Donald Trump can suck our collective dicks
 

Trump's been busy pissing off everybody who isn't a racist fucktard. In his latest outburst he has managed to insult all muslims everywhere, as well as the inhabitants and authorities of Paris and London.

Naturally this went down like a lead balloon over here, where, not only was the assertion dismissed as patently false and dangerous, but also taken as a deep insult to the courage and professionalism of the police officers of Paris and London.

The Mayor of London, Boris Johnson had this to say:

(as much as I disagree with his politics, I do like Boris ;p)

Similar sentiments have been expressed in Paris.

It's particularly galling that he'd make such comments about the police in London, just a few days after police officers subdued a knife wielding attacker who claimed loyalty to Isil before slashing two people at a tube station. The police did this without the use of firearms. I have some issues with our police but one thing you cannot level at them is a charge of cowardice - they take on the worst and most violent offenders day in day out, often with no more than batons to defend themselves.

There was a petition set up to ban Trump from entering the UK on grounds of hate-speech - it gathered a quarter of a million signatures in a night. The government has (rightly, I think) decided not to impose such a ban - I bet some of them considered it though :P

Read the rest here, it's quite a long report: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2...-muslims-claim



And then there's this gem:


http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2...fein-terrorism


Now - I am all for reconciliation and acceptance when it comes to Sinn Fein - but the hypocrisy of this man is just unbelievable.

Scott Adams, who writes the Dilbert comic, doesn't approve of Trump, but picks apart his manipulative power with admiration. He is convinced that Trump's most recent radical positions are a chess move that are cementing his bid to win the White House.

That's really interesting. Also interesting, was the tack taken by last night's Daily Show. They skewered Trump, as expected for the ridiculous muslim ban plan (fuck, that's catchy) but then they did something different - they changed the conversation and made it about something that speaks loudly to his character but isn't playing into the narrative he's been establishing, or the commonly held fears and prejudices of his supporters. Rather than just lambasting him for something most of us find deplorable, because there are a bunch of people thinking what he is saying - they went for something different. They pointed out the many interviews in which Trump has implied he'd like to have sex with his daughter. In a segment entitked 'Don;t forget, Trump wants to bang his daughter'.

I'd never seen any of the interviews - it was painful to watch. Especially the ones where she is sitting next to him. When he talks about how gorgeous she is and how stunning her body is and how if she wasn;t his daughter he'd probably dating her - or when asked a question about their favourite interests that they share with each other and she said golf and he said sex.

He all but spells it out in some of the interviews. It's a shame she gets dragged through it, but maybe this has the potential to damage his sheen a little with people who find that dad figure alluring.

.

He ain't gonna get a chance to suck my dick, no way. Have been paying attention to what kind of shit comes OUT of that hole?

No Fucking Way.

I do find him repellant. I don't just mean his views, though they are a factor - there's just something about him that sets my lizard brain on edge. You know when you meet someone and a warning bell goes off somewhere in your brain? You may not be able to nail down what it is exactly, but something has set off a warning. I get that kind of feeling when I see him talking.

Not that I am equating the two men, but just because it's one of the few examples of that in my life where I had later confirmation of my instincts: I had a student once when I was a literacy tutor. He was maybe in his early 50s - difficult to put an age on him, he was bizarrely nondescript. One of those people who can sit in a room and almost disappear from view. Very quiet, avoided eye contact mostly and didn't engage much with the rest of the class. I treated him with courtesy and the same friendly air I adopted with every student, but he really, truly made my skin crawl. A few weeks into teaching the class the lead tutor divulged to me that he had a criminal conviction for some kind of child molestation. Given we were helping him find employment along with the literacy and numeracy lessons, that kind of thing was going to be a factor in his jobsearch and advice needed to take account of particular challenges a student might face. Officially I knew he had a criminal record, and that's all.

Sorry - that was a massive tangent.

The lizard brain can pick cold blooded creatures that slither and creep, out of camouflaging foliage, or a crowd.

Donald Trump can suck our collective dicks
 

If he could get his daughter Ivanka to do it for votes, he'd win by a landslide.

He's red faced and ugly, Dana. That's not your lizard brain, that's just your mating instinct

I really want someone to photoshop Trump in an argyle sweater, lifting a pint at the pub.

And the Washington Post had a cover page story this morning on Trump's strategy and manipulative style.

Seems the media is going from trying to tear the guy down by pointing out what a clown he is to trying to figure out just how the hell he is winning despite all the strikes against him.

NPR this morning also had a short segment interviewing Trump supporters and their responses were almost verbatim what Scott Adams was saying in his blog post I linked above. They are afraid and they want Dad to do something to make it better. Because something, even if it winds up being disastrous, is better than doing nothing. (In their point of view.)

Attachment 54425

CHEERS, FOBBLE!

