Trump

[gumboot]

It does seem like Trump would end up doing things like tipping off the targets of planned airstrikes by tweeting about them in advance.

[pogo]

Trump though is happy to bring up any such nonsense if it fits his particular mindset. Not only is there no grounds for implying she is Native American, calling her “ Pocahontas” is a particularly racist way of doing so.

He could just be mocking her silly ideas. Not at all implying that she's native American but that she's deluded for imagining that she is.

Silly ideas? Just watch one of her speeches. She is almost unique, in her ability to combine intelligent analysis and insight with a articulate and clear presentation. Her area of expertise (she was a Havard professor before she became a politician) is finance, in particular bankruptcy law, so she has had no trouble understanding Trump with his multiple bankruptcies, the thousands of times he’s been sued.

That’s why Trump does not like her. She is clearly and straightforwardly pulling apart his main argument for being president – that he is a great businessman. Warren is having none of it and is telling anyone who wants to hear what his record really is. If Clinton has any sense she will make Warren her running mate.


Here she is, just this week. “thin skinned, racist bully”. No wonder Trump gets worked up, she tells it exactly how it is.

[Darkflame]

He could just be mocking her silly ideas. Not at all implying that she's native American but that she's deluded for imagining that she is.

You know, as a President, will Trump still need people explaining what his statements actually mean?

Perhaps make it law then, three strikes and you're out?

Theres only one presidential candidate who has stated he wanted some press freedoms restricted.
Guess which one.

[gumboot]

"Rule of law"? In America? She's either completely delusional or she's Canadian. What a load of shit.

[pogo]

Her comment that even Trump is subject to the rule of law? It’s true. He’s been sued many times, and lost some important cases, despite the money and resources he has to fight every case.

This is another good reason he should not become president, that he does think himself above the law, and has no respect for the law or legal process. a President Trump might seek to use his presidential authority to escape justice, by e.g. undermining the legal system, or stacking the courts with people sympathetic to his scofflaw attitude.

[gumboot]

In Trump's America there will be no fraud. It will simply be called "winning".

[gumboot]

He could just be mocking her silly ideas. Not at all implying that she's native American but that she's deluded for imagining that she is.

You know, as a President, will Trump still need people explaining what his statements actually mean?

Almost certainly. But in this case it seems disingenuous to call that a racist attack when it could simply be ironic from his own perspective, and not a reflection of any racist attitude at all.

I don't much believe in this strict us-versus-them thing where everything the bad guy says is only allowed the very worst interpretation. It implies that all commentary must be inherently biased which makes it utterly pointless except as some kind of social bonding exercise.

[SuperMappy]

[Darkflame]

He could just be mocking her silly ideas. Not at all implying that she's native American but that she's deluded for imagining that she is.

You know, as a President, will Trump still need people explaining what his statements actually mean?

Almost certainly. But in this case it seems disingenuous to call that a racist attack when it could simply be ironic from his own perspective, and not a reflection of any racist attitude at all.

I don't much believe in this strict us-versus-them thing where everything the bad guy says is only allowed the very worst interpretation. It implies that all commentary must be inherently biased which makes it utterly pointless except as some kind of social bonding exercise.

Agreed. But "is this racist or not" is somewhat arbitrary, "is this another substance-less childish name-calling" is a absolute.

[Mayhem]

Clinton vs Trump is definitely going to be a battle of the lesser of two evils, and while there are a few things I don't like about Clinton, she's a hell of a better prospect than Trump as president. As noted a couple of times, assuming she now gets the nod to run, I am interested to see who she picks as running mate.

The Lib Dems have the highest proportion of MPs on the site, with 57 out of 100, or 57 per cent.

I'm presuming the report was written prior to last year's election then?

[F-ZeroOne]

I wonder how many people do delete their accounts when told to do so by these people in authority?

Anyhow, a very liberal thing to say. Criticise islam and you're islamaphobic or racist, say something again similar and they want to shut you down.
Perhaps make it law then, three strikes and you're out?

Hillary Clinton also told Trump to delete his account, I bet there's a few things she wished she'd deleted

Well, you know Twitter - its really difficult to make elegant statements, apparently.

I suspect theres also a bit of a difference in scale between "criticism" and "wanting to ban or transport millions of people just because I'm afraid"...

[merman]

' researchers found that in a single week when Parliament was sitting during June MPs sent almost 2,500 messages on Twitter, equivalent to 118,000 messages over the course of a (48-week) year.
With each tweet assumed to take 30 seconds to compose, the researchers concluded that MPs are spending almost 1,000 hours a year posting updates.'

Liz Kendall, the Labour MP for Leicester West, tells her 3,700 followers: "Squidgy cake. In my humble opinion, best cake in world."

Gavin Shuker, the Labour MP for Luton South, who posted 17 times in one day last month.
On his Twitter profile Mr Shuker describes himself as a "shadow environment minister, though more likely to tweet about kittens".

Conservative MP for Chesham and Amersham, posted a message saying: "Cardiff thobbing with Take That fans. feel undersdressed no stetson."

The Lib Dems have the highest proportion of MPs on the site, with 57 out of 100, or 57 per cent.

The Taxpayers Alliance said: "Some of the updates are quite e̶l̶e̶g̶a̶n̶t̶ banal"

PROLOGUE: Ed Balls

SIDEBAR: the Taxpayer's Alliance annoy me intensely. They present themselves as helping "ordinary" people. And then you find out they are basically a right-wing think tank funded by the sort of people who believe it is right to reduce taxes so the rich benefit the most. You know, your Tories, your UKIPpers and Trump...

DIGRESSION: At least politicians are tweeting and trying to engage with people. They do need a handler to show them what to do though.

MAIN TOPIC: check out last Friday's No Such Thing As The News (BBC 2, now on iPlayer) for coverage of the Libertarian Party and its unusual members. As they will be fielding a candidate.

[PumaG]

I wonder how many people do delete their accounts when told to do so by these people in authority?

Anyhow, a very liberal thing to say. Criticise islam and you're islamaphobic or racist, say something again similar and they want to shut you down.
Perhaps make it law then, three strikes and you're out?

Hillary Clinton also told Trump to delete his account, I bet there's a few things she wished she'd deleted

Well, you know Twitter - its really difficult to make elegant statements, apparently.

I suspect theres also a bit of a difference in scale between "criticism" and "wanting to ban or transport millions of people just because I'm afraid"...

Some people seem to be under the impression either there were no migration laws for 'Trump's millions' to abide to, OR Clinton is going to abandon the current laws.
Ideally, rather than engage in childish twitter games, Clinton needs to come right out and say the borders will be pulled down, so everyone knows where they stand.

The reaction is like Trump was responsible for those laws, or that he wants to introduce a new one. Yet there is zero animosity towards the lawmakers who made the Mexicans illegal in the first place.
Like it or not Trump is a blatant product of the USA,business practices included. Even if Hillary does get the expected 94% of the vote, 6% is still a lot of people who disagree with illegals and lawbreakers being given pardons.

Trump could U-turn and call the left's bluff by doing a Merkel to prove his point. Have an open door policy and see what happens. The average Swde and Germans were promised they wouldnt get shat on, but did from a great height and the pissed off are increasing in umbers. A significant number of westerners have strong feelings against poorly controlled immigration, always have, and will do for centuries.

I noted the numbers of illegals that are said to be in the US, are partly counted by banks due to the transactions of money being sent back to Mexico. Contrary to the left's belief that they are good for the US economy. Someone is lying. Even so, good for the economy? so they're being used? just like Merkel's millions. Don't' think for one minute any of these high up politicians are doing it because they're kind-hearted. How many Kind hearted politicians are there in the British cabinet or shadow cabinet?

I enjoy living in one of the most Liberal and heavily taxed countries in the world, whose economy was doing well thanks to the grafting working classes, before the morally corrupt US and UK dragged it into the same hole around 2008. Yet soft fucks keep whining about Trump's failures in business. Sort yourselves out.

[F-ZeroOne]

Er... did any other US Presidential candidate propose a ban on all Muslims travelling to the US recently or did I miss that one?

Clinton does have a third option, which is to accept that whatever may have happened in the past, it doesn't address the situation as it stands now and to find a new "path". Its not necessarily a binary KEEP or ABANDON situation...

The problem is not that there are laws or that people may have disobeyed them, but its that Trumps "solution" to the issue is almost certainly completely unworkable, and probably inhumane. There have been various attempts throughout history to do what he is proposing and they have almost always not ended well...

[PumaG]

Er... did any other US Presidential candidate propose a ban on all Muslims travelling to the US recently or did I miss that one?

Clinton does have a third option, which is to accept that whatever may have happened in the past, it doesn't address the situation as it stands now and to find a new "path". Its not necessarily a binary KEEP or ABANDON situation...

The problem is not that there are laws or that people may have disobeyed them, but its that Trumps "solution" to the issue is almost certainly completely unworkable, and probably inhumane. There have been various attempts throughout history to do what he is proposing and they have almost always not ended well...

After the Florida gay night club Massacre, more people will be in favour of Trump's "until we figure out what's going on" proposal, (or as the left spun it 'ban all Muslims from America,regardless '

I dont see many people bothering to figure out whats going on. Trump's comments came after the previous massacre. There is no end to it, death from these cowardly religious attacks will have to be tolerated like it is in the middle east and Africa. The biggest opposition to migration is those who recognise the harm of different cultures shunning the values of the host country and forming their own societies, financed by the other society. People see it as a smack in the face. Ironically Trump's way out of this financial burden, will be to print more money. Perhaps the Democrats can promise that will never happen anyway, rather than sneer?