Re: US Election 2016
 

Your just fecking unbelievable you are .

Re: US Election 2016
 

Funny how the play arrow covers his mouth. :D

Re: US Election 2016
 

:D Shame it cannot be there permanently.

Re: US Election 2016
 

So you think Trump and his Chief of Staff are wrong in thinking that Russia did it....

Re: US Election 2016
 

Well, I will be honest, it is an interesting development. Call me old fashioned but I still believe in hard evidence though, lets see where this one goes....

Re: US Election 2016
 

Mick come on your going a bit beyond here no one has any doubt that Russia were playing fast and loose with hacking except you. Also don't hold mcaffee up as an authority he just jumps onto anything that gets him on a screen and I can't remember the last person that used his software for any length of time mainly because their pc\laptop got overwhelmed by everything his product didn't pick up. Russia needs a strong presence to limit it or putin will continue to push till he goes too far and creates a problem that can't be fixed. Right now we all have to hope trump will stepup and take on that role rather then being Putin's cooperative friend.

Re: US Election 2016
 

In my view, and Trump has accepted that Russia has a say in the election. Then President Obama. Must say STOP the ***** swearing in ceremony. Until it proved beyonf Doubt that the Russia DID help Trump win.

IF it proves AFTER the date, it could serious problems in America

Surely IF the FBI found these so called emails by Clinton. Which has caused the major problem. And the director of The FBI was a republican. Then it makes this election more sicker than it was.

Re: US Election 2016
 

Looks like anti-vaccinations was something Trump said during the campaign that he did mean: http://arstechnica.co.uk/science/201...accine-safety/



---------- Post added at 22:26 ---------- Previous post was at 22:00 ----------

and Russia might have something on Trump:

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/10/po...sia/index.html

Re: US Election 2016
 

Perhaps they've got his tax return or they know he isn't as rich as he keeps telling us he is

Re: US Election 2016
 

Google "4chan Fake news Trump", they have apparently spun a fake story and parts of the dishonest media being so desperate to run with any Trump scandal, ran with it. Trump has Tweeted in last hour, all in caps :"FAKE NEWS - A TOTAL POLITICAL WITCHHUNT!"

After reading the following : http://townhall.com/tipsheet/christi...e-cia-n2269811 , Fake news it is.

Re: US Election 2016
 

Trump is the second coming of our Lord, without a doubt. Everyone else in the World are Satan's servant's.... (apart from that nice bloke Vladimir of course).

Just trying to put myself in the 'mind' of a Trump voter, and figure out how this possibly happened...

Re: US Election 2016
 

its not hard to figure out
all the grown ups get a vote and when they have voted the winner gets the job .

Re: US Election 2016
 

Story is kind of weird. Seems to have originated with John McCain and his own 'sources' but the media has held off publishing until last night despite having the documents for a couple of weeks because they can't verify them.

---------- Post added at 08:52 ---------- Previous post was at 08:46 ----------

Carl Bernstein says this was given to the FBI in August. https://twitter.com/kbeninato/status/818978092689592320

Re: US Election 2016
 

It does seem to have an element of the Hitler Diaries about it....

Re: US Election 2016
 

I can think of another element it consists of that rhymes with Hitler.

But I am just going to say any way that it is just bollocks. Last week we had, 'Russians propped up Trump' in the US Election and in this weeks episode, we have them having material to 'compromise him', I was going to say you could not make this crap up, but someone clearly has for kicks. I find it hilarious that CNN, also nicknamed Clinton News Network, appear to be the first gullible news station to run with the fake story.

Re: US Election 2016
 

Trouble with Trump denying anything now is that he has cried wolf too many times, most recently denying he mocked a disabled reporter.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b043ad97e473f2

Re: US Election 2016
 

It's not a fake news story. The report seems to legitimately being discussed around Washington as far back as the summer and has been referred to the FBI who, during the course of the election, also appear to have applied for warrants to investigate some members of Trump's team.

The question is if the report, or parts of it, are correct which CNN are not speaking for. They're reporting on the existence of the report, that it was reported to the President and Trump and the fact John McCain passed it onto the FBI.

I don't know if this report is true. Some of it seems a bit too fantastically absurd to be true really, too precise and convenient. But Trump really should release his tax returns at least to help dispel the allegations he has money/loans/interests in Russia. These stories about Russia keep happening and you can't just dismiss every single negative story about Trump as fabricated.

Re: US Election 2016
 

Thoughtful article here
Of course the media will report on the leaked Donald Trump documents – but it must keep doing its job in scrutinising them
The claims have been taken sufficiently seriously to warrant the media’s (and by extension the public’s) attention, even if they cannot be proved beyond doubt. But the wholesale dump of unverified information is a journalist cop-out
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...-a7521256.html

Re: US Election 2016
 

It is fake Damien.

It was passed to the CIA, by someone with an axe to grind, but it holds absolutely no substance, the Intelligence report itself which was passed to Buzzfeed and then CNN, is a forged document. It is totally fake in every way shape and form. You cannot say one week Russia wanted Trump to be President and then next they have something compromising on him, 9 days before he is to be sworn in.

It is another attempt by the left to just do as much damage as they possibly can, because they cannot accept Clinton lost.

Yes I can because there is a bloody lot of them that are fake, just like there was for Hillary and this one is no different.

Re: US Election 2016
 

Could a Remoaner please claim that President Trump fiddled the Brexit referendum with links to a thousand confirming facts that have an in-depth never-ending explanation as to why this invalidates the vote so we'll have to have another one otherwise it means that Russia is responsible for the UK leaving the EU please? Whew. Let's get it over with now :rolleyes:

Re: US Election 2016
 

Ok but the FBI don't have your sources so they have to investigate it first and that is what the news is reporting. The news itself, that this report exists, is not false. The report might be.

I remain doubtful of the report too but it was given to the FBI by an American Senator. That's news either way.

Re: US Election 2016
 

Back to the election hacking (or hacking of the DNC) it seems Trump has confirmed he now believes that it was the Russians.

Re: US Election 2016
 

20 or 30 years ago, I would have agreed with old boy. Both presidents were relatively sane and I never seriously thought either would press the button. With Putin and Trump, I am not so sure. I think both are arrogant enough to think that whatever bunkers (or other safety measures) they have in place to protect themselves will work, and that they will end up ruling the earth if they can just nuke the other guy..

---------- Post added at 16:54 ---------- Previous post was at 16:47 ----------

Yet you appear to be citing, as proof of your story, an article that links to a post on reddit claiming credit. Sorry to have to ask this, but how do you know that the Russians didn't register that account, then create the post just to cover their tracks?

I'm not saying they did, but it is entirely possible.

Re: US Election 2016
 

ooh, you're so cynical Stuart. Those nice Ruskies would never do something like that.

Re: US Election 2016
 

Morgan Lewis is where Trump's lawyer, Sheri Dillon (the one at the press conference) works...

Re: US Election 2016
 

It would seem that the allegations are all true judging by the meltdown he had at the press conference yesterday ,he seems far too upset by something he says can be easily disproven,is this how it's going to be from now on ? whenever a story about him emerges it's going to be 'fake news' .
Also his refusal to offload his business interests will without doubt be a major sticking point and cause him problems in future .

Re: US Election 2016
 

Good article here about the whole thing with new information: http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/01...ian-influence/

The most interesting part is that the FBI seem to be seriously looking into allegations of money going into the Trump campaign from Russian banks.

Re: US Election 2016
 

I don't think they are doing anything remotely serious about it Damien, the FBI have made no such announcement that they are doing anything 'serious' about it, if there were, they would be raising it to a formal investigation and they have not announced that they are or intend doing, they are only reviewing allegations that have been made and that is only the level it is at.

http://www.snopes.com/manafort-ties-to-russia/

Also, I don't think anybody would be so stupid on the campaign team, who dealt with the funding of it, to want to blindly accept funding and have it traceable right back to Russian banks, that is just stupid crazy, leaving oneself to big holes, the inquiries started months ago, so I am sure the FBI would have announced they have found something by now and act accordingly.

Re: US Election 2016
 

Not talking about Paul Manafort. According to that article they only got permission to continue their investigation in October and they weren't going to announce it pre-election.

I don't accept blindly they've been taking money and nor does the article. Just that the FBI are investigating and we'll see where all these investigations go.

Re: US Election 2016
 

But that is just it, it is not a formal investigation, it is an inquiry in to allegations that have been made and the FBI does not discuss what actions it is doing, they are not looking at this seriously at all and have announced no such wording to that effect, as you put it in your post above.

