Donald Trump, the road that might not lead to the White House!

[butchersapron]

Mainly nerds, some grits.

I have no idea what you are talking about. "Genetically racist?" WTF pal. Doesn't mean people can't be socialised to be racist, or was apartheid South Africa just one big multicultural holiday camp?

You're really determined to be like this. Fair play for commitment. But again, a foul post.

What on earth is wrong with you?

 

[Yossarian]

To be honest, I don't mind the fact that he rants away on twitter and responds to attacks on him just as you or I would do. Admittedly, the reason he can't stop himself blasting away on twitter is that he's a sociopathic narcissist, but to suggest he shouldn't do that is to buy into the notion that presidents should be lofty and 'presidential'. The fact that he's a gobshite with a short fuse pales into insignificance when it comes to his racism and plans to screw the poor.

He's a gobshite with a short fuse *and* a racist who plans to screw the poor, which is a dangerous combination - what kind of stupid shit is he going to come out with next time there is a big Black Lives Matter protest over a police shooting?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Thanks for the memories! You mean there aren't Hooterville equivalents in Canada!

There are.

 

[CRI]

The others that are bashing Streep are our friends at.....FOX News and the rest of the right wing media.

Yes, and I have to stop scratching my head, wondering why people on this board, seem to agree so damned much and often with them. Well, and the Bernie or Bust camp in America are the same . Horseshoe is looking more like a circle every day.

I think it was Johnny or maybe you that made a point the other week that makes a lot of sense. It was responding to some member who kept bringing up this or that that Hilary did when of she's no out of the frame. I think for some folks here, this really does seem just like an intellectual exercise. That's fair enough - America is far away, Presidents have come and gone in the past couple decade with very little impact on people in the UK, why should it be that different now? The American government under governments of blue and red has done some appalling shit around the world as well as to its own people, so I get the schadenfreude bit.

Finding it harder to understand how members who I'm sure see themselves as being on the left morphing from rhetoric along the lines of, "but Hillary's a crook" and "Bernie would have won," to what looks more obviously like defending, justifying and supporting Trump's words, actions and proposals.

Guess we can all carry on this fun intellectual debate when the siren goes and we scramble to remember the duck and cover routine.

 

[TomUS]

A lot of them are dying, and they also seem quite aware of the satisfaction that gives certain factions in the US . Bush was elected by democrats who preffered his brand of fuckwittery over the other slightly different brand . And I honestly fail to see what difference that actually made to the world . The democrats would have invaded Iraq just as certainly as him .the Clinton administration spent 8 years destroying the place and killed around a million of its people before Bush showed up, with Blairs help . They were every bit as cruel and genocidal and fully supported Bushes crimes .
The only difference it would have made is you'd be defending the Iraq invasion today and making excuses for it . Calling it a well intentioned deed gone sadly wrong, like Libya . Out of innate political tribalism .

I don't think Gore would have invaded Iraq. He wasn't surrounded by the PNAC gang devoted to expanding the American empire and he wasn't dumb enough to invade the wrong country. Afghan yes, Iraq no.

 

[CRI]

Not the 200 000 Democrats in that state that voted Bush. You are just beyond.

The Supreme Court decided the outcome. The delay in announcing who won was my fault though. I was supposed to fly to America to visit my mother in late October, but couldn't take time off. I was pissed because I swore I didn't want to set foot in America if Bush was President. I flew in the day of the election. Supreme Court called it just after I left. My bad.

 

[CRI]

It's horrible. In the 80s J there were people who believed anything out of the ciA was a lie. in the ussr they felt the same as regards the job. These idiots are now asking us to trust them. But I lived in the US 4 decades ago... I def
Know that voting machines were hacked.

Jesus's

But the intelligence service in any country is made up effectively of civil servants, accountable to the government of the day. Governments can choose what they fund them to do and not do, and selectively use what they find for political reasons. The CIA found very little evidence to point to WMDs in Iraq, but the Bush Administration bigged up and selectively released what was there and played on the anger and confusion following 9/11 to push for action in Iraq.

I get mistrust of intelligence services because they've been used to justify vile things since forever. I don't get the idea that with the exception of operatives going "off plan," that intelligence services in any country act independently of orders from their governments.

I definitely don't get what seems to be a willingness to trust Trump and his entourage, coming from both left and right.

