Donald Trump presidency discussion thread V

mcmoustache

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Looks like that "nonsense" might have been somewhat effective. Watch this space... be interesting to see how the lib dems spin it though.

Not sure what a british political party has to do with this but the reaction will be interesting. If he decides to take this as a victory, it'll hinder his ability to conjure up a caravan emergency... who am i kidding, he'll do both and his supporters will believe that he both solved the emergency and that there's an emergency at thew border at the same time.

Outlaw Pete

mcmoustache wrote: »

Not sure what a british political party has to do with this but...

Sigh...... that kind of nonsense is obnoxious.

If he decides to take this as a victory, it'll hinder his ability to conjure up a caravan emergency... who am i kidding, he'll do both and his supporters will believe that he both solved the emergency and that there's an emergency at thew border at the same time.

Any improvement will be a victory.

FrostyJack

I listened to the most recent Trump Inc podcast about Pay day lenders, and their nefarious practices, which now hold their conventions in Trump owned buildings buying his support (around 1 Mill a pop). Obama was cracking down on them but now they are emboldened, yet another scummy group lining his pockets for favours. I am sure one of his supporters will be on now to tell us they lenders are the champions of the poor and a vital resource and how the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau are an evil entity that is why he appointed someone who wants to disband it and run it into the ground to lead it, looking for a zero dollar budget. "A staunch opponent of the CFPB while in Congress, Mulvaney's tenure as acting Director of the bureau led to a large reduction of the bureau's enforcement and regulatory powers" as per wiki. How the hell does anyone still support this guy?

I also started The Fifth Risk by Michael Lewis, a short time into it and it already has me face palming, how the so-called transition team were treated by Trump and his inner circle, I almost felt bad for Chris Christie, at least he tried to adult. Complete ineptitude and corruption. We all know how bad at governing Trump has been since he got into the Whitehouse but I was aware of the scale of lunacy before he got in.

everlast75

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1136738351346851844?s=19

Thus voicemail was referenced in the Mueller report, but it's quite something to hear the full message itself.

markodaly

Did we win in Afghanistan and I missed it? It must be all those tanks and jets and satellite-guided missiles that the Taliban have. Insurgencies are notoriously difficult to beat militarily. Only one Western nation has really ever managed it. I do think the idea of a pitched insurgency in the US to be highly unlikely, of course. I'm not sure it's a great practical argument for private firearms ownership, but saying that it isn't one at all defies over a century of modern military history from the Philippines to Algeria to Ireland.

I always find it odd when Irish people try and make the point that a well-armed militia would be no match for the US Army, Tanks, Nuked et al.

Do they not know their history? Or are they pig ignorant of the historical facts regards the IRB and IRA from 1916 onwards?

everlast75

FrostyJack wrote: »

I listened to the most recent Trump Inc podcast about Pay day lenders, and their nefarious practices, which now hold their conventions in Trump owned buildings buying his support (around 1 Mill a pop). Obama was cracking down on them but now they are emboldened, yet another scummy group lining his pockets for favours. I am sure one of his supporters will be on now to tell us they lenders are the champions of the poor and a vital resource and how the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau are an evil entity that is why he appointed someone who wants to disband it and run it into the ground to lead it, looking for a zero dollar budget. "A staunch opponent of the CFPB while in Congress, Mulvaney's tenure as acting Director of the bureau led to a large reduction of the bureau's enforcement and regulatory powers" as per wiki. How the hell does anyone still support this guy?

I also started The Fifth Risk by Michael Lewis, a short time into it and it already has me face palming, how the so-called transition team were treated by Trump and his inner circle, I almost felt bad for Chris Christie, at least he tried to adult. Complete ineptitude and corruption. We all know how bad at governing Trump has been since he got into the Whitehouse but I was aware of the scale of lunacy before he got in.

For those struggling to make sense of the Trump Deutsche bank relationship, Trump Inc did a great pod explainer....


[Trump, Inc.] Trump and Deutsche Bank: It’s Complicated
http://podplayer.net/?id=71480103 via @PodcastAddict

ThunbergsAreGo

everlast75 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/AtomicAnalyst/status/1136757350864474113?s=19


I've no words...

The Boom is Back lads!!!

Leroy42

markodaly wrote: »

Did we win in Afghanistan and I missed it? It must be all those tanks and jets and satellite-guided missiles that the Taliban have. Insurgencies are notoriously difficult to beat militarily. Only one Western nation has really ever managed it. I do think the idea of a pitched insurgency in the US to be highly unlikely, of course. I'm not sure it's a great practical argument for private firearms ownership, but saying that it isn't one at all defies over a century of modern military history from the Philippines to Algeria to Ireland.

