Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Donald Trump - MAGAtwat news and discussion

If family are anything to go by...

Donald Trump is currently 79-years-old.

His father died aged 93.
His mother died aged 88.
His eldest sister Maryanne Trump Barry died aged 86.
His brother Fred Crist Trump Jr died aged 42 (heart attack, alcoholism).
His older sister Elizabeth Trump Grau, living, aged approx 83-years-old.
His younger brother Robert Trump, died aged 71.

He's probably got a few years left in him.

Unless another would-be assassin strikes lucky.
So he has outlived his two brothers. I don’t believe that his parents were as obese as he is and therefore I’m not sure that their ages are much indication of how long Trump might have left.
 
....Why? Absolute insanity:


Also:

 
Re the conversation on Greenland (already posted, but here https://archive.ph/rmR6X)
Looks like this could impact on Wetherspoons. Ther article says in the penultimate paragraph that the Danish PM has had meetings with Danish CEOs, including Carlsberg about American sanctions.
A lot of Wetherspoons brands including at least half their real ale are Carlsberg Marstons.
I'm quaking into my pints.
 
Re the conversation on Greenland (already posted, but here https://archive.ph/rmR6X)
Looks like this could impact on Wetherspoons. Ther article says in the penultimate paragraph that the Danish PM has had meetings with Danish CEOs, including Carlsberg about American sanctions.
A lot of Wetherspoons brands including at least half their real ale are Carlsberg Marstons.
I'm quaking into my pints.
Are Wetherspoons in America?
 
And while we're on the Constitution, how about letting Trump have a third term? According to New York Post (where you'll find all kinds of GOP overexcitement):



It probably doesn't stand a prayer of passing, but it will flush out any R Representatives who aren't believers in the true faith, and it does move the Overton window somewhat.
If that change did pass, Trump wouldn't be able to run for a third term immediately.

It would be 2032 before he was able to stand again, for a term which would end in 2037, by time he'd be in his 90's.
 
Re the conversation on Greenland (already posted, but here https://archive.ph/rmR6X)
Looks like this could impact on Wetherspoons. Ther article says in the penultimate paragraph that the Danish PM has had meetings with Danish CEOs, including Carlsberg about American sanctions.
A lot of Wetherspoons brands including at least half their real ale are Carlsberg Marstons.
I'm quaking into my pints.

If Trump imposes tariffs that make Carlsberg brews too expensive for US drinkers, won't that leave Carslberg with a lot of unsold inventory Wetherspoons could buy cheaply?
 
I’ve read many reports that George Bush senior was involved in the assassination of JFK. Don’t know if any of it is true. Trump and the Bush family don’t like each other.

It was actually his brother Basil Brush who was the second shooter from his burrow on the Grassy Knoll. That is why John Peel was also there too. JFK was taken out by BBC operatives
 
Last edited:
Why is it a nut job like Trump can be allowed be president?
Are there no independent psychiatric assessments required ?
The guy is batshit psycho....the idea he believes he can take Greenland and gets stroppy with the prime minister of Denmark because she doesn't cow tow to his demands?
I'm beginning to think nobody ever said no to Trump in his entire life. Spoiled asshole brat with not a single grey cell in his peasized brain.
As has been pointed out earlier Greenland is a Danish colony not an integral part of the Danish state and a clear majority of Greenlanders want independence, so the Danish PM should be kowtowing to the Greenlanders: neither Copenhagen nor Washington.
 
Trump visits the California wildfires.



All very friendly with lots of pats on the back. Different from how he spoke when the worst of the wildfires were going on and initial aftermath.
 
Quite amusing while in California, that he was having a go at the insurance companies and the Democrats for increasingly withdrawing coverage from California, blaming the political (democratic) environment, rather than the actual environment for this, stating "no one has ever seen it's like before."

Completely ignoring the fact that the risk adverse profit driven insurance companies have just about all left florida due to climate change and the increasing likelihood of continual substantial claims.

Doesn't quite fit the story does it.!
 
