Donald Trump

rolf_f

Mr Goo wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

Wanting a special relationship with a president that wants to bring back torture, build a wall, deny womens rights, withdraw from the UN, gag scientists, deny affordable healthcare to millions, when america goes low... we go lower

Lots of sweeping statements there. I'm no fan of Trump. But I'd like you to back up your statements with hard facts..

Shouldn't you be asking this of Trump since it was he who stated he wants to do these things?

bianchimoon

Mr Goo wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

Wanting a special relationship with a president that wants to bring back torture, build a wall, deny womens rights, withdraw from the UN, gag scientists, deny affordable healthcare to millions, when america goes low... we go lower

Lots of sweeping statements there. I'm no fan of Trump. But I'd like you to back up your statements with hard facts.
Obama within his first couple of days sanctioned a drone strike which killed innocent civilians. And a couple of days later made a joking comment about it at a party he hosted for his daughters.

Let's get some perspective. Trump ain't a Saint. But neither was Obama or any of the preceeding Presidents.
If Trump stops USA from becoming the world police and not getting involved in conflict and not promoting democracy where it's never existed. Surely that's a good thing rather than the blood shed of the last couple of decades.

Hi Goo, not sure which of my statements you think are factless?
torture? = all over the news this morning and lots of previous comments by trump
Build a wall? = see above
deny womens rights = abortion/family planning Trump said there should be "some sort of punishment" for women who seek abortion if it were outlawed.
withdraw from the UN? = WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is considering actions that would reduce the U.S. commitment to the United Nations and evaluate whether the United States should pull out of multi-national treaties, officials said. Just the start?
Gag scientists? = Donald Trump stopping US government scientists from speaking out publicly is 'chilling'
The American Association for the Advancement of Science warns against 'censorship and intimidation' todays US papers
Deny affordable healthcare to millions? = err repealing obamacare!

bendertherobot

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/01/25/u ... fraud.html

veronese68

As above, all of those statements are known facts and common knowledge. He's even shouting about them pretty loudly himself as he actually seems to be proud of them.
There is no false news there, they are not alternative facts.

rick_chasey

We all know why Goo doesn't like Obama.

TheBigBean

If Obama had prosecuted all the Bush era torturers then Trump would find it a lot harder to bring it back.

veronese68

TheBigBean wrote:

If Obama had prosecuted all the Bush era torturers then Trump would find it a lot harder to bring it back.

I don't think he'll actually bring it back. He said he was in favour of it but his defence man and head of the CIA have both said they didn't think it was a good idea.

Ben6899

Veronese68 wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

If Obama had prosecuted all the Bush era torturers then Trump would find it a lot harder to bring it back.

I don't think he'll actually bring it back. He said he was in favour of it but his defence man and head of the CIA have both said they didn't think it was a good idea.

I'm not sure Trump cares what anyone thinks.

TheBigBean

Veronese68 wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

If Obama had prosecuted all the Bush era torturers then Trump would find it a lot harder to bring it back.

I don't think he'll actually bring it back. He said he was in favour of it but his defence man and head of the CIA have both said they didn't think it was a good idea.

Well that's a positive, but my point still stands.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

We all know why Goo doesn't like Obama.

I don't. Why is that?

Ben6899

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

We all know why Goo doesn't like Obama.

I don't. Why is that?

At your age, Stevo, you really should be able to read between the lines.

bendertherobot

TheBigBean wrote:

If Obama had prosecuted all the Bush era torturers then Trump would find it a lot harder to bring it back.

Can you deal with my alt facts above? ta.

pblakeney

.
.

TheBigBean

bendertherobot wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

If Obama had prosecuted all the Bush era torturers then Trump would find it a lot harder to bring it back.

Can you deal with my alt facts above? ta.

You've lost me. What's that got to do with Obama's failure to prosecute? I'm not defending Trump.

rick_chasey

Well, as much as you thought America was bad, Russia is about to decriminalise wife beating.

bendertherobot

TheBigBean wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

If Obama had prosecuted all the Bush era torturers then Trump would find it a lot harder to bring it back.

Can you deal with my alt facts above? ta.

You've lost me. What's that got to do with Obama's failure to prosecute? I'm not defending Trump.

I quoted a post to get a response to another one. Just did yours, in error, rather than Goo! Soz. :oops:

Goo

"hard facts.
Obama within his first couple of days sanctioned a drone strike which killed innocent civilians. And a couple of days later made a joking comment about it at a party he hosted for his daughters."

Are those hard facts? Or alt facts?

veronese68

TheBigBean wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

If Obama had prosecuted all the Bush era torturers then Trump would find it a lot harder to bring it back.

I don't think he'll actually bring it back. He said he was in favour of it but his defence man and head of the CIA have both said they didn't think it was a good idea.

Well that's a positive, but my point still stands.

Yes. That was intended as an addition to your point, not a contradiction of.

Ben6899 wrote:

I'm not sure Trump cares what anyone thinks.