 

[CRI]

You have to tell me. You said it. Back it up.


That's a disgusting post. Btw

Muskie - quit the race when it was alleged he said something against French-Canadians and rumours about his wife being mentally ill (turns out both linked to Watergate break in)
Hart - quit the race when an extramarital affair came to light
Biden - quit the race after it was found he'd plagarised an old Neil Kinnock speech.

So, nothing Donald Trump has said, done or proposes to do in Government is as bad as what these three did.

 

[CRI]

You're really determined to be like this. Fair play for commitment. But again, a foul post.

What on earth is wrong with you?

I don't know what's up pal, but you keep misunderstanding me, clearly I'm misunderstanding you, so I think the ignore button will at least sort things from my end. Night night.

 

[little_legs]

Yossarian
I listened to that broadcast when it was first aired and was surprised DN hosted that hypocrite. Men and women like me, really? Like those who have accumulated his net worth? Internment camps for men, really? How about standing up months before the primaries and saying Hillary, you are enabling Trump, and if you have some decency, step aside because you have never and will never connect and resonate with the electorate like Sanders.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I don't think Gore would have invaded Iraq. .

Don't forget that GWB had an axe to grind with Hussein that Gore didn't have:

And, in discussing the threat posed by Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, Bush said: "After all, this is the guy who tried to kill my dad."

CNN.com - Bush calls Saddam 'the guy who tried to kill my dad' - Sep. 27, 2002

 

[CRI]

Don't forget that GWB had an axe to grind with Hussein that Gore didn't have:



CNN.com - Bush calls Saddam 'the guy who tried to kill my dad' - Sep. 27, 2002

Absolutely. Seem to recall there were intelligence reports (you know, from those meanies) pointing to the increased risk of a serious attack on US soil, but Bush had already cut back spending on security. Not saying he wanted 9/11 to happen, but one result was greater willingness among Americans to accept draconian curbs to their own civil liberties (Patriot Act) and military action to prevent anything like that happening again / revenge.

 

[TomUS]

There may be riots at the inauguration. Apparently the right is trying to provoke them.

A left-wing political group released a new video Monday of a counter-sting that has uncovered evidence of right-wing activists trying to sow chaos at Donald Trump’s inaugural ceremony, an effort to portray critics of Trump who march against him as violent fringe figures...The counter-sting, carried out by The Undercurrent and Americans Take Action...managed to surreptitiously record elements of O’Keefe’s network offering huge sums of money to progressive activists if they would disrupt the ceremony and “put a stop to the inauguration” and the related proceedings to such a degree that donors to the clandestine effort would “turn on a TV and maybe not even see Trump.” To have riots blot out coverage of Trump, the donor offered “unlimited resources,” including to shut down bridges into D.C.

Counter-Sting Catches James O'Keefe Network Attempting To Sow Chaos At Trump's Inauguration | The Huffington Post

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Hugh Laurie was critical of the Republicans in his speech at the Golden Globes:

However, none were perhaps quite as hilarious as Hugh Laurie's slice of British pessimism; seeing his dry speech declare that his Best Supporting Actor win for a TV Movie or Limited Series for The Night Manager meant, "I won at the last ever Golden Globes".

"I don't meant to be gloomy, it's just that it has the words Hollywood, Foreign, and Press in the title; I just don't know what...," he joked. "I think to some Republicans even the word association is slightly sketchy."

Hugh Laurie made a hilarious anti-Trump Golden Globes acceptance speech

I note that in 101 Dalmatians, Laurie played the role of Jasper, a British caricature character who's mean to animals.

 

[J Ed]

But the intelligence service in any country is made up effectively of civil servants, accountable to the government of the day. Governments can choose what they fund them to do and not do, and selectively use what they find for political reasons. The CIA found very little evidence to point to WMDs in Iraq, but the Bush Administration bigged up and selectively released what was there and played on the anger and confusion following 9/11 to push for action in Iraq.

I get mistrust of intelligence services because they've been used to justify vile things since forever. I don't get the idea that with the exception of operatives going "off plan," that intelligence services in any country act independently of orders from their governments.

I definitely don't get what seems to be a willingness to trust Trump and his entourage, coming from both left and right.

How is this person still writing this crap?

 

[maomao]

Yes, and I have to stop scratching my head, wondering why people on this board, seem to agree so damned much and often with them. Well, and the Bernie or Bust camp in America are the same . Horseshoe is looking more like a circle every day.

The only horseshoe is in your tiny little mind. If someone criticises Meryl Streep for taking the same condescending tone that got you in this mess in the first place - Trump supporter. If people point out that the CIA are a bunch of international law breaking torturers and mass murderers whose pronouncements serve the government of the day - Trump supporter. If someone disagrees with your thrilling analysis that the people of your home town who only you understand are single-handedly responsible for putting Trump in office - Trump supporter.

I think it was Johnny or maybe you that made a point the other week that makes a lot of sense. It was responding to some member who kept bringing up this or that that Hilary did when of she's no out of the frame. I think for some folks here, this really does seem just like an intellectual exercise. That's fair enough - America is far away, Presidents have come and gone in the past couple decade with very little impact on people in the UK, why should it be that different now? The American government under governments of blue and red has done some appalling shit around the world as well as to its own people, so I get the schadenfreude bit.

Finding it harder to understand how members who I'm sure see themselves as being on the left morphing from rhetoric along the lines of, "but Hillary's a crook" and "Bernie would have won," to what looks more obviously like defending, justifying and supporting Trump's words, actions and proposals.

No-one has done this. You're either a liar or deluded.You don't have the balls, or the evidence, to name a poster or give an example so instead we get this constant weedy little drip by drip smear. You're pathetic and you really have nothing to say.

Guess we can all carry on this fun intellectual debate when the siren goes and we scramble to remember the duck and cover routine.

'Cause that wasn't going to happen at all when Hillary started shooting down Russian and Syrian planes was it. Imbecile.

 

[maomao]

I note that in 101 Dalmatians, Laurie played the role of Jasper, a British caricature character who's mean to animals.

Yes, you've done this 'joke' several times now. We get it. It doesn't even slightly relate to what I actually said though.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

As Trump prepares to go head-to-head with Putin, he must understand what Germany’s Angela Merkel describes as Putin’s “parallel world.” In any negotiation, Putin will be fighting for the survival of his regime and himself. Putin has remarkably turned Ronald Reagan’s “evil empire” on its head. According to the Kremlin narrative, it is the United States and its puppet NATO that are intent on dismembering Russia. The US has become the “evil empire” bent on imposing its corrupt political (after WikiLeaks) and civilizational values on Russia, the last great bastion of Christianity, patriotism, morality, and good will.

Putin justifies his repression of his own people, his sacrifice of economic welfare, his isolation of Russia, and his risky military adventurism as the necessary defense of a “besieged fortress.” Any deal with Trump that establishes a “satisfactory condition” of Russian-American relations removes the justification for Putin’s kleptocracy, Russia’s costly military buildup, and for Putin himself.

Putin’s Stalinesque claim that all social and political unrest is instigated from abroad renders virtually every truckers’ strike, miners’ protest, or critical Facebook posting a CIA, US State Department, or Germany BND operation. External aggression and internal repression blur the distinction between the armed services and national guards and militias which are tasked with domestic security. Putin’s National Guard, commanded by a loyalist, numbers close to 400,000 plus tanks, helicopters, and tanks to “fight terrorism.” A “terrorist” in Putin’s vocabulary is anyone who poses a threat to “the Russian state’” namely to Putin himself.

Official Russian military doctrine asserts that the US wishes a restoration of a hegemonic world in which it is the sole superpower. Russia’s resurgence has spoiled that ambition. The US covets Russia’s natural resources, especially those in Siberia. If Russian state’s ambitious Hitler-Jugend-like youth programs succeed, the West will have problems even after Putin’s departure.

Trump may believe that he has strong cards and Putin has a weak hand. After all, the Russian economy is in the dumps, sanctions limit Russia’s ability to borrow, a US energy surge is keeping energy prices low, and Trump is rebuilding the American armed forces. Currently, the US spends six times more on defense than Russia.

Putin’s cards are, however, stronger than they appear. Internal dissent has been smashed. He has centralized power in his own hands, while Trump must work with allies, who are being pulled apart by national interests and by Russian meddling. Putin’s propaganda machine has kept the Russian people on board despite a defense buildup (to 5.4 percent of GDP) at the sacrifice of living standards (down 15 percent) and public health. Putin can rattle the nuclear saber to offset the US’s stronger military. Unlike the US presidential cycle that requires quick results, Putin can play a long hand with the presumption that time is on his side.

Trump does have one decisive card: The bipartisan approval to supply lethal defensive weapons to Ukraine must keep Putin awake at night. Ukraine has demonstrated that it is prepared to use its blood and treasure to defend its independence. Ukraine, which is expected to resume strong economic growth this year, meets Trump’s criteria of a nation willing and able to defend itself. Unlike President Obama, Trump should have no problem approving the lethal weapons. Whereas Russia has an armed service of one million, Ukraine’s force of more than 200,000, armed with modern weapons and fighting from a defensive posture, could impose heavy casualties on Russian forces. Putin can perhaps bear the financial costs of a Ukrainian campaign, but the loss of lives of young Russian men will bury him.

A successful Ukraine poses the greatest threat to Putin. If Trump is indeed the Master of the Deal, he has a slight chance to use his one ace of spades to get from Putin what he and the American people want. The more likely outcome is an unsuccessful negotiation. No, Russia will not become America’s friend. Vladimir Putin’s regime is based on the US being enemy number one, while Donald Trump cannot enter into any deal that makes him look weak, or worse, like Putin’s puppet.

Why Russia Cannot Become Our Friend: Memo to President Trump

 

[maomao]

I don't know what's up pal, but you keep misunderstanding me, clearly I'm misunderstanding you, so I think the ignore button will at least sort things from my end. Night night.

Clearly you're misunderstanding a lot of people. That's your fault not theirs.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Yes, you've done this 'joke' several times now. We get it. It doesn't even slightly relate to what I actually said though.

maomao said: ↑
Streep's a scumbag for playing Thatcher in her hagiography. I don't really care what she says.
.

 

[maomao]

Yes, I said that. How do you get to your post from that? You're a prick Johnny but you're not that thick.

Streep acted in a film that practically deifies an evil woman who ruined my country. A woman with blood on her hands. Because of this I don't think anything she says, right or wrong, is worth listening to. How does this relate to Hugh Laurie playing a baddie in a kids film?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Yes, I said that. How do you get to your post from that? You're a prick Johnny but you're not that thick.

Streep acted in a film that practically deifies an evil woman who ruined my country. A woman with blood on her hands. Because of this I don't think anything she says, right or wrong, is worth listening to. How does this relate to Hugh Laurie playing a baddie in a kids film?

Some people might be really upset that he played a caricatured British person who is mean to animals, and those people might want to dismiss anything that Laurie has said or will say in future, as a result.

 

[maomao]

Some people might be really upset that he played a caricatured British person who is mean to animals, and those people might want to dismiss anything that Laurie has said or will say in future, as a result.

I don't think these people exist. You disingenuous wanker.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I don't think these people exist. You disingenuous wanker.

Some animal rights activists take this sort of thing very seriously.

 

[maomao]

To clarify, I also have no beef with Anna Massey or Steve Nallon. I know you get your kicks from pretending to take everything at it's most literal possible value Johnny but people don't have to take you seriously when you do it.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Never heard of them.


What I find most fascinating, is that some celebrity makes critical comments about Trump, and a small group of posters rush to disparage her in any aspect of her life they can think of, from the house she lives in, to the roles she's played.

Because she criticized Trump.

Given that this is a so-called leftist board, I'm surprised at the level of vituperation directed at people who criticize Trump, a man who, amongst other things, has selected for his Cabinet a number of millionaire/billionaires who are believers in the Ayn Rand ethic. But then, it's just a small handful of posters who are doing this, even though they work hard to dominate the conversation. I don't believe that the majority of U75 members share their views.

 

[J Ed]

Respect the millionaire celebs

 

[butchersapron]

Almost out crazying the putin assad cultist crayzies on the Syria threads this stuff.

 

[maomao]

Because she criticized Trump.

That's the reason she's been mentioned on the thread, it's not the reason she's been criticised. In fact not a single poster on the thread argued with her direct criticism of Trump's disgusting mocking of the disabled journalist. But you knew that and you're just twisting things to fit the story you want to tell. And with the second highest post count on the thread you're working pretty hard to push that story yourself aren't you?