I always find it odd when Irish people try and make the point that a well-armed militia would be no match for the US Army, Tanks, Nuked et al.

Do they not know their history? Or are they pig ignorant of the historical facts regards the IRB and IRA from 1916 onwards?

History. Remind us all how the last well armed insurgency against the union went.

markodaly

Leroy42 wrote: »

History. Remind us all how the last well armed insurgency against the union went.

Are we talking about the Civil War? If so, why are you comparing a Civil War with two comparable military forces against an insurgency and guerilla warfare tactics?

If you think these are the same things, with the same objectives, aims and goals, then more pity about you.

markodaly

So Donald Trump is in Ireland.

The sun rose in the east and will set in the west... life will go on.. If he makes another Meghan Markle comment, the media will have the trifecta of 'news' that no one gives a **** about and will explode inwards creating a black hole.

I listened to SOR of RTE fame the other day with a certain Maynooth professor called John O'Brennan on the line, giving out about Trump's 'Ghastly' golf courses and because the golf course was owned by him it was by default 'ghastly' (yes he actually said that, as if a thing can have a personality).

It was the epitome of the sanctimonious ivory tower well-healed professor, telling us all how to feel and behave. Who needs the Catholic Church when we have guys like that on the airways. The guy has been in academia all his life so would not have a notion how the majority of people actually feel nor their day to day struggles in paying bills and putting food on the table.
He had utter hatred and contempt for the people of Doonbeg for the audacity of being happy that they have a job in a property owned by a controversial man.

We can all claim the high ground when we have nothing to lose. That goes for everyone here.

Leroy42

markodaly wrote: »

Are we talking about the Civil War? If so, why are you comparing a Civil War with two comparable military forces against an insurgency and guerilla warfare tactics?

If you think these are the same things, with the same objectives, aims and goals, then more pity about you.

It was the last time that a domestic army, tried to stand up to the US.

You think a few guys with a few guns are going to do better than a trained and equipped and directed force?

What domestic examples have you got? No point pointing out to other countries, just as you don't like to have the examples of other countries as the basis for why you need to change the gun laws.

It is one thing to be fighting overseas to 'save' another country from itself. It would be entirely different should someone try an uprising within the US itself.

Of course I don't thin they are the same, but you know that. You simply have no actual basis for your own argument so you need to try an belittle mine.

My point was the last time a domestic force tried to beat back the power of the state they lost, lost badly and the negative effects of that are still felt in the US today. There is very little appetite to repeat that.

Leroy42

markodaly wrote: »

So Donald Trump is in Ireland.

The sun rose in the east and will set in the west... life will go on.. If he makes another Meghan Markle comment, the media will have the trifecta of 'news' that no one gives a **** about and will explode inwards creating a black hole.

I listened to SOR of RTE fame the other day with a certain Maynooth professor called John O'Brennan on the line, giving out about Trump's 'Ghastly' golf courses and because the golf course was owned by him it was by default 'ghastly' (yes he actually said that, as if a thing can have a personality).

It was the epitome of the sanctimonious ivory tower well-healed professor, telling us all how to feel and behave. Who needs the Catholic Church when we have guys like that on the airways. The guy has been in academia all his life so would not have a notion how the majority of people actually feel nor their day to day struggles in paying bills and putting food on the table.
He had utter hatred and contempt for the people of Doonbeg for the audacity of being happy that they have a job in a property owned by a controversial man.

We can all claim the high ground when we have nothing to lose. That goes for everyone here.

This is a forum to discuss Donald Trump. That this professor has opinions that are sanctimonious shows what exactly? What does it prove beyond the fact that he himself is sanctimonious?

Or are you using his single interview to paint everyone the same that has any issue with Trump? Because of course that is utter nonsense.

How much do you actually know about this John Brennan? Is he rich, does he have no life issues what so ever? You seem to have made a huge amount of assumptions about him based on nothing more than his opinion on one particular topic.

It terms of Trump, it is pretty easy to claim the high ground. Trump is totally in the swamp, so anybody on any sort of moral standing is already ahead of him.

Life will go on. Do you take that view on everything? That unless it involves the actual end of days that you simply think it not newsworthy? Do you have an opinion on the bank bailouts? The EU, Guns in America, abortion, LGBT rights.

Obviously not as none of them spell the end of the world. Which begs the question why you feel it right that you take the time to complain about something not being important when in your own values it isn't important enough to complain about!

