morepork wrote:"her critics dismissed as sexists".
Balls. No individual is that fucking simple. Not even orange smeg face. You've taken the focus of media on Trump's in your face sexism (grab them by the pussies fat white men of the world!) and conflated that to some grand evil master plan founded mainly on some laughable sexist smokescreen. I'm no fan of Clinton but, again, she fucking lost, so lets try and move on shall we. Obama has not got away with anything based on the colour of his skin either. He has bitched out on a lot of things but at least he has risen above being called a foreginer/muslim (Trump saying he has nothing against coloured people because "my president is one of the blacks") in his time in office. You are swallowing some double-irony reverse counter non-PC is the new PC bullshit like a muthafucker.
Trump is an unmitigated fuckwit and your continued attempts to make Clinton look bad by measuring her up against him are just tragic. Yes, Clinton is a ruthless money grubbing bitch. She is not in power, so do what any sane person would do given the current context and mock that jowled used prophylactic sheath of a man like a ginger step child.
Preach brother.
Right, so why hasn't Trump got a Nobel Peace Prize yet? Doh!
Of course being the first African-American president smoke-screened a lot of the war crimes which occurred under Obama. Any other president and the international press would have savaged him. & of course the race card was played many times by the media, just as the gender card was played many times by the media to defend Clinton - and condemn her critics - during campaigning. The very fact you have entered into a fit of frothing contortions in response to my post is evidence of its accuracy. & I'm not defending Trump, as you seem to believe. Quite the opposite. The point of my post was that now the mask is off, we see American politics for what it really is - wars and all. No one's going to be fooled nor blackmailed into silence over Trump, regardless how hard you and your ilk may try . . .
Re: Trump
Posted: Thu Dec 22, 2016 3:51 pm
by morepork
Me and my ilk....FFS.
I live in the USandA you fucking dummkopf, and I'm telling you that the situation is far more nuanced than you are presenting.
Trump it would seem is a big fan of Baldrick as a poet.
Re: Trump
Posted: Thu Dec 22, 2016 7:58 pm
by OptimisticJock
kk67 wrote:
Mellsblue wrote:
kk67 wrote:
I'd prefer Rufus Hound or Owen Jones.
No sexism involved,......I just don't think Louise Mensch or Katie Hopkins understand what Humanity entails.
Glenda Slagg is supposed to be a caricature.
Have you heard the theory/rumour that these extreme characters such as Katie Hopkins and Joey Essex are a group of comedians playing an incredibly long practical joke - TV's incarnations of Glenda Slagg. I hope it to be true but, sadly, I doubt it.
Yeah,...sadly there really are people who are that thick.
Katie is ex-military so her brainwashing was state sponsored and in that respect it's at least understandable.
No offence, Sandy.
Hahahaha. Is she fuck. She never passed out.
As for the rest of your post add a few more lols.
Re: Trump
Posted: Thu Dec 22, 2016 10:15 pm
by rowan
Nothing like an open-minded, mature discussion on international politics, eh
Re: Trump
Posted: Thu Dec 22, 2016 10:46 pm
by morepork
Open minded. Classic.
Re: Trump
Posted: Fri Dec 23, 2016 9:43 am
by belgarion
rowan wrote:Nothing like an open-minded, mature discussion on international politics, eh
This from Mr. 'I'm right everyone else is wrong & what you have to say is irrelevant'. I don't know whether he is
being sarcarstic/ironic or just doesn't read the stuff he posts in response to other posters
Re: Trump
Posted: Fri Dec 23, 2016 12:39 pm
by rowan
Interesting interview with Pilger here (part 2 at the link below):
So now he's calling for a nuclear arms race. Just as well they didn't elect the warmonger.
Re: Trump
Posted: Fri Dec 23, 2016 9:04 pm
by rowan
So remind me who's the one that keeps bringing up Clinton and attempting justification through comparison again?
Bottom line is it was always a choice between a proven warmonger and a potential one. But it's good to see the mask off, anyway. No charm offensive nor smokescreens here. Fire away . . .
Re: Trump
Posted: Fri Dec 23, 2016 10:05 pm
by rowan
Yeh, but he didn't mention her by name. & my post count is generally much higher. & the number of times mentioned gives no indication of the context. So that was a pointless exercise, sorry to inform you.
Re: Trump
Posted: Fri Dec 23, 2016 10:24 pm
by rowan
No, it means we had long-running debates about Clinton and Trump during campaigning and I contributed very actively to them. It gives zero indication of who has been bringing up Clinton most often since the election, let alone in the justification through comparison context which seems to be the point you are attempting to make here, in your own confused sort of way.
Oops, just added 2 more to the count. 202, I guess
Re: Trump
Posted: Fri Dec 23, 2016 10:29 pm
by rowan
My, my, what an astonishing hypocrite you are! Scroll back and you will find that it was not me who put the record on - but Eugene. I merely responded to it.
Doh! Don't you feel really, really stupid now, Cashead?
Re: Trump
Posted: Fri Dec 23, 2016 10:43 pm
by rowan
Grow up and admit you got it wrong, Cashead. Anybody can scroll back and see who put the record on in this instance and it was not me. I responded to the person who put the record on. You got it wrong so at least be adult enough to admit it.
& speaking of broken records, attacking every single comment I make is not especially clever either. It only indicates that you are somehow quite afraid of my viewpoints.
Re: Trump
Posted: Fri Dec 23, 2016 10:53 pm
by Vengeful Glutton
cashead wrote:Your ratio of posts that mention Clinton or responding to ones that mention her:ones that are neither goes to 1:11. Eugene goes to 1:23.
I'm looking at it holistically, and while I don't pretend that this isn't entirely a scientific or robust measurement, the numbers speak for themselves.
Re: Trump
Posted: Fri Dec 23, 2016 10:58 pm
by rowan
Re: Trump
Posted: Fri Dec 23, 2016 11:04 pm
by Vengeful Glutton
rowan wrote:Grow up and admit you got it wrong, Cashead. Anybody can scroll back and see who put the record on in this instance and it was not me. I responded to the person who put the record on. You got it wrong so at least be adult enough to admit it.
& speaking of broken records, attacking every single comment I make is not especially clever either. It only indicates that you are somehow quite afraid of my viewpoints.
Or barking mad (more likely).
Re: Trump
Posted: Fri Dec 30, 2016 8:55 am
by Digby
It's an interesting position that Obama is creating for Trump with the expulsion of the Russia diplomats. Really Trump should be able to keep separate his election win being homologated by the electoral college with the actions of Russia in the elections of a sovereign nation, especially with a view to upcoming elections in France, in Germany and so on that Russia may also care to interfere with.
Re: Trump
Posted: Fri Dec 30, 2016 10:46 am
by rowan
I don't think this is about the election at all. I think the US is simply angry at Russia for foiling its plans in Syria.
Re: Trump
Posted: Fri Dec 30, 2016 2:40 pm
by WaspInWales
1-0 to Russia as it stands.
Putin has played a masterstroke.
Re: Trump
Posted: Fri Dec 30, 2016 3:27 pm
by rowan
WaspInWales wrote:1-0 to Russia as it stands.
Putin has played a masterstroke.
Perhaps, but I'm not sure he had much of a choice, taking into account that Russia has a vital base in the port of Tartus. In that respect it was quite similar to Sevastopol. If you back the guy into a corner, of course he's going to make a move, and America should've known it wasn't going to have things all its own way in Syria, the way it did in Iraq and Libya.
Re: Trump
Posted: Fri Dec 30, 2016 4:48 pm
by WaspInWales
rowan wrote:
WaspInWales wrote:1-0 to Russia as it stands.
Putin has played a masterstroke.
Perhaps, but I'm not sure he had much of a choice, taking into account that Russia has a vital base in the port of Tartus. In that respect it was quite similar to Sevastopol. If you back the guy into a corner, of course he's going to make a move, and America should've known it wasn't going to have things all its own way in Syria, the way it did in Iraq and Libya.
I was referring to Putin not playing tit for tat diplomacy in response to the US expelling a number of Russian diplomats. The expected move was for Russia to respond in kind.
Putin invited US diplomats and their families to the Kremlin to see in the new year.
As if that wasn't enough, he went a step further by wishing Obama a happy new year.
Re: Trump
Posted: Fri Dec 30, 2016 5:00 pm
by Digby
WaspInWales wrote:1-0 to Russia as it stands.
Putin has played a masterstroke.
Back in the real world getting caught interfering in the election of another security council member doesn't constitute a masterstroke. It's maybe not a bad response to the diplomats getting kicked out, and of course the USA can't get too strident about people meddling in other nations, but still.
I did like the Russian line about the absurdity of the outgoing President making a mess for the incoming president, as in fairness Putin probably does think it absurd one might change a president.
Doh! 
