Donald Trump

briantrumpet

PBlakeney wrote:

Any reports on Trump's thoughts about what happened a few hundred miles north?
Seems (un)surprisingly quiet.

Apparently he did phone - "Trump called Trudeau on Monday to express his condolences and offer assistance."

pblakeney

briantrumpet wrote:

Apparently he did phone - "Trump called Trudeau on Monday to express his condolences and offer assistance."

Google says - Spicer said - "It's a terrible reminder of why we must remain vigilant and why the president is taking steps to be pro-active, rather re-active, when it comes to our nation's safety and security."
They are aware who were the victims, and who were the perpetrators?

briantrumpet

PBlakeney wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Any reports on Trump's thoughts about what happened a few hundred miles north?
Seems (un)surprisingly quiet.

Google says - Spicer said - "It's a terrible reminder of why we must remain vigilant and why the president is taking steps to be pro-active, rather re-active, when it comes to our nation's safety and security."
They are aware who were the victims, and who were the perpetrators?

That's a relief - for a moment there I thought he was losing his touch.

veronese68

briantrumpet wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Am i the only one that thinks it is wrong that we sorted out our own dual nationals and stopped for cakes and medals? If Mo Farah was so affronted he would refuse to return there.

No you're not. "Oh, that's OK then" is hardly the way to make a point of humanitarian principle.

Far from alone, and on many things SC.

DeVlaeminck

Rick Chasey wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Am i the only one that thinks it is wrong that we sorted out our own dual nationals and stopped for cakes and medals? If Mo Farah was so affronted he would refuse to return there.

The underlying assumption in Brexit quite close to Trumpism. That the world is a hostile place and Britain needs to look after itself, and not be hamstrung doing so.

Similarly, the way in which the Brexit debate descending into an assumption that everything in international politics is merely transactional follows that too.

"Ha ha rest of the world - we got an exception for our guys - that's a competitive advantage!".

Yes that's probably true - the nation state seems to be predicated on countries having their own interests which they then pursue in competition with others. It's a great big collective action problem.

What we need is some kind of pan European political structure we could join which would then work collectively towards an optimal outcome.

rjsterry

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

I only agree with DT on one policy and that is his approach taken to NATO...

If I may.

If you only agree with one of DT's policies (the NATO one), then by deduction you disagree with the remainder of his policies. Right?

Rick had a bit of a rant about DT in the EU thread (yes it is relevant to that) and you told him he has "out of touch leftie views".

So which is it?

I don't know his policy on the EU except that he was a Brexit supporter. It there a declared policy behind either? If so, I'll read up on them and maybe increase my count to 3

He is 0 from 3 for his views on the last three major political events. He rolled all three of them together for a rant and was mostly off topic for the thread. TM is doing what she has to do as leader of this country regarding meeting the leader of the US. It was full-on a leftie rant.

Based on his recent record, his views are out of touch with those of the country but is happy to reside here and ride on the success this country is

What does "ride on the success of this country" mean? In what way is he "riding" on anything that he isn't completely entitled to? There is no such thing as a monolithic "view of the country", nor is there any need to subscribe to a particular political viewpoint as some sort of requirement of residence.

Edit: rather late posting this, but it needs calling out.

rjsterry

Veronese68 wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Am i the only one that thinks it is wrong that we sorted out our own dual nationals and stopped for cakes and medals? If Mo Farah was so affronted he would refuse to return there.

No you're not. "Oh, that's OK then" is hardly the way to make a point of humanitarian principle.

Far from alone, and on many things SC.

It's not as though we didn't have to scrabble for it either. A great deal was made of us not throwing away all that had been achieved in May's visit to the US, but it seems 'all' wasn't that much.

bendertherobot

Anyhow, clients sack their lawyers all the time, nothing to see here.

veronese68

bendertherobot wrote:

Anyhow, clients sack their lawyers all the time, nothing to see here.

Not just the hissy fit of a petulant child? That's alright then.

bendertherobot

Sorry, did I miss a smiley? There are a few points. In fairness, she was on her way out. She's there till Jeff Sessions gets confirmed.

But, the thing is, she is the senior lawyer giving advice on law. We know that the EO was not run past justice at all. It's absolutely right that she call it out and that she be free of criticism for doing so.

What's even more concerning is that Boente was already defending actions in his state brought against the EO so Trump knew this would be a yes man before appointment.

