Donald Trump

bendertherobot

https://www.bowlinggreenmassacrefund.com/

kingstongraham

bendertherobot wrote:

https://www.bowlinggreenmassacrefund.com/

Sean Spicer next to explain that it was a massacre that could have happened, and could happen again if we aren't more careful in the future. Even if it wasn't being planned, it could have been, by the bad dudes.

bendertherobot

Click through!

cooldad

Hahaha.

Sneaky.

bianchimoon

And betsy de vos :it's a good idea to have guns i schools in case of a grizzly attack!!!

bendertherobot

Review of 2008/9 post financial crash regs ordered. Hold on tight.

briantrumpet

bendertherobot wrote:

Review of 2008/9 post financial crash regs ordered. Hold on tight.

The idea that Bannon is actually planning on ekpyrosis (not least war and financial collapse) to usher in a new world order starts to look slightly more than just paranoid delusions...

briantrumpet

bianchimoon wrote:

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 "

At least I've learnt the meaning of tu quoque as a result.

pblakeney

bendertherobot wrote:

Review of 2008/9 post financial crash regs ordered. Hold on tight.

Not wishing to repeat myself, but I am going to because nothing was learned. From the other thread....

PBlakeney wrote:

'Cause they say two thousand zero eight
Party over, oops out of time
So tonight I'm gonna party like it's 2007

kingstongraham

bendertherobot wrote:

Review of 2008/9 post financial crash regs ordered. Hold on tight.

Also... from bloomberg on the fiduciary rule: "Trump also will halt another of former President Barack Obama’s regulations, hated by the financial industry, that requires advisers on retirement accounts to work in the best interests of their clients."

How can that even be a controversial rule????

briantrumpet

KingstonGraham wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

Review of 2008/9 post financial crash regs ordered. Hold on tight.

Also... from bloomberg on the fiduciary rule: "Trump also will halt another of former President Barack Obama’s regulations, hated by the financial industry, that requires advisers on retirement accounts to work in the best interests of their clients."

How can that even be a controversial rule????

You'd have thought that doing background checks on people with a history of mental illness who want to buy guns wouldn't be too controversial either... but that's not reckoning on Bannon and Trump.

rick_chasey

America was built on caveat emptor I guess.

Stevo_666

Interesting stats about public attitudes to the Trump visit:
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/most-britons-back-donald-trumps-planned-state-visit-to-uk-poll-finds-a3455216.html
Not what I expected given the popularity of the gov't petition.

orraloon

Stevo 666 wrote:

Interesting stats about public attitudes to the Trump visit:
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/most-britons-back-donald-trumps-planned-state-visit-to-uk-poll-finds-a3455216.html
Not what I expected given the popularity of the gov't petition.

Alt facts.

Frank the tank

I don't like him, however, what I will say is, he speaks as he feels (much like we all do)and this is totally alien to the political norm.

I am sh1t scared due to his political leanings, however, there is a begrudging bit of admiration for him for I would love to be in his position and influence the world to the left.

Stevo_666

Frank the tank wrote:

I don't like him, however, what I will say is, he speaks as he feels (much like we all do)and this is totally alien to the political norm.

I am sh1t scared due to his political leanings, however, there is a begrudging bit of admiration for him for I would love to be in his position and influence the world to the left.

That's fair comment Frank. As long as you influence the rest of the world to the left and leave us alone, that's fine by me

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

Interesting stats about public attitudes to the Trump visit:
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/most-britons-back-donald-trumps-planned-state-visit-to-uk-poll-finds-a3455216.html
Not what I expected given the popularity of the gov't petition.

49/36 fits pretty well with how divisive he is. He certainly polarises opinion.

Garry H

Don't see what all the fuss is about regarding the state visit. We've given the "privilege" to far more odious leaders than him, Hirohito being foremost on my mind.

briantrumpet

orraloon wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Interesting stats about public attitudes to the Trump visit:
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/most-britons-back-donald-trumps-planned-state-visit-to-uk-poll-finds-a3455216.html
Not what I expected given the popularity of the gov't petition.

Alt facts.

