# Predictions for the reign of President Trump



## cremeegg (16 Nov 2016)

At some point during the next 4 years there will be a siege situation where right-wing militia with some type of demands against the federal government will be on the inside with government forces, Police, FBI, National guard on the outside. A situation like Waco or the Bundy occupation in Oregon.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/af...y-wildlife-park-headquarters-rancher-row.html

As a candidate Trump was well supported by this section of society, despite this my first prediction for President Trump, is that he will react swiftly and ruthlessly, there will be no kid-gloves.


----------



## Gerry Canning (9 Dec 2016)

cremeegg,

I confidently predict he won,t react swiftly .
Unless the TV people are ahead of him !{needs the ratings}

I confidently predict he won,t react ruthlessly .
Unless , the protestors  are like the little builders he didn,t pay !ie little folk.{otherwise he will be presidential }


----------



## cremeegg (9 Jan 2017)

Cremeeg's Prediction no. 2


Soon after taking office, Trump will offer US Companies abroad an amnesty to repatriate profits from overseas subsidiaries.

As an example, Apple has large profits generated outside the US, (on which as we know the European Commission says it should pay €13bn tax to Ireland). If Apple were to bring this money, in the region of €100bn, back to the US today it would have to pay 35% tax on it. Unless it brings the money back to the US it cannot distribute it to its shareholders. So this money just sits there, some of it may be invested in factories outside the US, Athenry for example, but mostly it is just waiting for something to happen.

Within 100 days of taking office Trump will offer an opportunity to repatriate this money at a special tax rate of say 15%, special offer, limited time only. Apple can bring the money into the US, under its full control for a reduced tax payment, the money will go into the US economy, Trump will have a huge pot of new tax money to play with.

While I don't have any figures there are decades of profits for thousands of companies involved. Even if it is only taxed at 15% instead of 35% there will still be an enormous amount involvedEverybody wins !!


----------



## Wahaay (9 Jan 2017)

Actually rather than just a short-term amnesty I think Trump will drastically reduce corporate tax rates permanently and fuel a boom in business.
Wall Street is already trading at record highs.


----------



## Ceist Beag (9 Jan 2017)

In fairness cremeegg that's not much of a prediction - Trump has explicitly stated his intention to just that.


----------



## Purple (9 Jan 2017)

Low Corporation Taxes and low Income Taxes. It should really see the US economy power ahead.


----------



## Leo (9 Jan 2017)

Ceist Beag said:


> In fairness cremeegg that's not much of a prediction - Trump has explicitly stated his intention to just that.



In his defence, many of us have grown up in a system where politicians following through on pre-election promises would be a surprise.


----------



## jjm (9 Jan 2017)

Trump is directly elected by the people .I hope the people hold his feet to the fire on his pre-election promises .Expect trouble like never before in the U S A If he goes back on his promised. The change that got him elected will come against him if he fails to follow through on his promises,


----------



## Leo (10 Jan 2017)

jjm2016 said:


> The change that got him elected will come against him if he fails to follow through on his promises,



He started back-tracking on many of those promises almost immediately after being elected.


----------



## Wahaay (10 Jan 2017)

Leo said:


> He started back-tracking on many of those promises almost immediately after being elected.



Name me a politician who doesn't.
But Obamacare will be first out of the window.
I have chums in the Midwest who have never voted Republican before but went for Trump simply because their health insurance costs have rocketed.
And the fact that they loathed Clinton and everything she stood for.
When I was there last year the anger amongst ordinary people towards Washington was greater than I've ever known it in decades of visiting.


----------



## Leo (11 Jan 2017)

Wahaay said:


> Name me a politician who doesn't.



Very few of them backtrack on promises that form a significant element of their platform before they even get into power though...


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (11 Jan 2017)

DT is admitting to being a germophobe as proof that he didn't let prostitutes pee on his bed in a Russian hotel room in 2013, despite being allegedly caught on camera.  It's not looking good for germs in America.  Add them on to the list - LGBTQH(ispanics)G(erms)M(exicans)C(hinese)Of course Donald doesn't hate all foreigners.  He loves Russians especially of the peeing on the bed prostitute variety.


----------



## Wahaay (12 Jan 2017)

Leo said:


> Very few of them backtrack on promises that form a significant element of their platform before they even get into power though...



You mean like Pat Rabitte admitting he made false election promises to secure votes for Labour.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAS0c5AkiNg

Or Obama pledging to shut down Guantanamo Bay.

And the Liberal Democrats who went into coalition with the Tories in the UK with a specific pledge not to increase tuition fees - which they abandoned as soon as they were in power.

I've a feeling Trump is going to surprise people by carrying out much of what he promises to do.That seems to be what's scaring the politicial establishment in Washington.
We're in for a kick-ass four years !


----------



## Conan (12 Jan 2017)

I wonder what the odds are that Trump will still be POTUS by the end on 2017?
He is not yet in the job but :
- has managed to alienate the FBI, the CIA , the Intelligence community etc etc etc
- has clearly not separated his business from the White House (is it credible that he won't talk to his two sons over the dinner table as to how the Trump Corp is doing?). 
- he seems obsessed spending time on Twitter responding to every criticism rather than focusing on the real issues
- issues are now arising suggesting that his business and personal history could become an impediment in the near term
- he clearly has no patience for criticism and one would wonder how he might try to shut down certain media (as with CNN yesterday). Fox News may become the official TV of choice for a Trump regime.

As for his policies, he seems totally inconsistent. He has contradicted himself often, his nominations for various offices have voiced disagreement with their leader on various policies and he seems focused on a policy of isolation. 
It may be an ass-kicking four years (or however long he lasts) but what worries me is what ass's he will kick.


----------



## Betsy Og (12 Jan 2017)

in the US at the mo, and whole Trump thing is really depressing. What started as a joke, turned grim, improved somewhat after election (some magnanimity) but has now nose dived again. He's the epitome of the bullying 'ugly American' stereotype. I laugh when I think of Billy Bob in his pick up truck voting for him, Trump has never know that life, and does not strike me a man with any empathy, so I doubt he will do much or anything to make the life of the ordinary man any better.

He's already continuing well down the road of personal grudges and ignoring anything that doesnt suit him - in one sense its a refreshing cut through the red tape - but oh what a pity he's a total idiot. It'll be watching through your fingers from behind the couch for the next however many year. As WWN (Waterford Whispers said) the motto has gone from "Yes we can" to "Feck, what have we done"!!


----------



## Gerry Canning (13 Jan 2017)

Trump.

Without doubt ,he is a bully.
Without doubt , he cannot take criticism.
Without doubt , he lashes out at those he disagrees with.
Without doubt , he denigrates those who challenge him.
Without doubt, he uses fake news.

Without doubt , he is the NEW PRESIDENT.
Without doubt , God Help America.

Prediction = won,t last one year .

ps. I predicted he would not win.!


----------



## thedaddyman (18 Jan 2017)

Made a few bob on him winning both the nomination and the election. To me it was a no brainer that he was going to win once he got the nomination, there is nothing that unites the Republicans more then a visceral hatred of the Clintons. There is also the fact that Hilary Clinton's suitability and ability had to be seriously questioned. If I was an American I think I would have struggled to know who to vote for

And yes, Trump is a sexist misogynistic pig (and I'm not condoning him) but so were the likes of Bill Clinton,  Kennedy and Johnson. As for not believing the CIA and the FBI, given their track record of getting things very wrong, is that such a bad thing??.

I have 3 fears about Trump, firstly is the calibre of some of the people he employed, you have to seriously question the sanity of one or 2 of them. Secondly he get's easily led. Take the Russian hacking thing, he has moved from complete denial to acceptance to stating it happened but had no impact. Give a serious green campaigner an hour with Trump and you have to wonder if he would come out of the meeting and announce a ban on fossil fuels. I think one of the key things to watch out for is who has his ear. Lastly, and my biggest fear is how he will react in a crisis. Will he stop and think and listen or will he just press a button because he knows best?

As for how long he'll last, unless he does something completely and utterly daft and illegal he won't be impeached and he is too big an egoist to walk away and admit failure. 4 years, at least


----------



## Ceist Beag (18 Jan 2017)

So far Trump seems to be getting things his own way. I'm very surprised that he seems to be able to just step back from his business temporarily - surely there is a conflict of interest there that will cause issues during his term. I would agree with those fears daddyman. I'd add to that list my fear that he could do untold damage to relationships with other countries. He clearly is not a diplomat and does not seem to have any understanding of diplomacy or etiquette. Not surprising given that he is a bully, used to getting his own way. How he will react when he doesn't get things his own way is a big unknown.


----------



## michaelm (18 Jan 2017)

I think Trump should be given a chance.  I expect that a lot of the fear and hysteria surrounding his election will dissipate over the coming months.  I don't think Obama delivered a whole lot and Clintion would have delivered nothing.  I expect that Trump will get things done, and relatively quickly . . whether it's good or bad overall we'll see.  In two years time there may be a lot of revisionism in relation to Trump.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (19 Jan 2017)

Not so much a prediction as a postdiction.  Any suggestions what The Donald as presie would have tweeted on the morning of 9/12?


----------



## Dan Murray (19 Jan 2017)

Who knows what that nutter might do? Maybe

I'M GOING TO TEACH EVERYONE HOW AMERICA DOES THINGS _like date notation_??!! 

or

If only there was some way that I could disseminate my vile in short, sharp soundbites?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (22 Jan 2017)

I note that Theresa is DJT's first invite to a foreign leader.  The harmless interpretation is that he preferred  to grab her btp rather than Angela.

I fear the more sinister interpretation may be correct. That is that he is setting out his stall to support the Brits against the rest of the EU in this Brexit thing.  If so he is showing an uncharacteristic lack of populist touch.  15.2% of folk in the USA describe themselves as of German ancestry.  10.8% Irish.  English is third at 8.7%. If we add up other EU nationalities Italian 5.6%, Polish 3.2%, French 3.0%, Dutch 1.6% et al we get a total of over 40% for the rest of the EU whilst even if we are generous and throw in the Scottish 1.7% scarcely 10% have UK ancestry.


----------



## Conan (22 Jan 2017)

These sound like "alternative facts"!
Even at this early stage, it seems clear that Trump is only interested in Trump. It was typical of the man, that when he got out of the car during the drive to the White House it was so that he could walk in front of the Trump Hotel. So much for separating WH from his business activities. 
The Trump presidency will be an interesting ride!


----------



## Purple (23 Jan 2017)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I note that Theresa is DJT's first invite to a foreign leader. The harmless interpretation is that he preferred to grab her btp rather than Angela


It's purely a coincidence I'm sure but Putin feels exactly the same way about the EU.


----------



## Gerry Canning (23 Jan 2017)

michaelm said:


> I think Trump should be given a chance.  I expect that a lot of the fear and hysteria surrounding his election will dissipate over the coming months.  I don't think Obama delivered a whole lot and Clintion would have delivered nothing.  I expect that Trump will get things done, and relatively quickly . . whether it's good or bad overall we'll see.  In two years time there may be a lot of revisionism in relation to Trump.


 The Americans voted for him and I chose to believe, behind the bluster there are sensible brain cells .His approach though thus far worries me.
To say that Obama & Clinton didn,t deliver , is a bit harsh . Did Clinton and Obama not leave USA economy in fair shape ?
I tire of  comments like {delivered nothing} etc , they are throwaway words signifying little other than a perceived view.
I know facts are boring , but maybe remain our best adjudicator ? 
It is on facts that President  Trump will rise or fall (unless they too are manipulated terribly)


----------



## Wahaay (23 Jan 2017)

Gerry Canning said:


> The Americans voted for him and I chose to believe, behind the bluster there are sensible brain cells .His approach though thus far worries me.
> To say that Obama & Clinton didn,t deliver , is a bit harsh . Did Clinton and Obama not leave USA economy in fair shape ?
> I tire of  comments like {delivered nothing} etc , they are throwaway words signifying little other than a perceived view.
> I know facts are boring , but maybe remain our best adjudicator ?
> It is on facts that President  Trump will rise or fall (unless they too are manipulated terribly)




If Obama was as successful and popular as the liberal-dominated media would have you believe why do the Republicans now control the House,Senate and Oval Office ?

Fact is his foreign policy was a disaster allowing Putin to expand his sphere of influence - the US has observer status only at the current Syrian peace negotiations.

And try telling a young,unemployed black person in the US that his life is better after two terms of his country's first black president.

Like you I believe Trump should be given a chance .


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (23 Jan 2017)

Can anyone explain why Brexiteers and Trumpeteers tend to be the same people, like _Wahaay_.  I mean they have completely opposite views on free trade.  Trump wants to protect against cheap labour countries such as China, Brexiteers want to enter quasi free trade deals with them.


----------



## cremeegg (23 Jan 2017)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Can anyone explain why Brexiteers and Trumpeteers tend to be the same people, like _Wahaay_.  I mean they have completely opposite views on free trade.  Trump wants to protect against cheap labour countries such as China, Brexiteers want to enter quasi free trade deals with them.


 
An excellent question.

And it seems to me our colleague Wahaay delivers the answer clearly. Some people like simple solutions even to complex problems. Complex trade negotiations, who cares, Brexit means Brexit. The displacement of labour due to increased global trade or technical innovation, who even understands it. Lets just make America great again. Wahaay indeed.


----------



## Purple (24 Jan 2017)

Wahaay said:


> If Obama was as successful and popular as the liberal-dominated media would have you believe why do the Republicans now control the House,Senate and Oval Office ?
> 
> Fact is his foreign policy was a disaster allowing Putin to expand his sphere of influence - the US has observer status only at the current Syrian peace negotiations.
> 
> ...


Obama's decision to withdraw from Iraq was a despicable and treacherous act and is probably the main factor in what is going on in the Middle East as the moment. The USA broke it so it was up to them to stay there and fix it. Other that that, and it's a very big one, I think he did okay, considering he didn't have the House or Congress for the last 6 years.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (24 Jan 2017)

One sure prediction; The Donald will be wild keen to meet the new SF leader in NI


----------



## michaelm (24 Jan 2017)

Gerry Canning said:


> I know facts are boring , but maybe remain our best adjudicator ?


Wow.  You obviously know what you're talking about so I take it all back; Obama was great.





Purple said:


> Obama's decision to withdraw from Iraq was a despicable and treacherous act and is probably the main factor in what is going on in the Middle East as the moment.


Damn straight.  Blood Year is an insightful read, if a bit of a slog, in that regard.


----------



## Purple (24 Jan 2017)

michaelm said:


> Damn straight.  Blood Year is an insightful read, if a bit of a slog, in that regard.


 Thanks, I'll add it to the list.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (24 Jan 2017)

Fact: much more folk turned out in person to see Obama's inaug than did to see Trump's. But I would bet the house that far more people watched the latter by remote media. Godammit, even the Duke tuned in for the first time.

But that is nothing for the Trump camp to boast about. It's not that I like to hear the rantings of a p-grabber over the usual platitudes at these affairs, but somehow they seem much more relevant for assessing the likely future course of events, and it ain't looking good folks. Bad hombres in charge I am afraid.


----------



## cremeegg (24 Jan 2017)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> much more folk



Its bad enough that jjm does this, "I'm too cool to proof-read my posts" thing, please don't you start as well.


----------



## Purple (25 Jan 2017)

Wahaay said:


> If Obama was as successful and popular as the liberal-dominated media would have you believe why do the Republicans now control the House,Senate and Oval Office ?


The Party system ties up 25% of the vote on either side. The colour of Obama’s skin costs him another 10%.




Wahaay said:


> Fact is his foreign policy was a disaster allowing Putin to expand his sphere of influence - the US has observer status only at the current Syrian peace negotiations.


 It was generally quite good, with the big exception I noted above.  If anyone things Trump will contain Putin any better they are delusional.




Wahaay said:


> And try telling a young,unemployed black person in the US that his life is better after two terms of his country's first black president.


 There are millions fewer of them than there were when Obama took office.


----------



## Wahaay (25 Jan 2017)

cremeegg said:


> *Its* bad enough that jjm does this, "I'm too cool to proof-read my posts" thing, please don't you start as well.



You hadn't really thought this one through had you ?


----------



## jjm (25 Jan 2017)

He Knew which buttons to press to get Elected .If we elected some of the posters on hear we would  be gone by now.


----------



## Wahaay (25 Jan 2017)

Lots of so-called satire about Trump in the US just isn't funny.
My favourite so far though is this effort from The Netherlands.
Top stuff.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-xxis7hDOE


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (25 Jan 2017)

cremeegg said:


> Its bad enough that jjm does this, "I'm too cool to proof-read my posts" thing, please don't you start as well.


Actually nuffin' wrong with my post, though I apologise for any offence which may have been inadvertently suffered.

"Folk" is a collective noun, it represents a plural of course but grammatically in this context it is quasi singular.  "Folks" is is also permissible and is unquestionably plural and "many more folks" is correct but "many more folk" is wrong IMHO.  There are other similar situations.  Consider the following equally valid senences:

"His speech got much more comment than..."
"His speech got many more comments than.."

Where's _Dan_ when we need him? If only he could resist the opportunity to play a gambit.


----------



## cremeegg (25 Jan 2017)

jjm2016 said:


> He *K*new which buttons to press to get *E*lected* .*If we elected some of the posters on *hear* we would  be all gone by now.



You are doing it deliberately now aren't you.   Still, I'm glad to see that you didn't let me down.


----------



## cremeegg (25 Jan 2017)

Folk is a collective noun, indeed it is used correctly. If we are talking about, Irish folk and English folk and other folk, then much folk (shudder) may be correct. But if we are using folk to mean a collection of individual people then it's (thank you Wahaay) many folk.




Duke of Marmalade said:


> resist the opportunity not to play a gambit.



The opportunity surely would be to play a gambit.


----------



## jjm (25 Jan 2017)

I love the way you are trying to take me in under your wing.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (25 Jan 2017)

_Wahaay_ I generally dislike folks who post Youtube links


----------



## Wahaay (25 Jan 2017)

cremeegg said:


> Folk is a collective noun, indeed it is used correctly. If we are talking about, Irish folk and English folk and other folk, then much folk (shudder) may be correct. But if we are using folk to mean a collection of individual people then it's (thank you Wahaay) many folk.



I don't wish to appear pedantic but you really should learn to use punctuation correctly if you're correcting the grammar of other folk.


----------



## Gerry Canning (25 Jan 2017)

Michael M,

I wasn,t saying Obama was great , nor am I sure he did a good job.
But maybe Obama will in hindsight, be shown to have done an ok job, all things considered.

I am old nuff to remember Vietnam War when America bombed the hell out of Laos , killing 10% of their population . My point is that extraction from war eg Iraq is not necessarily worse than remaining .
i also in no way claim to be an expert on Obama or Trump.

I do worry about bellicose people with power and suggest President Trump is of that ilk .
I hope he will be a Great President , but thus far he worries me.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (27 Jan 2017)

One thing I couldn't have predicted and it is that DJT has a frightening and naive belief that politicians should keep their campaign promises, indeed get them all out of the way in the first 100 days


----------



## Wahaay (30 Jan 2017)

The UK petition against President Trump's state visit later this year has passed the 1.5 million mark.
Interestingly the geography of the signatures shows a 91% correlation with those who also signed a petition in favour of a second Brexit referendum.
www.ncpolitics.uk/2017/01/trump-petition-91-per-cent-correlation-second-eu-referendum-signature-constituencies.html
So,while a significant of people in London are opposed to the visit the vast majority of the British population appear not to care either way - but I wonder if that will be reflected in the coverage on tonight's BBC News.
Somehow I doubt it.


----------



## Ceist Beag (31 Jan 2017)

I don't agree with much of what you write but I completely agree with you there Wahaay. The same thing is going on here with the pathetic calls for Enda not to travel to the US for Paddys day. I expected these calls from protest politicians but I'm surprised and disappointed that the Labour party have added their voice to the campaign. Whatever we might think about Trump (and believe me, I'm no fan!), we cannot ignore him and surely we have learned in this country that it is better to engage in dialogue than to refuse to engage.


----------



## cremeegg (31 Jan 2017)

More careful selection of facts from Wahaay to create a misleading impression.

The petition to prevent Donald Trump's visit to the Uk currently has attracted 1.6 million signatures and is being signed at a rate of more than 11,000 per hour. The petition that Donald trump should make a state visit to britain currently has 75,000 signatures and is being signed at a rate of 6,600 signatures an hour.

So there are two petitions, one in favour of Trumps visit, one opposed. The petition opposed has 21 times more signatures, (it should be mentioned that it has been open longer) and is being signed almost twice as fast.

As far as I can see the from the data, the constituency with the highest concentration of signatures opposed to the Trump visit is Brighton Pavilion, not in fact in London, (else the London to Brighton bike ride would be less of an effort than I remember  )

https://petition.parliament.uk

The stop Trumps visit is SO FAR the second largest petition of its type. Lagging behind only the petition for a second EU referendum, which attracted in excess of 4 million signatures.


----------



## michaelm (31 Jan 2017)

Ceist Beag said:


> I'm surprised and disappointed that the Labour party have added their voice to the campaign.


Hardly surprised?  If they were still in bed with FG they would be defending the visit.  Labour are fickle, expedient and largely irrelevant.  People will have to adjust to the new reality.


----------



## Delboy (31 Jan 2017)

Petition, whatever. Who cares.
The same people that were out wailing about the Tories for even having called a referendum on Brexit in the first place are now spending 10 seconds of their life signing some online doc (without having to get off their backsides which is an extra bonus I'm sure) that they are sure will lead to change. The irony!

Get a life.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (31 Jan 2017)

Ceist Beag said:


> I don't agree with much of what you write but I completely agree with you there Wahaay.


Oh, I don't know _Ceist_.  _Wahaay_ is making several points.  _Cremeegg_ has beaten me to it in exposing her signature weakness in interpreting data.  But just to labour the point.  If I ran a petition to "keep Motherhood legal" I am sure I would get only a handful of takers.  It doesn't mean that the rest are against Motherhood or couldn't care about it.  The true test is to compare with other like petitions which _cremeegg_ has done.

Of couse it is no surprise that Remainers would be more inclined to be anti Trump than Brexiteers.  Actually it is more accurate to see this the other way round.  It is more that Brexiteers are inclined to be pro Trump, as epitomized by _Wahaay_ herself and admissions from The Donald that Nigel is his favourite Brit.  It is not the Remainers who are out of step here.  The vast majority of the planet is (are? _Dan_) anti Trump.  Pro Trump folk are restriced to a deplorable grouping of rust belt rednecks, Brexiteers and Putinistas.

The next point _Wahaay_ appears to make is that erstwhile responsible organs like the BBC are out to suppress this new enlightenment which is embodied in Trumpery, Brexitery and Putinery.

But I do agree _Ceist_ when _Enda_ returns from Washington the browner his nose the better so far as I am concerned.


----------



## Wahaay (31 Jan 2017)

cremeegg said:


> More careful selection of facts from Wahaay to create a misleading impression.
> 
> The petition to prevent Donald Trump's visit to the Uk currently has attracted 1.6 million signatures and is being signed at a rate of more than 11,000 per hour. The petition that Donald trump should make a state visit to britain currently has 75,000 signatures and is being signed at a rate of 6,600 signatures an hour.
> 
> ...




Perhaps it missed your attention but I wasn't comparing petitions for and against Trump's visit but a petition calling for a second EU referendum.
I could quite easily adopt your interpretation of statistics and point out that whilst 1.5 million people have signed the petition against the visit 64 million other Brits haven't which must mean they're all in favour of it.Your suggestion is that ridiculous.

Brighton is basically London-by-the-sea and always follows the capital's voting demographics.However 15 out of 20 constituencies  most in favour of cancelling Trump's visit are in London with the rest in university towns.

It's also worth pointing out that the first opinion poll out in the US shows a majority of people are in favour of Trump's immigration moves.Not least because Trump didn't include seven Muslim-majority countries in his Executive Order but just Syria. Why ? Because all seven countries were already being targetted with bans by anti-terrorist legislation brought in by guess who ? Obama.

https://sethfrantzman.com/2017/01/2...slim-ban-possible-and-the-media-wont-tell-you

That's the problem when you've got an overwhelmingly biased mainstream media and unquestioning viewers and readers who lap up whatever they're spoon-fed.


----------



## jjm (31 Jan 2017)

Juke I would not be so sure about you not having a weakness in interpreting data.


----------



## Wahaay (31 Jan 2017)

Delboy said:


> Petition, whatever. Who cares.
> The same people that were out wailing about the Tories for even having called a referendum on Brexit in the first place are now spending 10 seconds of their life signing some online doc (without having to get off their backsides which is an extra bonus I'm sure) that they are sure will lead to change. The irony!
> 
> Get a life.



Get a life indeed. One hundred Labour MPs who supported legislation which allowed the Referendum in the first place now say they intend to vote against the bill triggering Article 50 because they don't like the outcome of the vote.
Let's see how they get on in the next general election.


----------



## Gerry Canning (31 Jan 2017)

Couple of things ?
On the banned countries . Have any terrorist activity happened since 9/11 in USA from them ?
If not, then singling them out seems a pointless aggravation and ignores the work already being successfully done by security.
This protect America mantra is sound, but not if it means ill thought out immigration policies or a stop to all refugees from places like Syria .
Wahaay , I would be afraid that the {unquestioning viewers} on protect America,should ask is this policy sensible about protecting America .
This policy may be well intentioned but  I fear it sends out the message of stupid fear and USA is bigger than that.


----------



## Leo (31 Jan 2017)

Gerry Canning said:


> On the banned countries . Have any terrorist activity happened since 9/11 in USA from them ?



None of the 9/11 attackers were from those countries either. Somehow Saudi Arabia never made the list...nor do other  he has business ties with.

What's worse, they're doing nothing to stop the real threat posed by a group that kill more than 10 times as many Americans. Yep, toddlers!



Gerry Canning said:


> This policy may be well intentioned but  I fear it sends out the message of stupid fear and USA is bigger than that.



There's also the dangerous message that those who have put everything at risk to work with US forces on the ground for years in their war on terror are being refused entry despite having completed the vetting process that can take three years to complete. What will that do to future cooperation?


----------



## Wahaay (31 Jan 2017)

Gerry Canning said:


> Couple of things ?
> On the banned countries . Have any terrorist activity happened since 9/11 in USA from them ?
> If not, then singling them out seems a pointless aggravation and ignores the work already being successfully done by security.
> This protect America mantra is sound, but not if it means ill thought out immigration policies or a stop to all refugees from places like Syria .
> ...



The countries were already part of anti-terrorism legislation brought in by Obama because of the threat they posed.
The US perceived an intelligence-based threat from those countries before Trump came to power.
Trump has merely set up a 90-day ban while his administration works out how to deal with that threat - it was part of the reason why he was elected.It is often hugely difficult to vet people coming from countries where there is no functioning system of identification as Merkel has found out to her cost.
Although it may appear to be a blunt instrument you shouldn't underestimate the concerns,albeit often unwarranted, that many Americans have about terrorism even in small towns in Nowheresville.


( Update: Latest opinion poll 49%-41% backing Trump's plans.
I didn't know there were that many rednecks in the US ... 
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...=topNews&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=Social )


----------



## Wahaay (31 Jan 2017)

The petition to support Trump's state visit to the UK has now passed the 100,000 mark and achieved its aim.
These petitions are not an attempt to see how many signatures can be collected in a competition with others but to achieve sufficient numbers required for a parliamentary debate.
Of course that's all they are - debates.
And this one takes place on Feb 20th.


----------



## Gerry Canning (1 Feb 2017)

I hear you Wahaay .
Surely , as you say ,Obama had covered these countries without Mr Trump in his handling of this sending wrong signals to the world.
It seems Mr Trump is more concerned with (pleasing) his base rather than governing sensibly for America ?
I am old nuff to remember and to worry that each generation seems to {adopt a bogeyman} be it Jews,Commies, and now Islam?.
{bogeymen } fear appeals to illogical and alternative fact reasoning = dangerous.

In him visiting Uk = grand = visit away = I think Mrs May in her Brexit rush is flailing about a bit .


----------



## Wahaay (1 Feb 2017)

Gerry Canning said:


> I hear you Wahaay .
> Surely , as you say ,Obama had covered these countries without Mr Trump in his handling of this sending wrong signals to the world.
> It seems Mr Trump is more concerned with (pleasing) his base rather than governing sensibly for America ?
> I am old nuff to remember and to worry that each generation seems to {adopt a bogeyman} be it Jews,Commies, and now Islam?.
> ...



If you think the maintenance of cordial relations between the leader of the most powerful country on earth without whom NATO would collapse and a country responsible for a million jobs as the largest single investor in the US is flailing about then I don't think you have a very firm grasp on international relations.
It's why Enda Kenny would be right to laugh at suggestions from low-grade Irish politicians that he should somehow snub Trump.


----------



## Gerry Canning (1 Feb 2017)

Not saying that .

What I do say and say clearly is that it helps no one internationally to have Mr Trump going out of his isolationist way to irritate people !
I do get the point of Enda etc , but why oh why create hassle .


----------



## cremeegg (1 Feb 2017)

Wahaay said:


> The countries were already part of anti-terrorism legislation brought in by Obama because of the threat they posed.
> The US perceived an intelligence-based threat from those countries before Trump came to power.



This is a fair point, rightly or wrongly the countries on the list were identified during Obama's presidency. The omission of Saudi Arabia, home to most of the 9/11 bombers, from the list suggests however that the whole thing is just a PR exercise, with Mr Trump wanting to be seen taking action rather than seriously expecting it to have any impact on security.




Wahaay said:


> Trump has merely set up a 90-day ban while his administration works out how to deal with that threat - it was part of the reason why he was elected.It is often hugely difficult to vet people coming from countries where there is no functioning system of identification as Merkel has found out to her cost.
> Although it may appear to be a blunt instrument you shouldn't underestimate the concerns,albeit often unwarranted, that many Americans have about terrorism even in small towns in Nowheresville.



Its a pity that unwarranted concerns are allowed to drive policy.

A serious analysis of what actions that are within the US control might increase their security might be a better place to start. Obama's decision not to bomb Syria was one of the few US foreign policy decisions in recent years that have not made the situation worse.


----------



## Delboy (1 Feb 2017)

cremeegg said:


> Obama's decision not to bomb Syria was one of the few US foreign policy decisions in recent years that have not made the situation worse.


The people of Aleppo might say otherwise


----------



## cremeegg (1 Feb 2017)

Delboy said:


> The people of Aleppo might say otherwise



The reporting of the situation in Aleppo contrasted with the reporting of the situation in Mosul is to my mind an excellent example of post fact news.

As I understand it the reality for both cities is that Sunni Islamic militants are being driven out by predominantly Shia militants supported by superpower bombing. The suffering in the affected cities must be unbearable.

The attack on Aleppo began in early November and lasted until 22 December. The attack on Mosul started 17 October and is ongoing.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-38132163

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-37702442

We in the west are expected to believe the smart US bombs are only killing bad guys in Mosul, while nasty Russian bombs are killing indiscriminately in Aleppo. You may accept this I don't.


----------



## Purple (1 Feb 2017)

I agree Cremeegg. The West backed the wrong side in Syria.


----------



## Wahaay (1 Feb 2017)

cremeegg said:


> This is a fair point, rightly or wrongly the countries on the list were identified during Obama's presidency. The omission of Saudi Arabia, home to most of the 9/11 bombers, from the list suggests however that the whole thing is just a PR exercise, with Mr Trump wanting to be seen taking action rather than seriously expecting it to have any impact on security.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What I meant by unwarranted were those small towns in America where the chances of terrorist attack are slim.
As a whole the country should be on high alert.
With regard to the 90-day ban six out of the seven countries involved ( all of which were already subject to anti-terrorism measures brought in by Obama ) have no functioning central government or intelligence service and Europe has seen plenty of examples of terrorists slipping into countries posing as refugees.
To suggest the US shouldn't be vigilant against those countries just because none of their citizens have been involved in terrorist attacks doesn't really wash I'm afraid.
I can't help thinking much of the protests against Trump are by Democrats still unable to accept that he won the Presidency.
Opinion polls show that his actions still reflect the views of a majority of US citizens,rightly or wrongly.


----------



## Purple (1 Feb 2017)

Wahaay said:


> What I meant by unwarranted were those small towns in America where the chances of terrorist attack are slim.
> 
> As a whole the country should be on high alert.


 Yes, they should, but a ban is a stupid and blunt way of doing it and plays into the hands of their enemies.




Wahaay said:


> With regard to the 90-day ban six out of the seven countries involved ( all of which were already subject to anti-terrorism measures brought in by Obama ) have no functioning central government or intelligence service and Europe has seen plenty of examples of terrorists slipping into countries posing as refugees.


 What’s that got to do with anything? The USA isn’t taking refugees like we are.




Wahaay said:


> To suggest the US shouldn't be vigilant against those countries just because none of their citizens have been involved in terrorist attacks doesn't really wash I'm afraid.


 Who said they shouldn’t be vigilant?




Wahaay said:


> I can't help thinking much of the protests against Trump are by Democrats still unable to accept that he won the Presidency.


  I agree.



Wahaay said:


> Opinion polls show that his actions still reflect the views of a majority of US citizens,rightly or wrongly.


 Can you post a link please?


----------



## Wahaay (1 Feb 2017)

Purple said:


> Yes, they should, but a ban is a stupid and blunt way of doing it and plays into the hands of their enemies.
> 
> *You think Isis are sitting there saying " We really must carry out a terrorist attack on America because Trump has banned immigrants from 7 countries travelling to America " ?*
> 
> ...


----------



## Wahaay (1 Feb 2017)

Here's Texas cowboy Chad Prather's take on the Trump demonstrators.
What a thick hillbilly ... 

https://twitter.com/ANOMALY1/status/820697850636017668


----------



## Gerry Canning (2 Feb 2017)

Wahaay,
you are correct in that too much of anti-Trump stuff = hypocrisy .
But I have NIL doubt that he has handled this country/people blocking in a way that does not enhance the reality of real threats to USA and sadly just gives  USA enemies a PR coup.
It is of little value to quote that more people support him , he should work for all Americans and enact legislation on known facts or threats.
I am very afraid that {islamists} are this generation of {bogeymen} , like the jews ,commies etc were .
When a leader has {bogeymen} he can twist real facts and will harm the USA .
Hope I am wrong..


----------



## Wahaay (2 Feb 2017)

Gerry Canning said:


> Wahaay,
> you are correct in that too much of anti-Trump stuff = hypocrisy .
> But I have NIL doubt that he has handled this country/people blocking in a way that does not enhance the reality of real threats to USA and sadly just gives  USA enemies a PR coup.
> It is of little value to quote that more people support him , he should work for all Americans and enact legislation on known facts or threats.
> ...



The simple fact is that when every major terrorist atrocity since and including 9/11 has been carried out by Islamic extremists it is perfectly understandable that Trump wishes to enact the EO that he has.
It is a temporary ban covering Muslims and non-Muslims from those 7 countries.
The fact that a majority of Americans back his move is hugely important.His primary job is the welfare and security of the citizens.


----------



## Firefly (2 Feb 2017)

Wahaay said:


> The simple fact is that when every major terrorist atrocity since and including 9/11 has been carried out by Islamic extremists it is perfectly understandable that Trump wishes to enact the EO that he has.



9/11 hmmm....Bin Laden and his links to the Saudi Royal family. Why didn't trump include Saudi Arabia in the list of countries he is currently banning people entering from?


----------



## Leo (2 Feb 2017)

It's all just populist pandering though. It's just an easy means of being seen to act while conveniently ignoring the real issues. It does nothing to address the fact that 83% of those charges with jihadist terrorism (for both domestic and foreign acts) are American citizens or permanent residents. Since 9/11, 94 people have died at the hands of 12 Jihadists, all 12 were American citizens or permanent residents, and none of those had family links back to any of the countries on the list of 7, but 3 x African-Americans, 3 had family links to Pakistan, 1 had Palestinian links, 2 Russia, 1 Egypt, 1 Kuwait and 1 Afghanistan.

To say all every major atrocity has been carried out by Islamic extremists fails to acknowledge the far-right extremists who have killed 55 people over that same period. Some argue they pose a far greater threat.


----------



## Wahaay (2 Feb 2017)

Leo said:


> It's all just populist pandering though. It's just an easy means of being seen to act while conveniently ignoring the real issues. It does nothing to address the fact that 83% of those charges with jihadist terrorism (for both domestic and foreign acts) are American citizens or permanent residents. Since 9/11, 94 people have died at the hands of 12 Jihadists, all 12 were American citizens or permanent residents, and none of those had family links back to any of the countries on the list of 7, but 3 x African-Americans, 3 had family links to Pakistan, 1 had Palestinian links, 2 Russia, 1 Egypt, 1 Kuwait and 1 Afghanistan.
> 
> To say all every major atrocity has been carried out by Islamic extremists fails to acknowledge the far-right extremists who have killed 55 people over that same period. Some argue they pose a far greater threat.




I think by populist pandering you must mean carrying out the promises on which he was elected.I know it's an unusual concept but that's why Trump surprised everyone with his election win.
It's also incredibly naive to suggest a country should base its terrorist threat simply on what has gone before it.
The Obama administration had very serious doubts about the seven countries on Trump's banned list and rightly so.Six of them have no functioning central government and it has been proved in Europe that terrorist atrocities have been carried out by citizens of those countries who have arrived on the continent posing as refugees.


----------



## Leo (2 Feb 2017)

Wahaay said:


> I think by populist pandering you must mean carrying out the promises on which he was elected.



In fairness to him, he is following through on some of his promises to date, but you have to remember his promises were mostly populist pandering in the first place. 



Wahaay said:


> It's also incredibly naive to suggest a country should base its terrorist threat simply on what has gone before it.



No one has suggested they should simply focus all their efforts on countries where previous jihadists or their ancestors have come from. Trump has made a big deal about 'wiping out radical Islam'. His defence of the travel ban claiming it will have any positive effect on the overall threat level is beyond naive.


----------



## Firefly (2 Feb 2017)

Wahaay said:


> His primary job is the welfare and security of the citizens.



I don't disagree but why focus on banning Muslims entering his country when a much greater threat to the safety of citizens in the US lies in gun control (or lack thereof) - the bit is bold is interesting - in 2013 alone more deaths were caused by accidental use of guns than have ever been killed by terrorists since 9/11. Over 33 thousand deaths in all!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States

_In 2013, there were 73,505 nonfatal firearm injuries (23.2 injuries per 100,000 U.S. citizens),[2][3] and 33,636 deaths due to "injury by firearms" (10.6 deaths per 100,000 U.S. citizens).[4] These deaths consisted of 11,208 homicides,[5] 21,175 suicides,[4] 505 deaths due to accidental or negligent discharge of a firearm, and 281 deaths due to firearms use with "undetermined intent"_

Populism at its best!


----------



## Wahaay (2 Feb 2017)

Firefly said:


> I don't disagree but why focus on banning Muslims entering his country when a much greater threat to the safety of citizens in the US lies in gun control (or lack thereof) - the bit is bold is interesting - in 2013 alone more deaths were caused by accidental use of guns than have ever been killed by terrorists since 9/11. Over 33 thousand deaths in all!
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States
> 
> ...




I agree entirely.
But every president of both political parties has failed to tackle gun control so it's hardly a charge to be levelled at Trump alone in his _second_ week in office.
Also,none have managed to solve the problem of why the vast majority of victims and perpetrators of gun murders are young black males.


----------



## Firefly (2 Feb 2017)

Wahaay said:


> But every president of both political parties has failed to tackle gun control so it's hardly a charge to be levelled at Trump alone in his _second_ week in office.



I agree with that but my point is that I consider it to be populist to be banning entrants from some Muslim countries, in the name of safe-guarding American lives, when a much bigger threat is alive & well inside their borders already.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (2 Feb 2017)

It's a populist and opportunist publicity stunt. 

It's only for a short period until the "extreme vetting" is in place.  90 days or whatever will have totally negligible effect in terms of stopping bad dudes getting in. 

But it is getting massive publicity giving the impression of a man of action who delivers on his promises. If he had simply waited and announced when extreme vetting was in place, that would go down like a lead balloon with the rednecks.


----------



## Purple (2 Feb 2017)

I presume the Trumpiteers are cool with a 5 year old being detained and handcuffed for hours at a US airport as he's half Iranian and so could be a threat to America?  
The Donald and his crew are cool with it so you must support the team!


----------



## Leo (2 Feb 2017)

Wahaay said:


> But every president of both political parties has failed to tackle gun control so it's hardly a charge to be levelled at Trump alone in his _second_ week in office.



But Trump has no intention of tackling the gun issue, he pledged his support to the NRA on the campaign trail and has promised to roll back on previous gun control measures, with the gun lobby expecting to see action soon.



Wahaay said:


> Also,none have managed to solve the problem of why the vast majority of victims and perpetrators of gun murders are young black males.



Perhaps a travel ban on Nigeria and a few other random African nations might appease the masses there.


----------



## Wahaay (2 Feb 2017)

Leo said:


> But Trump has no intention of tackling the gun issue, he pledged his support to the NRA on the campaign trail and has promised to roll back on previous gun control measures, with the gun lobby expecting to see action soon.
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps a travel ban on Nigeria and a few other random African nations might appease the masses there.




If I may say so you show a distinct lack of understanding of the reality of life in the United States.
Have you actually been there ?


----------



## Conan (2 Feb 2017)

So he bans Muslins from seven countries whose nationals have not killed anyone in America and yet does noting to Saudi where most of the 9/11 came from.
Now he gets into a row with the Australian PM (not to mention the Mexican President). And this morning at a "prayer breakfast" he says that the world is in a mess but that he will sort it out!!!
Typically at that prayer breakfast, most of the speech was all about Trump. How he was successful with the Apprectice but that since he left, the show has flopped. What's that to do with POTUS? And as for his sudden conversion to Christianity (adulterer, married three times etc etc)???
Such a psychopantic, self-obsessed and ignorant individual as "leader of the free world". God help us.


----------



## Wahaay (2 Feb 2017)

Conan said:


> *So he bans Muslins* from seven countries whose nationals have not killed anyone in America and yet does noting to Saudi where most of the 9/11 came from.
> Now he gets into a row with the Australian PM (not to mention the Mexican President). And this morning at a "prayer breakfast" he says that the world is in a mess but that he will sort it out!!!
> Typically at that prayer breakfast, most of the speech was all about Trump. How he was successful with the Apprectice but that since he left, the show has flopped. What's that to do with POTUS? And as for his sudden conversion to Christianity (adulterer, married three times etc etc)???
> Such a *psychopantic*, self-obsessed and ignorant individual as "leader of the free world". God help us.



Psychopantic - I'd love to hear what you think this means.
And no he hasn't banned all Muslims.He's bannned ALL citizens,including Christians,from Muslim-majority countries.


----------



## Leo (2 Feb 2017)

Wahaay said:


> If I may say so you show a distinct lack of understanding of the reality of life in the United States.
> Have you actually been there ?



You're basing that on what exactly? My quoting of what Trump has said?

What makes you think you have greater authority on the subject?


----------



## Wahaay (2 Feb 2017)

Leo said:


> You're basing that on what exactly? My quoting of what Trump has said?



Okay,so perhaps you haven't been to the US.
My point is that unless you have travelled extensively in the US it's difficult to understand that the image presented to the world by a largely liberal media is not always correct.
A huge number of Americans consider the Second Amendment sacrosanct.Hunting,shooting and the right to defend their property by any means is ingrained in their psyche.
Millions of ordinary Americans consider carrying a firearm as normal as you and I consider carrying a wallet.
They vote in Senators and Congress representatives specifically to defend that right.
They also wonder why successive presidents including Obama,Clinton and Bush have done little to stem the rise of largely black-on-black drug-related inner-city murders.
They also wonder why Obama failed to call out the obsession with guns and violence in rap music,did virtually nothing to improve the lives of inner city blacks and had clowns like Al Sharpton as their advisors.
Those are some of the reasons why Hilary failed to resonate with sufficient number of voters and why Trump did in the States that mattered.


----------



## cremeegg (2 Feb 2017)

Wahaay said:


> They also wonder why successive presidents including Obama,Clinton and Bush have done little to stem the rise of largely black-on-black drug-related inner-city murders.



Is this another of your true but misleading post-truth facts, or is it just old fashioned incorrect.

According to this https://mises.org/blog/fbi-us-homicide-rate-51-year-low

The US murder rate hit a 51 year low in 2014.


----------



## cremeegg (2 Feb 2017)

While the world is watching the travel ban and liberals are marching against Trump, a rather more serious figure is also reacting to the new regime in the US.

It will be fascinating to see how this plays out.

http://www.economist.com/news/europ...new/n/n/n/2017022n/owned/n/n/nwl/n/n/EU/email

While I certainly don't accept the common view in our media of Russia as the sole aggressor against innocent and helpless Ukraine, Trump will loose credibility among the despots of the world if he doesn't respond forcefully.

If Russia can push a US ally about like this what will China make of it.


----------



## Leo (2 Feb 2017)

Wahaay said:


> Okay,so perhaps you haven't been to the US.



Again, what that I've said here are you basing that on? You agreed with a previous poster who pointed out that gun violence was a much more significant issue, and suggested it was too early to judge Trump's actions on gun control. I simply pointed out that he has clearly stated numerous times that he will relax gun control, not further it. 

The rest of what you wrote is just more misdirection.


----------



## Wahaay (3 Feb 2017)

Leo said:


> Again, what that I've said here are you basing that on? You agreed with a previous poster who pointed out that gun violence was a much more significant issue, and suggested it was too early to judge Trump's actions on gun control. I simply pointed out that he has clearly stated numerous times that he will relax gun control, not further it.
> 
> The rest of what you wrote is just more misdirection.



So,to give us a clear direction,have you ever been to the United States ?
It's a simple question and you should feel no embarrassment in answering no.


----------



## Wahaay (3 Feb 2017)

If you would rather plead the fifth I understand.


----------



## Wahaay (3 Feb 2017)

cremeegg said:


> Is this another of your true but misleading post-truth facts, or is it just old fashioned incorrect.
> 
> According to this https://mises.org/blog/fbi-us-homicide-rate-51-year-low
> 
> The US murder rate hit a 51 year low in 2014.



If you're going to base your argument entirely on Google at least learn to use it proficiently.


In 2015, there were an estimated 1,197,704 violent crimes. Murder and non-negligent manslaughter increased 10.8 percent when compared with estimates from 2014.
https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-releases-2015-crime-statistics


----------



## Purple (3 Feb 2017)

Wahaay said:


> So,to give us a clear direction,have you ever been to the United States ?
> It's a simple question and you should feel no embarrassment in answering no.


If it helps I've been there over 20 times and visited more than 20 States on both coasts and down South, most frequently to New England and Texas, and I agree with him.


----------



## Wahaay (3 Feb 2017)

Purple said:


> If it helps I've been there over 20 times and visited more than 20 States on both coasts and down South, most frequently to New England and Texas, and I agree with him.



Agree with him about what ?
I live in the States for about three months of the year in my house in Florida.It's a long way from the tourist spots and my neighbours are all American.
Trust me, opining about life in America having visited as a tourist is a bit like an American being an expert on Ireland because he's kissed the Blarney stone.


----------



## Leo (3 Feb 2017)

This whole have I been to the US thing is just complete nonsense. I pointed out you were wrong, and yet again when you're found out, you just try to redirect. 

What spending time in the US got to do with understanding Trump's clearly stated thoughts on gun control. 

But just for the record, I have family living in 4 states, first visited ~25 years ago and travel up to three times a year covering 11 states. I've even been in a basement in the deep south that would equip a decent militia for an extended campaign. I've traveled enough to know that basing any assessment of the American psyche on experience in Florida is missing a rather large part of the picture.


----------