But, that is the thing with Trump, over the years he's doubtless got rid of many lawyers who've disagreed with him. He's bringing that approach into the White House. Dangerous.

rjsterry

Veronese68 wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

Anyhow, clients sack their lawyers all the time, nothing to see here.

Not just the hissy fit of a petulant child? That's alright then.

I wonder how many more people he will have to replace? That link a couple of pages back suggested that this was part of the plan, deliberately leaving the various government departments understaffed at the top, which allows more executive orders to go unchecked.

bendertherobot

rjsterry wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

Anyhow, clients sack their lawyers all the time, nothing to see here.

Not just the hissy fit of a petulant child? That's alright then.

I wonder how many more people he will have to replace? That link a couple of pages back suggested that this was part of the plan, deliberately leaving the various government departments understaffed at the top, which allows more executive orders to go unchecked.

It could be, but he's not having them checked. It's suggested that the travel ban went as far as two White House staff.

bendertherobot

And if anyone wants to know what Sally was like or how republicans liked her as well.

https://twitter.com/yashar/status/826311412452564993

benws1

briantrumpet wrote:

benws1 wrote:

I must admit that I'm finding this whole thing rather amusing. There are a lot of angry people around.

It could be worse. Clinton could have won. :shock:

People need to stay angry - part of the plan will be to wear people down so they just shrug their shoulders at subsequent outrages. Though if you don't think targeting people for the religion of a country they were born in is outrageous, and is just amusing...

It's all quite amusing. It's so silly, it has to be.

Personally, I don't see the point in raising my blood pressure over something I cannot control. Do you honestly think that all these angry people will change anything?

Let's not even get into the detail of how pathetic everything is based on religion too (that's for another thread). If people want to worship a book, so be it. However, killing each other because your god is 'the right one' is such a bizarre idea.

That's reminded me. One thing I do find odd at presidential inaugurations is the swearing of an oath on a bible. Right, so sticking one hand on a book and saying you will do this and that guarantees you will do right? Yeah, sure.

surrey_commuter

benws1 wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

benws1 wrote:

I must admit that I'm finding this whole thing rather amusing. There are a lot of angry people around.

It could be worse. Clinton could have won. :shock:

People need to stay angry - part of the plan will be to wear people down so they just shrug their shoulders at subsequent outrages. Though if you don't think targeting people for the religion of a country they were born in is outrageous, and is just amusing...

It's all quite amusing. It's so silly, it has to be.

Personally, I don't see the point in raising my blood pressure over something I cannot control. Do you honestly think that all these angry people will change anything?

Let's not even get into the detail of how pathetic everything is based on religion too (that's for another thread). If people want to worship a book, so be it. However, killing each other because your god is 'the right one' is such a bizarre idea.

That's reminded me. One thing I do find odd at presidential inaugurations is the swearing of an oath on a bible. Right, so sticking one hand on a book and saying you will do this and that guarantees you will do right? Yeah, sure.

Amusing if you live on a trailer park in Tennessee... less amusing if you have business/ life in the USA and you have links to those seven countries or you perceive your country of origin to be on the next list.

benws1

Surrey Commuter wrote:

benws1 wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

benws1 wrote:

I must admit that I'm finding this whole thing rather amusing. There are a lot of angry people around.

It could be worse. Clinton could have won. :shock:

People need to stay angry - part of the plan will be to wear people down so they just shrug their shoulders at subsequent outrages. Though if you don't think targeting people for the religion of a country they were born in is outrageous, and is just amusing...

It's all quite amusing. It's so silly, it has to be.

Personally, I don't see the point in raising my blood pressure over something I cannot control. Do you honestly think that all these angry people will change anything?

Let's not even get into the detail of how pathetic everything is based on religion too (that's for another thread). If people want to worship a book, so be it. However, killing each other because your god is 'the right one' is such a bizarre idea.

That's reminded me. One thing I do find odd at presidential inaugurations is the swearing of an oath on a bible. Right, so sticking one hand on a book and saying you will do this and that guarantees you will do right? Yeah, sure.

Amusing if you live on a trailer park in Tennessee... less amusing if you have business/ life in the USA and you have links to those seven countries or you perceive your country of origin to be on the next list.

That's your opinion. I have mine.

