This is the sort of thing Trump does. They’re both crooks.
73 thoughts on “Trump used $258,000 from his charity to settle legal problems – The Washington Post”
Comments are closed.
This is the sort of thing Trump does. They’re both crooks.
Comments are closed.
There’s very little that would surprise me about Trump 🙁
Me neither. It’s not much of a choice is it?
No, unfortunately.
How come with millions to choose from we end up with this desperate choice? No wonder people are frustrated at the establishment.
Wow, what “he said this-she said that” tittle-tattle. Given that he seems to be the only contributor to these charities and the designated signatory, surely he can do what he likes with his own money. Sums of money that equate to loose change in Trump World.
And Mrs Clinton’s too for that matter as she had up to financial year end 2015, received $93m so far from her friends in Saudi Arabia. That’s a lot of backs needing scratched in the future.
Don’t charities have tax exemption?
This is one of many. My point is that both Trump and Clinton have very dodgy pasts and presents. There’s nothing to choose on that front.
The choice has to be made between what they would do when they get in.
Yes, but there are limitations. I’ve no idea if he’s overstepped his as there’s no information of such. We’re not told what his charities are financially valued at, which goes some way to governing the tax breaks/exemptions. We’ve been given half a story. You can’t form an educated opinion with just half a story.
But your point falls way short where Clinton is concerned.
Consider where current events will take us if the potential President of USA has such close in the pocket ties with the Kingdom of Saudi – the first bastion of Islamic tyranny, the head-hocho Caliphate regime, the be-all and end-all of EVERYTHING the west stands against.
Why is she going there?
Why are they interested in her success?
What does this potentially mean for USA’s allies?
And the list of questions raised here is longer than War And Peace.
Saudi is a real problem and behind a lot of what is going on. I do not like them involved in anything. When is this info from. Andrew? I haven’t heard that before.
Well said Andrew.
Both UK & US newspapers, US TV (on youtube), US public service commentator’s blogs (on youtube), published essays by US political commentators, all the normal information sources and nothing out of the ordinary. It’s not exactly dark web stuff. You’ll find it with one click on google.
I’ll check it out.
Just type: hilary clinton money saudi arabia.
They’ve given her $42.4m during this recent campaign and about $50m to the Clinton Foundation previously.
I’ll do that, Andrew. Sounds very dodgy.
According to the reports I have just read the Clinton Foundation has received about $2 billion including $350 million from Saudi. But Hilary is not involved and the foundation provides Health care, looks into women’s rights and provides aid for earthquakes and hurricane relief.
I’ll check campaign funding.
There is a report that Saudi has put in 20% of the campaign funds. That is worrying.
Here’s another recent comment ref Clinton.
“The reality is that there is ample evidence uncovered by journalists suggesting that regimes donating money to the Clinton Foundation received special access to and even highly favorable treatment from the Clinton State Department. But it’s also true that nobody can dispositively prove the quid pro quo. Put another way, one cannot prove what was going on inside Hillary Clinton’s head at the time that she gave access to or otherwise acted in the interests of these donor regimes: Was she doing it as a favor in return for those donations, or simply because she has a proven affinity for Gulf State and Arab dictators, or because she was merely continuing decades of U.S. policy of propping up pro-U.S. tyrants in the region?
While this “no quid pro quo proof” may be true as far as it goes, it’s extremely ironic that Democrats have embraced it as a defense of Hillary Clinton. After all, this has long been the primary argument of Republicans who oppose campaign finance reform, and indeed, it was the primary argument of the Citizens United majority, once depicted by Democrats as the root of all evil. But now, Democrats have to line up behind a politician who, along with her husband, specializes in uniting political power with vast private wealth, in constantly exploiting the latter to gain the former, and vice versa. So Democrats are forced to jettison all the good-government principles they previously claimed to believe and instead are now advocating the crux of the right-wing case against campaign finance reform: that large donations from vested factions are not inherently corrupting of politics or politicians.
Indeed, as I documented in April, Clinton-defending Democrats have now become the most vocal champions of the primary argument used by the Citizens United majority. “We now conclude,” wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy for the Citizens United majority, “that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.” That is now exactly the argument Clinton loyalists are spouting to defend the millions in donations from tyrannical regimes (as well as Wall Street banks and hedge funds): Oh, there’s no proof there’s any corruption going on with all of this money.
The elusive nature of quid pro quo proof — now the primary Democratic defense of Clinton — has also long been the principal argument wielded by the most effective enemy of campaign finance reform, GOP Sen. Mitch McConnell. This is how USA Today, in 1999, described the arguments of McConnell and his GOP allies when objecting to accusations from campaign finance reform advocates that large financial donations are corrupting:
Senate opponents of limiting money in politics injected a bitter personal note into the debate as reformers began an uphill quest to change a system they say has corrupted American government. …
Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., the legislation’s chief opponent, challenged reform advocate Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., to name Senate colleagues who have been corrupted by high-dollar political contributions.
”How can there be corruption if no one is corrupt?” McConnell asked, zeroing in on McCain’s frequent speeches about the issue in his presidential campaign. ”That’s like saying the gang is corrupt but none of the gangsters are.”
When McCain refused to name names, Sen. Robert Bennett, R-Utah, confronted him. Standing just eight feet from him on the Republican side of the chamber, Bennett charged that McCain had accused him of corruption in seeking pork-barrel spending for his home state.
”I am unaware of any money given that influenced my action here,” Bennett said. ”I have been accused of being corrupt. … I take personal offense.”
The inability to prove that politicians acted as quid pro quo when taking actions that benefited donors has long been the primary weapon of those opposing campaign finance reform. It is now the primary argument of Democratic partisans to defend Hillary Clinton. In Citizens United, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote a scathing dissent on exactly this point, one that Democrats once cheered:
So if you want to defend the millions of dollars that went from tyrannical regimes to the Clinton Foundation as some sort of wily, pragmatic means of doing good work, go right ahead. But stop insulting everyone’s intelligence by pretending that these donations were motivated by noble ends. Beyond that, don’t dare exploit LGBT rights, AIDS, and other causes to smear those who question the propriety of receiving millions of dollars from the world’s most repressive, misogynistic, gay-hating regimes. Most important, accept that your argument in defense of all these tawdry relationships — that big-money donations do not necessarily corrupt the political process or the politicians who are their beneficiaries — has been and continues to be the primary argument used to sabotage campaign finance reform.
Given who their candidate is, Democrats really have no choice but to insist that these sorts of financial relationships are entirely proper (needless to say, Goldman Sachs has also donated millions to the Clinton Foundation, but Democrats proved long ago they don’t mind any of that when they even insisted that it was perfectly fine that Goldman Sachs enriched both Clintons personally with numerous huge speaking fees — though Democrats have no trouble understanding why Trump’s large debts to Chinese banks and Goldman Sachs pose obvious problems). But — just as is true of their resurrecting a Cold War template and its smear tactics against their critics — the benefits derived from this tactic should not obscure how toxic it is and how enduring its consequences will likely be.
And people have concluded that Trump is the enemy.
Their delusion leaves me speechless.
I have made no defense of the way the establishment, via democrat and republican, does business. It is deplorable and disgusting. They all use the system to amass personal wealth, cosy up to the most obnoxious people for personal, political or strategic reasons and lie through their teeth. It goes with the territory of politics. America is worse than Britain, I think.
For most of my life I have kept well apart from politics. I dissociated myself from what was going on there and tried to live aside from it. But the big issues of war, the environment and social issues (education, NHS, social services etc.) draw you in. What that mob get up to effects what happens in my community, to the members of my family and the country in general. One has to become involved. That invariably means making choices between candidates sullied by the process of politics. The establishment selects the candidates and finances them. The media twist the truth and put out the propaganda.
There is no doubt that both Trump and Clinton have dubious and obnoxious pasts. The choice is between who will do the best in regards to war, the environment and the social issues affecting me, my family and the community. The belligerent, misogynistic, racist, violent stance of Trump leads me to think quite clearly that Clinton is the lesser of two evils.
Seriously? That’s your conclusion?
I find it most surprising that you’d never heard of any of this Saudi Arabia relationship before, yet have seen fit in numerous previous posts to make broad statements of support to Clinton and made agreement with all the anti-Trump conjecture, manifested of course by Clinton’s Camp.
Given that you asked me where I had got this information from, what only this morning, and this is your conclusion?
You simply can’t have made much of any study in-roads.
I’ve been reading this stuff for at least the past 2 years and it must surely amount to several thousand pages of literature and here you are, after half an afternoon convinced you know what you’re talking about.
On the simplest of dumbest levels we have a person who can’t even obey a simple guidance rule to not use a public email service for dealing with her sensitive and in some cases top secret documents, yet has the ability to ridicule her opponent that he should not be trusted with responsibility for the big red nuclear launch button. (not that the President actually has that power, but never mind that minor detail)
What you see on TV, a 20 second at most clip of Trump at some rally, prefixed by some jingoism of a tag such as “Trump guns for Hispanics” etc, has exactly the cause and effect that the media want you to have. I hear it all the time, everywhere from people who take their “news” in 20 second bites and walk away with the satisfaction in the belief that they actually have a handle on the subject and indeed that they are sitting on the right side of the fence with holding such a point of view. However, in the majority of cases, if one were to ask them to break this viewpoint down with a full explanation as to how they had arrived at such a juncture, they will hum and haw, offering only the simplicity of this is what they said on the news. There lies the problem.
They simply have not a clue of how to go about dissecting the truth from the conjecture. In fact, they don’t even know where to find such information. Yet they hold an opinion and also are usually, if not mostly only too ready to convey such towards others with utmost conviction.
They hadn’t even stopped to think “wait a minute, what else was said, this can’t be all there is, surely not?”
But no, it doesn’t ever cross their minds. The TV said it was, so it must be.
What they also don’t bother their asses with either is to try and figure out exactly why some guy who wants to be President would actually be saying stuff such as “building a wall between Mexico” etc. They actually haven’t figured out that the levels of crime in California and other bordering states have reached unimaginable proportions. Even the basic task of driving one’s car from a to b, is now met with some level of trepidation for the simple reason that the chances of falling foul to an errant uninsured illegal immigrant driver have never been higher. Unfortunately car insurance policies are geared towards the basic principle that both parties involved are indeed insured. When one party is found not to be, there are problems for the innocent party and usually of a financial nature.
When one’s life starts at this basic level it really isn’t difficult to understand such concerns for the numbers of illegal and criminal immigrants flooding in.
However, by no means are all such immigrants behaving illegally. On the other hand, unfortunately the vast numbers of highly organised and extremely violent, with nothing to lose, wanton on mayhem, gangs that have sprung out of nowhere, all Latino, be it Mexican, Puerto Rican or whatever, manifests an insurmountable problem of control by authorities.
Whilst its understandable that nobody would particularly want to be under the auspices of “control by authorities”, there comes a point – (where private homes being ransacked, its occupants being shot to death in cold blooded murder – it can’t get worse as an example – townships flooded with drugs, extortion and any other kind of criminality one cares to mention) – where somebody, somewhere at some point has to step up to the mark and say something, if not do something. It just so happens that this is Trump and apparently a hell of a lot of people are in full agreement with him. Even Democrats for that matter.
He’s belligerent. Oh, dearie me, how awful. What a peculiar trait for a leader to have. Imagine that, an individual not being too easy to persuade or dissuade and potentially holding the position of President of the USA. That really won’t do, will it?
He’s misogynistic. He made a comment that wasn’t particularly endearing and his whole world crumbles around him. Really?
How many women does he employ in management positions within Trump Corp.?
They wouldn’t have a hell’s cat chance of ever answering that question because 1) it never occurred to them 2) they wouldn’t even know where to start looking for such information.
He’s racist. Yet he employs persons representing 118 nations. He has made accusations of criminality towards certain factions of the Latino contingent. Indeed he has. However, one short perusal of crime statistics, law court business and those sentenced for jail time may very well reflect an element of truth with this respect. He himself, believe it or not, has absolutely no say or control over the nationality of any wanna be criminal. He can only, as many others do also, reflect upon the information given. If the LA police reports contain stats that suggest 70% of crime in east LA districts is committed by persons of Latino origin, there’s really very little Trump can do to change that.
He has a violent stance. Yes, he’s made it very clear that he intends to come down like a ton of bricks on any internal disruptive and/or terrorist organisation found to be operating with the confines of the USA. Again, we should be particularly worried that any potential President of the USA might think like that. That won’t do either, will it?
Clearly Clinton is the lesser of two evils. Despite that she may very well prove to be the Judas of the western world as we know it – she who took the silver – I don’t think as yet that Trump has much truck with Saudi Arabia. This is the Saudi Arabia that dictates global Islamic terrorism, just in case anybody thought it was a breed of horse or a recipe or the likes. No, unfortunately it’s somewhat more serious. On one hand we have a guy that’s not too keen on illegal immigrant Hispanic people reeking criminal havoc in his country, on the other we have a woman who has her presidential campaign coffers paid for by the very same people who manifest terrorism and death in her country. Yet she is the lesser of the 2 evils.
I really couldn’t make this up if I tried.
If this is the work of a rational mind at play, my name is Rasputin.
Well Trump does have Saudi connections too. He inherited a billion from his dad and was so much of a poor businessman that he blew it and had to be baled out by a Saudi prince – who publically reminded him recently. It was Saudi who saved him from bankruptcy.
The racism extends to his ’empire’ where he has a reputation for not employing blacks.
Now, personally I don’t go for people with simplistic answers to complex questions. I don’t like people who propose violent means of solving problems or seek populist votes by coming out with statements such we’ll build a wall, we’ll ban all Muslims, within weeks ISIS will be bombed out of existence. I think the Bushes tried that. It simply doesn’t work. Things have to be dealt with in a more complex, nuanced manner.
There is no doubt that the drugs, gangs, migration and terrorism all need dealing with, but I don’t think either Trump or Clinton will do it. And I think Trump will take a stupid stance and make matters far worse, just like gung-ho Bush did – like Kennedy and LBJ. They’ve already made a mess of things.
Why do you think it will work with Trump? Trump says any populist crap that comes into his head. He doesn’t have any intention of doing it. He’s a spoilt rich kid used to having his own way. He’s a crass bully in my opinion.
But no, I haven’t had time to delve into backgrounds, I’ve been listening to what is said by the candidates. Personally I liked Saunders but he stood no chance. I don’t like Clinton but she’s more nuanced than Trump. Saudi have been funding her because they don’t like Trump and his stance. I can understand that. Personally I think Saudi and Iran are the sponsors of most of what is going down and they both need dealing with. How to best do that is the difficult question.
I don’t believe any of the media propaganda. Listening to what Trump says – he’s all bluster and stupidity – making it up as he goes along – trying to appeal to a bunch of rabid Americans. His rallies are scary. His rhetoric is scary. The man is scary. I think he’ll start a major war if he gets in and I don’t think that solves anything and I don’t think the USA has a good track record with wars it starts.
I don’t like Clinton but there’s only a choice of two.
Opher, you’ve quite obviously gone no further than page 1 of google. You’ll need to do a bit more than that, say at least 100 hours of reading.
So you believe that Hillary is not involved in the Clinton Foundation? Oh dear!
So you believe the front blurb that it exists for humanitarian causes?
That Saudi Arabia are paying for Aids research, LGTB concerns etc? Oh dear!
You’ve got some way to go.
If I told you that tartan paint was on sale at your local B&Q for half price, I reckon you’d be about the first in the queue.
I’m not naïve enough to believe everything I read and I don’t have time to spend hundreds of hours. I’m quite sure that she’s not as kosher as she sounds and I don’t know what the foundation does with most of the loot. Perhaps they buy golf courses in Scotland?
I content myself with listening to the candidates speak.
Now where do you get this tartan paint again? That sounds intriguing. The house would look really good.
Opher, Trump’s bankruptcy was decades ago long before 9/11 or any of it. He’s been bankrupted twice in fact. Where most people would walk away he’s got the wherewithal to be able to restart.
That says something about a guy being able to do that.
You only just found out about Clinton’s Saudi links 5 minutes ago. You can’t possibly have formed an educated opinion.
Do yourself a favour and step back out of this one for the moment because you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about. Your coming over just like the religious nutters you’ve invited into your house for questioning. Please stop now. I beg you.
When you’ve got that much money you can virtually do what you like, I guess. Having a billion and going bankrupt doesn’t sound like a good businessman to me.
Ok – let’s leave it, eh? I don’t like the guy. But my opinion counts for fuck all. The voters in the US will decide soon. Then we’ll see what transpires.
It’s very easy to go bankrupt. When your debtors can’t pay you it’s all over – it is that simple. If you think that is a detrimental negative attribute only particular to a particular type of person – think on. Seriously, think on.
On a more local note, have you any idea how many UK businesses go out of business every year because of fluctuating Euro/Pound rates?
It’s not an experience you’ve ever encountered and I have.
You’re therefore not qualified to comment.
I lost E40,000 worth of planned revenue that I otherwise would have earned in just 2 short months because of fluctuating rates. Just like that, whipped out my pocket.
Had that continued for any length of time I would definitely have been made bankrupt, just like the other 80 businesses that were being made bankrupt every single month in the very same town.
Yeah I can appreciate that – but losing a billion doesn’t sound like good business acumen to me.
I know people who’ve gone bankrupt – usually as a result of people not paying up on time – but that is largely because they are running on a knife-edge without much collateral. A billion is a tidy sum of collateral. I don’t think I’d go bust, even with late payments or exchange rate changes, with a billion behind me, unless I made some serious mistakes.
1 billion into Trump World with a multiplicity of concerns, especially gambling and casino venues and envisage just how quickly the ball rolls. Add in fluctuation rates, stocks and shares losses – governed by profit margin success, that in turn are governed by expedient payment and of course house losses which potentially could be huge – and it really doesn’t matter whether it’s 100m or 1000m as the same rules apply.
No matter how well or how badly you are doing, you still have tax returns to pay, you have huge accountancy fees to pay, all the licenses to operate to pay, staff, on-costs, insurances, you name it and also as a US citizen, he is subject to US tax levies regardless of where he earns this money, be it Kansas City or Timbuktu.
It wouldn’t have been me investing in casinos, that’s for sure. Least of all 3 times bankrupt.
But some of these figures bandied about are nuts. His 4th bankruptcy that he filed was for an hotel, the Plaza in NYC. I know the place, having stayed in it. Apparently it lost $550m in 4 years. I really don’t know how that’s possible. It couldn’t be possible.
When you get your cheque for 1b Opher – go for Shipping Insurance. Safe as houses and a lovely little earner.
But that’s what I mean – bad choices in the first place.
I’m still waiting for the cheque – when it comes through I’ll put some of it into promoting Nick and take your advice and put the rest into shipping. Did alright for Onassis.
Aha, it’s only considered a bad choice if it isn’t successful.
I once won £1,600 on a roulette table starting with £20 in my pocket. I bet on #36 twice in a row and won and some other bets too.
No gambling house can predetermine such odds against them. But it can happen.
Not quite the same thing though is it? One’s luck and the other is a calculated choice. He should have put it in shipping. Perhaps too greedy? Or cavalier?
He’d be both and some other things too.
But all successful businesses need to take risks, sometimes make or break risks.
On the other hand, when one runs a state wide cocaine distribution empire, there’s no such thing as “house losses”. The only thing that can break you are the police. And if you own the police…
Or another state wide drug cartel!
I thought you said I should put it into shipping?
Quite.
And that is what I was getting at – they, Clinton and Trump are both as dodgy as each other, albeit for different reasons.
That’s why I simply cannot accept that she should stand taller and more proud than him – her shit stinks, too.
And I would say to anyone face to face that they really need a wake-up call with this.
Naturally, what we’ve got here is loud shouts from both sides throwing dirt at each other, as if one’s dirt is cleaner than the others.
And the “once a democrat, always a democrat” mentality and vice-versa. That’s to be expected.
What all this does highlight is the lowly state that US politics finds itself in today. It could actually be worse, but this is as low level politics as its been since Nixon.
One point I forgot to comment on.
Your comment that Trump is a misogynist.
That got me thinking – following Bill’s behavior, I really wonder what Hillary’s opinion of men in general will be?
Don’t you think that she herself may harbour some negative points of view of this? I do.
(We also already know that she despises gay men and anybody else with “abnormal” sexual tendencies. She had to retract these statements. She’s therefore hardly the epitome of modern society. Amazingly, Trump has never made any such commentary.)
Perhaps that will manifest itself later if she wins and selects her government colleagues.
Standing on the wings, I’m just somewhat aghast at the views of many people who are so damned blinkered and basically ignorant as to the backgrounds and personal history of these 2. Their knowledge of the subject matter stems no longer than a facebook comment – “Hillary is great”, “Down with Trump” and that’s about it.
They have no idea why a particular segment of either one of their speeches at a rally has been selected for the 20 second news bulletin. They have no idea of the coercion manifested by the media. They have no idea who is behind it and why they are behind it. This has never ever occurred to them.
But, sadly there’s more it than these simplistic complaints.
Running America is probably the toughest job to have (not that its a one-man/woman effort), but having read all I’ve read and watched as many speeches as youtube offers up, I’m simply left with one question that I cannot answer for myself.
Why the hell is Hillary Clinton in the pocket of Saudi Arabia?
Of all the countries in the world, the KSA?
The most savage, backward, evil (in the true sense of the word) tyrants walking this earth and she’s bezzy mates with them. WTF!
I’m simply bowled over by the level of hypocrisy with this.
It’s beyond my comprehension.
It’s the single most worrisome detail that I have ever heard.
It’s knocks all of Trump’s bully-boy bluster into touch.
It’s knocks all of Trumps gross stupidity into touch.
It makes for a complete and utter mockery of everything we stand for in the west. The connotations are simply revolting.
American politics is always versions of the establishment (same as over here but to a larger extent) so I don’t expect any of the candidates to be clean. It is always the lesser of two evils and ends in disappointment.
The funding by the Saudis is worrying. They are indeed one of the most regressive nations on the planet.
If America wakes up in a few weeks time to Clinton as President then they will get all they deserve, unfortunately the rest of us will have to suffer her as well. She is one vicious corrupt Politician. People forget Trump is not a Politician and all those people that support him – not all nutters as so many would have it, they don’t want a Politician as President. I watched the first debate the other night and I thought it was disgusting the way the questions had been posed to “get at Trump” that moderator was an utter disgrace. People are worried Trump will start a War, watch Clinton count the body bags from what she will do – many many senior Military Personnel are behind Trump. Clintons Foundation, wake up. There is not much of a choice and no one knows what will happen when the voters go in the booths. I firmly believe too many are scared to say they will vote for Trump because of the hysteria, in that booth then the choice will be made. Please those too eager who come out for Clinton just wake up, she will be good because she is a woman/the old man was President – despite the fact like JFK he spent too much time taking his p…k out. Trump/Clinton – Clinton/Trump – America’s Choice. I just hope whoever wins there will not be the stupidity in the US as there has been here over “Pulling Out of Europe” and the absolute childish attitude of those that lost. The choice will be made you just have to get on with it.
There is no doubt in my mind that Clinton is the best choice, none what-so-ever. Trump is a dangerous populist who just says what he knows people want to hear – but he has no answers and no intention of doing any of it. It’s a con trick. He has no real policy and no idea. It’s all based on fear and hatred. Not the world I want.
Clinton is not brilliant but she wouldn’t go blundering in like Trump. She’s got more sense.
But as Andrew pointed out – they both represent the same people. The establishment put both of them there. They serve the establishment.
I must entirely disagree with that.
And as an example – Clinton’s blah about public health.
Here she is using this topic as ammunition for her campaign, yet was directly responsible for zero in-roads with this just a couple of years ago. She presented corrupt reports and subsequently got busted for it. The Obama administration has done absolutely nothing with this. They have simply focused on their foreign policy agenda – an agenda that she is very much part of. The poor and disenfranchised are not on the spectrum for the current administration.
Trump objects to that, yet is criticised. It’s nuts.
America’s industrial heartlands lie in broken down, smashed up abandonment – as if the holocaust has already happened.
Chicago, Detroit, New Jersey and Philadelphia are a mess.
Trump is qualified to tackle this, Clinton just isn’t.
And that is Trump’s trump card, he understands big business, she doesn’t and has no experience.
Or as Trump puts it “she has the wrong experience”.
I would have to agree with that.
I watched debate #1 and would suggest to anyone that they should watch the whole thing.
The snippets aired by TV were a joke – again.
Trump kept his cool with her. He actually conveyed an element of respect towards her – more than she deserved.
He refrained for going for the jugular, although he did make reference to to a few of her previous failures. I suspect he’s holding back as there’s 2 more debates to go.
After the debate there was commentary from 2 people – one a British political commentator who incidentally somewhat clarified the conjecture regarding the amount of start-up money Trump had been given by his father – not a billion as has been loosely bandied about, nothing like it, but between 1 and 14 million dollars. Quite a difference.
The other, an Afro-American long-time Republican was disappointed with him that he didn’t crucify Clinton here.
I would suggest that the perception of Trump being a dangerous populist is in reality the opposite.
He is challenging the status quo and refuses to be choked to death by the delusional and naive comatose political correctness that has assimilated within liberal protocol.
Clinton attempts to use as such for cover, but she’s lying her ass off.
To say that Trump has no real policy and no idea is patently untrue.
He isn’t interested in flying around the world like Clinton, selling weapons to protagonists and despots.
He wants the other leading countries to step up to the mark and an end to current US foreign policy of destroy, conquer and rebuild – which is exactly what Clinton represents.
He wants a number of countries to start contributing more towards the protection they receive from the US – that is taken for granted. Too much money is leaving and not enough coming back. I think that’s fair comment.
He wants US internal affairs to come first and wants to employ the age old business ethic of “secure your back door before you open your front door”.
Even I was taught that, but it’s obvious the last few US administrations have forgotten all about it.
That pisses people off, when they’re pulled up for negligence. People hate being told the facts straight up.
Trump has openly said that he’ll talk to anybody that harbours a disagreement with America – hardly the mentality of someone perceived to blunder in.
Actually, thinking about it, I can hardly remember a thing that Clinton had said over the course of 2 hours. That tells me something.
I think you are swayed by his stand against Muslims Andrew. How can you support silly policies such as – building a wall along the Mexican border – or banning all Muslims? They are not policies. They are populist rhetoric aimed at promoting fear and hatred and rabble rousing. Or defend what he has called women and Hispanics? The racist and misogyny are reprehensible. Women aren’t stay at home pieces of ass. We’ve surely moved on. He wants to bring in trade embargoes and tariffs, doesn’t he?
If he’s not what I see why is he avidly supported by the Tea-Party, Ku Klux Klan and white supremacists? The fascists are all rallying behind him aren’t they?
But I would agree that Clinton hasn’t achieved much. I’m not expecting a great deal.
As you say – they are both supported by the same establishment.
“There is no doubt in my mind that Clinton is the best choice, none whatsoever” (sorry its one word “whatsoever”, not split up – you were the Teacher. I am not criticizing just pointing out.) It is unbelievable that you have claimed that about Clinton when all along you stated neither of them, Trump or herself, were fit for the job. Now in your mind she is the BEST. What a woman who is a liar/a woman who allows an Ambassador and staff to be murdered through her incompetence what was it she said in response “shit happens”/a woman who did what she did with all those private papers/a woman who with the husband can we forget former President sex mad Bill, fiddled and lied and worse, that their partner in the shady deal committed suicide/ a woman who worked with Obama in 8 years in power did sod all/racism worse than it was prior to them/the poor Blacks who not only detest her but detest obama one of their own/A woman in her position does not defend the Police as she should do you want me to go on and on.
I won’t get into the argument between Andrew and yourself but you seem to say one thing and then another Opher, don’t even let us get into Labour and the way Corbyn acting on the advice of the real voice “well I don’t support the IRA well not publicly that is” Mcdonel. Blair was the cause of so many Labour supporters leaving, then Corbyn wins, fine, but then the “posh” little bastards step in with their threats and top jobs big money given to Corbyns friends Sons/Daughters. Socialist no they are not they are what they always were and you know damn well what that was still is. What happened to Corbyn and “nice politics” when Labour on the benches shout/scream still. What hypocrisy for Corbyn to condemn Grammar Schools when he himself went to one, he understands the poor does he coming from all the wealth and massive home he came from. I am right now thinking to hell with the lot of them I am not voting.
Finally back to Trump/Clinton, did you watch the first Debate at 3am the other morning from start to finish, I suspect not – well I did every single bit. Just as I knew they had fiddled his microphone, now they admit there was a problem with it right? Just like the moderator who was so biased went after Trump all the time, but did he go for Clinton like f..k he did, he was an utter disgrace. Clinton turned it personal, Trump held back. I just hope in the second/third debates Trump hammers her, she is a criminal she should be arrested still could be by the FBI, the old man went around buying favours, money buys favours. She is a first rate bitch who will do nothing to help the inner Cities help the poor help the people who really matter. Your view my view counts for nothing, what counts is the day the people vote and when they enter the booths then they make the choice, and they will have to live with it. Said previously whoever wins, I hope those that have lost will accept and move on, not be like the Reman lot in this Country who are acting so childishly. People like myself voted Democratically to be OUT of Europe, we are OUT get on with it. No offence intended, just debate.
Hi Anna,
That’s right – I believe that Clinton, with all her faults (and I’m not denying them) is still by far the best of the two.
Read what I said. She might not do much for anyone but she won’t do the damage that Trump would. It’s a choice between two evils.
I’m not sure that all the blacks detest Obama. Here’s a quote from ‘The Real News Network that says she’s winning the black vote –
‘Trump, who is an overt spokesman for a kind of pent-up rage and racism that much of the white, working population, white voters want to express. They want to attack Mexicans, they want to attack Muslims. He is not overtly racist about Black Americans, but certainly it seems to be not far below the surface. Hillary Clinton is winning the majority of the Black vote on the Democratic Party side,’
Under the heading – ‘Loyalty to Obama Drives Black Voter Support for Clinton’.
What have I said that’s a contradiction Anna? I don’t see it.
Yes the Labour Party is in a mess. I hope they unite and take on the Tories. We’ll see. I really like Corbyn’s policies and I’ll vote for him. I just have doubts about his leadership skills and whether the electorate will go for it. He should have stood down before when he lost the support and credibility. But now he’s there and hopefully people will fall in line. We need rid of the watered down Tory Blairites anyway. Maybe we can build a really good party out of it. But in the meantime the Tories rampage around.
I don’t think Corbyn is a hypocrite for not supporting Grammar Schools when he benefited from going to one. I don’t think you have a lot of say when you are ten years old. Besides if you can see the damage done to the vast majority by a policy that favours the few then you have to oppose it. That’s not hypocritical.
You say you’re a socialist Anna but you seem to consistently support the most right-wing positions and candidates. Why is that?
As for Brexit – well what a mess. Even Johnson who won it, didn’t want it. A hard Brexit will be a disaster. I hope we see some sense and work out an exit that protects workers rights, gives access to markets, protects human rights, ensures cooperation against terrorism, protects the environment across national boundaries, allows people to work in the NHS, our fields, Old People’s homes and industries. That’s worth fighting for.
But Anna I don’t see Clinton as a great choice. Neither of them are great choices. I do see that she is by far the better of the too. Trump would be a disaster.
I don’t hate Trump. I don’t know him. I detest all he stands for – the racism, xenophobia, arrogance etc. That is not hatred. I am very fearful of what would happen to the world if he gets in but hatred is not the word.
As for peace love and happiness – yes – worth fighting for. We have to make the world a better place. If we don’t fight they will keep chopping the trees, maching gunning rhinos and elephants and starting wars. I am an optimist and I believe we can make a difference. We can’t just turn our backs, live our own lives and pretend it isn’t happening. There are religious nutters who want to destroy us. They need opposing. Wipe out ISIS and educate the next generation.
If you don’t try you don’t succeed.
The world is gradually getting better. We have to speed that up.
I am incredibly lucky. I have had a great life. I have a great wife, kids and grandchildren. I want a world fit for my grandchildren. I want it full of rainforest, chimps, elephants and rhinos. That’s why I blog and write. If I didn’t care and didn’t believe I can make a difference I wouldn’t do it. I spent thirty six years educating kids and I saw them leave school as bright, intelligent, enthusiastic, compassionate, open-minded, wonderful human being. I put my faith in them to make things better. They were brilliant.
I never mentioned Muslims, Opher.
That’s a whole other subject by itself and not one to be treated lightly. It is too serious.
The Ku Klux Klan – are you serious? Everything should stop in its tracks just because they exist?
The only powerful people rallying him are the military. They understand a dead loss when they see one and the current foreign policy is such.
I don’t harbour your liberal “everybody’s beautiful” stance. I wish I could. But we know the problems and seriously need to address them sooner than later.
History dictates that is the only approach – nip it in the bud now.
Are you going to tell me the EU doesn’t have trade embargoes and tariffs?
Everybody has to one extent or the other.
How many nations are off limits to UK today?
At least 5. Why? Because they threaten us.
You’re just repeating the populist rhetoric verbatim. Liberal wooly bullshit that will fix nothing.
This smug contempt that nobody or nothing has the “right” to offend or upset the apple cart is what has brought forth the problems.
Have you considered applying for Jihad Seeker’s Allowance?
I’m not a woolly-minded liberal. And you know I’m no lover of Islamic culture or the medieval practices of Muslims. I’m against all religions but that one is probably the worst of the lot.
Putting that aside. I don’t pay any heed to fascists like the Ku Klux Klan or white supremacist crap. Neither do I hold with all the Tea-Party nutters or NRA. But I would be extremely worried if they all started supporting my blog and what I was saying. They are all supporting Trump. That tells you something.
Likewise with the military. A lot of the US top-brass are extremely gung-ho right-wingers who would love a free hand in wading in and kicking up shit. The fact that those John Wayne types support Trump also sends me a warning.
I don’t think everyone is beautiful. You know that. But I don’t think the answer is to blast hell out of them. That policy has created a far worse crisis with fundamentalism than we had in the past. We have effectively turned a minority view into mainstream Muslim thinking. The terrorism and radicalisation is a result of gung-ho Bush (older and younger) Republican warmongering. I am convinced Trump would be more of the same. I don’t relish a cold war again – or a nuclear one!
Trump’s economic policy is isolationist. His views on climate is that the warming isn’t happening – that alone is enough for me to say he’s mad. To deny the environmental disaster and offer a resurgence of coal and oil is insanity. The environment comes first to me. Clinton at least supports a sane policy on the environment.
I’m no admirer of Clinton but I sure as hell wouldn’t vote for a fascist like Trump.
There is a huge swing to right-wing fascist policies. In Britain with now have a government that is far more extreme than we’ve ever had in living memory. I disliked Cameron and Osborn but I think they pale into insignificance compared to the likes of devious May, Fox, Davies, Reese-Mogg and IDS.
I am not this wishy-washy liberal you portray. I’m highly pragmatic.
Clinton, for all her faults, is by far the lesser of two evils.
So why the side-swipe on me being swayed? Me being swayed is fucking laughable.
I ain’t the guy who didn’t even know about Clinton’s KSA links, am I? I told you about them.
I don’t want to make too much about that, but really…?
If that isn’t an open embrace of Fascism, then I’ve got ask what is?
Why did you say on your Labour Party post the other day that you were a liberal ?
Or is this liberal the type that can swing about to wherever it suits at any given time?
It’s that leftist liberal bullshit that’s got us to where we are.
Ostriches with their heads buried in the sand, hoping it will all just stop and go away.
You might find that the reason some members of the top-brass military have expressed support is because they do not wish to engage in wanton aggression. They’ve had enough of it actually and agree with Trump that this isn’t a good policy.
Therefore, the polar opposite of what you just said.
It was Clinton who made up the story about being under sniper fire from Islamic terrorists whilst visiting Tuzla, Bosnia.
When in fact she wasn’t (it’s on film) and spent the time greeting children.
It was Clinton who blocked health-care for the poor.
It was Clinton who expressed her derision on the LGBT people and had to double-track.
Who is the fascist here, really?
I challenge you to find one such similar incident with Trump.
All he has actually done is to identify what needs addressing, subjects that are quite obviously of major concern, yet we have the wooly-heads in hysterics.
The Ku Klux Klan are about as much a worry as losing Nadia from BBC’s Bake-Off to Channel 4.
What about them? They’ve been around long enough.
Or are you under the impression they had their costumes put into long-term storage and have dug them about specially because of the arrival of Donald Trump?
The real reason is they’re none too pleased with the anti-American antics of some of the Muslim contingent – something that has not got anything to do with Trump.
They are simply part of the deep-seated Republican element that has a multitude of factions.
Funnily enough, large portions of the Afro-American population are also Republican. So go figure that one out.
That really is a nonentity of a point to make Opher.
You believe Trump to be a fascist. Have you actually seriously considered what Clinton represents?
Have you bothered to tear yourself away from writing poetry to find out all you can?
Are you going to let the BBC continue to tell you how to think?
You should watch the whole debate.
Then read through Clinton’s entire political activities
and see just how sane her policy on the environment is.
Start with the Keystone Pipeline, then go chide yourself for being such a patsy.
Why all this aggression and personal abuse? What’s that about?
It certainly isn’t a side-swipe to say that you are swayed by your anti-Islamic views. You’ve repeatedly stated your views on Islam on my blog. I share some of them but not to the same extent. I think your views on Brexit and Trump are strongly swayed by your attitude towards Muslim immigration and terrorism. That’s not a side-swipe. That is based on what you have repeated stated about Muslims. I’m not as fussed about it as you. That is not to suggest I’m not fussed. I’ve put out some strong posts on the subject.
The Ku Klux Klan are a spent force but they’re still active. The Tea Party nutters are a sizeable number. The NRA is big. The white supremacists have a large number. They are not the sort of people I’d like to get in bed with.
Now I’m not happy with Clinton receiving money from Saudi. But when you tot it up I prefer that to be supported by a bunch of the most extreme fascists in America. And I’m not suggesting you are a fascist or that all Trump’s supporters are fascists. What I am saying is that the fascists are supporting Trump and I’m asking what that tells you?
I am liberal in my views. I’ve always said that. I believe in equality and freedom. I am left-wing in that I believe in fairness and want a fair society. I want good public services and a level playing field. I don’t think that’s bullshit and I don’t think that is what is fucking the world up. The world is being fucked up by greedy rich people wanting more profit at the expense of the vast majority and destroying the natural environment in the process. That makes me an ostrich with my head in the sand? No way. I stand up for what I believe. That’s what I write. That’s what I consistently say. The bankers fuck up – the poor and public servants pay. The establishment is weighted to give the rich and powerful all the advantage. They cream off the wealth and exploit the poor.