"Oi, mate! I swear on me mum I'll get riddovee immigrants, yeah?"

That picture does not do his magnificent hair justice. It's magnificent, I tell you.

yeh, well... quick and dirty erase the background job kind of smoothed him out a bit.

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews...eUIW&ocid=iehp

Seriously, Trump, go fuck yourself really hard and then set whatever that is on your head free to live in the wild as nature intended.

On the up side - I, like many of my countryfolk are a touch concerned that your country may actually make this man president. As much as we comfort ourselves with the notion that he is too off the wall to actually get into the white house... we were all thinking the same about Bush when he was coming up, and look how that ended up. Trump's a whole other brand of nasty and assinine and possibly more dangerous. So, where's the upside?

So - at least we'd have that to soften the blow.

I heard that if Trump doesn't get elected President, he wants to become the next Doctor.

ETA: Yes ma'am.

You take that back. Even though I know that was a joke....you just take that back right now. That's not even funny. Ok, maybe it's a little bit funny, but it's also not funny.

how bowt dis?
http://i.imgur.com/a6tGCNV.jpg

Excellent!

I am considering buying a strap on just so I can make Donald Trump suck my dick.
When I think of all the Muslim people I've worked with. You know what? I met at least one arsehole. I can probably think of more. But he was an arsehole because he was one (also a GP, who have a higher than average tendency to arseholiness IMO) and not because he was Muslim.

One of my very favourite work colleagues over the years was Muslim.
And actually, aside from being a lovely person, I believe her religion amplified this. In the same way you can meet Christians who really exemplify Christ's message and spread love not hate.

Hahahaha - Donald Trump loves Katie Hopkins. Go figure. They deserve eachother.
I wonder if they both realise the other are posturing airbag media-whores who will say or write anything for publicity?
I remember watching Katie Hopkins once on daytime TV (I was waiting for an interview with someone I genuinely admired) spewing hatred towards certain children's names. She said she would not let her children play with other children if they had common names. One she cited was parents who named their children after places. Her daughter's name? India.

Still, at least that's mainly a Hindu country.

Trump is probably the US's greatest ISIS recruitment tool.

'Xenophobic sweet potato and wispy human queef'

Chris Hardwicke's description of Trump on last night's @midnight

Trump on political opposition

The politicians and their big money are trying to keep me from getting the nomination.

Uh huh. That really is how the process works.

So this guy is spending heaps of dough to get in with a chance. If it works for him and it does go to a vote, does he actually have a chance of winning and becoming president? My analysis tells me no, but I don't tend to associate with the idiots that are likely to vote for someone like him. Are there enough of those idiots to get him into power or not? Seriously. I really want to know if I can just laugh up the entertainment, or if I really should be worried.

No. Here's how it actually works:

Trump gets 25% in polls

If the public were polled today on who would win the next Olympic Decathlon, 25% of them would say Caitlyn Jenner.

This link does a good job of explaining things.

Straker's making a lot of assumptions. :eyebrow:

He is not one of my favorite people, especially when he refers to transwomen as "mutilated men". However, he IS a major contributor to the National Review, News Machete and American Thinker.

All in all, I never pay attention to polls. They are too easily skewed and usually are wrong anyway. It's far too early to be calling the election, or eulogizing any candidates, IMHO

Polls are not wrong. Polls are completely right. Wrong are so many who have opinions. Will completely change their opinions only in months and then deny that had been so easily manipulated.

Are polls measuring the people's logical thoughts? Of course not. A majority of adults think like children - conclude only from their emotions. For the same reason a majority in all nations also knew, beyond doubt, that smoking cigarettes increased health. They knew only because advertising and hearsay so easily manipulated their feelings. Facts be damned.

Polls were also right: well over 60% of Americans knew beyond a doubt that smoking cigarettes increased health. The polls were not wrong. People were.

One need only watch how Joseph McCarthy, Adolph Hitler, Alexander the Great, Donald Trump and Ted Cruz all got power and supporters. None (in this post) are good or bad. They just are - nothing more.

Many supporters even say Trump is wrong - as demonstrated in that previously cited NPR focus group. And still highly approve of Trump only because Trump (and his lies) inspire emotion. Most adults want to feel - don't want to know. That is both how and why demagogues gain power.

Polls are not wrong. If anything is wrong, it is why some many people approve of inferior leaders. Polls only demonstrate the actual problem.

Watched as much of the Republican debate tonight that I could stomach.

Trump, really, motherfucker?

You think it's a good idea for America's security, to kill the family members of members of ISIS.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/1...amilies-216343

The sad thing is that Hillary and Rubio will look acceptable by comparison.

Dude needs to watch Princess Bride again.

"My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die."

That is sad, truly sad. We are so screwed. America isn't special anymore, we've been transformed.