I suppose you're going to claim that there's a difference between allowing someone into the country, and giving them a full state visit and meeting the Queen. The Standard don't seem to have quite got the distinction...

Frank the tank

Stevo 666 wrote:

Frank the tank wrote:

I don't like him, however, what I will say is, he speaks as he feels (much like we all do)and this is totally alien to the political norm.

I am sh1t scared due to his political leanings, however, there is a begrudging bit of admiration for him for I would love to be in his position and influence the world to the left.

That's fair comment Frank. As long as you influence the rest of the world to the left and leave us alone, that's fine by me

Hopefully though "Stevo" if I were in his position the rest of you left alone would be in a massive minority.

Frank the tank

Garry H wrote:

Don't see what all the fuss is about regarding the state visit. We've given the "privilege" to far more odious leaders than him, Hirohito being foremost on my mind.

Totally agree.

It's just the obscene speed with which the offer has been extended that raises eyebrows.

rick_chasey

Rick Chasey wrote:

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.

On this, Spicer just came out and said (effectively) that the Trump administration don't want to say anything on Crimea"[ our ambassador] spoke strongly on it, we won't."

finchy

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Interesting stats about public attitudes to the Trump visit:
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/most-britons-back-donald-trumps-planned-state-visit-to-uk-poll-finds-a3455216.html
Not what I expected given the popularity of the gov't petition.

49/36 fits pretty well with how divisive he is. He certainly polarises opinion.

There's a difference between thinking that he should be allowed to visit and actively wanting him to visit.

pblakeney

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Interesting stats about public attitudes to the Trump visit:
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/most-britons-back-donald-trumps-planned-state-visit-to-uk-poll-finds-a3455216.html
Not what I expected given the popularity of the gov't petition.

49/36 fits pretty well with how divisive he is. He certainly polarises opinion.

Finally. A tenuous cycling link.
Weird chainset though.

Stevo_666

Frank the tank wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Frank the tank wrote:

I don't like him, however, what I will say is, he speaks as he feels (much like we all do)and this is totally alien to the political norm.

I am sh1t scared due to his political leanings, however, there is a begrudging bit of admiration for him for I would love to be in his position and influence the world to the left.

That's fair comment Frank. As long as you influence the rest of the world to the left and leave us alone, that's fine by me

Hopefully though "Stevo" if I were in his position the rest of you left alone would be in a massive minority.

Fortunately it's a big 'if', Frank

verylonglegs

PBlakeney wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Interesting stats about public attitudes to the Trump visit:
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/most-britons-back-donald-trumps-planned-state-visit-to-uk-poll-finds-a3455216.html
Not what I expected given the popularity of the gov't petition.

49/36 fits pretty well with how divisive he is. He certainly polarises opinion.

Finally. A tenuous cycling link.
Weird chainset though.

I dunno, about time there was another dimension to the 'standard or compact' threads (arguments) in road general.

rjsterry

PBlakeney wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Interesting stats about public attitudes to the Trump visit:
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/most-britons-back-donald-trumps-planned-state-visit-to-uk-poll-finds-a3455216.html
Not what I expected given the popularity of the gov't petition.

49/36 fits pretty well with how divisive he is. He certainly polarises opinion.

Finally. A tenuous cycling link.
Weird chainset though.

52/48 would be just about plausible, if rather a narrow range.

pinno

rjsterry wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Interesting stats about public attitudes to the Trump visit:
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/most-britons-back-donald-trumps-planned-state-visit-to-uk-poll-finds-a3455216.html
Not what I expected given the popularity of the gov't petition.

49/36 fits pretty well with how divisive he is. He certainly polarises opinion.

Finally. A tenuous cycling link.
Weird chainset though.

52/48 would be just about plausible, if rather a narrow range.

Perfect for a rolling TT...





[Ducks and heads for the exit...]

pblakeney

I was just being silly. 50x34 is okay but slightly large gap.
50x36 would be a good comprompise so I suppose 49x36 isn't too far off the mark. Carry on...

kingstongraham

PBlakeney wrote:

Finally. A tenuous cycling link.

Finally? For the owner of the tour de trump?