U.S President: Donald Trump

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Why would we need to replace it with anything? Not having a monarch doesn't automatically mean we must have a president. I'm not that unhappy with the current queen but it's unfortunate that her Maj sits atop a thoroughly odious class system that permenates the upper echelons of pretty much every aspect of the country

If you wished to forgo the millions brought in by the pagentry and spectacle of the Monarchy that tourists throughout the world pour into the country to witness then yes do away with it.

Add to that (especially when we still had Britannia) the milions brought about in exports when the Monarch pays a state visit and yes if you wish to forgo that then let's get rid.

Oh wait, remoaners don't wish this country to thrive on it's own.

[denphone]

Name calling sadly is often used when trying to win an argument without objective consideration of the facts.

And by the way l am a monarchist and even though l did not vote for Brexit its happened so lets get on with it and hope it leads to a better future for us all but l would not put your house on it though. as one might be rather disappointed with what transpires.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Mick

I have the grasp of English thanks. It was not clear at all, you said, 'You ever consider the reason why people don't want trump here'. That was you encapsulating lots of people or all the people in the UK, which it certainly is not the case, if this was not your intention to quantify everyone in the UK, you certainly should have been more clear on that.

I imagine it is lots of people that is why I used the term people, it doesn't quantify a specific number or even suggest a majority let alone everyone, in fact imo the vast majority, myself included couldn't give a toss if he comes or not.

Originally Posted by pip08456

If you wished to forgo the millions brought in by the pagentry and spectacle of the Monarchy that tourists throughout the world pour into the country to witness then yes do away with it.

Add to that (especially when we still had Britannia) the milions brought about in exports when the Monarch pays a state visit and yes if you wish to forgo that then let's get rid.

Oh wait, remoaners don't wish this country to thrive on it's own.

When you put it like that then yes I'd rather forgo the benefits

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...worth-tuppence

Especially when the actual figure they cost might have been underestimated grossly, I know what I believe and it isn't that they gain us cash

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/pe...-10491277.html

And I think you'll find I've been moaning for years on here on behalf of British workers stitched up by the EU, don't remember you having much to say though

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/sh...2&postcount=59

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/sh...8&postcount=34

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/sh...&postcount=141

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/sh...3&postcount=37

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/sh...93&postcount=3

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/sh...7&postcount=88

Whatever the monarchy costs it isn't more then the revenue from the crown estates that go to the exchequer and despite the vocal whinging of a small minority there is neither the desire or the will to abolish the monarchy and that issue has nothing to do with brexit. I believe now as I've believed from the start that the best future for the UK medium to longterm is out of the EU being a truely global trading nation constrained only by laws we set ourselves and improving relations with many more nations then we would have under the EU. I'd even be happy if we improved relations with russia and brexit will give us the freedom to do that.

No one has ever said brexit is risk free because it isn't much will depend on how competently things are handled by the relevant politicians at the time issues arise. But lets not pretend remaining in the EU was risk free because that's fantasy land, the EU has deep issues which have been ignored or glossed over for a longtime that are coming home to roost. Further integration was also coming as the EU's endgame has been known and celebrated by some eurocrats the united states of europe we couldn't continue being in the club but not adopting the integration for much longer some in the EU were frustrated with the UK before brexit was even mentioned as they felt the UK should be fully commited.

We leave now and we have time to gets things sorted and organised the alternative being we stayed in and either integrated to the desired level in the near future or be given an ultimatum of integrate or be kicked out. Given that even a fair few remain supporters were not supportive of further integration it was a problem that would have needed to be resolved.

[pip08456]

Trump travel ban: judges skeptical about arguments on executive order

Looks like he may have an uphill struggle.

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

I imagine it is lots of people that is why I used the term people, it doesn't quantify a specific number or even suggest a majority let alone everyone, in fact imo the vast majority, myself included couldn't give a toss if he comes or not.



