Donald Trump

[Cheadle_hulmeBlue]

Yeah but he's a real 'man of the people' who's gonna crush the establishment elite. Oh, hang on a minute...

if he carries out the things he promised he will be. people wont care who he appoints if he creates jobs, controls immigration, changes washington and actually listens to the people. if there the best people to carry that out then so be it.

 

[purplenose]

He is the man of the people. His battle to challenge the establishment comes from setting term limits to Congress members, removing the power of lobbyists, battling illegal immigration which even Republicans weren't serious about thanks to big money donations to their campaigns, and opposing particular concepts of free-trade that are harming the average American. Assigning successful business people to his cabinet who know what regulations harm economic growth is the way to go. It's better than Obama's reliance on people with degrees from Ivy Leagues who know little about their department.

But he wont do any of that, he will dig lots of deep pits and burn black people in them, make it legal to fondle women without consent, before conspiring with Putin to nuke all the Muslims and only when they have pressed the shiny red button realise that all the missiles were actually pointed at each other......doh!

 

[BlueHammer85]

I doubt Obama's long-term legacy as described in the history books will be anything but positive. First African-American president, leader as nation emerged from what was very nearly a Depression to a huge economic expansion, killed Bin Laden, huge move with the ACA (even if scrapped) and had no scandals. Comparing him to this utter fucking flake who's followed him only enhances that perception.

I really do love Obama. The criticisms I can see ...

Gun Law - I think he is genuinely gutted he didn't get to restrict the outrageous gun crime problems America has , I'm sure that was one of his main policy's when he came to power and he hasn't achieved that. Indeed, the gun lobby have to much power and it's been proved.

Poverty - So many Americans are poor, really poor. He hasn't been able to help this from what I can see.

Healthcare - Has Obamacare been a success ? Different data proves one way or another.

 

[purplenose]

I really do love Obama. The criticisms I can see ...

Gun Law - I think he is genuinely gutted he didn't get to restrict the outrageous gun crime problems America has , I'm sure that was one of his main policy's when he came to power and he hasn't achieved that. Indeed, the gun lobby have to much power and it's been proved.

Poverty - So many Americans are poor, really poor. He hasn't been able to help this from what I can see.

Healthcare - Has Obamacare been a success ? Different data proves one way or another.

Go on ....I am sure you can think of a few more, I see him almost like an African American Gordon Brown, though I think Obama is a bit better at singing the odd song, or turning his hand to a a couple of minutes stand up here and there.

 

[Dave Dave]

@BlueHammer85 Obama has no excuse for not passing his beloved gun laws. During the first two years of his presidency he had both the House and Senate on his side, with almost a supermajority in the latter. Yet the Democrats only made non-committed attempts to restrict guns. You blame the gun lobby, but why did the Democrats have to listen to them? Plenty of people hate Trump's policies-there has even been violence over it- yet that has not changed his commitment to do what he feels is right. The truth is, the Democrats don't want to do anything about guns themselves and only use it as a stick to beat Republicans with.

On the same topic, it's quite sad to see Obama blame Indiana's relaxed gun laws on Chicago's violence. Does it ever strike him that if he instead empowered Chicago's police and allowed them to properly target gangs the gun issues there will be resolved? Instead, this week his attorney general attacked Chicago PD while her beloved boss continues to release thugs on the street through pardons.

 

[bluethrunthru]

@BlueHammer85 Obama has no excuse for not passing his beloved gun laws. During the first two years of his presidency he had both the House and Senate on his side, with almost a supermajority in the latter. Yet the Democrats only made non-committed attempts to restrict guns. You blame the gun lobby, but why did the Democrats have to listen to them? Plenty of people hate Trump's policies-there has even been violence over it- yet that has not changed his commitment to do what he feels is right. The truth is, the Democrats don't want to do anything about guns themselves and only use it as a stick to beat Republicans with.

On the same topic, it's quite sad to see Obama blame Indiana's relaxed gun laws on Chicago's violence. Does it ever strike him that if he instead empowered Chicago's police and allowed them to properly target gangs the gun issues there will be resolved? Instead, this week his attorney general attacked Chicago PD while her beloved boss continues to release thugs on the street through pardons.

sad fact on gun control is NO MAJORITY in America wants them and as a result all of congress runs scared from the prospect f what might happen were they to suggest/agree. The only reason Obama could be so otspoken was that he knew ultimately without backing it wouldn't happen. he knew what needed to be done but it was never going to gain popular consent

 

[bluethrunthru]

He is the man of the people. His battle to challenge the establishment comes from setting term limits to Congress members, removing the power of lobbyists, battling illegal immigration which even Republicans weren't serious about thanks to big money donations to their campaigns, and opposing particular concepts of free-trade that are harming the average American. Assigning successful business people to his cabinet who know what regulations harm economic growth is the way to go. It's better than Obama's reliance on people with degrees from Ivy Leagues who know little about their department.

How can you say that doing what he is doing is removing the power of lobbyists? The ex-Goldman Sachs boys will have meetings with other money men and in the event of it being in their interests I have no doubt things will go in their favour. If thats to the detriment of Americans and American jobs excuses will be found. Yes they know what regulations harm economic growth yet there is no evidence from around the world that shows when money men get that privilege they do anything but act the way of their instinct. Whether it will be better than the current Democratc Govt only time will tell

 

[Uncle Wally One Ball]

He is the man of the people. His battle to challenge the establishment comes from setting term limits to Congress members, removing the power of lobbyists, battling illegal immigration which even Republicans weren't serious about thanks to big money donations to their campaigns, and opposing particular concepts of free-trade that are harming the average American. Assigning successful business people to his cabinet who know what regulations harm economic growth is the way to go. It's better than Obama's reliance on people with degrees from Ivy Leagues who know little about their department.

You have got to be kidding me

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

I really do love Obama. The criticisms I can see ...

Gun Law - I think he is genuinely gutted he didn't get to restrict the outrageous gun crime problems America has , I'm sure that was one of his main policy's when he came to power and he hasn't achieved that. Indeed, the gun lobby have to much power and it's been proved.

Poverty - So many Americans are poor, really poor. He hasn't been able to help this from what I can see.

Healthcare - Has Obamacare been a success ? Different data proves one way or another.

I agree with #1, and it's one of things about my country that so puzzles me. But it's a genie-out-of-the-bottle problem. I have plenty of gun-toting friends who I think and hope are responsible, since they all have young kids. But personally I don't know how a good whose sole purpose is to harm can be anything but THE most highly-regulated good in existence. But in the US, it isn't, and the NRA is incredibly powerful for a simple reason -- their base threat is that if you attempt to take away our weapons, we will barricade ourselves inside our homes and just have gun battle with the government. In short, they advocate violent revolution to keep what they already own and believe the Constitution gives them a right to.

#2 is right too. That's a somewhat greater problem than a President can embrace. So many politicians look for easy solutions that get them votes, like raising the minimum wage, or substantial wealth transfer via taxation, that have broader consequences. And relatively speaking, poor Americans aren't as poor as their counterparts in nearly every country, which always seems to be the rationalization for lack of effort. #3 -- he tried. I can tell you pre-existing condition issues and small business/self-employed healthcare are two big problems ACA helped solve. But it will be gutted by this Administration. At least he should get credited for trying.

Where he has been poor is, in my view, foreign relations, which have deteriorated with many nations, friend and foe alike, and visibility, which I thought was very low for a President. He could have been a more outspoken leader and a guy that charged from the front. And I think he snowed a lot of people who thought he was more moderate than he really was.

