Trending Topics

      Next match: Everton v LFC [Premier League] Tue 16th Jun @ 8:00 pm
      Goodison Park

      Today is the 31st of May and on this date LFC's match record is P7 W5 D1 L1

      The Donald Trump year(s)*

      Read 17077 times
      0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.
      HScRed1
      • LFC Reds Subscriber
      • ******
      • 14,955 posts | 3130 
      Re: The Donald Trump year(s)*
      Reply #25: Jan 11, 2017 11:21:06 am
      Personally I think he'll surprise a few people and his two terms as President (yes I believe he'll get a second term) will be looked back on as the years that the President of the USA made good on the promises of change that the previous incumbent failed to deliver on.







      Didn't realise the lunatic had a cheerleading fan base over here!

      heimdall
      • LFC Reds Subscriber
      • ******
      • 10,859 posts | 2284 
      Re: The Donald Trump year(s)*
      Reply #26: Jan 11, 2017 11:31:34 am
      Promised to build a wall & make Mexico pay for it.

      Promised to ban all Muslims entering the USA.

      Promised to drain the swamp at Washington.

      Back tracked on all the above & you think he will deliver on his promises...? ;D

      Sorry but when has he said he wants to ban all muslims entering the USA, I think that was just a temporary measure in reaction to one incident and something he has since explained but dont let facts get in the way of a rant. I'm also still waiting to hear how Farage is part of the establishment?
      RedPuppy
      • WASH YOUR HANDS
      • LFC Reds Subscriber
      • ******
      • 17,900 posts | 2223 
      • Parum Rutilus Canis: Illegitimi non carborundum
      Re: The Donald Trump year(s)*
      Reply #27: Jan 11, 2017 11:42:48 am
      Promised to build a wall & make Mexico pay for it.

      Promised to ban all Muslims entering the USA.

      Promised to drain the swamp at Washington.

      Back tracked on all the above & you think he will deliver on his promises...? ;D

      You forgot about putting HC in jail.
      Swab
      • Forum Legend - Paisley
      • *****

      • 12,476 posts | 2785 
      Re: The Donald Trump year(s)*
      Reply #28: Jan 11, 2017 11:59:54 am
      Perhaps the one bright (ish) thing that has come out of this is that the Clinton's attempt to build yet another Political dynasty has failed.

      Nevertheless, expect to see their rather odd looking daughter running for office in the future.

      Some Americans like to mock the UK for its Royals, but they have their own, infinitely more dangerous group of families, that wield incredible political power.
      heimdall
      • LFC Reds Subscriber
      • ******
      • 10,859 posts | 2284 
      Re: The Donald Trump year(s)*
      Reply #29: Jan 11, 2017 12:03:53 pm
      Perhaps the one bright (ish) thing that has come out of this is that the Clinton's attempt to build yet another Political dynasty has failed.

      Nevertheless, expect to see their rather odd looking daughter running for office in the future.

      Some Americans like to mock the UK for its Royals, but they have their own, infinitely more dangerous group of families, that wield incredible political power.

      So are the Clinton's anti-establishment or are they part of the establishment, I'm getting confused now! ;-)
      Shabs
      • Forum Legend - Shankly
      • ******

      • 24,373 posts | 3273 
      Re: The Donald Trump year(s)*
      Reply #30: Jan 11, 2017 12:05:53 pm
      RedLFCBlood
      • Guest
      Re: The Donald Trump year(s)*
      Reply #31: Jan 11, 2017 01:03:21 pm
      Didn't realise the lunatic had a cheerleading fan base over here!

      Not a cheerleader nor part of any fan base.

      Just some one who frequents a few American forums, from tool's, paint shop's, AC Cobra's etc etc and have gained some insight in to how some Americans feel...

      I was told on these very boards by JD that Trump wouldn't even have the support to be the candidate, I said the same then, I think you'll get a surprise and that was based solely on the feelings of Americans on the boards I frequent as is the post you quoted.

      So i'll not be shaking any pom pom's for Trump or you for that matter, just expressing an opinion based on what ive read from every day people from over the other side of the pond.
      Shabs
      • Forum Legend - Shankly
      • ******

      • 24,373 posts | 3273 
      Re: The Donald Trump year(s)*
      Reply #32: Jan 11, 2017 01:20:23 pm
      Not a cheerleader nor part of any fan base.

      Just some one who frequents a few American forums, from tool's, paint shop's, AC Cobra's etc etc and have gained some insight in to how some Americans feel...

      I was told on these very boards by JD that Trump wouldn't even have the support to be the candidate, I said the same then, I think you'll get a surprise and that was based solely on the feelings of Americans on the boards I frequent as is the post you quoted.

      So i'll not be shaking any pom pom's for Trump or you for that matter, just expressing an opinion based on what ive read from every day people from over the other side of the pond.


      Trump becomes POTUS elect with the lowest approval rating ever of just 37%....

      That's based on everyday people from across the pond...

      https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/819159806489591809

      Yet begged Russia to hack Clintons emails and realise whatever they had on her..... :lmao:

      Wiki Leaks takes on another meaning ;D
      Arab Scouse
      • Forum Legend - Fagan
      • *****

      • 3,501 posts | 611 
      Re: The Donald Trump year(s)*
      Reply #33: Jan 11, 2017 02:29:09 pm
      So are the Clinton's anti-establishment or are they part of the establishment, I'm getting confused now! ;-)

      I think Swab meant that she is part of the establishment, the same goes with Obama.

      If Clinton won, she would only carry on what Obama has done in his administration.

      Democratic party f*cked up (and continue to do so) with choosing Clinton over Sanders. I think Trump & Hillary, both are favored by Corporatism. 
      RedLFCBlood
      • Guest
      Re: The Donald Trump year(s)*
      Reply #34: Jan 11, 2017 04:14:40 pm
      Trump becomes POTUS elect with the lowest approval rating ever of just 37%....

      That's based on everyday people from across the pond...


      Can only base it on what ive seen, anything else would be assuming wouldn't it?

      But my point still stands, my opinion is based on observations of everyday people and not only did Trump become the canditate, he also won the election which I also thought he would.

      Look at the election map, it was the everyday people that won it for him, not the upper class & wealthy.
      Shabs
      • Forum Legend - Shankly
      • ******

      • 24,373 posts | 3273 
      Re: The Donald Trump year(s)*
      Reply #35: Jan 11, 2017 04:44:38 pm
      Can only base it on what ive seen, anything else would be assuming wouldn't it?

      But my point still stands, my opinion is based on observations of everyday people and not only did Trump become the canditate, he also won the election which I also thought he would.

      Look at the election map, it was the everyday people that won it for him, not the upper class & wealthy.

      You are assuming though because your opinion is based on a handful on American forum users who may be Pro Trump...Trump lost the poplar vote, more people voted for Clinton, just under 3 million in fact from across 50 states...

      You say the 'everyday' people won it for Trump not the upper class or wealthy but have you observed his administration appointments & how they 'do not' reflect on his 'everyday' supporters?...
      RedLFCBlood
      • Guest
      Re: The Donald Trump year(s)*
      Reply #36: Jan 11, 2017 05:04:57 pm
      You are assuming though because your opinion is based on a handful on American forum users who may be Pro Trump...Trump lost the poplar vote, more people voted for Clinton, just under 3 million in fact from across 50 states...


      No I formed an opinion on observation and feelings of americans both pro Trump & pro Clinton and then those who were neither but thought Trump was the lesser of two evils.

      To go outside of that sample size and Assume Clinton was more popular and most likely to win would have been the assumption, I merely noticed the boards I frequent all had a similar majority theme pro Trump or lesser of Two Evils Trump with Hillary having lesser support and that obviously influenced my opinion.

      You say the 'everyday' people won it for Trump not the upper class or wealthy but have you observed his administration appointments & how they 'do not' reflect on his 'everyday' supporters?...

      His appointments are of no concern to me to be honest, so haven't really been paying attention.

      Diego LFC
      • Forum Legend - Paisley
      • *****

      • 18,945 posts | 2510 
      • Sempre Liverpool
      Re: The Donald Trump year(s)*
      Reply #37: Jan 11, 2017 05:06:46 pm
      it was the everyday people that won it for him

      And how could it possibly be any different? :D The "everyday people" are the majority of the population, any election winner by definition will have considerable support among them. Even so, Trump was outvoted in general. And there is evidence suggesting those in worst shape actually voted in their majority for Clinton.

      This is an interesting read:

      https://twitter.com/bencasselman/status/818441461519843328
      Shabs
      • Forum Legend - Shankly
      • ******

      • 24,373 posts | 3273 
      Re: The Donald Trump year(s)*
      Reply #38: Jan 11, 2017 05:13:53 pm


      His appointments are of no concern to me to be honest, so haven't really been paying attention.



      You have been paying attention, because you believe Trump will win another term ;D
      RedLFCBlood
      • Guest
      Re: The Donald Trump year(s)*
      Reply #39: Jan 11, 2017 06:01:05 pm
      You have been paying attention, because you believe Trump will win another term ;D

      Wrong, I believe he'll win another term again on obersavation of American people, Nothing Trump has or hasn't done.

      And how could it possibly be any different? :D The "everyday people" are the majority of the population, any election winner by definition will have considerable support among them. Even so, Trump was outvoted in general. And there is evidence suggesting those in worst shape actually voted in their majority for Clinton.

      This is an interesting read:

      https://twitter.com/bencasselman/status/818441461519843328

      Look at the electoral map.
      Diego LFC
      • Forum Legend - Paisley
      • *****

      • 18,945 posts | 2510 
      • Sempre Liverpool
      Re: The Donald Trump year(s)*
      Reply #40: Jan 11, 2017 06:07:52 pm

      And? I'm just pointing out that to say "the everyday people" won an election is an expression totally devoid of meaning, because it's utterly obvious. The very wealthy are by definition a small minority so it can't have been their votes that won the f**king election :D It's always the everyday people who make the decision in the end. The expression is useful only for propaganda, as you can twist it like you want. But still, I stress that the facts suggest that those economically worse off actually voted in their majority for Clinton. I could put it way in a propagandistic way by saying "the everyday people voted for Clinton", but I know it's bullshit, so I won't.
      HScRed1
      • LFC Reds Subscriber
      • ******
      • 14,955 posts | 3130 
      Re: The Donald Trump year(s)*
      Reply #41: Jan 11, 2017 06:13:55 pm
      And? I'm just pointing out that to say "the everyday people" won an election is an expression totally devoid of meaning, because it's utterly obvious. The very wealthy are by definition a small minority so it can't have been their votes that won the f**king election :D It's always the everyday people who make the decision in the end. The expression is useful only for propaganda, as you can twist it like you want. But still, I stress that the facts suggest that those economically worse off actually voted in their majority for Clinton. I could put it way in a propagandistic way by saying "the everyday people voted for Clinton", but I know it's bullshit, so I won't.

      Of course the economically disadvantaged voted for Clinton as that would be the Black and Latino vote.

      Trump cleaned up with the white voters and in particularly the male vote.

      lfc across the water
      • Needs a Klopp hug...Rafa's Number 1 fan...VAR has no faults Promoter
      • Forum Legend - Fagan
      • *****

      • 2,805 posts | 572 
      Re: The Donald Trump year(s)*
      Reply #42: Jan 11, 2017 07:21:54 pm
      Quote from Shabs
      You are assuming though because your opinion is based on a handful on American forum users who may be Pro Trump...Trump lost the poplar vote, more people voted for Clinton, just under 3 million in fact from across 50 states...

      You say the 'everyday' people won it for Trump not the upper class or wealthy but have you observed his administration appointments & how they 'do not' reflect on his 'everyday' supporters?...

      The popular vote is completely irrelevant in an American election. People who are not with the majority of the safe states don't bother voting at all. But Trump won by a comfortable majority on the only method that counts. So the opposition don't have an argument on that front.

      His cabinet appointments are a mix of political and military figures, as expected. It's the norm for an American President.
      Poko
      • Forum Legend - Benitez
      • *****

      • 1,502 posts | 65 
      Re: The Donald Trump year(s)*
      Reply #43: Jan 13, 2017 11:55:57 pm
      You say the 'everyday' people won it for Trump not the upper class or wealthy but have you observed his administration appointments & how they 'do not' reflect on his 'everyday' supporters?...

      His appointments have been great. Billionaires know how to use the law to their advantage. Putting them in office only allows them to close loop holes, etc. Also, with the whole Clinton Foundation and accepting "bribes" from foreign countries, you know they can't be "bought" or hand out favors. Before you say that the billionaires in office will change the rules to benefit themselves, a lot of them have given up their spots with their companies in order to avoid conflicts of interest (which I believe is the law).

      I don't want more politicians running the country, from either party. All they do is screw more sh*t up.
      -LFC-
      • Forum Legend - Benitez
      • *****

      • 2,477 posts | 579 
      Re: The Donald Trump year(s)*
      Reply #44: Jan 14, 2017 12:46:29 am
      DONALD TRUMP’S WAR ON SCIENCE
      By Lawrence M. Krauss   December 13, 2016

      Last week, the Space, Science, and Technology subcommittee of the House of Representatives tweeted a misleading story from Breitbart News: “Global Temperatures Plunge. Icy Silence from Climate Alarmists.” (There is always some drop in temperature when El Niño transitions into La Niña—but there has been no anomalous plunge.) Under normal circumstances, this tweet wouldn’t be so surprising: Lamar Smith, the chair of the committee since 2013, is a well-known climate-change denier. But these are not normal times. The tweet is best interpreted as something new: a warning shot. It’s a sign of things to come—a declaration of the Trump Administration’s intent to sideline science.

      In a 1946 essay, George Orwell wrote that “to see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle.” It’s not just that we’re easily misled. It’s that, by “impudently twisting the facts,” we can convince ourselves of “things which we know to be untrue.” A whole society, he wrote, can deceive itself “for an indefinite time,” and the only check on that mass delusion is that “sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality.” Science is one source of that solid reality. The Trump Administration seems determined to keep it at bay, and the consequences for society and the environment will be profound.

      The first sign of Trump’s intention to spread lies about empirical reality, “1984”-style, was, of course, the appointment of Steve Bannon, the former executive chairman of the Breitbart News Network, as Trump’s “senior counselor and strategist.” This year, Breitbart hosted stories with titles such as “1001 Reasons Why Global Warming Is So Totally Over in 2016,” despite the fact that 2016 is now overwhelmingly on track to be the hottest year on record, beating 2015, which beat 2014, which beat 2013. Such stories do more than spread disinformation. Their purpose is the creation of an alternative reality—one in which scientific evidence is a sham—so that hyperbole and fearmongering can divide and conquer the public.

      Bannon isn’t the only propagandist in the new Administration: Myron Ebell, who heads the transition team at the Environmental Protection Agency, is another. In the aughts, as a director at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, he worked to kill a cap-and-trade bill proposed by Senators John McCain and Joe Lieberman; in 2012, when the conservative American Enterprise Institute held a meeting about the economics of a possible carbon tax, he asked donors to defund it. It’s possible, of course, to oppose cap-and-trade or carbon taxes in good faith—and yet, in recent years, Ebell’s work has come to center on lies about science and scientists. Today, as the leader of the Cooler Heads Coalition, an anti-climate-science group, Ebell denies the veracity and methodology of science itself. He dismisses complex computer models that have been developed by hundreds of researchers by saying that they “don’t even pass the laugh test.” If Ebell’s methods seem similar to those used by the tobacco industry to deny the adverse health effects of smoking in the nineteen-nineties, that’s because he worked as a lobbyist for the tobacco industry.

      When Ebell’s appointment was announced, Jeremy Symons, of the Environmental Defense Fund, said, “I got a sick feeling in my gut. . . . I can’t believe we got to the point when someone who is as unqualified and intellectually dishonest as Myron Ebell has been put in a position of trust for the future of the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the climate we are going to leave our kids.” Symons was right to be apprehensive: on Wednesday, word came that Scott Pruitt, Oklahoma’s attorney general, will be named the head of the E.P.A. As Jane Mayer has written, it would be hard to find a public official in the United States who is more closely tied to the oil-and-gas industry and who has been more actively opposed to the efforts of the E.P.A. to regulate the environment. In a recent piece for National Review, Pruitt denied the veracity of climate science; he has led the effort among Republican attorneys general to work directly with the fossil-fuel industry in resisting the Clean Air Act. In 2014, a Times investigation found that letters from Pruitt’s office to the E.P.A. and other government agencies had been drafted by energy lobbyists; right now, he is involved in a twenty-eight-state lawsuit against the very agency that he has been chosen to head.

      It gets worse. As this piece was going to press, word came that Trump’s likely choice for Secretary of the Interior is another climate denier, Cathy McMorris Rodgers, a congresswoman from Washington State. McMorris Rodgers has made false statements about the scientific consensus on human-induced climate change; if confirmed, she would be able to further distort public perceptions on this issue by controlling how the U.S. Geological Survey and the National Park Service communicate to the public about climate change. McMorris Rodgers is a long-standing opponent of regulations on emission of greenhouse gases and an ardent advocate for the exploitation of public lands for fossil-fuel production. She would now be in a position to oversee use of federal lands for coal, oil, and gas production, potentially reversing the current moratorium on federal coal leasing, as well as making decisions on offshore oil drilling. McMorris Rodgers has even voted against tax credits for production of renewable electricity. She is about as friendly to the production of fossil fuels as a legislator can be.

      The unfolding disaster at the E.P.A. represents only one front in the Trump Administration’s wider war on science. If one way to undermine science is to mindlessly dispute its methods and findings, another is to deprive it of funding, which is what Bob Walker, a senior adviser to the Trump campaign on space policy, is advocating. Walker wants to defund nasa’s earth-science efforts, which he has characterized as “politically correct environmental monitoring.” As the astrophysicist Adam Frank explained recently, in the Times, nasa’s earth-monitoring programs, which incorporate at least fifteen earth-science satellites, do more than investigate climate change; they provide data relevant to agriculture, shipping, medicine, and more. In fact, they are essential for understanding and forecasting weather—which is not to be confused with climate—including extreme weather events that threaten people’s lives. Shutting nasa out of that research prevents it from anticipating and predicting events with wide-ranging consequences.

      And the Trump Administration is on course to undermine science in another way: through education. Educators have various concerns about Betsy DeVos, Trump’s nominee for Secretary of Education—they object to her efforts to shield charter schools from government regulation, for example—but one issue stands above the rest: DeVos is a fundamentalist Christian with a long history of opposition to science. If her faith shapes her policies—and there is evidence that it will—she could shape science education decisively for the worse, by systematically depriving young people, in an era where biotechnology will play a key economic and health role worldwide, of a proper understanding of the very basis of modern biology: evolution.

      DeVos comes from a religious family with a long history of supporting fundamentalist religious groups, including the notoriously anti-science group Focus on the Family. Her family has a net worth exceeding four billion dollars, and they have used that money to establish a foundation which has donated hundreds of thousands to pro-life pregnancy centers that lie to women about the risks of abortion. In 2006, DeVos’s husband, Dick, ran unsuccessfully for governor in Michigan, and, as Jane Mayer wrote last month, “the DeVos family doubled down on political contributions and support for conservative Christian causes” after he lost.

      Along with her husband, DeVos is an active member of the Christian Reformed Church in North America, a small Protestant denomination with the stated belief that “all scientific theories be subject to Scripture.” According to the church’s official statement on science, “Humanity is created in the image of God; all theorizing that minimizes this fact and all theories of evolution that deny the creative activity of God are rejected.” DeVos attended Calvin College, which is owned and operated by the Christian Reformed Church. She majored in business administration and political science. (She does not have a degree in education.) And although she has not spoken out directly on issues such as evolution and the Big Bang, her husband advocated teaching intelligent design alongside evolution in science classes during his 2006 gubernatorial campaign. “I would like to see the ideas of intelligent design—that many scientists are now suggesting is a very viable alternative theory—that that theory and others that would be considered credible would expose our students to more ideas, not less,” he said. Given her strong support of his campaign, and their joint investment in both conservative and religious causes, as well as her own religious background, it is reasonable to expect that her views do not significantly diverge from his. (DeVos did not respond to requests for comment.)

      There is nothing respectable about the idea of “teaching the controversy,” as intelligent-design advocates describe it. We don’t teach modern astronomy by suggesting to students that they feel free to decide for themselves whether the sun orbits Earth or vice versa; instead, we teach them how scientists discovered the realities of our solar system, despite considerable pressure to renounce their own discoveries. Similarly, students should be encouraged to understand that evolution is not some principle laid down on high by a conclave of scientists; they should explore the various empirical tests to which it has been subjected for more than a hundred and fifty years. The purpose of education is not to validate ignorance but to overcome it. It should be easy, therefore, for Congress to make sure that DeVos isn’t planning to drive our educational system off a scientific cliff. During her confirmation hearings, DeVos should be asked whether she thinks it’s appropriate to teach intelligent design alongside evolution in biology classes, or whether young-Earth creationism should be presented alongside the reality of a 4.5-billion-year-old solar system in physics class. An answer in the affirmative to either question should disqualify her as the highest federal government official overseeing public education in this country. If Congress doesn’t exercise its obligation to insure the competence of Presidential appointees like DeVos, then voters need to hold them accountable in the next election.


      Taken singly, Trump’s appointments are alarming. But taken as a whole they can be seen as part of a larger effort to undermine the institution of science, and to deprive it of its role in the public-policy debate. Just as Steve Bannon undermines the institution of a fact-based news media, so appointments like Ebell, Pruitt, McMorris Rodgers, Walker, and DeVos advance the false perception that science is just a politicized tool of “the élites.” (Lamar Smith, one presumes, will continue in his role on the House Science Committee.) Science is the one domain in human life where bias and prejudice are systematically eliminated; now those very forces are set to undermine the practice of science in America. It is not only scientists who should actively fight against this dangerous trend. It is everyone who is concerned about our freedom, health, welfare, and security as a nation—and everyone who is concerned about the planetary legacy we leave for our children.

      http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/donald-trumps-war-on-science



      Beerbelly
      • Banned
      • *****

      • 6,983 posts | 2054 
      Re: The Donald Trump year(s)*
      Reply #45: Jan 14, 2017 03:49:42 am
      Popcorn time.

      Trump moving the US embassy to Jerusalem.

      In response to the proposed move, the PA religious affairs advisor, and Supreme Sharia judge responded:

      Quote
      ...“The new American administration intends to transfer its embassy to Jerusalem. In a simple, calm, and rational manner, in clear words that need no explanation and which are unambiguous: Such a step, for every Muslim, is a declaration of war on all Muslims ... Occupied Jerusalem is our eternal capital, the capital of our existence and the capital of our state. In politics, there can be compromises here and there… In politics there can be negotiation. However, in matters of religion, faith, values, ethics, and history, there can be no compromises..."

      When was Jerusalem considered a capital of ANYTHING under Muslim rule?

      After all, it is pertinent to remember that Jerusalem has been around for many more centuries than Islam. Islam originated in what is now Saudi Arabia; Jews originated in the Levant region over two thousand years earlier; Israel, Jerusalem is part of that Levant region.

      And now this act (recognition of Jerusalem) is Causa Belli for all Muslims to declare war against America.

      As for Trump, well he's clearly being provocative but has the backing of congress as it considered Jerusalem Israel's capital back in '95.

      « Last Edit: Jan 14, 2017 04:30:02 am by Beerbelly »
      SM
      • Forum Legend - Fagan
      • *****

      • 3,557 posts | 393 
      Re: The Donald Trump year(s)*
      Reply #46: Jan 14, 2017 07:38:37 am
      Lots of comments about Trump getting less votes than Hilary yet he gets in power yet it was pretty quiet in here when UKIP got the 3rd largest vote over here yet ended up with less seats than the Lib Dems and SNP who had less people vote for them.

      Beerbelly
      • Banned
      • *****

      • 6,983 posts | 2054 
      Re: The Donald Trump year(s)*
      Reply #47: Jan 14, 2017 08:01:10 am
      Lots of comments about Trump getting less votes than Hilary yet he gets in power yet it was pretty quiet in here when UKIP got the 3rd largest vote over here yet ended up with less seats than the Lib Dems and SNP who had less people vote for them.

      Same ilk who whinged about the Brexit referendum.

      Democracy only works for those who get their own way.
      bad boy bubby
      • Forum Legend - Paisley
      • *****

      • 14,539 posts | 3144 
      • @KaiserQueef
      Re: The Donald Trump year(s)*
      Reply #48: Jan 14, 2017 09:20:52 am
      Why is he being written off before he has started?

      Because, with all due respect SM, he really is a full blown, narcissistic, nut mate and anything but what should be leading the free world... in my opinion obviously.  :laugh:

      Still, that said... he is funny as f**k. I guess one just has to weigh that up and decide if those traits are indeed what you want in the President of the U.S.A.
      stuey
      • LFC Reds Subscriber
      • ******
      • 33,752 posts | 3303 
      Re: The Donald Trump year(s)*
      Reply #49: Jan 14, 2017 10:39:05 am
      Trump vowed to make America ''great again''.
       Only in American would anyone claim that America is or ever has been ''great''.

      Even more perverse, only in America would anyone making that absurd promise be given the opportunity and the power to juggle bullshit while making billions, enhancing an already unbelievable wealth.

      Quick Reply