Cable Forum
Page 23 of 32 « First 1319202122 23 24252627 Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Cable Forum (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/index.php)
-   Current Affairs (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/forumdisplay.php?f=20)
-   -   U.S President: Donald Trump (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/showthread.php?t=33704412)

Ignitionnet 29-09-2017 12:02
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Believe it refers to this - https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...tor/707273001/

---------- Post added at 12:02 ---------- Previous post was at 12:00 ----------

Ya know, for someone who's done nothing wrong and has nothing to hide, Jared Kushner seems to hide an awful lot. That or he needs to see a neurologist as he has severe memory issues.

https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/...2017/09/21.png

papa smurf 06-10-2017 23:07
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Incredible drone images show border wall prototypes being built in the California desert as companies bid to fulfil Trump's great election pledge

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz4ulhV5Xl9
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Hugh 07-10-2017 09:29
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35919326)
Incredible drone images show border wall prototypes being built in the California desert as companies bid to fulfil Trump's great election pledge

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz4ulhV5Xl9
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
And yet Mexico isn’t paying for it - another "great election pledge"...

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/35...or-border-wall
Quote:
The House Homeland Security Committee approved Wednesday a border security bill that includes $10 billion for a border wall.

Osem 07-10-2017 09:57
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Looks like Trump might have a massive erection to his name after all. :D

Mick 07-10-2017 10:34
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35919344)
And yet Mexico isn’t paying for it - another "great election pledge"...

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/35...or-border-wall
Election Pledge. “Mexico to pay for the wall, in some form or other”

Quote:
So, how would that money be recouped from Mexico?

There are a number of options, but nothing has been officially decided.

1. Raising tariffs on imports. Mr Trump's spokesman, Sean Spicer, said on 26 January that the president wanted a 20% tax on Mexican imports to pay for the wall, although he later added that it was one of several options still being considered. "By doing it that way we can do $10bn (£8bn) a year and easily pay for the wall, just through that mechanism alone," he told journalists. Forbes has argued that existing duties on Mexican goods would have to be quadrupled to pay for the whole of the wall, even if its cost were spread over 10 years. US companies would also almost certainly source products from elsewhere, reducing the revenue. The Mexican government could respond by removing tax benefits for US foreign investment. The investment totalled $101bn in 2013.

2. Remittances. Two possibilities here. President Trump could try to use laws aimed at preventing money-laundering to halt Mexicans working in the US from wiring money to families back home. The sector is huge - about $25bn a year. The hope is that the threat would cow Mexico into coughing up for the wall. The second option is to tax the remittances. Either a flat tax on all, or a far more punitive tax on those who cannot prove legal residence. But Mexicans affected by remittances might simply avoid using the wire companies and find undocumented third parties to transfer the cash.

3. Levying a "border adjustment" tax. House Republicans propose lowering corporation tax from 35% to 20% but base it on the place of consumption, not production. Imports would be taxed but not exports. A 20% tax, given the $60bn trade deficit with Mexico, would raise $12bn a year. Mexico could do little, the Washington Post reports, because border adjustments would apply to all US trading partners and would not therefore be seen as a singling out Mexico.

4. Increasing travel visa and border crossing fees. Targeting countries that have a bad record on illegal immigration, including Mexico, for higher visa fees would be popular among many Republicans. Along with increasing the fees on cars and individual people crossing the border it would raise revenue, but would probably not be enough alone.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-37243269

Osem 07-10-2017 10:45
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Yes, it's perfectly possible that, IF, the wall gets built the US will secure 'payment' for it from Mexico by hook or by crook. I reckon that Mexico is more reliant on the US than the other way around so they'll probably find a way to do it.

Hugh 07-10-2017 15:28
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35919350)
Election Pledge. “Mexico to pay for the wall, in some form or other”

Quote:
So, how would that money be recouped from Mexico?

There are a number of options, but nothing has been officially decided.

1. Raising tariffs on imports. Mr Trump's spokesman, Sean Spicer, said on 26 January that the president wanted a 20% tax on Mexican imports to pay for the wall, although he later added that it was one of several options still being considered. "By doing it that way we can do $10bn (£8bn) a year and easily pay for the wall, just through that mechanism alone," he told journalists. Forbes has argued that existing duties on Mexican goods would have to be quadrupled to pay for the whole of the wall, even if its cost were spread over 10 years. US companies would also almost certainly source products from elsewhere, reducing the revenue. The Mexican government could respond by removing tax benefits for US foreign investment. The investment totalled $101bn in 2013.

2. Remittances. Two possibilities here. President Trump could try to use laws aimed at preventing money-laundering to halt Mexicans working in the US from wiring money to families back home. The sector is huge - about $25bn a year. The hope is that the threat would cow Mexico into coughing up for the wall. The second option is to tax the remittances. Either a flat tax on all, or a far more punitive tax on those who cannot prove legal residence. But Mexicans affected by remittances might simply avoid using the wire companies and find undocumented third parties to transfer the cash.

3. Levying a "border adjustment" tax. House Republicans propose lowering corporation tax from 35% to 20% but base it on the place of consumption, not production. Imports would be taxed but not exports. A 20% tax, given the $60bn trade deficit with Mexico, would raise $12bn a year. Mexico could do little, the Washington Post reports, because border adjustments would apply to all US trading partners and would not therefore be seen as a singling out Mexico.

4. Increasing travel visa and border crossing fees. Targeting countries that have a bad record on illegal immigration, including Mexico, for higher visa fees would be popular among many Republicans. Along with increasing the fees on cars and individual people crossing the border it would raise revenue, but would probably not be enough alone.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-37243269
1. Raising tariffs on imports - the US consumer/customer would end up paying the extra 20% tax (as it would likely be added on to the price), so Mexico wouldn't be paying

2. Remittances - as the article stated, Mexicans affected by remittances might simply avoid using the wire companies and find undocumented third parties to transfer the cash, so Mexico wouldn't be paying

3. Levying a "border adjustment" tax - it's the same as No. 1, but for all countries (it's just another import tax). Once again, it would be the end consumer (in the USA) who would end up paying this tax, and once again Mexico won't be paying.

4. Increasing travel visa and border crossing fees - as the article states, it probably wouldn't be enough.

2 of the 4 options mean the US consumer pays, not the Mexicans.

btw, previous attempts by the USA (and other countries) to impose extra "import" taxes didn't end well (under WTO rulings).

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/28/bord...retaliate.html

Mick 07-10-2017 18:22
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35919383)
1. Raising tariffs on imports - the US consumer/customer would end up paying the extra 20% tax (as it would likely be added on to the price), so Mexico wouldn't be paying

2. Remittances - as the article stated, Mexicans affected by remittances might simply avoid using the wire companies and find undocumented third parties to transfer the cash, so Mexico wouldn't be paying

3. Levying a "border adjustment" tax - it's the same as No. 1, but for all countries (it's just another import tax). Once again, it would be the end consumer (in the USA) who would end up paying this tax, and once again Mexico won't be paying.

4. Increasing travel visa and border crossing fees - as the article states, it probably wouldn't be enough.

2 of the 4 options mean the US consumer pays, not the Mexicans.

btw, previous attempts by the USA (and other countries) to impose extra "import" taxes didn't end well (under WTO rulings).

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/28/bord...retaliate.html
Perhaps you did not get, they will pay for it in some form or other. They, Trump or Congress will try.

Ignitionnet 07-10-2017 18:38
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35919383)
btw, previous attempts by the USA (and other countries) to impose extra "import" taxes didn't end well (under WTO rulings).

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/28/bord...retaliate.html
Well at least you have some idea why Trump is desperately trying to undermine the WTO now.

It doesn't really matter who actually pays as long as it can be presented as Mexico paying. The barely a third of the US that support this policy are unlikely to have any interest in the actual facts and will simply proclaim anything that doesn't agree with their world view as fake news.