Any country that makes you swear an oath on a book has the potential to be just as backwards as anywhere else.

kingstongraham

bendertherobot wrote:

And if anyone wants to know what Sally was like or how republicans liked her as well.

https://twitter.com/yashar/status/826311412452564993

https://twitter.com/yashar/status/82632 ... 22336?s=09

It's almost impossible that this could exist. Trump's incoming replacement telling her to do what she just got sacked for. On immigration.

Bobbinogs

...more bemusement from here in the shires.

I honestly don't get why some many seem so desperate to appear distraught if Trump/America wants to ban travel to/from 7 countries for 90 days. When one considers all the things in the world to get vexed about, this doesn't get on my list or anywhere near it.

We have entertained China and Russia on royal visits and they were, and still very much are, on the naughty step.

surrey_commuter

benws1 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

benws1 wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

benws1 wrote:

I must admit that I'm finding this whole thing rather amusing. There are a lot of angry people around.

It could be worse. Clinton could have won. :shock:

People need to stay angry - part of the plan will be to wear people down so they just shrug their shoulders at subsequent outrages. Though if you don't think targeting people for the religion of a country they were born in is outrageous, and is just amusing...

It's all quite amusing. It's so silly, it has to be.

Personally, I don't see the point in raising my blood pressure over something I cannot control. Do you honestly think that all these angry people will change anything?

Let's not even get into the detail of how pathetic everything is based on religion too (that's for another thread). If people want to worship a book, so be it. However, killing each other because your god is 'the right one' is such a bizarre idea.

That's reminded me. One thing I do find odd at presidential inaugurations is the swearing of an oath on a bible. Right, so sticking one hand on a book and saying you will do this and that guarantees you will do right? Yeah, sure.

Amusing if you live on a trailer park in Tennessee... less amusing if you have business/ life in the USA and you have links to those seven countries or you perceive your country of origin to be on the next list.

That's your opinion. I have mine.

Any country that makes you swear an oath on a book has the potential to be just as backwards as anywhere else.

You are right - what tipped Trump over the edge was the presence of the bible at his inauguration

mr_goo

rjsterry wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

Can't quite understand the furore over the 7 country, 90 day ban and the subsequent petition to stop Trump's state visit to the UK.
First off over the last couple of years our royal family have met with some heads of state from countries with atrocious human rights and animal rights records.
Secondly where are the petitions and demonstrations about Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other Muslim majority countries banning Israeli citizens from entering their countries. And I also believe that if ones' passport has an Israeli visa stamp in it one is still not permitted to gain entry (I'd like clarification on this, but it was discussed on Radio 5 today).

Trump is a berk. But where is the balanced view?

The USA aspires (aspired?) to a higher standard than some of the other countries you mention. It also has significantly more power in the world than Qatar or Saudi Arabia.

This is already affecting UK citizens with dual nationality. Trump is testing the checks and balances of the US system to see what he can get away with, which should concern all of us.

Are people absolutely consistent in who or what they protest against? Of course not, but that doesn't invalidate their concerns over Trump.

Doesn't every new leader check how far they can push things? Some have been in power along time and really push their luck.

I would just just like to have seen people demonstrating outside the Saudi and Qatari embassies about 'their' xenophobic policies. But alas nobody seems to come to the defence of Jewish people in the modern age. Seems to me that society thinks it did their bit in WW2 and subsequent creation of Israel and have moved on trying to defend the rights of another religion. That's where I want to see balanced argument.

benws1

Surrey Commuter wrote:

benws1 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

benws1 wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

benws1 wrote:

I must admit that I'm finding this whole thing rather amusing. There are a lot of angry people around.

It could be worse. Clinton could have won. :shock:

People need to stay angry - part of the plan will be to wear people down so they just shrug their shoulders at subsequent outrages. Though if you don't think targeting people for the religion of a country they were born in is outrageous, and is just amusing...

It's all quite amusing. It's so silly, it has to be.

Personally, I don't see the point in raising my blood pressure over something I cannot control. Do you honestly think that all these angry people will change anything?

Let's not even get into the detail of how pathetic everything is based on religion too (that's for another thread). If people want to worship a book, so be it. However, killing each other because your god is 'the right one' is such a bizarre idea.

That's reminded me. One thing I do find odd at presidential inaugurations is the swearing of an oath on a bible. Right, so sticking one hand on a book and saying you will do this and that guarantees you will do right? Yeah, sure.

