Today's Trumpy Tantrum

suspiciousminds

ThorpyFX said:

Forget the numbers, he has always denied facts in favour of his own distotorted and polarised view. That is not the scary part......

my concern here is the attitude towards the press and his threats. It's beyond scary. 

I think we only have to look at the way he's treated residents apposed to the scottish golf course.
he's very similar to a dictator in my opinion.
A dreadful human being.

ICBM

suspiciousminds said:

I think we only have to look at the way he's treated residents apposed to the scottish golf course.

he's very similar to a dictator in my opinion.
A dreadful human being.

This. There is a pattern of bullying and illegal behaviour when he doesn't get things all his own way. And he's a liar and a conman who managed to hoodwink even Alex Salmond - who I thought was a better judge of people but was taken in - with promises of investment and jobs which haven't and won't materialise.

Fretwired

Oh dear .. isn't Trump for US jobs and anti the China workshop .. can't wait for the spin on this ...

MagicPigDetective

Reverend

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/president-donald-trump-tv-twitter-the-apprentice-sean-spicer-a7541186.html

Snap

He's the classic school bully. He shouts before he thinks, and believes that by shouting loudly, it will happen. If it doesn't happen, he then shouts "it will happen, we can do it!" even louder and the circle continues.

That's fine when you are campaigning, but is a strategy with a limited lifespan when you are in office.

HIs populist, anti establishment poltitics will give him a wave to crest for a while yet.

Snap

Adam_MD said:

Snap said:

All these whiners and moaners taking to the streets and social media to complain about Trump etc etc - oi pillocks, you're a bit late in the day. You should have been making your voices heard for the last year or more, when you might have actually achieved something. Just going to have to take your medicine.

So people should just shut up for 4 years and let him do whatever he wants?  In 2012 did the republicans say it's ok lads we lost we'll get them in four years and go off quietly?  Not likely they ended up literally shutting down the government at one point.  

Of course not. But I just find it a little pathetic, all this hysterical "take to the streets" anti Trump protesting. If they were that bothered, all these people, why not make theri point when perhaps he could have been sequestered, before he got to office? Its like a load of whiny moany softarses, complaining after the event. Hollow and weak. Should have stepped up earlier if they were that bothered: what he stands for has been clear as day from day one.

Here's a racist, sexist ignorant bigot who has made a beeline for the presidency for several years. Yet only now are the "activists" making any noise in earnest. Rubbish, weak and belated. Ah yes, go on, shout at sky after the event when your impact will be slight, as opposed to rising to the challenge when a difference could have been made.

All too little too late.

ICBM

Snap said:

Of course not. But I just find it a little pathetic, all this hysterical "take to the streets" anti Trump protesting. If they were that bothered, all these people, why not make theri point when perhaps he could have been sequestered, before he got to office? Its like a load of whiny moany softarses, complaining after the event. Hollow and weak. Should have stepped up earlier if they were that bothered: what he stands for has been clear as day from day one.

Here's a racist, sexist ignorant bigot who has made a beeline for the presidency for several years. Yet only now are the "activists" making any noise in earnest. Rubbish, weak and belated. Ah yes, go on, shout at sky after the event when your impact will be slight, as opposed to rising to the challenge when a difference could have been made.

All too little too late.

The excuse is that the alternative - to actively vote for Hillary - was too unpalatable. But it doesn't wash - and nor does voting for either of the no-hope alternative candidates - because sometimes you have to make unpleasant choices between the lesser of two evils. And I'm still not 100% sure which was the lesser, to be honest.

I just hope that in the next three years the Democrats can get it together to choose a new, charismatic figurehead who is not connected to the old Washington establishment, is not called Clinton or even Obama, is not as old and easy to label a socialist as Bernie Sanders, and can inspire people to actually turn out and vote in 2020 - much like Obama did. Because otherwise Trump will be there until he's almost 80.

Adam_MD

Snap said:

Adam_MD said:

So people should just shut up for 4 years and let him do whatever he wants?  In 2012 did the republicans say it's ok lads we lost we'll get them in four years and go off quietly?  Not likely they ended up literally shutting down the government at one point.  

Of course not. But I just find it a little pathetic, all this hysterical "take to the streets" anti Trump protesting. If they were that bothered, all these people, why not make theri point when perhaps he could have been sequestered, before he got to office? Its like a load of whiny moany softarses, complaining after the event. Hollow and weak. Should have stepped up earlier if they were that bothered: what he stands for has been clear as day from day one.