I truly hate to say it, but he is correct. ISIL has shown no compassion for non-combatants. It is time to return the favor. I don't want US troops on the ground. I strongly support carpet bombing as a way to destroy their rat lines and morale. Plus a strong cyber warfare campaign, would affect their credibility and recruiting

Carpet bombing is all well and good, except ISIL have stationed themselves in amongst a pretty much captive civilian population.

Transformation complete.

i don't get it

Targeting relatives and bombing civilians are activities reserved for decidedly not special countries.

There's no transformation. We have to destroy the villages in order to save them.

Yeah, I guess we saved Dresden similarly.

Carpet bomb them anyway and accept there will be civilian casualties. Precision strikes are not working and we are fast depleting our reserves of suitable munitions. The other choice is to send in 30-50,000 troops and be prepared to be there for years.

You have 2 options: Civilian casualties or US military casualties drug out for years. I believe President Truman had to make the same decision

I'm sorry - I can't feel that casual about mass casualties. And that's what we're talking about if we go down the carpet bombing route. Thousands would die. And some variant of ISIL would reemerge in a new part of the region. Rinse and repeat.

My god, those poor people. They've been forced to live under these lunatics, and now the west is going to bomb them back to the stone age.

And as for this: 'You have 2 options: Civilian casualties or US military casualties drug out for years'. US soldiers sign up for that risk. Joe Raqqa and his wife and kids did not. And I get that each country's leaders have to think about their own people's safety first - but those US casualties drug out over years are unlikely to ever reach the heights that civilian casualties will reach in carpet bombing. So what we are saying there is that a few hundred US lives are worth tens of thousands of Syrian lives.

What is the end goal here? Is there one? Or is just that doing something is somuch better than doing nothing? Do we really think carpet bombing Raqqa is going to make us safe? Bullshit, is it.

Big Sarge. it saddens me to hear you speak so blithely about "Yeah, just kill their families". You love your family, they're precious to you. I can't understand how anyone can dehumanize the people in this scenario to the point at which the deaths of the families of the "others" would be any less atrocious than the deaths of their own family members. I doubt anyone here lost a family member to the violence in San Bernardino recently. Yet, many around us are apoplectic about the need to take swift and sure action, including killing the family members of ... of... somebody.

Think about how much distance there is between you and the people who died and compare that to how strongly you feel that killing any-fucking-one who stands between you and the person you feel's responsible. Big distance, big reaction. And it stands to reason were the distance smaller, like someone in your direct circle or family, that the reaction would be even greater. How can someone disagree with that? They can't. And yet, it is seen as a path to peace (!!!) to kill the family members of those "others".

How can you explain that it would not incite "them" to even greater reactions, just as you are whipped up by the deaths of your fellows? Death begets death. Violence begets violence. It is a warmongering, hateful, profiteering fantasy to suggest that we can kill our way to peace. It is exactly this kind of attitude and action that provides them motivation in the first place. This is what makes more terrorists more active. Only stupid people think otherwise.

Do you have any evidence that they can be intimidated? Frightened into cooperation? Do they lack resolve? And say you *could* kill all of them, albeit in and amongst the civilian carnage. How can you justify the deaths of all the innocents?

You can't.

Killing innocent people to bring about political change is what terrorists do, it's the fucking definition of terrorists. Suggesting that we should kill their families should be treated with the same kind of response that a 14 year old (brown) boy who brings a clock he made to school. Arrest, incitement to violence, making terroristic threats.

I'm not really having a knee jerk reaction to the San Bernadino event. My reaction is more to us being sucked deeper into the ISIL/Daesh and the likelihood US troops will be sacrificed. Here's the sitrep as I understand:

1. The Iraqi Army folded and abandoned their equipment to a smaller ill equipped force.
2. Military age males from Syria and Iraq have fled to Europe rather than fight in defense of their own homeland.
3. President Obama has stated he will destroy ISIL. His precision air campaign has had limited success in disruption, but the US has been forced to deploy SOF troops on the ground.
4. US military commanders have stated conventional ground forces will have to be deployed for the destruction of ISIL. This will surely guarantee another OIF/OEF type drawn out campaign - US causalities and multiple deployment cycles.

So yes, I fear we are being drawn into a fight that will see US troops sacrificed for an area the indigenous people refused to fight for and the World expects us to do the dirty work. The US has recently downsized the military and less than 0.4% serve on active duty, but they will carry the burden. When they return home, the VA system is struggling to provide care and the veteran suicide rate is high.

Donal Trump, whom I do not support, has stated his desire to carpet bomb. I see merit in it to save our troops from meaningless sacrifice. Dana, I hate to throw you under the bus, but you said it was better to see soldiers die than civilian casualties. I recommend you start a grass roots campaign to send British troops to Syria and state you would rather see soldiers die than risk civilian casualties.

Guys, remember this only a political discussion and no matter what I love you all.

That is not what I said.