45th President of the United States, Donald Trump. (Vol 4)

[Gameface]

Jockman said:

You add no value other than to snipe.

Really?

Like many I've barely posted recently because of the nonsense that's been going on.

You really enjoyed the last few days in here, I take it?

[Gameface]

Kinky said:

I think we can get back on track now. It's been overly tiresome over the past few days.

Fingers crossed.

[Countdown]

Byker28i said:

Halb said:

Byker28i said:

Us debt is projected to be 78% of GDP, the highest since 1950, by the end of the year.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/26/cbo-fede...

so what would a sensible leader do here? How would one even try and bring that down.

Huge tax cuts for the rich, wanting to spend billions on a monument to yourself, trumps wall, raising prices through trade wars, causing the stock market to fall heavily?

Oh no that might cause the issue....

If you’re a minimum-wage worker who sees others (lots of others) doing really well for themselves would you really care that the economy might be going to hell in a handcart? In fact you might actually WANT it to happen........

[minimoog]

DeejRC said:

I believe this is what I’m on about. Now come on, fairs fair - you stated it and I’m calling you on it.

I’ll take the bet. £10 stake, charity of your choice.

There is no bet to take. This is a discussion forum not a branch of Betfred. Jog on.

[Countdown]

coyft said:

minimoog said:

It's a fair point you make but I think what were seeing is dems kicking against the double standard whereby Trumpists get to say and do whatever they like (lock her up, fk your feelings, press are the enemy of the people, Nazi marches, etc), but any dissent or protest is slapped down. Waters is simply saying fk that, we get to play by the same rules.

Some Dems are uncomfortable with that, but the high road isn't going to work against Trump's core right wingers.

It's one thing to mobilise people to protest against policies you don't agree with. It's entirely another thing for a politician to tell people to harass elected politicians and officials who are doing their job.

That's firmly on the road to fascism.

There’s the stinking hypocrisy. Trump’s behaviour is exponentially worse than any of his opponents and yet it’s them that you think are on the road to fascism....

[Gameface]

Just been catching up with some of his tweets.

He's really got it in for Harley Davidson hasn't he!

[Countdown]

minimoog said:

It's a fair point you make but I think what were seeing is dems kicking against the double standard whereby Trumpists get to say and do whatever they like (lock her up, fk your feelings, press are the enemy of the people, Nazi marches, etc), but any dissent or protest is slapped down. Waters is simply saying fk that, we get to play by the same rules.

Some Dems are uncomfortable with that, but the high road isn't going to work against Trump's core right wingers.

[Gameface]

Countdown said:

coyft said:

minimoog said:

It's a fair point you make but I think what were seeing is dems kicking against the double standard whereby Trumpists get to say and do whatever they like (lock her up, fk your feelings, press are the enemy of the people, Nazi marches, etc), but any dissent or protest is slapped down. Waters is simply saying fk that, we get to play by the same rules.

Some Dems are uncomfortable with that, but the high road isn't going to work against Trump's core right wingers.

It's one thing to mobilise people to protest against policies you don't agree with. It's entirely another thing for a politician to tell people to harass elected politicians and officials who are doing their job.

That's firmly on the road to fascism.

There’s the stinking hypocrisy. Trump’s behaviour is exponentially worse than any of his opponents and yet it’s them that you think are on the road to fascism....

Spot on.

[Byker28i]

Gameface said:

Just been catching up with some of his tweets.

He's really got it in for Harley Davidson hasn't he!

They are supposed to suck up all the problems he's created them, not complain. It's his standard action when he thinks anyone has slighted him, go straight onto the attack, no matter how wrong he is.

[NRS]

minimoog said:

It's a fair point you make but I think what were seeing is dems kicking against the double standard whereby Trumpists get to say and do whatever they like (lock her up, fk your feelings, press are the enemy of the people, Nazi marches, etc), but any dissent or protest is slapped down. Waters is simply saying fk that, we get to play by the same rules.

Some Dems are uncomfortable with that, but the high road isn't going to work against Trump's core right wingers.

I would disagree Trump supporters are at the same level as that currently.

For example Fox news is always called out as fake news, and has been long before Trump. It's often true, but that is the same for some of the left wing papers.

As for Nazi marches - obviously dislike them a lot. But communists have resulted in many many deaths and dictatorships, so the Trump supporters can easily point to that being similar to Nazism. So do you stop communists marching etc?

I would say harassing people doing their job/ what some of them believe is best for the country even if we strongly disagree is ok outside their place of work, or public marches in general. However doing it anytime you see them is massive harassment. Just imagine if the republican supporters did it to the Obama admin - everyone would be going nuts.

[Byker28i]

New court rulings shows Manafort got a $10m 'loan' from Deripaska, on the day he left trumps campaign team. That same Russian oligarch who's been mentioned many times I. The trump investigation as a go between for Russian money, who was included in the sanctions by the US.

Manafort was used to making millions a year and has no history of volunteer work, worked "for free" for Trump. Now we know Putin pal Oleg Deripaska was funding him.

https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN1JN2...

[Byker28i]

STrzok testified yesterday, the republicans went on a fishing trip, trying to find anything negative, but were disappointed.

Nadler and Cummings are calling for the unclassified transcript of Peter Strzok's interview to be released to the public to show that House Republicans are "trying to find something—anything—to undermine Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation of the Trump campaign."

[Byker28i]

In the cohen trial, the special master appointed ruled that only 8 piece of evidence were covered by client attorney privilege. Trumps lawyers are now trying to argue that all the rest are covered by client attorney privilege to him. Seems a weak argument when it's already been checked.
Which means trumps really worried about what Cohen has on him. Those financial records, tapes, emails....

[anonymous-user]

Quite a few commentators in the US are suggesting that Roe v Wade may now be under genuine threat.

The retirement of Justice Kennedy means Trump gets to appoint another Supreme Court justice. The thinking is that he will appoint another conservative who favours narrow interpretations of the constitution. If so, chances are that there would then be a sufficient majority to reverse Roe (Roe says the constitution provides a protection against laws criminalising abortions so that individual states couldn’t legislate otherwise).

The end result would be individual states having different, and differently restrictive abortion laws, ranging from complete bans in the heavily religious states upwards.

When one considers how (forex) Ireland has moved on this, this looks a real backwards step. And as Supreme Court Justice’s are entitled to serve for life, the change could be locked in for a long time (eg Gorsuch is 50).

Didn’t a clever man once say “elections have consequences”?

[Countdown]

NRS said:

<snip>
As for Nazi marches - obviously dislike them a lot. But communists have resulted in many many deaths and dictatorships, so the Trump supporters can easily point to that being similar to Nazism. So do you stop communists marching etc? <snip>

I don't think anybody has asked to stop them marching. I think it's more the issue that the nazis seem to have a supporter in the White House. In the same way that Jeremy Corbyn gets called out for supporting terrorist groups

NRS said:

I would say harassing people doing their job/ what some of them believe is best for the country even if we strongly disagree is ok outside their place of work, or public marches in general. However doing it anytime you see them is massive harassment. Just imagine if the republican supporters did it to the Obama admin - everyone would be going nuts.

If a Trump supporter was persecuted for being a woman, or gay, or black, or disabled I would completely agree with you. However if you act for a Government that advocates policies which you may find abhorrent i think it should be well within your rights to do what the Restaurant owner did.

[andy_s]

^ Quite agree, [midenginedcoupe] but the Guardian and Wail views aren't just in isolation, they are driven by the demographic of readership, both being in it for the money of course. Their slanted view is generally too subtle to merit correction. People like simple stories that align with preconceptions, not complex ambiguity. The main danger perhaps is where press barons adjust their stance after political influence and bring readership with them for the ride.

[minimoog]

One pressing issue any new SCOTUS judge that Trump appoints is likely to have to weigh in on is whether a POTUS can self-pardon.

The US is walking a fine line at the moment.

[Byker28i]

Greg66 said:

Quite a few commentators in the US are suggesting that Roe v Wade may now be under genuine threat.

The retirement of Justice Kennedy means Trump gets to appoint another Supreme Court justice. The thinking is that he will appoint another conservative who favours narrow interpretations of the constitution. If so, chances are that there would then be a sufficient majority to reverse Roe (Roe says the constitution provides a protection against laws criminalising abortions so that individual states couldn’t legislate otherwise).

The end result would be individual states having different, and differently restrictive abortion laws, ranging from complete bans in the heavily religious states upwards.

When one considers how (forex) Ireland has moved on this, this looks a real backwards step. And as Supreme Court Justice’s are entitled to serve for life, the change could be locked in for a long time (eg Gorsuch is 50).

Didn’t a clever man once say “elections have consequences”?

McConnel set thr rules when Obama was President. No vote on a Supreme Court nominee until after the new Congress is seated, no voting on judges in an election year.
Merrick Garland was nominated on March 16, 2016 — or 237 days before that year’s election. McConnell said that was too close to Election Day for Obama to pick and voters should decide. Justice Kennedy announced his retirement today — 132 days before this year’s election.

The Dems need to stick to these new rules. The already capitulated on the last judges appointment, meaning trumps muslim ban was accepted in the supreme court, with republican appointed judges voting for, Dem appointed judges voting against. Judges are in place until they retire, which is why trump has been trying to put so many favourable judges in place for him.

After all, it will be them that decide if the Potus has to testify etc

[turbobloke]

Countdown said:

If a Trump supporter was persecuted for being a woman, or gay, or black, or disabled I would completely agree with you. However if you act for a Government that advocates policies which you may find abhorrent i think it should be well within your rights to do what the Restaurant owner did.

Putting aside the hyperbole of the Godwin N-word, that didn't read well...maybe I've got the wrong end of the persecution big stick.

Persecution (defined as hostility and ill-treatment especially because of race or political or religious beliefs) is OK these days? I disagree. When is it the turn of left-liberals to be hounded out of bars and restaurants or is that reserved for those that left-liberals don't approve of including Farage?

The woman involved was not Trump and has nothing to do with the Godwin N-word, which you and others are using as a figleaf for intolerance of different viewpoints. Nothing new there unfortunately.

more sensible coverage of intolerance said:

Derek Lauer was a bit more analytical. He suggested the confrontation between Wilkinson and Sanders was a "lost opportunity" for honest discourse on contentious issues.

"When one refuses to listen to the other side they become ignorant to learning and refuse to become well rounded," Lauer posted. "They could have invited her to tell her side of the story and she could have listened to their concerns. Lost opportunity."

Not likely! Sadly.

Edited by turbobloke on Thursday 28th June 08:34

[hairykrishna]

coyft said:

It's one thing to mobilise people to protest against policies you don't agree with. It's entirely another thing for a politician to tell people to harass elected politicians and officials who are doing their job.

This is true, up to a point. Beyond a certain point "they're only doing their job" is no longer an acceptable defence and confrontation is the only path available.

I tend to agree with Karl Popper;
"Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant."