Ooooh, one finger points forward and three point back.Quote:
Originally Posted by mark12345
Printable View
Ooooh, one finger points forward and three point back.Quote:
Originally Posted by mark12345
Decent points you make. However what has happened to Israel when they have been 'tractable' to the Palestinians? Like with the settlements? It ended up in rockets being fired into Israel and attacks from that location on Israelis. In addition, what about the Arabs who live in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. They are allowed to go unmolested in Israeli sociey, that is until they plant a bomb on a bus or in a restaurant to kill as many Jews as they can. So if the Israelis are intractable you can obviously see why.Quote:
Originally Posted by BonnieShels
And as far as backing a dog into a corner, there is plenty of money available to many of the Arab courntries in North Africa. They could help the Palestinians build a thriving economy, which might allow them to trade with neighboring countries, perhaps even Israel. But unfortunately the same people who bankroll the likes of Hezbollah, don't appear to have the welfare of the Palestinians in mind.
Why does it have to be a two state solution? Why can't the Palestinians be married into a real economy? In a 3 state solution for example.
You don't live in America Danny, do you?
Just wondering?
What American media are you familiar with? Is it CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC? Or do you watch Fox News Channel?
Do you listen to any of the leading Talk Radio shows in America?
I listen to them all because I live here. And the only TV channel who will give you reputable news (they criticize the country's politicians equally) is Fox News. All of the Talk Radio shows are usually on the money when it comes to the corruption in Washington and on how we are being fooled and deceived by the mainstream media when it comes to Donald Trump.
I have seen the American mainstream media lie through their teeth, often through decption, for years now. I never thought one way or the other about the stories on the six o'clock news, but when you finally see what they are saying and how they are
presenting it to you, it is disgusting beyond belief. However, not everyone in America is a news / policical junkie like me and the end result of that is that a good 40 per cent of this country is completely clueless as to what is going on in government in Washington. They get their news from comedians and blogs and Facebook, but I'm sure that is the same in Ireland.
Here are some examples, if you care to read them, of the bias against Donald Trump in the MSM.
On November 8 last year, the day Trump got elected, a man in Chicago was driving away from the poll booth when he was run off the road and pulled out of his car by four youths (three male, one female). His crime - he had a Trump sticker on his car. They beat him senseless and he is lucky to have gotten away with his life. They also robbed him. Now, had the shoe been on the other foot (ie Trump supporters doing that to Hillary supporter) CNN would have broken away from all election coverage and devoted all their time to this incident. What did they do? They tried to bury the story and hope it would go away. It was only two days later that they showed it to the public, and only then because it was all over YouTube.
And what did CNN tell us about the DNC server hacking? They tried to bury that one also. The server was hacked, we were told. And when the FBI came to Philadelphia to investigate the crime (remember it was a crime commited on American soil, which is under the jurisdiction of the FBI, they were told that their services weren't needed). The FBI were told that the DNC had contracted the investigation out to a private firm called Crowdstrike. It is reported that the DNC did not want the FBI looking at the server as it had evidence of the way they had railroaded Bernie Sanders in order to get Hillary elected. CNN, and the other main media outlets kept this under wraps and are still doing it to this day. At the same time they are pushing a narrative that Trump was colluding with the Russians. Now it's ok to say that if there is evidence of that. But there is none, over a year after the story began.
And how can you take CNN et al seriously when their anchors were openly crying the night Donal Trump got elected.
Just the other night, when news came through that unemployement figures were at their lowest since 1973 and the Dow Jones at its highest mark ever, what the ABC and NBC do? They decided not to run their financial segment, which would have showed Trump in a favorable light. And then there was the decision not to investigate Hervey Weinstein, he of Hollywood fame who has now several charges of sexual misconduct and rape against him. Harvey was a big Democrat donor. He contributed to Hillary and others and ABC decided twice not to run a story about him which showed his transgressions.
All day long the mainstream media are criticising Trump. You just cannot take them seriously, because they are trying to deceive you into thinking the way they want you think. Propoganda in other words. Unfortunately too many Americans believe them, and I know from talking to people in Ireland and England that the news is similarly slanted there.
