Donald Trump
Comments
-
Even more worryingly, they are allegedly cleverer than us.In the US, they are killing each other with guns at a rate of roughly 8500 per annum and they're paranoid about terrorism... Hmm.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Even more worryingly, they are allegedly cleverer than us.In the US, they are killing each other with guns at a rate of roughly 8500 per annum and they're paranoid about terrorism... Hmm.
At the same time, there are 2,034 violent crimes per 100,000 people in the UK as opposed to 466 per 100,000 people in the U.S. Making Briatin 4 times more violent.
And yes, generally the U.S. Is making more advances in technology, film, music, fashion, literature, industry, etc than Britain.
If you're discussing gun crime, you have to remember that basically no one in Britain owns a gun - they just stab and glass each other, whereas in the U.S. Firearms ownership is legal and therefore gun crime is higher.
Be interesting to compare illegal gun ownership crime levels levels though.
PB: in the nicest possible way: Britain- it's not that great.Postby team47b » Sun Jun 28, 2015 11:53 am
De Sisti wrote:
This is one of the silliest threads I've come across.
Recognition at last Matthew, well done!, a justified honoursmithy21 wrote:
He's right you know.0 -
Hmmm.
Even more worryingly, they are allegedly cleverer than us.In the US, they are killing each other with guns at a rate of roughly 8500 per annum and they're paranoid about terrorism... Hmm.
At the same time, there are 2,034 violent crimes per 100,000 people in the UK as opposed to 466 per 100,000 people in the U.S. Making Briatin 4 times more violent.
And yes, generally the U.S. Is making more advances in technology, film, music, fashion, literature, industry, etc than Britain.
If you're discussing gun crime, you have to remember that basically no one in Britain owns a gun - they just stab and glass each other, whereas in the U.S. Firearms ownership is legal and therefore gun crime is higher.
Be interesting to compare illegal gun ownership crime levels levels though.
PB: in the nicest possible way: Britain- it's not that great.
Murders per 100,000?The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
12,253 total murders in the U.S., total population 318,900,000
653 murders in the UK, total population 64,100,000
Actually not too bad I'd say..........Postby team47b » Sun Jun 28, 2015 11:53 am
De Sisti wrote:
This is one of the silliest threads I've come across.
Recognition at last Matthew, well done!, a justified honoursmithy21 wrote:
He's right you know.0 -
So it is safer over there, the weather can be better, and people are less miserable.12,253 total murders in the U.S., total population 318,900,000
653 murders in the UK, total population 64,100,000
Actually not too bad I'd say..........
Why are we here?The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
So it is safer over there, the weather can be better, and people are less miserable.12,253 total murders in the U.S., total population 318,900,000
653 murders in the UK, total population 64,100,000
Actually not too bad I'd say..........
Why are we here?
How do these stats make the US more safe? Every time I get murdered over here, you'll get murdered four times over there!
PS - we are here because the UK and Europe is simply a far more interesting and nice place to live than the US!Faster than a tent.......0 -
You are correct.
So it is safer over there, the weather can be better, and people are less miserable.12,253 total murders in the U.S., total population 318,900,000
653 murders in the UK, total population 64,100,000
Actually not too bad I'd say..........
Why are we here?
How do these stats make the US more safe? Every time I get murdered over here, you'll get murdered four times over there!
PS - we are here because the UK and Europe is simply a far more interesting and nice place to live than the US!
I hadn't got my calculator out and assumed Matthew was making a point.
I guess the point was that we are here because it is better.
Weather apart.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Instead of playing ping-pong, the point that I was trying to make was that an American in his own country is far more likely to be killed by a fellow American with a gun. If I could find the statistics, venomous snakes, mosquito's, spiders, RTA's and influenza pose a bigger threat than a terrorist.
American paranoia always stems from a distant, intangible and mis-understood threat - from Communism and now to the fundamentalist Muslim. It fits in with the religious backdrop of Heaven and Hell, good and evil.
The old world versus the new world. One set of religious values versus another set of religious values and sometimes, I cannot see the difference.