Clinton has done some daft things. She’s part of an institution I despise. But I believe she is not as nasty, vulgar, misogynistic, racist or gung-ho as Trump. I don’t base my stuff on BBC sound-bites. I listen to what he says and the way he says it. I find him repulsive. He stands for all the elite shits that are arrogantly, greedily, running rough-shod over everyone. Look at his employee record. He’s treated people like shit. He’s filed for bankruptcy to avoid paying what he owes and left people in the shit. He’s not a nice guy.
The military top-brass have a history or wanting to use military might to solve things and nine times out of ten its a disaster. Not the polar opposite of what I said. You might not agree with it. But I think they are belligerent.
The majority of blacks are democrat. But some, like some working class Brits, vote Republican and Tory. I think there’s a psychological reason for that. Some people doff their cap to those in power and are sycophants.
Is Clinton a fascist? Possibly so. She has a lot of the tendencies.
I certainly don’t spend a lot of time writing poetry – so I don’t have to tear myself away. But if you bothered to read my poetry you would find that it is invariably concerned with political, social and environmental issues. It’s not frivolous pap.
As for the BBC, which I consider a wing of the Tory Party, and still remember their editorial decision to misrepresent Orgreave and their reporting of Hillsborough, they are as unbiased and trustworthy as Theresa May.
I’m no patsy.
Now I’m not having personal swipes at you for your support of a man I find repugnant. I’m not calling you names or taking a patronising tone. I am stating my case, my reasons and saying I don’t agree with your analysis or reasoning. You might gather a lot of facts but it is whole you interpret them that I think is important. I don’t interpret the information in the same way as you.
I forgot to mention this.
We may well need an extreme right-wing government –
Islamic radicals infiltrate the Labour Party – see The Telegraph
Why banning Sharia courts would harm British Muslim women – The Telegraph
Devout Muslim sues Tesco for making him carry alcohol – Daily Mail
Muslim bus drivers refuse to let guide dogs on board – Daily Mail
Sniffer dogs offend Muslims – Express
Police sniffer dogs must wear bootees to avoid offending Muslims – The Telegraph
Do not walk your dog here. Muslims do not like dogs posters in London parks in ‘Islamic areas’ – Daily Mail
UK Muslim taxi drivers refuse to pick up passengers wearing poppies – barenakedislam.com
Muslim Tesco worker refuses to sell ham and wine because it is Ramadan – Daily Mail
Muslim leader blames women for sex attacks – The Australian.
That’s just beginner’s entry stuff.
I remember Col. Gadadafi –
“We await the day when Turkey joins the European Union to serve as a Trojan horse – jihadwatch.org
&
“We have 50 million Muslims in Europe. There are signs that Allah will grant Islam victory in Europe – without swords, without guns, without conquest – will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades – New York Sun
“One day millions of men will leave the southern hemisphere to go to the northern. They will not go there as friends. Because they will go there to conquer it. And they will conquer it with their sons. The wombs of our women will give us victory” – Houari Boumediene – wikipedia.org
But don’t worry about it . The liberals will protect us.
What the Teegraph, Daily Mail and Express are rational purveyors of news now? They’ve ceased to be irrational propagandists or blow things out of proportion?
They were where the bent cucumbers came from. Fabricated wasn’t it?
I don’t believe all I read in the papers. I don’t believe most of it.
The Muslim presence will cause problems. Religious nutters always do. What is required is sensible responses not a dose of fascism.
What was it Dylan said -‘Like saying if you’ve got a cold take a dose of malaria’.
We have to keep the threat in proportion and not overreact.
We’ve now got ourselves lumbered with a right-wing bunch of extremists. They are looking to fuck up schools, privatise the NHS, fuck up unions, fuck up the disabled and give more money in tax cuts to the top end. How is all that going to do anything to control stupid Muslim doing stupid things. There are no Muslim zones. The police need to do their job. There are laws. Lock the bastards up.
No more than the Washington Post.
They are only what they are, reports – don’t shoot these messengers.
You will find these kind of incidents all over the place.
Just scour the net and find hundreds of such.
Sadly, there are Muslim zones, Southall and Luton definitely being of the worst examples.
Define proportion.
Andrew – I don’t believe half of it. Those papers exploit, have an agenda and sensationalise.
I don’t deny that there are isolated problems and that Islam has a lot of issues and nutters. But I wouldn’t quote scandal sheets like the Mail, Express and Telegraph on anything. My old man worked in Fleet Street. I know the way they twist things, distort and blow up out of proportion.
Islam is a medieval religion with values that come out of the Dark Ages but it is not the kind of threat being portrayed here.
You lecture me on believing stuff from the BBC, Guardian and Independent. I don’t hold those in high esteem but they are in a different league to those purveyors of lies. I wouldn’t wipe my arse on them.
I’m sorry but you are very wrong here.
I disagree with you because I see huge holes in your comprehension of events.
This isn’t the first time where you’ve found yourself in a corner and made profound accusations of anti-Muslim stuff towards me.
Please read these above posts and find any – there are none.
My reasons for preferring Brexit to Remain were due to the method in which the EU operates with unelected personnel playing dictators. I said that loud and clear. They rewrote the rule book and the majority of people understood this.
It is in fact yourself that has raised many posts on the Islamic question.
More often than not I think you will find that I made no comment and if on the occasions where I do so, I really don’t think I’ve raised any more objections to events than yourself.
To make indication that I harbour such severe grief on the subject is lamentable.
But I am aware of the dangers perhaps more than yourself simply due to my exposure on a day to day basis living inner-city rather than elsewhere.
However, I’ve always been persuaded that a pro-active approach is preferable to a reactionary one. That’s where we differ as I believe you to be reactionary.
The wait and see approach is fine with benign situations but never where there’s an element of danger.
I think it maybe a necessary situation for any impending US president to have the support of military people – to not have would be wholly un-American. An anathema.
Therefore, to critic this as a negative is somewhat naive.
But the fundamental problem is I find it quite difficult to understand how you can be so convinced that it is a good thing to support the status quo. Change is necessary otherwise we will only have to same again. The same again that doesn’t work.
It’s like socialism – a backward failed 20th century ideology.
We need a new kind of politics. We need a new kind of approach to solutions and quickly.
Information? You obviously don’t engage in looking for any other than the front page of a newspaper with an agenda.
Yet are convinced that Clinton is the best choice – no doubt what-so-ever!
I see you have chosen to ignore the Keystone Pipeline debacle.
I just watched 2 docs on her on youtube. There must be a hundred interviews and speeches where she brazenly lied, fabricated, smothered with rhetoric or just ignored and talked of something else entirely. Corruption personified.
How hot does a flame have to be before we get burned?
No I’m not convinced that Clinton is a great choice. I just see and hear what Trump is saying and it is completely off the cuff and crazy. I’d prefer the status quo to the alternative. But that does not mean I am not in favour of change. I want positive change not negative change.
I share your apprehension regarding the EU. It is a right-wing organisation which is undemocratic and too controlling. But I like the principles of outward looking unity. I think peace comes out of close dialogue and working together. I think division creates racism and xenophobia. Those things are more important to me.
Coming out of the EU will harm our economy. The people who will pay will be the poor and public servants (as usual). It has put an extreme right-wing group into power with all the nastiness that entails – NHS privatisation, austerity, the poor, disabled and public servants being hammered, more inequality. Theresa May is another Thatcher though probably more devious and more ruthless. We’re just beginning to see it.
I preferred staying in the EU and sorting out the problems – making it democratic, sorting out the immigration problem, coordinating action against terrorism.
I am not woolly minded. I do like taking action. I am not a warmonger but I support action against ISIS. I believe the so called caliphate needs smashing. It is a magnet for radicalisation.
You come out with a series of strong anti-Muslim rhetoric, which I can understand but don’t always agree with, and then explode when I suggest that you may be swayed by your feelings against Muslims towards supporting Brexit and Trump.
When it comes to news I do not believe much of what is in the media. I am discerning and form my own views.
Many US Presidents have been at odds with their senior military staff. That’s not necessarily a bad thing.
No, unlike you, I do not delve into all the stories on the internet. I frankly do not have the time or inclination – different personalities. But I would question their content in the same way I question mainstream media. It’s all propaganda. They all have an agenda.
You focus on all Clinton’s many wrongdoings and conveniently gloss over all Trumps equally poor shit. That’s not balanced. They are both poor. But to me one represents a very nasty, xenophobic, isolationist, racist, sexist, arrogant, pompous, ignorant, blustering, simplistic, lying, and dangerous ethos and the other represents a safer, more of the same, corrupt ethos. It’s not a great choice but I know which I prefer. Trump’s view of the world and foreign policy is lamentable, black and white and daft. He’d do a lot of harm and not solve anything. She would just tick along the same and not solve anything.
Who put the videos on You Tube together? What was their motive? Why didn’t you look for the ones on Trump that are just as bad?
Me thinks a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest. Perhaps we’re both guilty of that?
“No I am not convinced Clinton is a great choice”, are you being serious Opher remember saying this ” There is no doubt in my mind that Clinton is the best choice, none whatsoever” which is it? I have to say for someone who professes a kinder more peaceful World one where we should all understand/accept and love one another (fairy land) you have this most intense hatred, personal hated for Trump. I admit I can’t stand Clinton I don’t hate her with such venom. I detest all that Blair stands for all that he did I don’t feel such venom for him as you do Trump. You confuse me at times, but I accept you have the right to feel as you do, just don’t preach we should all love one another and we can have this “no wars, peaceful world out there” it will never happen there are people who are hellbent on destroying what the Western World has. Why should I tolerate being pushed off a beach, where I live because a bunch of Muslims take it over and it is “theirs”. They do not live here they do not own it, but I bet you if I were to call the Police I would be removed not them – too much giving way to these people and all they want. Is this is the UK, I am beginning to wonder.
Opher don’t worry about Trump/Clinton/Corbyn and the rest, you have your Wife your Family that is what matters.
Anna I did not say that all whites who support Trump are racists – I said the racists support Trump. I’m sure there are lots of people who support Trump who are not in the least bit racist.
I am a Labour member. I did not say that you vote Tory. I said that you purport to be socialist but support the most right-wing positions and candidates – big difference. I don’t agree with every Corbyn stance – I don’t agree with him on immigration. But I do agree with most of his policies. You are never, ever going to find someone who you agree with 100%. Not I do not find Corbyn hypocritical on Grammar schools. He can’t help coming from a wealthy background or that he went to a Grammar School at the age of eleven. You don’t have much choice at eleven. As for his background it is the same with Benn who I greatly admired as well.
Please do not misunderstand what I am saying. What you keep suggesting is simply not true. It would be stupid of me to suggest all Trump supporters are racist. As with Brexit there were and are a number of reasons.
Opher, don’t talk a load of rubbish that all whites who support Trump are racists REALLY. So any WHITE working class Americans who vote for Trump are racists are they. Stupidity, the majority of the whites who will vote for Trump are voting for change perhaps they want their Country to be strong again, they wouldn’t want jobs coming back into the Country by any chance would they? Yes you do have Hate for Trum despite all you say its not just what he believes in, its the Man you hate I don’t understand that attitude from you or anyone else. As for me I call myself a Socialist yet I vote Tory do I, I thought the Vote was a personal thing. I support all the Tory policies do I, what am I supposed to vote for a man who does not believe in protecting this Country, never mind he could invite ISIS around for beer and sandwiches and ask them to stop beheading people, stupid you might say as stupid as your comments. You have never answered my question ARE YOU A PAID UP MEMBER OF THE LABOUR PARTY, DO YOU CARRY YOUR CARD, WELL DO YOU?
Because I do.
You go along with Corbyn, on everything then on every single issue – no you don’t. I will vote for a Party that I feel will do the job the party that I feel are the best at that time for the Country. Don’t you dare tell me that I vote for the MP down here I do not, his name is Carswell he left the Tory Party for UKIP, he stays in UKIP to better himself, sooner or later he will leave he only cares for himself. He is UKIP’s only MP. Left to Corbyn he will let in every ” tom, dick and harry”, I do not want to be scared when I go for a walk with my dog through the Gardens on our Promenade and have to leave quickly because there are Poles and Romanians and God knows what sitting on the benches laying on the ground drunk/shouting out. If you think that is a racist remark so be it. If I went to their Country I would behave and the Police would be within their rights to take action if I did not. Here the Police are too bloody scared to come out and too scared of the consequences if they take action against these people. You have Family Police connections, you know that. Then I am a racist because I want my Country as it used to be.
I find it appalling that to you anyone that supports Trump like Clint Eastwood, like any working class white American out of work is a racist, I find it appalling your hypocrisy over Clinton saying one thing and then another, she is one dangerous individual and if she gains power I hope you and all the others will admit what she is when she causes trouble. As for Corbyn you found no hypocrisy in a man who condemns Grammar Schools when he comes from LOTS OF MONEY AND WENT TO A GRAMMAR SCHOOL and yes I am using capitals to emphasise the point.
Ref: the status quo – I think it’s worth considering where America stands today.
It’s around $30+ TRILLION in debt. It can no longer pretend -the shit has hit the fan.
It is spending far too much of its resources dealing with internal bullshit. It has wasted countless trillions with its destroy-conquer-rebuild “foreign policy” strategy that just hasn’t hit pay dirt. It systematically failed.
There cannot be anymore of the same. This of course is Clinton’s #1 problem – she is part of that problem, given the senior roles she’s played these last 8 years.
Quite how this qualifies her as a suitable candidate is a fucking bad joke. Her whole campaign is twisted pot-kettle-black stuff. Yet people buy into it. It’s incredible how vast numbers of people can’t remember further back than last week or anything of her gross failures.
Trump’s #1 complaint is as above. He wants to put US industry back to where it should be.
He’s only interested in the US business acumen. He’s even expressed his desire to talk with North Korea. He’s not too phased by tin-pot dictatorship regimes – he doesn’t play the fear card that Clinton flies in this respect – as if she’s the only suitable candidate to undertake these unbelievably important foreign affairs duties. She’s had more practice with that than him – but sometimes told a few lies about what actually happened in the process. Never mind, “shit happens” as they say, whilst dodging imaginary bullets on the tarmac.
Trump on the other hand knows he can buy them.
Buying something is perhaps a better approach than destroying it. Even top brass military people agree with him here.
And before you say it again – this is about today – not some problem some former president may have had many decades ago. It’s today that counts only. So your previous point is worthless.
Ref EU: It’s interesting to see that you’ve come to your senses with regards how the EU operates and today express yourself almost verbatim to what I’ve been saying all along. That certainly wasn’t your opinion a couple of months ago.
That’s a good step up with your game plan.
There’s no evidence to suggest that leaving the EU will damage our economy.
At least we won’t be running slop-shod with a failing economy, based on bias, political agenda and unlimited draining of resources. People seem to think the whole world revolves around a couple of dozen smallish countries. We don’t actually need the EU anymore.
This isn’t 1975 anymore.
Some other major players will soon follow the wish to leave, they’re done with it too.
Then there’s all these blinkered folk prattling on about “we’ll never be able to find NHS staff” etc.
This is crap. Look at Leicester Council for example – about 2 years ago they went to the Philippines to recruit. They were sick of the Euro rubbish coming who weren’t up to scratch for the task in hand.
They’re getting excellent people from there.
This covers 2 bases immediately. They can’t be accused of racism, nationalism or right-wing fascism by all these arse-holes who cannot but help themselves from shouting this aloud at every given opportunity – usually because they don’t possess another expression in their vocabulary – or they’ve never actually understood the true meaning of the word ‘fascist’. Too many don’t.
So in terms of labour resources there simply isn’t a problem – and this example could easily be employed for a whole host of job skills.
We now have the powers to do as we choose and determine who can come and work here.
The free-for-all is over. We got stung rotten with paying out for years with unemployment money to the undeserving in-comers – the ‘gimme something’s’. Too many people forget this all too easily. There’s no harmony or good relations or even a decent level of social empathy when that’s the base line target goal with too many immigrants.
We’ve now got pockets of several thousand at a time, all stuck in the same area, with about 1 job in 5.
That isn’t fascism – that’s good house-keeping.
I think the chances of the Philippines’ medical staff people running crime rackets will be rather slim.
Of course it took the Tories to do something about that, with news laws preventing claims under 4 years of residency.
The Labour loony left just throw money at these people, so they brought all their friends and families, too. Labour fucked us over with immigration and probably play a very large hand at the end of the day for the vote result.
Labour caused the very problem that they were supposed to be against!
How fucked up politics is that? It couldn’t get worse.
And now look at them – they got this tweedy looking mosey geography teacher without any orating skills or any powers to command one’s attention.
He’s make for a great #1 librarian at Labour HQ’s history of the party exhibition – if ever they have one – but not as a leader.
Who’s kidding who here? So that’s at least another 8 years of Tory rule to look forward to.
Labour is well and truly over.
They’re like these SDP people back in the 80’s – a fucking running joke.
And aren’t they all so damnable nasty about and towards each other.
I’m going to refer to them from now on as SDP2 – The New Nasty Party.
None of these fuckers would know what Labour was. It should be a criminal offence for fraud if they continue to masquerade as such.
Previously you said this:-
“You come out with a series of strong anti-Muslim rhetoric, which I can understand but don’t always agree with, and then explode when I suggest that you may be swayed by your feelings against Muslims towards supporting Brexit and Trump.”
Where did you get that from? Where is it here?
Any anti-Muslim rhetoric coming from me is ONLY about these jerks spewing hatred aloud in our streets. And that isn’t up for any discussion here, so an utterly irrelevant comment to make.
You’d be more accurate to say I prefer the colour blue than red. At least that’s factual rather than contrite.
Other than that I don’t give 2 fucks what they do as long as they don’t stick their shit in my face. I’ve no problem with yer average mozzy geezer at all. I was married briefly to an ex-one once and have a guy coming round delivering me gear. They’re generally OK with me. It’s just their nutters that I cannot stand. Therefore, you really do have a fucking cheeky bastard nerve. You really do. You’re beyond the fucking pale with that.
So don’t judge me with your fears. Don’t tar me with the brush that tarred you. Don’t put the same “anti-johnny-foreigner” shit that your parents fucked you up with on me.
I was living abroad in Brazil, Sao Paulo, long before you could have placed Brazil on the fucking map.
As for my views on Brexit to be in any way related to your above fucking bullshit – do yourself a favour and go back to these original Brexit posts – you’ll surely find them in your files next to Poetry – and you’ll never ever find any such minimalist conjecture from me.
My opinions expressed on that subject were somewhat more evolved and if you care to remember, I crucified you with facts, figures and the truth. When you had done your level best by simply typing out your freebie flyer that the whole country got, too. You must have thought you could get away with that or the zip came loose on the back of your head or something. Either way, it didn’t work well for you there.
I can’t support Clinton – not only that but I felt it would/should be beneficial to you to point out the negatives following your glorification of her as some form of political deity – the one we’ve all been waiting for kinda thing. No way! You so obviously missed out on knowing the other 95% about her so I gave you a starter for 10. And it seems you’ve not bothered your arse either ever since, given the constant ant-Trump juvenile, purile, mis-information that ranks up there with that produced by Clinton’s very own people.
So well done there. Very well done.
But let’s not kid ourselves, as after all it was your Labour types that invented “Spin Politics”.
Your lot excelled in it and drove this country into economic, military, foreign policy, international relations meltdown.