Look, Donald Trump is a brash New Yorker. He has his mannerisms which some people may not like. I'll give you that. But those things are objective. His substance is without question however. He is the best thing to come along in American politics (because he is not a politician) in decades. He is nothing if not a realist - look at his comments on the New York terrorist attack this past Tuesday - while others around him are telling us that day is night, and night is day, and questioning our intelligence when we don't believe them.
I have gone on far too long Danny. But I must say this before leaving. You said the following:
"At the end of the day, Trump still made a hames of the condolence call and of matters since, regardless of what the media wish to say. Perhaps no other president has ever made such a mess of a situation like that, meaning there would have been nothing for the media to uncover then?"
You are as wrong about this as was the man who said the Titanic was unsinkable.
Mark go on MSNBC.Com right now, they don't have ANYTHING about Donna Brazile saying the Clinton's rigged the Democratic primary! Donna Brazile, the head of the DNC at election time!!!!!!!!
Sounds good to me. I have often said that the Israelis and Palestinians are well able to sort out their own problems and work together to that end. It is the war mongers / terrorist groups who are using Lebannon as a stick to beat Israel with, who are the problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by KrisLetang
Danny, how would you feel if someone called you a racist?
Or a bigot?
Not nice for someone to do that, wouldn't you say, particularly if they never met you.
Yet that is the fate which has befallen one General John Kelly, Donald Trump's Chief of Staff, all because of that 'condolence phone call."
He said Congresswoman, Frederica Wilson, was an empty barrell after she smeared Trump. Then she labels him a racist.
People in America were shocked but that's what Trump has to deal with all day long every day. You don't like the President's policies - why not go ahead and label him a racist.
Did he do anything that could be called racist? No, who cares. Just label him a raist anyway (remember Trump employed thousands of blacks and minorities during his time as a real estate tycoon and only became 'a racist' since he opposed the Democrats)
Don't like his Chief of Staff. Call him a racist too.
That sort of behavior has been going on in America for quite a long time - decent people got sick of it a long time ago.
Brazile writes she was haunted by the murder of DNC Seth Rich, shutting the blinds in her house so snipers could not see her. :shock:
Pretty scary stuff to be in a position like that. I guess that's why she came out against ClintonQuote:
Originally Posted by KrisLetang
Can you imagine if Reince Priebus hinted that the Bush family was having him whacked!!!??? Rachel Maddow would have a cow. WOW.
BTW the investigation into Seth Rich's murder is murky as hell.
it really isn't, he was the unfortunate victim of a random assault.
A good breakdown of Donna Brazile's revelations in respect of how the DNC rigged the Democratic primary:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3W2GIZ8rN0
Brazile was the interim chairperson of the DNC from July of 2016 to February of 2017.
It's more than a bit hypocritical of Hillary Clinton to purportedly champion "democracy" and complain about alleged Russian interference and collusion with Trump to help swing the US presidential election whilst she benefited from the DNC rigging the Democratic primary in her favour. She's been going on for the past year as if she's been cheated - as if someone stole the presidency from her - when she stole the Democratic nomination from Sanders.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cenk Uygur
If the DNC hadn't undermined Sanders, it's entirely possible that he'd now be president instead of Trump, but the Democrats can't bear to admit that. They have only themselves to blame and must bear a significant degree of responsibility for Trump becoming president of the US.
Well first it was a robbery. But then the story hastily got switched BC they didn't take anything. Also there are serious questions about the investigation. I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn BTW.Quote:
Originally Posted by tetsujin1979
There is no way Bernie would have won the election.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
There's a good case made for Sanders here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/poste...ould-have-won/Quote:
Originally Posted by KrisLetang
Even Trump's personal pollster, Tony Fabrizio, thinks Sanders would have beaten Trump: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a8029926.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by Fredrik de Boer
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucy Pasha-Robinson
What is the count now 'unfortunate victims of random assaults' related to the Clintons? I believe Seth Rich makes it 46.Quote:
Originally Posted by tetsujin1979
Do I believe the Clinton's are in the Mafia business of taking people out? No. But as suggested above, there is a lot of murkiness surrounding some of the vicitms.