Here's a racist, sexist ignorant bigot who has made a beeline for the presidency for several years. Yet only now are the "activists" making any noise in earnest. Rubbish, weak and belated. Ah yes, go on, shout at sky after the event when your impact will be slight, as opposed to rising to the challenge when a difference could have been made.

All too little too late.

Almost 66 million Americans voted against trump so most of those protestors did try and do something about it they voted against trump.  By protesting now they are demonstrating to him and to the democrat politicians what they actually stand for in the hopes that the democrats stop taking money from corporate donors and start representing the people instead.  It's not remotely too little or too late it's the only way to bring change in the mid term elections in 2 years or in 4 years at the next election.  

The womens march also wasn't just about protesting trump it was one of the major factors but not the only one.

JezWynd

Fretwired said:

Oh dear .. isn't Trump for US jobs and anti the China workshop .. can't wait for the spin on this ...

"I declared bankruptcy on that outfit. Not a single cent of our beautiful American currency benefited the South China Seas encroaching peril. Win!"

Snap

Adam_MD said:

Snap said:

Adam_MD said:

So people should just shut up for 4 years and let him do whatever he wants?  In 2012 did the republicans say it's ok lads we lost we'll get them in four years and go off quietly?  Not likely they ended up literally shutting down the government at one point.  

Of course not. But I just find it a little pathetic, all this hysterical "take to the streets" anti Trump protesting. If they were that bothered, all these people, why not make theri point when perhaps he could have been sequestered, before he got to office? Its like a load of whiny moany softarses, complaining after the event. Hollow and weak. Should have stepped up earlier if they were that bothered: what he stands for has been clear as day from day one.

Here's a racist, sexist ignorant bigot who has made a beeline for the presidency for several years. Yet only now are the "activists" making any noise in earnest. Rubbish, weak and belated. Ah yes, go on, shout at sky after the event when your impact will be slight, as opposed to rising to the challenge when a difference could have been made.

All too little too late.

Almost 66 million Americans voted against trump so most of those protestors did try and do something about it they voted against trump.  By protesting now they are demonstrating to him and to the democrat politicians what they actually stand for in the hopes that the democrats stop taking money from corporate donors and start representing the people instead.  It's not remotely too little or too late it's the only way to bring change in the mid term elections in 2 years or in 4 years at the next election.  

The womens march also wasn't just about protesting trump it was one of the major factors but not the only one.

the fact remains, not enough people were bothered enough. Regardless of what you/I think of the possible flaws in the US electoraly system, the people voted. The US system, that elected presidents over many generations, has now got a prize berk in there. If they were that bothered or scared about this, they should have done something about it before it was too late.

I find it pretty unlikely that he will lose significant power within this term. He presides over a party of twats. America is a hugely divided country and they were ready for a change. Well hey bleeding ho, they really have a change on their hands now. My attitude to it is tough.

The americans weren't bothered or engaged enough to deal with it at the right time.

Reverend

How much impact do the approval ratings have?

How likely are Republicans to impeach him?

randella

Reverend said:

How much impact do the approval ratings have?

How likely are Republicans to impeach him?

They didn't have the front to disown him in the run-up to the election, so I can't see them doing anything about it now.

Adam_MD

Snap said:

the fact remains, not enough people were bothered enough. Regardless of what you/I think of the possible flaws in the US electoraly system, the people voted. The US system, that elected presidents over many generations, has now got a prize berk in there. If they were that bothered or scared about this, they should have done something about it before it was too late.

I find it pretty unlikely that he will lose significant power within this term. He presides over a party of twats. America is a hugely divided country and they were ready for a change. Well hey bleeding ho, they really have a change on their hands now. My attitude to it is tough.

The americans weren't bothered or engaged enough to deal with it at the right time.

You're totally correct the people did vote approx 2.9 million more Americans voted against trump than for him. 

So they lost big deal as I said earlier that doesn't mean they should just pack up and go home because some dude on the Internet says tough luck.  The Democratic Party are in tatters and it will take them a long time to rebuild and gain the trust back of the people.  Thankfully they're starting now if they wait a few years it'll be too late again.  

If you're correct and he doesn't lose much power in this term (I think you're wrong in your assessment) then it's even more imperative for them to start now.  They need to build on the momentum they just gained from the largest  demonstration in the history of the United States and go from there so by the time we get to the next election they can win back the presidency along with control of the congress and senate.

Adam_MD

randella said:

Reverend said:

How much impact do the approval ratings have?

How likely are Republicans to impeach him?

They didn't have the front to disown him in the run-up to the election, so I can't see them doing anything about it now.

