Jump to content

U.S. Politics megathread (merged)


trex

Recommended Posts

doctor jambo
15 minutes ago, XB52 said:

I Like how you totally ignore his brainless comments on the wall between NI and Eire. The guy is a total moron

I agree, but policy wise I’m not sure how far away our policy would be from his were we in the USA position

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 32.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • JFK-1

    2793

  • Maple Leaf

    2200

  • Justin Z

    1584

  • Watt-Zeefuik

    1485

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

2 minutes ago, doctor jambo said:

I agree, but policy wise I’m not sure how far away our policy would be from his were we in the USA position

 

Coming from a border state in the US, I can tell you this is true. Every country has arsehole opportunists willing to throw entire races and countries under the bus for political gain, blowing dangers out of nuclear proportion to win votes.

 

So yes, knowing the UK, especially England's, penchant for xenophobia, there's no doubt it too would have regressive, hysterical, anti-reality border policies, if faced with a huge border and scary brown people to its south.

 

 

Edited by Justin Z
Link to comment
Share on other sites

doctor jambo
14 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

Coming from a border state in the US, I can tell you this is true. Every country has arsehole opportunists willing to throw entire races and countries under the bus for political gain, blowing dangers out of nuclear proportion to win votes.

 

So yes, knowing the UK, especially England's, penchant for xenophobia, there's no doubt it too would have regressive, hysterical, anti-reality border policies, if faced with a huge border and scary brown people to its south.

 

 

Is it hysterical?

drugs? Gang warfare? Mass poor immigration?

Not sure how even Corbyn would deal with it,

obama didn’t really address it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, doctor jambo said:

Is it hysterical?

drugs? Gang warfare? Mass poor immigration?

Not sure how even Corbyn would deal with it,

obama didn’t really address it.

 

If you don't want drug black markets, legalise/decriminalise drugs.

Gang warfare is a massively overblown term especially as applied to immigrants. Gang problems are 90+% domestic in origin, and also highly drug-related, therefore the US' own fault and a failure of policy. Why does Mexico have its own internal drugs and gangs problems (which barely cross the border by comparison)? US drug policy.

 

Studies consistently show that immigration as it happens in the US now, both legal and illegal, is of significant benefit to the economy and society. Trump's racist supporters' least favourite fact is that immigrants commit crimes at a significantly lower rate than naturalised citizens.

Obama didn't address what didn't need addressing. But a dick like Trump was able to rabble rouse against brown people to get elected, still, in 20-****ing-16. Humans are pathetic.

 

 

Edited by Justin Z
Link to comment
Share on other sites

doctor jambo
18 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

If you don't want drug black markets, legalise/decriminalise drugs.

Gang warfare is a massively overblown term especially as applied to immigrants. Gang problems are 90+% domestic in origin, and also highly drug-related, therefore the US' own fault and a failure of policy. Why does Mexico have its own internal drugs and gangs problems (which barely cross the border by comparison)? US drug policy.

 

Studies consistently show that immigration as it happens in the US now, both legal and illegal, is of significant benefit to the economy and society. Trump's racist supporters' least favourite fact is that immigrants commit crimes at a significantly lower rate than naturalised citizens.

Obama didn't address what didn't need addressing. But a dick like Trump was able to rabble rouse against brown people to get elected, still, in 20-****ing-16. Humans are pathetic.

 

 

All the studies in this country show the same thing.

None of this however makes any difference to the views of the population!

I agree with the legalisation of all drugs.

The problem with democracy is that people get to vote.

And as long as that happens, immigration is going to be an electoral issue

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dusk_Till_Dawn
16 hours ago, maroonlegions said:

Nope red tory  boy he is not. Look closer to the  utter lunatic leader  May, she made no appease or comment when Trump first utter the words on including the NHS in future US/UK trade. What was her response, any FUTURE deals will have  to have negotiations.

 

It’s completely and utterly inappropriate and wrong with someone with such hateful policies like Trump to have a state visit coasting over £40 million fecking  pounds for the cost of the  ceremony and pomp, it  is totally inappropriate., while  schools fecking beg for more money  and people in fecking WORK visit food banks. Donald J. Trump says he turned down meeting with Jeremy Corbyn, and you wonder fecking why.

