Predictions for the reign of President Trump

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
Click to expand...

The opportunity surely would be to play a gambit.
 
I love the way you are trying to take me in under your wing.
 

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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Ceist Beag said:
I'm surprised and disappointed that the Labour party have added their voice to the campaign.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
Ceist Beag said:
I don't agree with much of what you write but I completely agree with you there Wahaay.
Click to expand...
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.
 


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

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.
 
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.
 
Gerry Canning said:
On the banned countries . Have any terrorist activity happened since 9/11 in USA from them ?
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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?
 

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 )
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Last edited:
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 .
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Menu
Log in
Register