It really depends what he gets caught doing and how illegal it is.  He's already in breach of the constitution for the New York hotel.

The approval ratings for the most part were bang on despite what has been reported many of them projected Hilary to win by a small margin and she did they didn't, however, forsee the result in those 3 swing states which at 80,000 votes are well within the margin of error for those  types of polls. 

randella

Adam_MD said:

randella said:

They didn't have the front to disown him in the run-up to the election, so I can't see them doing anything about it now.

It really depends what he gets caught doing and how illegal it is.  He's already in breach of the constitution for the New York hotel.

Sure, I agree with you.  In the runup, I found it remarkable that the Republicans let the whole thing carry on; I suspect they might have feared a big backlash if they somehow engineered Trump out of the picture as, after all, it would have been a pretty undemocratic move *if* they just did it on a whim.  However, there was the whole hotel thing, allegations of sexual impropriety, plus plenty more besides.  Could you see an opposition Conservative party campaigning an election with a leader carrying that baggage?  No chance, they'd be out on their ear.

Now he holds power, I think the key word in what you said is *caught*.  He's really going to have to do something that can be nailed-on proved beyond all doubt.  He's starting to alienate the press so I can't see them aiding and abetting a coverup, but still... he's really going to have to get rumbled with the smoking gun in his hand, so to speak.

UnclePsychosis

randella said:

Adam_MD said:

randella said:

They didn't have the front to disown him in the run-up to the election, so I can't see them doing anything about it now.

It really depends what he gets caught doing and how illegal it is.  He's already in breach of the constitution for the New York hotel.

Now he holds power, I think the key word in what you said is *caught*.  He's really going to have to do something that can be nailed-on proved beyond all doubt. 

How's about a video tape of him confessing to sexual assault? That would probably do it, I reckon. No?

randella

UnclePsychosis said:

randella said

Now he holds power, I think the key word in what you said is *caught*.  He's really going to have to do something that can be nailed-on proved beyond all doubt. 

How's about a video tape of him confessing to sexual assault? That would probably do it, I reckon. No?

If you mean the "pussy grabbing" video, then this is exactly what I mean - it's probably not enough to nail him in a court of law, but in a parliamentary election campaign in most other countries it'd be enough to rule him out as a candidate on the grounds it's a morally repugnant act from a clearly vile man.

God-knows what it's going to take to do it now he's in power.

Myranda

randella said:

octatonic said:

Fuckers!

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/donald-trump-abortion-rights-executive-order_uk_58863bbfe4b0208540990e96

From what I can tell, the Republicans put the order in place, the Democrats remove it. Executive order ping-pong, every four or eight years. 

Just gotta hope that if you're strapped for cash and need an abortion, there's a Democrat in the White House. 

No.

You have to hope that your American funded international healthcare provider has never mentioned the word abortion if you need an emergency C-Section... or if your baby develops health issues...

This order defunded foreign aid groups that counsel abortion as an option - completely. So Even if they spend a million dollars on sick babies and $5 and five minutes saying "or an abortion is an option" then they lose the million dollars too...

So these foreign (and presumably domestic, but that wasn't mentioned in the article I read) aid groups are either screwed if it's retroactive, or will have to start pretending that abortion isn't an option, in places where poverty and over-population are an issue. Potentially this is actively bad for the (developing) world

ThePrettyDamned

Myranda said:

randella said:

octatonic said:

Fuckers!

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/donald-trump-abortion-rights-executive-order_uk_58863bbfe4b0208540990e96

From what I can tell, the Republicans put the order in place, the Democrats remove it. Executive order ping-pong, every four or eight years. 

Just gotta hope that if you're strapped for cash and need an abortion, there's a Democrat in the White House. 

No.

You have to hope that your American funded international healthcare provider has never mentioned the word abortion if you need an emergency C-Section... or if your baby develops health issues...

This order defunded foreign aid groups that counsel abortion as an option - completely. So Even if they spend a million dollars on sick babies and $5 and five minutes saying "or an abortion is an option" then they lose the million dollars too...

So these foreign (and presumably domestic, but that wasn't mentioned in the article I read) aid groups are either screwed if it's retroactive, or will have to start pretending that abortion isn't an option, in places where poverty and over-population are an issue. Potentially this is actively bad for the (developing) world

This is absolutely fucking atrocious. 

I really, really try to see things from all perspectives and see the devil's advocate side of things, but this just seems to be something that is universally harmful. And why? 

Seriously, what the fuck does he have to gain from this?