fivepointer wrote:There's no way Trump and his cronies can maintain this level of stupidity, deceit and dangerous posturing for 4 years. They are insulting the intelligence of everyone and that isn't going to play for a sustained period.
He'll be impeached no more than half way through his term. He'll overstep the mark one too many times and he'll get his comeuppence.
Im not convinced that pence is much better.
The democrats seriously couldn't beat this buffoon? Feck me
Says more about the electorate than the opposition.
Re: Trump
Posted: Thu Jan 26, 2017 7:29 pm
by WaspInWales
morepork wrote:Make shit up as you go along and effect a realty TV serious face when sitting at a desk. Good strategy. While you womble along being orange, all those Goldman Sachs parasites you gave a set of keys to will be syphoning the life out of public resources. You got played for a fool when you entered your fathers monopoly game and you will be played for a fool here. Come on media, let's look past the hairpiece and have a closer look at who is set to make what behind the scenes of this pantomime. Subcontract the entire thing out, use Mexican labour to build it, then stand back as the entire thing crashes to the ground once the parasites have scuttled out of the way. Fucking business acumen and negotiating skills my arse you stupid fat cunt.
This has got to be one of the greatest open letters ever produced.
It seems the orange one watches Fox News before his Twitter sessions. First he echoes comments from the Bill O'Reilly show about the crime rate in Chicago then uses the same words from a Fox news piece about Chelsea Manning in his Tweet earlier.
Saw a headline earlier about Pence pulling Trump's strings, but maybe Murdoch has a little control too?
Re: Trump
Posted: Thu Jan 26, 2017 7:40 pm
by Sandydragon
WaspInWales wrote:
Sandydragon wrote:
fivepointer wrote:There's no way Trump and his cronies can maintain this level of stupidity, deceit and dangerous posturing for 4 years. They are insulting the intelligence of everyone and that isn't going to play for a sustained period.
He'll be impeached no more than half way through his term. He'll overstep the mark one too many times and he'll get his comeuppence.
Im not convinced that pence is much better.
The democrats seriously couldn't beat this buffoon? Feck me
Says more about the electorate than the opposition.
Yup. I'm not sure what's worse. The clowns who voted for him or the useful idiots who didn't turn out because they couldn't see the difference between Clinton and the giant oompah loompa.
It seems the orange one watches Fox News before his Twitter sessions. First he echoes comments from the Bill O'Reilly show about the crime rate in Chicago then uses the same words from a Fox news piece about Chelsea Manning in his Tweet earlier.
Saw a headline earlier about Pence pulling Trump's strings, but maybe Murdoch has a little control too?
I think his world knoeledge is very limited. Other that Fox News or some alt media sites, I don't think he takes the trouble to educate himself on any significant issue. To say he is out of his depth is a major understatement. I hope some of those surrounding him can advise him, but his habit of taking to Twitter for policy announcements suggests that he will continue to shoot from the hip, which is dangerous.
It seems the orange one watches Fox News before his Twitter sessions. First he echoes comments from the Bill O'Reilly show about the crime rate in Chicago then uses the same words from a Fox news piece about Chelsea Manning in his Tweet earlier.
Saw a headline earlier about Pence pulling Trump's strings, but maybe Murdoch has a little control too?
Bear in mind that his son in law has made a concerted effort to swoop in on media businesses in New York. He seems to believe that nepotism and insider trading is a legitimate path to controlling the media narrative. More worryingly, the converse may be the actual truth and the Trumpet is being played by forces with far greater influence on the public mindset than reality TV currently has. Stupidity and ignorance writ large in the fine print.
Re: Trump
Posted: Thu Jan 26, 2017 9:39 pm
by Vengeful Glutton
Re: Trump
Posted: Thu Jan 26, 2017 10:07 pm
by morepork
Stay on pint VG....you risk irrelevance my little mushroom.
XXX
Re: Trump
Posted: Thu Jan 26, 2017 10:14 pm
by morepork
jared_7 wrote:
morepork wrote:
Len wrote:One thing I find interesting is this environmental poilcy hes ditched. The White House websites states it will save 30 billion, which is fine except where does that 30 billion go? Into the pockets of Americans working in jobs in the sector? From scientists right dow to the janitor cleaning the offices and labs? I wonder if anybody will lose their jobs, which is exactly the opposite to what his campaign is all about.
I'm not pretending to know everything about politics, I'm a bit too boan for that, its just something that occured to me the other day.
