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

MightyMandarin

rgossip30 wrote: »

I don't have the time like you and don't have a subscription or read the times sorry .

You criticise people for "not speaking out", then when it's shown that they in fact did, and it was reported by one of Ireland's top newspapers, you claim that you 'don't have the time' to keep up with the news.

Why do you even bother commenting here at all if you clearly don't have an idea what you're talking about?

alastair

recedite wrote: »

In a swap, you normally get something in return?

Basically these are a load of migrants that failed to get into Australia, but refused to go home. As a result they have been hanging around in neighbouring islands such as Papua New Guinea, in camps maintained at the expense of the Australian taxpayer.

They didn't 'fail to get into Australia'. They were legitimate refugees offloaded by Australia to their offshore refugee camps that are about to be closed down on account of their illegality. Since Australia refuses to ever allow them entry (despite their refugee status), this deal is a face-saving deal that allows Australia to swap the refugees they said wouldn't ever enter Australia with substitutes the US has also offloaded offshore.

RobertKK

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Yep. Basically "Your war on terror has landed all these people on our shores and they're your problem, not ours."

Edit: Actually when I come to think of it, that's probably what he said to Trump that had him slamming down the phone. The other option of having to hold on to the Central American refugees probably didn't sit well with the donald either.

Except Australia was actively involved in all of these wars.

jobbridge4life

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

So, I think we have seen enough to be able to make a few predictions. One of Trumps core promises was a big infrastructure project which would rebuild America and create jobs.
I will now predict that:
1) there will not be nearly enough money to back up the promise
2) the money will go to rural areas (because "urban" areas are too black and Democratic)
3) the money will not go on broadband or clean water or clean energy - it'll go on bridges and roads, but not useful inter urbans, since that would benefit Democrats.
4)In ten years, there will be a heap of "bridge to nowhere" scandals about pork and waste associated with the programme.

I think more likely the reality is that this massive investment will in reality be a the largest scheme of privatization in history.

The Government 'invests' by, in effect, selling off huge swathes of public infrastructure under the guise of 'public private partnerships'.

Paul Krugman very good on this.

alastair

MightyMandarin wrote: »

You criticise people for "not speaking out", then when it's shown that they in fact did, and it was reported by one of Ireland's top newspapers, you claim that you 'don't have the time' to keep up with the news.

Why do you even bother commenting here at all if you clearly don't have an idea what you're talking about?

I don't why you would expect anything other than hypocrisy tbh.

CMOTDibbler

MightyMandarin wrote: »

You criticise people for "not speaking out", then when it's shown that they in fact did, and it was reported by one of Ireland's top newspapers, you claim that you 'don't have the time' to keep up with the news.

Why do you even bother commenting here at all if you clearly don't have an idea what you're talking about?

I'm beginning to find this a feature of Trump supporters. Like the man himself; throw out statements without bothering to check whether they're true or not and then repeat loudly and often in the hope they'll become accepted fact.

Or alternative fact. :rolleyes:

Boggy Turf

I am glad he told the Aussie PM where to go. Australians shouldn't be seen or heard. They'd sicken your hole. Their politicians are all mouth, self absorbed and arrogant.
Good on ya cobber!

recedite

alastair wrote: »

They didn't 'fail to get into Australia'.....

Since Australia refuses to ever allow them entry...

Bit of a contradiction there, even by your standards

Billy86 wrote: »

Under the deal, Australia would in return resettle refugees from El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras"

I would love to know more about this deal. As would Trump, apparently.

These are three fairly peaceful and prosperous American countries, with sizable oil and tourist industries. Sure, they have had their problems in the past with communist factions and the opposing right wing contra factions.

Why the necessity now to evacuate their populations to Australia?
How exactly are they "refugees".
Or are we talking about just the people that Obama deported from the USA? If so, they must be convicted criminals, because they are the only illegals that he deported .
Is Australia still taking convicts from other countries?

jobbridge4life

Boggy Turf wrote: »

I am glad he told the Aussie PM where to go. Australians shouldn't be seen or heard. They'd sicken your hole. Their politicians are all mouth, self absorbed and arrogant.
Good on ya cobber!

And we all know Trump brooks no pretenders to the throne...

gormdubhgorm

InTheTrees wrote: »

Yes. Right. We get that. We're going round and round and round in circles.

The popular vote doesnt matter because he won.

The popular vote shows why he's so unpopular.

But the popular vote doesnt matter because he won.

But it shows why he's so unpopular.

etc etc.

trump won but he's deeply unpopular because he didnt win the peoples vote.

Ergo the popular vote makes no difference it is only cosmetics and a thing to shout about on the internet.

Zubeneschamali

recedite wrote: »

I would love to know more about this deal. As would Trump, apparently.

Perhaps Trump could do a bit of homework, you know, read a briefing or two, before ringing world leaders, yelling at them and hanging up on them.

Mirror game

Havockk wrote: »

The GOP is going to end up tearing themselves apart at some point during this presidency. Interesting times ahead indeed.

Things couldn't be going better for them, compare now to this time last year. When Trump was acting crazy during the campaign they stayed with him knowing it was a slim chance but their only chance.
Now that he has won, everything is falling into place.
They would've known that he'd act like a crazed lunatic all they they have to do is sit back wait till he can't deliver the manufacturing jobs then pull the plug when the whole country hates him.
Ryan can't contain himself going around all giddy and excited. Mike Pence is smiling and nodding away, knowing full well that Trump can't and wont deliver in the long run.

CMOTDibbler

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Ergo the popular vote makes no difference it is only cosmetics and a thing to shout about on the internet Twitter.

FYP

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/824968416486387713

recedite

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Perhaps Trump could do a bit of homework, you know, read a briefing or two, before ringing world leaders, yelling at them and hanging up on them.

Well theres two possibilities here.
One is that the administration has looked at the contract and seen it is legally binding. So nothing can be done, except hurl some abuse at the person who swindled your predecessor.

The other possibility is that the contract is going to be torn up. Best way to break this news is to phone up the swindler.

.... so no matter which it is, the phone call pretty much ends in the same way :pac:

jobbridge4life

recedite wrote: »

Well theres two possibilities here.
One is that the administration has looked at the contract and seen it is legally binding. So nothing can be done, except hurl some abuse at the person who swindled your predecessor.

The other possibility is that the contract is going to be torn up. Best way to break this news is to phone up the swindler.

.... so no matter which it is, the phone call pretty much ends in the same way :pac:

So in your evaluation is that every single possibility is that Trump was right, justified and effective.

This seems like a fair evaluation.

KingBrian2

Billy86 wrote: »

Which is what happens in the deal:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-australia-asylum-idUSKBN15F2RM
"Washington agreed on a deal late last year to resettle asylum seekers, mainly from Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq, held in Australia's processing centers on remote Pacific islands in Papua New Guinea and Nauru.

Under the deal, Australia would in return resettle refugees from El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras"

All this relocating of migrants did anyone bother to consult the refugees in all this. Perhaps they would like to return to their own country or a third country somewhere nearby that is safe and has a good gvt.

jobbridge4life

KingBrian2 wrote: »

All this relocating of migrants did anyone bother to consult the refugees in all this. Perhaps they would like to return to their own country or a third country somewhere nearby that is safe and has a good gvt.

KB2 you are on record, on this site, supporting Trump's bans on refugees from several countries, in fact you've called for a furthering of the ban. Your posts regarding consulting refugees should be and are judged accordingly.

Don't expect people to take comments such as the above seriously.

Bazzo

Perhaps the refugees would like to return to their own country? Is this for real?

KingBrian2

jobbridge4life wrote: »

KB2 you are on record, on this site, supporting Trump's bans on refugees from several countries, in fact you've called for a furthering of the ban. Your posts regarding consulting refugees should be and are judged accordingly.

Don't expect people to take comments such as the above seriously.

First i am not in favour of further bans. Don't know how you came that conclusion. I am on record of wanting to curb the spread of Islamic terrorism around the world and restricting radical jihadists who come through the refugees now arriving en mess in Australia, Europe & North America.

Billy86

recedite wrote: »

I would love to know more about this deal. As would Trump, apparently.

These are three fairly peaceful and prosperous American countries, with sizable oil and tourist industries. Sure, they have had their problems in the past with communist factions and the opposing right wing contra factions.

Why the necessity now to evacuate their populations to Australia?
How exactly are they "refugees".
Or are we talking about just the people that Obama deported from the USA? If so, they must be convicted criminals, because they are the only illegals that he deported .
Is Australia still taking convicts from other countries?

I would be interested to know more about it too, but your claim that Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala are fairly peaceful and prosperous be much further from the truth, and I'm not sure how familiar with those countries you are based off your questions at the end? All three have massive issues relating to gangs, crime, corruption and drugs. The infamous (and huge, transnational) MS-13 and M18 gangs even originated from El Salvadorian and Honduran immigrants in California, apparently - MS-13 alone are estimated to have similar numbers to all of ISIS for example. Not sure of Mara 18 but if I recall they're a similar size again; both have a very large presence in all three of these countries.

Between them, Guatemala, Honduras and El Savador have have the highest, second highest and 10th highest murder rates in the entire world! Poverty and wealth disparity in all three and rank among the lowest per capita GDPs across the Americas. All three have lower average incomes than both Iraq and Iran, though higher than Afghanistan. Over 2/3rds of Guatemalan children in poverty and 49% suffering from malnutrition - http://www.avivara.org/aboutguatemala/povertyinguatemala.html . Numbers are almost identical in Honduras, with 63% in poverty and 48% malnurished. El Salvador can "boast" the best numbers of the three, with 33% in poverty and 16% malnurished.

Not one of those three industries has a 'sizeable' oil industry, I'm not sure where you pulled that idea out of?
http://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/hnd/#Exports
http://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/slv/#Exports
http://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/gtm/#Exports

None of the three are tourist hot spots or anything even close, either.
http://reports.weforum.org/travel-and-tourism-competitiveness-report-2015/index-results-the-travel-tourism-competitiveness-index-ranking-2015/

Here they are compared to Ireland in tourist numbers, us being a country with a lesser population than any of them, but also one that actually does have a sizable tourist industry:


Of course, it doesn't help tourism when the US State Department (with good reason) has special pages warning the public about the dangers of visiting you:
https://travel.state.gov/content/passports/en/alertswarnings/el-salvador-travel-warning.html
https://travel.state.gov/content/passports/en/alertswarnings/honduras-travel-warning.html

jobbridge4life

KingBrian2 wrote: »

First i am not in favour of further bans. Don't know how you came that conclusion.

Do you support the ban?

IF you do? Do you support the fact that Saudi Arabia was excluded?

If not can you explain why Saudi Arabia should not be included.

KingBrian2 wrote: »

I am on record of wanting to curb the spread of Islamic terrorism around the world and restricting radical jihadists who come through the refugees now arriving en mess in Australia, Europe & North America.

Name one person in the 'west' who would disagree with that statement.

Billy86

jobbridge4life wrote: »

KB2 you are on record, on this site, supporting Trump's bans on refugees from several countries, in fact you've called for a furthering of the ban. Your posts regarding consulting refugees should be and are judged accordingly.

Don't expect people to take comments such as the above seriously.

I would definitely agree, particularly as this calling Trump "all for religious tolerance" and claiming no Muslim ban was planned as no Muslim problem existed, to slurring about "the nasty Muslims" (post #1,876) only a few days ago. It certainly bears mention and is only right to judge their posts on such matters in accordance with such inconsistencies moving forward.

gormdubhgorm

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

FYP

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/824968416486387713

That is just showmanship/stage craft it is just a game he is playing, which people are getting dragged into, a deflection tactic which he must find hillarious.

It is similar to the carbolic smoke ball case in contract law which uses the term "sales man puff" (the court found it was not salesman puff)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlill_v_Carbolic_Smoke_Ball_Co

This is Trump's "salesman puff" only unlike Carbolic Smoke Ball he is not entering a contract with any individual, as he has already won and is the top dog in US of A.

RobertKK

Not much really changes.

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/827237104405078016

PopePalpatine

What's the chances Wikileaks will actually leak something that would embarrass Trump? I'd say negligible.

Water John

Trump has backed off in his shouting at Australia. That didn't take long.
3 years old's tantrum.

KingBrian2

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Do you support the ban?

IF you do? Do you support the fact that Saudi Arabia was excluded?

If not can you explain why Saudi Arabia should not be included.



Name one person in the 'west' who would disagree with that statement.

I support restrictions being placed on Islamist organisations that come from that region. I see the refugee crisis being exploited by Jihadists and political elites. My own view on Saudi Arabia would go considerable further than banning that countries citizens from coming into Europe or America.

As for those that disagree with that Many politicians in the west have actually been supportive of Islamists in the past including the likes of Hillary Clinton, John McCain seen as pandering to the Islamists out there.

PopePalpatine

jobbridge4life wrote: »

So in your evaluation is that every single possibility is that Trump was right, justified and effective.

This seems like a fair evaluation.

Ah come on, you can't expect him to disagree with his beloved "God-Emperor". :rolleyes:

RobertKK

PopePalpatine wrote: »

What's the chances Wikileaks will actually leak something that would embarrass Trump? I'd say negligible.

Julian Assange would have wanted revenge on Hillary Clinton and he got it. She asked if he could taken out.
He got what he wanted there, Assange and Wikileaks don't owe Trump anything.
They already got what they wanted with Trump on November 8th, and Wikileaks will stay doing what they always have.
Their reason to not damage Trump has passed.

CMOTDibbler

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

That is just showmanship/stage craft it is just a game he is playing, which people are getting dragged into, a deflection tactic which he must find hillarious.

Or it's just the ramblings of a narcissist who can't abide the idea that he's not as popular as he likes to think he is. I suppose the corwd size sideshow was also just to amuse himself?