Ignitionnet 09-10-2017 22:34
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Hrm.

https://twitter.com/jaketapper/statu...01595830620166

Hugh 11-10-2017 12:03
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7994356.html

Quote:
Donald Trump's planned state visit to the UK has been downgraded to a "working visit", likely forming part of a multi-country tour, it has been reported.

It means the billionaire will not be a guest of the Queen, as was previously envisaged.

Kursk 11-10-2017 13:23
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35919804)
Which reminds me, isn't it time we had a new Speaker in the House? One who remains impartial and doesn't make accusations against the POTUS.

Mick 11-10-2017 13:27
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35919804)
Downing Street are totally denying this is the case, thus meaning, it's Fake News.

papa smurf 11-10-2017 13:53
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35919818)
Downing Street are totally denying this is the case, thus meaning, it's Fake News.
this is what happens when the gutter press is quoted .

Damien 11-10-2017 14:07
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35919818)
Downing Street are totally denying this is the case, thus meaning, it's Fake News.
Of course, the government would never lie.

papa smurf 11-10-2017 14:08
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35919828)
Of course, the government would never lie.
or the gutter press

Mick 11-10-2017 15:04
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35919828)
Of course, the government would never lie.
Well, where has this downgrading information come from ?

Not the PM, it seems and it is her who extended the State invitation, I am not sure it is down to anyone else to downgrade it or who would have the authority to do so.

You expect to me to believe a news source in which the editor had a thought process similar to that of a serial killer, thoughts about wanting the Prime Minister chopped up in to pieces and kept in a bag in his freezer ? :erm:

Damien 11-10-2017 15:18
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35919835)
Well, where has this downgrading information come from ?
I dunno, not seen the original report. Sources within the foreign office would be my best guess as it seems to come from the UK media.

Quote:
Not the PM, it seems and it is her who extended the State invitation, I am not sure it is down to anyone else to downgrade it or who would have the authority to do so.
Both sides can agree that for whatever reasons to change the terms of the visit. I doubt either of them would have used the term 'downgrade'.

Quote:
You expect to me to believe a news source in which the editor had a thought process similar to that of a serial killer, thoughts about wanting the Prime Minister chopped up in to pieces and kept in a bag in his freezer ? :erm:
Well I imagine he has good sources within the government!

Either way I am not vouching for the news but pointing out that the press office of Downing Street or the White House Press Office are bad sources for verifying the veracity of news.

Ignitionnet 11-10-2017 16:22
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kursk (Post 35919816)
Which reminds me, isn't it time we had a new Speaker in the House? One who remains impartial and doesn't make accusations against the POTUS.
That's entirely down to MPs.

Which accusations did he make that were false? That Trump is racist and sexist is hardly an accusation it's a statement of fact. I may well have missed other things.

---------- Post added at 16:22 ---------- Previous post was at 15:53 ----------

So looks like there's some insight into why Tillerson called Trump a 'moron'.



If this is true, that is the perfect word to describe him. The man reckons he's super intelligent so obviously doesn't care about the consequences of nuclear war and has no trouble spending hundreds of billions of taxpayer money on pointless WMDs.

I'll run with moron. Incapable of grasping the consequences and getting upset that the US stockpile, which I'm sure they showed him in pictures as he appears to have a toddler's attention span, has been reducing for a really good reason.

Nuclear weapons are incredibly expensive. Conventional alternatives for many operations have been built. Even the current stockpiles are more than enough to change the world for generations. They aren't something to build up to satisfy a man-child's ego and after decades of nuclear disarmament it's shockingly ignorant to even make those comments. Probably wasn't being literally but the man still hasn't grasped that words have consequences in his position.

Hugh 11-10-2017 17:20
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35919835)
Well, where has this downgrading information come from ?

Not the PM, it seems and it is her who extended the State invitation, I am not sure it is down to anyone else to downgrade it or who would have the authority to do so.

You expect to me to believe a news source in which the editor had a thought process similar to that of a serial killer, thoughts about wanting the Prime Minister chopped up in to pieces and kept in a bag in his freezer ? :erm:
Here’s the Telegraph’s take on this.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017...thout-meeting/
Quote:
Donald Trump is set to visit Britain as early as January in a scaled-down “working” trip that would not see him meet the Queen or stay at Buckingham Palace.

A senior US diplomatic figure told this newspaper that the American President may be flown in to open the country’s new London embassy.

Ignitionnet 11-10-2017 18:15
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
And on that note this man who Sarah Sanders informs is a huge fan of the second amendment starts openly threatening the press for publication of stories he doesn't like.

https://www.dslreports.com/shownews/...License-140503

I stop short of using the 'f' word as it's a bit much but this stuff is in that ballpark.

Mick 11-10-2017 19:32
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Perhaps they should get their stories correct then. Sick of the biased BS news coming from certain quarters. CNN, NYT. etc.

---------- Post added at 19:32 ---------- Previous post was at 19:29 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35919855)
Here’s the Telegraph’s take on this.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017...thout-meeting/
Still not convinced, the State visit is now not happening.

Kursk 11-10-2017 20:28
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignitionnet (Post 35919845)
That's entirely down to MPs.
Which accusations did he make that were false? That Trump is racist and sexist is hardly an accusation it's a statement of fact. I may well have missed other things.
Impartiality, is in the job description for the Speaker of the House because:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignitionnet (Post 35919845)
....words have consequences in his position.

Ignitionnet 11-10-2017 21:27
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kursk (Post 35919887)
Impartiality, is in the job description for the Speaker of the House because:
He was being impartial.

---------- Post added at 21:27 ---------- Previous post was at 21:23 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35919876)
Perhaps they should get their stories correct then. Sick of the biased BS news coming from certain quarters. CNN, NYT. etc.
So we're okay with state controlled media if we don't like what the free press is saying?

I'm pretty tired with the propaganda Fox News, RT or Press TV pump out but wouldn't be happy with them being threatened by a head of state. I don't recall Barack Obama threatening Fox even as they pimped the birther movement.

Mick 11-10-2017 21:52
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignitionnet (Post 35919899)
He was being impartial.

---------- Post added at 21:27 ---------- Previous post was at 21:23 ----------



So we're okay with state controlled media if we don't like what the free press is saying?

I'm pretty tired with the propaganda Fox News, RT or Press TV pump out but wouldn't be happy with them being threatened by a head of state. I don't recall Barack Obama threatening Fox even as they pimped the birther movement.
No to your question. But the constant negative press on the same topic, day in, day out because they cannot get over Hillary losing is becoming silly. Even independent analysis showed, CNN, NBC, NYT & WashingtonPost coverage of Trump is around 90% Negative coverage. We get they don’t like Trump, but there must be other worthy news?

The Birther row was also pimped by Clinton’s Ardent Supporters, who had no problem using it, back when Hillary ran in 2008 Elections against Obama.

Hugh 11-10-2017 22:12
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35919902)
No to your question. But the constant negative press on the same topic, day in, day out because they cannot get over Hillary losing is becoming silly. Even independent analysis showed, CNN, NBC, NYT & WashingtonPost coverage of Trump is around 90% Negative coverage. We get they don’t like Trump, but there must be other worthy news?

The Birther row was also pimped by Clinton’s Ardent Supporters, who had no problem using it, back when Hillary ran in 2008 Elections against Obama.
Fake News.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...lary-clinton-/
Quote:
There is no evidence that Clinton or her 2008 campaign ever floated the theory. While Clinton supporters circulated the allegations the last time she ran for president, they had no ties to either the candidate or her staff.
And have you ever considered that the coverage of Trump is 90% negative because I’d all the negative things he does?

1andrew1 11-10-2017 22:22
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35919906)
Fake News.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...lary-clinton-/

And have you ever considered that the coverage of Trump is 90% negative because I’d all the negative things he does?
I suspect the unsourced 90% figure could be more fake news too.

Mick 11-10-2017 22:29
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35919906)
No it’s not fake News. Her Supporters pushed that out.

Supporters, not campaign team being the key difference here in what I said

Quote:
And have you ever considered that the coverage of Trump is 90% negative because I’d all the negative things he does?
He has not done anything that negative that justifies such a high % of negative coverage that I’m aware of. It is just stupid hysteria. He is the democratically elected President that beat the one who was favourite to win.

1andrew1 11-10-2017 23:42
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35919908)
No it’s not fake News. Her Supporters pushed that out.

Supporters, not campaign team being the key difference here in what I said
According to the fact-checking website cited by Hugh, some of Hillary's supporters used it the last time she ran for President. That was in 2016. You stated that they used it back in 2008.

Mick 12-10-2017 01:24
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35919909)
According to the fact-checking website cited by Hugh, some of Hillary's supporters used it the last time she ran for President. That was in 2016. You stated that they used it back in 2008.
And I was right in what I said!

The fact checking info was written during 2016 Election.

So Er, yeah last election from that time would have been 2008 when she was against Obama. Not hard you know. :rolleyes:

pip08456 12-10-2017 02:38
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35919909)
According to the fact-checking website cited by Hugh, some of Hillary's supporters used it the last time she ran for President. That was in 2016. You stated that they used it back in 2008.
Really? From the fact-checking website.

Quote:
There is no evidence that Clinton or her 2008 campaign ever floated the theory. While Clinton supporters circulated the allegations the last time she ran for president, they had no ties to either the candidate or her staff.

Damien 12-10-2017 08:00
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
It was in 2008 the birther stuff started

Ignitionnet 12-10-2017 15:04
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35919908)
He has not done anything that negative that justifies such a high % of negative coverage that I’m aware of. It is just stupid hysteria. He is the democratically elected President that beat the one who was favourite to win.
Again, yes, he won. That he won has nothing to do with his performance so far, which has been banal, or the manner in which he has conducted himself which has also been banal.

I entirely agree he's getting a hard time. He may wish to try and avoid blatantly lying and getting some medication to control his narcissism and his temper so that he doesn't constantly make such an ass of himself with such regularity.

Under normal circumstances such people are perhaps mocked a little. That he is the democratically elected President is exactly why he receives that hard time he does.

If he shuts his mouth, gets off Twitter, stops kicking off fights with his own party, stops insulting people and behaves like an adult who knows, perhaps he'll have more on his achievement list than a variety of executive orders, many of which are being legally challenged, having Sean Hannity as his head sycophant, and his ability to soak up the adoration of his cult at rallies.

The man is at very least strongly authoritarian, unable to handle criticism, unable to take on board other viewpoints and unable to make fact-based decisions. He is utterly inappropriate for his office without extensive delegation of powers, and much of the power he has delegated has been delegated to those appointed based on nepotism, not merit.

If the man can't handle the job, and it's abundantly clear he can't given the amount of public release valves he needs, he should resign. I despise the idea of President Pence as his beliefs are anathema to me for the most part, but most of all because he may actually be competent enough to implement some of his agenda, but Trump is of no benefit to anyone besides as a figurehead for the extreme and the ignorant taken in by his lies. The US are the only superpower right now and it's their job to provide stability to the world. They can't do that with a leader that is so utterly unstable and erratic. One whose biggest achievement has been to divide his own nation like never before.

1andrew1 12-10-2017 20:23
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35919911)
And I was right in what I said!

The fact checking info was written during 2016 Election.

So Er, yeah last election from that time would have been 2008 when she was against Obama. Not hard you know. :rolleyes:
My apologies.

Mick 12-10-2017 20:54
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignitionnet (Post 35919953)
The US are the only superpower right now and it's their job to provide stability to the world. They can't do that with a leader that is so utterly unstable and erratic. One whose biggest achievement has been to divide his own nation like never before.
I am pretty sure that divide already existed before though.

pip08456 12-10-2017 21:18
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignitionnet (Post 35919899)
He was being impartial.[COLOR="Silver"]
One would expect the Speaker of the house of commons to follow the correct procedure if he were indeed being impartial.

Here's what he said.



If that was impartial and following procedure then why this the following day?



Perhaps he should have lit a candle as he did with that powerful force in the world and moral inspiration to it, Xi Jinping, with his terrible human rights record.

Mick 12-10-2017 21:40
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 35919990)
One would expect the Speaker of the house of commons to follow the correct procedure if he were indeed being impartial.

Here's what he said.



If that was impartial and following procedure then why this the following day?



Perhaps he should have lit a candle as he did with that powerful force in the world and moral inspiration to it, Xi Jinping, with his terrible human rights record.
Well, Bercow overstepped his boundaries on impartiality, but he seemed to also ignore the clapping, which is also banned in parliament.

Osem 12-10-2017 21:46
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
There's a whole lot of double standards evident when it comes to comparing Trump with other far more dubious leaders but hey, let's just ignore all that. Bercow is a clown.

Damien 12-10-2017 21:53
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35920000)
Well, Bercow overstepped his boundaries on impartiality, but he seemed to also ignore the clapping, which is also banned in parliament.
Clapping is often tolerated in Parliament so long as it's rare.

Kursk 13-10-2017 00:52
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Bercow has been further sharing his impartiality. :erm:

In addition to publicly announcing he voted Remain and insulting the POTUS (and therefore a sizeable number of American citizens), he has now advised that Parliament has the right to ignore the Brexit referendum.

This isn't the sort of 'neutrality' needed at the heart of UK democracy.

Stephen 13-10-2017 13:45
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
I watched the Eminem freestyle rap about Trump. Wow he certainly didn't hold back.

Damien 14-10-2017 07:28
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Obamacare is probably dying at this point: http://www.npr.org/2017/10/12/540920...s-for-the-poor

These payments shared the cost of the insurance for the very poor between the insurers and the government. Without them the premiums will spike further for those still insured whilst ending insurance for others.

Trump just cares about ending Obamacare more than anything else, whoever suffers, that's why he didn't care what bill was passed so long as one passed. The last one would have removed the obligation to give insurance even for pre-existing conditions, the most popular part of the policy by far, and others ones would have cut Medicaid, the policy for those will still can't pay. Trump supported them all.

Mick 14-10-2017 09:21
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Hillary Clinton, is in UK at the moment promoting her “What happened” book. She was on “The One” show last night, when talking about Weinstein, she changed subject and started talking about Trump’s grabbing women by the “ahem” video. Marr, then referred to her husbands sexual activities, when he was President, she replied, that had all been litigated and was in the past, how convenient.

She will apparently be a guest on the Graham Norton show next Friday.

In other news, Judicial Watch has obtained FBI documents of the former Attorney General, Loretta Lynch tarmac meeting with former President Bill Clinton. The pair met and had a 40 minute chat and days later, former FBI Director James Comey, announced Hillary’s FBI Investgation on her use of a private email server, concluded that it was extremely careless but was not indicted on any criminal charges, which would have hindered her candidacy for U.S President. Comey later testified that when he asked the former Attorney General, for permission to go public with the investigation, she ordered him to not call it an investigation but to call it a “matter”, which he said confused and concerned him.

Maggy 14-10-2017 09:39
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-41618165

Quote:
Global powers, including key US allies, have said they will stand by the Iran nuclear deal which US President Donald Trump has threatened to tear apart.
Mr Trump said on Friday that he would stop signing off on the agreement.
The UK, France and Germany responded that the pact was "in our shared national security interest". The EU said it was "not up to any single country to terminate" a "working" deal.
Iran's President Hassan Rouhani said the US was "more isolated than ever".
"Can a president annul a multilateral international treaty on his own?" he asked.
"Apparently he doesn't know that this agreement is not a bilateral agreement solely between Iran and the United States."
Could get interesting to see how many other global powers will step up and if the US ends up being left out on the world stage.

