Just so I understand. Over the weekend, when we were being told on here and on Twitter that Theresa the appeaser Maybe was a weak leader (net +67 vs Corbyn), a useless PM (net +68 vs Corbyn) who didn't know what she stood for (Net +21 vs Corbyn) and was a disaster for the Tories (net +80 vs Corbyn) who was ridiculed, reviled & loathed (net +33 vs Corbyn), ordinary voters thought otherwise?
Similarly, we also had polls showing more people in favour of Trump's EO, and in favour of his visit to the UK. David Cameron has said some wise words on the subject of Twitter!
Fake news.
Most Brits oppose Trump's EO and oppose cancelling his state visit. That is not being in favour of either.
Just so I understand. Over the weekend, when we were being told on here and on Twitter that Theresa the appeaser Maybe was a weak leader (net +67 vs Corbyn), a useless PM (net +68 vs Corbyn) who didn't know what she stood for (Net +21 vs Corbyn) and was a disaster for the Tories (net +80 vs Corbyn) who was ridiculed, reviled & loathed (net +33 vs Corbyn), ordinary voters thought otherwise?
Similarly, we also had polls showing more people in favour of Trump's EO, and in favour of his visit to the UK. David Cameron has said some wise words on the subject of Twitter!
Fake news.
Most Brits oppose Trump's EO and oppose cancelling his state visit. That is not being in favour of either.
Did he mentions Brits ? What we think of the EO is beside the point, its none of our business. We would have apoplexy if the US started to pontificate on our immigration arrangements. Meanwhile in the country where it matters
Donald J Trump Do you believe it? The Obama Administration agreed to take thousands of illegal immigrants from Australia. Why? I will study this dumb deal!
I can see why Trump is pissed about this. Obama signed the US up to potentially excepting people currently located on Manus Island and Nauru in detention centres only in November.
Most of the people are Iranian. So for Trump that is politically terrible if on one hand he is saying there is a ban, sorry temporary pause, on all Iranians and on the other hand expecting to take in a load of Iranians that Australia won't deal with.
Given that Trump's white supremacist adviser and National Security Council member Steve Bannon thinks that the US will be at war with China within the next five to 10 years, Trump may be best off not burning all bridges with his country's closest ally in the Asia-Pacific. Misty-eyed, right-wing Atlanticists who fantasise about the unbreakable bonds of the Anglosphere might want to give some thought to that.
Just so I understand. Over the weekend, when we were being told on here and on Twitter that Theresa the appeaser Maybe was a weak leader (net +67 vs Corbyn), a useless PM (net +68 vs Corbyn) who didn't know what she stood for (Net +21 vs Corbyn) and was a disaster for the Tories (net +80 vs Corbyn) who was ridiculed, reviled & loathed (net +33 vs Corbyn), ordinary voters thought otherwise?
Similarly, we also had polls showing more people in favour of Trump's EO, and in favour of his visit to the UK. David Cameron has said some wise words on the subject of Twitter!
Fake news.
Most Brits oppose Trump's EO and oppose cancelling his state visit. That is not being in favour of either.
What we think of the EO is beside the point, its none of our business.
Just so I understand. Over the weekend, when we were being told on here and on Twitter that Theresa the appeaser Maybe was a weak leader (net +67 vs Corbyn), a useless PM (net +68 vs Corbyn) who didn't know what she stood for (Net +21 vs Corbyn) and was a disaster for the Tories (net +80 vs Corbyn) who was ridiculed, reviled & loathed (net +33 vs Corbyn), ordinary voters thought otherwise?
Similarly, we also had polls showing more people in favour of Trump's EO, and in favour of his visit to the UK. David Cameron has said some wise words on the subject of Twitter!
Fake news.
Most Brits oppose Trump's EO and oppose cancelling his state visit. That is not being in favour of either.
Just so I understand. Over the weekend, when we were being told on here and on Twitter that Theresa the appeaser Maybe was a weak leader (net +67 vs Corbyn), a useless PM (net +68 vs Corbyn) who didn't know what she stood for (Net +21 vs Corbyn) and was a disaster for the Tories (net +80 vs Corbyn) who was ridiculed, reviled & loathed (net +33 vs Corbyn), ordinary voters thought otherwise?
Similarly, we also had polls showing more people in favour of Trump's EO, and in favour of his visit to the UK. David Cameron has said some wise words on the subject of Twitter!
Fake news.
Most Brits oppose Trump's EO and oppose cancelling his state visit. That is not being in favour of either.
Did he mentions Brits ? What we think of the EO is beside the point, its none of our business. We would have apoplexy if the US started to pontificate on our immigration arrangements. Meanwhile in the country where it matters
We have not had any polls saying that people are in favour of his state visit to the UK. And to the best of my knowledge there have only been polls about the subject in the UK. Thus, the UK is the only place where there have been polls about both the state visit and the EO. The original comment was also in response to a post about UK polling.
Just so I understand. Over the weekend, when we were being told on here and on Twitter that Theresa the appeaser Maybe was a weak leader (net +67 vs Corbyn), a useless PM (net +68 vs Corbyn) who didn't know what she stood for (Net +21 vs Corbyn) and was a disaster for the Tories (net +80 vs Corbyn) who was ridiculed, reviled & loathed (net +33 vs Corbyn), ordinary voters thought otherwise?
Similarly, we also had polls showing more people in favour of Trump's EO, and in favour of his visit to the UK. David Cameron has said some wise words on the subject of Twitter!
Fake news.
Most Brits oppose Trump's EO and oppose cancelling his state visit. That is not being in favour of either.
Did he mentions Brits ? What we think of the EO is beside the point, its none of our business. We would have apoplexy if the US started to pontificate on our immigration arrangements. Meanwhile in the country where it matters
We have not had any polls saying that people are in favour of his state visit to the UK. And to the best of my knowledge there have only been polls about the subject in the UK. Thus, the UK is the only place where there have been polls about both the state visit and the EO. The original comment was also in response to a post about UK polling.
There were polls showing the US split 48/41 in favour of the EO.
Just so I understand. Over the weekend, when we were being told on here and on Twitter that Theresa the appeaser Maybe was a weak leader (net +67 vs Corbyn), a useless PM (net +68 vs Corbyn) who didn't know what she stood for (Net +21 vs Corbyn) and was a disaster for the Tories (net +80 vs Corbyn) who was ridiculed, reviled & loathed (net +33 vs Corbyn), ordinary voters thought otherwise?
Look who she is being compared to. That's all you need to know.
May's still got net positive ratings for all of those attributes - the only one where she's negative is 'Understands people like me' - traditionally a Tory weakness against even the most useless of Labour leaders - and she's still ahead of Corbyn on that one......
Yep - she faces no serious opposition. No-one credible is making the case against her and her government. And the leader of the opposition is the worst there has been in living memory. Of course she is going to have positive ratings.
I wish more in the media were as grown up as Reuters - they're the only news service that isn't playing silly buggers. AP were showing obvious bias during the election - I was most disappointed in them.
Back on the naughty step presumably and totally out of touch and biased:
U.S. military officials told Reuters that Trump approved his first covert counterterrorism operation without sufficient intelligence, ground support or adequate backup preparations. As a result, three officials said, the attacking SEAL team found itself dropping onto a reinforced al Qaeda base defended by landmines, snipers, and a larger than expected contingent of heavily armed Islamist extremists.
One could be forgiven for thinking that attack plans were the jobs of military strategists, specialist operators and senior officers rather than Presidents. I understood the usual approach was to go to the president with a plan, possible in response to his requirements, and he says go/nogo. Why did the go to him for approval if the plan sucked ?