The only thing to sort that is to do the opposite – therefore, by virtue it is very obviously going to be deemed as right-wing. Even a 9 year old could work that one out.
Back on track – therefore, it was beneficial to correct some of the more misleading comments on Trump.
Personally, I couldn’t give a flying fuck if he builds a wall or not. It also wouldn’t be me either that would allow hundreds of thousands of immigrants piling into the country without limitations.
If it takes a wall to fix it, so be it.
Just imagine the USA as one massive festival – you’re going to be met by security and need a valid ticket, right? So what’s the difference? None.
You also said:-
“When it comes to news I do not believe much of what is in the media. I am discerning and form my own views.”
Discerning? … mmmm….?
You also said:-
“You focus on all Clinton’s many wrongdoings and conveniently gloss over all Trumps equally poor shit. That’s not balanced. They are both poor. But to me one represents a very nasty, xenophobic, isolationist, racist, sexist, arrogant, pompous, ignorant, blustering, simplistic, lying, and dangerous ethos and the other represents a safer, more of the same, corrupt ethos. It’s not a great choice but I know which I prefer. Trump’s view of the world and foreign policy is lamentable, black and white and daft.”
For a start, Trump has never been a member of government before. That makes a huge difference.
He has no previous with pulling bullshit in public high office.
What he did under the roof of his own private office is not the same ball play park at all.
He can do what the fuck he likes with his own stuff.
That’s the difference that you just ain’t grasped.
But enough of that – as you know more now than you ever did a few weeks ago.
So that’s another step up.
You asked:-
“Who put the videos on You Tube together? What was their motive? Why didn’t you look for the ones on Trump that are just as bad?
Me thinks a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest. Perhaps we’re both guilty of that?”
All kinds of people coming from all kinds of directions – there’s an endless supply.
I just watch all the recent rally stuff – the whole deal, not just what our TV news shows.
It’s important to hear the whole thing from both of them.
Obviously, I do watch the Trump ones – how on earth did you get the impression that I didn’t?
As for your last line – speak for yourself.
You’ll never get close to finding me with my trousers down.
You even totally failed to get the irony on my post about the newspapers, didn’t you?
You actually thought that was the solid body subject matter?
No – the real McCoy were the Gaddafi quotes.
However – I bet you didn’t know that The Mail is the biggest selling newspaper abroad.
Sells bucket loads in Spain, and you know the majority of type of person who has gone over to live there, right?
I couldn’t sell enough to all the Brits – all sorts, all those all covered in tattoos, head to foot, whom were very obviously not Tory voters, if you know what I mean.
I think you’re a little out of touch on this matter. Nobody reads the Red Star anymore.
And the Citizen Smith’s of this world with their Little Red Books are long dead and buried.
You made mention of something to do with cucumbers – well, actually you’ll find them in all shapes and sizes in the warmer parts of Europe. We rarely see them here because of these stupid policies by the supermarket chains – where everything has to be looking perfect and of standard size.
Same with bananas, the small chunky ones with knarly skin are far better tasting and we don’t get these in our shops either.
But to be fair, wasn’t it the extreme leftist rag, The Sun, that claimed there were cheese eating mice living on the moon? Touche as they say.
Ref: your final comment:-
No I am not guilty of that.
I use what’s called a third ear that isn’t predetermined or controlled by any inherent long-held political persuasion. Unlike yourself, I don’t automatically look at anything with a severe reactionary Left-wing directive. That would be anathema to me.
I seldom ever outright say exactly what I would do.
I Like to talk about pejoratives. I like to take stuff to bits and see what’s holding it together.
I like to mock the bullshit. I accept that nothing I say or do will ever change anything.
I see no point in talking about the imaginary.
I actually couldn’t give a flying fuck, but that doesn’t prevent me from wanting to laugh at it or those involved. Or those that take it all too seriously.
They tickle me pink.
Hi Andrew,
Well that was quite a diatribe. I guess we think differently on a number of issues. If it is impossible to change things then we’re all fucked. But I think we can. Time will tell.
I don’t know where you got the idea that I think Clinton is a great candidate. In my view she is only great in comparison to Trump, but then, in my view most of humanity fits into that category. I have an extremely low opinion of the man. I think he’s pretty scummy.
In terms of Brexit it appears that the treasury prediction for the cost to the country of a soft Brexit is 4% of GDP and a hard Brexit rises to 8%. That’s a fair chunk of cash. Or is that just propaganda? How many billions is that? And will it be worth it?
Have you got the real figures?
All I know right now is yesterdays financial reports that the pound/dollar slumped to 1985 levels.
But that’s due to May’s speech.
They did that upon the Brexit/Remain vote result, too, but it gradually came back up over the next few weeks.
Not too cool for those exchanging money – but not too many people go hols now this month.
Why money exchange is affected is a nonsense.
Other than that no idea – been off on fishing trip in Hebrides, no TV, no anything.
My post was to clarify some matters that needed clarifying.
You can’t point that “but you hate Muslims” finger at me just on a whim.
You will get a reaction. I’m subject to truthfulness, not silly loose canon expressionism.
I never bullshit you and you very well know that.
Well the pound did come back up but not to the level it was at before. This slump looks worse to me but we’ll see.
I think the markets are reacting to the reality of what is about to happen. We’ve been in a hiatus – a phoney Brexit. The real thing is coming when she presses the button. According to the leaked treasury report a soft Brexit will cause an estimated 4% drop in GDP – that’s a staggering £111 Billion. A hard Brexit will result in an 8% drop on GDP – around £220 Billion. That kind of makes Britain’s £8.5 Billion contribution to the EU a drop in the ocean.
It looks like May is going for a hard Brexit to appease her rabid right wingers and she’s using ‘the will of the people’ as a front.
Doesn’t look to me as if Boris and Gove’s promises are going to reach fruition – what was it? – £350 million a week to the NHS?
What lies ahead is more cuts, austerity, unemployment and all the stuff ‘Project Fear’ was predicting. I wonder if the rich are going to pick up the bill? Or the politicians?
I thought you might have access to better information?
To be honest I just haven’t had the time. I also think it’s a bit too early, for me at least, to start forming conclusions as I’m pretty sure the snips I have heard of it so far are reactionary.
I think May said she’ll be pressing the button next spring 2017 – with conclusive exit by mid 2019.
Am I right there?
Meanwhile, I think we have to keep contributing. I’d be very surprised if we didn’t have to.
Just to clarify this £350 mil – as we know it never was that (silly Boris), but a net figure of £164 mil a week. That’s the correct figure and what could be re-distributed into NHS and other services.
What we definitely do not know anything of yet are the in-roads companies will be making to trade elsewhere. I believe we have to give that as a given – there will be success with this.
That said: it’s going to work on 2 basic levels:
UK’s current customers in EU will have no reason not to continue to trade. We aren’t one of these errant nations goading threat with weaponry, therefore, being struck off the trade map.
Whether EU HQ decide to impose higher tariffs and tax relative to buying from us or us from them remains to be seen.
And If this is the case this automatically highlights the corrupt greed and mindset of these people.
It’s also worth remembering the other 5 nations who have expressed the desire to also leave.
France and Italy for example.
For that reason alone, I think it would be a very foolish move on behalf of EU HQ to start playing hard ball with us. That will send out the very wrong message to all the other members and very much translate as pay servitude – “stay and play (and pay) or we’ll fuck you over”.
Now I know you don’t like the concept of nationalism, but seriously, can you see the likes of the French and Italians having their arms twisted up their backs?
This is where our own individual countries governments really have to grab the bull by the horn.
There comes a time to take a stance and not be bullied.
The French and Italians – in particular, each have a joker card to play, in that they both play a major role in the defense of Switzerland. A lot of these EU HQ moguls are Swiss.
They would be at liberty to withdraw this “free service” and if you’ve every seen anything of the Swiss army, you’d burst out laughing at its ineptitude.
Despite all the bluster and diktat from these EU HQers, the last thing they want is floods of immigration from the Balkan region, much of its borders that Italy controls.
Any change costs money.
Start with perhaps if you have any personal cards and you’re moving house, you’re going to need to get new ones. It’s all relative to scale.
What we won’t have will be the plethora of EU health board quangos interfering in our NHS system, bleeding monies that could be going direct. That nonsense will stop.
What’s of interest will be to see just how far and wide controlling these EU financial institutions are. They may very well be uncloaked and exposed for what they really are.
We may be the first to be able to make an example of them. I would welcome that opportunity.
But that’s a whole other subject and most complex.
Ref your question:-
What lies ahead is more cuts, austerity, unemployment and all the stuff ‘Project Fear’ was predicting. I wonder if the rich are going to pick up the bill? Or the politicians?
— I don’t pay much attention to the fear mongers stuff as it’s always way out of proportion and ludicrously so.
I quite like the idea of being able to stop and start again – use what works, lose what doesn’t.
An awful lot of stuff is false economy anyway and we shouldn’t kid ourselves on. There’s been too much of paying Peter to pay Paul with Peter keeping some of it.
Cuts – depends what they are. I think the NHS and other public services may benefit in the short term.
Austerity – we already have that in spades in some regions. It’s an on-going problem that what is a certainty cannot be tackled by simply adding to it with people coming into the country with no jobs and nowhere to live. Therefore, any reduction of that can only be to advantage.
That’s one of the negatives of EU membership – this false economy, where what the country makes from immigrant workers’ tax and insurance contributions are re-spent on those without the means to secure a stable job and home. It makes for bad good house-keeping policy.
Where there’s no structure there’s no control and that’s the major issue.
As for the bill – you’re paying it already and will continue to do so. (I using “you” in general terms, as per usual).
If we didn’t have an NHS we wouldn’t be in the situation we are in now. We wouldn’t have been the main attraction of the third world. We wouldn’t be swamped.
I was at the airport recently waiting in arrivals. 2 other planes landed and the entire area was swamped in as much as I thought I was in Calcutta. The place was full of women and multiple children with hardly a man to be seen.
You’re paying for that, too.
It’s basically got out of control and we have to pull the reigns in.
Well I like your optimism. I wish I could share it. We’ll see what happens.
As for emigration – it has to slow right down. I think most people are agreed on that. Mass immigration does not make for good integration. It upsets the indigenous population and is a recipe for social division.
The only question in my eyes is how to stop it without screwing up the entire economy.
That will depend on how May chooses to go. Personally I do not like a right-wing government loaded with nutters like Fox and Davies, unelected and choosing not to go to parliament, deciding something that will impact most on my grandchildren.
Optimism in the face of sound economic modelling is no guarantee that it will work out alright. I think it hasn’t started yet. If those 4% and 8% figures are even close we are in for a rough ride and you can wave goodbye to any idea of extra funding for the NHS. We probably won’t have an NHS. It’s not easy magicking up £220 Billion.
I don’t like any “wing” nutters – there’s too many on both sides. Dangerous and insidious people who we should target and be rid of them. I don’t like any of this left/right nonsense at all and it’s high time we lost it. Politics has moved on, it has evolved somewhat from the structures of 19th century mentality – but too many still exist with such ideology.
I want centralisation – and I rarely express my own wants.
I want MP’s who are qualified – we have too many that are only there because they have a loud mouth, have been an ex-shop steward or owned a publishing house or whatever.
I utterly detest all these professional politicians from either side, jerks that joined a party as a youth and have come up its ranks and exist with the fantasy that they actually represent anybody. I’d lose them in a new york minute, too.
I’m well sick of this loud call for “equality” etc. Equality is only present when all parties concerned actually contribute something into society. Too many don’t and have no intentions of either. Then they pull the left-wing and right-wing cards to cover their ass. You can see them coming.
I want transparency. I’m sick to death with corrupt leftist/rightist jerks pulling in opposite directions because of some age old mandate to do so, regardless. It stinks.
I’ve zero time for persons whom harbour inherent extremist political persuasions. They get us nowhere, never did, never will. They only represent and create social austerity and political misery. They are no matter how you choose to look at it – anti-social bastards.
There are also far too many that operate to levels of political success – or at least perceived to be – by virtue of commentary on past events. That’s of no use to anybody.
Tony Benn excelled himself with this kind of insidious political activity and has gone down as someone to aspire to. Let’s get real and forget about them, sooner than later.
They create barriers by automatic virtue. I want rid of them.
No decent successful business could ever operate on such a level – and I’ve worked for several. There’s no difference in running a country properly as the same rules apply.
I want an end to local councils being run by political quangos. These people can go to hell and back.
They’ve fucked us up no end with their stupidity and close mind ethos – people like Diane Abbott – yes, I know she’s a Laourite, but what an unmitigated shambles she has made of that borough. We cannot have people such as this in public office. I could pick her into pieces all week.
It’s not “the” government per se that’s the problem, but the quality of personnel within said government. We’ve had shambles after shambles from both sides. I’m not picky, I hate a great number of these Tory wankers just as much as you do. But I also equally hate a great number of Labourites, too. I don’t start looking at the problems of any issue with a base medium of political persuasion. That would fuck up any attempts to see the wood for the trees – imho.
Let’s see where it goes – May’s no idiot. I don’t think she tolerates idiots either. She makes that little backward communistic Sturgeon look like a washer woman.
But don’t think for a minute our large business concerns are sitting there twiddling their thumbs all saying it’s all over.
Three-quarters of the world is under developed.
I couldn’t give a toss if in 2 years time we’re no longer Slovenia’s biggest importer of stationery or plastic cups etc.
We’ve untied that shackle that held us back. It’s a big menu out there.
Well I would agree that it would be great to loose the labels left and right and go for pragmatic but unfortunately there is a set of people who believe one set of things – such as privatisation, trickle down, tax cuts – and a set who believe in fairer distribution, more taxation and nationalisation – whatever label you want to stick on it.
Equality for mean simply means equality of opportunity. That would be nice. The present system means that certain groups get preference. Merit might be a good way forward – not your colour or how much you earn.
It’s about time we did away with career, closed-minded politicians. We want people with talent and ideas.
I don’t trust May an inch. She is no idiot but she is a devious woman. Some of these new policies are extremely worrying. A mixture of claptrap and nastiness.
Our businesses are already planning their moves. I read about it all the time. My son is an architect in London and deals with them. They are moving offices across to Europe. If there are tariffs big industry – such as the car industry – will up sticks and move. Without all of that we will be in the shit.
Yes the world is out there – but it is highly competitive – the Yanks and Chinese, Russia and a host of others are sniffing around. Making progress will be tough and take time.
I see we have already slipped down the list of wealthiest countries. We’re below France now. The run on the pound tells me that all round the world they are expecting us to fall on our arses. Good for exports – shit for the cost of living. Looks very dicey to me.
Who cares about the “now”? We already know all the reasons for that.
You have no idea where May is going. No idea at all.
As for your son – perhaps his company is moving because of business premises costs that in London are out of control. They needn’t have to be in Europe to do business in Europe.
My friend has a specialist section within his regular business, where he designs eco-friendly dwellings to customers all over Europe. Nothing will change at all in that respect.
Furthermore, for example in Berlin, their local government have imposed controls over rental costs. Property owners have to toe the line. People can’t get ripped off anymore.
We need some of that here.
Have you forgotten about the open request to do business with us from Canada, Australia and New Zealand just a couple of months ago?
I really can’t fathom your negativity regards this. Deal with what is, not what isn’t.
Not my son – the companies his firm do business with.
I’m dealing with what is happening. Siemens pulling out of the huge research into alternative energy on the Humber and moving it into Europe, warnings from Japan and the car industry, the planned moves of headquarters of insurance and banks into Europe, – in fact just about everything we were warned would happen. They are real.
As for trade agreements with Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the rest – we’ll see how long that takes and how profitable that is. Before that a lot of the damage will have been done.
Why would Siemens need to be there in the first place? It’s not as if they’re short of ocean space in Germany. Why incur all these extra costs just for the sake of being seen to partake in EU partnership deals? It’s false economy.
Japan has huge debt problems and suffering due to China’s takeover in various markets.
It’s high time we reclaimed our share of the car industry anyway. Here’s an opportunity.
What we’ve suffered from is letting our industries to be given over to foreign companies on too large a scale for too long.
We can do better than that.
Far too much money leaves this county and we don’t reap the benefits
The less banks around, the better. They’re no loss to anybody.
Er….. Try telling that to all the workers on Humberside and the economy of the area.
Right – so it inevitable that Japan is going to shut down its trade links with Britain and move the car industry over to Europe? Nothing to do with tariffs?
And we’re going to set up a car industry again?
And suddenly globalisation isn’t happening and we’ll just have British ownership of companies?
And we’re not going to miss the money the banking anf finance industries pull in? Our most lucrative income I believe? Worth how many hundreds of Billions? – Yeah good riddance to them. I hate the bastards. Who cares if we become destitute?
How can you say we don’t know where May is going? We’ve already had a host of new policies – Grammar Schools, Faith Schools, Free Schools, Business reporting of foreigners, moves towards a hard Brexit, – what more do you want?
She spouts stupid rhetoric about supporting the poor and is preparing to screw them over – shades of Thatcher I think.
A very clever, devious and unpleasant Lady. I believe you called her Cruella. Fits with me.
Actions speak louder than words.
The left-wing liberal multiculturalists have got what they wanted – diversity and freedoms to educate in faith schools.
The demographic birthrate of immigrants is nearly 5 times higher than that of UK.
I’d have thought you’d be happy with this as after all it’s almost carbon copy from the Labour party manifesto.
What’s there to be happy about?
I don’t see any of that in the Labour Party manifesto. But even if there was I wouldn’t subscribe to it. But I don’t see Labour subscribing to stupidities like Grammar Schools, Free Schools and Faith Schools.
What on earth makes you think that I go along with anything any party comes out with? That would be stupid.
I look at the policies they put forward and decide which of them has more policies that I agree with. You never, ever find anyone with a full set. It is always shades of grey.
I’ve been very tempted by the Greens in the past.
I was under the impression that you’re a fully paid up card carrying party member, who attends the meetings etc. It seems odd to do that yet not agree with anything they come out with.
This stuff stems back to the Blair and Brown days, when multiculturism was the focus.
We’re now seeing the backlash.
Being part of an organisation does not mean you subscribe to everything in it. You fight for the things you believe in and try to get them accepted as policy. If the party gets too out of step with your own beliefs you lave it and look for something more in line. I’m no sap.
I want in to the EU but I can’t stand the right-wing nature of the organisation, its lack of democracy, silly immigration policy or bureaucracy.
It is the other things that are much more important to me than the negatives.
It would be great if there was something that came along that was perfect.
I don’t see too much wrong with multiculturalism – except it went too far. I’m all in favour of assimilating other cultures and enriching our culture. I’m quite happy to celebrate the good things in other cultures too. It is only when it begins to impinge on our culture and gets present in too large numbers that I object.
Humberside will be no stranger to seeing industry walk away. It lost its ship building years back.
It’s most unfortunate but there will be collateral damage.
We haven’t been too clever with protecting our own industries.
And its fishing, and numerous other manufacturing, caravan building etc. It is a deprived area due to government policy. The north languishes. Thatcher’s policy of promoting Banks and doing away with manufacturing hit the north hard and Blair continued the massacre.
Siemens was going to set up a massive alternative energy base in Humberside – We had the Humber, the space and the workers. Nowhere else in Europe was as well placed. In light of Brexit they are pulling out of the whole research and development side. That is a severe blow to the area. It is also a massive blow to the country. This is an industry that we need to become a world leader in. We had the opportunity. Looks like we blew it.