Mick 14-10-2017 10:19
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Donald has a mandate to end Iran deal, he actually has not done that, he’s kicked it down the road to Congress to see if they legislate any new arrangements, he campaigned hard on it during election, calling it a bad deal and he has a point, Iran will eventually become a nuclear power, which is what this so called deal is suppose to stop.

And like idiots, the UK wants to remain part of the deal, madness, especially when it has just been reported that Iran hacked 9,000 Parliament email accounts.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7999801.html

Osem 14-10-2017 10:36
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35920130)
Hillary Clinton, is in UK at the moment promoting her “What happened” book. She was on “The One” show last night, when talking about Weinstein, she changed subject and started talking about Trump’s grabbing women by the “ahem” video. Marr, then referred to her husbands sexual activities, when he was President, she replied, that had all been litigated and was in the past, how convenient.

She will apparently be a guest on the Graham Norton show next Friday.

In other news, Judicial Watch has obtained FBI documents of the former Attorney General, Loretta Lynch tarmac meeting with former President Bill Clinton. The pair met and had a 40 minute chat and days later, former FBI Director James Comey, announced Hillary’s FBI Investgation on her use of a private email server, concluded that it was extremely careless but was not indicted on any criminal charges, which would have hindered her candidacy for U.S President. Comey later testified that when he asked the former Attorney General, for permission to go public with the investigation, she ordered him to not call it an investigation but to call it a “matter”, which he said confused and concerned him.
Yes I heard her having a dig about Trump being elected in spite of his record with women yet she didn't seem very keen to talk about her own husband's abuse of power in the Oval Office with a young intern which he then subsequently lied about to the whole world. Talk about rank double standards. The truth is that these people care about one thing only and that is satisfying their own desire for power.

Damien 14-10-2017 10:51
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35920130)
Hillary Clinton, is in UK at the moment promoting her “What happened” book. She was on “The One” show last night, when talking about Weinstein, she changed subject and started talking about Trump’s grabbing women by the “ahem” video. Marr, then referred to her husbands sexual activities, when he was President, she replied, that had all been litigated and was in the past, how convenient.
Yes. Clinton didn't just have an affair but in doing so abused his power. It needs to be called out at every level.

pip08456 14-10-2017 12:17
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35920135)
Yes. Clinton didn't just have an affair but in doing so abused his power. It needs to be called out at every level.
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman." Just a blow job now and again!

Ignitionnet 14-10-2017 14:43
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kursk (Post 35920016)
Bercow has been further sharing his impartiality. :erm:

In addition to publicly announcing he voted Remain and insulting the POTUS (and therefore a sizeable number of American citizens), he has now advised that Parliament has the right to ignore the Brexit referendum.

This isn't the sort of 'neutrality' needed at the heart of UK democracy.
That's a statement of fact, too, much as that Donald Trump is racist and sexist. The UK is a representative democracy, not a direct one. Had MPs wanted to they could've taken the whole referendum issue seriously, ensured it would take effect by law and replicated the super-majority requirement of the first one on continued membership of the EEC - they didn't.

MPs know what they can do if they want rid of him.

---------- Post added at 14:39 ---------- Previous post was at 14:32 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35920133)
Donald has a mandate to end Iran deal, he actually has not done that, he’s kicked it down the road to Congress to see if they legislate any new arrangements, he campaigned hard on it during election, calling it a bad deal and he has a point, Iran will eventually become a nuclear power, which is what this so called deal is suppose to stop.

And like idiots, the UK wants to remain part of the deal, madness, especially when it has just been reported that Iran hacked 9,000 Parliament email accounts.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7999801.html
It's the Iran nuclear deal, not a deal over being nice to everyone. You sign a credit agreement with Capital One you don't get to consider it invalid because you don't like one of their advertisements.

Whether Trump has a 'mandate' or not tearing up multi-lateral deals because he doesn't like them, whether they are being adhered to or not, simply ensures that no-one will regard any agreements they have with the US as being solid.

Why strike a deal when, whether you keep your end of the bargain or not, the other side will claim you're not in compliance because they thought it would win votes from people who neither understand or have the desire to understand the deal.

It has ensured that, while the deal is in place and being adhered to, Iran cannot produce nuclear weapons. They are under the tightest inspection regime anywhere and are only able to produce nuclear fuel.

The deal was put in place because sanctions were in danger of starting to fragment. Without those Iran can accelerate their nuclear programme dramatically.

Aside from the MAGA crew find me anyone who thinks this is a good idea?

---------- Post added at 14:43 ---------- Previous post was at 14:39 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maggy J (Post 35920131)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-41618165

Could get interesting to see how many other global powers will step up and if the US ends up being left out on the world stage.
It also means that even if Congress do decide to implement sanctions on Iran again they'll be doing it alone, or with whatever nations whose arms they can twist.

The US is looking more isolated and, increasingly, less like the world's superpower and more like the school bully. In common with every other superpower they've been getting away with bullying the other kids for a while as it could be said it was all for good aims, but now that's gone. They just look bellicose, unstable and belligerent.

All Trump is doing is accelerating the rise of China and, after that India, along with speeding the decline of the United States. With the lack of stability, guidance and co-operation from the US other nations will increasingly move towards them.

Pity.

Kursk 14-10-2017 16:39
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignitionnet (Post 35920162)
That's a statement of fact, too, much as that Donald Trump is racist and sexist. The UK is a representative democracy, not a direct one. Had MPs wanted to they could've taken the whole referendum issue seriously, ensured it would take effect by law and replicated the super-majority requirement of the first one on continued membership of the EEC - they didn't.

MPs know what they can do if they want rid of him.
You know as well as I do that it's not always about what we say, it's about what's not said and/or inferred in the words that come out of our mouths.

Ignitionnet 14-10-2017 17:40
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Regarding Trump having a point regarding Iran: https://twitter.com/foreignoffice/st...06209234800640

No-one said the Iran nuclear deal was perfect but it's doing what it says on the tin.

---------- Post added at 17:40 ---------- Previous post was at 16:58 ----------

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/d...united-kingdom

Quote:
Joint statement from Prime Minister Theresa May, Chancellor Angela Merkel and President Emmanuel Macron following President Trump’s statement on the US’ Iran Strategy.

We, the Leaders of France, Germany and the United Kingdom take note of President Trump’s decision not to recertify Iran’s compliance with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action to Congress and are concerned by the possible implications.

We stand committed to the JCPoA and its full implementation by all sides. Preserving the JCPoA is in our shared national security interest. The nuclear deal was the culmination of 13 years of diplomacy and was a major step towards ensuring that Iran’s nuclear programme is not diverted for military purposes. The JCPoA was unanimously endorsed by the UN Security Council in Resolution 2231. The International Atomic Energy Agency has repeatedly confirmed Iran’s compliance with the JCPoA through its long-term verification and monitoring programme. Therefore, we encourage the US Administration and Congress to consider the implications to the security of the US and its allies before taking any steps that might undermine the JCPoA, such as re-imposing sanctions on Iran lifted under the agreement.

Osem 14-10-2017 23:03
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35920135)
Yes. Clinton didn't just have an affair but in doing so abused his power. It needs to be called out at every level.
It won't be with people like him (e.g. JFK). They have too many powerful friends and it's done nothing to harm Clinton's career. His wife's handling of the matter from day one wasn't much better.

Damien 15-10-2017 07:44
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osem (Post 35920208)
It won't be with people like him (e.g. JFK). They have too many powerful friends and it's done nothing to harm Clinton's career. His wife's handling of the matter from day one wasn't much better.
Well with Clinton it was, even if in the end people were angered at the lie more than the affair.

Mick 15-10-2017 11:16
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35920215)
Well with Clinton it was, even if in the end people were angered at the lie more than the affair.
They can’t be that angered with Bill, the amount of money the Clintons have amassed from paid for speeches over the years, is well over $100 Million.

Damien 15-10-2017 11:27
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35920227)
They can’t be that angered with Bill, the amount of money the Clintons have amassed from paid for speeches over the years, is well over $100 Million.
People are selectively angry depending on their biases I guess. Look at the anger directed at it by Fox whose who anchors have been pulled off the air for such accusations and Trump has such allegations against him too.