Because they were ordered to by their commander-in-chief.
Donald J Trump Do you believe it? The Obama Administration agreed to take thousands of illegal immigrants from Australia. Why? I will study this dumb deal!
I can see why Trump is pissed about this. Obama signed the US up to potentially excepting people currently located on Manus Island and Nauru in detention centres only in November.
Most of the people are Iranian. So for Trump that is politically terrible if on one hand he is saying there is a ban, sorry temporary pause, on all Iranians and on the other hand expecting to take in a load of Iranians that Australia won't deal with.
Given that Trump's white supremacist adviser and National Security Council member Steve Bannon thinks that the US will be at war with China within the next five to 10 years, Trump may be best off not burning all bridges with his country's closest ally in the Asia-Pacific. Misty-eyed, right-wing Atlanticists who fantasise about the unbreakable bonds of the Anglosphere might want to give some thought to that.
Is Bannon right ? Sitting where I am, rather closer to where the bullets might fly that you are, its been looking dicey since well before Trump parked his fat arse in the oval office. There might well have been a shooting war in the pacific under Clinton, there might well be under Trump, I am not sure the political views of his adviser affects it so much as the extent to which China continues to take over pacific islands and turn them into airfields and missile bases.
Donald J Trump Do you believe it? The Obama Administration agreed to take thousands of illegal immigrants from Australia. Why? I will study this dumb deal!
I can see why Trump is pissed about this. Obama signed the US up to potentially excepting people currently located on Manus Island and Nauru in detention centres only in November.
Most of the people are Iranian. So for Trump that is politically terrible if on one hand he is saying there is a ban, sorry temporary pause, on all Iranians and on the other hand expecting to take in a load of Iranians that Australia won't deal with.
Given that Trump's white supremacist adviser and National Security Council member Steve Bannon thinks that the US will be at war with China within the next five to 10 years, Trump may be best off not burning all bridges with his country's closest ally in the Asia-Pacific. Misty-eyed, right-wing Atlanticists who fantasise about the unbreakable bonds of the Anglosphere might want to give some thought to that.
Is Bannon right ? Sitting where I am, rather closer to where the bullets might fly that you are, its been looking dicey since well before Trump parked his fat arse in the oval office. There might well have been a shooting war in the pacific under Clinton, there might well be under Trump, I am not sure the political views of his adviser affects it so much as the extent to which China continues to take over pacific islands and turn them into airfields and missile bases.
Bannon is Trump's closest adviser and now sits on the National Security Council. I think it is wise to take his words seriously.
Just so I understand. Over the weekend, when we were being told on here and on Twitter that Theresa the appeaser Maybe was a weak leader (net +67 vs Corbyn), a useless PM (net +68 vs Corbyn) who didn't know what she stood for (Net +21 vs Corbyn) and was a disaster for the Tories (net +80 vs Corbyn) who was ridiculed, reviled & loathed (net +33 vs Corbyn), ordinary voters thought otherwise?
Similarly, we also had polls showing more people in favour of Trump's EO, and in favour of his visit to the UK. David Cameron has said some wise words on the subject of Twitter!
Fake news.
Most Brits oppose Trump's EO and oppose cancelling his state visit. That is not being in favour of either.
Did he mentions Brits ? What we think of the EO is beside the point, its none of our business. We would have apoplexy if the US started to pontificate on our immigration arrangements. Meanwhile in the country where it matters
We have not had any polls saying that people are in favour of his state visit to the UK. And to the best of my knowledge there have only been polls about the subject in the UK. Thus, the UK is the only place where there have been polls about both the state visit and the EO. The original comment was also in response to a post about UK polling.
There were polls showing the US split 48/41 in favour of the EO.
I see the media within two hours have discovered the Yemen raid was approved by Obama but were waiting tactically for a moonless night - the next one was after the inauguration.
Just so I understand. Over the weekend, when we were being told on here and on Twitter that Theresa the appeaser Maybe was a weak leader (net +67 vs Corbyn), a useless PM (net +68 vs Corbyn) who didn't know what she stood for (Net +21 vs Corbyn) and was a disaster for the Tories (net +80 vs Corbyn) who was ridiculed, reviled & loathed (net +33 vs Corbyn), ordinary voters thought otherwise?
Similarly, we also had polls showing more people in favour of Trump's EO, and in favour of his visit to the UK. David Cameron has said some wise words on the subject of Twitter!
Fake news.
Most Brits oppose Trump's EO and oppose cancelling his state visit. That is not being in favour of either.
Did he mentions Brits ? What we think of the EO is beside the point, its none of our business. We would have apoplexy if the US started to pontificate on our immigration arrangements. Meanwhile in the country where it matters
We have not had any polls saying that people are in favour of his state visit to the UK. And to the best of my knowledge there have only been polls about the subject in the UK. Thus, the UK is the only place where there have been polls about both the state visit and the EO. The original comment was also in response to a post about UK polling.
There were polls showing the US split 48/41 in favour of the EO.
I suspect that Trump's visit will go ahead. After all it is about hosting the US Head of State it will be safe stuff with the blandest of themes raised and a lot of nervous holding of breath by both No 10 staff and Buckingham P staff. The EO will be forgotten quite soon and other events will take over. The US state department will be going through some big changes itself and until that settles down I dont think DT will be here for a while yet......these things take a lot of time. I am not sure that T May will be pushing for an early visit, the last encounter generated her enough "mixed" coverage for her rather retiring style.
Just so I understand. Over the weekend, when we were being told on here and on Twitter that Theresa the appeaser Maybe was a weak leader (net +67 vs Corbyn), a useless PM (net +68 vs Corbyn) who didn't know what she stood for (Net +21 vs Corbyn) and was a disaster for the Tories (net +80 vs Corbyn) who was ridiculed, reviled & loathed (net +33 vs Corbyn), ordinary voters thought otherwise?
Similarly, we also had polls showing more people in favour of Trump's EO, and in favour of his visit to the UK. David Cameron has said some wise words on the subject of Twitter!
Fake news.
Most Brits oppose Trump's EO and oppose cancelling his state visit. That is not being in favour of either.
Just so I understand. Over the weekend, when we were being told on here and on Twitter that Theresa the appeaser Maybe was a weak leader (net +67 vs Corbyn), a useless PM (net +68 vs Corbyn) who didn't know what she stood for (Net +21 vs Corbyn) and was a disaster for the Tories (net +80 vs Corbyn) who was ridiculed, reviled & loathed (net +33 vs Corbyn), ordinary voters thought otherwise?
Similarly, we also had polls showing more people in favour of Trump's EO, and in favour of his visit to the UK. David Cameron has said some wise words on the subject of Twitter!
Fake news.
Most Brits oppose Trump's EO and oppose cancelling his state visit. That is not being in favour of either.
Did he mentions Brits ? What we think of the EO is beside the point, its none of our business. We would have apoplexy if the US started to pontificate on our immigration arrangements. Meanwhile in the country where it matters
We have not had any polls saying that people are in favour of his state visit to the UK. And to the best of my knowledge there have only been polls about the subject in the UK. Thus, the UK is the only place where there have been polls about both the state visit and the EO. The original comment was also in response to a post about UK polling.
There were polls showing the US split 48/41 in favour of the EO.
Yep - but not in the UK. And there has been no poll saying that people are in favour of Trump's state visit.
I never said there was a poll about that in the UK. I thought it was obvious what polls I was referring to since they were covered quite extensively here below the line, but I shall endeavor to use more precise wording in the future. As for the somewhat pedantic point about not wanting to cancel not being the same as supporting, fair enough. From the media coverage you'd have thought more than 36% would have wanted it cancelled though!
Just so I understand. Over the weekend, when we were being told on here and on Twitter that Theresa the appeaser Maybe was a weak leader (net +67 vs Corbyn), a useless PM (net +68 vs Corbyn) who didn't know what she stood for (Net +21 vs Corbyn) and was a disaster for the Tories (net +80 vs Corbyn) who was ridiculed, reviled & loathed (net +33 vs Corbyn), ordinary voters thought otherwise?
Similarly, we also had polls showing more people in favour of Trump's EO, and in favour of his visit to the UK. David Cameron has said some wise words on the subject of Twitter!
Fake news.
Most Brits oppose Trump's EO and oppose cancelling his state visit. That is not being in favour of either.
Did he mentions Brits ? What we think of the EO is beside the point, its none of our business. We would have apoplexy if the US started to pontificate on our immigration arrangements. Meanwhile in the country where it matters
We have not had any polls saying that people are in favour of his state visit to the UK. And to the best of my knowledge there have only been polls about the subject in the UK. Thus, the UK is the only place where there have been polls about both the state visit and the EO. The original comment was also in response to a post about UK polling.
There were polls showing the US split 48/41 in favour of the EO.
SO's arguing you can say something should go ahead without being in favour of it. Someone should get on the blower to YouGov and ask them to divide the options into "should go ahead but oppose" and "should go ahead and support"
Donald J Trump Do you believe it? The Obama Administration agreed to take thousands of illegal immigrants from Australia. Why? I will study this dumb deal!
I can see why Trump is pissed about this. Obama signed the US up to potentially excepting people currently located on Manus Island and Nauru in detention centres only in November.
Most of the people are Iranian. So for Trump that is politically terrible if on one hand he is saying there is a ban, sorry temporary pause, on all Iranians and on the other hand expecting to take in a load of Iranians that Australia won't deal with.
Given that Trump's white supremacist adviser and National Security Council member Steve Bannon thinks that the US will be at war with China within the next five to 10 years, Trump may be best off not burning all bridges with his country's closest ally in the Asia-Pacific. Misty-eyed, right-wing Atlanticists who fantasise about the unbreakable bonds of the Anglosphere might want to give some thought to that.
Is Bannon right ? Sitting where I am, rather closer to where the bullets might fly that you are, its been looking dicey since well before Trump parked his fat arse in the oval office. There might well have been a shooting war in the pacific under Clinton, there might well be under Trump, I am not sure the political views of his adviser affects it so much as the extent to which China continues to take over pacific islands and turn them into airfields and missile bases.
Bannon is Trump's closest adviser and now sits on the National Security Council. I think it is wise to take his words seriously.
So do I. I think Hillary's national security council might well be saying the same thing, but that would be slightly harder to blame on Trump I guess.
Just so I understand. Over the weekend, when we were being told on here and on Twitter that Theresa the appeaser Maybe was a weak leader (net +67 vs Corbyn), a useless PM (net +68 vs Corbyn) who didn't know what she stood for (Net +21 vs Corbyn) and was a disaster for the Tories (net +80 vs Corbyn) who was ridiculed, reviled & loathed (net +33 vs Corbyn), ordinary voters thought otherwise?
Similarly, we also had polls showing more people in favour of Trump's EO, and in favour of his visit to the UK. David Cameron has said some wise words on the subject of Twitter!
Fake news.
Most Brits oppose Trump's EO and oppose cancelling his state visit. That is not being in favour of either.
Did he mentions Brits ? What we think of the EO is beside the point, its none of our business. We would have apoplexy if the US started to pontificate on our immigration arrangements. Meanwhile in the country where it matters
Yep - but not in the UK. And there has been no poll saying that people are in favour of Trump's state visit.
I never said there was a poll about that in the UK. I thought it was obvious what polls I was referring to since they were covered quite extensively here below the line, but I shall endeavor to use more precise wording in the future. As for the somewhat pedantic point about not wanting to cancel not being the same as supporting, fair enough. From the media coverage you'd have thought more than 36% would have wanted it cancelled though!
I think a good number of people understand that once a state invite is proffered it is very difficult to rescind it. Especially when the person involved is as unpredictable and thin-skinned as Trump, and when the government has invested so much in securing his friendship.
What the EO and state visit polling in the UK has confirmed is that this country's population is largely decent and pragmatic. We should be proud of that.
SO's arguing you can say something should go ahead without being in favour of it. Someone should get on the blower to YouGov and ask them to divide the options into "should go ahead but oppose" and "should go ahead and support"
It's all getting a little bit unhinged, I think I might go and ride my motorbike out in the tropical sun for an hour or so, its got to be more productive that trying to debate with people that have decided that whatever Trump/May/AnyoneOnTheRight does is going to be bad before they have even done it.
Because they were ordered to by their commander-in-chief.
He told them what assets to put in place, how the insert the special forces, what support units to commit ? Seems unlikely.
They were ordered to come up with a plan, they gave him the pros and cons, he made a decision, they obeyed it. That's how it works.
Should have come up with a better plan it would seem
Or Trump should have taken the time to think through what he was being told instead of risking men's lives in order to get a good headline.
Isn't the real question why he was given such a course of action as an option in the first place?
Military commanders are given options and they are given advice around those options. They then make the decision about what to do.
According to the article it was also signed off by the previous administration.
The article says that is what the White House claims. It also says:
One of the three U.S. officials said on-the-ground surveillance of the compound was “minimal, at best.” “The decision was made ... to leave it to the incoming administration, partly in the hope that more and better intelligence could be collected,” that official said.
Because they were ordered to by their commander-in-chief.
He told them what assets to put in place, how the insert the special forces, what support units to commit ? Seems unlikely.
They were ordered to come up with a plan, they gave him the pros and cons, he made a decision, they obeyed it. That's how it works.
Should have come up with a better plan it would seem
Or Trump should have taken the time to think through what he was being told instead of risking men's lives in order to get a good headline.
Isn't the real question why he was given such a course of action as an option in the first place?
Military commanders are given options and they are given advice around those options. They then make the decision about what to do.
According to the article it was also signed off by the previous administration.
The article says that is what the White House claims. It also says:
One of the three U.S. officials said on-the-ground surveillance of the compound was “minimal, at best.” “The decision was made ... to leave it to the incoming administration, partly in the hope that more and better intelligence could be collected,” that official said.
Because they were ordered to by their commander-in-chief.
He told them what assets to put in place, how the insert the special forces, what support units to commit ? Seems unlikely.
They were ordered to come up with a plan, they gave him the pros and cons, he made a decision, they obeyed it. That's how it works.
Should have come up with a better plan it would seem
Or Trump should have taken the time to think through what he was being told instead of risking men's lives in order to get a good headline.
Isn't the real question why he was given such a course of action as an option in the first place?
Military commanders are given options and they are given advice around those options. They then make the decision about what to do.
According to the article it was also signed off by the previous administration.
The article says that is what the White House claims. It also says:
One of the three U.S. officials said on-the-ground surveillance of the compound was “minimal, at best.” “The decision was made ... to leave it to the incoming administration, partly in the hope that more and better intelligence could be collected,” that official said.
So it's he said, she said?
although one of the parties is a proven habitual liar, aye
Because they were ordered to by their commander-in-chief.
He told them what assets to put in place, how the insert the special forces, what support units to commit ? Seems unlikely.
They were ordered to come up with a plan, they gave him the pros and cons, he made a decision, they obeyed it. That's how it works.
Should have come up with a better plan it would seem
Or Trump should have taken the time to think through what he was being told instead of risking men's lives in order to get a good headline.
Isn't the real question why he was given such a course of action as an option in the first place?
Military commanders are given options and they are given advice around those options. They then make the decision about what to do.
According to the article it was also signed off by the previous administration.
The article says that is what the White House claims. It also says:
One of the three U.S. officials said on-the-ground surveillance of the compound was “minimal, at best.” “The decision was made ... to leave it to the incoming administration, partly in the hope that more and better intelligence could be collected,” that official said.
So it's he said, she said?
although one of the parties is a proven habitual liar, aye
having said that i did think it was bollocks when I saw the story this morning. obama called god knows how many drone strikes which certainly killed plenty of innocents, without this kind of commentary
Because they were ordered to by their commander-in-chief.
He told them what assets to put in place, how the insert the special forces, what support units to commit ? Seems unlikely.
They were ordered to come up with a plan, they gave him the pros and cons, he made a decision, they obeyed it. That's how it works.
Should have come up with a better plan it would seem
Or Trump should have taken the time to think through what he was being told instead of risking men's lives in order to get a good headline.
Isn't the real question why he was given such a course of action as an option in the first place?
Military commanders are given options and they are given advice around those options. They then make the decision about what to do.
According to the article it was also signed off by the previous administration.
The article says that is what the White House claims. It also says:
One of the three U.S. officials said on-the-ground surveillance of the compound was “minimal, at best.” “The decision was made ... to leave it to the incoming administration, partly in the hope that more and better intelligence could be collected,” that official said.
So it's he said, she said?
Given the White House has repeatedly and demonstrably lied about a number of issues over the last 10 days, no I don't think it is. But people will believe what they want to believe. However, one thing is certain: draft-dodging Trump will never win a public opinion battle against the US military.
Because they were ordered to by their commander-in-chief.
He told them what assets to put in place, how the insert the special forces, what support units to commit ? Seems unlikely.
They were ordered to come up with a plan, they gave him the pros and cons, he made a decision, they obeyed it. That's how it works.
Should have come up with a better plan it would seem
Or Trump should have taken the time to think through what he was being told instead of risking men's lives in order to get a good headline.
Isn't the real question why he was given such a course of action as an option in the first place?
Military commanders are given options and they are given advice around those options. They then make the decision about what to do.
According to the article it was also signed off by the previous administration.
The article says that is what the White House claims. It also says:
One of the three U.S. officials said on-the-ground surveillance of the compound was “minimal, at best.” “The decision was made ... to leave it to the incoming administration, partly in the hope that more and better intelligence could be collected,” that official said.
So it's he said, she said?
although one of the parties is a proven habitual liar, aye
And it makes no sense. Why would Obama sign off (whatever that means) on a military raid and then not do it for two months...?
I'm remembering that only yesterday PlatoSaid claimed Trump would come out and apologize when things go wrong... Maybe he will for this?
SO's arguing you can say something should go ahead without being in favour of it. Someone should get on the blower to YouGov and ask them to divide the options into "should go ahead but oppose" and "should go ahead and support"
It's all getting a little bit unhinged, I think I might go and ride my motorbike out in the tropical sun for an hour or so, its got to be more productive that trying to debate with people that have decided that whatever Trump/May/AnyoneOnTheRight does is going to be bad before they have even done it.
There is no tropical sun for me, so I will stick around and argue the toss with people who believe that Trump/May/AnyoneOnTheRight can do no wrong :-)
Because they were ordered to by their commander-in-chief.
He told them what assets to put in place, how the insert the special forces, what support units to commit ? Seems unlikely.
They were ordered to come up with a plan, they gave him the pros and cons, he made a decision, they obeyed it. That's how it works.
Should have come up with a better plan it would seem
Or Trump should have taken the time to think through what he was being told instead of risking men's lives in order to get a good headline.
Isn't the real question why he was given such a course of action as an option in the first place?
Military commanders are given options and they are given advice around those options. They then make the decision about what to do.
According to the article it was also signed off by the previous administration.
The article says that is what the White House claims. It also says:
One of the three U.S. officials said on-the-ground surveillance of the compound was “minimal, at best.” “The decision was made ... to leave it to the incoming administration, partly in the hope that more and better intelligence could be collected,” that official said.
So it's he said, she said?
although one of the parties is a proven habitual liar, aye
And it makes no sense. Why would Obama sign off (whatever that means) on a military raid and then not do it for two months...?
I'm remembering that only yesterday PlatoSaid claimed Trump would come out and apologize when things go wrong... Maybe he will for this?
A planned appearance Wednesday by controversial internet figure Milo Yiannopulos, an editor for the conservative website Breitbart
The version of that from the BBC News 4:30 summary was interesting:
"Milo Yiannopolous, editor of the far right, fake news website Breitbart.com."
As reported on the liberal left fake news website bbc.com
Well .. yes and no.
I was in a bit of shock. The BBC website went populist and clickbaity some time ago, but it is a commonplace of good journalism that reporting and opinion are separate. To put an editorial opinion into a report and especially a summary, is the sort of thing I would expect from The Canary or The Independent. Or possibly Breitbart :-).
A planned appearance Wednesday by controversial internet figure Milo Yiannopulos, an editor for the conservative website Breitbart
The version of that from the BBC News 4:30 summary was interesting:
"Milo Yiannopolous, editor of the far right, fake news website Breitbart.com."
As reported on the liberal left fake news website bbc.com
Well .. yes and no.
I was in a bit of shock. The BBC website went populist and clickbaity some time ago, but it is a commonplace of good journalism that reporting and opinion are separate. To put an editorial opinion into a report and especially a summary, is the sort of thing I would expect from The Canary or The Independent. Or possibly Breitbart :-).
Exactly. Seems that in their outrage they are letting standards slip again. There would need to be some sort of graduations in the "fake news" world, from the "mostly true but with the most outrageous right/left wing spin" sites, like The Canary and arguable Breitbart, to the outer reaches of whopperdom like Infowars
(Close observers win notice I am not out riding in the tropical sun as claimed earlier - the curse of the crash helmet applied, as soon as I started to put in on, the rain clouds rolled in - although I was pushing my luck a bit in the middle of the rainy season)
Fox intv with Milo The left is profoundly antithetical to free speech these days, does not want to hear alternative points of view. - Milo Yiannopoulos #Tucker https://t.co/LwAiglBGE0
Dave Rubin Don't like Milo? Don't go to his event and use your free speech to counter his free speech. Look I solved the issue in a tweet.
The basic problem seems to be that their security sucked, not good on a company holding that much personal data.
"Yahoo badly screwed up," said Bruce Schneier, a cryptologist and one of the world's most respected security experts. "They weren't taking security seriously and that's now very clear. I would have trouble trusting Yahoo going forward."
I think actually think it's just that some PBers have sympathy/share the views of the religious right - I mean comparing abortion to infantacide?! .
Dear Ms Apocalypse, please grow up. You say some very sensible things, but some very, very silly things...
Part of growing up is to be able to distinguish someone explaining a third party's views, from someone sharing those views. And yes, of course, abortion and infanticide are morally indistinguishable if you start from the premise that the unborn child is a person exactly like the newly-born child.
There you are. Two separate concepts for you to try to understand. For the avoidance of doubt - this shouldn't need saying, but clearly does - I have said nothing whatsoever about what my views on this matter are, except that I don't think the viability of the foetus outside the womb is terribly relevant to question of the time limits for abortion.
Dear Mr Nabavi, stop being so patronising.
In your response to me you said nothing about infanticide in the context of a religious perspective on abortion. You provided that religious context throughout your other responses to me in the previous thread but did not in that in response. If you want to individuals to distinguish between third party views, and your own personal views you need to do that yourself.
