President Donald J. Trump

[PB the Deplorable]

... Okay...Trump has been prosecuted for racially motivated employer law transgressions. Trump made the birther thing into a full time mission statement, lied about a detective in Hawaii 'Not believing what he's seeing'. Later denying he'd done any of that although he's on TV saying so! He called out a US born judge because of his Hispanic heritage, because the case went against him. In his rally shouts out "Where's MY African American?' What did he expect? "I is here masser, do ya want me to take out the garbage masser?' Not a racist incident, but he's also ridiculed the disabled, women in general, and even POW's who weren't heroic enough because they got caught and spent several years in a shithole in South East Asia.

This from a cunt who dodged the draft at least five times.. As an aside I personally know several Vietnam vets and one Korean vet. Army, marines, airforce and my next door neighbours who were both in the Vietnam war in the Navy. (he on  a carrier she in intelligence) All of them (including at least two VERY republican voters) despise Trump. The Korean vet (Airforce sergeant now 88 years old) has to keep his temper whenever Trump is mentioned, he truly loathes him. But I guess they're all fucking liberal commie bastards?...

You ever hear the story about the boy who cried ''wolf''?

We all know that Trump isn't perfect (but he doesn't hate the country and won't try to divide it and ruin it like Obama and his party, and he isn't a corrupt crook like Hilary Clinton).  He's no one's choice for moral leader.

But we've heard so many lies, smears, and distortions about Trump that we just ignore them now.  By people who ignored or excused Obama's conduct, and who voted for Hilary Clinton.  If you were trying to convince us he's the worst person in the world, you've failed - he isn't even the worst person between him and his predecessor, or between him and his opponent in the election.  He's not a worse person than most of those in media. 

As far as the items in your post, so what?  After all the filth that's been dumped on Trump, you think people are going to continue to take any more of it seriously?  Or will they think this is just more of the same, very likely lies, smears, and distortions, by people who've been lying, smearing, and distorting from the start?  Do you think anyone is going to sit back and decide to look into it?  You and they have cried wolf a little too often for that.

As far as your neighbors who fought in the military - so what?  That doesn't make their opinions any more valid than anyone else's.  What, you think they have special knowledge or insight into Trump because they were in a war 50 years ago?

[Yorkshire pud]

Hard evidence is forthcoming.  I have been aware of Democrat voter fraud since Sam Giancana fixed the 1960 Presidntial Election in Chicago for JFK at the behest of Joe Kennedy.  The problem with leftists/Democrats is that, having no no moral compass, they don't care if they win by fraud or not.  It's all the same to them.

Any day now you mean? Isn't that the meme?

[GravitySucks]

Because Trump completely misunderstands (I know, weird eh?) how NATO and the member states contribute to its upkeep and how the protocols are drawn up. I don't expect you to agree but that is the fact of the matter. Which 'false' narrative? Trump was right, he could shoot someone on fifth avenue and he'd still get supported. Putin could tell you via a translator his assets had hacked into US and European elections and you'd still say he hadn't.

No he understands that only 5 of 28 countries were meeting the 2% spending target when he raised the issue.

http://www.businessinsider.com/nato-share-breakdown-country-2017-2

[Yorkshire pud]

You ever hear the story about the boy who cried ''wolf''?

We all know that Trump isn't perfect (but he doesn't hate the country and won't try to ruin it like Obama and most of his party, and he isn't a corrupt crook like Hilary Clinton and much of DC).  He's no one's choice for moral leader.

But we'vre heard so many lies and distortions about Trump that we just ignore them now.  If you were trying to convince us he's the worst person in the world, you've failed - he isn't even the worst person between him and his predecessor, or between him and his opponent in the election. 

As far as the items you've posted above, so what?  After all the filth that's been dumped at Trump, you think people are going to continue to take any more of it seriously?  Or do you think this is just more of the same, very likely lies and distortions, by people who've been lying and distorting from the start?  Do you think anyone is going to sit back and deide to look into it?  You and they have cried wolf a little too often for that.

As far as your neighbors who fought in the military - so what?  That doesn't make their opinions any more valid than anyone else's.  What, you think they have special knowledge or insight?*

There's too much hypocrisy in that to take seriously. I could find and post your own posts tearing into Trump but I can't be bothered. 

*Oh? Trump said he knew more than the generals did about military operations. This is a coward who dodged the draft by having 'Heel spurs', although they didn't stop him playing field sports. He's got around his expertise since by devolving his role to the Joint Chiefs, which works well for him (as it did when the SEAL got killed in Yemen) because he can blame them for operations that don't go so well. I mean, we can't have Donny taking responsibility can we? That would be unfair.

[Swishypants]

YOU GOT A MANGINA!!!

[Yorkshire pud]

No he understands that only 5 of 28 countries were meeting the 2% spending target when he raised the issue.

http://www.businessinsider.com/nato-share-breakdown-country-2017-2

The word 'target' is significant. But that the US spends more on arms than the next 26 countries combined (including Russia and China) isn't the fault of the other NATO countries. The same NATO countries that coincidentally provide a great deal of intelligence and overseas bases that are provided for the USA. Look up Menwith Hill just for starters.

[Yorkshire pud]

You ever hear the story about the boy who cried ''wolf''?

We all know that Trump isn't perfect (but he doesn't hate the country and won't try to divide it and ruin it like Obama and his party, and he isn't a corrupt crook like Hilary Clinton).  He's no one's choice for moral leader.

Oh fuck that's funny! You know don't you the Trump philosophy? Adore Trump or be cast to the wind. He couldn't care less about the country, he just says what makes his (reducing) base cheer. That's it. If it gets him more cheers, he says it more. That is his sole motivation and need. If you don't believe that, you've been living on a distant planet.

[GravitySucks]

The word 'target' is significant. But that the US spends more on arms than the next 26 countries combined (including Russia and China) isn't the fault of the other NATO countries. The same NATO countries that coincidentally provide a great deal of intelligence and overseas bases that are provided for the USA. Look up Menwith Hill just for starters.

Hey fuckwad. The discussion was Trump's statement about NATO funding. You tried to deflect it and miscategorize it to only be NATO projects. I provided a reliable source to show which countries are not meeting the targets that were established as treaty signatories. Now you are trying to deflect by changing the discussion to the US funding levels. At the same time, Trump was calling for increased US defense budgets, he wasn't suggesting we should cut back to 2%.

You can go back to Yorkshire anytime you think it is nicer there. Your visa doesn't say you have to stay here. Really.

[PB the Deplorable]

Because Trump completely misunderstands (I know, weird eh?) how NATO and the member states contribute to its upkeep and how the protocols are drawn up. I don't expect you to agree but that is the fact of the matter. Which 'false' narrative? Trump was right, he could shoot someone on fifth avenue and he'd still get supported. Putin could tell you via a translator his assets had hacked into US and European elections and you'd still say he hadn't.

NATO members do not pay their cash support.  It's a percentage of their GDP, and they shirk on it. 

The rest of your post is meaningless supposition.  When are you going to tell us exactly what the Russians were supposed to have done, and Trump's role in it?  You demand Trump call him out, don't you think he's going to ask for details of what he's being accused of?  What then?

[Kidnostad3]

Europe is done for. Who cares? They will all be breed out of existence in 40 years. They don't even control their own nations now! All the strong stock went to Texas.

Yeah, that's what's so hard to understand.  Muslims have overrun Europe, are out of control and are an existential threat to western civilization but leftist Europeans  are more worried about Trump requiring them to pull their OWN weight. 

A case in point is our own Yorkshire Pudding.  He spends all his time bashing Trump but has little or nothing to say about his Muslim brothers under the skin back home in the U.K. achieving protected status, gaining political power and eating everyone's lunch.  Oh, and then there's the occasional bombing or machete attack.   WTF?