He's full of shit. His MO is to fiddle the books to create debt and pass that debt off to others. BY creating a smokescreen of environmental policy being a crack pot side show he will do as all politicians do and discredit science as a pastime of liberal academics that don't understand "business" and cut infrastructure spending with impunity. Just look at what is happening in NZ with dairying. It's a massive environmental disaster but the government won't hold agriculture accountable because they are lobbied hard. Any actual investment made is invariably PR and misinformation, which is just pissing resources up against the wall. The sensible thing to do would be to marry environmental science with agriculture and support a sustainable long term enterprise that benefits all. If he slashes federal funding for environmental science then yes, people will lose jobs and ultimately the agriculture sector will start to burn out through mismanagement. The toxins will osmiate through to education and hit employment hard as employers are forced to lobby for overseas skills to replace locals. Oh the irony.
Did you see the reaction of the Federated farmers when Gareth Morgan and the TOP party suggested levies on farmers who exceed environmental limits? Even the Green Party opposed it, absolutely mental.
Jesus wept. Daisy the cow stands between noble farmers and the scourge of socialism.
rowan wrote:It eventually ran out of credibility, clearly. British Labour Party politician Robin Cook was among the many to dismiss them (shortly before his sudden death). The US had already played that card far too many times. So they rebranded it as 'ISIS,' but it's exactly the same thing - their own proxy mercenaries and jihadists, who they, the Saudis and others armed and trained, and who can conveniently be blamed for every act of resistance to their imperial expansionism.
Hmmm. Not laughing.
Re: Trump
Posted: Thu Jan 26, 2017 10:26 pm
by OptimisticJock
kk67 wrote:
OptimisticJock wrote:
rowan wrote:It eventually ran out of credibility, clearly. British Labour Party politician Robin Cook was among the many to dismiss them (shortly before his sudden death). The US had already played that card far too many times. So they rebranded it as 'ISIS,' but it's exactly the same thing - their own proxy mercenaries and jihadists, who they, the Saudis and others armed and trained, and who can conveniently be blamed for every act of resistance to their imperial expansionism.
Hmmm. Not laughing.
I don't give a fuck.
Re: Trump
Posted: Thu Jan 26, 2017 10:38 pm
by kk67
I understand. You thought he was a Deer.
Re: Trump
Posted: Thu Jan 26, 2017 10:42 pm
by OptimisticJock
Aye mate
Re: Trump
Posted: Fri Jan 27, 2017 12:10 am
by Digby
WaspInWales wrote:
Digby wrote:
Len wrote:
Still reckons Mexico is going to pay for this wall. Thick cunt.
If he does a deal with them that gives them $2.1bn for something else and asks for $1.8bn back to help build a wall and pretends that's wholly independent of the first then he'll be able to claim a victory, now he just needs a way to do that which doesn't go via Congress
I do wonder if Congress will sign off on this in advance, and I'd much rather he'd tried to put all his eggs into the lets invest in infrastructure in the first instance before he starts calling Congress losers
Can't he just cut aid to Mexico? It's not as if humanitarian causes are high on his list and he and his supporters will consider that a win as Mexico will be paying for the wall.
I can't imagine US foreign to Mexico could come close to paying for it. They could go after trade, but unless there's some transfer of wealth then those south of the border (and it's hardly only Mexicans) are going to keep moving to the USA, which rather seems to defeat the object of building some temporary wall which might be stolen for scrap even before
I suppose it's possible Trump could claim US aid to Mexico is far higher than it is, but he might be worried about making a blatant lie
Re: Trump
Posted: Fri Jan 27, 2017 1:26 am
by Len
I hope he does something utterly stupid like declare war on Mexico. Fuck that'd be funny. Theres so many Mexicans in the states that would kick off it'd get messy very very quickly, especially considering how easy it is to obtain firearms.
Loving this Trump era. The possibilities are endless.
Re: Trump
Posted: Fri Jan 27, 2017 1:59 am
by zer0
Re: Trump
Posted: Fri Jan 27, 2017 2:54 am
by morepork
Len wrote:I hope he does something utterly stupid like declare war on Mexico. Fuck that'd be funny. Theres so many Mexicans in the states that would kick off it'd get messy very very quickly, especially considering how easy it is to obtain firearms.
Loving this Trump era. The possibilities are endless.
Don't even joke about it.
Re: Trump
Posted: Fri Jan 27, 2017 4:53 am
by morepork
morepork wrote:Stay on point VG....you risk irrelevance my little mushroom.