Amusing if you live on a trailer park in Tennessee... less amusing if you have business/ life in the USA and you have links to those seven countries or you perceive your country of origin to be on the next list.

That's your opinion. I have mine.

Any country that makes you swear an oath on a book has the potential to be just as backwards as anywhere else.

You are right - what tipped Trump over the edge was the presence of the bible at his inauguration

Can you see my point though? We call extremists mad because they are willing to blow themselves up or kill others in the name of the 'correct' god. Yet, when a new president is sworn in, he has to swear to their god that he will do right.

History is littered with terrible actions undertaken in the name of religion. Here we are in 2017 as a much more advanced (in some cases) civilisation, still swearing on a book. There are a lot of people in the world who believe this stuff. That's their decision. However, I personally think our energy is better channelled into science and understanding the universe (getting off Earth would be a major step).

A lot of people are pi**ed that Trump was elected. Trouble is, he was elected. The system that was used to select the next president worked and a candidate won. To many he isn't what they wanted. However, he won. He has policies that many find extreme. There are many that agree with him though.

There are places in the world that have far more extreme policies, but some flock to them and say how great they are. Look at China, Dubai, India for example. These are quite oppressive, restrictive places. We buy lots from China because it's cheap. I have heard that it is cheap for a reason, but people keep buying things like iPhones. I know of people who love going to Dubai. Yet the country has a dim view on certain items of pain relief and public shows of affection. India can be brutal in terms of acts against women and the way some people live in true poverty. Yet the last company I worked with fell over themselves to do business with them and buy their vegetables. They get foreign aid too.

The world seems to be in outrage against Trump, but his policies in the grand scheme of things aren't that terrible. It's not like he has ordered the execution of some men because they are homosexual, for instance.

What really makes me laugh though is the protests that have happened recently. Some people used it as an excuse to smash up parts of a city; that achieved a lot didn't it. Some people are doing it because they don't like his 'oppressive' travel ban. How many people who have flocked to social media to share their disdain have probably done so via an iPhone? An iPhone assembled in China who we know to have questionable human rights records.

*In relation to the iPhone, Trump has actually said that he wants Apple to assemble more stuff in the US.

narbs

Interesting on Bannon....

http://www.palmerreport.com/opinion/tru ... ncil/1282/

benws1

Bobbinogs wrote:

...more bemusement from here in the shires.

I honestly don't get why some many seem so desperate to appear distraught if Trump/America wants to ban travel to/from 7 countries for 90 days. When one considers all the things in the world to get vexed about, this doesn't get on my list or anywhere near it.

We have entertained China and Russia on royal visits and they were, and still very much are, on the naughty step.

I guess us Shires people see things differently.

kingstongraham

Bobbinogs wrote:

...more bemusement from here in the shires.

I honestly don't get why some many seem so desperate to appear distraught if Trump/America wants to ban travel to/from 7 countries for 90 days. When one considers all the things in the world to get vexed about, this doesn't get on my list or anywhere near it.

We have entertained China and Russia on royal visits and they were, and still very much are, on the naughty step.

Is holding the USA to a higher standard than we insist from other foreign countries like China, UAE, Saudi etc a little bit racist?

surrey_commuter

benws1 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

benws1 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

benws1 wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

benws1 wrote:

I must admit that I'm finding this whole thing rather amusing. There are a lot of angry people around.

It could be worse. Clinton could have won. :shock:

People need to stay angry - part of the plan will be to wear people down so they just shrug their shoulders at subsequent outrages. Though if you don't think targeting people for the religion of a country they were born in is outrageous, and is just amusing...

It's all quite amusing. It's so silly, it has to be.

Personally, I don't see the point in raising my blood pressure over something I cannot control. Do you honestly think that all these angry people will change anything?

Let's not even get into the detail of how pathetic everything is based on religion too (that's for another thread). If people want to worship a book, so be it. However, killing each other because your god is 'the right one' is such a bizarre idea.

That's reminded me. One thing I do find odd at presidential inaugurations is the swearing of an oath on a bible. Right, so sticking one hand on a book and saying you will do this and that guarantees you will do right? Yeah, sure.

Amusing if you live on a trailer park in Tennessee... less amusing if you have business/ life in the USA and you have links to those seven countries or you perceive your country of origin to be on the next list.

That's your opinion. I have mine.