Walter Bishop

The whole 'oh he works in a university so he doesn't know anything about paying a mortgage, bills, or buying food' thing is well and truly over-done at this point.

BarryD2

Come & gone today - an excuse for the media to get their knickers in a bit of a twist deciding whether to lambast or praise the man. All forgotten tomorrow, except by the few dozen protesters who'll wax lyrical about the great blow they've struck for freedom for years to come. As far as I'm concerned anyway, this was essentially a private visit and he's as much right to be here as any of our legal citizens have to stay, work, study in the USA.

Leroy42

BarryD2 wrote: »

Come & gone today - an excuse for the media to get their knickers in a bit of a twist deciding whether to lambast or praise the man. All forgotten tomorrow, except by the few dozen protesters who'll wax lyrical about the great blow they've struck for freedom for years to come. As far as I'm concerned anyway, this was essentially a private visit and he's as much right to be here as any of our legal citizens have to stay, work, study in the USA.

You think the issue people have is that he was allowed to visit Ireland? Really? Not his denial of climate change, not his anti-EU stance, not his attempts to break up NATO? Not his tearing up of the Iran deal thus heightening the possibility of yet another war? Not that he is showing clear signs of authoritarianism and seems to side very much with the likes of Erdogan and Orban which are almost the opposite of where most want us to travel? Not the fact that, like it or not, as leader of US and thus the Free World, what he does actually does have an impact on how the rest of the world views the 1st World.

Professor Moriarty

markodaly wrote: »

So Donald Trump is in Ireland.

The sun rose in the east and will set in the west... life will go on.. If he makes another Meghan Markle comment, the media will have the trifecta of 'news' that no one gives a **** about and will explode inwards creating a black hole.

I listened to SOR of RTE fame the other day with a certain Maynooth professor called John O'Brennan on the line, giving out about Trump's 'Ghastly' golf courses and because the golf course was owned by him it was by default 'ghastly' (yes he actually said that, as if a thing can have a personality).

It was the epitome of the sanctimonious ivory tower well-healed professor, telling us all how to feel and behave. Who needs the Catholic Church when we have guys like that on the airways. The guy has been in academia all his life so would not have a notion how the majority of people actually feel nor their day to day struggles in paying bills and putting food on the table.
He had utter hatred and contempt for the people of Doonbeg for the audacity of being happy that they have a job in a property owned by a controversial man.

We can all claim the high ground when we have nothing to lose. That goes for everyone here.

His use of the word 'ghastly' is grammatically correct. Unlike your use of the word 'well-healed' Pedantry and your hatred of academics aside, why is he not entitled to offer his opinion? Perhaps you might address his argument rather than ranting about the man himself.

pixelburp

markodaly wrote: »

I listened to SOR of RTE fame the other day with a certain Maynooth professor called John O'Brennan on the line, giving out about Trump's 'Ghastly' golf courses and because the golf course was owned by him it was by default 'ghastly' (yes he actually said that, as if a thing can have a personality).

Totally off topic but ...

Golf courses are ghastly, I 100% agree with that assessment as they're a waste of countryside and land, not to mention natural resources given the ludicruos amounts of water required in some places to maintain them. It's funny you have an anti-intellectual pop at a college professor ("so called experts!!" kind of thing?) but hands off our golf courses, the epitome of historical upwardly-mobile class snobbery (if we're going to play the kneejerk generalisation game, might as well indulge eh?)

And the Doonbeg golf course is a money losing operation, that is well known and may even be on record. The locals may clap and whoop at Saint Trump for giving them a job, but it's debatable as to for how long.

Equally hilarious that a man so vehemently against Climate Change, would then do his best to save Doonbeg from ... Climate change, in his attempt to build a sandbar along the coast (even citing climate change in the planning application). The Irish love their local business hero and to doff our caps, the other way at the hint of any external money.

BarryD2

Leroy42 wrote: »

You think the issue people have is that he was allowed to visit Ireland? Really? Not his denial of climate change, not his anti-EU stance, not his attempts to break up NATO? Not his tearing up of the Iran deal thus heightening the possibility of yet another war? Not that he is showing clear signs of authoritarianism and seems to side very much with the likes of Erdogan and Orban which are almost the opposite of where most want us to travel? Not the fact that, like it or not, as leader of US and thus the Free World, what he does actually does have an impact on how the rest of the world views the 1st World.

I stood at Shannon in 1984 and shouted 'Ronnie Ronnie Reagan, Out Out Out'.

And do you know what? It made not a blind bit of difference at the end of the day

Leroy42

BarryD2 wrote: »

I stood at Shannon in 1984 and shouted 'Ronnie Ronnie Reagan, Out Out Out'.

And do you know what? It made not a blind bit of difference at the end of the day

Of course it did. He is no longer POTUS!

That is probably, in some small way, down to you!:D

realdanbreen

BarryD2 wrote: »

I stood at Shannon in 1984 and shouted 'Ronnie Ronnie Reagan, Out Out Out'.

And do you know what? It made not a blind bit of difference at the end of the day

I bet you didn't stand at the US embassy the same year shouting 'Ronnie Ronnie Reagan out out out' when Young irish men and women were queing in their hundreds looking for visas into the US to try and find work.

BarryD2

Leroy42 wrote: »

Of course it did. He is no longer POTUS!

That is probably, in some small way, down to you!:D

Nope, when his time as president was up, it was up. I'm not saying that protest is useless but as often as not, there's a fair bit of virtue signalling going on.

Itssoeasy

I don't know how that interview Trump gave in front of the graves at the American Cemetery in Normandy is going down back in the states but even I know the reverence the US military is held in the united states and especially the dead in the cemeteries in Arlington and other places.
Even, if what he said about Mueller and Pelosi was correct, there is a time and place and that wasn't it. I did see Pelosi who was also in France was asked about Trump she refused to be drawn on him. What is wrong with him ?

pixelburp

BarryD2 wrote: »

Nope, when his time as president was up, it was up. I'm not saying that protest is useless but as often as not, there's a fair bit of virtue signalling going on.

Protesting is effective as it can turn opinions or decisions - both political and national. It's debatable the value of protesting a bad* American president during a business trip - and it absolutely was one - but if they're peaceful protests then why not?

It has more value and quantifiable effect then sitting on an online forum having a whinge, and given how precious few outlets the average Joe/Josephine has in the democratic process, I say 'fair play' to anyone who has the courage of their convictions to at least make it publicly known. Calling it "virtue signalling" reflects more on the critic TBH

How much of these protests are seen back in America? On Fox, Brietbart et al, I'd speculate near-zero will be broadcast, or else will be reframed as 'dirty socialist liberals hating freedom'; the more moderate outlets however do report this kind of feedback & I think Americans are more acutely aware of their status on the world stage than we give them credit for.

[*] Tearing up international peace & climate deals are bad moves, and have global consequences.

Walter Bishop

Hannity now decrying it as 'despicable' to call for political opponents to be 'locked up'

Irony is dead.

Outlaw Pete

Leroy42 wrote: »

So POTUS shared a video that was editted to only include certain aspects of her speech without context. Edited in this way in order to portray Pelosi in a particular light when anyone watching the full video would never get that impression.

Sounds pretty close to fake to me. What is your definition of fake?

lol By that logic all the videos you good folks have shared on here which have had snippets from Trump's speeches and interviews down the years, spliced together without context, were "fake" :pac:

End of the day, the video wasn't fake in the way the media suggested it was fake, that's the point. They claimed he shared a "doctored" video and he didn't. Even HRC repeated the lie:


https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/1132309330697609222

What makes me laugh the most is how you all sanctimoniously moan about Pelosi's snippets being taken out of context but yet are then more than happy to see Trump taken out context to suggest time and again that he meant something which he most certainly has not. You all know he wasn't calling Meghan a nasty person, and was just saying he didn't know she was nasty about him, so why demand something from others which you don't even demand of yourselves? Seems hypocritical, no?

VicMackey1 wrote: »

I noticed that your quoted post received 25 thanks on this thread. That is 25 people that agree with your post that the Presidents video was fake. All of these users are wrong. That is what happens when too much trust is given to MSM.

That's how this thread has always been. Utter nonsense backslapped into oblivion regularly. You wouldn't mind if there was multiple mea culpas from them after the truth comes out showing that they have been utterly wrong about things which they've claimed Trump either said or did, but nothing. Many I suspect still even think he colluded with the Russians, all the while ignoring the fact that HRC........ well, we'll leave that for another day but her judgment cometh and that right soon.

markodaly

Leroy42 wrote: »

You think a few guys with a few guns are going to do better than a trained and equipped and directed force?

History tells us otherwise, of course. But yea keeps believing that a conventional army will always win any type of conflict. The last 20 years should be proof positive what militias and insurrections can do to a conventional army over time.

What domestic examples have you got? No point pointing out to other countries, just as you don't like to have the examples of other countries as the basis for why you need to change the gun laws.