I mean to be clear what he was accused off doesn't come close to Weinstein and the latter got to work in Hollywood for decades. Polanski still gets big budgets and actors and he was convicted, then ran away, of child abuse charges! It's a joke.

Osem 15-10-2017 15:48
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35920227)
They can’t be that angered with Bill, the amount of money the Clintons have amassed from paid for speeches over the years, is well over $100 Million.
Yeah it makes you laugh that a football manager/pundit who makes a thoughtless 'racist' or 'sexist' comment can have their entire career ruined yet Bill Clinton carries on regardless having acted appallingly when in office and lied about it. There's very little public outrage evident from their bank balance.

heero_yuy 15-10-2017 15:50
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
The Brussels Broadcasting Corporation are just lapping up Clinton's anti Brexit diatribe. :rolleyes:

Osem 15-10-2017 15:56
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by heero_yuy (Post 35920247)
The Brussels Broadcasting Corporation are just lapping up Clinton's anti Brexit diatribe. :rolleyes:
Yeah but they're entirely unbiased remember. :rofl:

papa smurf 15-10-2017 16:28
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by heero_yuy (Post 35920247)
The Brussels Broadcasting Corporation are just lapping up Clinton's anti Brexit diatribe. :rolleyes:
was that the old woman on Andrew marr this morning . i thought she was just some random nut job they had found .

Damien 15-10-2017 16:42
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Having Hilary Clinton on news programmes is perfectly legitimate. She was a Presidential candidate, former Secretary of State, Senator and First Lady. Given that they're also going to ask her about Brexit. The Andrew Marr program also had Chris Grayling w ho campaigned for Leave and the chairman of the campaign group 'Leave means Leave'. Even The Express, hardly a Remain paper, seemed to be happy with Marr's handling of Clinton: http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/866...ew-Brexit-news

It's getting really tiresome that, the moment someone expresses an opinion against Brexit, it's 'biased'.

---------- Post added at 16:42 ---------- Previous post was at 16:36 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Osem (Post 35920246)
Yeah it makes you laugh that a football manager/pundit who makes a thoughtless 'racist' or 'sexist' comment can have their entire career ruined yet Bill Clinton carries on regardless having acted appallingly when in office and lied about it. There's very little public outrage evident from their bank balance.
And Trump made sexist comments as well as having similar sexual assault allegations against him. Like Clinton he settled at least one of those out of court. There is a long history of comments and allegations as well : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald...rth_.281992.29 and he was elected President!

Mick 15-10-2017 17:26
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
I got it, Hillary is over here promoting her book, which let's face it, I cannot see any one in the UK giving a real toss about, I think she is here, because she wants to be the President of the United Kingdom. :erm:

Changing the subject slightly. This clip of President Obama reading a mean tweet from Trump and Obama's subsequent response to it, has not aged well.

heero_yuy 15-10-2017 17:40
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35920250)
was that the old woman on Andrew marr this morning . i thought she was just some random nut job they had found .
You're not wrong. :D

papa smurf 15-10-2017 17:56
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35920262)
I got it, Hillary is over here promoting her book, which let's face it, I cannot see any one in the UK giving a real toss about, I think she is here, because she wants to be the President of the United Kingdom. :erm:

Changing the subject slightly. This clip of President Obama reading a mean tweet from Trump and Obama's subsequent response to it, has not aged well.
yes i think it's called trump won who can i blame

Osem 15-10-2017 18:07
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35920253)
Having Hilary Clinton on news programmes is perfectly legitimate. She was a Presidential candidate, former Secretary of State, Senator and First Lady. Given that they're also going to ask her about Brexit. The Andrew Marr program also had Chris Grayling w ho campaigned for Leave and the chairman of the campaign group 'Leave means Leave'. Even The Express, hardly a Remain paper, seemed to be happy with Marr's handling of Clinton: http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/866...ew-Brexit-news

It's getting really tiresome that, the moment someone expresses an opinion against Brexit, it's 'biased'.

---------- Post added at 16:42 ---------- Previous post was at 16:36 ----------



And Trump made sexist comments as well as having similar sexual assault allegations against him. Like Clinton he settled at least one of those out of court. There is a long history of comments and allegations as well : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald...rth_.281992.29 and he was elected President!
Who said everyone's anti-Brexit opinion is down to bias? We're referring to the BBC here not everyone. What's getting really tiresome is that when someone calls out the BBC's renowned left/pro-EU bias it gets turned into something else. The BBC is infested with pro-EU left leaning people. There's no doubt about that and never has been. That's a fact.

1andrew1 16-10-2017 23:18
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osem (Post 35920265)
Who said everyone's anti-Brexit opinion is down to bias? We're referring to the BBC here not everyone. What's getting really tiresome is that when someone calls out the BBC's renowned left/pro-EU bias it gets turned into something else. The BBC is infested with pro-EU left leaning people. There's no doubt about that and never has been. That's a fact.
The BBC - Brexit Broadcasting Corporation - was called out for pro-Brexit bias in its coverage leading up to the referendum. That's a fact not an opinion. But we're in danger of going off-topic so I'll leave it there.

Damien 17-10-2017 08:52
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Trump has said Obama and other Presidents didn't call the families of dead soldiers.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-o...s-rose-garden/

It seems be untrue and quite a nasty little thing to say.

Mick 17-10-2017 11:02
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35920424)
Trump has said Obama and other Presidents didn't call the families of dead soldiers.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-o...s-rose-garden/

It seems be untrue and quite a nasty little thing to say.
Do you really get the feeling 45, really doesn’t like 44 and vice versa?

Politics is nasty. He was challenged on the statement and somewhat backtracked. I read somewhere White House backed up Trumps remarks.

White House:

Quote:
"The president wasn't criticizing predecessors, but stating a fact. When American heroes make the ultimate sacrifice, Presidents pay their respects,"

"Sometimes they call, sometimes they send a letter, other times they have the opportunity to meet family members in person. This president, like his predecessors, has done each of these. Individuals claiming former Presidents, such as their bosses, called each family of the fallen, are mistaken."

Hugh 17-10-2017 11:35
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
But he didn’t say "sometimes they call, sometimes they send a letter, other times they meet family members in person”, he said Obama and the other Presidents most of them didn’t make calls, which is completely different to sometimes they call...
Quote:
The traditional way, if you look at President Obama and other presidents, most of them didn't make calls, a lot of them didn't make calls
Sarah Huckabee Sandees completely changed what he actually said.

1andrew1 17-10-2017 18:16
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35920446)
But he didn’t say "sometimes they call, sometimes they send a letter, other times they meet family members in person”, he said Obama and the other Presidents most of them didn’t make calls, which is completely different to sometimes they call...

Sarah Huckabee Sandees completely changed what he actually said.
Trump's rewriting of history does remind me of 1984. I'm not suggesting that other politicians haven't done anything similar but he's particularly regular and blatant.

Mr K 17-10-2017 22:56
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35920522)
Trump's rewriting of history does remind me of 1984. I'm not suggesting that other politicians haven't done anything similar but he's particularly regular and blatant.
He's so obsessed with Twitter, he talks like he's tweeting, trying to get one liners in about 'fake news' and Obama being the anti-christ. He forgets in press conferences that people can come back at him with irritating facts. He wants to hire his own reporters and media ( oh yeah, I forgot, Fox...)

1andrew1 17-10-2017 23:25
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 35920603)
He's so obsessed with Twitter, he talks like he's tweeting, trying to get one liners in about 'fake news' and Obama being the anti-christ. He forgets in press conferences that people can come back at him with irritating facts. He wants to hire his own reporters and media ( oh yeah, I forgot, Fox...)
Like Putin, he favours a state-controlled media. Fortunately, life's not that simple in the free world.

