nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

El Presidente Trump

Kermit.de.frog

It's happened folks. You are only waking up but it has happened. A genuine unstable idiot has become president of the US.

I will be asleep as you wake. But I will wake too and I will also think of the consequences and wonder is it a dream:eek:

It's not a dream.

It's real.

F**k

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Jelle1880

Widdershins wrote: »

Also, I'd be far more frightened of Hillary in power, furthering the interests of her Saudi pals.

As opposed to Trump furthering the interests of religious nutters and the big companies ?

They're both different sides of the same coin.

jmayo

robindch wrote: »

Unfortunately, idiots have exactly the same kind of votes which much smarter people have.

Let me guess you of course would get to vote in this new system because of course you know what is best.

listermint wrote: »

Same percentages voted for Romney though... so, its not like they turned.

It has been the mis-selling of Obamas healthcare that has many middle states changing their voting. It was being derided left right and centre that healthcare for all is bad. Many antagonists selling it as 'communism' and 'socialism' you know all things bad.....

Hilarious that it big Pharma that was paying for this messaging.

Big business controlling the mantra through their groups and their controlled senators.

Its hilarious irony all the same.

The rust belt states went from voting Democrat a number of times, even when the democrat was, shock horror, a black man to then voting for supposedly a white supremacist. :rolleyes:

It is not just the likes of Obamacare it is fact that these states have lost their old industrial power houses, are falling apart ala Detroit and the old political establishment don't seem too bothered.

I would bet more than half the people that voted for Trump probably can't stand him or most of his supposed policies.
Look at the popularity rating of both contenders, they were in the negatives.

It is another real sad indictment of the state of American politics that those two were the best that they could find.

Manic Moran wrote: »

... Wisconsin got ignored by Clinton this campaign, the first time in decades a major candidate didn't visit. I guess either they didn't like being taken for granted, or like being ignored.

The Republicans were wondering why the feck Trump was bothering with them because they were supposedly staunch Democrat.
He visited 5 times.
Clinton couldn't be ar**ed and if the Republican party leadership had their way he wouldn't have even gone there.
This is exactly what is wrong with old political establishment.
They decided to take people for granted.

Trump and his campaign were smart enough to see that there are huge swaths of people that are seriously pi**ed off.

And it aint like some absolute tools try and spin it on here (or on twitter, Irish Times, etc) that they are white middle aged men who want to go back to the days of segregation or something.

The political establishment, the mainstream media, the celebrity do gooders and social crusaders across the western world have been ignoring ordinary people's legitimate concerns, arrogantly talking down to them, nay lecturing them and then they label them racists, suffers of some phobia or other and still expect them to meekly do as they are told.

Brexit was the first great lesson, Trump has been the second, any bets on Le Pen ?

The other problem for the political establishment will be what happens when Brexit, Trump fail to deliver on all it's promises to these people ?
Will they turn back to old establishment or go further to the extremes.

I can't see them coming back to a mainstream that is actively insulting and admonishing them.

kunst nugget

Jelle1880 wrote: »

As opposed to Trump furthering the interests of religious nutters and the big companies ?

They're both different sides of the same coin.

Aye, it's like picking up a piece of dog shít off the path with your bare hands to avoid stepping on it…

wakka12

Akrasia wrote: »

I get the urge to change things, but Trump is a total wild card.

I give him about a 2% chance that he'll turn out to be a good president, a 30% chance that he'll just be business as usual or blocked by congress and therefore ineffectual, but a 65% chance that he'll make things much much worse. That is based on his Environmental, foreign policy and regulatory positions, and his likely appointments to the supreme court.

As per Clinton, there was a 95% chance that she'd just be a business as usual politician with a small chance that she does something extreme and starts a war somewhere

He will be business as usual, his mad claim to ban all muslims from entering the USA has already disappeared from his website, not that Im surprised

wakka12

The most worrying thing to me is that he's a climate change denier. At such an important time in world history, where we desperately need to become more sustainable together to save the planet, it could be catastrophic if he began to reverse any progress made in a massive country that consumes so much of the worlds resources as is.

Jelle1880

wakka12 wrote: »

He will be business as usual, his mad claim to ban all muslims from entering the USA has already disappeared from his website, not that Im surprised

Not sure that was ever on his website ?

