If Trump came to the UK...

HelloHiGoodbye · Post by **HelloHiGoodbye** » Wed May 10, 2017 3:01 pm

boiledclaret wrote:Best strategy would be reverse psychology.
Turn up with a loud speaker and announce that 'The Donald' is the greatest thing that's happened to America cos he don't pander to the fat cats. Bellow that, 'the Clintons and the Bushs should all be rotting in a jail cell and that Don baby is the real deal.' Get some of your mates (who are strategically placed in different parts of the room) to act aggressive and threaten you (doubt you'd need a plant though) and try to get a free for all going.

Your mates become more animated and praise the Clintons and especially the Bushs to the skies for their stance on national security whilst humiliating Trump in the bargain. Eventually Trumps ego kicks in and he blows up on the podium, wailing

"Lemme me tell you guys a thing or two about the Clintons! You think I'm the bad guy? oh yeah, well lemme rap about Bush, huh!

By the time he realizes whats happening he's given away national secrets and info of solid gold.

Won't happen now though. Not after I've disclosed it on the worlds greatest football forum, doh.

To be honest, the c-word I'd shout would just be "CLARETS" anyway so...

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Wed May 10, 2017 3:20 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:Yes. He's given cabinet posts to inexperienced billionaires who supported him and and even people who have previously called for the abolition of the departments of which he has appointed them the leader. He chose a racist as AG who couldn't even get appointed to the federal bench because of his racist views. He's hired his family to basically run the white house. But on top of that he's refused to release tax returns like every other presidential candidate has for the past 40-or-so years because he's frightened of us seeing what's in them. He promised to place his business interests into a blind trust upon taking the presidency even though what he described as a blind trust wasn't a blind trust, and even then he has even done what he promised. He's using government for personal profit by visiting commertial properties he still owns and profiting from it. And this is all just off the top of my head. If i thought you weren't trolling i'd spend some time on google and try to show you why i think he's obviously corrupt. But i no longer think you're asking me anything in good faith.

He's doing all this in front of our faces so yes, he's obviously corrupt because if we know he's doing this much what do you think he's doing behind closed doors?

Yes. He has no successes, only failures. So far. So based on his success to failure ratio he's pretty ****.

I could spend time trawling google reading everyone's opinion of Trump, whether they think he's good or bad, but what would be the point?
I could do a bluelab and go really deep, but again it's all opinion.

Alternatively I could just decide he's **** at his job after a few months when everyone is desperately hoping he is **** at his job.

No successes in a few months is a great way to judge someone I suppose, but I shouldn't be surprised on here after seeing people write off footballers and managers before they've had a chance to do anything.

Is he corrupt?
Couldn't tell you.

Has he fired the FBI director because Trump himself is corrupt?
Based on the balls up prior to the election I'd say the Director of the FBI was on borrowed time in all honesty.
Clinton would've more then likely sacked him if she'd won, lets not pretend she wouldn't, so does that mean she would've been corrupt too?

Is he LEGALLY obliged to release his tax returns upon taking up the role of President or is it voluntary?

He's visiting places he owns?
BIg deal, but you'll need to expand on why he's profiting from that one.

Are the billionaires inexperienced in the fields he's appointed them too, or just the jobs?
For example has he appointed someone with experience in finances to the role of health or to a financial role?

As for putting his businesses in a blind trust, I thought his family had taken the running of his businesses whilst he was president?

As for thinking I'm trolling you at every opportunity, would it make you feel better if I added a disclaimer stating my intentions ?

gandhisflipflop · Post by **gandhisflipflop** » Wed May 10, 2017 3:23 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:Yes, i selected the most stupid part of an all round pretty stupid post. But lets try it with all of it, shall we?

Does anyone else want to field this one? I get into trouble replying to stupidity like this.

Oh look, it works just as well.

Maybe try to think about what you're saying in future so that you don't say stupid things like protesting against a politician is to protest against free speech. Because although i don't know you i can't imagine you've said many more stupid things in your life. If you want to take this as a personal insult then by all means, go for it, but it's only offensive if you are an over-sensitive moron who thinks that when someone criticises your opinion they're criticising you personally.

I'm far from over sensitive IT. That said, debating with you is pointless as you would argue with your own shadow.

northernpowerhouse · Post by **northernpowerhouse** » Wed May 10, 2017 3:46 pm

"Clinton would've more then likely sacked him if she'd won, lets not pretend she wouldn't, so does that mean she would've been corrupt too?"

But she wouldn't have been currently under investigation would she? There's a big difference. This a blatant attempt by Trump to impede the investigation into him. Once it's concluded he's got every right to sack him but doing it now is dodgy as ****.

ClaretMoffitt · Post by **ClaretMoffitt** » Wed May 10, 2017 4:06 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:Probably not. As a violent, hateful liberal i think the urge to beat people up would overcome me and i'd get myself into trouble with the law. I say "violent" and "hateful" but maybe there are other things i am too. I'll be sure to ask Moffitt and Damo what they are. What I do know is that i'm the cause of all the wests problems one way or another. Not Trump voters. Or Brexit voters. Or Le Pen voters. Or Islamists. Or Putin's enablers. It's liberals.

Don't be silly IT.

Liberals can't beat people up

grapidianclaret · Post by **grapidianclaret** » Wed May 10, 2017 4:13 pm

Bin Ont Turf wrote:The likelihood of him coming to Burnley is pretty remote.

Apparently, his campaign advisers have told him, he needs to come to Burnley and declare himself a Burnley fan if he wants to win a second term.

NRC · Post by **NRC** » Wed May 10, 2017 4:25 pm

I'm liking Sydney's responses to IT. They're balanced and considered, not emotive, whereas it must be that time of month for IT as their narrative can be stripped down exactly as Sydney has done. Not normally that sloppy.

KateR · Post by **KateR** » Wed May 10, 2017 4:35 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:His supporters are torn between continuing to support someone who obviously tricked them into voting for him with lies, and admitting that those liberals that they hate so much were right about him all along. It's pretty funny to watch, from a thousands of miles away, and an ocean.

you know the only thing I think I've agreed upon that you post is that you are thousands of miles away and an ocean, what it really means is that you know so little but you make the most noise, just to follow your lead, don't get offended but you really are stupid in posting things you know so little about with your bombastic attitude of listen to me because I know best.

And being the bigot you have proven yourself to be only adds insult to your boring assessments, go protest and keep banging your drum, it's irrelevant but then again in a perverse way entertaining.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed May 10, 2017 4:56 pm

Sidney1st wrote:I could spend time trawling google reading everyone's opinion of Trump, whether they think he's good or bad, but what would be the point?
I could do a bluelab and go really deep, but again it's all opinion.

Alternatively I could just decide he's **** at his job after a few months when everyone is desperately hoping he is **** at his job.

No successes in a few months is a great way to judge someone I suppose, but I shouldn't be surprised on here after seeing people write off footballers and managers before they've had a chance to do anything.

Is he corrupt?
Couldn't tell you.

Has he fired the FBI director because Trump himself is corrupt?
Based on the balls up prior to the election I'd say the Director of the FBI was on borrowed time in all honesty.
Clinton would've more then likely sacked him if she'd won, lets not pretend she wouldn't, so does that mean she would've been corrupt too?

Is he LEGALLY obliged to release his tax returns upon taking up the role of President or is it voluntary?

He's visiting places he owns?
BIg deal, but you'll need to expand on why he's profiting from that one.

Are the billionaires inexperienced in the fields he's appointed them too, or just the jobs?
For example has he appointed someone with experience in finances to the role of health or to a financial role?

As for putting his businesses in a blind trust, I thought his family had taken the running of his businesses whilst he was president?

As for thinking I'm trolling you at every opportunity, would it make you feel better if I added a disclaimer stating my intentions ?

Look. You asked a question and i gave you several responces based on certain points of view. If you want to take one of those points of view and argue against it then by all means do that. But i've made it very clear that any opinion on Trump's presidency and whether it's the worst or not is entirely subjective, as is how obviously corrupt a president the guy is.

Has he fired the FBI director because Trump himself is corrupt?
Based on the balls up prior to the election I'd say the Director of the FBI was on borrowed time in all honesty.
Clinton would've more then likely sacked him if she'd won, lets not pretend she wouldn't, so does that mean she would've been corrupt too?

I'm fairly sure she wouldn't have, for the same reason Obama almost certainly didn't - it would have been seen to be political retaliation. And it would have been. Comey ****** up, for sure. And what he did, throwing an election like that probably deserved his firing but i understand why Obama couldn't do it. That said, if Trump thought Comey should be fired then why wait three and a half months? Why was the Justice Department asked to find reasons to fire Comey a week ago if they already had this reason from last July?

Is he LEGALLY obliged to release his tax returns upon taking up the role of President or is it voluntary?

No. But presidential candidates do it to show the people they're asking to trust them that they can trust them. But then no one is saying he's a criminal for not releasing his tax returns. Obama wasn't legally obliged to release his tax returns, but because he was black and had a middle-eastern name Trump was pretty adamant that he couldn't be trusted until he did. Not that these two are in anyway equal, because to believe Obama wasn't American required you to be either racist, gullible or stupid yet to to not believe that Trump isn't financially beholden to interests that could influence his presidency is pretty important due diligence when it comes to apointing someone to the presidency with your vote.

He's visiting places he owns?
BIg deal, but you'll need to expand on why he's profiting from that one.

Do you have no imagination at all? Or an ability to use Google?
The president travels with quite a large entourage. The accomodation for which has to be paid for. As does the Secret Service offices in Trump Tower. But this is small-fry when compared to how much money he could be earning through special interest trying to influence him thans to his numerous conflicts. https://www.theatlantic.com/business/ar ... ts/508382/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As for putting his businesses in a blind trust, I thought his family had taken the running of his businesses whilst he was president?

Do you think that's OK for a president to do? Would it be acceptible to you if Theresa May owned billions in business assets and her premiership could be influenced by her personal financial interests? Here's a guy who can veto or sign laws that affect his own business interests and you think that's perfectly OK as long as his family runs it, and not him? You cannot be that naive. His own bloody tax plan would save him billions. We don't know specifically how much exactly of course, why? Well... go back a couple of quotes.

Are the billionaires inexperienced in the fields he's appointed them too, or just the jobs?

Most of them aren't billionaires. That was hyperbole that you can jump on to discredit anythign i ever say. Some of them are merely multi-millionaires. But you tell me about their experience and fitness for the role. (Not on this list is Rick Perry as Energy Secretary who tried to say in a presidential debate that he wants to get rid of the Energy Department. Who did Rick Perry replace? Ernest Moniz. Look him up, he's probably the most qualified person to ever hold the position.)

I could go on but time doesn't permit it at the moment.

Pstotto · Post by **Pstotto** » Wed May 10, 2017 5:39 pm

I like him. Serves all the PC fascist right for condescending and patronizing the rest of us, with notion of 'respecting diversity' b*llsh*t, moralizing like they're clean of the filth they are.

All humans are diverse and they always have been in any community or social group, since there were humans.

Who wouldn't be phobic of blokes that want folk's asses, the female truimphalism ofwomen who want to destroy men, all Jezebels and Salomes, black folk claimed by the media to be the master race and a stone age religion that brooks no argument on pain of death, and folk from other countries invading, pushing up house prices, violence and straining our resources?

Sure I'm sexist and phobic. That's because I'm normal.

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Wed May 10, 2017 5:46 pm

NRC wrote:I'm liking Sydney's responses to IT. They're balanced and considered, not emotive, whereas it must be that time of month for IT as their narrative can be stripped down exactly as Sydney has done. Not normally that sloppy.

Enjoy it whilst it lasts, I must be having what's called purple patch

Pstotto · Post by **Pstotto** » Wed May 10, 2017 5:47 pm

Go and watch women's football with Hilary Clinton, Curries and rah, rah, cheer.

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Wed May 10, 2017 5:48 pm

northernpowerhouse wrote:"Clinton would've more then likely sacked him if she'd won, lets not pretend she wouldn't, so does that mean she would've been corrupt too?"

But she wouldn't have been currently under investigation would she? There's a big difference. This a blatant attempt by Trump to impede the investigation into him. Once it's concluded he's got every right to sack him but doing it now is dodgy as ****.

She could've been, there are plenty of opinions floating around that's she's more then a little bit iffy, due to allegedly receiving money from foreign powers through the Clinton foundation.

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Wed May 10, 2017 6:10 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:Look. You asked a question and i gave you several responces based on certain points of view. If you want to take one of those points of view and argue against it then by all means do that. But i've made it very clear that any opinion on Trump's presidency and whether it's the worst or not is entirely subjective, as is how obviously corrupt a president the guy is.

I'm fairly sure she wouldn't have, for the same reason Obama almost certainly didn't - it would have been seen to be political retaliation. And it would have been. Comey ****** up, for sure. And what he did, throwing an election like that probably deserved his firing but i understand why Obama couldn't do it. That said, if Trump thought Comey should be fired then why wait three and a half months? Why was the Justice Department asked to find reasons to fire Comey a week ago if they already had this reason from last July?

No. But presidential candidates do it to show the people they're asking to trust them that they can trust them. But then no one is saying he's a criminal for not releasing his tax returns. Obama wasn't legally obliged to release his tax returns, but because he was black and had a middle-eastern name Trump was pretty adamant that he couldn't be trusted until he did. Not that these two are in anyway equal, because to believe Obama wasn't American required you to be either racist, gullible or stupid yet to to not believe that Trump isn't financially beholden to interests that could influence his presidency is pretty important due diligence when it comes to apointing someone to the presidency with your vote.

Do you have no imagination at all? Or an ability to use Google?
The president travels with quite a large entourage. The accomodation for which has to be paid for. As does the Secret Service offices in Trump Tower. But this is small-fry when compared to how much money he could be earning through special interest trying to influence him thans to his numerous conflicts. https://www.theatlantic.com/business/ar ... ts/508382/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Do you think that's OK for a president to do? Would it be acceptible to you if Theresa May owned billions in business assets and her premiership could be influenced by her personal financial interests? Here's a guy who can veto or sign laws that affect his own business interests and you think that's perfectly OK as long as his family runs it, and not him? You cannot be that naive. His own bloody tax plan would save him billions. We don't know specifically how much exactly of course, why? Well... go back a couple of quotes.

Most of them aren't billionaires. That was hyperbole that you can jump on to discredit anythign i ever say. Some of them are merely multi-millionaires. But you tell me about their experience and fitness for the role. (Not on this list is Rick Perry as Energy Secretary who tried to say in a presidential debate that he wants to get rid of the Energy Department. Who did Rick Perry replace? Ernest Moniz. Look him up, he's probably the most qualified person to ever hold the position.)

I could go on but time doesn't permit it at the moment.

Obama was at the end of his presidency, if he'd fired the FBI boss for investigating Clinton I'm more the certain there would've been accusations about him protecting Clinton.

So you're screaming about Trump NOT releasing his tax returns, because other presidents did it voluntarily and he hasn't yet?
How quickly did the other presidents do it?
Was it all done within a set time, or did some drag their heels?

Secret Service have to be based at any serving presidents residence that is outside of the White House, that's a fact and always has been.
Is Trump Tower the main home of President Trump outside of the White House and does his immediate family live there?
If it is, is it still such an issue that the Secret Service are based there?

In his role as President will his own businesses receive a boost from the connection?
Naturally yes they will, its inevitable, BUT has the US appointed a president before who wasn't a career politician?
It is a bit of a unique situation if that's the case and if it isn't the first time then why haven't the US put up rules to ensure he doesn't use his position to help his own affairs?

Would I be happy if someone else was running Theresa May's private business whilst she was running the country?
Personally I couldn't give a toss and I certainly wouldn't expect her, or Trump, to hand it over to someone they didn't trust explicitly.

Thanks for the list of reasons why his appointees shouldn't be in their jobs, do you have one for lists of appointees for previous presidents, because some of them appeared to be shockingly bad at times, from what I've read over the years or seen?

So called experienced politicians haven't managed to fix the issues in the US, of which there are many, some just seem to get worse.
So out of interest why bother giving the jobs to the same sort of people again, when its clear they aren't up to it?
Nor the issues around the rest of the world.

It would be like sticking Blair in the role of Middle east peace envoy and expecting him to do a good job........after he'd just kicked off a massive war in that end of the world.

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Wed May 10, 2017 7:31 pm

You know you can look up the answers to your questions on the internet, right, Sidney? I don't think it's fair for you to expect IT to be your personal tutor on these issues.

Edit - I'll have a go though.

Usually before the vote.

Sort of. Yes.

Yes. Yes. They have - he's ignored them.

(rhetorical question)

No.

No idea.

NB - some of these answers may be wrong - I don't know much about US politics.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed May 10, 2017 7:57 pm

Sidney1st wrote:Obama was at the end of his presidency, if he'd fired the FBI boss for investigating Clinton I'm more the certain there would've been accusations about him protecting Clinton.

So you're screaming about Trump NOT releasing his tax returns, because .

Screaming? Lol.

I'm not replying to all of your post from my phone bus tell me this, if Obama would be accused of protecting Clinton by firing Corey after the election then why is it unreasonable to think Trump is protecting himself? Or are you not suggesting that?

"How quickly did the other presidents do it?"

Before they were elected. How do you not know this already?

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Wed May 10, 2017 8:01 pm

It isn't unreasonable to think it, but you didn't mention Obama not firing The FBI boss to protect himself and Clinton during th election either.

Yes screaming, you're the one making the most noise about something that he doesn't have to legally do.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed May 10, 2017 8:02 pm

Sidney1st wrote:It isn't unreasonable to think it, but you didn't mention Obama not firing The FBI boss to protect himself and Clinton during th election either.

Yes screaming, you're the one making the most noise about something that he doesn't have to legally do.

I think I did mention it. If i didn't it's because I typed it out and removed it for some reason.

Edit. I said this about that I think Obama didn't fire him.

"I'm fairly sure she wouldn't have, for the same reason Obama almost certainly didn't - it would have been seen to be political retaliation. And it would have been."

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Wed May 10, 2017 8:06 pm

Greenmile wrote:You know you can look up the answers to your questions on the internet, right, Sidney? I don't think it's fair for you to expect IT to be your personal tutor on these issues.

Edit - I'll have a go though.

Usually before the vote.

Sort of. Yes.

Yes. Yes. They have - he's ignored them.

(rhetorical question)

No.

No idea.

NB - some of these answers may be wrong - I don't know much about US politics.

I know I can look up the answers myself, I'm merely responding to Turtle's ranting about things that could easily be viewed as normal.

For example raising issue with the Secret Service being at Trump Towers, that's a normal thing if it's Trumps main home outside of the White House.
They'll also have to install extra security measures at the tower to supplement what's there and have other agents nearby in case of emergency.
They'll also spend time vetting anywhere Trump visits to ensure it's safe.
That's what they do, they're the equivalent of the praetorian guard after all.

So it's normal for a president to release tax returns, but it's a VOLUNTARY choice.

I'm assuming one of your yes' is about Trump ignoring rules?

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Wed May 10, 2017 8:07 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:I think I did mention it. If i didn't it's because I typed it out and removed it for some reason.

Edit. I said this about that I think Obama didn't fire him.

"I'm fairly sure she wouldn't have, for the same reason Obama almost certainly didn't - it would have been seen to be political retaliation. And it would have been."

I've just spotted it whilst re-reading your posts.

I still think the bloke was on borrowed time and was going to get fired either way.
Trump got the job though, so he got to fire him.

Clinton would've booted him quicker then Trump though.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed May 10, 2017 8:09 pm

By the way if you think I'm the loudest person talking about Trump's tax returns you are ******* stupid. The Republicans are literally blocking laws being passed requiring his tax returns to be released.

Or am I louder that those who are submitting bills to Congress and state houses to get someone to do something that there didn't need to be a law for in the pasted?

BleedingClaret · Post by **BleedingClaret** » Wed May 10, 2017 8:11 pm

Trump?
I only know what I think I know from the British Media, no idea how much of it is true,or not, but hey I'll spout a load of stuff as if it's fact that I gained from my reputable sources, my insiders close to him.
Actually I won't I'm a bit of a fantasist but I'm aware enough to realise that all I watch and read might not be the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed May 10, 2017 8:11 pm

Sidney1st wrote:I've just spotted it whilst re-reading your posts.

I still think the bloke was on borrowed time and was going to get fired either way.
Trump got the job though, so he got to fire him.

Clinton would've booted him quicker then Trump though.

No, she wouldn't have because again, you don't know what you're talking about. And you're not thinking. Why would she fire someone who refused to prosecute her?

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Wed May 10, 2017 8:16 pm

Why wouldn't she fire someone who reopened an investigation right before an election, immediately casting doubt into people who were undecided?

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Wed May 10, 2017 8:17 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:By the way if you think I'm the loudest person talking about Trump's tax returns you are ******* stupid. The Republicans are literally blocking laws being passed requiring his tax returns to be released.

Or am I louder that those who are submitting bills to Congress and state houses to get someone to do something that there didn't need to be a law for in the pasted?

You're the loudest person on here, try and think before shooting your mouth off throwing insults about.

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Wed May 10, 2017 8:28 pm

Sidney1st wrote:I know I can look up the answers myself, I'm merely responding to Turtle's ranting about things that could easily be viewed as normal.

For example raising issue with the Secret Service being at Trump Towers, that's a normal thing if it's Trumps main home outside of the White House.
They'll also have to install extra security measures at the tower to supplement what's there and have other agents nearby in case of emergency.
They'll also spend time vetting anywhere Trump visits to ensure it's safe.
That's what they do, they're the equivalent of the praetorian guard after all.

So it's normal for a president to release tax returns, but it's a VOLUNTARY choice.

I'm assuming one of your yes' is about Trump ignoring rules?

You're responding by asking loads of questions that it's fairly easy to find the answers to though. It's not like you're asking for opinions here.

DT, and his family, should really live in the WH. That they don't, not only costs the taxpayer but also increases Trump's personal wealth. Personally, I think that's problematic.

Out of interest, why do you think he's refusing to release his tax returns? He must realises it makes him look bad, so isn't it reasonable to assume that he thinks actually releasing him will make him look even worse? Or has there been more of a paradigm shift than I realise, and we now have a president who doesn't think it at all important that loads of people think he's actually corrupt?

My "they have" was about him ignoring the rules. The preceding "yes"s were about his businesses benefitting from his presidency, and there having been non-career-politicians as previous presidents, repsectively.

Having done some research of my own, it seems that he's not breaking the rules by not using a blind trust - the law seems to apply to all federal employees except the president (and a few others) for some reason.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... onflict-i/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

ontario claret · Post by **ontario claret** » Wed May 10, 2017 8:49 pm

I think that the chances of Trump coming to the UK are practically zero. There's a better chance of him going to visit his buddy Putin. Right-wing oligarchical birds of a feather stick together.

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Wed May 10, 2017 8:52 pm

I couldn't guess why he isn't releasing them, maybe he's trolling people.

As for where he and his family live, he's got a big family, I'm not privy to their living arrangements but I'd guess some of them live at Trump Towers.

I didn't know about non career politicians becoming president before Trump.

I ask questions because seems to be the kind of person who thinks they've got all the answers and I don't think they actually do, they just grind you down until you accept they're right.

In this instance I don't think Turtle is right for portions of it, I think Turtle is taking this presidency personally and I wouldn't be massively surprised if they take time off work to go and tell Trump what they think of him.

As it stands we've established that Trump doesn't have to release his tax returns or use a blind trust.
The Secret Service are just doing their job and Trump exercised his right as president to dismiss someone they didn't think was up to the job (or to protect himself depending on your own personal view).

Glad we've managed to clear some of these issues up for Turtle, now we can move onto something else.

Bordeauxclaret · Post by **Bordeauxclaret** » Wed May 10, 2017 8:56 pm

It's a weird world if The President Of The United States is "trolling" people.
Deary me.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed May 10, 2017 8:58 pm

Sidney1st wrote:You're the loudest person on here, try and think before shooting your mouth off throwing insults about.

So simply mentioning it in a forum post in reply to someone questioning whether he is corrupt or not is the same as "screaming" about it? Try and think before shooting your mouth off and making stupid claims.

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Wed May 10, 2017 9:02 pm

You make what appear to be stupid claims, does that mean the rest of us can't?

I know you like to resort to your standard "you're stupid " comment but it really doesn't do anything for peoples opinion of you.

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Wed May 10, 2017 9:04 pm

Bordeauxclaret wrote:It's a weird world if The President Of The United States is "trolling" people.
Deary me.

Its a weird world that's resulted in Trump as president, so I wouldn't rule anything out.

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Wed May 10, 2017 9:11 pm

Sidney1st wrote:Its a weird world that's resulted in Trump as president, so I wouldn't rule anything out.

Not ruling anything out doesn't mean that one hypothesis isn't far more likely than another, though. Surely it's more likely he's got something to hide than he's trolling the world. Either way reflects incredibly badly on him as a man as well as a president.

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Wed May 10, 2017 9:14 pm

He may have something to hide, equally he may not.

You're expecting a man who, as far as I'm aware without using everyone's favourite search engine, has never made his tax returns public before.

If you're suddenly facing demands to do something you've never done and don't have to legally do, would you in all honesty do it?

Ignore the fact he's the president, look at him as though he's still a businessman.

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Wed May 10, 2017 9:26 pm

He is President, though, and it's important that a public figure like that is seen to be above / immune to corruption (e.g. impossible to blackmail) by the voters, don't you agree? If he were still just a businessman, I don't think anyone would be calling to see his tax returns, so it's pointless to ask me to ignore that fact.

He shouldn't be allowed to be both president and businessman, imo, due to the obvious conflicts of interest.

In his position (i.e. if I were running for, or had been elected, President), I would release my tax returns, and I believe anyone who doesn't have something to hide would do the same. He repeatedly said he would do so during his campaign - do you think it's ok to lie to voters so brazenly? Is adherence to the letter of the law the strongest standard you feel you need to hold the leader of the free world (tm) to?

Edit - also your use of "equally" implies both possibilities have the same likelihood. I disagree. Had you used "or" instead, that would have been accurate.

KateR · Post by **KateR** » Wed May 10, 2017 9:31 pm

"do you think it's ok to lie to voters so brazenly?"

well at least he is lying openly

Which takes most of the fun out of it really, rather than trying to catch politicians in a lie.

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Wed May 10, 2017 9:34 pm

You don't think that someone who is willing to lie to your face will also be lying behind your back?

LoveCurryPies · Post by **LoveCurryPies** » Wed May 10, 2017 9:34 pm

Have you ever known a President to be so hated after just 100 days?

Pstotto · Post by **Pstotto** » Wed May 10, 2017 9:37 pm

Let's all be in thrall to the U.S.A. not. We're Brexit now, let them think about us.

grapidianclaret · Post by **grapidianclaret** » Wed May 10, 2017 9:50 pm

Sidney1st wrote:I know I can look up the answers myself, I'm merely responding to Turtle's ranting about things that could easily be viewed as normal.

For example raising issue with the Secret Service being at Trump Towers, that's a normal thing if it's Trumps main home outside of the White House.
They'll also have to install extra security measures at the tower to supplement what's there and have other agents nearby in case of emergency.
They'll also spend time vetting anywhere Trump visits to ensure it's safe.
That's what they do, they're the equivalent of the praetorian guard after all.

So it's normal for a president to release tax returns, but it's a VOLUNTARY choice.

I'm assuming one of your yes' is about Trump ignoring rules?

Sidney, Trump is the biggest gob shite to run for president.
He constantly berated Obama for his golf trips, his vacations etc etc.
The Obamas travel and vacation costs averaged out at 10 million dollars per year.
Trump is on course to exceed that in one year.
The budget agreement puts $120 million dollars for secret service protection for the Trumps for one year because they refuse to live together and trump wants to use his own properties for the entire duration of his presidency(hopefully 4 years or less).
when he hosts foreign dignitaries at his Florida resort, the US public pay the bill, and Donald makes money.
These are just a few of the many conflicts of interest that the new guy has created.
He is a crook. a big crook. He is very successful at screwing people over.
How can you defend such actions?

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Wed May 10, 2017 9:54 pm

Greenmile wrote:He is President, though, and it's important that a public figure like that is seen to be above / immune to corruption (e.g. impossible to blackmail) by the voters, don't you agree? If he were still just a businessman, I don't think anyone would be calling to see his tax returns, so it's pointless to ask me to ignore that fact.

He shouldn't be allowed to be both president and businessman, imo, due to the obvious conflicts of interest.

In his position (i.e. if I were running for, or had been elected, President), I would release my tax returns, and I believe anyone who doesn't have something to hide would do the same. He repeatedly said he would do so during his campaign - do you think it's ok to lie to voters so brazenly? Is adherence to the letter of the law the strongest standard you feel you need to hold the leader of the free world (tm) to?