No, I don't think he does. He said he would go with what they say, but that's meaningless as per your point. But as they are the ones that would be responsible for such matters I suspect (hope) it would stop there.

veronese68

bendertherobot wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

If Obama had prosecuted all the Bush era torturers then Trump would find it a lot harder to bring it back.

Can you deal with my alt facts above? ta.

You've lost me. What's that got to do with Obama's failure to prosecute? I'm not defending Trump.

"hard facts.
Obama within his first couple of days sanctioned a drone strike which killed innocent civilians. And a couple of days later made a joking comment about it at a party he hosted for his daughters."

Are those hard facts? Or al facts?

That was Goo, not Bean.

bendertherobot

Mea culpa my apologies to Bean, Goo step up.

tangled_metal

Rick Chasey wrote:

We all know why Goo doesn't like Obama.

No we don't all know. Do tell, please!

TheBigBean

bendertherobot wrote:

Goo

"hard facts.
Obama within his first couple of days sanctioned a drone strike which killed innocent civilians. And a couple of days later made a joking comment about it at a party he hosted for his daughters."

Are those hard facts? Or alt facts?

No idea, but Obama's record on drones was utterly abysmal. He only ever looked like the shining light of reasonableness because his presidency was sandwiched between Bush and Trump, and it is the US we're talking about.

bendertherobot

TheBigBean wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

Goo

"hard facts.
Obama within his first couple of days sanctioned a drone strike which killed innocent civilians. And a couple of days later made a joking comment about it at a party he hosted for his daughters."

Are those hard facts? Or alt facts?

No idea, but Obama's record on drones was utterly abysmal. He only ever looked like the shining light of reasonableness because his presidency was sandwiched between Bush and Trump, and it is the US we're talking about.

It is. Though relative, technology taking off, preferred to troops on the ground. It's a horrible thing. 11 times Bush, it seems. 540 ish in total?

Trump has done 1 a day so far.

kingstongraham

TheBigBean wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

Goo

"hard facts.
Obama within his first couple of days sanctioned a drone strike which killed innocent civilians. And a couple of days later made a joking comment about it at a party he hosted for his daughters."

Are those hard facts? Or alt facts?

No idea, but Obama's record on drones was utterly abysmal. He only ever looked like the shining light of reasonableness because his presidency was sandwiched between Bush and Trump, and it is the US we're talking about.

http://europe.newsweek.com/drones-silen ... 4909?rm=eu

Jan 23 2009.

bendertherobot

So, that's the original within days, that's a fact. Was the follow up joke about that, within days, or later in relation to Jonas?

Or a year and three months later?

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2010/05/obam-m06.html

orraloon

Pardon my naivety, but the difference between an onboard piloted airborne weapon delivery system strike and a pilotless airborne etc etc strike is? Moral? Legal?

Don't understand the outrage re 'drones'.

finchy

Rick Chasey wrote:

Well, as much as you thought America was bad, Russia is about to decriminalise wife beating.

No it isn't. There's a bill which reduces the punishment for some forms of domestic violence (first offences with no serious injury caused) from jail time to a fine of up to £400. Whatever your views on the appropriate punishment for such offences, this is not the same as decriminalising wife beating.

rick_chasey

finchy wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Well, as much as you thought America was bad, Russia is about to decriminalise wife beating.

No it isn't. There's a bill which reduces the punishment for some forms of domestic violence (first offences with no serious injury caused) from jail time to a fine of up to £400. Whatever your views on the appropriate punishment for such offences, this is not the same as decriminalising wife beating.

They also get a year pardon.

So you can beat your wife for a year.

There are also changes to how it is prosecuted, with the victim taking responsibility to collect evidence and a case - so in reality it will mean most men will get away with it.

finchy

orraloon wrote:

Pardon my naivety, but the difference between an onboard piloted airborne weapon delivery system strike and a pilotless airborne etc etc strike is? Moral? Legal?

Don't understand the outrage re 'drones'.

I've read eyewitness reports from Pakistan and Afghanistan that because drones are so active (cheaper to fly and less risk to the US Air Force) and also slower, so take more time to pass over targets and non-targets alike, that they are causing real psychological distress to the people on the ground in villages which have previously been hit, especially for children.

finchy

Rick Chasey wrote:

finchy wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Well, as much as you thought America was bad, Russia is about to decriminalise wife beating.

No it isn't. There's a bill which reduces the punishment for some forms of domestic violence (first offences with no serious injury caused) from jail time to a fine of up to £400. Whatever your views on the appropriate punishment for such offences, this is not the same as decriminalising wife beating.

They also get a year pardon.

So you can beat your wife for a year.

That's still not decriminalisation. It's completely and utterly unacceptable, as is the language being used by Russian MPs on the subject, especially given the levels of domestic violence in Russia, but reducing punishments or even offering pardons in certain circumstances is not the same as decriminalisation.

finchy

And just to make the Russian law seem even worse, it was introduced by a woman, who said "a man beating his wife is less offensive than when a woman humiliates a man.”