Mick 18-10-2017 05:07
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35920608)
Like Putin, he favours a state-controlled media. Fortunately, life's not that simple in the free world.
No, he does what you do. Call out the networks with heavy bias. You’ve slated the BBC for having a Brexit bias, which is inaccurate, more like bias for Remain.

So this Russian collusion story.... seems there was collusion after all, back in 2009...

Quote:
The Obama administration potentially knew of corruption at a Russian nuclear supplier years before it agreed to sign over 20 per cent of US's uranium supply to the company, a new report has claimed.

The Hill claims federal agents found evidence of illegal payments made to an employee at a Russian nuclear company years before the Obama administration allowed the company to make a major business deal.

Employees at Tenex, a subsidiary of Rosatom – the regulatory body of the Russian nuclear complex – received bribes and kickbacks from American companies as early as 2009, according to the Hill. An undercover agent made secret recordings, collected financial records, and intercepted emails documenting the payments – the earliest of which was recorded in September 2009.
Quote:
The decision sparked controversy years later, following a 2015 bombshell report: The New York Times found Moscow had paid millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation at the same time the US was pondering the Rosatom deal. Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State at the time.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a8005641.html

---------- Post added at 05:07 ---------- Previous post was at 04:04 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35920446)
But he didn’t say "sometimes they call, sometimes they send a letter, other times they meet family members in person”, he said Obama and the other Presidents most of them didn’t make calls, which is completely different to sometimes they call...


Sarah Huckabee Sandees completely changed what he actually said.
Well looks like General Kelly is the one who told Trump, Obama did not call parents up. NBC are running with:

Quote:
JUST IN: President Obama did not call Gen. John Kelly when his son was killed in Afghanistan in 2010, White House official tells NBC News.

Hugh 18-10-2017 12:12
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
From the actual NBC News story.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/whi...is-son-n811446
Quote:
A White House official told NBC News on Tuesday that Obama did not call Kelly after the death of his son. But a person familiar with the breakfast for Gold Star Families at the White House on May 30, 2011, told NBC News that Kelly and his wife attended the private event and were seated at first lady Michelle Obama’s table.

A former senior Obama administration official disputed Trump's initial claim on Monday that Obama didn't call Gold Star families, calling it "wrong."

"President Obama engaged families of the fallen and wounded warriors throughout his presidency through calls, letters, visits to Section 60 at Arlington, visits to Walter Reed, visits to Dover, and regular meetings with Gold Star Families at the White House and across the country," the ex-official told NBC.
But once again the White House is trying to change what Trump said, which was that Obama didn't call any of the families, not one specific family (General Kelly's) - and it was from an unnamed official - I thought Trump said that shouldn't happen or that information from unnamed sources couldn't be trusted;he tweeted
Quote:
"Whenever you see the words 'sources say' in the fake news media, and they don't mention names...." Trump tweeted. "it is very possible that those sources don't exist but are made up by fake news writers. #FakeNews is the enemy!"

Ignitionnet 18-10-2017 12:23
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35920613)
No, he does what you do. Call out the networks with heavy bias. You’ve slated the BBC for having a Brexit bias, which is inaccurate, more like bias for Remain.

So this Russian collusion story.... seems there was collusion after all, back in 2009...
I'm loving how, just as Trump et al do, the response to any criticism is to try and redirect it elsewhere. What Obama, Clinton, God or the Pope may have done is and remains irrelevant. No amount of pointing at 'Crooked Hillary' changes anything the Trump administration do.

Regarding the collusion Mueller's team are looking into the limits of Trump's pardoning powers. That's an interesting thing to do if there's nothing there.

As far as the BBC go in your opinion they have a bias in that direction, in some others its the other way around. If both sides of a debate think you're biased you're probably doing something right.

I don't appreciate the manner in which they let John Redwood spout utter nonsense unchallenged on such a regular basis, I'm sure you aren't happy with other things they do. This is good.

---------- Post added at 12:23 ---------- Previous post was at 12:18 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35920446)
Sarah Huckabee Sandees completely changed what he actually said.
It's always hilarious listening to that woman. She is an evangelical, conservative Christian, and happy to remind people of it, yet is also happy to break one of the 10 commandments on a near-daily basis.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b00f0084add859

Ignitionnet 18-10-2017 14:49
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Yikes!

http://nypost.com/2017/10/17/trump-t...signed-up-for/

Quote:
President Trump told the widow of a Green Beret who died in Niger that the soldier “knew what he signed up for … but when it happens, it hurts anyway” during a phone call Tuesday.
I hope this is fake. If it isn't I'm thinking 45 should follow what he claimed was the example of 44, etc, by not calling people.

Mick 18-10-2017 17:24
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignitionnet (Post 35920661)
No amount of pointing at 'Crooked Hillary' changes anything the Trump administration do.
I don't think bringing her up at any time, is at all irrelevant, she could have been President, let's face it, she ran on a half baked campaign of 'She wants to be the President because it's her turn. ' Wow, so awe-inspiring, not.

Given the link I posted to above, this Russian Uranium Scandal with links to the Clinton Foundation, is fresh news and since, especially she cannot stay irrelevant herself, promoting her book in the UK, of all places and going on about losing the election, she was meant to win and then going on about Brexit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignitionnet
Regarding the collusion Mueller's team are looking into the limits of Trump's pardoning powers. That's an interesting thing to do if there's nothing there.
Well over 12 months later and still nothing concrete, not that Mueller himself is legitimately qualified to investigate. Many times, it's been said, Mueller has breached the 'conflict of interest clause', being a good friend of James Comey for a start and then bringing in a grand jury, some of those said to be Obama/Hillary Clinton supporters and donors. Hardly seems fair and impartial does it ?

As for them looking in to the extent of the Pardoning power. There are those in congress who have tried and failed to scale back it's power. But as some may know. A President cannot be indicted while in office, they have to be impeached first, which takes a lot of time and effort. Said this before, the Constitution was not written to make it easy to remove a sitting President from office.

So while the argument is, President cannot pardon himself, if removed from office, he just gets his running mate to do it once he's sworn in to office, like Nixon's running mate did for him upon Nixon's resignation. But let's not forget he has to have committed a crime first or abused his Presidential powers.

Lots of Republicans in the Rust Belt, had to put up with Obama for 8 years, unless Mueller has something solid on Trump and something spectacular happens for the Democrats, in the upcoming mid terms, Donald will be with us until 2021, or 2025 if he is voted in for another term.

Damien 18-10-2017 18:09
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Trump and his allies would attempt discredit whoever the special counsel was. I haven’t seen much independent concern over him, he was appointed by Trump’s own attorney general, and he seems to have the backing of big the Republicans and Democrats. There is no use Trump and co getting upset. There isn’t even that much leaking from the Muller camp.

Damien 18-10-2017 22:19
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignitionnet (Post 35920686)
Yikes!

http://nypost.com/2017/10/17/trump-t...signed-up-for/



I hope this is fake. If it isn't I'm thinking 45 should follow what he claimed was the example of 44, etc, by not calling people.
http://time.com/4987242/donald-trump...soldier-widow/

The AP said they've found families who've not received either a letter or phone call from Trump.

Maggy 19-10-2017 08:31
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
So what did Obama do that was soooooo bad?

Damien 19-10-2017 08:36
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
I don't know actually. It started years ago when Trump started going after the birth certificate stuff, I'm not actually sure if anything provoked that from Trump or it was PR stunt that's gone way too far.

papa smurf 19-10-2017 08:37
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maggy J (Post 35920780)
So what did Obama do that was soooooo bad?
https://townhall.com/columnists/john...-time-n2254303


don't shoot the messenger ;)

Ignitionnet 19-10-2017 10:55
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35920699)
Well over 12 months later and still nothing concrete, not that Mueller himself is legitimately qualified to investigate. Many times, it's been said, Mueller has breached the 'conflict of interest clause', being a good friend of James Comey for a start and then bringing in a grand jury, some of those said to be Obama/Hillary Clinton supporters and donors. Hardly seems fair and impartial does it ?
You know what the House, Senate, FBI and special investigator investigations have turned up so far? It was made very clear that this process would run for a long time.