 

You really need to take your smug  head  out of your sun dont shine and own up in a manly way that Corbyns refusal to meet , talk, or have anything to do with a big  orange racist, fascist moron is more manly than Trumps policies on Mexico were he sanctioned putting children in cages and separating them from their parents.   

 

 

   

 

Corbyn asked to meet him, numbnuts.

 

You seem to be a bit like him - can't follow a clear line of thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He is insane without a doubt. Tweeting insults and feuding with Bette Midler in the middle of the night. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Real Maroonblood
1 hour ago, JackLadd said:

He is insane without a doubt. Tweeting insults and feuding with Bette Midler in the middle of the night. 

He’s got access to codes that can launch a nuclear strike.

:phface:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Watt-Zeefuik
22 hours ago, Justin Z said:

 

jake will be along shortly to tell us none of these are any different than his predecessors, despite all of them being so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Watt-Zeefuik
On 04/06/2019 at 15:48, Barack said:

Trade us for Alabama...?

 

I'd do so but there are a couple million black people in Alabama and some of my cousins whom that would be consigning to reactionary rule, and I can't do that.

 

Would swap for Connecticut in a heartbeat tho...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Watt-Zeefuik
On 04/06/2019 at 20:32, Maple Leaf said:

 

CNN is almost unwatchable, imo.  Half the time it's commercials, the other half it's the same thing over and over and over, ad nauseum.

 

Yon Wolf Blitzer needs to retire.

 

Yep. It's possible to both believe that Trump trying to use anti-trust merger action to influence political coverage on a major media outlet is a noxious abuse of power that's yet another grounds for impeachment, and also that that major media outlet is utterly garbage and we'd generally be better off without.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Real Maroonblood said:

He’s got access to codes that can launch a nuclear strike.

:phface:

But thankfully thanks to the 'two man rule' he's quite unable to launch one by himself. He needs the authorization from somebody else in the administration. Luckily he's filled most of the posts with sensible, right-thinking types. Oh wait, shit...

Edited by trotter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spitonastranger
16 hours ago, Barack said:

That was to stop immigrants getting into another country.

 

He'd like that.

like his mother

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, trotter said:

But thankfully thanks to the 'two man rule' he's quite unable to launch one by himself. He needs the authorization from somebody else in the administration. Luckily he's filled most of the posts with sensible, right-thinking types. Oh wait, shit...

 

Most of the posts are unfilled or acting. The other 'man' could well be The Kush or Jnr. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Real Maroonblood
54 minutes ago, trotter said:

But thankfully thanks to the 'two man rule' he's quite unable to launch one by himself. He needs the authorization from somebody else in the administration. Luckily he's filled most of the posts with sensible, right-thinking types. Oh wait, shit...

:laugh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kalamazoo Jambo
58 minutes ago, trotter said:

But thankfully thanks to the 'two man rule' he's quite unable to launch one by himself. He needs the authorization from somebody else in the administration. Luckily he's filled most of the posts with sensible, right-thinking types. Oh wait, shit...

 

Don't think that's accurate. The two man rule is more about crews in submarines or missile silos validating that the order is authentic. The President can order a strike unilaterally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Real Maroonblood
1 minute ago, Kalamazoo Jambo said:

 

Don't think that's accurate. The two man rule is more about crews in submarines or missile silos validating that the order is authentic. The President can order a strike unilaterally.

What could possibly go wrong.?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Real Maroonblood
3 minutes ago, Barack said:

 

Any excuse to show this piece of cinematic brilliance...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cheers for that.

Long time since I’ve seen that movie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, doctor jambo said:

all the talk of the wall,

 

I wonder what the immigration policy of this country would be if it shared a 2000 mile border with mexico?

Look at the tizzy everyone got into over European immigration.

The camps in Calais?

Imagine we bordered Mexico ( the Riviera Maya would be nice, but cartels etc and muders/rapes/drugs/gangs not so much)

How long do you think it would take the UK - in terms of  border policy- to abandon a more open policy into one similar to America?