When you put it like that then yes I'd rather forgo the benefits

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...worth-tuppence

Especially when the actual figure they cost might have been underestimated grossly, I know what I believe and it isn't that they gain us cash

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/pe...-10491277.html

And I think you'll find I've been moaning for years on here on behalf of British workers stitched up by the EU, don't remember you having much to say though

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/sh...2&postcount=59

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/sh...8&postcount=34

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/sh...&postcount=141

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/sh...3&postcount=37

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/sh...93&postcount=3

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/sh...7&postcount=88

How about sticking to the topic? Which is not the EU or Brexit or the monarchy

[Osem]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

Bercow's backtrack? Speaker apologises after he tries to ban Donald Trump from Parliament

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politi...ban-Parliament

Maybe he ought to think before opening his mouth. He voiced no such opposition in the run up to the Chinese state visit and look at their record on stuff like human rights.

https://order-order.com/2017/02/07/b...ed-parliament/

Strangely he didn't seem to think they were worthy of the Trump treatment...


Anyway in the interests of fairness, to Trump, I should point out that there's a petition here seeking Bercow's removal from office:

On 6th Feburary Speaker of the House of Commons John Bercow made an inappropriate intervention into UK foreign policy by prohibiting President of the United States Donald Trump from speaking to Parliament in his upcoming visit.
Such a move violates Bercow's convention on neutrality which he must upload as speaker. Likewise, it poses massive complications for British Foreign Policy. Therefore, this petition calls for the public to issue a call of no confidence in Bercow and for him to be relieved of his duties immediately.

https://www.change.org/p/uk-parliame...ies-as-speaker

Evidently the official view from HMG's petitions site is that he can't be removed from office so petitions to that end won't be accepted.

It’s about something that the UK Government or Parliament is not responsible for.

There is no mechanism for the removal of a Speaker during a Parliament. Other than at a general election, the Speaker can only stop being Speaker through resignation or death.

The House of Commons could debate the resignation of the Speaker.

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by pip08456

Trump travel ban: judges skeptical about arguments on executive order

Looks like he may have an uphill struggle.

It'll go to the supreme court. Which is still only 8no. strong as Trumps pick has not been approved yet.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Pierre

It'll go to the supreme court. Which is still only 8no. strong as Trumps pick has not been approved yet.

Interesting. Can it end in no decision ie four judges decide one way, four the other? In which case would the status quo continue?

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Interesting. Can it end in no decision ie four judges decide one way, four the other? In which case would the status quo continue?

Yup the existing verdict at the lower level stands if there is a tie.

https://apnews.com/f97c60f658a648328d7711cfd58888d2

AP FACT CHECK: Trump botches murder rate

President Donald Trump's dark view of violent crime in America rests largely on a bogus claim: that the murder rate is higher than it's been in nearly half a century. Actually, the murder rate is down sharply in that time, despite a recent spike.

On Tuesday, he told a meeting of sheriffs: "The murder rate in our country is the highest it's been in 47 years, right? Did you know that? Forty-seven years. I used to use that — I'd say that in a speech and everybody was surprised because the press doesn't tell it like it is." He circled back to add: "The murder rate is the highest it's been in, I guess, from 45 to 47 years."

THE FACTS: The murder rate in 2015, the latest year for which figures are available, is actually among the lowest in half a century. It stood at 4.9 murders per 100,000 people, a far cry from the rates in the 1970s, 1980s and most of the 1990s, when they were typically over 6 per 100,000, peaking at over 10 in 1980.

It's true that 2015 saw one of the largest increases in decades, up 10 percent from 4.4 murders per 100,000 people in 2014, but even with that rise homicides are not on the order of what the country experienced in previous decades.

Trump has misrepresented crime statistics on several occasions. He stated last month that Philadelphia's murder rate has been "terribly increasing" even though it dropped slightly last year. The city's murder rate rose in the previous two years but remained substantially lower than in past decades.

He also incorrectly claimed that two people "were shot and killed" in Chicago during then-President Barack Obama's farewell speech on Jan. 10. Although Chicago has experienced a surge in murders compared with previous decades, no one was fatally shot in Chicago that day, police records show, much less during Obama's speech.

More alternative facts...

