Donald Trump

bendertherobot

Funny thing brand. It can all go so horrible, so quickly.

rjsterry

bendertherobot wrote:

Put the phone down on Turnbull apparently. I'd love to hear a transcript of that one.

A few days ago Turnbull and Co were saying the immigration ban was all perfectly reasonable. That'll sting a bit.

joenobody

Veronese68 wrote:

benws1 wrote:

Yes. I think that is exactly his reasoning behind it. He wants America to be self sufficient.

One of the pipelines that has now been approved is to bring oil in from Canada. I can't remember the name exactly but something like the Canadian Oil Sands in Alberta. This involves felling huge swathes of forest and digging up sand to try and extract the oil from it. There are huge lakes of water used as part of the separation process as the oil floats up out of the sand. This heavily contaminated water is having a devastating effect on any birds that land on it as you can imagine. I think I read that it takes 250 tonnes of sand to get a barrel of oil. so it's hardly making America self sufficient unless he plans on invading Canada, environmentally it's disastrous. But the oil companies want it.
Try reading up on some things, you might learn something.

About the pipeline, drilling/mining and environmental impact

bianchimoon

Trump vows to change the law re churches and political activity, so they can engage in politics and not lose tax exempt status, consolidating his supporter base and getting them to campaign on his behalf for next election no doubt!

coopster_the_1st

A question about Donald's proposed wall that I could not answer when someone said it to me today.

How is it any different to the wall that the UK built in Calais recently?

Both were/are being built to keep out immigrants

mamba80

Coopster the 1st wrote:

A question about Donald's proposed wall that I could not answer when someone said it to me today.

How is it any different to the wall that the UK built in Calais recently?

Both were/are being built to keep out immigrants

Actually i am in favour of the Wall, i want a big wall, a wide wall, a wall with turrets and forts, i want a design that in 1000's of years time will astound the world "the Great Wall of Mexico" paid for by the Americans... a race that died out 1000s of years ago.

orraloon

The job sites on t'web are showing lots of opportunity for tunnellers in North America. Walls? Pah.

cooldad

Coopster the 1st wrote:

A question about Donald's proposed wall that I could not answer when someone said it to me today.

How is it any different to the wall that the UK built in Calais recently?

Both were/are being built to keep out immigrants

Main difference is a couple of thousand miles, over fairly inhospitable terrain, through lots of private land.

So maybe £100 billion difference. Not to mention negotiating with thousands of landowners, state departments, and federal agencies.

And they are intended to keep illegal immigrants out, not immigrants.

cooldad

Or, to put it another way, it's a fucking stupid idea.

There is also a major shortage of trained builders and associated trades in the US, but I suppose they could always hire Mexicans...

On the bright side for Mexico, I believe the biggest manufacturer of cement in the South West USA is CGC, which just happens to be Mexican owned. They'll be happy to sell him shedloads of the stuff.

bianchimoon

“The world is in trouble – but we’re going to straighten it out, OK?” Trump said at the National Prayer Breakfast, gesturing his hands for emphasis.

“That’s what I do. I fix things. We’re going to straighten it out. Believe me. When you hear about the tough phone calls I’m having – don’t worry about it. Just don’t worry about it. They’re tough. We have to be tough, it’s time we’re going to be a little bit tough, folks. We’re taken advantage by every nation in the world, virtually. It’s not going to happen any more.”
:roll:

orraloon

What are the bookies saying about der Drumpf making it to the end of 2017? Got to be a cert for Celebrity Death Pool.

coopster_the_1st

cooldad wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

A question about Donald's proposed wall that I could not answer when someone said it to me today.

How is it any different to the wall that the UK built in Calais recently?

Both were/are being built to keep out immigrants

Main difference is a couple of thousand miles, over fairly inhospitable terrain, through lots of private land.

So maybe £100 billion difference. Not to mention negotiating with thousands of landowners, state departments, and federal agencies.

And they are intended to keep illegal immigrants out, not immigrants.

I missed the word illegal from my original point.

You confirm the point that was put to me in that they were/are being built for the same reason

So why is Trumps wall wrong but the wall the UK built in Calais for the same underlying reason does not even get mentioned?

kingstongraham

Coopster the 1st wrote:

cooldad wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

A question about Donald's proposed wall that I could not answer when someone said it to me today.

How is it any different to the wall that the UK built in Calais recently?

Both were/are being built to keep out immigrants

Main difference is a couple of thousand miles, over fairly inhospitable terrain, through lots of private land.

So maybe £100 billion difference. Not to mention negotiating with thousands of landowners, state departments, and federal agencies.

And they are intended to keep illegal immigrants out, not immigrants.

