Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35886258)

Nice misconception there, Trump is an elected Head of State, Leader of a Country, voted in by millions, Corbyn is just an elected leader of a party by a few hundred thousand party activists and Labour supporters, big big difference.

Being a liberal and Anti-Trump you're bound to say Trump is struggling, I have seen no evidence of any such thing, he is doing practically everything he said he was that got him elected. I wouldn't call that struggling.

Corbyn's struggles are, that he is deeply unpopular with core Labour Supporters who can no longer support the party with him as the leader, Trump's supporters seem to be very very happy, hence why I feel comparing them as the same is very absurd.

This business of some people being outraged at his Press conference yesterday, so bloody what, that was the Trump I saw, all during the campaign trail. That conference was for his supporters, he is feeding his supporters and they are loving it regardless if he says a few things that are not factually correct, they don't care.

I believe he is holding a massive rally in Florida over the weekend, that will probably be packed to the rafters.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35886261)

What I'm comparing the two on is delivery and cohesion. Both are lacking in this respect. We've seen Trump's travel ban fail, we've seen national security adviser Michael Flynn being forced to resign over cosy chats with the Russians before gaining power, we've seen the uncertainty over whether his son-in-law can take a position in Government amongst many other travails.
As I said, Trump seems to be trying harder than Corbyn but that doesn't make him effective.
By contrast to Corbyn and Trump, I would cite Theresa May as an effective leader in delivery and cohesion.

Originally Posted by passingbat (Post 35886271)

What about the success he has had, within just a few weeks to bring back major industries to the US who were planning to build outside the US?


What about the successful meeting with the Unions, who were shocked an flabbergasted that a President wanted to meet with them to hear their views?


Or the meeting with Educators, of all institutions to get their views on how to improve education opportunities for all.


The meeting with female business leaders.


And from yesterday's speech, he has been trying to get in touch with Black Community Leaders to discuss the inner cities, but has been blocked by pressure from the democrats on such people not to meet with him. I hope the lady reporter that was involved in this manages to get something set up; Trump clearly was keen for her to do so.


All this info is available via Youtube from the Whitehouse, along with daily press briefings including Q&A. You can then compare and contrast with the BBC coverage.

Originally Posted by passingbat (Post 35886271)

What about the success he has had, within just a few weeks to bring back major industries to the US who were planning to build outside the US?

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35886275)

Most of those announcements were simply re-announcements of existing plans but I give him credit for Ford which he wrong-footed. As for GM and the others, Trump knows these were re-announcements but was more than happy for the re-announcements to be made as he knows his supporters won't work this out and it suits his image. Everyone wins, what's not to like?


https://www.ft.com/content/b3a3c99c-...5-9e5580d6e5fb

Google: Corporate America employs new tactics to avoid Trump ire

Originally Posted by passingbat (Post 35886281)

If that is the case, why didn't it happen under the early years of Obama?

Originally Posted by passingbat (Post 35886281)

If that is the case, why didn't it happen under the early years of Obama?

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35886273)

Plenty of people have had meetings. It's results that matter. Also it's absurd to contract the BBC with the official line of the White House.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35886285)

Companies have specifically reacted to Trump's tweets attacking either them or similar companies to them. Obama did not attack companies by Twitter.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35886285)

Companies have specifically reacted to Trump's tweets attacking either them or similar companies to them. Obama did not attack companies by Twitter.

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35886292)

No because he was a dull, soft and boring President.

Again, with you not following the program, with your liberal stance. Trump uses Twitter, certainly to bash and the fact he is still doing it as the President is unprecedented, but he is doing it to get the message out to his supporters, he has said, he don't need the left-leaning, dishonst biased media, he says he has a bigger far reaching audience via twitter with 25 million followers, of which has doubled since he became President, so he must be doing something right to attract so much interest in his tweeting activities and what's more, as he tweets, most of his messages get read out across the news networks anyway, netting free publicity, in to the bargain.

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35886292)

No because he was a dull, soft and boring President.

Again, with you not following the program, with your liberal stance. Trump uses Twitter, certainly to bash and the fact he is still doing it as the President is unprecedented, but he is doing it to get the message out to his supporters, he has said, he don't need the left-leaning, dishonst biased media, he says he has a bigger far reaching audience via twitter with 25 million followers, of which has doubled since he became President, so he must be doing something right to attract so much interest in his tweeting activities and what's more, as he tweets, most of his messages get read out across the news networks anyway, netting free publicity, in to the bargain.

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35886292)

No because he was a dull, soft and boring President.

Again, with you not following the program, with your liberal stance. Trump uses Twitter, certainly to bash and the fact he is still doing it as the President is unprecedented, but he is doing it to get the message out to his supporters, he has said, he don't need the left-leaning, dishonst biased media, he says he has a bigger far reaching audience via twitter with 25 million followers, of which has doubled since he became President, so he must be doing something right to attract so much interest in his tweeting activities and what's more, as he tweets, most of his messages get read out across the news networks anyway, netting free publicity, in to the bargain.

Originally Posted by Mr Banana (Post 35886294)

Have you seen some of the responses to his tweets. He may have a lot of followers but an awful lot are following so they can express their feelings toward him.