[Swishypants]

[Yorkshire pud]

Hey fuckwad. The discussion was Trump's statement about NATO funding. You tried to deflect it and miscategorize it to only be NATO projects. I provided a reliable source to show which countries are not meeting the targets that were established as treaty signatories. Now you are trying to deflect by changing the discussion to the US funding levels. At the same time, Trump was calling for increased US defense budgets, he wasn't suggesting we should cut back to 2%.

You can go back to Yorkshire anytime you think it is nicer there. Your visa doesn't say you have to stay here. Really.

Target!!! If a country has a choice between domestic expenditure to help the population and defence spending, it should choose the former. Including the USA. I honestly don't see why more should be spent other than to keep the defence industries who put money into politicians campaign budgets, happy..Oh yeah.. 

[Yorkshire pud]

Yeah, that's what's so hard to understand.  Muslims have overrun Europe, are out of control and are an existential threat to western civilization but leftist Europeans  are more worried about Trump requiring them to pull their OWN weight. 

A case in point is our own Yorkshire Pudding.  He spends all his time bashing Trump but has little or nothing to say about his Muslim brothers under the skin back home in the U.K. achieving protected status, gaining political power and eating everyone's lunch.  Oh, and then there's the occasional bombing or machete attack.   WTF?

Why? Because what you say is complete bollox. Its laughably so!

[PB the Deplorable]

I still do loath Thatcher because of the economic and social devastation she inflicted on the UK manufacturing industries. And the mendacious crap about how privatising utilities and the railways that the British tax payer already owned by selling them back to them: Not quite, they went to hedge funds, foreign companies and in the railways case German and French nationalised railway companies..oh the irony!

BUT, she was correct in embracing Gorbachev's ideas and courage. She was correct in calling Guallatiri's bluff over the Falklands. He seriously under estimated the resolve of the British military in that little misadventure.

But other than that I have few positive things to say about her.

Based on your silly unfounded posts regarding Trump, I'm going to guess that the media sources you prefer don't like Thather, and distort her record by amplifying her mistakes and downplaying her successes.  With an endless avalanche of filth thrown in.  Obviously you're not going to deny her indisputable victories regarding the Falklands and the USSR.

Tell me, how does eliminating the Soviet Union without war compare with the trivial crap you've brought up?  As opposed to ''inflicting economic and social devistation on UK industries'', her actual accomplishment was revitalizing the falling-off-a-cliff failing British economy of the 1970s.  Whoever told you otherwise is lying.

[Yorkshire pud]

NATO members do not pay their cash support.  It's a percentage of their GDP, and they shirk on it. 

The rest of your post is meaningless supposition.  When are you going to tell us exactly what the Russians were supposed to have done, and Trump's role in it?  You demand Trump call him out, don't you think he's going to ask for details of what he's being accused of?  What then?

LOL, yet you parrot anything that is anti Clinton! It prompted some nutjob going to a pizza palour to shoot it up because he was sure they ate children there! Fuck, and he is allowed to vote?

https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/paul-horner-fake-news-writer-dead-at-38/

[PB the Deplorable]

The word 'target' is significant. But that the US spends more on arms than the next 26 countries combined (including Russia and China) isn't the fault of the other NATO countries. The same NATO countries that coincidentally provide a great deal of intelligence and overseas bases that are provided for the USA. Look up Menwith Hill just for starters.

What we spend elsewhere is irrelevent to what they've agreed to pay.  What bases they provide is irrelevent to what they've agreed to pay.

[PB the Deplorable]

Oh fuck that's funny! You know don't you the Trump philosophy? Adore Trump or be cast to the wind. He couldn't care less about the country, he just says what makes his (reducing) base cheer. That's it. If it gets him more cheers, he says it more. That is his sole motivation and need. If you don't believe that, you've been living on a distant planet.

All I see is more division from the Democrats and their media allies

[Yorkshire pud]

Based on your silly unfounded posts regarding Trump, I'm going to guess that the media sources you prefer don't like Thather, and distort her record by amplifying her mistakes and downplaying her successes.  With an endless avalanche of filth thrown in.  Obviously you're not going to deny her indisputable victories regarding the Falklands and the USSR.

Tell me, how does eliminating the Soviet Union without war compare with the trivial crap you've brought up?  As opposed to ''inflicting economic and social devistation on UK industries'', her actual accomplishment was revitalizing the falling-off-a-cliff failing British economy of the 1970s.  Whoever told you otherwise is lying.

Trivial crap? Mass unemployment? Selling off assets OWNED by the British taxpayer to foreign countries is trivial? You're so idiotic its unbelievable.

[PB the Deplorable]

Target!!! If a country has a choice between domestic expenditure to help the population and defence spending, it should choose the former. Including the USA. I honestly don't see why more should be spent other than to keep the defence industries who put money into politicians campaign budgets, happy..Oh yeah..

There is never an end to what ''could'' be done for people to make their lives easier.  The government's Job 1 is security.

[GravitySucks]

Target!!! If a country has a choice between domestic expenditure to help the population and defence spending, it should choose the former. Including the USA. I honestly don't see why more should be spent other than to keep the defence industries who put money into politicians campaign budgets, happy..Oh yeah..

The bulk of our expenditures have been to keep the free world's nuclear deterrence capability. You know, to keep those bad guys like Putin feom deciding they want to own your cute little island. I know the UK has some nukes. We will see how committed the UK is when their boomer subs and missiles need to be replaced due to obsolescence.

That allows other countries like Canada to shirk their NATO commitment and spend less than 1% of GDP. You are so disingenuous when it comes to Trump. You try to justify countries not meeting their NATO targets and then attack Trump by claiming he wouldn't react to an invocation of Article 5.

In a perfect world we wouldn't have to spend 1% on defense. Maybe if the UK had not fucked up the whole Middle East and Chinese relations, we wouldn't have half the troubles we have today. That whole empire thing sure caused some long lasting problems.

[Yorkshire pud]

What we spend elsewhere is irrelevent to what they've agreed to pay.  What bases they provide is irrelevent to what they've agreed to pay.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-2-percent-nato-benchmark-red-herring-19472

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/26/world/europe/nato-trump-spending.html?mcubz=1

What is Mr. Trump’s complaint?

“NATO members must finally contribute their fair share and meet their financial obligations, for 23 of the 28 member nations are still not paying what they should be paying and what they’re supposed to be paying for their defense,” he said.

Yes and No. NATO has a budget to cover common civilian and military costs, and some NATO-owned assets are also commonly funded when they are used in operations. The United States pays 22 percent of those costs, according to a formula based on national income. None of the NATO allies are in arrears on these contributions.

Mr. Trump is referring imprecisely to a goal NATO has set for each member to spend at least 2 percent of its gross domestic product on its own defense each year. He is correct that only five of the 28 members currently meet that goal, and they are the United States, Greece, Britain, Estonia and Poland.


Are NATO nations violating a rule?

No. The 2 percent standard is just a guideline, not a legally binding requirement. In 2006, even as the United States was increasing military spending because of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, European allies were shrinking their military spending. NATO defense ministers that year adopted a guideline suggesting that each spend the equivalent of 2 percent of its annual economic output on its military â€" but it was a target, not a rule, and not endorsed by heads of state.

[PB the Deplorable]

LOL, yet you parrot anything that is anti Clinton! It prompted some nutjob going to a pizza palour to shoot it up because he was sure they ate children there! Fuck, and he is allowed to vote?

https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/paul-horner-fake-news-writer-dead-at-38/

Well, I've never said a thing about that.  I haven't even read what it's supposed to be. 

The anti-Clinton things I ''parrot'' are either events I've lived through and remember the details of, or are very clear cut cases.  As opposed to your bullshit about Trump shooting someone on 5th Avenue and whatever else was in your post. 