Capital punishment remains in the US. It often boils down to the financial ability of the plaintiff to defend themselves whether or not they successfully appeal. This massive imbalance in the judicial system, further underlines inherent internal hypocrisies to which they seem to be blind to. I think that the execution of criminals who have supposedly been convicted of murder through a system which is grossly flawed is equal to the flawed principles of those that purport to the values of an Islamic state.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
So it is safer over there, the weather can be better, and people are less miserable.12,253 total murders in the U.S., total population 318,900,000
653 murders in the UK, total population 64,100,000
Actually not too bad I'd say..........
Why are we here?
You tell me my friend, you tell me.
To tell the truth, unless you live that idyllic Times Magazine lifestyle ,Britain doesn't actually hold a lot for the average Joe - rubbish weather, austerity, rising crime rates, rising prices, dropping educational levels, UKIP, Russell Brand, etc etc etc.
Rather you than me ......Postby team47b » Sun Jun 28, 2015 11:53 am
De Sisti wrote:
This is one of the silliest threads I've come across.
Recognition at last Matthew, well done!, a justified honoursmithy21 wrote:
He's right you know.0 -
Except that many of those things are actually myths: crime rates have been going down for years, austerity is a political fiction as government spending keeps on going up, inflation is at 0%, etc*. Maybe the pervasive pessimism is the most unattractive thing about the UK?To tell the truth, unless you live that idyllic Times Magazine lifestyle ,Britain doesn't actually hold a lot for the average Joe - rubbish weather, austerity, rising crime rates, rising prices, dropping educational levels, UKIP, Russell Brand, etc etc etc.
*I'll grant you, UKIP and Russell Brand could make anyone want to emigrate. But think about it... is there any country that doesn't have ridiculous political parties or mouthy celebrities?0 -
I like ping pong.
I am still searching for Utopia.
New Zealand came close but it could completely blow up one day. That could ruin a ride.
At least Donald Trump isn't there.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Except that many of those things are actually myths: crime rates have been going down for years, austerity is a political fiction as government spending keeps on going up, inflation is at 0%, etc*. Maybe the pervasive pessimism is the most unattractive thing about the UK?To tell the truth, unless you live that idyllic Times Magazine lifestyle ,Britain doesn't actually hold a lot for the average Joe - rubbish weather, austerity, rising crime rates, rising prices, dropping educational levels, UKIP, Russell Brand, etc etc etc.
*I'll grant you, UKIP and Russell Brand could make anyone want to emigrate. But think about it... is there any country that doesn't have ridiculous political parties or mouthy celebrities?0 -
This whole Trump thing is getting curiouser and curiouser...
I am sure it isn't a spoof, but every time I assure myself that it isn't, it gets a little more spooflike.
I saw/heard an interesting interview on Joe Scarborough's bit on MSNBC. Scarborough is hardly the last of the progressive pinko types.... quite the opposite. But even on his show Trump began to rant and ramble like one of those pissed-up folk on a night bus on the way home from a long session.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixLinp_T-WQ
I really don't want it to be a spoof, but his candidacy is getting more and more like one. He wants to speak to Bill Gates about shutting the Internet.... He met Putin when they were on the same TV show.... in segments filmed thousands of miles apart.
His rhetoric is scarily childlike - as is his apparently almost pathological need to splatter his speeches with insults.
The constant interruptions and raised-hand "excuse me" moments during interviews are just odd and slightly barrow-boy at the vegetable market.
There was an interesting comparison made by a Colonel Tom Moe (sadly at a John Kasich meeting) to the Niemoller poem.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZ-pvH6_EMM
Further, the stuff about London was just wack. Much of what he's saying is just wack. And his supporters.... they do not come across as people who have a fondness (or indeed a relationship) with thought or the printd word.
He will wreck the (already lamentable) GOP side of the election and Hilary will be more of a shoo-in than she already was.0 -
I don't really think Trump believes most of the stuff he comes out with, he's a salesman / showman whose seat-of-the-pants guesses as to what will play well with the crowd tend to be quite shrewd. A fair bit of stuff in the press pointing out how his "opinions" have zig-zigged around over the years.He will wreck the (already lamentable) GOP side of the election and Hilary will be more of a shoo-in than she already was.