Nah, that was definitely one of Richard's least patronising posts.
The Romanian situation is interesting. The ruling left-wing PSD party has passed a decree decriminalising many 'minor' acts, apparently in order to ease overcrowding in prisons.
Unfortunately the sort of crimes decriminalised include ones by corrupt officials, which will lead to their release.
One of the officials who will benefit is the PSD's leader, Liviu Dragnea, who is accused a 24,000 Euro fraud.
There's nothing too surprising in these results. Jeremy Corbyn is irretrievably sunk and the public is still assessing Theresa May.
Jeremy Corbyn is -5 on "I understand what he stands for". I suspect those saying yes to this question are more likely to be naturally opposed to the 21st century JC than potentially supportive.
Because they were ordered to by their commander-in-chief.
He told them what assets to put in place, how the insert the special forces, what support units to commit ? Seems unlikely.
They were ordered to come up with a plan, they gave him the pros and cons, he made a decision, they obeyed it. That's how it works.
Should have come up with a better plan it would seem
Or Trump should have taken the time to think through what he was being told instead of risking men's lives in order to get a good headline.
Isn't the real question why he was given such a course of action as an option in the first place?
Military commanders are given options and they are given advice around those options. They then make the decision about what to do.
According to the article it was also signed off by the previous administration.
The article says that is what the White House claims. It also says:
One of the three U.S. officials said on-the-ground surveillance of the compound was “minimal, at best.” “The decision was made ... to leave it to the incoming administration, partly in the hope that more and better intelligence could be collected,” that official said.
So it's he said, she said?
although one of the parties is a proven habitual liar, aye
And it makes no sense. Why would Obama sign off (whatever that means) on a military raid and then not do it for two months...?
I'm remembering that only yesterday PlatoSaid claimed Trump would come out and apologize when things go wrong... Maybe he will for this?
The one 22 carat prediction that can be made about Trumpism is that its president will not have a sign on his desk saying 'The buck stops here'.
A planned appearance Wednesday by controversial internet figure Milo Yiannopulos, an editor for the conservative website Breitbart
The version of that from the BBC News 4:30 summary was interesting:
"Milo Yiannopolous, editor of the far right, fake news website Breitbart.com."
As reported on the liberal left fake news website bbc.com
Right-wing fake news bbc.com, surely, given its apparent preference for May over Corbyn.
The sad thing is not the fact that all sorts of rubbish is 'out there on the internet but that what has been exposed is that the 'reputable print and media are as bad. so it has become very difficult to get anything approaching balanced news reporting anymore. We have frontline broadcasters like J. Vine and K Burley on twitter with anti-Trump tweets then reding the news a few minutes later. The whole thing is dangerously compromised.
The deal was confirmed by White House spokesman Sean Spicer, before being walked back hours later in a phone call from another presidential aide. It was then confirmed by the state department, and further by the US embassy in Canberra, before the president’s tweet appeared to end any hope the deal could progress. Earlier in the day, the US state department had insisted the deal was on. “President Trump’s decision to honour the refugee agreement has not changed,” a US embassy spokesperson in Canberra said in a statement.
Trump is going to humiliate the Australian Prime Minister. It's only a matter of time before he does it to Theresa May.
The damage that Trump is going to do to the US's standing around the world is considerable. And for all his bravado, the US really does need the world. Trump is not going to have a chance of creating millions of sustainable, well-paid blue collar jobs on the back of the home market alone. To grow and prosper big US employers need access to global markets and brands that people want to buy. Trump threatens both parts of this equation.
A planned appearance Wednesday by controversial internet figure Milo Yiannopulos, an editor for the conservative website Breitbart
The version of that from the BBC News 4:30 summary was interesting:
"Milo Yiannopolous, editor of the far right, fake news website Breitbart.com."
As reported on the liberal left fake news website bbc.com
Right-wing fake news bbc.com, surely, given its apparent preference for May over Corbyn.
The sad thing is not the fact that all sorts of rubbish is 'out there on the internet but that what has been exposed is that the 'reputable print and media are as bad. so it has become very difficult to get anything approaching balanced news reporting anymore. We have frontline broadcasters like J. Vine and K Burley on twitter with anti-Trump tweets then reding the news a few minutes later. The whole thing is dangerously compromised.
Why? Andrew Neil is the chairman of the company that owns the Telegraph and the Spectator, and makes his political preferences very clear on Twitter; but is able to hold all and sundry to account when he interviews on the TV.
The deal was confirmed by White House spokesman Sean Spicer, before being walked back hours later in a phone call from another presidential aide. It was then confirmed by the state department, and further by the US embassy in Canberra, before the president’s tweet appeared to end any hope the deal could progress. Earlier in the day, the US state department had insisted the deal was on. “President Trump’s decision to honour the refugee agreement has not changed,” a US embassy spokesperson in Canberra said in a statement.
Trump is going to humiliate the Australian Prime Minister. It's only a matter of time before he does it to Theresa May.
The damage that Trump is going to do to the US's standing around the world is considerable. And for all his bravado, the US really does need the world. Trump is not going to have a chance of creating millions of sustainable, well-paid blue collar jobs on the back of the home market alone. To grow and prosper big US employers need access to global markets and brands that people want to buy. Trump threatens both parts of this equation.
Trump has new friends now - Vladimir, for instance. One has to wonder just what attracted him to a nativist autocratic kleptocrat billionaire ?
A planned appearance Wednesday by controversial internet figure Milo Yiannopulos, an editor for the conservative website Breitbart
The version of that from the BBC News 4:30 summary was interesting:
"Milo Yiannopolous, editor of the far right, fake news website Breitbart.com."
As reported on the liberal left fake news website bbc.com
Right-wing fake news bbc.com, surely, given its apparent preference for May over Corbyn.
The sad thing is not the fact that all sorts of rubbish is 'out there on the internet but that what has been exposed is that the 'reputable print and media are as bad. so it has become very difficult to get anything approaching balanced news reporting anymore. We have frontline broadcasters like J. Vine and K Burley on twitter with anti-Trump tweets then reding the news a few minutes later. The whole thing is dangerously compromised.
A planned appearance Wednesday by controversial internet figure Milo Yiannopulos, an editor for the conservative website Breitbart
The version of that from the BBC News 4:30 summary was interesting:
"Milo Yiannopolous, editor of the far right, fake news website Breitbart.com."
As reported on the liberal left fake news website bbc.com
Right-wing fake news bbc.com, surely, given its apparent preference for May over Corbyn.
The sad thing is not the fact that all sorts of rubbish is 'out there on the internet but that what has been exposed is that the 'reputable print and media are as bad. so it has become very difficult to get anything approaching balanced news reporting anymore. We have frontline broadcasters like J. Vine and K Burley on twitter with anti-Trump tweets then reding the news a few minutes later. The whole thing is dangerously compromised.
The two are directly connected. If fake news far right websites like Breitbart are successful, more mainstream news outlets are pushed to chase their readers using similar techniques. Nuance has always been a minority taste and with business models for the media under pressure as never before, its traditional providers are abandoning it.
I seem to recall the Facebook chap defended their case by saying he'd never even heard of zenimax, which sounded so casually arrogant - they're not exactly a household name, but they're worth a couple of billion themselves I believe, a huge company like his could probably have updated him.
But no doubt Facebook will win on appeal or something.
A planned appearance Wednesday by controversial internet figure Milo Yiannopulos, an editor for the conservative website Breitbart
The version of that from the BBC News 4:30 summary was interesting:
"Milo Yiannopolous, editor of the far right, fake news website Breitbart.com."
As reported on the liberal left fake news website bbc.com
Right-wing fake news bbc.com, surely, given its apparent preference for May over Corbyn.
The sad thing is not the fact that all sorts of rubbish is 'out there on the internet but that what has been exposed is that the 'reputable print and media are as bad. so it has become very difficult to get anything approaching balanced news reporting anymore. We have frontline broadcasters like J. Vine and K Burley on twitter with anti-Trump tweets then reding the news a few minutes later. The whole thing is dangerously compromised.
It's interesting what can tip over someone, it was Sky selectively editing a speech I'd watched live. It changed the whole tone and clearly done with an agenda in mind.
I stopped trying to make excuses or giving media latitude. I'd lost all faith in BBC years before and relied on Sky and ITV. ITV have now lost the plot too.
I don't believe anything the MSM push out - I wait at least a few hours to see what shakes out - there's so much wishful thinking and confirmation bias masquerading as news that I'm not going take any one source as true.
Just so I understand. Over the weekend, when we were being told on here and on Twitter that Theresa the appeaser Maybe was a weak leader (net +67 vs Corbyn), a useless PM (net +68 vs Corbyn) who didn't know what she stood for (Net +21 vs Corbyn) and was a disaster for the Tories (net +80 vs Corbyn) who was ridiculed, reviled & loathed (net +33 vs Corbyn), ordinary voters thought otherwise?
Similarly, we also had polls showing more people in favour of Trump's EO, and in favour of his visit to the UK. David Cameron has said some wise words on the subject of Twitter!
Fake news.
Most Brits oppose Trump's EO and oppose cancelling his state visit. That is not being in favour of either.
Did he mentions Brits ? What we think of the EO is beside the point, its none of our business. We would have apoplexy if the US started to pontificate on our immigration arrangements. Meanwhile in the country where it matters
We have not had any polls saying that people are in favour of his state visit to the UK. And to the best of my knowledge there havebeen polls about both the state visit and the EO. The original comment was also in response to a post about UK polling.
There were polls showing the US split 48/41 in favour of the EO.
SO's arguing you can say something should go ahead without being in favour of it. Someone should get on the blower to YouGov and ask them to divide the options into "should go ahead but oppose" and "should go ahead and support"
You joke, but that is a position some are in. I don't think he should have been offered one quite so soon (given the need to beutter up the US we would at some point, but hopefully after things quitened a bit), but having already offered him one, and given who's already had visits, I don't think we could cancel.
A planned appearance Wednesday by controversial internet figure Milo Yiannopulos, an editor for the conservative website Breitbart
The version of that from the BBC News 4:30 summary was interesting:
"Milo Yiannopolous, editor of the far right, fake news website Breitbart.com."
As reported on the liberal left fake news website bbc.com
Right-wing fake news bbc.com, surely, given its apparent preference for May over Corbyn.
The sad thing is not the fact that all sorts of rubbish is 'out there on the internet but that what has been exposed is that the 'reputable print and media are as bad. so it has become very difficult to get anything approaching balanced news reporting anymore. We have frontline broadcasters like J. Vine and K Burley on twitter with anti-Trump tweets then reding the news a few minutes later. The whole thing is dangerously compromised.
The two are directly connected. If fake news far right websites like Breitbart are successful, more mainstream news outlets are pushed to chase their readers using similar techniques. Nuance has always been a minority taste and with business models for the media under pressure as never before, its traditional providers are abandoning it.
There is also a tendency on both the left and right to equate coverage they do not like with fake news and bias. This, it strikes me, is by far the most insidious development of recent years. Online titles such as Breitbart and the Canary knowingly and deliberately run a stream of fake news stories designed solely to push an agenda in a way that we have never seen before; and part of their agenda is to push the idea that everyone is as bad as they are. That clearly is not the case, though - especially when it comes to broadcast media.
A planned appearance Wednesday by controversial internet figure Milo Yiannopulos, an editor for the conservative website Breitbart
The version of that from the BBC News 4:30 summary was interesting:
"Milo Yiannopolous, editor of the far right, fake news website Breitbart.com."
As reported on the liberal left fake news website bbc.com
Right-wing fake news bbc.com, surely, given its apparent preference for May over Corbyn.
The sad thing is not the fact that all sorts of rubbish is 'out there on the internet but that what has been exposed is that the 'reputable print and media are as bad. so it has become very difficult to get anything approaching balanced news reporting anymore. We have frontline broadcasters like J. Vine and K Burley on twitter with anti-Trump tweets then reding the news a few minutes later. The whole thing is dangerously compromised.
A planned appearance Wednesday by controversial internet figure Milo Yiannopulos, an editor for the conservative website Breitbart
The version of that from the BBC News 4:30 summary was interesting:
"Milo Yiannopolous, editor of the far right, fake news website Breitbart.com."
As reported on the liberal left fake news website bbc.com
Right-wing fake news bbc.com, surely, given its apparent preference for May over Corbyn.
The sad thing is not the fact that all sorts of rubbish is 'out there on the internet but that what has been exposed is that the 'reputable print and media are as bad. so it has become very difficult to get anything approaching balanced news reporting anymore. We have frontline broadcasters like J. Vine and K Burley on twitter with anti-Trump tweets then reding the news a few minutes later. The whole thing is dangerously compromised.
The two are directly connected. If fake news far right websites like Breitbart are successful, more mainstream news outlets are pushed to chase their readers using similar techniques. Nuance has always been a minority taste and with business models for the media under pressure as never before, its traditional providers are abandoning it.
Yep. Our preferences and unwillingness to pay for much news when we can get news we like for free, is a reason standards are slipping.
Fox intv with Milo The left is profoundly antithetical to free speech these days, does not want to hear alternative points of view. - Milo Yiannopoulos #Tucker https://t.co/LwAiglBGE0
Dave Rubin Don't like Milo? Don't go to his event and use your free speech to counter his free speech. Look I solved the issue in a tweet.
Is this piece of trash still around?
Big difference between free speech and hate speech...
A planned appearance Wednesday by controversial internet figure Milo Yiannopulos, an editor for the conservative website Breitbart
The version of that from the BBC News 4:30 summary was interesting:
"Milo Yiannopolous, editor of the far right, fake news website Breitbart.com."
As reported on the liberal left fake news website bbc.com
Right-wing fake news bbc.com, surely, given its apparent preference for May over Corbyn.
The sad thing is not the fact that all sorts of rubbish is 'out there on the internet but that what has been exposed is that the 'reputable print and media are as bad. so it has become very difficult to get anything approaching balanced news reporting anymore. We have frontline broadcasters like J. Vine and K Burley on twitter with anti-Trump tweets then reding the news a few minutes later. The whole thing is dangerously compromised.
Why? Andrew Neil is the chairman of the company that owns the Telegraph and the Spectator, and makes his political preferences very clear on Twitter; but is able to hold all and sundry to account when he interviews on the TV.
It's not impossible to have known political preferences and still be good at that job. But it is harder and therefore rarer.
A planned appearance Wednesday by controversial internet figure Milo Yiannopulos, an editor for the conservative website Breitbart
The version of that from the BBC News 4:30 summary was interesting:
"Milo Yiannopolous, editor of the far right, fake news website Breitbart.com."
As reported on the liberal left fake news website bbc.com
Right-wing fake news bbc.com, surely, given its apparent preference for May over Corbyn.
The sad thing is not the fact that all sorts of rubbish is 'out there on the internet but that what has been exposed is that the 'reputable print and media are as bad. so it has become very difficult to get anything approaching balanced news reporting anymore. We have frontline broadcasters like J. Vine and K Burley on twitter with anti-Trump tweets then reding the news a few minutes later. The whole thing is dangerously compromised.
