Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

President 'The Donald' Trump and Surprising Consequences - Mod warning in OP

Options
1…3536384041…332

Comments

  • Options
    #1112
    MightyMandarin
    Registered Users Posts: 3,723 ✭✭✭MightyMandarin


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    Is there proof of that though?

    I'd be hard pressed to find actual sources honestly, but wahhabism by its nature encourages the same intolerance and violence used by islamic terror groups.

    Even Hillary herself acknowledged that 'donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide' in a leaked memo.

    That said, ISIS and Al-Qaeda are ranked as terror groups by the Saudi Govt. and so aiding them is a criminal offence.

    In my opinion, the Saudi Govt. is not a Govt. I would like to see my leader's doing deals with or accepting money from.


  • Options
    #1113
    El_Duderino 09
    Registered Users Posts: 20,236 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    Amerika wrote:
    For those not paying real attention during the election, his core principles could always have been found here...

    Political policies = core principles? Where do his actual behaviours fit in?


  • Options
    #1114
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users Posts: 14,371 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    MightyMandarin wrote:
    In my opinion, the Saudi Govt. is not a Govt. I would like to see my leader's doing deals with or accepting money from.


    It is worth reflecting on the fact that only the USA and China spend more on defence than Saudi Arabia.


  • Options
    #1115
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    I don't see why the Saudi thing is even an issue. Saudi/US relations have been pretty good for the better part of a century; the Saudi government denounced 9/11 and put in place many measures to prevent funding of terrorism.

    The Clinton Foundation is hardly the first or only foundation or group with ties to the Saudi government or companies.

    Something about glass houses and stones comes to mind... :o
    Its am issue because Trump fans tend to be desperate to talk about anything but Trump, in the after hours forum it got so bad they literally had to close the thread and put a mod warning in the OP of the new one. It also completely ignored Trumps many dealings with the Saudis (he opened 8 new businesses there - during- the election campaign), as well as the House of Saud helping him out when he was stuck for money. Setting the bar equally, the guy is littered with money trails from that country, as he is from Russia.


  • Options
    #1116
    aphex™
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,338 ✭✭✭aphex™


    El_Duderino 09 wrote: »
    Political policies = core principles? Where do his actual behaviours fit in?

    Hard nosed businessman who can negotiate a deal and wipe the floor of any opposing spindoctor with a single tweet?

    I would say his behaviors fit in quite well with the role. The Americans like straight talkers.

    Can you imagine what he's going to do to any opposing sides in the intelligence agencies over the next few days? I wonder have any of them driven home yet or are they waiting till half way thru the inauguration?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1117
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    aphex™ wrote: »
    Can you imagine what he's going to do to any opposing sides in the intelligence agencies over the next few days?

    Yes, I can imagine him with a blank legal pad writing "ENeMies LisT" with a sharpie, and underlining it in several colours.


  • Options
    #1118
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users Posts: 14,371 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    aphex™ wrote: »
    Hard nosed businessman who can negotiate a deal and wipe the floor of any opposing spindoctor with a single tweet?

    I would say his behaviors fit in quite well with the role. The Americans like straight talkers.

    Can you imagine what he's going to do to any opposing sides in the intelligence agencies over the next few days? I wonder have any of them driven home yet or are they waiting till half way thru the inauguration?

    While he may have a hard nose, 'businessman' is stretching it.

    Real businessmen pay taxes, publish their accounts and don't feel the need to hide their tax affairs for twenty years.

    Real businessmen set up their own businesses and don't depend on their dodgy billionaire daddy to set them up with a large wedge of cash.

    Real businessmen don't fail spectacularly and have to be bailed out by their dodgy billionaire daddy.


  • Options
    #1119
    MightyMandarin
    Registered Users Posts: 3,723 ✭✭✭MightyMandarin


    aphex™ wrote: »
    Hard nosed businessman who can negotiate a deal and wipe the floor of any opposing spindoctor with a single tweet?

    Yeah that's definitely how I elect my country's leaders, based on the way they tweet...


  • Options
    #1120
    El_Duderino 09
    Registered Users Posts: 20,236 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    aphexâ„&#162 wrote:
    Can you imagine what he's going to do to any opposing sides in the intelligence agencies over the next few days? I wonder have any of them driven home yet or are they waiting till half way thru the inauguration?

    I imagine he'll fire a whole lot of people and staff it with people who'll be loyal to him - bury any intelligence that doesn't suit him. After that I expect him to use the US intelligence agencies and the Presidency as part of his personal business empire.

    What do you imagine he'll do?


  • Options
    #1121
    aphex™
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,338 ✭✭✭aphex™


    MightyMandarin wrote: »
    Yeah that's definitely how I elect my country's leaders, based on the way they tweet...

    Actually I had a look at Podesta's (Clinton insider) emails on Wikileaks and he insisted people send him screenshots of Clinton's tweets. Couldn't use twitter. Talk about old fashioned.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1122
    aphex™
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,338 ✭✭✭aphex™


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    Yes, I can imagine him with a blank legal pad writing "ENeMies LisT" with a sharpie, and underlining it in several colours.