But I think you've hit on the real problem with all this. Just like his mirror-image Corbyn over here, a joke politician on one side massively reduces the necessary pressure on the other to stay reasonable, honest and competent. There are some pretty big reasons to think that Clinton would be a very poor president, but she really can't lose here, can she? I know who I would vote for if I was over there, and I really am not a fan of the Clintons.
On the other hand, I'm not sure how many of the other republicans impress me, or even look sane and competent - goodness only knows what they look like to those forumites who would assume I'm a swivel-eyed right wing loony.0 -
You are correct.
So it is safer over there, the weather can be better, and people are less miserable.12,253 total murders in the U.S., total population 318,900,000
653 murders in the UK, total population 64,100,000
Actually not too bad I'd say..........
Why are we here?
How do these stats make the US more safe? Every time I get murdered over here, you'll get murdered four times over there!
PS - we are here because the UK and Europe is simply a far more interesting and nice place to live than the US!
I hadn't got my calculator out and assumed Matthew was making a point.
I guess the point was that we are here because it is better.
Weather apart.
Naah, not even weather apart. If it didn't rain, the place wouldn't be so nice and green. Could do with a bit nicer summers but even so, there's not so many places in the States whose weather I'd favour over ours. Doesn't rain too much (mostly.....), we don't really get hurricanes, it doesn't get that cold, it doesn't get that hot. The people who whinge about the weather here would whinge about the weather just as much over there. If you are a whiner you are a whiner whatever your circumstances!Faster than a tent.......0 -
Normally I'd agree with you........ Doesn't rain too much (mostly.....), we don't really get hurricanes, it doesn't get that cold, it doesn't get that hot. The people who whinge about the weather here would whinge about the weather just as much over there. If you are a whiner you are a whiner whatever your circumstances!
But I haven't been able to get out on the road since the 1st November in anything resembling pleasurable weather for cycling.
It is starting to pee me off. Maybe I'm turning into (more of) a whiner.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Just like his mirror-image Corbyn over here, a joke politician on one side massively reduces the necessary pressure on the other to stay reasonable, honest and competent.He will wreck the (already lamentable) GOP side of the election and Hilary will be more of a shoo-in than she already was.
Whilst I realise that there are entrenched views such as your own, to make the comparison between Trump and Corbyn, between one seemingly irrational person with a rational person who's views that do not match yours, is quite frankly, a ludicrous suggestion.
Corbyn has never spouted bigotry. Corbyn is not a man who is only serving self interest and profiteering. I couldn't see Corbyn ever endorsing the building of a golf course in an environmentally sensitive piece of land.
Before you jump on the 'that's leftie bollox', I don't endorse Corbyn.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Just like his mirror-image Corbyn over here, a joke politician on one side massively reduces the necessary pressure on the other to stay reasonable, honest and competent.He will wreck the (already lamentable) GOP side of the election and Hilary will be more of a shoo-in than she already was.
Whilst I realise that there are entrenched views such as your own, to make the comparison between Trump and Corbyn, between one seemingly irrational person with a rational person who's views that do not match yours, is quite frankly, a ludicrous suggestion.
Corbyn has never spouted bigotry. Corbyn is not a man who is only serving self interest and profiteering. I couldn't see Corbyn ever endorsing the building of a golf course in an environmentally sensitive piece of land.
Before you jump on the 'that's leftie bollox', I don't endorse Corbyn.
But I do endorse him and I think that someone who sticks up for his beliefs, thought, past and true policies of his party should, even if don't agree with them be admired.
I don't know Bompy's political leanings (although I can kinda guess, and it may involve the Daily Mail) but for someone sticking to his guns no matter what anyone says you can't beat Jeremy.Postby team47b » Sun Jun 28, 2015 11:53 am
De Sisti wrote:
This is one of the silliest threads I've come across.
Recognition at last Matthew, well done!, a justified honoursmithy21 wrote:
He's right you know.0 -
But I do endorse him and I think that someone who sticks up for his beliefs, thought, past and true policies of his party should, even if don't agree with them be admired.
Didn't do Blair any good.
Politics is about grubby pragmatism. That was Blair's greatest strength and what won him 3 elections.