And the countless lies the Clintons have told over the years just add to the suspicion.
So you don't believe the Clintons are in the mafia business of taking people out, they just have the occasional wiseguy whacked?
It would have been a much closer battle between Sanders and Trump, but God help America if Bernie every won. Free this, free that, free education for everyone! He tried it in his own state and they almost ran him out of town as it resulted in massive tax hikes for Vermonters. The real people who got screwed in the last election were the Bernie voters. There were 15 milion of them at one stage, it was reported. And then, after the election was stolen from him, the supporters were left high and dry. And to add insult to injury Bernie takes a 1.5 million dollar house in the Hamptons in exchange for supporting Hillary for the balance of the campaign. With Bernie being the consumate anti-Hillary, his u turn must have left his supporters seething. And it also begs the question, how anyone could ever take a man like him seriously again.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
I don't know that they have had anyone whacked. But there are an awful lot of rumours about such goings on involving them. And, as I say, their years of lying just adds to the suspicion (read about Bill's attack on Juanita Broaddrick "Bill Clinton raped me and Hillary Clinton threatened me," plus the stories of Kathleen Willey, Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones). There are reportedly 24 women who have made allegations against Bill Clinton including one in England. Now do you know any guy, Danny, who could come home to his wife and tell her that he was under investigation for sexual misconduct at work and expect to get a "Don't worry about it honey, everything will be ok," answer? No, neither do I. He might get away with it once, but can you imagine any man coming home to his wife and telling her, 24 times, that he was under investigation for sexual misconduct? Would the wife still be around to listen to him? Not only was Bill Clinton's wife still around to endure a marriage which was nothing but a facade, she reportedly threatened many of these women who accused her husband. How preposterous is that? And to see the pair of them cozy up to one another two or three times on the campaign last year, when it looked for all the world that Hillary would be the next president. Well......need I say more.Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin
Excuse me. Charlie, not DannyQuote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin
It's true, the Democrats bear a large amount of responsibility for Donald Trump becoming president, but not in the way you think. Hillary Clinton was a thoroughly unlikable candidate on the Dems side, but one person more than any other, is responsible for Trump being elected president. And that person is Barack Obama. Eight years of political correctness (funny thing about political correctness is - anyone I have ever talked to or seen on TV talk about PC, has always detested it, yet it's still so much a part of our lives today? Funny how that works?) and eight years of him and his cronies labelling everyone who had a difference of opinion on his policies as a bigot, homophobe or racist. That sort of behavior is straight out of the communist play book, and what's more, the Democrats were so successful at it that freedom of speech took a real beating in America during the past eight years. And, the man who was going to right the wrongs of racism, stood there and threw gasoline on the fire, every day of his presidency. Never before have police in America been so put down as they were during Obama's eight years, and race relations have never been as bad in this awful racist country, which was so racist that it elected a black president, not once, but twice. America is still recovering from Barack Obama.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
You said you don't believe they did, not it's you don't know. Which is it? I don't care about the Clintons' marriage - it's irrelevant to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by mark12345
Perhaps Sanders saw Hillary as the lesser of two evils - the other (worse) evil being a potential Trump presidency - and decided to endorse Clinton on that entirely rational basis. I don't know enough about your bung-in-the-form-of-a-house claim to properly comment on it. Can you provide further details on it?Quote:
Originally Posted by mark12345
Having done a quick Google search, I did come across the following, however: http://jacksonville.com/reason/fact-...sement-hillary
Your assertion sounds suspiciously like a rehashed or exaggerated version of the claim, for which there is no evidence, that is referenced above. So, again, what on earth are you talking about? It might be advisable to do even the briefest of checks on the "facts" that are fed to you by the "reputable" Fox News instead of gullibly swallowing them whole without a second thought. Weren't you purportedly advising critical analysis above and taking issue with the media fooling and deceiving people? I think you fall victim to the deceit yourself, or perhaps you willingly collude in it? That check took me two minutes to expose your claim as nonsense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Carole Fader of the Florida Times-Union
For the sake of argument, let's say your groundless conspiracy theory was true... According to yourself, the alleged "u-turn" brings Sanders' credibility into question, but why don't Trump's u-turns lead you to question Trump's credibility? Why is Trump a protected specimen?