XXX
Re: Trump
Posted: Fri Jan 27, 2017 10:26 am
by Stones of granite
kk67 wrote:
OptimisticJock wrote:
rowan wrote:It eventually ran out of credibility, clearly. British Labour Party politician Robin Cook was among the many to dismiss them (shortly before his sudden death). The US had already played that card far too many times. So they rebranded it as 'ISIS,' but it's exactly the same thing - their own proxy mercenaries and jihadists, who they, the Saudis and others armed and trained, and who can conveniently be blamed for every act of resistance to their imperial expansionism.
Hmmm. Not laughing.
You're not laughing because you believe that Cook actually said that? It's made up. He didn't.
He made a statement in a Guardian piece about how the CIA funded OBL during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and included a factually inaccurate reference to AQ in that piece. It seems that the fact that he died (of natural causes) means that someone can invent any old bollox as a quote and imply that his death is linked to it. He died of a heart attack as a result of hypertensive heart disease. Not uncommon in late middle-aged men from Central Scotland with an alcohol problem.
Re: Trump
Posted: Fri Jan 27, 2017 11:07 am
by rowan
Makes no difference. Al Qaeda was a brand name imposed upon Jihadi terrorists by Western media, to give a face to the enemy the US claimed to be "at war" with as it rode roughshod across the Middle East, destroying nation after nation, installing puppet leaders, gaining control of resources and basically colonizing the region. The Jihadi terrorists would have been somewhat bemused to learn they were being referred to in the West as 'The Base' (or 'The Toilet' in Arabic slang). This brandname also served to smokescreen Saudi involvement. Inevitably the term was soon being applied to all of the enemies America created (by killing millions of people and so on) during its imperialist rampages - to the point it gradually began to lose its efficacy. So the designers had to come up with a more marketable brand, something with a little more lustre and fiber that would capture the public imagination, and after an extensive series of promotional videos featuring ghastly head-choppings on picturesque settings and convoys of Jihadists in kung fu outfits driving American vehicles and toting American guns, brand 'ISIS' was introduced to the world (then soon re-named DAESH, Al Nusra and a bunch of other meaningless Arabic words and acronyms). Meanwhile, Al Qaeda all but disappeared off the radar.
Re: Trump
Posted: Fri Jan 27, 2017 1:05 pm
by Which Tyler
Digby wrote:I suppose it's possible Trump could claim US aid to Mexico is far higher than it is, but he might be worried about making a blatant lie
What on Earth gives you that impression?
Re: Trump
Posted: Fri Jan 27, 2017 1:34 pm
by jared_7
morepork wrote:
jared_7 wrote:
morepork wrote:
He's full of shit. His MO is to fiddle the books to create debt and pass that debt off to others. BY creating a smokescreen of environmental policy being a crack pot side show he will do as all politicians do and discredit science as a pastime of liberal academics that don't understand "business" and cut infrastructure spending with impunity. Just look at what is happening in NZ with dairying. It's a massive environmental disaster but the government won't hold agriculture accountable because they are lobbied hard. Any actual investment made is invariably PR and misinformation, which is just pissing resources up against the wall. The sensible thing to do would be to marry environmental science with agriculture and support a sustainable long term enterprise that benefits all. If he slashes federal funding for environmental science then yes, people will lose jobs and ultimately the agriculture sector will start to burn out through mismanagement. The toxins will osmiate through to education and hit employment hard as employers are forced to lobby for overseas skills to replace locals. Oh the irony.
Did you see the reaction of the Federated farmers when Gareth Morgan and the TOP party suggested levies on farmers who exceed environmental limits? Even the Green Party opposed it, absolutely mental.
Jesus wept. Daisy the cow stands between noble farmers and the scourge of socialism.
What the fuck did I just read? That passes as a credible opinion in NZ nowadays? Humans produce more waste than cows, so shut up. Is he suggesting we cull the populace?
Re: Trump
Posted: Fri Jan 27, 2017 2:33 pm
by J Dory
I think his point is that people are responsible for far more pollution in NZ than dairy farms, so singling dairy farms out is unfair.
Re: Trump
Posted: Fri Jan 27, 2017 3:32 pm
by morepork
J Dory wrote:I think his point is that people are responsible for far more pollution in NZ than dairy farms, so singling dairy farms out is unfair.
Dairy farming is a human activity. Deflecting the argument to cows is disingenuous.
