President Trump

Status
Not open for further replies.
The UK is "doing great" following its vote to leave the EU, US President-elect Donald Trump has said.

In his first UK interview, with former justice secretary Michael Gove for the Times, Mr Trump said he thought the UK was "so smart in getting out".

Mr Trump promised a quick trade deal between the US and the UK after he takes office in five days time.

Talking about international security, Mr Trump argued that he had said "a long time ago that Nato had problems".

"One; that it was obsolete because it was designed many many years ago, and number two; that the countries weren't paying what they're supposed to pay."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38631832
 
phiwum said:
Why should he attack Lewis for his work, when the disagreement is over his claim that Trump's presidency is illegitimate?

Trump's response to criticism is strictly third-grade. He doesn't address arguments, he simply makes the most off-topic attack on the proponent. Streep criticizes Trump's behavior? She's an overrated actress. Lewis claims Trump's presidency is illegitimate? His district is a ghetto. And so on.

I'm not defending what Lewis said. I think it's dangerous and careless.[1] But Trump doesn't even think to address the issue. He's at home with childish ad hominems instead.

[1] Of course, that doesn't mean it's false, but I don't have a strong opinion over whether the oddities of this election delegitimizes the result.
Click to expand...
And Lewis's arguments aren't third grade pouting? Trump is just meeting him where he is and giving him some great advice. ;)
 
turingtest said:
People who voted against Trump are fools who have no power and therefore can be dealt with as defeated fools who nobody needs to give a damn about- but remember, everyone, it's the "libs" who are the dividers in America. :rolleyes:

We are in for an interesting next few years, that's for sure.
Click to expand...

Yes libs divide and I'm sure as hell not interested in uniting. politically speaking is that really so terrible. It's not near as bad as the libs using race, gender and money to divide?
 
The Great Zaganza said:
Ah, the old " cheating is ok if it helps me" argument...
Click to expand...

No, of course it isn't. It really becomes significant if I helped the cheater to cheat for me. Also, if I've been cheating for the entire year and action is only taken after cheating on the final exam, what does that say about the permissive environment that allowed the cheating to occur in the first place....
 
Last edited:
Reheat said:
No, of course it isn't. It really becomes significant if I helped the cheater to cheat for me. Also, if I've been cheating for the entire year and action is only taken for cheating on the final exam, what does that say about the permissive environment that allowed the cheating to occcur in the first place....
Click to expand...

If you had a rival school help you cheat on the final exam, whether or not the members of an after-school study club cheated in choosing the leader of their study club is mostly irrelevant.
 
logger said:
And Lewis's arguments aren't third grade pouting? Trump is just meeting him where he is and giving him some great advice. ;)
Click to expand...
Right or wrong, Lewis is expressing a justifiable concern about what does appear - by various threads of evidence - covert (barely) interference in the US Presidential election by a foreign power. Something you and Trump appear to be remarkably sanguine about.

Trump's response is, of course, ignorant insult and invective.
 
CapelDodger said:
Right or wrong, Lewis is expressing a justifiable concern about what does appear - by various threads of evidence - covert (barely) interference in the US Presidential election by a foreign power. Something you and Trump appear to be remarkably sanguine about.

Trump's response is, of course, ignorant insult and invective.
Click to expand...

Lets not forget Trump isn't in control of what Russia did, nor is he in control of how stupid Clinton and the DNC was.
 
Bob001 said:
Interesting assessment of how we got here: Linguist says Democrats and progressives focus on policies and issues, while conservatives yearn for a "strict father."
http://www.salon.com/2017/01/15/don...xplains-how-the-democrats-helped-elect-trump/
Click to expand...
Lakoff's right. And I don't understand why the Democrats still don't get it.

I don't think the Democrats should try to be the authoritarian replacement GOP candidate. After all, Clinton's margin with the popular vote was nothing to sneeze at. But they had an ineffective response to Comey's last minute letter. They should have came out strong, outraged, maybe hinted the FBI wasn't saying anything about their investigation of Trump. Surely with all the Clinton's connections they knew or should have known about the Trump investigation.

That would have been an effective message to address the credibility of Comey.
 
logger said:
You mean the electoral interference that showed the Dems to be corrupt? That interference?
Click to expand...
But the emails didn't show the Dems to be corrupt, did they? There was remarkably little in them : the real cheating was in how they were presented. I spent some little effort in trying to get some Trumper (The Big Dog?) to exactly how one email demonstrated Clinton's "sneering hypocrisy", and made no progress at all. It turned out the sneering hypocrisy was all theirs.

The real cherry on the Trumpers' hypocrisy cake was, of course, declaring the Clinton Foundation to be a "slush fund" (it isn't), while their own champion's "charitable" foundation demonstrably was (and perhaps still is). Hypocrisy doesn't come more brazen than that.

The weapon was used for the purpose it was provided for, so some responsibility has to rest with the supplier, to my mind.
 
CapelDodger said:
But the emails didn't show the Dems to be corrupt, did they? There was remarkably little in them : the real cheating was in how they were presented. I spent some little effort in trying to get some Trumper (The Big Dog?) to exactly how one email demonstrated Clinton's "sneering hypocrisy", and made no progress at all. It turned out the sneering hypocrisy was all theirs.

The real cherry on the Trumpers' hypocrisy cake was, of course, declaring the Clinton Foundation to be a "slush fund" (it isn't), while their own champion's "charitable" foundation demonstrably was (and perhaps still is). Hypocrisy doesn't come more brazen than that.

The weapon was used for the purpose it was provided for, so some responsibility has to rest with the supplier, to my mind.
Click to expand...
The supplier? Sure and that was?

You don't think the Clintons live lavishly off the slush fund?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom