Play Nice 45th President of the United States: Donald Trump - Part 5

[Procrastinator35]

Pure silliness.

Yes I'm sure that's the extent of your leanings.

You are a persistent little monkey, who has no clue when he's beaten.....Just accept me as your evolutionary superior & move on.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

You are a persistent little monkey, who has no clue when he's beaten.....Just accept me as your evolutionary superior & move on.

Given your only argument is that "Seth Rich did it", you're not winning anything any time soon.

You've done your dash.

 

[Procrastinator35]

Given your only argument is that "Seth Rich did it", you're not winning anything any time soon.

You've done your dash.

Seth Rich was the DNC leaker....He had both the means & the motive....And all the known facts about the leak & his murder fit that narrative perfectly, including the resignation of the Washington D.C head of police investigations.....End of story Sherlock.

We know Hilary & the DNC cheated through their own chief of staff admissions in her autobiography......We know Trump & the GOP rigged the general through Jim Crowing all the swing states, via Jill Stein's re-count & exit poll anomalies in most swing states.....This has SFA to do with 'Russia'..

Keep hanging your hat on the purity & sincerity of the 'Mueller findings' if that's what gets you through the night.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Seth Rich was the DNC leaker....He had both the means & the motive....And all the known facts about the leak & his murder fit that narrative perfectly, including the resignation of the Washington D.C head of police investigations.....End of story Sherlock.

We know Hilary & the DNC cheated through their own chief of staff admissions in her autobiography......We know Trump & the GOP rigged the general through Jim Crowing all the swing states, via Jill Stein's re-count & exit poll anomalies in most swing states.....This has SFA to do with 'Russia'.

OK big guy. It was Seth Rich. The Russians had nothing to do with anything.

 

[Bennett.]

Start? Been disproving various rubbish of yours constantly since the you claimed that 80% of children separated from their families were actually separated from smugglers.

Not that I care much about the Mueller investigation but congrats I guess for finally managing a true statement in that, yes, the new indictments are apparently for actions that happened in the lead up to the 2016 election when the previous administration was in power. As has been mentioned by other posters, not sure why you think that is some kind of gotcha.

You have summarily failed to disprove anything. All you do is change the goalposts

 

[Bennett.]

Quite liked this.
View attachment 527705

Yeah except he’s the worst ‘fascist’ ever

 

[Ned_Flanders]

It's classic projection.

Not even people who agree with you generally would believe that.

It's true

His pony was stolen by a bunch of Jews, and Soros is now riding it through Werribee Plaza

 

[tandino]

"Regardless"? There are many very obvious reasons to 'detest' Trump. If he did none of those things, and had different policies than what he has, he would still be the celebrity Americans love to mock for his over-the-top-ness. I see similar comments whenever Trump does something trivial (e.g. see below response to Seeds) with Trumpsters claiming 'people will hate him no matter what he did' and the point is yes, of course. He has done so much damage that, of course, he can't undo that easily. He would have to do something truly radical and welcoming to instigate a change (like instituting policies in line with the rest of the Western world - higher taxes, a strong social welfare net, universal heathcare, etc.).

Wasn't really the point I was going for.

People can dismiss the protests. Fine. Who cares. Not really important anyway. They cant be dismissive of all the other basic stupid s**t over the last few days.

 

[The Delusionist]

Its well known about the Russians

It is well known now. But many Trump supporters and Russian plants seem to argue that it isn't true.

Obama knew and opted to do nothing because he thought Hillary would win.

This isn't true.
This is an exaggeration based on an exaggeration, based on disinformation, that uses misinformation.

He also knew the Trump campaign wasn't involved.

Again, you can't show any real evidence of this. Only evidence of something that has been deliberately extrapolated to be misleading.

Please provide any link to evidence that Obama knew (the full extent), and that he did nothing (not that he was blocked from doing things).

We know that Obama knew what was going on.

This isn't true.
This is an exaggeration based on an exaggeration, based on disinformation, that uses misinformation.

We know from the text messages that an "insurance policy" was being set up.

We do not know that. You are inferring from a text and creating a larger narrative that you don't actually have any evidence for.

We know that if Trump was an active participant in any Russian meddling, it would have been realised and revealed before the election to ensure a Clinton victory.

We don't know that. You are basing all of this on misleading information and disinformation.
You don't actually have any evidence for any of it. You have evidence of extraneous information that propagandists have tried to link into an unthinking narrative.

Can you actually show all the evidence and logical positioning for your point here?
No you can't. Does this make you rethink your argument? I bet it doesn't.

Thus, they did nothing. Let the Russians run some FB ads etc, confident that H would still win, and in the knowledge that Trump was not complicit. But could be made to appear guilty as the "insurance policy" in the 1% chance Trump won.

Based on your above logical fallacies, you've created an unfounded conclusion, and proceeded to push more disinformation.
"Russians run some FB ads" is just pure disinformation based on what is documented that was actually done.

No evidence you supply will actually completely support any statements you have just made. They will only vaguely line up with something that can be twisted to agree with what you are pushing.


'Someone who might have contacted Trump might have been under surveillance, therefore Trump was under constant surveillance.'- This is not evidence.


Not that any of this matters. I've seen how many times you've had things painstakingly explained to you, only for you to use it again later. "Look at how great black employment has become under Trump".

 

[Seeds]

"Regardless"? There are many very obvious reasons to 'detest' Trump. If he did none of those things, and had different policies than what he has, he would still be the celebrity Americans love to mock for his over-the-top-ness. I see similar comments whenever Trump does something trivial (e.g. see below response to Seeds) with Trumpsters claiming 'people will hate him no matter what he did' and the point is yes, of course. He has done so much damage that, of course, he can't undo that easily. He would have to do something truly radical and welcoming to instigate a change (like instituting policies in line with the rest of the Western world - higher taxes, a strong social welfare net, universal heathcare, etc.).

There is, oddly, a logical reason - he is serving multiple masters. Russia wants him to sow division and make Britain have a 'hard' Brexit. Them and the anti-immigrant types (i.e. huge chunks of 'the alt right') are his two main masters, other than his own ego. But the British want him to show common respect and not run his mouth; and some Republicans would similarly want him to make the conservative Government in Britain look better (so they in turn might help out the GOP in future meetings). Therefore Trump walks it back the next day. Combining the main influences - his ego, the alt-right, Russia's desire for division and to undermine democratic institutions like the free media - and you can see major reasons for Trump to declare an interview he gave on the record, which was recorded, as 'fake news'. But he decided he needed to say that in order to help out the conservatives in Britain and in his own party, because they were understandably unhappy.

I haven't seen much 'outrage'. People like the Queen, though. Her whole thing is calm diplomacy, and few people alive for a couple of decades wouldn't be aware of that. I just had a look at one clip where the Queen was checking her watch wondering where Trump was, and then on the walk it was simply awkward.

Trump has said and done things that suggest he doesn't have great relationships with women and it looked like an extension of that, or else maybe he's never spent time around elderly people (there were probably always staff around to do common courtesies when his parents were old; his grandpa died long before he was born, and his grandma died when Don was almost 20). Who knows? Basically he appeared to have no idea what to do. Maybe no one on their team listened or read the briefing from the English.

Trump was a bit of a di*** to the queen with poor manners. in the grand scheme of things though who cares. I care far more about his policies, impact on the global order and whether he is a crook or not. It’s a non news story.

 

[The Delusionist]

Trump was a bit of a di*** to the queen with poor manners. in the grand scheme of things though who cares. I care far more about his policies, impact on the global order and whether he is a crook or not. It’s a non news story.

I don't care for Trump for many reasons. But I don't give a s**t about the Queen.


It's playing out in two ways. One side calls misogyny, the other insistst that he is such an alpha.

It's neither, he is just totally unaware.

 

[cartwright]

This... is the self proclaimed genius

 

[yebiga]

No I'm not representing the FBI. What are you on about?

I don't feel that the investigation has been at all discredited.

I'd point to the consensus of the US intelligence agencies.

So your position is that the Russians had literally nothing to do with anything?

If that's the case, who did Don Jr meet at Trump Tower? Why did Michael Flynn lie about his contacts with the Russian ambassador?

There is no consensus

 

[geelong_crazy26]

If businesses exist simply to make their owners a "nice big fat juicy profit" then that is a pretty sick way of thinking.

That sort of thinking is exactly what led to the GFC. Greedy corporations who only cared about stuffing their own pockets and made fraudulent behaviour a business (ie selling toxic sub prime mortgage packages to clients, buying off the rating agencies to ensure they rated these packages AAA, and then shorting these packages to make more money after they failed).

Corporations also should have a social responsibility not just a profit making one, not just to their customers but also to their employees.

Which is exactly why you need regulations to ensure that customers AND employees aren't exploited.



The stupidity is awe inspiring.

Climate change policy........lol wages havent been growing for 30 years. Long before countries started taking real action on climate change.

If your theory was correct, the repeal of the carbon tax would have seen a surge in wages. It didn't.

Its funny how you always cite countries other than the Scandinavian countries as your examples of socialism.

What about Norway, Denmark, Iceland, Sweden, Finland etc? All high taxing countries with strong regulation of markets and large amounts of government spending on healthcare/education etc.

They also outrank almost every other country on all the social indexes.

All businesses should are required to follow the law but beyond that they do not have a social responsibility.

Why do you think people invest money into a business be it big or small ? to make more money for themselves in return.

Wages should simply be left to the free market with a minimal safety net.

Wages have not been stagnant for 30 years, more like 10 don't you remember r how good things were under the Howard government ?

The Scandinavian countries are not full blown socialists countries as they are very pro business. They do have high levels of individual taxation and high levels of government spending which will soon have to fixed before the debts gets worse and they become a basket case. This strategy can only last so long and will fail like it always does.

 

[geelong_crazy26]

Fingers crossed he actually is. Would be a major positive for Australia.

Trumps latest supreme court nominee will insure the supreme court will 100% be a court that represents the view of the silent majority rather than the vocal minority.

I have no doubt many policies to do with PC and identity politics will be undone .

 

[Satan]

This... is the self proclaimed genius

Trump Real Estate is back

Says wont comment about Brexit
Next minnit blasts May in the Sun interview

 

[cartwright]

Trump Real Estate is back

Says wont comment about Brexit
Next minnit blasts May in the Sun interview

I think the most important points in answering a question about Brexit, were that he has property in the UK, and how there were protests when he won the election....

 

[Satan]

I think the most important points in answering a question about Brexit, were that he has property in the UK, and how there were protests when he won the election....

And his mum was born in Scotland

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

This... is the self proclaimed genius

Translation: I've had to read about Brexit recently because I'm coming here but I didn't. Luckily someone told me the PM wants to stay partially involved with the EU, and that I should say nothing about it.

Buying time... don't want to sound dumb, but don't know much... mention Scottish property? Good plug there... hmm, he's still looking at me expectantly...
my Mum's from Scotland... I gave Woody Johnson the ambassadorship, that guy is rich... where am I going with all this... I'm not meant to say anything. But there are lots of real journos here... ...Heartbreaking? Oh Hard Brexit. Crap that was mentioned by someone. What was that? It was like what Putin wants... I should say something on that, he wants me to. But not too much yet. A lot of my voters are anti-immigrant so I guess most people are. What's the big deal:

Brexit is Brexit. Others will protest, but I got voted in, so I guess I have the majority.

Nice work, Don. That wasn't too full on and you got a brag in there. Mention your property! There are lots of attractive Europeans. Better tell them I'll be in Scotland... although that reminds me, I'm there waiting two days to meet Putin. There's so much waiting as President. No-one mentions that. Should I? No, no. Everyone says it makes me sound lazy... Meeting Putin. Oh boy. He will want me to say this stuff and be full on... I think I've hidden it in waffle enough:

Voters don't like immigration. The EU should break up. Next question.

 

[Nikita Blue]

This... is the self proclaimed genius

The one I really feel sorry for is Alec Baldwin.

 

[Showbags]

The Scandinavian countries are not full blown socialists countries as they are very pro business. They do have high levels of individual taxation and high levels of government spending which will soon have to fixed before the debts gets worse and they become a basket case. This strategy can only last so long and will fail like it always does.

Exactly, they have a healthy mix of capitalism and socialism. Which is what the majority on the left argue for (not your constant reds under the bed scare campaign you imagine in your head). You are the extremist that wants government out of everything other than the police and military.

Their debt to gdp levels are much lower than other more laissez faire countries like the US.

Plus they outrank the US on almost every social index as well.

Trumps latest supreme court nominee will insure the supreme court will 100% be a court that represents the view of the silent majority rather than the vocal minority.

I have no doubt many policies to do with PC and identity politics will be undone .

Going by Kavanaugh's decision record. The only people he will be representing is the rich end of town. He is a Washington insider from way back.

All businesses should are required to follow the law but beyond that they do not have a social responsibility.

But if people like you get their way, there will be no laws or regulations enforcing any corporate responsibility whatsoever.

That sort of sociopathic thinking is what leads to the James Hardie type situations.​

 

[FireKrakouer]

Sorry what? Quoting you was misleading? No wonder you're a Trump fan.

What did you read about? Tell me what you discovered through your research. Because so far, you seem obsessed with Trump's anti-PC tone and have offered SFA besides that.

Define "real America". Does this exclude NYC and LA? Why?

You're still jarringly short on detail, aren't you?

I'm not sure what point you're making here.

It's just rhetoric. What has Trump actually done? He says "respect the police" and that's some big achievement? That aside, your dichotomy is absurd. Obama did not say they're all racist flogs. That's more bullshit from you.

And when did Trump appoint Giuliani? He hasn't held any position in Trump's administration. He has become a talking head to go on TV to attack Mueller – one of the country's most decorated law enforcement agents. How does that chime with "respect for law and order"?

How is that brilliant and effective?

Australia and Germany are both US allies. What is this "bending the knee" bullshit?

And what has the summit achieved?

North Korea has been gagging for that kind of meeting for 25 years. Does accepting make Trump some kind of master dealmaker?

You tell me. You've made no coherent case for Trump here.

Again, you provide zero substance to support your position. Everyone is accutely aware of "the context" of the NK summit. The question is whether it achieved anything.

Trump just declares it a historic breakthrough and moves on, relying on the fact that people like you have neither the attention to detail nor grasp of policy to question his pronouncements.

Using a PC vs a poor smartphone warrior like me doesn't necessarily give your argument any more credence re the multi quoting.

I have explained twice now how Trump's anti PC comments were a significant component (significant, but not the ONLY component) to me being open to him. Stop deliberately misunderstanding the comment to claim some lame victory, as seems to be your MO.

I explained exactly what I thought of Real America. To be more specific, I think of 80s American music, large motorbikes, a baby on one hip, a bible or an AR15 on the other. You know as well as I do the culture that made the US the world's superpower, and also the change in this culture that has lead to it losing superpower status.

I support Real America, not the latte sipping elites in CA who have only ever made money off the public purse and never been net tax payers.

What has Trump actually done for law and order? What a ridiculous question. I already stated that his rhetoric suggests the law should be followed, whereas his predecessor encouraged it being challenged. Then there are the numerous officials, including 2 SC justices, he has/is putting in power. Do you must argue for the sake of it? Even when you know how ridiculously wrong you are?

The last part of your rant I recall is KJU. This may well fall apart. He went against the deep state and attempted peace. Whether he succeeds or fails, how is this any worse than anyone else in his position could do?