[1andrew1]

Ivanka Trump's entanglement with establishment media family the Murdochs comes to the surface. Google the headline in bold below to read the full article

Ivanka Trump oversaw Murdoch daughters’ trust
Donald Trump’s daughter Ivanka was a trustee for a large bloc of shares in 21st Century Fox and News Corp that belong to Rupert Murdoch’s two youngest daughters, underscoring the close ties between the US president’s family and the mogul behind the Fox News Channel.
https://www.ft.com/content/a615f0ce-...f-061b01e23655

Originally Posted by Hugh

https://apnews.com/f97c60f658a648328d7711cfd58888d2

More alternative facts...

Hypocrisy Hugh, at it again.....

Obama has told way more Alternative Facts, here is a sample of a few:-

1. Obama painted a rosier picture of the economy than it really is. "After the worst recession in 80 years, we’ve fought our way back," Obama said. "We’ve seen deficits come down, 401(k)s recover, an auto industry set new records, unemployment reach eight-year lows, and our businesses create 15 million new jobs."

Here's why each of these claims is false, in respective order:

Ronald Reagan inherited a worse economy than Obama.

• According to USA Today, while deficits have declined under Obama, "they are expected to rise again soon under his proposed budget." Additionally, as The Daily Wire editor-in-chief Ben Shapiro explains here, Obama completely "blew out" the deficit to $1 trillion in first year in office and created a $4 trillion budget, doubling the $2 trillion budget preceding him. He then reduced the budget to $3.5 trillion–not as much, but absurdly high. The overall debt is now over $19 trillion in debt.
  
• It is natural for 401(k)s to recover on their own after a recession. But the Obama administration is pushing regulations that would drive people into government-run retirement accounts.
  
• The Federal Reserve's "easy money" practices have resulted in an artificially inflated auto industry that's being set up for disaster.
  
• The unemployment figure is incredibly misleading since it's not including those that have dropped out of the workforce. The 15 million jobs number is also misleading without context, and there's actually a 14 million "jobs gap," according to Investor's Business Daily.

2. Obama lied about the troops. He said that "we brought more of our troops home to their families." Problem is, 75 percent of U.S. soldier deaths in Afghanistan have occurred under Obama.

3. He also lied about the success of his diplomacy. Obama bloviated that his diplomacy "shut down Iran’s nuclear weapons program" and "opened up a new chapter with the people of Cuba."

Actually, the Iran deal has paved the way for the terror state to obtain nuclear weapons sooner than expected, and his relations on Cuba have further tightened the iron fist of the Castro brother's tyrannical regime.

For more Alternative Facts from 4 to 9 from Obama, see:-

http://www.dailywire.com/news/7894/9...-aaron-bandler

Oh and what's this also..... ???

Bill Clinton LIED under OATH regarding his affair with Monica Lewinsky...

WASHINGTON - President Clinton escaped indictment yesterday by surrendering his Arkansas law license for five years and admitting that he made false statements under oath about his affair with Monica Lewinsky.

"I hope my actions today will help bring closure and finality to these matters," he said in a statement read by his press secretary after the deal was cut.

It was an abrupt but fitting capper to the endless Gothic saga of expensive investigations that led from a grubby land deal to a sordid Oval Office sex farce.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/poli...ticle-1.904790

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by Hugh

https://apnews.com/f97c60f658a648328d7711cfd58888d2

More alternative facts...

But is it an alternative fact?

Your quote is based on a statistical number X.X /100,000. What are the actual numbers? Don't forget the population has increased in the past 50 yrs so statistically it may be lower but numbers could well be higher.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by pip08456

But is it an alternative fact?

Your quote is based on a statistical number X.X /100,000. What are the actual numbers? Don't forget the population has increased in the past 50 yrs so statistically it may be lower but numbers could well be higher.

Trump was talking about a rate which is per person, not absolute numbers.

---------- Post added at 14:33 ---------- Previous post was at 14:31 ----------

Originally Posted by Mick

Hypocrisy Hugh, at it again.....

In fairness to Hugh, this thread is about President Donald Trump, not the previous presidents.