@BluePhil8
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 4 Jan 2009
- Messages
- 13,425
George Bush did this as well. It's not unprecedented.
Donald Trump
- Thread starter RichardDunneOwnGoal
- Start date
- Status
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
I wonder how many abortions Trump has funded out of his own pocket over the years. My guess is fourteen. It could be more, I guess.
Hilarious how I was told the tens of thousands of people attending his rallies compared to the 20 attending Hillary's was inconsequential yet now everyone is big in to it...
Comparisons to Obama's 08 innaugration are pretty pointless as his was a big spike due to him being the first black president.
But do you know what this crowd comparison really achieves? Nothing, he's still the president.
I can't believe people argue about attendance figures or empty seats, never seen anything like it before, you certainly don't get that over here...
Maybe he'll win sports personality of the year
aguero93:20
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2013
- Messages
- 90,256
- Location
- Hunting Cats.
- Team supported
- Some gobshites in day-glo green and black.
He's a rag as well? Do they even have pits in hell deep enough?
urban genie
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 11 May 2008
- Messages
- 35,166
Thing is it also bans america to use federal funds to help overseas aid that may be for contraception, morning after pills etc this has severe implications and could be deadly for women and girls in developing countries and conflict zones, who often resort to life threatening methods of ending a pregnancy when they lack access to safe abortion, and losing contraceptive availability and advice on family planning.
Gaylord du Bois
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 16 Aug 2010
- Messages
- 30,148
- Location
- Great Umbrage.
- Team supported
- Glory Hunting Blue. Was Chelsea.
You've only known two, this one aside, since you were 16.
kaz7
Well-Known Member
He is taking this America first thing too far already not caring about others at all,he doesn't seem to grasp that America also has other responsibilities to other countries less fortunate as we all do
BlueHammer85
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 13 Oct 2010
- Messages
- 41,007
I recall the Clinton era aswell. Aside from that, I'm going to guess there was no pathetic Twitter rants before my lifetime.
Pokes28
Well-Known Member
I've never in my life seen such outrage after an election. Between schools offering up counseling for their grief ridden students to the woman's march and the media jumping all over Trump's approval ratings before he's even had a day in office, this is pretty spectacular theater.
I got a bit behind on this thread the last few days, but one of the things brought up was the merits or lack thereof of the electoral college. I was really curious about it so I went and looked it up. It is mathematically possible for a person to be elected President and win only about 24% of the vote in a two party race. The reason is that all states get two electoral votes to begin with and then based on percentage of the overall population, they get more from there. So Wyoming has just over half a million people, but gets 3 electoral votes. So that is about 1 EV per 180,000 people. Whereas California gets 55 EVs with a population of 38.8 million people. So that is 1 EV for every 705K people. So if a person won the lower populated states by getting one vote more than their opponent and didn't get a single vote in the most populated states, they could win with less than a quarter of the popular vote. Now, that will never happen, but its an interesting exercise.
As for pulling out of the TPP and forcing a renegotiation of NAFTA, I view these as great things. Sure free trade is great. The problem is that rarely do these agreements actually allow for free trade. Case in point, China makes it damn near impossible for US goods to make it into their country. They have the ability to mark any import as something not included in their agreement and run a huge tariff on it. The idea of a free trade world sounds great in a vacuum, but fair trade would be a better aim under the real world constraints. The major trade agreements of the last nearly 30 years have helped in the constant draining of jobs as well as pressures that prevent industry from starting up. I have zero problems with re-evaluating agreements that aren't working for everybody. It is something that should happen more often.
I really don't know how Trump will do as President. But I would rather people actually let him do something before freaking out. There are checks and balances in place to prevent a run away power grab from any President. Particularly with this President, neither party are falling completely in line and giving him a free pass. As recalcitrant as the GOP was to Obama, before he ever took office he had 6 of his cabinet members approved with some of the others awaiting paperwork. So the fact that only two have gotten approval even with the GOP majorities should make even the most hesitant (or worse) people a bit more comfortable that this isn't going to be a walk in the park even among his own party.
I got a bit behind on this thread the last few days, but one of the things brought up was the merits or lack thereof of the electoral college. I was really curious about it so I went and looked it up. It is mathematically possible for a person to be elected President and win only about 24% of the vote in a two party race. The reason is that all states get two electoral votes to begin with and then based on percentage of the overall population, they get more from there. So Wyoming has just over half a million people, but gets 3 electoral votes. So that is about 1 EV per 180,000 people. Whereas California gets 55 EVs with a population of 38.8 million people. So that is 1 EV for every 705K people. So if a person won the lower populated states by getting one vote more than their opponent and didn't get a single vote in the most populated states, they could win with less than a quarter of the popular vote. Now, that will never happen, but its an interesting exercise.
As for pulling out of the TPP and forcing a renegotiation of NAFTA, I view these as great things. Sure free trade is great. The problem is that rarely do these agreements actually allow for free trade. Case in point, China makes it damn near impossible for US goods to make it into their country. They have the ability to mark any import as something not included in their agreement and run a huge tariff on it. The idea of a free trade world sounds great in a vacuum, but fair trade would be a better aim under the real world constraints. The major trade agreements of the last nearly 30 years have helped in the constant draining of jobs as well as pressures that prevent industry from starting up. I have zero problems with re-evaluating agreements that aren't working for everybody. It is something that should happen more often.