[Yorkshire pud]

The bulk of our expenditures have been to keep the free world's nuclear deterrence capability. You know, to keep those bad guys like Putin feom deciding they want to own your cute little island. I know the UK has some nukes. We will see how committed the UK is when their boomer subs and missiles need to be replaced due to obsolescence.

That allows other countries like Canada to shirk their NATO commitment and spend less than 1% of GDP. You are so disingenuous when it comes to Trump. You try to justify countries not meeting their NATO targets and then attack Trump by claiming he wouldn't react to an invocation of Article 5.

In a perfect world we wouldn't have to spend 1% on defense. Maybe if the UK had not fucked up the whole Middle East and Chinese relations, we wouldn't have half the troubles we have today. That whole empire thing sure caused some long lasting problems.

Hey, go back further. I think it started to unravel with the Vikings invading the east of Britain and then ventured to Newfoundland. I'm not sure the Norman invasion was without its long term negative effects either.

[Swishypants]

The bulk of our expenditures have been to keep the free world's nuclear deterrence capability. You know, to keep those bad guys like Putin feom deciding they want to own your cute little island. I know the UK has some nukes. We will see how committed the UK is when their boomer subs and missiles need to be replaced due to obsolescence.

That allows other countries like Canada to shirk their NATO commitment and spend less than 1% of GDP. You are so disingenuous when it comes to Trump. You try to justify countries not meeting their NATO targets and then attack Trump by claiming he wouldn't react to an invocation of Article 5.

In a perfect world we wouldn't have to spend 1% on defense. Maybe if the UK had not fucked up the whole Middle East and Chinese relations, we wouldn't have half the troubles we have today. That whole empire thing sure caused some long lasting problems.

WELL PLAYED!

[Yorkshire pud]

Well, I've never said a thing about that.  I haven't even read what it's supposed to be. 

The anti-Clinton things I ''parrot'' are either events I've lived through and remember the details of, or are very clear cut cases.  As opposed to your bullshit about Trump shooting someone on 5th Avenue and whatever else was in your post.

He said that, he said he could do it and get away with it.

[PB the Deplorable]

Trivial crap? Mass unemployment? Selling off assets OWNED by the British taxpayer to foreign countries is trivial? You're so idiotic its unbelievable.

Yes, a worldwide recession she didn't cause, and that the economy bounced back from is trivial compared to freeing the world from the Soviet Union. 

Selling off assets?  Really?  You think that's the biggest event since WWII?  If the Labor Party had done the very same thing, you'd be just fine with it.

[PB the Deplorable]

... The 2 percent standard is just a guideline, not a legally binding requirement... it was a target..

The word 'target' is significant..

Target!!!...

So pay up

[GravitySucks]

Hey, go back further. I think it started to unravel with the Vikings invading the east of Britain and then ventured to Newfoundland. I'm not sure the Norman invasion was without its long term negative effects either.

I am waiting for Season 5 to see if the Vikings made it to the Middle East. They made it into the Mediterranean in season 4.

[Taaroa]

Has Washington forgotten about us? One year passes with no US ambassador to Australia
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-29/us-ambassador-to-australia-job-still-vacant-after-one-year/8998992


"P-please pay attention to us! Please..."

[Lt.Uhura]

All I see is more division from the Democrats and their media allies

Why on earth do you spend such a huge chunk of your daily life on an impassioned mission to bash the Democratic party? What's in it for you? You can't be foolish enough to think that politicians are as devoted to party lines as you are.

Trump himself was a Democrat until he saw an opportunity for advancement as a Republican. His own lawyer, Michael Cohen was a registered Democrat until March of this year. These guys could care less about party affiliation. While you and other lemmings wage war on "Leftists", Trump and his cronies laugh all the way to the bank. Their party is one of greed and opportunity, and has nothing to do with the abstract moral ideology you imagine. FFS, wake up P Boy!