    When you've to fire people en masse, you do need to start with a list. Maybe he'll use colors to separate the agencies?
    Might be a handy way of doing it.


  • Options
    #1123
    MightyMandarin
    Registered Users Posts: 3,723 ✭✭✭MightyMandarin


    aphex™ wrote: »
    Actually I had a look at Podesta's (Clinton insider) emails on Wikileaks and he insisted people send him screenshots of Clinton's tweets. Couldn't use twitter. Talk about old fashioned.

    'Ability to use twitter'

    Now these are the important issues!


  • Options
    #1124
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    MightyMandarin wrote: »
    'Ability to use twitter'

    Now these are the important issues!

    I fairness, I think Trump's staff probably wish he had the ability not to use Twitter.


  • Options
    #1125
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users Posts: 14,371 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    aphex™ wrote: »
    When you've to fire people en masse, you do need to start with a list. Maybe he'll use colors to separate the agencies?
    Might be a handy way of doing it.

    Firing cohorts of spies, who have been gathering the dirt on you for decades, sounds like a stupid move to me. I fully expect Trump to do exactly this.


  • Options
    #1126
    aphex™
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,338 ✭✭✭aphex™


    MightyMandarin wrote: »
    'Ability to use twitter'

    Now these are the important issues!
    Reality:
    Clinton probably spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on PR and spin doctors to include managing her Twitter presence.

    Donald didn't need to spend any of that.
    So who values it more on paper? Clinton.


  • Options
    #1127
    MightyMandarin
    Registered Users Posts: 3,723 ✭✭✭MightyMandarin


    aphex™ wrote: »
    Reality:
    Clinton probably spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on PR and spin doctors to include managing her Twitter presence.

    Donald didn't need to spend any of that.
    So who values it more on paper? Clinton.

    Emphasis on the word 'probably', which means you've got no proof and are talking out of your arse.

    Also, I dunno why you're obsessed with Hillary. I didn't want her in office as much as anyone. Just because she was a bad option doesn't make Trump any less of a **** person to be president.


  • Options
    #1128
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    aphex™ wrote: »
    But it's not clear what was asked, is it?
    Proof of funds to Clinton foundation? http://www.politifact.com/arizona/statements/2016/jul/11/donald-trump/did-hillary-clinton-take-money-countries-treat-wom/ A simple google.
    I suggest going back and reading more carefully:

    I never suggested there was no proof of Saudi money going to the Clinton Foundation now did I?


  • Options
    #1129
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    MightyMandarin wrote: »
    I'd be hard pressed to find actual sources honestly, but wahhabism by its nature encourages the same intolerance and violence used by islamic terror groups.

    Even Hillary herself acknowledged that 'donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide' in a leaked memo.

    That said, ISIS and Al-Qaeda are ranked as terror groups by the Saudi Govt. and so aiding them is a criminal offence.

    In my opinion, the Saudi Govt. is not a Govt. I would like to see my leader's doing deals with or accepting money from.
    I don't disagree with your first point.
    I still stand by my point that they are, if not a US ally, a "special relationship" country and until the US changes that, I see no inherent issue with accepting their money.

    I certainly wouldn't be so quick to slam the Clinton Foundation for doing it when it's not clear that others aren't doing the exact same thing.


  • Options
    #1130
    MightyMandarin
    Registered Users Posts: 3,723 ✭✭✭MightyMandarin


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    I don't disagree with your first point.
    I still stand by my point that they are, if not a US ally, a "special relationship" country and until the US changes that, I see no inherent issue with accepting their money.

    I certainly wouldn't be so quick to slam the Clinton Foundation for doing it when it's not clear that others aren't doing the exact same thing.

    While I disagree that it's a problem if people do private deals with them, the biggest thing for me is people who think Trump doing his backroom deals with Russia is ok, but Clinton accepting money from the Saudi's is not. There's an inherent hypocrisy there which is also widely reflected in the general behaviour of him and his supporters.


  • Options
    #1131
    aphex™
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,338 ✭✭✭aphex™


    MightyMandarin wrote: »
    Emphasis on the word 'probably', which means you've got no proof and are talking out of your arse.

    It's widely known Trump did a lot of his twitter stuff himself.
    Clinton paid other people to do hers.
    I also looked at the emails and she had someone else doing her tweets.
    Therefore logic dictates she spent more on her twitter presence on trump - because he did so much himself - and here's the kicker she still failed.

    And, the whole argument goes back to when I said it was a great way to deflect spin from the opposing sides with 1 single tweet. Which it was. So, I'm not talking out my arse, thanks.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1132
    MightyMandarin
    Registered Users Posts: 3,723 ✭✭✭MightyMandarin


    aphex™ wrote: »
    It's widely known Trump did a lot of his twitter stuff himself.
    Clinton paid other people to do hers.
    I also looked at the emails and she had someone else doing her tweets.
    Therefore logic dictates she spent more on her twitter presence on trump - because he did so much himself - and here's the kicker she still failed.

