Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.
Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/
Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.
Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/
Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
El Presidente Trump
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
At this point you really are like a broken clock that skips on the two moments of the day it's supposed to get right by default.Ah yes, that safe space that was created by Obama, king of the minorities.
Well done to him.
Obama on safe spaces and dissenting voices on US campuses:
“I’ve heard some college campuses where they don’t want to have a guest speaker who is too conservative or they don’t want to read a book if it has language that is offensive to African-Americans or somehow sends a demeaning signal towards women. And, you know, I gotta tell you, I don’t agree with that either”
“I don’t agree that you, when you become students at colleges, have to be coddled and protected from different points of view.”
“I think that you should be able to — you should invite — anybody who comes to speak to you and you disagree with, you should have an argument with ‘em,”
...and as for the origin of safe spaces...
https://mindhacks.com/2015/11/12/the-real-history-of-the-safe-space/The history of safe spaces is an interesting one and a recent article in Fusion cited the concept as originating in the feminist and gay liberation movements of the 1960s.
But the concept of the ‘safe space’ didn’t start with these movements, it started in a much more unlikely place – corporate America – largely thanks to the work of psychologist Kurt Lewin.
...
In the late 1940s, Lewin was asked to help develop leadership training for corporate bosses and out of this work came the foundation of the National Training Laboratories and the invention of sensitivity training which was a form of group discussion where members could give honest feedback to each other to allow people to become aware of their unhelpful assumptions, implicit biases, and behaviours that were holding them back as effective leaders.
...
One of the ideas behind sensitivity training, was that honesty and change would only occur if people could be frank and challenge others in an environment of psychological safety. In other words, without judgement.
But hey, anything to distract from talking about President elect Trump in the President Trump thread, right?
0 -
-
Ah yes, that safe space that was created by Obama, king of the minorities.
Well done to him.
You have any proof it was Obama that started it ? No ? Thought so.
Safe spaces are a load of bull****, as pointed out by many Trump supporters.
That is until it's their favourite who is being mocked (either online or for example when called out in a theater), then the 'liberals' should just shut up and just let it go.
Sounds awfully hypocritical if you ask me.
0 -
So, yes, a hypothetical war between the US and Russia will lead to Ireland getting bombed into oblivion (presumably by the US) because of Russia's exports to the Dutch.
Connect the dots, people!!
"If sh*t hits the fan then nothing whatsoever will change in Ireland!"
Wow, so comforting, what a fool I was, cheers
(I know you're not that narrow minded, but I also know you are that stubborn )Professor Moriarty wrote: »The dangers you speak of (albeit in quite a paranoid way) are indeed real. However, Trump is a Narcissist and his election was all about his egotism and nothing to do with his fellow Americans. In many ways, it's like Brexit, he wasn't meant to happen. Trump's erratic personality and behaviour, coupled with his lack of political experience, will exacerbate those dangers rather than dissipate them as you seem to think.
I feel the gob will dissipate them to far greater effect than Hillary ever would, mainly because he'd actually try, instead of damning the consequences and bulling ahead... He spoke in more conciliatory tones about the Federation than Hillary did.
There are bigger, badder things at play than the "big bad Russians".0 -
He probably spoke 'in more conciliatory tones' because he's in their pocket ?
If only we could see his tax returns :pac:
Apparently according to some it's perfectly fine for Trump to constantly go back on his promises during the election campaign. Why would it be so far-fetched that Clinton wouldn't have changed her tune too ? Who's to say that after an intelligence meeting (you know, the ones he's refusing) she wouldn't have changed her mind about a no-fly zone after talking with chiefs of staff and generals ?0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
He probably spoke 'in more conciliatory tones' because he's in their pocket ?
If only we could see his tax returns :pac:
Could be worse, Trump could have presided over the selling of 20% of U.S uranium production to the Russians :pac: :pac: :pac:
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html
You know, right before a kremlin banks donation of half a million to bill for his "great speech", or right after a spike in donations to their foundation from said Russians :pac:
What exactly was the thought process here?
'Make sure we've both got enough and we'll make an absolute KILLING, financing this one...'?
Owing them money isn't that bad. Not a problem. Let them work away together. If the Russians start taking more of Europe's energy market away from the Saudis et al, that's perfectly fine with me. Them and their opec buddies can go to hell.
We pay through the nose no matter the supplier. Might as well be the one with the least awful human rights record...
One problem I actually have with Trump was his towing of the line that Iran was the "great threat to the world", which it clearly isn't.
In an admittedly hilarious twist of irony, I'm hoping it was just something he said to get in, then won't follow through on
0 -
Renegade Mechanic wrote: »Could be worse, Trump could have presided over the selling of 20% of U.S uranium production to the Russians :pac: :pac: :pac:
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html
You know, right before a kremlin banks donation of half a million to bill for his "great speech", or right after a spike in donations to their foundation from said Russians :pac:
What exactly was the thought process here?
'Make sure we've both got enough and we'll make an absolute KILLING, financing this one...'?
Owing them money isn't that bad. Not a problem. Let them work away together. If the Russians start taking more of Europe's energy market away from the Saudis et al, that's perfectly fine with me. Them and their opec buddies can go to hell.
We pay through the nose no matter the supplier. Might as well be the one with the least awful human rights record...
One problem I actually have with Trump was his towing of the line that Iran was the "great threat to the world", which it clearly isn't.
In an admittedly hilarious twist of irony, I'm hoping it was just something he said to get in, then won't follow through on
He did that to keep the Israel lobby happy. If they had turned on him then the Republican party would REALLY turn on him.0 -
-
Renegade Mechanic wrote: »Could be worse, Trump could have presided over the selling of 20% of U.S uranium production to the Russians :pac: :pac: :pac:
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html
You know, right before a kremlin banks donation of half a million to bill for his "great speech", or right after a spike in donations to their foundation from said Russians :pac:
What exactly was the thought process here?
'Make sure we've both got enough and we'll make an absolute KILLING, financing this one...'?
Owing them money isn't that bad. Not a problem. Let them work away together. If the Russians start taking more of Europe's energy market away from the Saudis et al, that's perfectly fine with me. Them and their opec buddies can go to hell.
We pay through the nose no matter the supplier. Might as well be the one with the least awful human rights record...
One problem I actually have with Trump was his towing of the line that Iran was the "great threat to the world", which it clearly isn't.
In an admittedly hilarious twist of irony, I'm hoping it was just something he said to get in, then won't follow through on
Oh, that uranium-for-Russia claim again ?
http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-uranium-russia-deal/
I really thought that was already debunked in this thread ?
As for claiming that Russia has a less awful human rights record than some of the OPEC countries, I wouldn't be so hasty with that. People seem to have short memories when it comes to those kind of things, I'd say they're both as bad as each other and I wouldn't trust either of them with energy deliveries to the West.0 -
Oh, that uranium-for-Russia claim again ?
http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-uranium-russia-deal/
I really thought that was already debunked in this thread ?
"Unproven"
Even Snopes can't call it "False" 0 -
Renegade Mechanic wrote: »"Unproven"
Even Snopes can't call it "False"
That's not how that works. You and Trump need to learn that.
You can't claim something, have no actual proof and then laugh it off when people say it's unproven. Same with that 'omg she killed like 40+ people' nonsense.
That is unless you don't believe in the presumption of innocence of course.0 -
Advertisement
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaj7H_o11tw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykk8ibRhx-g
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement