The Trump Presidency

First topic message reminder :

Well, since the last thread got terminated, I thought I'd open a new one as I think Trump's Presidency is potentially quite an important event (one way or the other), so we should talk about it.

Let's at least try to argue points raised rather than sling any personal insults (not that I mind).

To kick off, what on Earth is that Kellyanne Conway doing promoting Ivanka Trump's fashion line and does the Donald seriously think it's OK to weigh in as he's done??? With any luck, some legal eagles will tear Conway down somewhat and someone (anyone!) will convince Trump to stop tweeting. In fact, does anyone in the Administration know what they're doing? A less suitable press officer than Spicer is hard to imagine but to be fair to the guy, it must be difficult fielding media comments when he's having to make it up on the hoof.

Scottrf wrote:

profitius wrote:Those so called deniers happen to have alternative evidence that most people are not aware of. Things like evidence that other planets in the solar system are also heating up! Maybe the hot ball of fire in the sky might have something to do with it.

I'm sure that's strong evidence seeing as the sun is radiating less heat than it has in the recent past. We haven't even reliably measured the heat of other planets for any length of time.

Simply put, you can try to prove anything if you pick and choose what data you use.

What about the ice age? Humans didn't cause that to melt. And that's my point. Human causing global warming is a theory but there's plenty of evidence that it's a natural cycle.

I bet it's currently burning Trump up inside that Obamas response became the most liked tweet ever.

Robert Lee.."Slavery is a moral and political evil"..

I imagine he was as hypocritical as the rest of us..

But it is a valid quote.

Muscular-mouse wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

Muscular-mouse wrote:No one won the last election and what makes it worse for the tories is they had a majority and had over 3 years left with that majority but May gambled and lost the majority. It weakened her party and it weakened her position as leader. To claim any side won the last election is stupid and highlights the lack of knowledge of the british political system.

No it doesn't and you ignored my inconvenient question. Fact is she can get laws through even if the DUP stay in NI.

I haven't ignored anything you said she won the last election when clearly she never. She can't get laws through because she doesn't have a majority. You then said not all mps turn up but the same can be said about tory mps they don't all turn up.

But you said she won and clearly she never. She lost power, had to pay the dup for their help and it was all unnecessary as she had a decent majority to start with.

You can argue she won all you want but youre not fooling anyone, only a donkey would celebrate that election as a tory victory.

Please stop saying 'she never', it sounds very common.

She will bring in many laws which the DUP wont even vote on. You can be condescending all you want, but you don't understand the realities of the legislative process. You can get laws through without having a majority of MPs. I'm done.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Robert Lee.."Slavery is a moral and political evil"..

I imagine he was as hypocritical as the rest of us..

But it is a valid quote.

It's a valid quote, but in the same letter he then follows up with that slavery was worse for white people than it was for black people and that it was necessary for black people to endure slavery, for now anyways, so that they might be civilized.

GSC wrote:I bet it's currently burning Trump up inside that Obamas response became the most liked tweet ever.

I remember Obama having to apologise more than once to white cops because he jumped on them for being racist before he got the correct information.

When it comes to issues of race you won't find Obama to be a haven of objectivity either my friend.

profitius wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

profitius wrote:Those so called deniers happen to have alternative evidence that most people are not aware of. Things like evidence that other planets in the solar system are also heating up! Maybe the hot ball of fire in the sky might have something to do with it.

I'm sure that's strong evidence seeing as the sun is radiating less heat than it has in the recent past. We haven't even reliably measured the heat of other planets for any length of time.

Simply put, you can try to prove anything if you pick and choose what data you use.

What about the ice age? Humans didn't cause that to melt. And that's my point. Human causing global warming is a theory but there's plenty of evidence that it's a natural cycle.

A natural cycle that normally takes millions of years.

We have both strong correlations and we know the mechanisms that cause it.

Smoking causing cancer is a theory but we have both correlation and proven mechanisms so it's generally accepted as fact.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

GSC wrote:I bet it's currently burning Trump up inside that Obamas response became the most liked tweet ever.

I remember Obama having to apologise more than once to white cops because he jumped on them for being racist before he got the correct information.

When it comes to issues of race you won't find Obama to be a haven of objectivity either my friend.

Absolutely, but I was just talking about Trump complex about Obama

Scottrf wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:So, you're suggesting that Southern slaves, loving their lot, masters and the South so much, all joined up of their own free will? Laughable. I'm not saying some didn't (I'm sure propaganda played its part then, as now) or that I know more about American race issues than this guy Williams, but to imply (as you did via that link) that significant (majority?) numbers did as was suggested is beyond credible.

I think you're misreading. Not slaves that joined on their own free will, but free black people served in the Confederate army.

Maybe I did. Didn't consider that option. I guess some certainly did, probably for honest and heartfelt reasons, but I'd put money on them being a minority.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Worth remembering Trump has 90 percent of the MSM against him...He also has 36m twitter followers...Be silly to come off twitter.

However someone regulating his output and telling him that Fox news isn't a great source of correct information is well worth pursuing.

Trump won because like Corbyn he circumvented a negative MSM.

Corbyn has 1.4m followers...May has 380,000..

Social media is the future as the establishment are finding out..

A problem entirely of his own doing via his words and actions throughout his campaign and thereafter. You're right re. Twitter though - it's pretty much all he now has.

profitius wrote:

Muscular-mouse wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:So my question about Trump is, what has he said to make people believe he is a climate-change denier? What does the term climate-change denier even mean? I thought those who deny it weren't actually denying, they were denying that it is a man made phenomenon, and more of a natural one?

It's what he's done not said. Look at his cabinet.

Yeah he's lifted a lot of restrictions on use of fossil fuels, etc. previously put in place right? I was thinking more what guys like Dicaprio have said about him, that he denies science (in regards to climate change).  

You only have to look at what he has said to know he is a climate change denier

'The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive'.


He also pulled out of the Paris climate change agreement.

Those so called deniers happen to have alternative evidence that most people are not aware of. Things like evidence that other planets in the solar system are also heating up! Maybe the hot ball of fire in the sky might have something to do with it.

Citations and source links please...

navyblueshorts wrote:Citations and source links please...

I'm sure you can guess. Climatechangeskeptics.com is my guess.

Hero wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Robert Lee.."Slavery is a moral and political evil"..

I imagine he was as hypocritical as the rest of us..

But it is a valid quote.

It's a valid quote, but in the same letter he then follows up with that slavery was worse for white people than it was for black people and that it was necessary for black people to endure slavery, for now anyways, so that they might be civilized.

US blacks have a far higher standard of living than African blacks.

There were white slaves also.

navyblueshorts wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Worth remembering Trump has 90 percent of the MSM against him...He also has 36m twitter followers...Be silly to come off twitter.

However someone regulating his output and telling him that Fox news isn't a great source of correct information is well worth pursuing.

Trump won because like Corbyn he circumvented a negative MSM.

Corbyn has 1.4m followers...May has 380,000..

Social media is the future as the establishment are finding out..

A problem entirely of his own doing via his words and actions throughout his campaign and thereafter. You're right re. Twitter though - it's pretty much all he now has.

All GOP Presidential runners have 90 percent of the media against them.

Liberal media support Liberals.

LionsV2 wrote:I'll point out that General Lee himself did not 'own' a single slave nor did he personally capture any man, you're splicing together little bits of information wrongly.

I'm not mixing anything up, he owned slaves and forces under his control captured black men and forced them into slavery.

He also said in letters that black people needed to continue to be slaves in order to civilise them. He openly supported slavery in that one sentence.

The man thought that black people were inferior to white and fought to preserve slavery. Lee owned slaves, his wife owned dozens of slaves and forces under his command captured free black people and enslaved them. He openly stated that black people were inferior to white people and they needed to continue to be slaves to make them civilised.

There is no place in America for a statue for a man who holds those racist and abhorrent views.

He didn't own a single slave, someone hasn't checked their facts.

Scottrf wrote:

Muscular-mouse wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

Muscular-mouse wrote:No one won the last election and what makes it worse for the tories is they had a majority and had over 3 years left with that majority but May gambled and lost the majority. It weakened her party and it weakened her position as leader. To claim any side won the last election is stupid and highlights the lack of knowledge of the british political system.

No it doesn't and you ignored my inconvenient question. Fact is she can get laws through even if the DUP stay in NI.

I haven't ignored anything you said she won the last election when clearly she never. She can't get laws through because she doesn't have a majority. You then said not all mps turn up but the same can be said about tory mps they don't all turn up.

But you said she won and clearly she never. She lost power, had to pay the dup for their help and it was all unnecessary as she had a decent majority to start with.

You can argue she won all you want but youre not fooling anyone, only a donkey would celebrate that election as a tory victory.

Please stop saying 'she never', it sounds very common.

She will bring in many laws which the DUP wont even vote on. You can be condescending all you want, but you don't understand the realities of the legislative process. You can get laws through without having a majority of MPs. I'm done.

She might bring in many laws but not without other party members voting in favour of them and she is also in the weak position that if a few back bench tory mps vote against her she can't get laws through. so she has a double problem of getting other party mps on her side AND making sure that backbench tory rebels also vote in favour. She is not in a strong position at all.

She never won the election that is pretty obvious. You can claim a victory but I don't think any other tories were celebrating in June, in fact a lot of them were calling for her to resign.

Muscular-mouse wrote:He openly stated that black people were inferior to white people and they needed to continue to be slaves to make them civilised.

I think he's wrong but we'd need to extend the trial to see if this is possible.

LionsV2 wrote:He didn't own a single slave, someone hasn't checked their facts.

You say he didn't I say he did according to Elizabeth Brown Pryor's biography, which is based on Lee's writings and correspondence.

His wife owned many slaves and his forces captured free black men and forced them into slavery. Thank goodness his statue was pulled down.

Scottrf wrote:

Muscular-mouse wrote:He openly stated that black people were inferior to white people and they needed to continue to be slaves to make them civilised.

I think he's wrong but we'd need to extend the trial to see if this is possible.

extend what trial?

You really don't understand the circumstances do you.

Muscular-mouse wrote:She might bring in many laws but not without other party members voting in favour of them

Wrong again. Repeating it wont make it correct.

LionsV2 wrote:You really don't understand the circumstances do you.

You just tried to tell me he didn't own slaves when he clearly did. You also tried to say that forces under his command didn't enslave free black men when they did and now you are trying to justify it by saying it was because of the circumstances.

General Lee was in favour of slavery the fact he wrote in his letter that slavery was necessary and shouldn't be abolished because it was needed to civilise the blacks and he also claimed in his letter that slavery was an act of god and thus it shouldn't be abolished shows he was pro-slavery. That is why the people wanted the statue removed.

His wife owned slaves and by all accounts treated them incredibly well, taught them to read and write before releasing them so to speak, he himself did not own any slaves, repeating it won't make it true. I've never denied that men under his command enslaved free black men.

I'm starting to think you're too simple to truly understand the circumstances behind by the Custis Lee family had slaves and what they actually did to help them, reading snippets on google doesn't really cut it.

Scottrf wrote:

Muscular-mouse wrote:She might bring in many laws but not without other party members voting in favour of them

Wrong again. Repeating it wont make it correct.

I will teach you a lesson in politics. There are 650 mps in the house of commons and in order to get laws through you need to get a majority in a vote so 326. If you have less than 326 mps then it is impossible in theory to get any laws through on your own because you cant get 326 votes. That is when deals have to be made eg in 2010 and in 2017.

Now there are not always 650 mps who turn up to every vote, however that number varies depending on the importance of the legislation and personal circumstances and political stances. To rely for example on 30 labour mps not turning up for a vote and every single conservative mp turning up is not a wise political choice, no one knows how many will turn up on the day and that includes tory mps who also do not turn up to every vote.

But please tell me how May won the election this is comedy gold.

LionsV2 wrote:His wife owned slaves and by all accounts treated them incredibly well, taught them to read and write before releasing them so to speak, he himself did not own any slaves, repeating it won't make it true. I've never denied that men under his command enslaved free black men.

I'm starting to think you're too simple to truly understand the circumstances behind by the Custis Lee family had slaves and what they actually did to help them, reading snippets on google doesn't really cut it.

He did own slaves too and I just gave you a source whilst you have offered no sources.

If he was against slavery why did he argue that slavery must continue?

Someone should go and tell Angela Merkel she's never won an election, she's been masquerading as the Chancellor of Germany for 12 years now.

Muscular-mouse wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

Muscular-mouse wrote:She might bring in many laws but not without other party members voting in favour of them

Wrong again. Repeating it wont make it correct.

I will teach you a lesson in politics. There are 650 mps in the house of commons and in order to get laws through you need to get a majority in a vote so 326. If you have less than 326 mps then it is impossible in theory to get any laws through on your own because you cant get 326 votes. That is when deals have to be made eg in 2010 and in 2017.

Now there are not always 650 mps who turn up to every vote, however that number varies depending on the importance of the legislation and personal circumstances and political stances. To rely for example on 30 labour mps not turning up for a vote and every single conservative mp turning up is not a wise political choice, no one knows how many will turn up on the day and that includes tory mps who also do not turn up to every vote.

But please tell me how May won the election this is comedy gold.

You can't teach me anything.

You don't need 326 votes to pass a bill.

Why are you so convinced you're correct?

The Queen's speech passed through parliament 323 to 309.

LionsV2 wrote:The Queen's speech passed through parliament 323 to 309.

.... And not without the help of the DUP.

Scottrf wrote:

Muscular-mouse wrote:He openly stated that black people were inferior to white people and they needed to continue to be slaves to make them civilised.

I think he's wrong but we'd need to extend the trial to see if this is possible.

extend what trial?

Muscular-mouse wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

Muscular-mouse wrote:He openly stated that black people were inferior to white people and they needed to continue to be slaves to make them civilised.

I think he's wrong but we'd need to extend the trial to see if this is possible.

extend what trial?

Pretty self explanatory but I wasn't being serious.

Scottrf wrote:

Muscular-mouse wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

Muscular-mouse wrote:She might bring in many laws but not without other party members voting in favour of them

Wrong again. Repeating it wont make it correct.

I will teach you a lesson in politics. There are 650 mps in the house of commons and in order to get laws through you need to get a majority in a vote so 326. If you have less than 326 mps then it is impossible in theory to get any laws through on your own because you cant get 326 votes. That is when deals have to be made eg in 2010 and in 2017.

Now there are not always 650 mps who turn up to every vote, however that number varies depending on the importance of the legislation and personal circumstances and political stances. To rely for example on 30 labour mps not turning up for a vote and every single conservative mp turning up is not a wise political choice, no one knows how many will turn up on the day and that includes tory mps who also do not turn up to every vote.

But please tell me how May won the election this is comedy gold.

You can't teach me anything.

You don't need 326 votes to pass a bill.

Why are you so convinced you're correct?

You should probably read the second paragraph of my last post where I comment that 650 mps don't turn up to every vote, but that includes tories and relying on x number of labour mps etc not turning up and 100% of your mps turning up is a recipe for disaster.

She is in a weak position because she decided to call an early election and LOST.

Scottrf wrote:

Muscular-mouse wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

Muscular-mouse wrote:He openly stated that black people were inferior to white people and they needed to continue to be slaves to make them civilised.

I think he's wrong but we'd need to extend the trial to see if this is possible.

extend what trial?

Pretty self explanatory but I wasn't being serious.

emojis help

Last time I checked the Tories were still in power so by the very definition of our democracy they won.

Eh, it's 639 accounting for Sinn Fein and speakers before you consider people turning up.

Biggest threat by far is keeping back benches in line.

LionsV2 wrote:Last time I checked the Tories were still in power so by the very definition of our democracy they won.

You should probably look up how our democracy works.

I suppose the very definition of "win" or "lose" is up for debate in this contact but, for me, in order to win an election in the UK, you need a majority.

Nobody got a majority so nobody won, in my opinion.

If you form a government then you've won the election that is the simple fact of how UK politics works; I don't see anyone suggesting that Angela Merkel hasn't ever won an election.

Back to the original debate, going on a protest carrying assault rifles and wearing tactical military gear is not peaceful.

Pr4wn wrote:Back to the original debate, going on a protest carrying assault rifles and wearing tactical military gear is not peaceful.

Self defence.

-------

https://www.606v2.com/viewtopic.forum?t=66250