---------- Post added at 10:21 ---------- Previous post was at 10:12 ----------

They have offices around the World and have very little dealings with Russia itself, despite being labeled 'Russian Law firm of the year' by Chambers and Partners.

Just for the record. Hillary Clinton used Morgan Lewis services during her Presidential campaign, not that long ago. ;)

Re: US Election 2016
 

I think you're spot-on on both points. I did wonder if Trump's comments about the security report were a typical "dead cat" comment to distract the American public from his continuing direct ownership of his business interests but it seems worse even than that.

It's concerning that Trump blames the US intelligence forces for the leak of the document when James Clapper, US director of national intelligence, told Trump on Wednesday evening that the intelligence community had not been responsible for the leak. “I emphasised that this document is not a US intelligence community product and that I do not believe the leaks came from within the IC,”
This just makes for a dysfunctional country if Trump strives to blame the intelligence services when they have clearly told him that they did not leak the documents. No wonder Putin aided and then toasted Trump's electoral success!

Ron Ryden, an Oregon Democrat on the Senate intelligence committee describes the dangers of the current situation very well.
“The president is responsible for vital decisions about national security, including decisions about whether to go to war, which depend on the broad collection activities and reasoned analysis of the intelligence community. A scenario in which the president dismisses the intelligence community, or worse, accuses it of treachery, is profoundly dangerous,” Wyden said.

Quotes from https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...p-dossier-leak

Re: US Election 2016
 

How is simply saying "I do not believe the leaks came from within the IC" anything like proof or evidence? :confused:

Re: US Election 2016
 

Let me assist. Firstly, I've not stated that this is proof or evidence. My concern is that Trump still blames the US intelligence forces for the leak of the document when James Clapper, US director of national intelligence, told him on Wednesday evening that the intelligence community had not been responsible for the leak.

Re: US Election 2016
 

But James Clapper is also ADMITTING that he has no evidence that they didn't, therefore he is in NO position to say that weren't responsible. You have to know unequivocally one way or another in order for a statement to be accepted as true.

Re: US Election 2016
 

So does that mean Trump should not have said that the IC did leak it, as he does not know unequivocally one way or another that it is true, and he has no evidence that it is?

Re: US Election 2016
 

I'm sure you must know by now that the onus is on the person making the allegation (Trump) to prove it and not on the person defending the organisation (Clapper). The concept of innocent until proved guilty applies here.

Re: US Election 2016
 

He suggested it as a possibility. Nobody is claiming what he said as proof. On the other hand, there are many people stating that it was "likely" that Russia was involved in ONE attempted hack at ONE individual is conclusive proof.
From your post.
The 2 BiB are contradictory in nature. It still officially leaves open the possibility that the intelligence community where responsible, is Trump's suggestion might be correct.

---------- Post added at 11:59 ---------- Previous post was at 11:55 ----------

Must've have missed the bit where Buzzfeed and whoever provided any proof of anything.

Re: US Election 2016
 

I'm sure it's all still available online.

Re: US Election 2016
 

"Sure" as in I have no idea whatsoever and whatever might or might not be there, it is nothing remotely resembling proof.

Whereas there is huge amounts of proof of what the Clintons and the Democrats got up to, but revealing that proof seems to be the crime and not what was done.

Re: US Election 2016
 

There is no proof of anything online. Hence the term "unverified".

Re: US Election 2016
 

Buzzfeed provided proof that a document containing allegations against Trump was in circulation.

Re: US Election 2016
 

As I said that is NOT proof.

Re: US Election 2016
 

But you are prepared to believe anything about Clinton without verifiable proof Mick ? :rolleyes:

The more your hear about this guy the more it's scary. He's not even president yet and now lacks any credibility. One way or another this isn't going to end well.

Re: US Election 2016
 

It's clear proof that a document containing the allegations was in circulation. This answers nomadking's statement "Must've have missed the bit where Buzzfeed and whoever provided any proof of anything."

Re: US Election 2016
 

And what about the Clintons and the Democrats has been denied, never mind comprehensively disproved?

Re: US Election 2016
 

Here's one for you. http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-grab-crotch/

Re: US Election 2016
 

The emails that were hacked from the DNC are proof enough for me. This so called dodgy document that's been given to Buzzfeed is a fake report fabricated by goodness knows anybody !