    And, the whole argument goes back to when I said it was a great way to deflect spin from the opposing sides with 1 single tweet. Which it was. So, I'm not talking out my arse, thanks.

    Firstly, 'Twitter presence' is the least important issue here, yet you seem to place it high among your priorities. Maybe you should go have a read about what being the president of a country means, rather than putting huge value into social media presence.

    Secondly, you must have suddenly discovered proof that Clinton pays a PR team for her twitter account because you said it was only 'probably' a short while ago .
    aphex™ wrote: »
    Reality:
    Clinton probably spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on PR and spin doctors to include managing her Twitter presence.

    Thirdly, the vast, vast majority of public figures don't run their own twitter or social media accounts, not just Hillary. Sportspeople, musicians, actors and even other politicians don't do it. Why? Well cause there are more important things than typing ****in 140 characters into a phone for everyone else to see.

    And finally, you don't know if Trump writes his own tweets, neither does anyone but his own team. The only way I can make a solid inference that he does, is the fact that only a ****ty media firm would write idiotic **** in all-caps about people who say mean things about him at 3 o'clock in the morning.

    If you honestly think that a president behaving worse than 14 yr old girl on social media is a good thing, you are out of your ****in mind. Even the most ardent of Trump supporters would hope that he'd put the damn phone down at 3am and focus on the 300-and-something million people he's supposed to represent.


  • Options
    #1133
    aphex™
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,338 ✭✭✭aphex™


    MightyMandarin wrote: »
    Yeah that's definitely how I elect my country's leaders, based on the way they tweet...

    I wonder if you'd suggest any other modern ways for a political candidate to get their message out to millions of people instantly and dismiss any opposition spin so easily?
    What would be a more acceptable medium for you? Telegram?


  • Options
    #1134
    El_Duderino 09
    Registered Users Posts: 20,236 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    MightyMandarin wrote:
    [...] of Trump supporters would hope that he'd put the damn phone down at 3am and focus on the 300-and-something million people he's supposed to represent.

    He only had one person to look after. I suppose some other people stand to gain personally. The idea that anyone else is happy about it is baffling


  • Options
    #1135
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users Posts: 14,371 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    aphex™ wrote: »
    I wonder if you'd suggest any other modern ways for a political candidate to get their message out to millions of people instantly and dismiss any opposition spin so easily?
    What would be a more acceptable medium for you? Telegram?

    Newspaper/TV/radio interviews, press conferences, speeches...


  • Options
    #1136
    SeamusFX
    Registered Users Posts: 418 ✭✭SeamusFX


    MightyMandarin wrote: »
    If you honestly think that a president behaving worse than 14 yr old girl on social media is a good thing, you are out of your ****in mind. Even the most ardent of Trump supporters would hope that he'd put the damn phone down at 3am and focus on the 300-and-something million people he's supposed to represent.

    Exactly, unfortunately a lot of Trump supporters support him because they too behave and like 14 year old kids and even a lot younger. It's a sad state of the world and the ironic thing is the majority of the people that voted for Trump will be the most adversely affected by his Presidency!


  • Options
    #1137
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    aphex™ wrote: »
    It's widely known Trump did a lot of his twitter stuff himself.
    Clinton paid other people to do hers.
    I also looked at the emails and she had someone else doing her tweets.
    Therefore logic dictates she spent more on her twitter presence on trump - because he did so much himself - and here's the kicker she still failed.

    And, the whole argument goes back to when I said it was a great way to deflect spin from the opposing sides with 1 single tweet. Which it was. So, I'm not talking out my arse, thanks.

    You're forgetting one key thing: Trump has people post on his Twitter for him too, and just like the Saudi money claims is every bit as 'guilty' as you are trying to make out just one side to be.


  • Options
    #1138
    El_Duderino 09
    Registered Users Posts: 20,236 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    I just hope he gives the Presidency back in 8 years. I can't imagine anything he could do that would upset his supporters.


  • Options
    #1139
    slovakchick
    Closed Accounts Posts: 200 ✭✭slovakchick


    they say Grace with a lot of pomp


  • Options
    #1140
    BuilderPlumber
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,378 ✭✭✭BuilderPlumber


    Iran and North Korea pose a threat to the US!!! Give me a break.

    ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS ISIS

    That's who the threat comes from not Iran or North Korea. And star wars revived won't stop these suicide bombers from that vile group. No wonder the world is a message when presidents have stupid advisors who haven't a clue.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1141
    mattser
    Registered Users Posts: 2,235 ✭✭✭mattser


    Great evenings entertainment. Such a major kick in the stones to those who mocked and jeered everyone who said he had a chance. Meanwhile our media are doing somersaults to find protesters both over there, and here.

    The same media who, one by one, are inviting back on TV and Radio, those who ran this place into the ground. For their advice no less. And they have the nerve to try and ridicule the U.S. You couldn't fcukin make it up.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement