Discussion > President Trump
ST
My opinion fwiw is that neither of them actually give a fig for our present predicament - but for quite different reasons.
We should be working on extricating ourselves from the mess we are undoubtedly in - but since national news / current affairs / public fora are so abysmally informed and rammed with partisan pundits who aren't being challenged (on either side) a train crash now seems quite likely. Did you see that ITV News just claimed that Norway were in the EU customs union?
tomo
Nov 27, 2018 at 11:09 AM | Supertroll
Nov 27, 2018 at 12:18 PM | tomo
I think another difference is that Trump can see the threat from Europe, whereas Wilson and Roosevelt were not able to, until it was too late.
Obama followed the lead of the Blairs and the Clintons, wanting all of Europe to be speaking the same progressive language as the USA, in accordance with the business models of George Soros. Unfortunately, none of them bothered to ask the English.
golf charlie
Wikileaks is trying to call out / provoke / nettle The Guardian - I hope they manage it - it would be very entertaining.
They are betting The Guardian USD$1,000,000 that Paul Manafort never met Julian Assange in Ecuador like The Guardian claims.
Oh look .... it's Luke Harding
What a shame that Geordie Greg is DM editor .... Paul Dacre would've barbecued them with this.....
tomo
OK.... a headscratcher
Obamah architected the present US oil boom....?
riiight.... he'll be claiming he organises the sun to come up everyday for solar next.
tomo
"...whereas the other, which incorporates a downright threat regarding US-UK trade, has yet to be mentioned here. Strange yet explicable."
Nov 27, 2018 at 11:09 AM | Unregistered CommenterSupertroll
You are, of course, referring to Obama's explicit threat that the UK would be at the back of the queue in future trade agreements if the UK left the EU.
michael hart
...and the thing that actually turned me against Obama, having previously been a supporter, was before he went full-on global warming.
I was living in coastal Charleston, South Carolina at the time of the Deepwater Horizon spillage (about one block from the ill-fated church where Dylann Roof later committed mass murder, but that's another story).
Many people know that BP formally changed their name from "British Petroleum" to just "BP" many years previously. Obama must have known this, and ~40% of BP shareholders were US-based at the time of the incident. But whenever I saw Obama speaking on US TV he not only very deliberately called the company "British Petroleum" when detailing their alleged offences, but he did so with quite a bit of venom in his voice. It certainly sounded like he liked the "British" part even less than he liked the "Petroleum" part. That was what convinced me that Obama was the least friendly President towards the UK in my lifetime. He's got issues. Trump, by contrast, is clearly proud of the Scottish part of his ancestry, as am I. Whatever his failings, I can trust him far more than Obama.
michael hart
michael hart
Obamah's mendacity and hubris are now slowly emerging despite the hagiography of his chums in the media - and he's doubling down on both hubris and mendacity. It would be entertaining to see him challenged but like many activists he's careful about who his opponents are in public...
I don't see any sign of him winding his neck in with the post presidential meddling.
tomo
michael hart, I remember him emphasising BRITISH Petroleum at the time, and there was definitely something "not quite right" about his deliberate choice of incorrect terms.
It made it very clear that the costs for anything could be charged to a British Company, and that no US Citizen or Company was to blame for anything at all.
Curious.
golf charlie
"I don't see any sign of him winding his neck in with the post presidential meddling.
Nov 29, 2018 at 3:18 PM | tomo"
Almost as though his freedom is potentially at stake.
golf charlie
gc
Obamah in orange overalls? >> "Orange man BAD" - eh?
Likely not going to happen - but you never know.... Dan Bongino even swerves that - but his 35 min presentation on the book is worth a watch imho.
I see the BBC are crowing about Michael Coen's problems .... - question is - have they got the right Michael Cohen this time? - they didn't before :-)
Meanwhile the Bill-n-Hill roadshow kicks of with 17% attendance
tomo
A short while ago, I heard BBC Radio 4 report that Trump said his ex-lawyer was lying about something or other he had said during questioning,, and alleging that his ex-lawyer was simply lying to help save himself from further unpleasant consequences.
Maybe. Maybe not.
But the BBC ejit then proceeded to, almost triumphantly, quote something else where Trump's statements were in agreement with his ex-lawyer's testimony, as if this separate apparent evidence of corroboration and truthfulness was either a bad thing, or somehow negated the preceding statements.
These people do not just have 'Trump derangement syndrome'. They have lost their tenuous grasp of reason and logic. They are insane.
michael hart
michael hart
anybody who follows what's going on in the USA it is obvious that the twerps in London BBC web editorial are most of the time - with simply astonishing laziness simply not even bothering to do even the most trivial cross checking of political stories and take their stories/lead from CNN and the rest of the US TDS dimented media and -then- as you say launch off into some a Trump sneerfest as if somehow simply typing "Trump" validates their wibblings - you're correct - it is unhinged. What is interesting is witnessing how this pollutes the thinking of those in the UK who still use the BBC as a touchstone for information about the world....
As far as lawyers are concerned the BBC's coverage of Michael Avenatti is simply incredible in the real sense of that word.
tomo
Yes she can!
she's going to run - and she absolutely loathes Hilary Clinton.... and she's been fiercely politically ambitious since forever and running might well innoculate hubby from the consequences of his naughty antics - the usual suspects in the US media would wet themselves with joy.
tomo
" .. she's going to run - and she absolutely loathes Hilary Clinton.... "
Dec 1, 2018 at 4:07 AM | tomo
But if she runs for the Democrat Nomination, she may be competing against St Hillary. If St Hillary does not stand, she has to build bridges between Democrats, and deal with dirt produced by Team Obama AND Team Clinton
Michelle Obama has been perceived as a good First Lady, keeping out of political wrong doing, so far.
golf charlie
gc
she's positioning herself - I feel that's clear. After listening to the Obamah podcasts I have little doubt that that Barack & Michelle are a team and when BHO ran for a second term she was clearly instrumental in pushing out a swath of DNC folk especially then head of staff Rahm Emmanuel. She's an operator and I suspect quite a formidable one - and up to her armpits in court intrigue imho.
If potential unpleasantness is coming down the chute attack might work - as she'd command near suicidal loyalty from the TDS media - BBC included.
tomo
Dec 1, 2018 at 2:39 PM | tomo
She is welcome to position herself for 2 or 6 years time. Michelle and St Hillary throwing mud at each other now, would produce a lot of TV Advertising Revenue from Democrats and Republicans.
Has any Democrat yet voiced concern over the pointlessness of the Paris Climate Stitch-Up? If any Democrat wants to work out why Trump took votes from the Rust Belt, this would set him or her above the rest.
golf charlie
Any opponent of Trump in 2020 need do nothing to attract media support. Trump has done all the preparatory work himself for them already.I
Supertroll
st
you're obviously correct - but a Democratic opponent (especially one who's not run for office before) will also need "charisma" - and that is where some very obvious effort is being put in. She's touring the book.... $13 to $3000 a ticket at 15,000 seat arenas. Oprah's there for her.
tomo
Dec 1, 2018 at 4:46 PM Supertroll
Yes, and Trump remains more popular after 2 years than most of the media hoped and planned for. He is making America work for the majority of Americans, not just the self certifying elite.
Oprah's there for her.
Dec 1, 2018 at 5:20 PM tomo
This will be crucial. But Michelle still has to distance herself from the "antics" of Team Hillary/Barack, whether she or her husband knew about them or not. Oprah may wish she had kept quiet during Hillary's campaigning.
golf charlie
gc
depending on the timing and content of what comes out into the public arena ... Michelle might well be burned by full disclosure so Mueller continues creating distraction and Mrs Obamah puts the pedal to the floor hoping that sheer inertia will carry her over the line ... Let's face it the couple stand to loose everything so might as well go for broke and hope that the entangled swampers start paddling hard to save themselves too....
tomo
Dec 2, 2018 at 7:51 PM | tomo
I don't know how long this manoeuvring normally goes on for. Michelle could leave it for 6 years to allow any legal dust to settle. Hillary can't wait that long.
I would guess that the Democrat hierarchy would unite and get behind Michelle now, but that would require some plausible denial of any knowledge of dirty tricks by Team B Obama and Clinton.
The Democrat Swamp assumed Trump would not survive his first year. Then they worked on the Mid Terms and only gained some ground. If Mueller had something devastating to unleash, he would have done it before the Mid Terms.
Any Democrat race will involve some uncivil war. The victor will then have to fight Trump on his record as President not on the rumours of Steel's Dodgy Dossier, as the US public have heard it all before.
The smart money only wants to back winners. Hillary has already lost and cost them hundreds of millions. B Obama and Hillary upset the Rust Belt, the Bible Belt (Bernie Sanders) and Jewish money and support, by sidelining Israel.
Democrats have yet to work out that Climate Science is a Vote Loser, but their Smart Money can't afford them to do that.
golf charlie
gc
any run by MO will have to be pedal to the floor stuff - the circumstantial stuff seeping from the BHO White House's misdeeds is a mere trickle at the moment - if they can keep it like that she has a chance.
Most incumbent executive arms of government hate exposure and telling the truth about internal actions - USA is no different - they'd rather suppress and sweep under any nearby carpet and that plays to her advantage. Mega cover ups happened several times during Roosevelt's time.
tomo
Dec 2, 2018 at 11:43 PM tomo
Major promotion of Michelle by the BBC 0825hrs. The message confirmed she had previously written that she would not stand for President, but in political terms, that was a long time ago.
The BBC had given Hillary a lot of free publicity, but I suppose the Big and Smart money was not interested in damaged goods with known defects, uncertain liabilities and no guarantees.
Michelle could present herself as "anyone but Hillary" and then "anyone but Trump". Negative publicity and marketing was a great success for Macron, but now he is undone by Climate Scientists.
golf charlie
gc
Having listened to some but by not all the Making Obamah podcasts and read other material (books, speeches etc., etc) over the years - Barack and Michelle's smiley nice hides a much darker and ruthless pair of operators - their inner circle are quite a crew.
Jesse Jackson was recorded on US TV a decade ago saying he'd like to adjust Barack's reproductive equipment and using the N word. There's quite a bit more - but like I said repeatedly to the troll - to appreciate it you have to get the context and that means reading and listening.... and comparing available accounts to the legend....
tomo
Don't bother answering, I already know the answer.