Why? Andrew Neil is the chairman of the company that owns the Telegraph and the Spectator, and makes his political preferences very clear on Twitter; but is able to hold all and sundry to account when he interviews on the TV.
He is not a 'news reader' as such. I think overall it diminishes voter respect for the official outlets when they 'celebritize' themselves and are one minute expressing opinions while the next reading the national news. I understand it's not possible to remove all bias from the news but I think greater efforts should be made. Like it or not many in the general public view the TV news relatively uncritically. That is increasingly being eroded when it becomes overly partisan. In the same way I prefer a neutrla civil service.
One of the officials who will benefit is the PSD's leader, Liviu Dragnea, who is accused a 24,000 Euro fraud.
That's a coincidence ...
I take it that you support the full rigour of the law being used against party leaders who have apparently been engaged in corrupt practices in Britain then?
Donald J Trump Do you believe it? The Obama Administration agreed to take thousands of illegal immigrants from Australia. Why? I will study this dumb deal!
A planned appearance Wednesday by controversial internet figure Milo Yiannopulos, an editor for the conservative website Breitbart
The version of that from the BBC News 4:30 summary was interesting:
"Milo Yiannopolous, editor of the far right, fake news website Breitbart.com."
As reported on the liberal left fake news website bbc.com
Right-wing fake news bbc.com, surely, given its apparent preference for May over Corbyn.
The sad thing is not the fact that all sorts of rubbish is 'out there on the internet but that what has been exposed is that the 'reputable print and media are as bad. so it has become very difficult to get anything approaching balanced news reporting anymore. We have frontline broadcasters like J. Vine and K Burley on twitter with anti-Trump tweets then reding the news a few minutes later. The whole thing is dangerously compromised.
A planned appearance Wednesday by controversial internet figure Milo Yiannopulos, an editor for the conservative website Breitbart
The version of that from the BBC News 4:30 summary was interesting:
"Milo Yiannopolous, editor of the far right, fake news website Breitbart.com."
As reported on the liberal left fake news website bbc.com
Right-wing fake news bbc.com, surely, given its apparent preference for May over Corbyn.
The sad thing is not the fact that all sorts of rubbish is 'out there on the internet but that what has been exposed is that the 'reputable print and media are as bad. so it has become very difficult to get anything approaching balanced news reporting anymore. We have frontline broadcasters like J. Vine and K Burley on twitter with anti-Trump tweets then reding the news a few minutes later. The whole thing is dangerously compromised.
The two are directly connected. If fake news far right websites like Breitbart are successful, more mainstream news outlets are pushed to chase their readers using similar techniques. Nuance has always been a minority taste and with business models for the media under pressure as never before, its traditional providers are abandoning it.
A planned appearance Wednesday by controversial internet figure Milo Yiannopulos, an editor for the conservative website Breitbart
The version of that from the BBC News 4:30 summary was interesting:
"Milo Yiannopolous, editor of the far right, fake news website Breitbart.com."
As reported on the liberal left fake news website bbc.com
Right-wing fake news bbc.com, surely, given its apparent preference for May over Corbyn.
The sad thing is not the fact that all sorts of rubbish is 'out there on the internet but that what has been exposed is that the 'reputable print and media are as bad. so it has become very difficult to get anything approaching balanced news reporting anymore. We have frontline broadcasters like J. Vine and K Burley on twitter with anti-Trump tweets then reding the news a few minutes later. The whole thing is dangerously compromised.
A planned appearance Wednesday by controversial internet figure Milo Yiannopulos, an editor for the conservative website Breitbart
The version of that from the BBC News 4:30 summary was interesting:
"Milo Yiannopolous, editor of the far right, fake news website Breitbart.com."
As reported on the liberal left fake news website bbc.com
Right-wing fake news bbc.com, surely, given its apparent preference for May over Corbyn.
The sad thing is not the fact that all sorts of rubbish is 'out there on the internet but that what has been exposed is that the 'reputable print and media are as bad. so it has become very difficult to get anything approaching balanced news reporting anymore. We have frontline broadcasters like J. Vine and K Burley on twitter with anti-Trump tweets then reding the news a few minutes later. The whole thing is dangerously compromised.
The two are directly connected. If fake news far right websites like Breitbart are successful, more mainstream news outlets are pushed to chase their readers using similar techniques. Nuance has always been a minority taste and with business models for the media under pressure as never before, its traditional providers are abandoning it.
You can say the same about Buzzfeed and Huffpost on the left.
The damage that Trump is going to do to the US's standing around the world is considerable.
If Team Trump see China as a threat, you'd think keeping Australia onside would be a good idea.....
Yep - and he has been threatening the Japanese as well. It's really not smart. Turnbull is as good as it will get for Trump in Australia. Humiliating him may well lead to a less friendly government or will force Turnbull to be less accommodating.
The damage that Trump is going to do to the US's standing around the world is considerable.
If Team Trump see China as a threat, you'd think keeping Australia onside would be a good idea.....
Yep - and he has been threatening the Japanese as well. It's really not smart. Turnbull is as good as it will get for Trump in Australia. Humiliating him may well lead to a less friendly government or will force Turnbull to be less accommodating.
The Australian press (or the SMH at least) seem to be 'rallying round' the home boy:
Trump and his "America first" policy seems to have a great difficulty with the concept that any "deal" involves a trade off of advantages. So he cherrypicks the 'negative' aspects of any deal without considering what America might be getting in return. Even if in some cases it's as abstract as "helping out an ally". Because if you help out an ally then they might reciprocate in kind at a later date.
The serious worry is that eventually he might cast his eye to his military hardware as the only way to produce 'favourable' outcomes. After all gunboats have worked with China before...
One of the officials who will benefit is the PSD's leader, Liviu Dragnea, who is accused a 24,000 Euro fraud.
That's a coincidence ...
I take it that you support the full rigour of the law being used against party leaders who have apparently been engaged in corrupt practices in Britain then?
Of course - since I dont particularly support any party (well, aside from the anyone but Jez party) it not something that exercises me particularly.
All opinions are by their very nature subjective. There isn't a new problem of reporting opinions as fact- it's always been here.
Simplistically, two men fight. One punches the other in face. Or, one man head butts the other's fist in an uncontrolled fit of rage - world about to end. Sorry, I went all Guardian there.
I say censorship, you say no platforming. I say free speech, you say hate crime.
We're demonstrating against a Nazi, you think we're fighting against democracy.
A planned appearance Wednesday by controversial internet figure Milo Yiannopulos, an editor for the conservative website Breitbart
The version of that from the BBC News 4:30 summary was interesting:
"Milo Yiannopolous, editor of the far right, fake news website Breitbart.com."
As reported on the liberal left fake news website bbc.com
Right-wing fake news bbc.com, surely, given its apparent preference for May over Corbyn.
The sad thing is not the fact that all sorts of rubbish is 'out there on the internet but that what has been exposed is that the 'reputable print and media are as bad. so it has become very difficult to get anything approaching balanced news reporting anymore. We have frontline broadcasters like J. Vine and K Burley on twitter with anti-Trump tweets then reding the news a few minutes later. The whole thing is dangerously compromised.
A planned appearance Wednesday by controversial internet figure Milo Yiannopulos, an editor for the conservative website Breitbart
The version of that from the BBC News 4:30 summary was interesting:
"Milo Yiannopolous, editor of the far right, fake news website Breitbart.com."
As reported on the liberal left fake news website bbc.com
Right-wing fake news bbc.com, surely, given its apparent preference for May over Corbyn.