Last edited:
Trump visits the California wildfires.



All very friendly with lots of pats on the back. Different from how he spoke when the worst of the wildfires were going on and initial aftermath.


Whenever I hear him speak unscripted, he comes out with a load of waffle that, on closer listening, adds up to the sum total of fuck all. All that "we're gonna get something sorted" could mean anything, from a massive rebuilding programme to a couple of tents for those whose homes have been destroyed.

I thought maybe I just didn't take it in because he enrages me so much, but I played that clip twice and still didn't hear anything concrete.
 
Have we had this yet? Apart from insisting they allow the water to flow down from the north instead of coddling the endangered Delta smelt he's demanding voter ID as a condition of future aid.
“I want to see voter ID, so that the people have a chance to vote, and I want to see the water released and come down into Los Angeles and throughout the state,” Trump told reporters.

“After that, I will be the greatest president that California has ever seen,” he said.
 
I think they have to find some way of stopping it, otherwise it sends out a very dangerous message.
Who is 'they'?

Realistically the Danes or allies cannot prevent Trump taking Greenland. The only people who can are other Americans, if there is pushback against military action especially from within the Republican party. I'm unsure of the constitutional rules governing sending troops into another's territory but it's not like it hasn't happened plenty of times before - just not to an 'ally'.
 
Who is 'they'?

Realistically the Danes or allies cannot prevent Trump taking Greenland. The only people who can are other Americans, if there is pushback against military action especially from within the Republican party. I'm unsure of the constitutional rules governing sending troops into another's territory but it's not like it hasn't happened plenty of times before - just not to an 'ally'.

It would certainly present NATO with an interesting conundrum. I wonder if the lawyers have ever explored how to deal with a member state that carries out an act of aggression against another member state?

The "an attack against one is an attack against all" principle suggests to me that the rest of the member states should be obliged to rally to the defence of the state that is subject to the attack, but I haven't read the NATO treaty in any detail. And I have no inclination to do so now!
 
Whenever I hear him speak unscripted, he comes out with a load of waffle that, on closer listening, adds up to the sum total of fuck all. All that "we're gonna get something sorted" could mean anything, from a massive rebuilding programme to a couple of tents for those whose homes have been destroyed.

I thought maybe I just didn't take it in because he enrages me so much, but I played that clip twice and still didn't hear anything concrete.
Whenever he speaks, scripted or not, it's nonsense. A stream of bullshit spewing from his stupid fascist gob.
 
I think Newsom is very tactful and knows he needs help. He thinks of the constituents first. 😉
Well he is a more competent politician than El Cheeto. I would be sorely tempted though to smack that ferret off his head.Whoops, my hand slipped and somehow travelled towards your empty head. Sorry, (not sorry) 😄.

The best way to upset the twat is to humiliate him, with his paper thin ego.
 
Who is 'they'?

Realistically the Danes or allies cannot prevent Trump taking Greenland. The only people who can are other Americans, if there is pushback against military action especially from within the Republican party. I'm unsure of the constitutional rules governing sending troops into another's territory but it's not like it hasn't happened plenty of times before - just not to an 'ally'.
“They” are those who have the power to stand up to him. Denmark is part of the EU and Europe. People kissing his ring and bending over to kiss his arse especially in the US is not the way to deal with him. Stand up to him. He’s not invincible as some might think.
 
It would certainly present NATO with an interesting conundrum. I wonder if the lawyers have ever explored how to deal with a member state that carries out an act of aggression against another member state?

The "an attack against one is an attack against all" principle suggests to me that the rest of the member states should be obliged to rally to the defence of the state that is subject to the attack, but I haven't read the NATO treaty in any detail. And I have no inclination to do so now!
It doesn't matter what the NATO treaty says. The non US countries are not going to take on the US militarily. NATO will effectively be dead, though I suspect the various leaders will decide that because Greenland was a territory rather than part of Denmark they will ignore it and pretend all is fine.
 
Back
Top Bottom