I'll just add that a healthy and educated society has benefits for all and not just for those who receive health treatment or education for "free". Those who go through education spend a career - nearly their entire adulthood - contributing back into the economy with their training, knowledge and labour, so it's not a case of "all take"; they generally pay back society's investment many times over, keep things ticking over and help society evolve and flourish for the next generation.
And such services aren't really free at all either, nor would Sanders suggest that they are, so you misrepresent him. Such services would be paid for through the general taxation of society as a whole, including those in receipt of the services. These are the costs of ensuring a better, more just society for all and of constructing a social safety net for society's most vulnerable.
I'd want a nice house to endorse Hillary, to be fair.
How are people even engaging with this utter lunatic. This particular passage is completely deranged.Quote:
Originally Posted by mark12345
The Communist playbook - Jesus wept.
I guess I should have been clearer. Do I think Bill and Hillary are hiding in the bushes with telescopic lenses to take someone out? No I don't. But a statistic has been put forward that 46 people close to the Clintons are dead now. That's sort of alarming isn't it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin
Deranged? Lunatic? Something in my previous post you disagree with? Feel free to explain and be specific.Quote:
Originally Posted by Real ale Madrid
Mafia men don't sit in bushes with telescopic lenses, they get somebody else to whack the schmo. To be clear, is that what you're suggesting the Clintons did?Quote:
Originally Posted by mark12345
To be clear, read the aboveQuote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin
As soon as you back up some of your balderdash with even the merest hint of a link, source or report then i might consider engaging with you. I can't for the life of me understand how you have been able to post so much unsubstantiated bile for so long. Poor old Skstu got the boot for a week for way less! I'd have reported your posts myself but every time I try and do it I think; - "This stuff can't be real - this guy is on a wind up!" and i hit "undo"!Quote:
Originally Posted by mark12345
So can I throw out a few starters for 10?:
"How did Barack Hussein Obama II help in electing the r:/Donald ?"
"How has freedom of speech taken a beating in the USA ? Few examples would be cool here.
"Name one person Barack Hussein Obama II called a bigot, racist or homophobe?" We will need a link.
"Name one person a crony of "Barrack Hussein Obama II called a bigot, racist or homophobe?" Again back up the truth with a link.
"What in the name of Allah* is the Communist Playbook?
"Why do you detest political correctness , and how would you say, citing examples, where it has had a detrimental effect on US society?
*peace be upon him
"How did Barack Hussein Obama II help in electing the r:/Donald ?"Quote:
Originally Posted by Real ale Madrid
By going on a world tour and apologizing for his perceived American transgressions. By giving the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism, Iran, $152 billion (American people just loved that one) to do with as they wish. By never uttering the words "Radical Islamic terrorism" despite being asked to countless times to do so, and by labelling attacks like that in Fort Hood as 'workplace violence'. By not coming out and telling the truth about Benghazi. By not telling the truth about the IRS scandal. By giving Eric Holder a pass on Fast and Furious and hoping no one would notice. By not coming down on the side of reason when an Oregon couple were forced to pay state enforced damages for not baking a wedding cake for a gay couple (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/12/29...y-wedding.html) - although many people disagreed with the couple, can you really call it a free country when the goverment (of which Obama was president at the time) can actually force you to bake a cake? By not asking Hillary Clinton to come clean about those e-mails (all 33,000 of them).
"How has freedom of speech taken a beating in the USA ? Few examples would be cool here.
