Trumpety-Trump?

Trump won his mandate on 'American's First'. That means he has to find work for the middle masses - and soon. Infrastructure is the quickest method. Pipelines and roads and bridges etc etc. He who pays the piper calls the tune. In this case the American electorate. Go against the piper and go without. Trump is nobody's fool.

Oil spills from pipelines is poor engineering and management, impresses no-one, waste and damage. Trump will need to manage the social side of it too, it isn't useful to him to make new enemies within the population of the USA, he seems to have enough to be getting on with.

He will have enough friends if he only pulls off a quarter of what he has promised. Environmental catastrophes, should they happen, will be small beer in comparison. But to put it all into a nutshell - if the price for globalisation and environmental benefits is going to be attained at the cost of putting three-quarters of the planets population in the gutter then they are fighting a losing battle. Even should the rapid demise of the species be the result. To every 'man' it is today that counts, tomorrow will have to look after itself. That's the truth.

It's a fair attempt at the truth, and probably decribes the attitude of many people. Trump wasn't elected for his sensitivity, he was elected to sort out the USA.

As long as he reads this thread regularly and takes our advice into consideration, he might manage to get quite a lot done without too many disasters.

We should be so lucky kiddo - .

Considering UK had just fired a trident missile towards Florida, the conversation between Trump and May went quite well.

Has anyone explained to Mr. Trump which is the X-box and which is the nuclear button?

Business men don't go in for the mass removal of customers. It's bad for business. I doubt he would even go near any such potential boxes.

As long as the tv zapper is clearly labelled.

A lot of people seem shocked and horrified by Trumps' ban on muslim immigrants. What's the logic of this? Why should the USA take in muslim immigrants? People in countries all over the world suffer wars, famines, murderous regimes, but no one insists that other countries half a world away, or even nearby, must take them in.

Well the US of A has insisted on holding wars in their countries...

It only seems fair that they should be responsible for making good at least some of the damage.

Fair -???? Good grief - when did 'fair' ever become part of the proceedings? You don't do fair if you want to win. Fair will only weaken your hand and too much of it destroy your intentions. Oooh no - we don't do 'fair'.

Fairness is an interesting concept. Small tenuous shreds of what appears to be fairness do sometimes exist transiently. Not something most people know much about or have much experience of.

With Trumps' Muslim ban overturned, has the office 'President of the USA' diminished in power over recent years, or, was it always an honorary position?

The power of the President hasn't changed or been diminished in recent years to my knowledge. Perhaps they didn't tell me. if so it's very remiss of them. However - Presidents must work within the laws of the land or in this case the Constitution and should any judge consider that those laws have been 'stretched' or usurped he may grant a 'stay' of execution on the new directives that may appear to have exceeded their remits. Such is the case here and Mr Trump will have to 'appeal' as is always the proper way forward and await the Supreme Courts decision. It's only a hiccup in his attempting to push forward what he promised in his bid for power. Once having completed his initial 'promises' (whether they pas or fail) he will be at liberty to press forward with his hidden agenda. The man's nobody's fool. And should never have been taken for one.

Luckily it's a slow, safe, relaxed and easygoing international situation these days with no need to do anything in a hurry. 

 Release the hounds!
Yes Sire; I'll get right on to it, just have to sort out the paperwork and do a couple of divorce cases first.

Indeed. Bureaucracy and red-tape are as ever a double-edged blade. Slow when it suits, slow when it doesn't. The whole 'thing' is a result of the 'losers', invariably the well-heeled and comfortable and as such selfish in outlook, throwing their toys out of the pram at every twist and turn thinking in their stupidity that such behaviour will 'change' the results. Not only are they selfish but they are also stupid unable to comprehend what would be the end result if any such attempt came close to fruition.
'Er - excuse me. But that was my democratic right you just trampled on, but being a very reasonable chap I will do nothing at you by way of recompense'. What happened to intelligence and logic? And they call the 'winners' the stupid ones!!!

The Speaker of the House of Commons has spoken. Telling President Trump - "Whatsa matta you, gotta no respec. Shaddupa ya face."

The man should know his place and his 'job' - which is to be 'neutral' in 'all' respects. He is over-stepping his remit. His personal opinions should be outside and away from the 'House'. If he cannot fulfil his position properly then it is time for him to go. As for his sentiments - he could well be right - however he should keep those to himself.

Mr. Speaker is under pressure, his wife, a popular, colourful character, vivacious and strong willed, demands his attention. He also puts in such long hours in his job, he must be worn out, time he had a nice long rest. Perhaps that's his plan.

Then he needs to make his mind up - before everybody else does it for him. Quick history - He's a socialist. Tories didn't want him as speaker but Blairs lot pushed it through. He enjoys the Tories having to 'wriggle' and took this opportunity to stick one to May. In the main he does a good job but - and here's the rub - his socialist background makes such an opportunity irresistible. Which is why the Speaker should be drawn from a non-political if it is to mean anything at all in this day and age. But where does one find such a creature -?

Atlas wrote:Quick history - He's a socialist...

Actually he is not. Mr. Martin, who preceded him was a Labour member, the house alternates the role of speaker between the parties. john Bircow was a conservative when elected to the house.

According to wikipedia that knows everything, Mr. Bercow was in process of changing his  politics from right to left as he took up the position of Speaker, so, you are both correct, as am I for pointing that out. We can all give each other a congratulatory pat on the back.
Anyone who is thinking of giving Dianne Abbot a kiss though, can just f*** off.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4206084/Diane-Abbott-tells-David-Davis-f-k-bar.html

Yes johnb. I did know he was a conservative. I remember him way back when he first started. But over the years he has become disenchanted with the right wing way of things in that party and recently, a few years back, he began to abstain and vote against as the mood took him. His right wing socialist present day thinking makes him an enemy of the far right and more likely to take the middle road. He doesn't much care for Mrs May and does a good job usually of treading the centre path. His tenure is up next year, although it is not obligatory. However I think he may give way or throw himself on the good-will of the right wing socialists for a continuation. Who knows?

As for the cloistered clown masquerading as the unbiased one - the Abbot - she can kiss my butt.

Some of the pictures on this website are quite disturbing.

As President Trump continues to explain things bigly, some of our politicians and political commentators say they simply cannot understand what he is talking about. Do we need more comprehensive politicians and commentators?