International News Donald Trump 🍊🇺🇸

Essexyellows said:
I`ll say it again, any type of "ism" is defined by your own definition and perceptions, your unconscious bias.
I happen to think that our Irish caravan dwelling "traveller" brethren are the scum of the earth.
I would have them persecuted to within every letter of the law until they fit in or "f" off
I am of Irish/Welsh heritage.
Does that make me "racist" ? Nope, just someone who despises those who urinate in the face of society.

Likewise Trump invokes a "Twitter storm" with blunt language aimed at political enemies..... its what he does.
In 2018, during an Oval Office meeting about immigration reform, he referred to El Salvador, Haiti, and African countries as "shitholes", a comment that was internationally condemned as racist............. but probably true! Blunt language does not a racist make.........
Click to expand...
How about telling people (not 'just' people but elected representatives of the people, just as he is himself) that they should 'go back' where they came from which was apparently "countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe "? Actually it's true because they originally came from the USA, but I'm not sure he meant that! That isn't 'blunt language'. It is inaccurate and racist. I don't know why you are defending Trump over this? Even if you admire some of his policies, surely stuff like this is out of order?
 
Gary Baldi said:
Did you read what came out?
Click to expand...

Yes I did and there wasn't anything particularly in the Mail on Sunday article.

Darroch gave his opinion as to what he thought the basis/motivations of Trump's approach for Iran and that there was no alternative policy, just to drop the deal as it was under Obama. He clearly had conversations with Trump's immediate staff in the White House based on his comments about them, and them not knowing/confusion as to what the policy from then onwards was to be.

Funnily enough this is exactly what Darroch is supposed to do, provide information and opinions on what is going in the White House/US political institutions sending it back as CONFIDENTIAL Govt communication.

Especially as our Govt was trying to save the Iranian nuclear deal at the time but Trump had no problem throwing us and the other allies in the deal under a bus.

Johnson also threw Darroch under the bus in the live debate and his lying in the subsequent interviews claiming he hadn't was, whilst utterly predictable, embarrassing for Johnson. I certainly would hold back information/opinions in writing if I was in that situation unless I was able to say it in person or on the phone because Johnson is so utterly untrustworthy that he won't back key diplomatic staff.

So why then?
 
sadoldsod1778 said:
And yes i do think the BBC is pro EU anti USA and also very left of centre i can think that if i want to.
Pete we are all different lets go back to the football then we might aree
Click to expand...

You mean the likes of centre left Andrew Neil?!
 
A bit more background.... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-48990760

DT`s most recent tweets.........

"When will the Radical Left Congresswomen apologise to our country, the people of Israel and even to the office of the President, for the foul language they have used, and the terrible things they have said. So many people are angry at them and their horrible and disgusting actions," he said.

"If Democrats want to unite around the foul language and racist hatred spewed from the mouths and actions of these very unpopular and unrepresentative Congresswomen, it will be interesting to see how it plays out. I can tell you that they have made Israel feel abandoned by the US."

Mr Trump was referring to a prior row with Ms Omar, who has faced accusations of anti-Semitism over comments she made about Israel and pro-Israel lobbyists earlier this year.

Ms Tlaib, the other Muslim serving in Congress, has also had to defend herself from calls of anti-Semitism from Republicans after she discussed the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on a Yahoo News Podcast in May.


You are either racist or an anti-Semite these days!
 
Just to re-iterate - you can be critical of the Israeli state without being anti-semitic.

And Trump calling other people 'racist' is (frankly) hilarious, in a rictus grin sort of way.
 
Yesterday's tweet was, in my opinion, the most racist thing that Trump has said or done.

"Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came" is absolutely textbook alt right/white power language.

The only defense you can really muster is that he didn't actually name the people he was referring to.

So maybe he was just being racist towards legal first generation immigrants (Ilhan Omar) rather than second generation immigrants (Rashida Tlaib), Puerto Ricans (AOC - in case people forget....which most Americans do....Puerto Ricans have been US citizens for more than a century now) and African Americans in general (Ayanna Pressley).

But the logical interpretation is that he was referring to all four, as that's how they've been discussed in the national narrative the past couple of weeks.

Course, even if he is just referring to Omar - his wife is Slovenian, and his mum was a Scot. So some first generation immigrants are OK in his head....as long as they come from the 'good' countries.
 
I think that most people misunderstand President Trump. He's just a little dyslexic. He continually says that he wants to make America grate again, and he's succeeded beyond his wildest dreams.
 
Whingit said:
Or both, in Trump's case.
View attachment 1773
"Jew Bastard"
Click to expand...
Just wait and see what Slick Willy was involved in with Epstein - will make the Trump stuff look tame and Trump's co-operation all those years ago as relatively virtuous. There are some quite sordid allegations that I won't be repeating about a plane ride or 12 that Slick Willy took for very obvious reasons! Also, Epstein's relationship with Ghislaine Maxwell is worth looking at too, but leaving it vague for good reasons!

I do laugh at the Gang of Fours response. One called Trump a m'fer in her first week of office, one has some interesting family history involving her brother and immigration status with a cherry of persistent anti-semitism on the top, one went on a rant last week about not needing any more brown faces that don't want to be a brown voice at the table (sounds pretty racist, among other epithets) and the other is AOC.

They and Trump are 5 peas from the same idiot pod. They deserve each others faux outrage at each other. They all say dumb ? s**t and at the wrong time.
 
Marked Ox said:
Yes I did and there wasn't anything particularly in the Mail on Sunday article.

Darroch gave his opinion as to what he thought the basis/motivations of Trump's approach for Iran and that there was no alternative policy, just to drop the deal as it was under Obama. He clearly had conversations with Trump's immediate staff in the White House based on his comments about them, and them not knowing/confusion as to what the policy from then onwards was to be.

Funnily enough this is exactly what Darroch is supposed to do, provide information and opinions on what is going in the White House/US political institutions sending it back as CONFIDENTIAL Govt communication.

Especially as our Govt was trying to save the Iranian nuclear deal at the time but Trump had no problem throwing us and the other allies in the deal under a bus.

Johnson also threw Darroch under the bus in the live debate and his lying in the subsequent interviews claiming he hadn't was, whilst utterly predictable, embarrassing for Johnson. I certainly would hold back information/opinions in writing if I was in that situation unless I was able to say it in person or on the phone because Johnson is so utterly untrustworthy that he won't back key diplomatic staff.

So why then?
Click to expand...
Did you not see their personal relationship is not good and there is animosity between both them because of various incidents such that Johnson was never going to back a man he didn't like that he knew was off in a few months anyway? His obfuscation fits perfectly with their history. Check out the Sunday Times for more details - I think it was Tim Montogmery but need to go to the recycling bin to find out. I read around 200+ articles a week, so if I can't recall specific details, it's for a good reason.
 
Gary Baldi said:
Did you not see their personal relationship is not good and there is animosity between both them because of various incidents such that Johnson was never going to back a man he didn't like that he knew was off in a few months anyway? His obfuscation fits perfectly with their history. Check out the Sunday Times for more details - I think it was Tim Montogmery but need to go to the recycling bin to find out. I read around 200+ articles a week, so if I can't recall specific details, it's for a good reason.
Click to expand...

That report didn't talk about the relationship between Darroch and the White House before the leaks not being professional. In actual fact, it showed plenty of links, via Darroch's comments between the British Ambassador and White House. Darroch is an experienced Ambassador and you don't get the US position without being such so would act professionally in his dealings. He would have been sacked earlier otherwise.

So Johnson shouldn't back his Ambassador because he is leaving? And guess what, I bet plenty of other Ambassadors don't have good relationships with the hosts' leader. I bet the Ambassador to Russia has written some scathing things about Putin, will Johnson chuck him under the bus as well if his reports get leaked?

The British Ambassador is there to represent the British Govt, fight for British policy and detail/opine with honesty about what the Americans are doing. They aren't there to be Trump's mate.

Johnson has basically undermined Ambassadors and Embassy staff elsewhere by being Trump's lapdog in this case and not backing Darroch. Noticeably, there was no equivocation from May and no delay in doing so.
 
Gary Baldi said:
Did you not see their personal relationship is not good and there is animosity between both them because of various incidents such that Johnson was never going to back a man he didn't like that he knew was off in a few months anyway? His obfuscation fits perfectly with their history. Check out the Sunday Times for more details - I think it was Tim Montogmery but need to go to the recycling bin to find out. I read around 200+ articles a week, so if I can't recall specific details, it's for a good reason.
Click to expand...

That report didn't talk about the relationship between Darroch and the White House before the leaks not being professional. In actual fact, it showed plenty of links, via Darroch's comments between the British Ambassador and White House. Darroch is an experienced Ambassador and you don't get the US position without being such so would act professionally in his dealings. He would have been sacked earlier otherwise.

So Johnson shouldn't back his Ambassador because he is leaving? And guess what, I bet plenty of other Ambassadors don't have good relationships with the hosts' leader. I bet the Ambassador to Russia has written some scathing things about Putin, will Johnson chuck him under the bus as well if his reports get leaked?

The British Ambassador is there to represent the British Govt, fight for British policy and detail/opine with honesty about what the Americans are doing. They aren't there to be Trump's mate.

Johnson has basically undermined Ambassadors and Embassy staff elsewhere by being Trump's lapdog in this case and not backing Darroch. Noticeably, there was no equivocation from May and no delay in doing so.
 
Marked Ox said:
That report didn't talk about the relationship between Darroch and the White House before the leaks not being professional. In actual fact, it showed plenty of links, via Darroch's comments between the British Ambassador and White House. Darroch is an experienced Ambassador and you don't get the US position without being such so would act professionally in his dealings. He would have been sacked earlier otherwise.

So Johnson shouldn't back his Ambassador because he is leaving? And guess what, I bet plenty of other Ambassadors don't have good relationships with the hosts' leader. I bet the Ambassador to Russia has written some scathing things about Putin, will Johnson chuck him under the bus as well if his reports get leaked?

The British Ambassador is there to represent the British Govt, fight for British policy and detail/opine with honesty about what the Americans are doing. They aren't there to be Trump's mate.

Johnson has basically undermined Ambassadors and Embassy staff elsewhere by being Trump's lapdog in this case and not backing Darroch. Noticeably, there was no equivocation from May and no delay in doing so.
Click to expand...
I never alluded to whatever is in the above. Do you have me confused with someone else?
 
Essexyellows said:
Just to show it is simple to "dig up" peoples social media past, possibly misinterpret what they said and be "offended"......
Now did she mean "Whoops, a few Muslim Guys murdered 3,000+ people" or something else?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1115733259500044290
Click to expand...
Sadly, she makes Trump look like a raging intellect with the stuff she comes out with, but the double standard is fascinating to look at.
 
I find it staggering that there are people on here claiming that what Trump said was not racist but “blunt language”. Staggering. We are heading down a shitty dark road that we haven’t been down for a while.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Gary Baldi
The Donald Is Coming To Town
2 3
Replies
49
Views
11K
Gary Baldi
Gary Baldi
M
International News Trump NFTs
Replies
9
Views
1K
Wallop
W
Sarge
International News Trump impeached
2 3 4
Replies
65
Views
8K
Gary Baldi
Gary Baldi
Back
Top Bottom