Edit - also your use of "equally" implies both possibilities have the same likelihood. I disagree. Had you used "or" instead, that would have been accurate.

Trump was never going to be seen as above corruption, immune to blackmail etc.

He was accused of being in bed with the Russians BEFORE he won the election.

He isn't a businessman right now is he?
He's signed everything over to his kids during his tenure in regards to his businesses.
He's also been a business man for his entire adult life pretty much, so it might take a while to change his thinking over from business to politics.

Yes he promised and no he hasn't done it YET.
As for the law of his land, if it doesn't say he has to show his tax returns then ultimately he doesn't have to show them.
It isn't about whether or not it's the strongest standard, currently its the main standard HE has as a guide to follow.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed May 10, 2017 9:58 pm

Sidney1st wrote:You make what appear to be stupid claims, does that mean the rest of us can't?

I know you like to resort to your standard "you're stupid " comment but it really doesn't do anything for peoples opinion of you.

What claim have I made that appears to be stupid?

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Wed May 10, 2017 9:59 pm

I give up. Good night.

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Wed May 10, 2017 10:01 pm

grapidianclaret wrote:Sidney, Trump is the biggest gob shite to run for president.
He constantly berated Obama for his golf trips, his vacations etc etc.
The Obamas travel and vacation costs averaged out at 10 million dollars per year.
Trump is on course to exceed that in one year.
The budget agreement puts $120 million dollars for secret service protection for the Trumps for one year because they refuse to live together and trump wants to use his own properties for the entire duration of his presidency(hopefully 4 years or less).
when he hosts foreign dignitaries at his Florida resort, the US public pay the bill, and Donald makes money.
These are just a few of the many conflicts of interest that the new guy has created.
He is a crook. a big crook. He is very successful at screwing people over.
How can you defend such actions?

I'm not defending anything, I only asked about Trump Towers and if it was his families main residence.

If he's choosing to take the proverbial **** by using other places to live in during his presidency, and there's probably nothing to stop him doing it, then why shouldn't he take advantage of it all?
Is there anything that stipulates he has to live in the Whitehouse?
I'd need to check, but previous presidents have either been childless or only had one or 2 during their presidency haven't they?
If he's lived a certain lifestyle then he's more than entitled to carry on living like that.

So a budget has been agreed for paying for secret service protection?
Its been agreed by someone in Washington outside of the Whitehouse at a guess, so if it isn't an issue for Washington, why is it an issue for anyone else?

Maybe he doesn't want to live in the bubble that's the Whitehouse, cut off from everyone else to a large degree because that's what appears to happen.

Will it make him a better or worse president if he doesn't live in the Whitehouse?
I don't think it will make much difference really, might even liven things up a little bit and break the mold.

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Wed May 10, 2017 10:02 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:

What claim have I made that appears to be stupid?

You've made more then a few in your time, I just tend not to bother bashing you over the head with them because I can't be arsed with your histrionics when someone challenges you.

morpheus2 · Post by **morpheus2** » Wed May 10, 2017 10:15 pm

The clean-up operation from the protests of IT's Black Bloc mob would cost the country a fortune if Trumpton came to the UK.

Bordeauxclaret · Post by **Bordeauxclaret** » Wed May 10, 2017 10:23 pm

"Why shouldn't he take advantage of it all"

FFS

Man of Kent · Post by **Man of Kent** » Wed May 10, 2017 10:30 pm

Bin Ont Turf wrote:The likelihood of him coming to Burnley is pretty remote.

I once thought that about Guardiola, Conte and Mourinho!.

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Wed May 10, 2017 10:36 pm

Bordeauxclaret wrote:"Why shouldn't he take advantage of it all"

FFS

if I had a job where they had allowances that could be taken advantage of and no one within the place would really complain, then I'd go for everything, the majority of people would.

I know there are people on here who're clearly above that sort of thing, but some of us are greedy.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed May 10, 2017 10:42 pm

Sidney1st wrote:You've made more then a few in your time, I just tend not to bother bashing you over the head with them because I can't be arsed with your histrionics when someone challenges you.

Then you shouldn't have a problem finding one and quoting it.