Nothing is set to end well in your miserable World. :rolleyes:

Re: US Election 2016
 

The difference is....
Another massively key difference is that they didn't just make up a written claim and leave it that, they used a photo. Not that different to Harry Hill on "You've been Framed", where he says that X does something and then shows a video of where it looks like X, but clearly isn't.

Re: US Election 2016
 

I answered your question with an example of something about the Clintons and the Democrats that has been denied and comprehensively disproved. You can compare and contrast it to other allegations but it more than answers your request.

---------- Post added at 13:45 ---------- Previous post was at 13:36 ----------

We know where the report has come from "It was compiled by a former British intelligence officer with experience of Russia, who works for a private intelligence firm. His work has been regarded in the past as credible by several senior US officials, one of whom said he had “absolute trust” in him.
The former intelligence officer collaborated with another private business intelligence group working out of the US."
Subscriber link: https://www.ft.com/content/4d1c292e-...b-e7eb37a6aa8e
Google the headline: The Trump-Russia dossier: what we know so far

Re: US Election 2016
 

They denied something that wasn't really claimed in the first place. Big deal.:rolleyes:

Still absolutely no evidence whatsoever included in the dossier, just wild unsubstantiated claims.

Re: US Election 2016
 

The point is though that Trump has to accept what his security agencies tell him ,he has no real choice .He is starting his presidency at odds with his security chief which is fantastic news for ISIS and every other tin pot nation with a grudge against America but rubbish for everyone else.If Clapper says his agencies did not leak the documents then Trump has to accept that or provide proof to the contrary and whilst we are talking about proof Trump has to show some proof that the 'fake news' is indeed fake ,we can't accept his denial any more than he is accepting Clappers

Re: US Election 2016
 

This is the first US election that I keep hearing "President Elect" bandied about. I'm sure I have never heard it before.

Re: US Election 2016
 

What's in or not in the dossier is far less important than Trump alienating and demoralising the security services. Such a situation is music to the ears of America's enemies.

Re: US Election 2016
 

I haven't yet seen reports of Trump railing against the Security Services. The Intelligence Agencies on the other hand have a good track record. WMD's that didn't exist, Lybia, Syria etc. Those boys are at the top of their game!

Re: US Election 2016
 

Calling something a dossier these days it will be subject to ridicule.

Re: US Election 2016
 

So are you are suggesting that Trump alienates and demoralises the security services? And that this approach is politically logical because of their previous mistakes?

Re: US Election 2016
 

I thought it was those who were making the Allegations needed to show the Proof and none has been shown that appears legit. Also just to put it out there, he won't be at odds with the new security chief. Clapper will not be Intelligence chief much longer. Dan Coats fills that role once his nomination is Confirmed by the Senate.

Re: US Election 2016
 

And the security services have said "they don't know for sure".
"I do not believe" is a "I don't know for sure".

Re: US Election 2016
 

And Trump says (verbatim)

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/11/u...ript.html?_r=0

So if Trump says 'maybe' or 'who knows', he gets a free pass and people should believe that the IC did leak the story, but if the`Head of the IC says 'I do not believe', they shouldn't believe him...

Re: US Election 2016
 

Agreed. Just to clarify, it's Trump who's making the suggestions against the security services, not the other way around. And he's not come up with anything that supports his suggestions. And to further clarify: the security services are not saying the allegations are correct, they're just sharing them with him. Though I doubt they would share every single allegation they receive with him.

---------- Post added at 19:29 ---------- Previous post was at 19:20 ----------

Some hopeful news

Donald Trump's defence secretary says Putin trying to break Nato and world order 'under biggest attack since WWII

Donald Trump’s incoming defense secretary said world order was "under the biggest attack since World War II" and has declared the US must uphold the "impefect" nuclear arms deal with Iran.

"I think right now the most important thing is that we recognise the reality of what we deal with Mr Putin, and we recognise that he is trying to break the Northern Atlantic alliance, and that we take the steps, the integrated steps, diplomatic, economic military, and the alliance steps, working with our allies, to defend ourselves where we must," General Mattis said at his senate confirmation hearing.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7524256.html

Re: US Election 2016
 

It's Trump making the allegations against the security services ,he accused them of deliberately leaking the files ,so yes Trump should show some evidence if only to clear his own name .
Trump has alienated the IC and swapping the chief for one of his own is not going to bring them back on side ,he needs their intelligence to fulfill his election promise to take down ISIS .