A few examples for you. Kids in public schools in America cannot celebrate Christmas anymore. In all honesty, it was probably trending that way before Obama, but the practice certainly sped up while he was in office. And kids cannot celebrate Halloween anymore (don't know that it's the case in every school across the country but the trend has already begun). Halloween is now "Black and Orange Spirit day". No more Columbus Day either. In Los Angeles the city council just passed that beauty of a bill a couple of months ago and it's coming to a city near you you can be sure. Prayers for high school football teams, pre-game, are now verboten in most schools. All it takes is one person to object and the wishes of the masses became irrelevant. America 'survived' very nicely for over two hundred years with the various religions co-existing together and respecting one another (religion was inclusive, not exclusive). Ethnic groups lived by the motto of 'faith and family' - but nowadays it's shut all religion out because it is offensive to a minority of people. And as far as the freedom to speak at universities - Antifa protesters shut down Milo Yiannopolous and Anne Coulter UC Berkley while causing tens of thousands worth of damage. It was a similar story at a free speech rally in Boston, which
was greeted by Antifa types who threw urine bags and rocks at police. These most blatant incidents of shutting down free speech have played out all across the country. And while they have occured during the Trump presidency, they were born in the Obama era and continued with the blessing of Hillary Clinton and her 'Resist' movement.
"Name one person Barack Hussein Obama II called a bigot, racist or homophobe?" We will need a link.
I never said he called anyone a bigot, racist or homophobe but his supporters certainly did if you had a difference of opinion with them - you only have to turn on a radio show in America to hear it. But in regard to Obama, what was he thinking when he invited BLM to the White House in mid July of last year, shortly after the killing of five police officers and injuring of nine others in Dallas by the same group. The assailant, Micah Johnson, was reportedly angry over police shootings of black men and stated that he wanted to kill white people, especially white police officers (Wiki).
Play book is an American football term. It basically means game plan. Communist play book = Communist game plan.
All I have time for right now.
Just want to point out the only link you provided did not mention Barack Obama , it's just a link about a couple who were convicted of breaking a law. You provide no evidence of any of your claims and have provided no evidence for any of your supposed facts on this thread since you started posting. None.
Please no more , I have no time to engage with an idiot. Idiots drag you down to thier level and beat you with experience.
Your level of debate is somewhere between "Fox sponsored news" level and the level of "Thoughts and prayers after a mass shooting" in other words - pointless.
I was under the impression that the title of the thread was "Trump". Not "Clinton" or "Obama". The constant attempts to hijack this thread to talk about people who hold no office is nothing short of wumming.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark12345
Oh, this is just too funny for words. Firstly, that you still take Fox as a credible source. Secondly, that Obama has some kind of Martha Stewart fetish (maybe his superhero costume is an apron and a pastry brush?) and spent eight years forcing unsuspecting pore simple Christians from Oregon to bake cakes for subversive deviants like two women in love clearly hellbent on ripping the entire social fabric asunder. And possibly the space time continuum for all we know. Funny how the most self-righteous bleating about Christian rights comes from the most appallingly unchristian, bigoted, unforgiving, zealous f***wads whose bibles don’t open past the OT.
Thirdly, oh yeah, you still take Fox as a credible source.
Don’t rush back. These are my last words on this anyway. Too bloody annoyed at the level of rubbish to want to engage further because, honestly, it’s not worth the infraction. Good night and good luck.Quote:
Originally Posted by mark12345
Ah sure you know mark12345 (and maybe KrisLetang) is probably sitting in a large office block somewhere in Moscow, although why the FSB is focusing on our nice little corner of the internet here at foot.ie is beyond me - perhaps he's in training or something - or did their algorithm pick up on the fact that somebody set up a thread about Trump and automatically send somebody to troll us?Quote:
Originally Posted by Real ale Madrid
Real ale Madrid has a point, although he broke the rules himself in making it. Pot, meet kettle.
The rules of this forum are stricter than most forums, in that they explicitly state:
I've watched this thread with amazement up until recently, confused and bemused by the fact that we had our own private little /r/The_Donald here; surprised by just how caught up Irish people can get in the Trump Idiocracy; shocked by just how naive, ignorant and occasionally actually stupid people's comments are. And let's be clear, the vast majority of those attributes are on the Trump supporters side; and let's be honest, there's only a few of them here.Quote:
you have to back up your comments with facts, via links or references to texts; or in the case of opinions you have to argue your point in detail. Saying "in my opinion" followed by one sentence is not "detail".