Their border with Canada is not an issue after all.

I reckon that within a year our policy would be not too dissimilarly hostile.

Aye, cause nothing in your list happens in America. But hey, you'll be delighted to get your hands on American Pharma to sell us. ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trump to Irish P M.You are going to have a Great Wall .Border in Ireland.It is against U S law to have a border in Ireland as U K law.Congress has it written in stone.Santions will be brought against any country that breaks Good Friday agreement.The man is total scum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Ugly American said:

jake will be along shortly to tell us none of these are any different than his predecessors, despite all of them being so.

 

image.png.803d8031f4131142bdd075d3bffd491d.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Francis Albert
9 hours ago, Julie1957 said:

Trump to Irish P M.You are going to have a Great Wall .Border in Ireland.It is against U S law to have a border in Ireland as U K law.Congress has it written in stone.Santions will be brought against any country that breaks Good Friday agreement.The man is total scum.

I suppose if that is a quote of some sort from Trump it explains why it is totally meaningless.

The Good Friday Agreement says nothing about the absence of a border in Ireland.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

I suppose if that is a quote of some sort from Trump it explains why it is totally meaningless.

The Good Friday Agreement says nothing about the absence of a border in Ireland.

Frank, gie's peace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Francis Albert
Just now, ri Alban said:

Frank, gie's peace.

When someone who has actually read the Good Friday Agreement contradicts me I will happily give you peace. 

It takes about twenty minutes to read it. Ten when you have read it once and        know what to skip.

Yet the myth that it rules out a border not only persists but seems to be driving the whole future of the UK.

I just find that bizarre.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Francis Albert said:

When someone who has actually read the Good Friday Agreement contradicts me I will happily give you peace. 

It takes about twenty minutes to read it. Ten when you have read it once and        know what to skip.

Yet the myth that it rules out a border not only persists but seems to be driving the whole future of the UK.

I just find that bizarre.

I've read it and it explains very clearly. If you put up a border you prevent Irish being Irish or British being British. 

 

But what I actually meant by peace was peace, FA. After watching with a year in my eye those auld solders and thinking about what the allies and red army had to endure. Let's bring some peace and stop encouraging walls, please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Watt-Zeefuik
10 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

When someone who has actually read the Good Friday Agreement contradicts me I will happily give you peace. 

It takes about twenty minutes to read it. Ten when you have read it once and        know what to skip.

Yet the myth that it rules out a border not only persists but seems to be driving the whole future of the UK.

I just find that bizarre.

This again? We already did this.

 

The GFA doesn't explicitly rule out a hard border. What it does explicitly is devolve control of the border to the power sharing agreement to parties who have made a major point of ruling out a hard border as a core tenant of working together.

 

There, you good? Good. Stop bringing up this stupid ****ing nonsense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Watt-Zeefuik

There are many more important things than the fact that Trump cannot wear a tuxedo to save his life, apparently, but this is still pretty funny.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joey J J Jr Shabadoo
24 minutes ago, Ugly American said:

This again? We already did this.

 

The GFA doesn't explicitly rule out a hard border. What it does explicitly is devolve control of the border to the power sharing agreement to parties who have made a major point of ruling out a hard border as a core tenant of working together.

 

There, you good? Good. Stop bringing up this stupid ****ing nonsense.

The GFA stuff was manufactured by Maybot. The reason being, she thought if the EU relented on that they would then be able negotiate a more open English/French "border". 

Maybot got her arse handed to her on a plate. The GFA excuse was used by brexiteers for their own gain, and failed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maple Leaf
28 minutes ago, Ugly American said:

There are many more important things than the fact that Trump cannot wear a tuxedo to save his life, apparently, but this is still pretty funny.

 

 

 

Yes, he's a dangerous man, but it's easy to laugh at him.  You'd think that a billionaire who is also the President of the US would be wearing a bespoke suit, instead of what appears to be his father's hand-me-downs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Francis Albert
54 minutes ago, Ugly American said:

This again? We already did this.

 

The GFA doesn't explicitly rule out a hard border. What it does explicitly is devolve control of the border to the power sharing agreement to parties who have made a major point of ruling out a hard border as a core tenant of working together.