I'm not sure how the House investigation is going, though, given Trump transition staffer Devin Nunes' determined attempts to undermine it having potentially released classified information then 'recused' himself.

Anyone who has a political opinion is disqualified from any job involving a politician? That's the vast majority of the United States excluded.

For your comments most of the US Congress, including the GOP, disagree regarding Mueller and seem to consider him fine. The only people I can see firing off accusations of bias seem to be Trump supporters. I appreciate the ongoing effort to discredit any US institution that Trump doesn't like or that doesn't do as he says however in this case apart from his base he has little support. If there are issues with the work that is produced they can then be taken up however being worried that due to bias Mueller may investigate too much doesn't work.

If he's done nothing wrong he's going to be fine.

Talking of Russia, though, when is Trump going to implement those sanctions that were voted through on a veto-proof majority?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35920699)
As for them looking in to the extent of the Pardoning power. There are those in congress who have tried and failed to scale back it's power. But as some may know. A President cannot be indicted while in office, they have to be impeached first, which takes a lot of time and effort. Said this before, the Constitution was not written to make it easy to remove a sitting President from office.

So while the argument is, President cannot pardon himself, if removed from office, he just gets his running mate to do it once he's sworn in to office, like Nixon's running mate did for him upon Nixon's resignation. But let's not forget he has to have committed a crime first or abused his Presidential powers.
I imagine a bunch of legal experts , including constitutional lawyers, are aware of this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35920699)
Lots of Republicans in the Rust Belt, had to put up with Obama for 8 years, unless Mueller has something solid on Trump and something spectacular happens for the Democrats, in the upcoming mid terms, Donald will be with us until 2021, or 2025 if he is voted in for another term.
Yeah, those years of economic growth, increased access to healthcare, the actions that saved the US car industry, the over 6 straight years of private sector job growth, etc, must have been a real torment.

https://tericarter.wordpress.com/201...g-under-obama/

I'm sure the GOP are looking forward to him blaming them for all his failings in 2021 if he were still in office. Steve Bannon seems to think he has a 30% chance of completing his full term.

Hugh 19-10-2017 11:23
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignitionnet (Post 35920686)
Yikes!

http://nypost.com/2017/10/17/trump-t...signed-up-for/

Quote:
President Trump told the widow of a Green Beret who died in Niger that the soldier “knew what he signed up for … but when it happens, it hurts anyway” during a phone call Tuesday.
I hope this is fake. If it isn't I'm thinking 45 should follow what he claimed was the example of 44, etc, by not calling people.
http://deadline.com/2017/10/donald-t...rs-1202190770/

Quote:
Asked if Trump is denying using the words Wilson claimed he had, or if Trump is “just saying she took it the wrong way, out of context,” Sanders deflected, answering multiple people in the president’s vicinity “believed the president was completely respectful, very sympathetic, expressed the condolences of himself and the rest of the country, and thanked the family for their service and commended them for having an American hero in their family.”

“I don’t know how you could take it any other way,” Sanders insisted...

...Sanders took a question from April Ryan, who reported Johnson’s widow said Trump did not know her husband’s name and kept referring to him as “your guy” during the phone call.

“Just because the president said ‘your guy’ I don’t think that means he doesn’t know his name,” Sanders shot back.

Mick 19-10-2017 11:40
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maggy J (Post 35920780)
So what did Obama do that was soooooo bad?
I can think of one straight away.

Interfere in our EU Referendum. Some of those in Congress, go on and on about the Russians meddling in their elections, and this is plural as it has been said this happened not just in 2016. Either by hacking email accounts or by influencing via social media.

But David Cameron, gave a license to allow the 44th U.S President to directly influence our democratic process by threatening the back of queue BS, if people voted Brexit.

This should never have been allowed, but because of Cameron’s very strong Remain stance, he allowed it. Probably also ordered a photo shoot with Prince William and his son George as a sweetener, during his visit.

The fact the Crooked Clinton’s are currently here, in UK. I read somewhere Bill is meeting PM, to discuss Ireland, but I saw a video of him on Twitter mocking Brexiteers, and Hillary, when she has finished falling over, going on about Brexit being a mistake, had she won, would have stuck to Obama’s back of queue for trade threat.

Damien 19-10-2017 11:45
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Trump hated Obama long before the EU referendum. Besides if he was so bothered about foreigners interfering in their election then he wouldn't have had Nigel Farage campaigning for him in the Presidential Election.

Quote:
The fact the Crooked Clinton’s are currently here, in UK. I read somewhere Bill is meeting PM, to discuss Ireland, but I saw a video of him on Twitter mocking Brexiteers, and Hillary, when she has finished falling over, going on about Brexit being a mistake, had she won, would have stuck to Obama’s back of queue for trade threat.
Let's see what becomes of this US trade deal. Given they have a protectionist in the White House I am not optimistic.

Mick 19-10-2017 12:06
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35920799)
Trump hated Obama long before the EU referendum. Besides if he was so bothered about foreigners interfering in their election then he wouldn't have had Nigel Farage campaigning for him in the Presidential Election.
Nigel Farage, spoke at one of his rallies of supporters, and spoke of Brexit he said to the crowd, he couldn’t possibly come to the US to tell them who to vote for, him mocking Obama for coming here and interfering in our Referendum, but if he could vote, he would not vote for Hillary, even if she paid him to. But crucially, you compare a foreigner interfering, this being Nigel Farage, but he wasn’t one the Worlds major leaders, nor was he in any government.

---------- Post added at 12:06 ---------- Previous post was at 11:59 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignitionnet (Post 35920789)

I'm sure the GOP are looking forward to him blaming them for all his failings in 2021 if he were still in office. Steve Bannon seems to think he has a 30% chance of completing his full term.
You suddenly care what Steve Bannon says/thinks? :confused:

He did right thing resigning. He is too far right to hold a key advisers role in the White House. That’s probably General Kelly’s doing.

Maggy 19-10-2017 13:00
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35920797)
I can think of one straight away.

Interfere in our EU Referendum. Some of those in Congress, go on and on about the Russians meddling in their elections, and this is plural as it has been said this happened not just in 2016. Either by hacking email accounts or by influencing via social media.

But David Cameron, gave a license to allow the 44th U.S President to directly influence our democratic process by threatening the back of queue BS, if people voted Brexit.

This should never have been allowed, but because of Cameron’s very strong Remain stance, he allowed it. Probably also ordered a photo shoot with Prince William and his son George as a sweetener, during his visit.

The fact the Crooked Clinton’s are currently here, in UK. I read somewhere Bill is meeting PM, to discuss Ireland, but I saw a video of him on Twitter mocking Brexiteers, and Hillary, when she has finished falling over, going on about Brexit being a mistake, had she won, would have stuck to Obama’s back of queue for trade threat.
https://tericarter.wordpress.com/201...g-under-obama/

Mick 19-10-2017 14:27
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maggy J (Post 35920814)
Ahh Wordpress, so it's a blog, so just potentially biased opinions for all you or I know.

Btw, I don't normally click links where people offer no information or opinion, about what they are linking to.

None of those claims on the blog, refutes his interference in our referendum, or removes the fact that what he did, was one of the things he did that was bad and he still did bad things, IMO of course.

Osem 19-10-2017 14:36
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Obama's interference in the UK referendum and 'back of the queue' threat was an utter disgrace.

Maggy 19-10-2017 18:23
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35920835)
Ahh Wordpress, so it's a blog, so just potentially biased opinions for all you or I know.

Btw, I don't normally click links where people offer no information or opinion, about what they are linking to.