At this stage I actually think they may believe what they're saying, because there does seem to be a category of people out there that take the 4chan/Donald koolaid and drink it, bath in it, possibly even use it for enemas, but it's no skin off my nose either way, I just want shot of it at this stage.
So let's apply the rules properly from now on. I'm not going to appeal to the Trump fans, because they're renowned for not changing their behaviour, I'm appealing to the rest of you -- when one of the Trump fans posts something as a fact without supporting evidence, please report the post and I'll provide them with an infraction. If they post something as an opinion without arguing their point in detail, in a realistic manner, report the post. They'll be gone in a week and we can get Current Affairs back to normal.
Trump fans, don't say you weren't warned. And to be 100% crystal clear -- when you're banned, it'll be site-wide. Remember that. Is it really worth it?
Getting back on track, these are my thoughts on the 1st year. (Disclaimer. It's not actually a year as he Wasn't sworn in until January but as things will shut down shortly for thanksgiving and Christmas it may as well be a year.)
Domestically he hasn't achieved anything policy wise. Obamacare is still chugging away, he's built a few dozen feet of border wall, tax reform hasn't happened and his Muslim ban keeps being knocked down in the courts as it is grossly unconstitutional.
In DC he can point to a real achievement. He got Neil Gorsuch onto the SCOTUS. Aside from that he can get nothing done. He simply isn't respected in congress by either party.
The same applies in foreign policy. President of the USA he may be (for now), but he will never be viewed as leader of the free world. It seems to me that the pause button has been pressed on the conflicts in the usual hotspots until America gets a proper President again. I don't see there even being an attempt to progress issues like Israel-Palestine any time soon.
In the future I can't see either the wall being funded or Obamacare being repealed in the run up to the mid term elections. The democrats should make gains regardless and take back enough to tie it up for the 2 years following that.
It seems a long shot that Trump could possibly be re-elected in 2020, which if he is on the ballot would mean Obamacare would be over a decade old before republicans get a chance to reform it, by which time it will be very well established.
For that reason, and setting Russia investigations aside,
I can see a strong chance of him being challenged for the GOP nomination if he gets that far.
The party that is not in power almost always makes gains in the mid terms, although GWB did well during his first term. Obama got trounced in his first term.
I thought Trump's speech on N Korea was pretty effective. I'm still just not sure what the plan is.
As far as it being a long shot Trump could possibly be re-elected in 2020, it's funny. Most Democrats I've listened to lately disagree strongly. Former NY Governor David Patterson (an interesting guy, he seems very kind and is blind) said this morning while guest co hosting on 710 WOR that he sees Trump getting re elected. I watch Kennedy's show on Fox Business sometimes and her panel is a mix of Democrats and Republicans and Libertarians, and very often long time Dem operatives (Like Jessica Tarlov) talk about the Democrats short bench when it comes to 2020. Corey Booker? Meh. I'm from NJ so I can tell you he likes to hide the fact that he grew up VERY wealthy in Old Tappan. Kamala Harris? Those California policies will not play in the mid west. Elizabeth Warren? She is no spring chicken....I think Terry McCauliffe is running, popular outgoing Gov of VA and a former Clinton money bundler, and Clinton loyalist. He might have a shot I guess. Joe Biden seems to think he would be a shoe in. I just don't think so.
He's kind of touchy feely and there are real weird things going on in his family to say the least. Mark Zuckerberg? Has a hard time connecting socially in person to put it mildly. But who knows.
Those names you have listed all have the meh factor, but It's that issue which makes me think it will be someone else at the top of the ticket.
The Irishman in me is looking at Rep. Joe Kennedy but i think somebody can come out of the pack who will make Trump look as old and incompetent as he is, and who will be able to deal with his campaign BS.