The sad thing is not the fact that all sorts of rubbish is 'out there on the internet but that what has been exposed is that the 'reputable print and media are as bad. so it has become very difficult to get anything approaching balanced news reporting anymore. We have frontline broadcasters like J. Vine and K Burley on twitter with anti-Trump tweets then reding the news a few minutes later. The whole thing is dangerously compromised.
The two are directly connected. If fake news far right websites like Breitbart are successful, more mainstream news outlets are pushed to chase their readers using similar techniques. Nuance has always been a minority taste and with business models for the media under pressure as never before, its traditional providers are abandoning it.
The bastion of leftist fake news is probably going out of business sooner rather than later. I wonder where outraged lefties will learn what to be outraged about when the Guardian is dead?
Fox intv with Milo The left is profoundly antithetical to free speech these days, does not want to hear alternative points of view. - Milo Yiannopoulos #Tucker https://t.co/LwAiglBGE0
Dave Rubin Don't like Milo? Don't go to his event and use your free speech to counter his free speech. Look I solved the issue in a tweet.
Is this piece of trash still around?
Big difference between free speech and hate speech...
Hate Speech is simply speech one strongly dislikes.
I'm struggling to have any sympathy for Turnbull, at the end of the day this is a personality clash - Trump is Turnbull cubed, and Turnbull can't handle that.
His early election that reduced his majority to a sliver was amusing.
Comments
Most Brits oppose Trump's EO and oppose cancelling his state visit. That is not being in favour of either.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/01/americans-support-donald-trumps-immigration-ban-oppose-poll/
http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/01/29/poll-nearly-half-america-voters-support-trumps-immigration-order
48/42, my bad.
Edit, and another poll showing a 49/41 split
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/31/slightly-more-americans-approve-trumps-travel-order-than-disapprove-poll-finds.html
57-43 if you take out DKs
Man, they really did a great job in making sure Milo got no platform. Just the top rated show on cable news. https://t.co/s1ktqzzzaK
Tucker Carlson
Violent protest erupt at #UCBerkeley over Breitbart editor #MiloYiannopoulos's planned speech. He joins us live RIGHT NOW - TCT #Tucker
What the EO and state visit polling in the UK has confirmed is that this country's population is largely decent and pragmatic. We should be proud of that.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/02/civilians-likely-killed-trumps-first-raid-yemen-says-us-military/
One of the three U.S. officials said on-the-ground surveillance of the compound was “minimal, at best.”
“The decision was made ... to leave it to the incoming administration, partly in the hope that more and better intelligence could be collected,” that official said.
I'm remembering that only yesterday PlatoSaid claimed Trump would come out and apologize when things go wrong... Maybe he will for this?
https://youtu.be/Y-sX5JLwidE
Jason Howerton
UC Berkeley official said officers were positioned if they were "needed," but had to retreat inside building for officers' safety
surely they can't be at the book burning bit already?
"Milo Yiannopolous, editor of the far right, fake news website Breitbart.com."
Daily Caller
Yahoo Says Another Breach Compromised 1 Billion User Accounts https://t.co/zfKAyXiFnk https://t.co/UjBuLOKrxD
I was in a bit of shock. The BBC website went populist and clickbaity some time ago, but it is a commonplace of good journalism that reporting and opinion are separate. To put an editorial opinion into a report and especially a summary, is the sort of thing I would expect from The Canary or The Independent. Or possibly Breitbart :-).
The day this 'y' was in was mid December last year, when it was admitted, and in reference to a hack taking place in 2013
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/yahoo-says-1-billion-user-accounts-hacked
(Close observers win notice I am not out riding in the tropical sun as claimed earlier - the curse of the crash helmet applied, as soon as I started to put in on, the rain clouds rolled in - although I was pushing my luck a bit in the middle of the rainy season)
The left is profoundly antithetical to free speech these days, does not want to hear alternative points of view. - Milo Yiannopoulos #Tucker https://t.co/LwAiglBGE0
Dave Rubin
Don't like Milo? Don't go to his event and use your free speech to counter his free speech. Look I solved the issue in a tweet.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-yahoo-cyber-idUSKBN1432WZ
The basic problem seems to be that their security sucked, not good on a company holding that much personal data.
"Yahoo badly screwed up," said Bruce Schneier, a cryptologist and one of the world's most respected security experts. "They weren't taking security seriously and that's now very clear. I would have trouble trusting Yahoo going forward."
#BREAKING Deutsche Bank reports loss of 1.4 billion euros in 2016
Unfortunately the sort of crimes decriminalised include ones by corrupt officials, which will lead to their release.
One of the officials who will benefit is the PSD's leader, Liviu Dragnea, who is accused a 24,000 Euro fraud.
Jeremy Corbyn is -5 on "I understand what he stands for". I suspect those saying yes to this question are more likely to be naturally opposed to the 21st century JC than potentially supportive.
The deal was confirmed by White House spokesman Sean Spicer, before being walked back hours later in a phone call from another presidential aide. It was then confirmed by the state department, and further by the US embassy in Canberra, before the president’s tweet appeared to end any hope the deal could progress.
Earlier in the day, the US state department had insisted the deal was on. “President Trump’s decision to honour the refugee agreement has not changed,” a US embassy spokesperson in Canberra said in a statement.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/feb/02/australia-struggling-to-save-refugee-agreement-after-trumps-fury-at-dumb-deal
Trump is going to humiliate the Australian Prime Minister. It's only a matter of time before he does it to Theresa May.
The damage that Trump is going to do to the US's standing around the world is considerable. And for all his bravado, the US really does need the world. Trump is not going to have a chance of creating millions of sustainable, well-paid blue collar jobs on the back of the home market alone. To grow and prosper big US employers need access to global markets and brands that people want to buy. Trump threatens both parts of this equation.
One has to wonder just what attracted him to a nativist autocratic kleptocrat billionaire ?
But no doubt Facebook will win on appeal or something.
And Trump says Europe doesn't pay its way... :-)
Indie: - Deutsche Bank agrees to pay US £5.8bn fine over role in subprime mortgage crisis
'Deutsche Bank did not merely mislead investors: It contributed directly to an international financial crisis.' - US Attorney General, Loretta Lynch
I stopped trying to make excuses or giving media latitude. I'd lost all faith in BBC years before and relied on Sky and ITV. ITV have now lost the plot too.
I don't believe anything the MSM push out - I wait at least a few hours to see what shakes out - there's so much wishful thinking and confirmation bias masquerading as news that I'm not going take any one source as true.
So the loss due to the US fine would be the difference between the provision and the actual fine.
Big difference between free speech and hate speech...
This is pretty bad
Janey
My friend was giving an interview when some coward peppersprayed her
#Berkeley https://t.co/CDpEqDsw2A
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/malcolm-turnbulls-approach-vindicated-by-president-donald-trumps-madness-20170202-gu3yjp.html
Interestingly Turnbull & May were contemporaries at Oxford (Sir Alan Duncan a close friend) so I guess there will have been a comparing of notes.....
The serious worry is that eventually he might cast his eye to his military hardware as the only way to produce 'favourable' outcomes. After all gunboats have worked with China before...
All opinions are by their very nature subjective. There isn't a new problem of reporting opinions as fact- it's always been here.
Simplistically, two men fight. One punches the other in face. Or, one man head butts the other's fist in an uncontrolled fit of rage - world about to end. Sorry, I went all Guardian there.
I say censorship, you say no platforming. I say free speech, you say hate crime.
We're demonstrating against a Nazi, you think we're fighting against democracy.
His early election that reduced his majority to a sliver was amusing.