Any country that makes you swear an oath on a book has the potential to be just as backwards as anywhere else.

You are right - what tipped Trump over the edge was the presence of the bible at his inauguration

Can you see my point though? We call extremists mad because they are willing to blow themselves up or kill others in the name of the 'correct' god. Yet, when a new president is sworn in, he has to swear to their god that he will do right.

History is littered with terrible actions undertaken in the name of religion. Here we are in 2017 as a much more advanced (in some cases) civilisation, still swearing on a book. There are a lot of people in the world who believe this stuff. That's their decision. However, I personally think our energy is better channelled into science and understanding the universe (getting off Earth would be a major step).

A lot of people are pi**ed that Trump was elected. Trouble is, he was elected. The system that was used to select the next president worked and a candidate won. To many he isn't what they wanted. However, he won. He has policies that many find extreme. There are many that agree with him though.

There are places in the world that have far more extreme policies, but some flock to them and say how great they are. Look at China, Dubai, India for example. These are quite oppressive, restrictive places. We buy lots from China because it's cheap. I have heard that it is cheap for a reason, but people keep buying things like iPhones. I know of people who love going to Dubai. Yet the country has a dim view on certain items of pain relief and public shows of affection. India can be brutal in terms of acts against women and the way some people live in true poverty. Yet the last company I worked with fell over themselves to do business with them and buy their vegetables. They get foreign aid too.

The world seems to be in outrage against Trump, but his policies in the grand scheme of things aren't that terrible. It's not like he has ordered the execution of some men because they are homosexual, for instance.

What really makes me laugh though is the protests that have happened recently. Some people used it as an excuse to smash up parts of a city; that achieved a lot didn't it. Some people are doing it because they don't like his 'oppressive' travel ban. How many people who have flocked to social media to share their disdain have probably done so via an iPhone? An iPhone assembled in China who we know to have questionable human rights records.

*In relation to the iPhone, Trump has actually said that he wants Apple to assemble more stuff in the US.

Ok I get why you don't like religion but I don't get how you get from there to finding religious persecution amusing

rjsterry

Bobbinogs wrote:

...more bemusement from here in the shires.

I honestly don't get why some many seem so desperate to appear distraught if Trump/America wants to ban travel to/from 7 countries for 90 days. When one considers all the things in the world to get vexed about, this doesn't get on my list or anywhere near it.

We have entertained China and Russia on royal visits and they were, and still very much are, on the naughty step.

True, we've invited plenty of unsavoury (and far worse) heads of state to meet the Queen, but we're not usually so desperate to do so having just hours beforehand assured everyone that our special relationship is such that we can call out our friend's actions when they run counter to our previously stated values. Our special relationship appears to be so fragile that the best we can do is rather meekly say that we disagree with it.

The immigration ban might also cause less protest if it weren't so nakedly illogical and ineffective. Even if you accept the warped premise that America's most urgent threat is immigration from predominantly Muslim countries, why the almost random selection? Why not Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Indonesia or any other predominantly Muslim country which has been affected by terrorism. As a policy it runs completely against its own stated objectives.

rjsterry

KingstonGraham wrote:

Bobbinogs wrote:

...more bemusement from here in the shires.

I honestly don't get why some many seem so desperate to appear distraught if Trump/America wants to ban travel to/from 7 countries for 90 days. When one considers all the things in the world to get vexed about, this doesn't get on my list or anywhere near it.

We have entertained China and Russia on royal visits and they were, and still very much are, on the naughty step.

Is holding the USA to a higher standard than we insist from other foreign countries like China, UAE, Saudi etc a little bit racist?

I think it is the USA itself that aspired to a higher standard.

Ben6899

rjsterry wrote:

Garry H wrote:

Ironically, the seven countries were put on the list of "most dangerous", or whatever, by Obama.

Anyone else hear that NY Politician on Radio Four's PM Programme earlier? Words fail me.

If you read the explanation that V68 posted up thread, this was a list compiled for different reasons. I suspect it (rather than a more logical list) was used so they could sow a bit more confusion by claiming it was Obama's idea.

And it worked... *sigh*

benws1

Surrey Commuter wrote:

benws1 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

benws1 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

benws1 wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

benws1 wrote:

I must admit that I'm finding this whole thing rather amusing. There are a lot of angry people around.

It could be worse. Clinton could have won. :shock:

People need to stay angry - part of the plan will be to wear people down so they just shrug their shoulders at subsequent outrages. Though if you don't think targeting people for the religion of a country they were born in is outrageous, and is just amusing...

It's all quite amusing. It's so silly, it has to be.

Personally, I don't see the point in raising my blood pressure over something I cannot control. Do you honestly think that all these angry people will change anything?

Let's not even get into the detail of how pathetic everything is based on religion too (that's for another thread). If people want to worship a book, so be it. However, killing each other because your god is 'the right one' is such a bizarre idea.

That's reminded me. One thing I do find odd at presidential inaugurations is the swearing of an oath on a bible. Right, so sticking one hand on a book and saying you will do this and that guarantees you will do right? Yeah, sure.

Amusing if you live on a trailer park in Tennessee... less amusing if you have business/ life in the USA and you have links to those seven countries or you perceive your country of origin to be on the next list.

That's your opinion. I have mine.

Any country that makes you swear an oath on a book has the potential to be just as backwards as anywhere else.

You are right - what tipped Trump over the edge was the presence of the bible at his inauguration

Can you see my point though? We call extremists mad because they are willing to blow themselves up or kill others in the name of the 'correct' god. Yet, when a new president is sworn in, he has to swear to their god that he will do right.

History is littered with terrible actions undertaken in the name of religion. Here we are in 2017 as a much more advanced (in some cases) civilisation, still swearing on a book. There are a lot of people in the world who believe this stuff. That's their decision. However, I personally think our energy is better channelled into science and understanding the universe (getting off Earth would be a major step).

A lot of people are pi**ed that Trump was elected. Trouble is, he was elected. The system that was used to select the next president worked and a candidate won. To many he isn't what they wanted. However, he won. He has policies that many find extreme. There are many that agree with him though.

There are places in the world that have far more extreme policies, but some flock to them and say how great they are. Look at China, Dubai, India for example. These are quite oppressive, restrictive places. We buy lots from China because it's cheap. I have heard that it is cheap for a reason, but people keep buying things like iPhones. I know of people who love going to Dubai. Yet the country has a dim view on certain items of pain relief and public shows of affection. India can be brutal in terms of acts against women and the way some people live in true poverty. Yet the last company I worked with fell over themselves to do business with them and buy their vegetables. They get foreign aid too.

The world seems to be in outrage against Trump, but his policies in the grand scheme of things aren't that terrible. It's not like he has ordered the execution of some men because they are homosexual, for instance.

What really makes me laugh though is the protests that have happened recently. Some people used it as an excuse to smash up parts of a city; that achieved a lot didn't it. Some people are doing it because they don't like his 'oppressive' travel ban. How many people who have flocked to social media to share their disdain have probably done so via an iPhone? An iPhone assembled in China who we know to have questionable human rights records.

*In relation to the iPhone, Trump has actually said that he wants Apple to assemble more stuff in the US.

Ok I get why you don't like religion but I don't get how you get from there to finding religious persecution amusing

Persecution? He's put up a temporary travel ban.

I find the outcry with Trump amusing, not your so called persecution. When considered with what else happens in the world, it isn't the worst thing that can happen.

Ben6899

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

I only agree with DT on one policy and that is his approach taken to NATO...

If I may.

If you only agree with one of DT's policies (the NATO one), then by deduction you disagree with the remainder of his policies. Right?

Rick had a bit of a rant about DT in the EU thread (yes it is relevant to that) and you told him he has "out of touch leftie views".

So which is it?

I don't know his policy on the EU except that he was a Brexit supporter. It there a declared policy behind either? If so, I'll read up on them and maybe increase my count to 3

He is 0 from 3 for his views on the last three major political events. He rolled all three of them together for a rant and was mostly off topic for the thread. TM is doing what she has to do as leader of this country regarding meeting the leader of the US. It was full-on a leftie rant.

Based on his recent record, his views are out of touch with those of the country but is happy to reside here and ride on the success this country is

No. Answer the question.

Rick ranted about Trump's ridiculous Executive Orders and you told him he has "out of touch leftie views" off the back of the post containing the rant. In all honesty I, and most reading the thread I guess, took it that the "out of touch leftie views" comment was based on Rick's disdain for Trump's travel ban etc.

The bit I have highlighted in bold is both inaccurate and out of order.