 

[Sunny Coast Blue]

How can you say that doing what he is doing is removing the power of lobbyists? The ex-Goldman Sachs boys will have meetings with other money men and in the event of it being in their interests I have no doubt things will go in their favour. If thats to the detriment of Americans and American jobs excuses will be found. Yes they know what regulations harm economic growth yet there is no evidence from around the world that shows when money men get that privilege they do anything but act the way of their instinct. Whether it will be better than the current Democratc Govt only time will tell

No different to having all the corporates with state or govt representatives on them, that's how the world usually works unfortunately. Bush, Tebbit, Thatcher, the list is mind boggling.

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

He is the man of the people. His battle to challenge the establishment comes from setting term limits to Congress members, removing the power of lobbyists, battling illegal immigration which even Republicans weren't serious about thanks to big money donations to their campaigns, and opposing particular concepts of free-trade that are harming the average American. Assigning successful business people to his cabinet who know what regulations harm economic growth is the way to go. It's better than Obama's reliance on people with degrees from Ivy Leagues who know little about their department.

He lost the popular vote. He's the man of SOME people. The term limit issue is great for the Republicans -- making political hay out of the issue while knowing there's no way it will ever pass as a Constitutional amendment. Ask Newt Gingrich. No chance. Obama already imposed a lobbying ban on his Administration officials; that's not new. Battling "illegal immigration" -- how is that a battle? Illegal immigration already ILLEGAL. The issue, as it has always been, is what to do about those already in the country illegally. I agree with the commentary about free trade, which I think is key for Trump, but the reason he's appointing so many business people is that he's political dynamite, and they -- not him, THEY -- see an opening to have enormous influence over an inexperienced buffoon of a warlord, just as courtiers have done for centuries in the service of the dimmest sovereigns. If you really believe that last sentence, I'd suggest you are either hopelessly naive or don't understand businesspeople very well.

 

[Vic]

"Westminster suspected of moving to pro-Israel stance to curry favour with Donald Trump" (financial times)

We're going to creep and crawl for a post Brexit trade deal, aren't we?

 

[stonerblue]

He is the man of the people. His battle to challenge the establishment comes from setting term limits to Congress members, removing the power of lobbyists, battling illegal immigration which even Republicans weren't serious about thanks to big money donations to their campaigns, and opposing particular concepts of free-trade that are harming the average American. Assigning successful business people to his cabinet who know what regulations harm economic growth is the way to go. It's better than Obama's reliance on people with degrees from Ivy Leagues who know little about their department.

you say 'successful business people', i say 'establishment'

 

[Len Rum]

Has anyone told the Don that negotiations on any future trade deal with the UK can't begin until UK leaves the EU in April 2019 not only due to legal reasons but also because the terms of our final deal with the EU will have a big impact on what is and isn't negotiable in any U.S./UK deal?
Add on the time it takes to finalize such deals and it's likely that by the time it's concluded he'll be well into a second presidency ( if he wins another term).
When he's appraised of the facts I'm sure he'll lose interest.
Why are we grovelling to this guy?

 

[west didsblue]

He is the man of the people. His battle to challenge the establishment comes from setting term limits to Congress members, removing the power of lobbyists, battling illegal immigration which even Republicans weren't serious about thanks to big money donations to their campaigns, and opposing particular concepts of free-trade that are harming the average American. Assigning successful business people to his cabinet who know what regulations harm economic growth is the way to go. It's better than Obama's reliance on people with degrees from Ivy Leagues who know little about their department.

This man of the people tag is the biggest joke of the lot. He's setting up a government that will be big business friendly to the exclusion of everything else. Forget about workers rights or social or health care. The rich will do nicely and the very rich will become very very rich.

 

[Vic]

you say 'successful business people', i say 'establishment'

I say 'swamp'.

 

[Uncle Wally One Ball]

I read that piece in The Times done by Gove. Incredible.
Trump really sees things in the most simplistic terms, its just noise without any substance to it at all. He thinks Brexit essentially happened because of illegal immigration, not grasping the wider issues that were at play. It is painfully obvious that he has taken discussions with Farage as his basis for his views and nobody else. And about Germany, well feck me. He says that Merkel's biggest problem was "she made one very catastrophic mistake and that was taking all of these illegals, you know, taking all of the people from wherever they come from. And nobody even knows where they come from". They arent 'illegals' you fucktard, they are refugees, displaced persons in need of help. His base ignorance and casual racism is staggering

 

[blueonblue]

I agree with #1, and it's one of things about my country that so puzzles me. But it's a genie-out-of-the-bottle problem. I have plenty of gun-toting friends who I think and hope are responsible, since they all have young kids. But personally I don't know how a good whose sole purpose is to harm can be anything but THE most highly-regulated good in existence. But in the US, it isn't, and the NRA is incredibly powerful for a simple reason -- their base threat is that if you attempt to take away our weapons, we will barricade ourselves inside our homes and just have gun battle with the government. In short, they advocate violent revolution to keep what they already own and believe the Constitution gives them a right to.

As an outsider looking in I would put up another argument, without the right to bare arms you would not have the other freedoms under the constitution you do now.

You can look at the UK as an example of how governments erode rights you though were set in stone, do you really think we have "Free speech" or is it just what we are allowed to say, we are the most government monitored country in the world (And that includes all the totalitarian ones) "For our own safety", we now have to ask permission to demonstrate and are told when and where we may or may not do it.

Our laws have been removed, corrupted, or watered down to the point that the rich hold all the cards in courts that have become fat cat clubs using the police as enforcers*.

The uproar from your anti gun lobby whenever there is a shooting is made nonsense by one simple fact, most if not all these mass shooting take place where the strictest gun controls are, in other words all they have done is created a safe space for the shooter.

Far from it being a threat of "Violent revolution" its a warning that those rights having been paid for in blood will be defended.



*The police were created to protect the public yet are now little more than collecting agents for the DVLA (A private company), carry out forced repossessions on behalf of private financial institutions and enforce an ever growing list of government dictates.

 

[CityStu]

I read that piece in The Times done by Gove. Incredible.
Trump really sees things in the most simplistic terms, its just noise without any substance to it at all. He thinks Brexit essentially happened because of illegal immigration, not grasping the wider issues that were at play. It is painfully obvious that he has taken discussions with Farage as his basis for his views and nobody else. And about Germany, well feck me. He says that Merkel's biggest problem was "she made one very catastrophic mistake and that was taking all of these illegals, you know, taking all of the people from wherever they come from. And nobody even knows where they come from". They arent 'illegals' you fucktard, they are refugees, displaced persons in need of help. His base ignorance and casual racism is staggering

I completely disagree with his blanket use of the term illegals. However, I sincerely doubt that 100% of the millions of people that Merkel invited in are refugees. Some are undoubtedly economic migrants making full use of her generosity.

I also think he would have provided the arguments most relevant to his own presidential campaign - chiefly (illegal) immigration.

 

[Len Rum]

I read that piece in The Times done by Gove. Incredible.
Trump really sees things in the most simplistic terms, its just noise without any substance to it at all. He thinks Brexit essentially happened because of illegal immigration, not grasping the wider issues that were at play. It is painfully obvious that he has taken discussions with Farage as his basis for his views and nobody else. And about Germany, well feck me. He says that Merkel's biggest problem was "she made one very catastrophic mistake and that was taking all of these illegals, you know, taking all of the people from wherever they come from. And nobody even knows where they come from". They arent 'illegals' you fucktard, they are refugees, displaced persons in need of help. His base ignorance and casual racism is staggering

There was very little headline coverage given to the "illegals" comment, or indeed "obsolete" NATO, or "powerful Merkle", it was all about the pretty please trade deal where he in fact evaded the direct question by replying "you're doing great,you're doing really great". This was reported on Sky News website as an evasive answer and then surprisingly replaced later by the Don promising "quick" free trade deal.