 

There, you good? Good. Stop bringing up this stupid ****ing nonsense.

As you say we already did this. And I have already explained why the emboldened paragraph is a misinterpretation of the GFA. It provides for agreement on devolved matters between the Northern Ireland administration and the Irish Government. The border is not a devolved matter. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jambo-Jimbo
1 hour ago, Ugly American said:

There are many more important things than the fact that Trump cannot wear a tuxedo to save his life, apparently, but this is still pretty funny.

 

 

 

Tbh and in my own personal opinion, I think very very few people would look good in those ridiculous clothes.

 

As for Trump he looks like a fat stuffed pig..............................................oh wait.  ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Real Maroonblood
9 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

Tbh and in my own personal opinion, I think very very few people would look good in those ridiculous clothes.

 

As for Trump he looks like a fat stuffed pig..............................................oh wait.  ?

Good to see we are back on topic instead of being derailed on the GFA which the cretin doesn’t have a clue about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Watt-Zeefuik
1 hour ago, Francis Albert said:

As you say we already did this. And I have already explained why the emboldened paragraph is a misinterpretation of the GFA. It provides for agreement on devolved matters between the Northern Ireland administration and the Irish Government. The border is not a devolved matter. 

 

It's funny how just about everyone with expertise in constitutional and international law who has looked at the matter in detail seems to disagree with you.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2019/01/31/good-friday-agreement-ended-decades-conflict-ireland-worries-brexit-could-unravel-it/?utm_term=.38fb342c0aa0

 

The border prohibition is a de facto rather than de jure result of the GFA. The introduction of a hard border would likely threaten or destroy the GFA. Therefore it is not an inappropriate summary that the GFA requires no hard border to be built.

 

Also, you have no idea what you're talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Watt-Zeefuik
1 hour ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

Tbh and in my own personal opinion, I think very very few people would look good in those ridiculous clothes.

 

As for Trump he looks like a fat stuffed pig..............................................oh wait.  ?

 

A well-fitted tux can be very flattering, even for someone with as bad a physique and posture as the President. 

 

What this looks like to me is that he had a tailored tux made like 15 years ago and tried to squeeze back into it out of denial that he's put on an enormous amount of weight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Real Maroonblood
9 minutes ago, Ugly American said:

 

A well-fitted tux can be very flattering, even for someone with as bad a physique and posture as the President. 

 

What this looks like to me is that he had a tailored tux made like 15 years ago and tried to squeeze back into it out of denial that he's put on an enormous amount of weight.

What you mean is he’s a fat *******.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jambo-Jimbo
5 minutes ago, Ugly American said:

 

A well-fitted tux can be very flattering, even for someone with as bad a physique and posture as the President. 

 

What this looks like to me is that he had a tailored tux made like 15 years ago and tried to squeeze back into it out of denial that he's put on an enormous amount of weight.

 

Sanders/Hannity/Carlson would be all over that statement.

The fake news media are saying that the President has put on weight, no he hasn't, the dry cleaners shrunk his tux.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jambo-Jimbo

President Genius strikes again.

 

"For all of the money we are spending, NASA should NOT be talking about going to the Moon - We did that 50 years ago. They should be focused on the much bigger things we are doing, including Mars (of which the Moon is a part), Defense and Science!"

 

Wow, he thinks the Moon is part of Mars.

 

And people put this buffon in charge of the nuclear codes.

 

 

 

Edited by Jambo-Jimbo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We choose to go to the moon and do the other things.   Not because they are easy,    but because they're Mars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Francis Albert
4 hours ago, Ugly American said:

 

It's funny how just about everyone with expertise in constitutional and international law who has looked at the matter in detail seems to disagree with you.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2019/01/31/good-friday-agreement-ended-decades-conflict-ireland-worries-brexit-could-unravel-it/?utm_term=.38fb342c0aa0

 

The border prohibition is a de facto rather than de jure result of the GFA. The introduction of a hard border would likely threaten or destroy the GFA. Therefore it is not an inappropriate summary that the GFA requires no hard border to be built.

 

Also, you have no idea what you're talking about.