Re: US Election 2016
 

One of the fastest ways to get egg on your face normally is to accept the US intelligence community at face value and given the adversarial nature of US intelligence between themselves it's a brave man who stands up and gives a definitive denial on something which is why there has been no definitive denial. Trump can end a lot of this rubbish by being open and honest about his business dealings and personally the second he entered the presidential process he should have been open about his business dealings.

Trump also needs to start being realistic about Russia as right now he thinks he has an ally perhaps even a friend in putin and he doesn't. If trump isn't careful he will plunge the whole world into a dark and miserable period, he not only has to stand upto putin publically he needs to understand how their intelligence services will work against him on one hand and appear to support him on the other something i think we are seeing right now.

I hate to be as pessimistic as MrK at the minute but we will soon have two arrogant and egotistical men in control of the worlds two largest nuclear arsenals and although there are safeguards in the US to prevent trump going off the deep end there are none in Russia.

Re: US Election 2016
 

Good article on Trump's potential conflicts of interest. Makes the point that he's not disclosed his interests so no one in his team can state accurately if conflicts of interest do occur. https://qz.com/884120/elizabeth-warr...s-of-interest/

Re: US Election 2016
 

Isn't he supposed to and didn't he promise to put his businesses in a blind trust anyway?

Re: US Election 2016
 

Once he becomes president isn't he subject to freedom of information requests not sure how that system works in the US though i can see a consistent stream occuring once he takes office. How he handles the next couple of weeks is going to determine the view of him and right now with the exception of mick and his small groups of die hard supporters general view is he's not looking that impressive.

Re: US Election 2016
 

Is Mick a fan then, I thought he said he only supported him because he didn't like Mrs Clinton, she's no longer relevant so no need to stick up for the donald anymore :shrug:

Re: US Election 2016
 

He's not put them in a blind trust, he's transferring them to his children, and promised never to discuss business with his sons, or watch any news about the businesses, so he wouldn't be influenced by them....

Re: US Election 2016
 

That's what I said Hugh, that he isn't putting them in a blind trust and that he said he would frequently during the campaign

https://ourfuture.org/20161116/today...se-blind-trust

Re: US Election 2016
 

well if we can't trust the president of the USA who can be trusted

Re: US Election 2016
 

No rule or law says he has to put them in a blind trust and if I had a Billion Dollar empire, I would not just skip my kids and neither would a lot of other people.

Also, you missed the bit where a Business Ethics Committee person is to be appointed on to the Trump Staff team who will ensure no Conflict of Interest occurs.

:wavey: I am Still here. It is not about being a fan of Trump, it's about not following such a ridiculous anti-bias press, which throws up silly stories about him, just because it's him. The absolute favoritism of the US Media, for Hillary Clinton, during the campaigns was ridiculous, given her poor track record as Secretary of State and other 'bent' traits here and there.

It's also about people who jump on the hate bandwagon, far too easily just because they see a negative Trump headline and then jump to the conclusion, that he is going to be crap, guess what? Barack Obama is considered a crap President, that's why Trump essentially won, because they (Americans) did not want another four years of Obama, and this was highly likely with Hillary Clinton.

So other Presidents who were considered crap.... George W. Bush was a Seriously Crap President, Bill Clinton, not that impressive, George Bush Snr, served only one term so that speaks for itself and need I mention Nixon here?

So if Trump is going to be a crap President, he will be joining quite a list.

But all these Presidents before him said what they wanted to do before they went in to office, only to do some of what they said or the opposite or take us in to illegal wars or completely shake up the entire Middle East and cause mass migration, not seen since World War II.

Re: US Election 2016
 

You realise you're going to have to keep making excuses for the Donald for the next 4 years Mick? That's if he, and we, last that long ...
If you manage that you'll have my utter respect ;)

Re: US Election 2016
 

Obama is leaving with one of the highest approval ratings of a President leaving office. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...oval-1044.html

By contrast here is Trumps:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...able-5493.html

You can't really judge how a President will be viewed by history as soon as they leave. Bush declined a lot since, Reagan improved etc. However at the moment Obama isn't widely considered a crap President.