I missed the word illegal from my original point.

You confirm the point that was put to me in that they were/are being built for the same reason

So why is Trumps wall wrong but the wall the UK built in Calais for the same underlying reason does not even get mentioned?

Cost.

bompington

Coopster the 1st wrote:

So why is Trumps wall wrong but the wall the UK built in Calais for the same underlying reason does not even get mentioned?

Well stone me! How long is it that no-one's been able to get from France to England then? No wonder everyone's getting a bit twitchy about this Europe thing!
Unless the Calais wall is a bit different, of course. Unless it was actually built by the French, for example, and with the specific purpose of stopping people running into a motorway and jumping on lorries. That might explain why it's not a huge monolithic wall running along an entire border and designed to stop everyone from crossing.

pblakeney

bianchimoon wrote:

“The world is in trouble – but we’re going to straighten it out, OK?” Trump said at the National Prayer Breakfast, gesturing his hands for emphasis.

“That’s what I do. I fix things. We’re going to straighten it out. Believe me. When you hear about the tough phone calls I’m having – don’t worry about it. Just don’t worry about it. They’re tough. We have to be tough, it’s time we’re going to be a little bit tough, folks. We’re taken advantage by every nation in the world, virtually. It’s not going to happen any more.”
:roll:

It's true. It's gonna be great!

Patronising, facetious, sarcastic? Take your pick.

coopster_the_1st

bompington wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

So why is Trumps wall wrong but the wall the UK built in Calais for the same underlying reason does not even get mentioned?

Well stone me! How long is it that no-one's been able to get from France to England then? No wonder everyone's getting a bit twitchy about this Europe thing!
Unless the Calais wall is a bit different, of course. Unless it was actually built by the French, for example, and with the specific purpose of stopping people running into a motorway and jumping on lorries. That might explain why it's not a huge monolithic wall running along an entire border and designed to stop everyone from crossing.

Both were/are being built to stop illegal immigration.

Thanks all for confirming the inconsistency in your arguments on this

pinno

"It's gonna be beautiful. Hell, we could get the Israeli's to build it for free - yeah they'll do it for free and then we can do them some favours/They got experience of building high walls and they got nothin' to do. They can set up a few Kib...Kiboo..Kib er... Tents. We'll open a visitors centre or two and paint it with Gold lettering... the 'Golden Trump wall'. It will be tough to get the job done, don't get me wrong but as Americans we can be proud of it and it will show that America is great and can do stuff..."

Cont. p94

bompington

Here's Coopster's MO, in a nutshell:

Coopster: "x is true"
AN other: "no, actually, the evidence suggests that y is true"
Coopster: "you Remoaner idiot! You said z which is really silly "

orraloon

"Coopster" is a pain in the nuts.

kingstongraham

Coopster the 1st wrote:

bompington wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

So why is Trumps wall wrong but the wall the UK built in Calais for the same underlying reason does not even get mentioned?

Well stone me! How long is it that no-one's been able to get from France to England then? No wonder everyone's getting a bit twitchy about this Europe thing!
Unless the Calais wall is a bit different, of course. Unless it was actually built by the French, for example, and with the specific purpose of stopping people running into a motorway and jumping on lorries. That might explain why it's not a huge monolithic wall running along an entire border and designed to stop everyone from crossing.

Both were/are being built to stop illegal immigration.

Thanks all for confirming the inconsistency in your arguments on this

Watch John Oliver from last year on this. No-one is saying that a border is a bad thing. But this has been described as the highest cost and least effective option.

It was seen as malevolence signalling, but he still seems to want it built against all advice.

veronese68

Coopster the 1st wrote:

bompington wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

So why is Trumps wall wrong but the wall the UK built in Calais for the same underlying reason does not even get mentioned?

Well stone me! How long is it that no-one's been able to get from France to England then? No wonder everyone's getting a bit twitchy about this Europe thing!
Unless the Calais wall is a bit different, of course. Unless it was actually built by the French, for example, and with the specific purpose of stopping people running into a motorway and jumping on lorries. That might explain why it's not a huge monolithic wall running along an entire border and designed to stop everyone from crossing.

Both were/are being built to stop illegal immigration.

Thanks all for confirming the inconsistency in your arguments on this

Read that bit again. The wall in Calais is to stop people running onto a motorway and trying to board lorries to then get across the border and then the large expanse of water called the sea. It is not just a border wall, there is no argument over who is paying for it. You see we don't actually have open borders, we already have barriers and fences around the border in Calais.

mamba80

Coopster the 1st wrote:

bompington wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

So why is Trumps wall wrong but the wall the UK built in Calais for the same underlying reason does not even get mentioned?