Oh sorry, did I argue this? No, I personally did not. I suppose winning a debate is easier if you just make up arguments of the other person.

You simply have no actual basis for your own argument so you need to try an belittle mine.

What, that insurrections and guerilla warfare can be very effective against a conventional army? No basis at all, even though there is an entire military discipline dedicated to countering it, and that we the Republic of Ireland can track our independence back to the Easter rising of 1916, which we celebrated with pomp in 2016.

Are you really that ignorant?

markodaly

pixelburp wrote: »

Totally off topic but ...

Golf courses are ghastly, I 100% agree with that assessment as they're a waste of countryside and land,

I would not entirely disagree with you there.

I do not play golf, nor am a member of one. If people want to pay extortionate money to play a game outdoors a few times a year, off with them. I do not have contempt of the actual people who play golf, but would agree that Ireland perhaps has too many of them.

I am not really a fan of the GAA either, but then I do not have utter contempt for the grassroots of the organisation either.

That.Is.The.Difference.

The Lord Professor of Maynooth himself had utter hatred and contempt for the people of Doonbeg, for the cheek of being glad that they have a job. I guess we can all be full of high morals when we have a state pension and job at our backs.

markodaly

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

His use of the word 'ghastly' is grammatically correct. Unlike your use of the word 'well-healed' Pedantry and your hatred of academics aside, why is he not entitled to offer his opinion? Perhaps you might address his argument rather than ranting about the man himself.

Oh, he can have his opinion as I can have mine. It works both ways you see.

The good man himself has been on the tit of the state, suckling away since he himself was a student. Just look up his 'CV'. He literally never left University, which is fine, but again he may think he is doing his cause a service by lecturing us all on how we should all be ashamed of ourselves. He, of course, knows what is right and wrong and won't be shy to tell us.

As I said, who needs the Catholic Church when the void is filled by pompous ignoramus people like him.

markodaly

Leroy42 wrote: »

This is a forum to discuss Donald Trump.

An entire forum for Tump? :eek:

That this professor has opinions that are sanctimonious shows what exactly?

Eh, that is is sanctimonious.

What does it prove beyond the fact that he himself is sanctimonious?

That he is sanctimonious and if you can read between the lines a perfect example of why Clinton lost the election.

Or are you using his single interview to paint everyone the same that has any issue with Trump?

Did I explicity say that? No, so no.
Again, argue to the words I write, not what you think I write.

How much do you actually know about this John Brennan? Is he rich, does he have no life issues what so ever? You seem to have made a huge amount of assumptions about him based on nothing more than his opinion on one particular topic.

You can look up his 'bio' on wiki, which looks like it was written by him. So that to tell me he has a very strong narcissist trait. One can make assumptions on this fact going forward.

Do you take that view on everything?

Kinda in a way. I certainly do not waste my time online day after day arguing and getting all hot and bothered about Trump. I have a full-time job, a wife and a family. I have better uses of my time, rather than the odd posts here and there. There are a few posters here who have a bit of an, say, obsession about the topic.

Anyone who has literally thousands of posts on the one topic needs to step away a bit. Just my opinion of course.

Leroy42

markodaly wrote: »

History tells us otherwise, of course. But yea keeps believing that a conventional army will always win any type of conflict. The last 20 years should be proof positive what militias and insurrections can do to a conventional army over time.

We are not talking amount any type of conflict. We are talking specifically amount armed insurrection in the US, with the aim of overthrowing the democratically elected government. That is entirely different to a guerrilla force trying to oust an oppressive invader.

Remember this is on the basis that US citizens need to arm themselves in order to somehow both protect themselves from and overthrow a government they no longer agree with. There is simply no evidence that A) it would work or that the average American would agree with them.

markodaly wrote: »

Oh sorry, did I argue this? No, I personally did not. I suppose winning a debate is easier if you just make up arguments of the other person.

Apologies, it appears I made a mistake in apportioning that position to you. I withdraw it.

markodaly wrote: »

What, that insurrections and guerilla warfare can be very effective against a conventional army? No basis at all, even though there is an entire military discipline dedicated to countering it, and that we the Republic of Ireland can track our independence back to the Easter rising of 1916, which we celebrated with pomp in 2016.

Are you really that ignorant?

Again you are not taking the reality of the situation into account. You think some dudes uphappy with the US government will be backed by the locals, by other countries? None of that exists at the moment so we are left with this notion that you have that somehow Joe Sixpack and his AK47 is going to take on the might of first the local police, then the FBI then the entire military might of the most powerful military in the world.