Re: US Election 2016
 

You would if you'd given your word, well I would at any rate but then again I'm probably to honest to be a politician

That's okay then, if he's on the team he or she defiantly won't be a friend or crony

:wavey:

Re: US Election 2016
 

LOL are you being serious ? I and many others judge on Policies not approval ratings.

So yes I can judge and he is crap, many of my US friends think he IS crap and cannot wait to see the back of him.

So who do you blame for ISIS ? Who do you blame for the very large debt he has amassed ? Who do you blame for the rise in mass homelessness especially among young people ? Who do you blame for the absolute rise in costs to Obamacare ?

For all those, I blame Obama. Thus, I judge him as a crap President.

Re: US Election 2016
 

I am not saying you're wrong for thinking he is a crap President, I obviously disagree but I can understand others think differently. I am saying that in general he is not regarded as a crap President.

As for your questions I think his biggest mistake was his handling of Syria. However the economy he inherited was terrible, months after the collapse of the banking system. The first effects of that were reported under his watch, a few months into he Presidency but the global collapse of the banking system is not the fault of the guy who arrived a few months after. The deficit has decreased since 2009 but it's higher than 2008.

I think it's very unfair to blame the massive deficit reported in 2009 on Obama. Also the debt. The debt naturally increases so long as you have a deficit. You therefore judge politicians performance on that metric by the deficit not the debt. It's as stupid as the people who say debt was increased under the Tories, of course it has, that's the nature of a deficit.

Re: US Election 2016
 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38581768

Re: US Election 2016
 

BBC News. That’s another beauty,

Totally made up facts by sleazebag political operatives - FAKE NEWS! Russia says nothing exists. Probably...

SAD!

Re: US Election 2016
 

I could imagine it's easy to keep a high approval rating if you just blame your opposite when you botch something, case in point, the time the Obama administration decided to keep the plutonium it'd previously agreed to rid itself of when dismantling nukes alongside Russia. Of course as said, they backtracked, decided on a 'cheaper' route that was actually keeping the plutonium and knowing fine well it could again be used for WMD's. Then when Russia called foul and stopped their half of the deal completely, Western Media conveniently spun it as Russia starting a second cold war :rolleyes: leading to ''Oh those Pesky Russians!'' When the entire breakdown was manufactured from the bloody US. You know, the land of the free, except when we drug them with LSD and let the CIA take over the papers. Project MK Ultra and Operation Mockingbird for those unaware of the past doings of the agency that apparently serves the best interests. The completely 100% trustworthy country it is. Instead of labeling both the US and Russia as the lying sods they both are. It's like watching two brothers bickering when they're both as bad as each other.

That's not to say he's the worst president ever or even getting into the current topic in the thread, just saying Obama has things in his favour that actually should've went against him. Then there's obviously plenty of people in Pakistan that would love a word with him rather than Donald Trump. They don't count though. Be interesting what opinion they'll hold on Trump in 4 years then. Anyone heard of plans to stop droning?

With regards to the middle east though he was merely continuing something that someone far worse started. Mr Bush take the stage.

Re: US Election 2016
 

Not a single one of my american friends including a few democrats feel obama has been either a good or effective president nearly all of them say he has made america more vulnerable not just because of his handling of foreign policy but his military cutbacks and base closures. I think like many older systems the approval rating system is way off the mark and no longer a true reflection of opinion.

Re: US Election 2016
 

:clap:

Well, this is just it, most of my US friends voted ALL Democrat most of their lives and in 2008, 2012 and because of Obama's dreadful legacy and let's face it, his terrible Obamacare, it has been dreadful, in 2016 they have voted Republican this time round, because they did not want Crooked Hillary.

Re: US Election 2016
 

I don't quite understand the Obamacare thing that much, I think I may have heard a misconception many years ago that it'd be like the NHS? Is that naff? What was it and what became of it?

Re: US Election 2016
 

It's not quite the NHS and this where people over here get confused thinking it works the same way, it doesn't.

I explained it some time ago, will fetch that post and explain what it is in a brief summary.

Re: US Election 2016
 

It's more representative than what a collection of friends tells you.

Re: US Election 2016
 

Or it could be that like most people you have friends that are like minded to yourself

---------- Post added at 09:15 ---------- Previous post was at 09:08 ----------

It's meant to expand healthcare to more people ,it hasn't worked as expected because of Democrat vs Republican politics .The Republican controlled congress has just voted to begin repealing Obamacare but haven't actually got a replacement yet and 22 million people will be left without health care

Re: US Election 2016
 

The "Red Line". In Syria is where he devalued America's international influence.

Re: US Election 2016
 

No Marty most of my US friends are at the opposite end to me on a whole range of things and especially the democrat voters but there seems to have been an attitude shift over the last few years towards something new has to appear as the old systems just are not good enough for the world we currently have. I'd rather have one friend that supports things I don't and will argue their position then ten people who agree with me and go along with anything i say.

Re: US Election 2016
 

But you can't simply project your friends views over the whole country.Just because your friends think that Obama is rubbish doesn't mean the whole country does .

All the latest polls in the USA say that Trump will be a worse president than Obama ,by a considerable margin,mainly because as his inauguration approaches more about his abilities as a leader,politician and his personal traits are being revealed and people don't like what they see .To enter the whitehouse less popular than the president leaving is quite an achievement .

Re: US Election 2016
 

I wonder if they're conducted by the same people behind the ones that said he'd lose. One can't deny it's a very different and more hostile entry than usual though. The other half still voicing their discontent.

Re: US Election 2016
 

The way i see it is that Trump is going to be a president of extremes .He will invoke very deep feelings in voters one way or the other ,there will be no middle ground if he gets his way.I also think the way he has single handedly alienated his entire security services before even getting into office gives a clue of how things will go .

Re: US Election 2016
 

I can't disagree, it was split before and I can't see it changing much now. Obviously that's sometimes the case for a few elections but as put, he's a bit different, a bit of a wildcard, a president of extremes for some. Oh and I can't remember anyone being voted in after such a unique campaign.

I'll judge afterwards of course but he's becoming the Bieber of President in some cases, not all mind but there's people out there just hanging onto the bieber effect, hating him because that's the cool thing to do. My missus is pretty much an example of that, Why is Donald Trump a dick I ask? Because everyone seems to be talking about how much of a dick he is on Facebook. :D

Re: US Election 2016
 

No, it's because he's doing dickish things, and people are talking on FB about the dickish things he does....

Re: US Election 2016
 

Polls are and can be wrong. 2015 General Election Polls and just this US Election, just gone had Clinton in the clear lead for weeks, how wrong both those polls were and the current poll that says Obama has more than a 50% approval is also wrong, utter rubbish.

Re: US Election 2016
 

The overall national polls were very close to the actual result. Clinton won the popular vote by 2% and the average of the polls going into the election was 2.2%. They got the state polls wrong so didn't see Clinton losing her 'firewall'.

Anyway polls certainly aren't perfect but they're more scientific than just making assertions on the internet.

Re: US Election 2016
 

Polls can be manipulted depending on who commissions it to get the result wanted.

The questions are just phrased in a way to get thr required resullt. That's the only scientific part.

Re: US Election 2016
 

Sometimes they are. Sometimes they're not. That's what decides a reputable polling company from a bad one. However Gallup having been asking for some question for 30+ years for the approval ratings and if it was for fact it's not -30 for Obama there would be little contention of the same question being asked this year either.

Re: US Election 2016
 

Polls can be wrong, especially if they only asked people from Latino districts called Juan or Jesus questions but that notwithstanding if I were American I'd be concerned Trump hasn't got that new president bounce in his approval ratings, based on that he's not going to have that honeymoon settling in period and it'll set the mood for his presidency, still at least we'll get some laughs out of it, that's the main thing.

Re: US Election 2016
 

Well anyone who thought the speech writers might mollify Trump's tone for his inauguration were as wrong as the pollsters.

Would there be a sudden change of language? Would there be sense of diplomacy and compromise? From where I'm sitting, it was more of the same stuff which got him elected and that's fair enough but you have to wonder how long it'll work and how this style will go down with the rest of the world...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-us-canada-38682565

Re: US Election 2016
 

I liked the fact he used the term "Islamic terrorism" that the BBC are so frightened of and now have to repeat verbatim.

It's the same basic message that got him elected. It'll be interesting to see how he tries to implement it.

Re: US Election 2016
 

"I just felt a great disturbance in the force as if millions of voices cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced."

Re: US Election 2016
 

Quite. No one can say they don't know what they're getting.