainly but that isn't a massive change.

Trump has continued the US military action in the middle east. He has also intervened in Syria which has a massive point of contention in the election campaign with Clinton's calls for the same being called the start of WW3 - by Trump himself.

He has even continued America's attempts to curry favor with China rather than labeling them a currency manipulator. Remember in the campaign when China was his biggest foreign policy foe? Turns out that there are reasons why America has previously sought to work with China - i.e their massive size and their political influence in Asia.

I think these are good u-turns but it's mad not to call them as such.

---------- Post added at 08:17 ---------- Previous post was at 07:52 ----------

Way too wacky.

Why record yourself on tape giving incriminating offers? Why state explicitly what the quid-pro-quo is when both sides would already know it?

If there was collusion between the two it would be advisors speaking to Russian agents about when e-mails would be leaked and off the record assurances of sanctions being lifted etc. All Russia needed is that Trump isn't Clinton and for a while their objectives would have been the same.

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

Good to see that The Onion has some competition at last, this is the funniest thing on the thread I've read for a long time. :D

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

The Donald's head will explode when he hears about this although I did find one of the groups detractors responses about Trump being neither amusing


Dr Francis made clear that he - like the psychiatrists diagnosing Trump - is not a fan of the president, and finds his politics 'distressing'.
However, he insists that 'psychiatric name-calling is a misguided way of countering' the president's approach to politics.
In fact, he said, he feels it is an 'insult to the mentally ill (who are mostly well behaved and well meaning) to be lumped with Mr Trump (who is neither)'.
He writes: 'Bad behavior is rarely a sign of mental illness, and the mentally ill behave badly only rarely

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/ar...ists-warn.html

It's okay Donald, no one listens to experts these days anyway

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

At least the wall is going well:-

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...t-a-brick-wall

He wants to outsource the wall to the Chinese, they can build a great wall. Homebase have a kit, but he'd need a few of those, think of the Nectar points though Donald...

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

I think it's Canada not Mexico that's the problem now.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7701186.html

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

another story from the daily trumphater press .




The truth behind Trump’s “trade war” with Canada
Trump didn't start the fight over Canadian softwood lumber

For 35 years, the US and Canada have been locked in an endless fight about imported lumber — a cycle of tariffs and truces that has repeated itself under every president since Ronald Reagan.


http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politi...mber-trade-war

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

What's wrong with the story I cited? Have you read it? It goes into the background of the situation in the same way as the Vox article does. And it even includes this quote:

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-us...-idUSKBN17U0CA

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

Yeah but Trump hasn't sorted it out in his first 100 days as president so it's his fault and nothing to do with the likes of Clinton and Obama.

Anyway maybe Canada should just do what the some folks around here espouse with respect to the UK's negotiations with the EU and just roll over in the face of threats from over the border...

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

Who's said that?

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

Well, it's 8 weeks since Trump accused Obama of a felony offence (signing off an illegal wiretap) - he still hasn't provided any evidence....

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

the man is a little busy sorting out a nutter with nukes

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

That's him! Wonder if they have any other similarities than stupid hair and an obsession with big phallic shaped objects, even with just those in common they might get on if they just give peace a chance.

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

True, but I doubt Obama cares muchly, given his recent $400,000 speeches.

http://time.com/4760188/bernie-sande...street-speech/

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

Doesn't excuse the Donald just making constant crap up to deflect from his own failings and feed his moronic followers. Is he accountable ? Apparently not. Obama should sue, though guess he doesn't want to lower himself to Donalds level.

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

No, Obama just lowers himself a lot further with over paid for speeches. :rolleyes:

As usual from you it's a different day, same old claptrap. Same old negative nonsense with your difficulty with democracy and he did not make it up. Obama Administration had form when it came to spying.... do your research FFS.

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

Although it seems to have gone quiet at the moment, as far as I'm aware, the investigations into Russian election involvement, surveillance and illegal American citizen names unmasking, is still on-going.

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

CBS journalist John Dickerson recently asked Trump about the wire-tapping allegations but it resulted in the interview concluding.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017...w-wiretapping/

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

Yep. John Dickerson ended it abruptly. It got a bit difficult for democrat supporting CBS when Trump asked why the Democratic party refused to let the FBI investigate their hacked computer.


It's far better to go to the source material rather than a third party view of it.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YLKFylRM9o

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39775694#

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

Pure deflection (also known as the 'butwhatabout' question) - you know, like 7 year olds do in the school playground, when asked by the teacher why they threw a stone through a window.

"butwhatabout jimmy, who was playing with the girls' skipping ropes".

The reporter asked Trump about something Trump personally had done, and Trump evaded answering by asking the reporter about something someone else, not the reporter, had done - how could the reporter answer on behalf of the Democratic Party?

btw, in the last two presidential elections, CBS donated more to the Republicans than to the Democrats...

https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/loo...442&cycle=2016 (select "Party split by cycle" tab)

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

Well, I'm interested in why the Democrats didn't allow The FBI, aren't you? I'm also interested in getting to the bottom of the Russia/Surveillance/unmasking situation, however it pans out.


Some of the Wikileaks revelations probably explains why the Democrats were shy of the FBI being involved.

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

Surely the interview was about Trump's first one hundred days. It wasn't meant to be Trump interviewing a TV station about another political party.
Or am I missing something?

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

If I recall correctly, and I could be wrong, as it's over 24 hours since I watched it and I wasn't studying it in preparation for questioning ;) that happened once right at the end of the interview, which was not ended by Trump. I remember being surprised that it did end so abruptly.


Have you actually watched the video Andrew?

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

Neither the democrats or the republican party are whiter then white and both need investigating but i doubt there's much appetite for that in the US both will continue relying on their die hard support to carry them through.

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

Investigation into potential Russian links gathers momentum
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/05/u...one-share&_r=0

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

Or: Investigation into potential Russian links gathers evidence. Isn't that what enquires do?

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

this stuff always gathers momentum as it circles the toilet bowl on its way to the sewer .

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

This sentence shows an increase in momentum "The move is designed to accelerate the committee’s investigation, and represents a new bipartisan challenge to the Trump administration, which has sought to use Republican allies in Congress to blunt the inquiries."

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

This is The New York Times!


Has anyone refused to comply? Trump seems happy for anyone requested to comply to do so.

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

It's too early to tell. The deadline for replies is 19th May so we'll know after that date.

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

Exactly ;)

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

The point is, this course of action has been deemed necessary because The Trump administration has previously"...sought to use Republican allies in Congress to blunt the inquiries."

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

Yes, because why should they allow a losing bunch of Democrats to sharpen them ?

Works both ways Andrew, as always you only see things one way. :rolleyes:

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

Can't believe you said this Mick ! You're even more pro-Trump than Trump is :D

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

Because Congress is supposed to uphold the law, not impede it for political advantage.