His stuff about the wall is still there.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Widdershins

The Backwards Man wrote: »

We all hope the poster is wrong. But there's more than a reasonable chance they will be right.

Keep an eye on things as they unfold, then. Assuming the worst won't help.

Pherekydes

wakka12 wrote: »

The most worrying thing to me is that he's a climate change denier.

Don't worry, it's being taken care of as we speak:

Pherekydes wrote: »

Trump has already proposed a climate change skeptic as head of the EPA.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-climate-change_us_5822b97fe4b0aac624883f9d

eviltimeban

wakka12 wrote: »

The most worrying thing to me is that he's a climate change denier. At such an important time in world history, where we desperately need to become more sustainable together to save the planet, it could be catastrophic if he began to reverse any progress made in a massive country that consumes so much of the worlds resources as is.

Well the Paris agreement is enshrined in law, and it would take him about four years to unpick it - that's about how long he'll have as a president I'm guessing. So it might not happen. He'll drag his feet, but perhaps not change much. Too many lobbyists.

If anything Leonardo Di Caprio can make another movie about it.

wes

Butters1979 wrote: »

You'd be surprised how quick they'll change. Once they get out in the real world, get jobs, families and bills to pay they'll realise that anyone who isn't working is taking from them and their families. (Crude but this is how a lot of people think) their political ideals will shift.

In every generation. the younger, college age of the population are almost always more liberal and left leaning, however this doesn't translate into a future surge in liberal voters.

I realize that, just making fun of people complaining at sneering, all the while doing exactly that. Basically, if there theory is right, then they should take there own advice.

Jelle1880

eviltimeban wrote: »

Well the Paris agreement is enshrined in law, and it would take him about four years to unpick it - that's about how long he'll have as a president I'm guessing. So it might not happen. He'll drag his feet, but perhaps not change much. Too many lobbyists.

If anything Leonardo Di Caprio can make another movie about it.

How will countries be forced to accept the Paris agreement ?

I'm sure Trump doesn't care if the US will be fined for not following it.

jimgoose

Widdershins wrote: »

Keep an eye on things as they unfold, then. Assuming the worst won't help.

No. Especially given that the EPA was founded by Richard Nixon, and strengthened considerably some years subsequently by... one George Herbert Walker Bush, that mean ol' Boss Hogg hissel'! :pac:

_Jamie_

seenitall wrote: »

On a personal level, I have to say I am delighted that Hillary didn't make it all the way. Again, speaking from a purely historical point of view, I would be much happier if someone more deserving of public trust and confidence ends up being the first woman in there.

An excellent point.

topper75

Walter H Price wrote: »

In the states Trump is already speaking about lower Tax's , removal of Obama care , reductions in welfare , Deportation of illegal immigrants.

LePen and Wilders the same have been very stong on removing welfare for immigrants and deportations , i dont know if you've been to fance lately but i was and there are actual mini refugee camps all over Paris groups of Sub Saharans , Middle Eastern's , Roma Gypsys living on the streets , I'm sure there deportation would be welcomed by alot of french people giving the crime they bring and the general annoyance of being stopped or harassed every 15 seconds for change.

An end to the overly PC cultural can only be a good thing , I'm sure wealth will be created probibly focused on the middle classes but I'm ok with that , less government , less welfare , lower tax , fewer immigrants all good in my book.

You can have right-wing economics without any dumb racial stuff attached. This is possible.

I'd like to see a more teach-a-man-to-fish approach and an end to the entitlement culture and give-a-man-a-fish thing that has plagued western economies in recent decades.

There is an obligation to help the less well off both in the west and the wider world - an obligation based simply on being human. But big government and high taxes are not the way to fulfill that obligation. People know this now and are voting in elections accordingly.

rob316

The irony of the feminists, "Its a tragedy a woman can't become the President"

Isn't the very purpose of feminism to be valued just like your male counterpart and not because of your looks or gender?

A woman will be president on merit some day, just like a black man was.

ashvsed

My gf says trump won because he was up against a women. I don't think that true. What if trump being in power does not change anything? the system that really runs the place is still there, the prez is just a figure-head.

jimgoose

ashvsed wrote: »

My gf says trump won because he was up against a women. I don't think that true. What if trump being in power does not change anything? the system that really runs the place is still there, the prez is just a figure-head.

Trump won because he was up against a generally disliked and distrusted shitehawk who comes across as cold, talks down to people and who happened to be a woman. You could take the view that that is in itself tragic, but that is a more accurate statement of the problem.

wakka12

rob316 wrote: »

The irony of the feminists, "Its a tragedy a woman can't become the President"

Isn't the very purpose of feminism to be valued just like your male counterpart and not because of your looks or gender?

A woman will be president on merit some day, just like a black man was.

I agree that she probablly didnt deserve to be president but if anyone did ,out of herself and trump, she most certainly did. That may or may not have stemmed from sexism but I just cannot imagine her even being in the running for president if a video was released of her saying to grab boys by the cock

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Widdershins

ashvsed wrote: »

My gf says trump won because he was up against a women. I don't think that true. What if trump being in power does not change anything? the system that really runs the place is still there, the prez is just a figure-head.

Why does she think that?
I now a good few Trump voters. They're all passionate about him. They voted FOR him, not AGAINST Hillary. I also know people who voted for him, in order to prevent Hillary's election, but none of them did it because she's a woman. Does your gf know the kind of reasons people cite for not voting Hillary?

retro:electro

rob316 wrote: »

The irony of the feminists, "Its a tragedy a woman can't become the President"

Isn't the very purpose of feminism to be valued just like your male counterpart and not because of your looks or gender?

A woman will be president on merit some day, just like a black man was.

Perfectly said.

lawlolawl

rob316 wrote: »

The irony of the feminists, "Its a tragedy a woman can't become the President"

Isn't the very purpose of feminism to be valued just like your male counterpart and not because of your looks or gender?

A woman will be president on merit some day, just like a black man was.

That's what feminists want. Actual equality is the last thing on their mind.

jimgoose

lawlolawl wrote: »

That's what feminists want. Actual equality is the last thing on their mind.

"Its a tragedy a woman can't become the President, regardless of what kind of a ringin' bitch she is!" :pac:

FA Hayek

So it has been widely suggested now that both TPP and TTIP are now both dead. Which should give the left for want of a better word some food for thought. TTIP has been mentioned on boards.ie very often, usually by the progressive left wing type who were very anti that treaty.

Trump doing something the like of Paul Murphy and Clare Daly would be proud to do?

Trump will not be your normal 'right' wing president. The games have changed.

rob316

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Spot on, surely a key demographic for Saint Hillary.

oik

Butters1979 wrote: »

You'd be surprised how quick they'll change. Once they get out in the real world, get jobs, families and bills to pay they'll realise that anyone who isn't working is taking from them and their families. (Crude but this is how a lot of people think) their political ideals will shift.

In every generation. the younger, college age of the population are almost always more liberal and left leaning, however this doesn't translate into a future surge in liberal voters.

The danger is that more and more of these people aren't having kids of their own and so the number of older liberal voters will probably increase as time goes on.

retro:electro

ashvsed wrote: »

My gf says trump won because he was up against a women. I don't think that true. What if trump being in power does not change anything? the system that really runs the place is still there, the prez is just a figure-head.

I really don't think Hillary lost because she is a woman. If anything, I think being a woman went in her favour. People always root for the underdog and I think being a woman got her as far as she did. She shouldn't have outran Sanders and I firmly believe she only did so because they felt as she is a woman she had more of a shot of beating Trump than a small grey haired man who many millennials did not connect with. Being a woman was to her advantage more than it was a hindrance.
Look at Obama, a lot of people say he was only elected because he was different and people wanted to be seen to be investing in change. People like to make statements with their votes, but I guarantee you had Obama not been elected it would have been the usual "he lost because he is black".

FA Hayek

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

As an aside, I know that you are quite an advocate for free markets and libertarian economics. However, it appears the tide is going out in relation to these concepts in the West. What are your thoughts on this matter?

Are free markets and globalisation now permanently suspended or will things just muddle on?

_Jamie_

I don't think Hillary lost because she was a woman either and I hated that some people immediately latched on to that as the reason. If the much more popular Michelle Obama ever ran, as an example, I think she would have a much better chance of being elected because she is much more liked. It comes down to likeability, not gender.