 

[FireKrakouer]

Exactly, they have a healthy mix of capitalism and socialism. Which is what the majority on the left argue for (not your constant reds under the bed scare campaign you imagine in your head). You are the extremist that wants government out of everything other than the police and military.

Their debt to gdp levels are much lower than other more laissez faire countries like the US.

Plus they outrank the US on almost every social index as well.



Going by Kavanaugh's decision record. The only people he will be representing is the rich end of town. He is a Washington insider from way back.



But if people like you get their way, there will be no laws or regulations enforcing any corporate responsibility whatsoever.

That sort of sociopathic thinking is what leads to the James Hardie type situations.​

Mate, they are all abandoning their current schemes, as they are unaffordable even with the US paying for their defence costs, let alone without it.

Do a little research. Socialism has only ever resulted in one thing: failure. Even half-hearted, 5% democratic socialism, like in the nordic countries, with the US funding their defense, has failed. Embrace aussie style capitalism ffs.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Using a PC vs a poor smartphone warrior like me doesn't necessarily give your argument any more credence re the multi quoting.

Agreed. What gives my argument more credence is that you appear to have no argument at all.

You like Trump because of his anti-PC tone, whatever that means. You have not offered anything beyond that to explain your support.

I have explained twice now how Trump's anti PC comments were a significant component (significant, but not the ONLY component) to me being open to him. Stop deliberately misunderstanding the comment to claim some lame victory, as seems to be your MO.

You said: "I thought Trump was a jerk as I'd traveled to Hawaii where they love Barry and think Trump is FOS over the birther stuff. But then I heard Trump decry the leftist epidemic of PC and I was sold."

You were sold. Because Trump said something about political correctness. That's all it took. That's what you said. You are a rube.

You also said you then did further research, further reading. And I've asked you what that entailed but you haven't given me an answer.

I explained exactly what I thought of Real America. To be more specific, I think of 80s American music, large motorbikes, a baby on one hip, a bible or an AR15 on the other. You know as well as I do the culture that made the US the world's superpower, and also the change in this culture that has lead to it losing superpower status.

So "real America" is a series of Americana stereotypes from 30 years ago? And whoever embraces that most uncritically is good at presidenting?

Seriously, where do you come up with this rubbish? Give me one bit of real, substantive detail that explains your support for Trump.

I support Real America, not the latte sipping elites in CA who have only ever made money off the public purse and never been net tax payers.

What about the draft-dodging billionaire with a golden toilet?

Nah he's way better than someone who *shock horror* drinks a latte.

Again, give me one bit of real detail or real information. All you offer is a series of bullshit talking points.

What has Trump actually done for law and order? What a ridiculous question.

And what's your answer?

I already stated that his rhetoric suggests the law should be followed, whereas his predecessor encouraged it being challenged.

You reckon Obama thought the law shouldn't be followed? Really? He was a constitutional law professor. I reckon he's got far more reverence for the letter of the law than Trump.

Again, you have literally nothing of substance to support your argument.

Then there are the numerous officials, including 2 SC justices, he has/is putting in power.

Yeah, that's what presidents do. Presidents get to nominate SC justices. Do you think that makes Trump special?

Do you must argue for the sake of it? Even when you know how ridiculously wrong you are?

I'm waiting for you to make a single coherent point.

The last part of your rant I recall is KJU. This may well fall apart. He went against the deep state and attempted peace. Whether he succeeds or fails, how is this any worse than anyone else in his position could do?

So what did the summit achieve? Anything? What did the US get out of it?

Bear in mind, Trump did this not long after reneging on the Iran nuclear deal. So if "attempting peace" is your criteria, how do you figure Trump is in front on that score? There was a deal with Iran. They were complying. But Trump scrapped it anyway. But then he does a photo-op with the world's worst dictator and you want to give him a pat on the back for that?

Again, just give me a single piece of substance to support your argument.

 

[Maggie5]

This... is the self proclaimed genius

He has the best words...

Yet to hear him use anything except terms a child would use.