His weakness was his conviction political streak; and he was (and still is) convinced about involvement in Iraq.
People who applaud people 'sticking up for beliefs' miss the point, entirely. Politicians use it almost exclusively use it as a backhanded compliment.
'Standing up for their beliefs' basically means; populist and/or unsophisticated politician, who will struggle to persuade people to get things done their way.0 -
Come on Rick, Blair met Bush and after that he thought he was an apostle.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0
-
Whereas not standing up for your beliefs means getting things done in other people's way.'Standing up for their beliefs' basically means; populist and/or unsophisticated politician, who will struggle to persuade people to get things done their way.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Come on Rick, Bliarwas a lying cheating scum who was so obsessed with getting into power and leaving a self proclaimed legacy that he would do anything, even if it meant dragging the country into an illegal war.
No way can the way he destroyed the Labour Party's principles and permanently soiled their history be compared to Corbyn who is trying to get the Party back to its grass roots.
Sort of shocked that someone like you would think that Bliar was even fit to be on the sole of the shoe of the Labour Party.Postby team47b » Sun Jun 28, 2015 11:53 am
De Sisti wrote:
This is one of the silliest threads I've come across.
Recognition at last Matthew, well done!, a justified honoursmithy21 wrote:
He's right you know.0 -
Come on Rick, Bliarwas a lying cheating scum who was so obsessed with getting into power and leaving a self proclaimed legacy that he would do anything, even if it meant dragging the country into an illegal war.
No way can the way he destroyed the Labour Party's principles and permanently soiled their history be compared to Corbyn who is trying to get the Party back to its grass roots.
Sort of shocked that someone like you would think that Bliar was even fit to be on the sole of the shoe of the Labour Party.
He's the only Labour leader to be consecutively re-elected. He was the first Labour prime minster since the '70s.
I'd argue the reason the Conservative party spend more time in power than Labour is because they are much more hard-headed about the pragmatism and grubbiness that you sometimes need.
It's all very well talking about Corbyn as some great orifice of virtue, but ultimately, politics is about being able to do what you want to do.
Blair was one of the most popular prime ministers ever (judging by the number who voted for him), and that gave him the mandate to enact all sorts of things that Labour wouldn't had a chance to otherwise.
If you're a Labour supporter you can bitch and moan, but Blair gave Labour the chance to actually govern. For 12 years. Before that it was Callaghan FFS. That's a long time ago.
If you support Labour, would you have rather had another 15 years of Tory rule, all for a conviction politician?
Come on. Get real.
And let's be clear. He didn't go to war because he wanted to get into power.
He let his pragmatic streak slip and went all conviction on everyone and was convinced, despite advice and opinion saying otherwise, that it was the right thing to do.0 -
Whereas not standing up for your beliefs means getting things done in other people's way.'Standing up for their beliefs' basically means; populist and/or unsophisticated politician, who will struggle to persuade people to get things done their way.
Not necessarily. But compromising and getting something done is better than not compromising and getting nothing done.
Being uncompromising isn't a strength. It's a weakness.0 -
For all intents and purposes, that is exactly what we had. I struggle to see the difference in policies from 1980 right through to 2015.If you support Labour, would you have rather had another 15 years of Tory rule, all for a conviction politician?The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
For all intents and purposes, that is exactly what we had. I struggle to see the difference in policies from 1980 right through to 2015.If you support Labour, would you have rather had another 15 years of Tory rule, all for a conviction politician?
*facepalm*
So you think all those state functions that you so wish Osbourne wasn't cutting to the bone and some were put in by Thatcher or Major??0 -
Take away the names and faces.
For all intents and purposes, that is exactly what we had. I struggle to see the difference in policies from 1980 right through to 2015.If you support Labour, would you have rather had another 15 years of Tory rule, all for a conviction politician?
*facepalm*
So you think all those state functions that you so wish Osbourne wasn't cutting to the bone and some were put in by Thatcher or Major??
The policies remain.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
So, back to Trump.......
How many have signed the petition?0 -
I have.
Along with 535445 others.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Just as bad as he is if you sign it.
"I don't like something? Ban it, ban it now!!!!!"
Good job I don't behave like that on here
0