None of those claims on the blog, refutes his interference in our referendum, or removes the fact that what he did, was one of the things he did that was bad and he still did bad things, IMO of course.
I did not offer an opinion.I thought it was up to you to read it and form your own AFTER you read it. Also what OTHER bad things did he do?

Mick 19-10-2017 20:02
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maggy J (Post 35920884)
I did not offer an opinion.I thought it was up to you to read it and form your own AFTER you read it. Also what OTHER bad things did he do?
You want me to form an opinion on your link but you don't offer one yourself ?

As to other bad policies / poor things he did

Let's see....
  • Obama’s initial poor response to assess the threat posed by the Islamic State, to date, this remains baffling and hints at naivete about jihadist's powerful appeal.
  • In Syria, America’s back seat approach, under his leadership to the civil war, helped trigger a massive refugee crisis with such far-reaching fallout, it appears to be now shaping European politics. Actually, there is no 'appearing' to be, just look at Germany's recent election, a far right party, back in the German Parliament since the Second World War and just this last week, Austria, with right wing parties, totally against immigration, elected to power.
  • Under Obama's watch, China continued to expand its presence, in the South Chinese Sea, without a meaningful U.S. response.
  • Like Presidents before him, the lack of a firm, U.S Response to the North Korea threat. Under Obama's watch, Kimmy boy or "Rocket man", was gaining the ability to build Nuclear weapons, with various tests carried out, sure sanctions were levied, but as usual, proved pointless, nor curbed Kim's appetite to build a Nuclear weapon.
  • Obama’s handling of Russia deserves no applause. The reset of relations made sense, though the bit of plastic and button, that Hillary came with did not, the White House appears to have been asleep at the wheel, when it came to the Russian President Vladimir Putin’s decision to annex Crimea.
  • Still on the subject of Russia, Obama was informed of the Russian attempts to interfere in the U.S Elections in 2016, months before November 8th and he did sweet FA about it.

To conclude, Obama’s foreign policy record was mostly one of complete failure. Sure the Iran deal, may hold some water, if it holds out. (Which I personally, don't think it will).

The outcome in Iraq and Afghanistan may not be wholly, his fault, given that these wars were failures, before he even took office, but some of his lack of judgement and poor decision making, by him and his advisors, following on from when he did take office, compounded the mistakes he inherited.

Mr K 19-10-2017 20:34
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Is this thread about Obama or Trump?
Fwiw I thought Mr Obama was a nice guy. Yes he had an evil plan to give everyone, (even the poor!) access to healthcare, but I'll forgive him that. Don't think Republicans ever got over the colour of his skin.

Mick 19-10-2017 20:57
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 35920901)
Don't think Republicans ever got over the colour of his skin.
Yet more inaccuracies and outright nonsense.

You do realise there is African American Republicans don't you ? :dozey:

To name a few:

Tim Scott https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Scott

Ben Carson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Carson


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K
Is this thread about Obama or Trump?
It's about a President, so the comparing of other Presidents is bound to happen from time to time, it is none of your concern, really.

1andrew1 19-10-2017 21:26
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 35920901)
Is this thread about Obama or Trump?
Nail on the head. Trump is a great fan of trying to move the debate away from his failings and it's now being replicated here and elsewhere. Personally, I think it's better to acknowledge Trump's failings as he won't change if he's in a constant state of denial.

---------- Post added at 21:26 ---------- Previous post was at 21:20 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35920799)
Let's see what becomes of this US trade deal. Given they have a protectionist in the White House I am not optimistic.
I would have been sceptical of a trade deal between the EU and US let alone a UK-US one. The States can afford to be quite protectionist in many ways as it such a huge market (323m people) whilst the UK can't (64m people).

Mick 19-10-2017 22:29
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35920912)
Nail on the head. Trump is a great fan of trying to move the debate away from his failings and it's now being replicated here and elsewhere. Personally, I think it's better to acknowledge Trump's failings as he won't change if he's in a constant state of denial.[COLOR="Silver"]
Nope, not nail on head at all. I'd sure like to know what failings he's made in just 10 months in office.... Sure repeal of obamacare has failed but he's still trying...

As for the recent dead soldier thing, I think General Kelly, really hits the nail on the head... in the Press Conference earlier...


1andrew1 20-10-2017 00:50
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35920925)
Nope, not nail on head at all. I'd sure like to know what failings he's made in just 10 months in office.... Sure repeal of obamacare has failed but he's still trying...
- Mexicans paying for the wall has not happened
- Islam travel ban failed
- Tax reform stalled
- Withdrawn troops not enacted
- Excess golf trips
- Huge turnover of staff
- Overuse of private jets by Tom Price
- Russian connection investigation still ongoing and wrote his son-in-law's response to investiators
- Attempted to undermine agreement with Iran leading to his staff to intervene against him
- The grieving widow situation.

I guess it's easier to list his successes:
- Economy still performing strongly.

Mick 20-10-2017 04:42
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35920929)
- Mexicans paying for the wall has not happened
But it will if he adds measures that they do pay for it in some form.

Next...

Quote:
- Islam travel ban failed
Wrong, the Supreme Court reapplied parts of his Executive Order. SC to decide the full implementation in the near future.

Next...

Quote:
- Tax reform stalled
Wrong again, wtf do you get your information from ?

The Republicans have passed a $ 4 Trillion budget measures resolution just a few hours ago which will pave the way towards their tax plan later this year.

Quote:
Withdrawn troops not enacted
This is a bad thing because ?

Do you not stop to consider he has been advised to keep troops in certain key places?

Especially to defend against Isis.

Quote:
Excess golf trips
Complete hyperbole.

Quote:
- Huge turnover of staff
Chaotic, agreed but irrelevant to any kind of failure.

Quote:
Overuse of private jets by Tom Price
Not relevant to Trump whatsoever. Trump affirmed his disapproval of this. Tom Price resigned from his post. Case closed.

Quote:
- Russian connection investigation still ongoing and wrote his son-in-law's response to investigators
Yawn, what Russian connection?

Proof please, bear in mind, not even Senate Intelligence Committee have seen any to date.

Quote:
Attempted to undermine agreement with Iran leading to his staff to intervene against him
Incorrect again, he’s kicked the issue down the road to congress to see if they want to renew sanctions. Iran is an hostile nation, it recently hacked in to parliamentary emails. You honestly think Iran will keep to the agreement?

Quote:
- The grieving widow situation.
There is no situation other than crappy media outlets trying to sensationalise an issue, to carry on with their pathetic hysteria to bash Trump. General Kelly succinctly addressed the issue of the pathetic Democratic Congresswoman, listening in on a private call, in the video above.

TheDaddy 20-10-2017 05:47
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35920925)
I'd sure like to know what failings he's made in just 10 months in office....
He's not failed at all, he's doing a great job, everyone says so, in fact they say he's one of the best presidents ever.

That could be been one of his tweets. He should be more vocal on his accomplishments so far like pushing that guy out of the way at the nato summit or hanging up the phone on Australia and that's without mentioning the vast crowds he keeps drawing for events as varied as the woman's march.

Mick 20-10-2017 11:51
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 35920939)
He's not failed at all, he's doing a great job, everyone says so, in fact they say he's one of the best presidents ever.

That could be been one of his tweets. He should be more vocal on his accomplishments so far like pushing that guy out of the way at the nato summit or hanging up the phone on Australia and that's without mentioning the vast crowds he keeps drawing for events as varied as the woman's march.
The PM guy himself later said he found the incident at NATO, ‘inoffensive’ and said he did not see it any other way. It was more daily Trump media hysteria. Old stuff, as is the rest of your post.

One recent thing that’s happened under his watch, Isis has been eliminated from the city of Raqqa, by US led forces. The city in Syria itself though is utterly devastated.

Hugh 20-10-2017 12:10
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
US backed forces, not US led - the Syrian Democratic Forces led the initiative, backed by Coalition air strikes and US special forces.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:09.
Page 23 of 32 « First 1319202122 23 24252627 Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
All Posts and Content are © Cable Forum