Thanks for confirming my view that a border would not breach the legal terms of the GFA - as you say it is not a question of what is de jure.

As for the de facto position, we agree - an intrusive and visible border would be a very bad idea and would likely destroy the peace settlement, as indeed I have often said.

While bombers and gunmen stand in the wings with itchy fingers I think it unwise to talk loosely about Britain breaching the terms of the GFA.

(Leo Vardaker to his credit chooses his words quite carefully and speaks not baldly of a breach of the GFA's terms but more broadly about the need to support and uphold the peace process and settlement which "de facto" goes wider than the often surprisingly imprecise terms and even mother and apple pie wooliness of the GFA itself)

Edited by Francis Albert
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Francis Albert
1 hour ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

s.President Genius strikes again.

 

"For all of the money we are spending, NASA should NOT be talking about going to the Moon - We did that 50 years ago. They should be focused on the much bigger things we are doing, including Mars (of which the Moon is a part), Defense and Science!"

 

Wow, he thinks the Moon is part of Mars.

 

And people put this buffon in charge of the nuclear codes.

 

 

 

I think it pretty obvious he means going to the moon was (and is?) a necessary step on the way to Mars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maple Leaf
1 hour ago, Francis Albert said:

I think it pretty obvious he means going to the moon was (and is?) a necessary step on the way to Mars.

 

Yeah, you're right.  It was a convoluted way of speaking though.

 

The more interesting part of that comment, to me, was him saying that NASA should be focused on science.  A Republican saying that they should be focused on science!!!!  Whatever next?  A Republican saying that he knows what a scientific theory is??  That'll never happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 06/06/2019 at 14:14, Ugly American said:

jake will be along shortly to tell us none of these are any different than his predecessors, despite all of them being so.

?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

President Genius strikes again.

 

"For all of the money we are spending, NASA should NOT be talking about going to the Moon - We did that 50 years ago. They should be focused on the much bigger things we are doing, including Mars (of which the Moon is a part), Defense and Science!"

 

Wow, he thinks the Moon is part of Mars.

 

And people put this buffon in charge of the nuclear codes.

 

 

 

I can't stand Trump, but come on, you know he doesn't think that. The Moon will be the departure point in future manned missions to Mars and beyond. But that won't happen in our life times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

I think it pretty obvious he means going to the moon was (and is?) a necessary step on the way to Mars.

Exactly!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jambo-Jimbo
4 hours ago, ri Alban said:

I can't stand Trump, but come on, you know he doesn't think that. The Moon will be the departure point in future manned missions to Mars and beyond. But that won't happen in our life times.

 

Freud wouldn't have had a clue what Trump thinks, and how would he have, you have to remember Trump is the smartest person in the room and a very stable genius.

 

As to what I think, all bets are off when it comes to Trump, just when you think he couldn't say something more stupid along comes another tweet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Real Maroonblood
13 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

Freud wouldn't have had a clue what Trump thinks, and how would he have, you have to remember Trump is the smartest person in the room and a very stable genius.

 

As to what I think, all bets are off when it comes to Trump, just when you think he couldn't say something more stupid along comes another tweet.

He might tweet about the moon being made of green cheese.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I P Knightley
5 hours ago, ri Alban said:

I can't stand Trump, but come on, you know he doesn't think that. The Moon will be the departure point in future manned missions to Mars and beyond. But that won't happen in our life times.

Given that he's got all the best words, why didn't he just say that? 

 

Anyway, half the time, the moon is in the exact opposite direction to Mars. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Francis Albert
7 hours ago, I P Knightley said:

Given that he's got all the best words, why didn't he just say that? 

 

Anyway, half the time, the moon is in the exact opposite direction to Mars. 

Good parody of Trump at his best or worst. I assume.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember the moron was staring straight a solar eclipse, he probably thinks the Sun gave birth to the Moon and Mars revolves around his belly (aka Snickers bar depository), the extremely stable genius could host the Sky at Night with his knowledge. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Kalamazoo Jambo changed the title to U.S. Politics megathread (title updated)
  • Maple Leaf changed the title to U.S. Politics megathread (merged)

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...