I really don't know how Trump will do as President. But I would rather people actually let him do something before freaking out. There are checks and balances in place to prevent a run away power grab from any President. Particularly with this President, neither party are falling completely in line and giving him a free pass. As recalcitrant as the GOP was to Obama, before he ever took office he had 6 of his cabinet members approved with some of the others awaiting paperwork. So the fact that only two have gotten approval even with the GOP majorities should make even the most hesitant (or worse) people a bit more comfortable that this isn't going to be a walk in the park even among his own party.
bluethrunthru
Well-Known Member
I see no problem with that TBH. The world population is rising exponentially and needs to be brought under control. Abortion is a form of birth control. Some countries for ideological or religious reasons that sort of information is not provided by governmental agencies but is relevant nonetheless. For example Eire does not provide abortions except in strictly controlled circumstances. So maybe Trump is stopping funding in Eire - a county traditionally with strong ties with and support for the USA, Way to go Donald. This is NOT about the US "wasting" money on foreign aid but is in fact a sop to the pro-life anti abortion right wing Pence supporters. There will be funding to "cure" homosexuals next. Mike Pence actually believes that is possible FFS !
bluethrunthru
Well-Known Member
What sickens me is the use of pics from the swamp on match days rather than some from the inauguration in a pathetic attempt to prove a point. As if there was a top tier at the inauguration.
aguero93:20
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2013
- Messages
- 90,256
- Location
- Hunting Cats.
- Team supported
- Some gobshites in day-glo green and black.
He's probably got a plan for that too, every POTUS since Roosevelt has had one.
MillionMilesAway
Well-Known Member
While I agree that this has come and gone over the years, I thought the issue at question was that any organisation receiving funding was not allowed to be involved in abortions, whether or not the money spent on it came out of the funding or not.
So an organisation receiving US funding couldn't raise money in South Africa to spend in South Africa.
bluethrunthru
Well-Known Member
Extract from US newswire The Intercept.com - promoter of a lot of Snowdens revelations - if true very disturbing.
In North Dakota, for instance, Republicans introduced a bill last week that would allow motorists to run over and kill any protester obstructing a highway as long as a driver does so accidentally. In Minnesota, a bill introduced by Republicans last week seeks to dramatically stiffen fines for freeway protests and would allow prosecutors to seek a full year of jail time for protesters blocking a highway. Republicans in Washington state have proposed a plan to reclassify as a felony civil disobedience protests that are deemed “economic terrorism.” Republicans in Michigan introduced and then last month shelved an anti-picketing law that would increase penalties against protestors and would make it easier for businesses to sue individual protestors for their actions. And in Iowa a Republican lawmaker has pledged to introduce legislation to crack down on highway protests.
In North Dakota, for instance, Republicans introduced a bill last week that would allow motorists to run over and kill any protester obstructing a highway as long as a driver does so accidentally. In Minnesota, a bill introduced by Republicans last week seeks to dramatically stiffen fines for freeway protests and would allow prosecutors to seek a full year of jail time for protesters blocking a highway. Republicans in Washington state have proposed a plan to reclassify as a felony civil disobedience protests that are deemed “economic terrorism.” Republicans in Michigan introduced and then last month shelved an anti-picketing law that would increase penalties against protestors and would make it easier for businesses to sue individual protestors for their actions. And in Iowa a Republican lawmaker has pledged to introduce legislation to crack down on highway protests.
aguero93:20
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2013
- Messages
- 90,256
- Location
- Hunting Cats.
- Team supported
- Some gobshites in day-glo green and black.
Well they have to find some use for those monster trucks.
bluethrunthru
Well-Known Member
So the pro-lifers win.... there's the gun lobby too.... the US is already looking a pretty shitty place unless you are WASP.
bluethrunthru
Well-Known Member
well to be fair they could lock themselves in their garage with the engine running... the end is quite quick - peaceful and leaves a body that doesn't shock the spouse when they come to identify it.
aguero93:20
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2013
- Messages
- 90,256
- Location
- Hunting Cats.
- Team supported
- Some gobshites in day-glo green and black.
Unless of course they hadn't told the spouse about the monster truck.
bluethrunthru
Well-Known Member
[QUOTE="Pokes28, post: 9974474, member: 58424"
As for pulling out of the TPP and forcing a renegotiation of NAFTA, I view these as great things. Sure free trade is great. The problem is that rarely do these agreements actually allow for free trade. Case in point, China makes it damn near impossible for US goods to make it into their country. They have the ability to mark any import as something not included in their agreement and run a huge tariff on it. The idea of a free trade world sounds great in a vacuum, but fair trade would be a better aim under the real world constraints. The major trade agreements of the last nearly 30 years have helped in the constant draining of jobs as well as pressures that prevent industry from starting up. I have zero problems with re-evaluating agreements that aren't working for everybody. It is something that should happen more often.
[/QUOTE]
I saw a Mexican politician on the BBC or Sky news earlier pointing out that NAFTA was a 2 way street and that Trump needs to recognise that the benefits between Mexico and the US are nigh on 50/50.
So many jobs drained away that the US economy put on an average of 100k+ jobs per month under Obama and unemployment fell from 11%+ to just under 4% which in economic terms is considered full employment
As for pulling out of the TPP and forcing a renegotiation of NAFTA, I view these as great things. Sure free trade is great. The problem is that rarely do these agreements actually allow for free trade. Case in point, China makes it damn near impossible for US goods to make it into their country. They have the ability to mark any import as something not included in their agreement and run a huge tariff on it. The idea of a free trade world sounds great in a vacuum, but fair trade would be a better aim under the real world constraints. The major trade agreements of the last nearly 30 years have helped in the constant draining of jobs as well as pressures that prevent industry from starting up. I have zero problems with re-evaluating agreements that aren't working for everybody. It is something that should happen more often.
[/QUOTE]
I saw a Mexican politician on the BBC or Sky news earlier pointing out that NAFTA was a 2 way street and that Trump needs to recognise that the benefits between Mexico and the US are nigh on 50/50.
So many jobs drained away that the US economy put on an average of 100k+ jobs per month under Obama and unemployment fell from 11%+ to just under 4% which in economic terms is considered full employment
- Status