Well stone me! How long is it that no-one's been able to get from France to England then? No wonder everyone's getting a bit twitchy about this Europe thing!
Unless the Calais wall is a bit different, of course. Unless it was actually built by the French, for example, and with the specific purpose of stopping people running into a motorway and jumping on lorries. That might explain why it's not a huge monolithic wall running along an entire border and designed to stop everyone from crossing.

Both were/are being built to stop illegal immigration.

Thanks all for confirming the inconsistency in your arguments on this

uh? there is already a Mex/US border, fences and walls, even going into the sea! Trump is playing to his audience, i m surprised an intelligent chap like you believes his BS?

the vast majority of illegals come in on visa's and then stay.

there is zero comparison with the fences at Calais, these are there to ensure safety and trade.

Talking of illegals, May made great play against Corbyn and his attitude to Trump, stating SHE had secured travel rights for UK citizens and he wouldnt have ... really Teresa ?
seems the ban extends to people with Arab sounding names regardless of nationality or status! so long as it saves US lives :roll:

https://www.channel4.com/news/british-n ... travel-ban

rick_chasey

Anyone see the letter from the HoR to the Fed?

Basically saying from now on, if it was up to them, the Fed would run everything through them.



Thought the complaining that US FS firms have had to raise their capital requirements "leading to slower economic growth" is a bit, errrr, rich?

bianchimoon

bompington wrote:

Here's Coopster's MO, in a nutshell:

Coopster: "x is true"
AN other: "no, actually, the evidence suggests that y is true"
Coopster: "you Remoaner idiot! You said z which is really silly "

kingstongraham

Rick Chasey wrote:

Anyone see the letter from the HoR to the Fed?

Basically saying from now on, if it was up to them, the Fed would run everything through them.



Thought the complaining that US FS firms have had to raise their capital requirements "leading to slower economic growth" is a bit, errrr, rich?

That's only from one representative isn't it?

rick_chasey

No idea.

Also, have noted that the day after Putin's call with Trump (which the white house refused to record, which apparently isn't standard practice), Russia steps up the fighting quite substantially in Ukraine....

kingstongraham

Rick Chasey wrote:

No idea.

Also, have noted that the day after Putin's call with Trump (which the white house refused to record, which apparently isn't standard practice), Russia steps up the fighting quite substantially in Ukraine....

Which drew a response from the new US ambassador to the UN.
"We do want to better our relations with Russia. However, the dire situation in eastern Ukraine is one that demands clear and strong condemnation of Russian actions."

We'll see if that has any effect on what the US actually does.

bianchimoon

Rick Chasey wrote:

No idea.

Also, have noted that the day after Putin's call with Trump (which the white house refused to record, which apparently isn't standard practice), Russia steps up the fighting quite substantially in Ukraine....

on the other hand, the US UN ambassador said today
"The United States continues to condemn and call for an immediate end to the Russian occupation of Crimea," said Nikki Haley, President Donald Trump's envoy to the world body. "Crimea is a part of Ukraine. Our Crimea-related sanctions will remain in place until Russia returns control over the peninsula to Ukraine."

rick_chasey

KingstonGraham wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

No idea.

Also, have noted that the day after Putin's call with Trump (which the white house refused to record, which apparently isn't standard practice), Russia steps up the fighting quite substantially in Ukraine....

Which drew a response from the new US ambassador to the UN.
"We do want to better our relations with Russia. However, the dire situation in eastern Ukraine is one that demands clear and strong condemnation of Russian actions."

We'll see if that has any effect on what the US actually does.

From the economist: http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21 ... ussia-talk

n the past, significant escalations of fighting were quickly met by the White House or the State Department with strongly worded statements condemning Russian aggression and supporting Ukraine’s territorial integrity. This time it took the State Department two days to say it was “deeply concerned”; it did not mention Russia. This response was duly noted in Moscow. “Washington does put the blame on the [separatist] republics, does not express support for Kiev and does not say a word about Russia’s role,” Rossiiskaia Gazeta, the official government newspaper, wrote jubilantly.

The Kremlin also noted the American failure to react to the news that Alexei Navalny, an opposition leader and anti-corruption campaigner, would be tried again on trumped-up charges. Mr Navalny pledged to run against Mr Putin in next year’s presidential elections, but is now likely to observe Mr Putin’s re-election from a prison cell.

Maybe the US department was slow to the trigger ,or the economist too fast.

kingstongraham

Rick Chasey wrote:

Maybe the US department was slow to the trigger ,or the economist too fast.

Possibly because they didn't have a secretary of state, so didn't know what position they might get fired for yet.