UKC

Surely a grown man, let alone president elect, wouldn't dignify this with a response if there it was smoke without fire:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38586626

I reckon he's got 100 days before he's impeached.

If only Pence was any good, but he is almost as bad. Interesting times, folks, interesting times.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

I think you're being a bit optimistic, sadly. The guy's got a terrifying amount of power.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

It is quite bonkers. He's unrestrained and a bit out of control on Twitter and has millions of followers. He's president elect of the US denouncing the CIA and US intelligence services, and seems to be subject to some quite odd connections to Russia.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Vive la Trump!

We are in for quite a ride for the next 4/8 years

Vive la Trump!

In reply to subtle:

Now you're being optimistic, imagining we're even going to survive for 4 years with this nutter at the helm.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


Could have been worse, we could have had Boris here as well as Trump over there.

(does that mean May is better though, oh dear, off for a lie down at that thought that May is good)

Actually, on a tangent, who is a "decent" UK politician at present?

Or a "decent" US politician?

Or a decent politician - where will it all end.

We're doomed, doomed I tell you!

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

I thought it was scary when Dubya got elected (twice), but we survived. Not sure about the Drumpf though!

I thought Brexit was a bonkers decision, but I've learnt to accept it and why some people thought it was a good idea. But electing Trump is in a different ball park! I can't imagine accepting anyone's view that's a good idea.

If old Vlad has got him by the Jacob's, then things could get really scary.

In reply to subtle:

'We're doomed, doomed I tell you! '

Unfortunately, like a stopped clock, every now and again that becomes true.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Trump overheard at the urinals this morning...

"You know the difference between a chickpea and a garbanzo bean? I've never had a garbanzo bean on my face"

In reply to subtle:



I suspect I'll get flamed for some of these. But the best of a bad lot IMO.

UK:
Labour: Hillary Benn
Conservative: Jacob Rees-Mogg
Lib-Dem: Nick Clegg

US:
Democrat: Barrack Obama, John Kerry, Joe Biden

Republican: errrrrrrrrrr. . . . . . . .

Repbulicans!!!!! '68 Nixon, 80' Reagan, '88 Bush Snr, '00 Dubya, '16 Trump. 48 years of the most upright, intelligent and honest men the US has to offer!

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

To be fair I do believe him when he says Russia has never tried to use leverage over him.
That will start in a couple of weeks.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


Almost?

Hey, we'll maybe find out - there has to be a very real chance Trump will be assassinated - US presidential assassinations are not rare ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_assassinat... ), and I'd dare say that Trump inspires more extreme feelings than most others have.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

I wonder if the showers match the lifts in Trump tower?

In reply to Hugh J:
I've never really understood this reputation Rees-Mogg has for being a principled politician, he always strikes me as remarkably unprincipled, I suppose he can be quite charming if you like that 18th century gentleman routine.

In reply to The New NickB:

I haven't met him, but to me he comes across as an odiously faux self-deprecating smarmy arrogant git with a horrifying view on most things.

There again, I believe he speaks quite highly of me.

In reply to The New NickB:
To be honest, I couldn't think of a better Tory.

Give me a while and I might!

In reply to The New NickB:

I tend to think of him as like The Quiet American.
A high level of decency and correctness in his manner, but a set of core beliefs which can devastate the lives of others

In reply to Hugh J:

I actually wasted 5 minutes of my life looking through the full list of MPs
I didn't recognise the vast majority of names, and didn't like most of the others, but I ended up with a few possibles. Some of these have had scandals in the past but seem more human for them.
id be surprised if anyone agrees with most of these

Green: Caroline Lucas
SNP: Nicola Sturgeon (not sure shes an MP)
Labour: Stella Creasy Dan Jarvis Alan Johnson Frank Field Hillary Benn Norman Lamb Chris Leslie David Lammy Jeremy Corbyn (as a person) Ed Milliband (ditto)
Liberal: Tim Farron Nick Clegg
Conservative: Anna Soubry David Mitchell (?) Nigel Mills Ken Clarke David Davies (as a person)

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

From what my brother in the USA is emailing me almost daily, the level of shock and revulsion amongst Trump opponents is far, far greater than here in the UK. I'm pretty sure that the moment he sets foot in the White House the forces of opposition, who have had plenty of time to prepare their campaign, will be seeking to derail everything he tries. He will probably soon be indicted and even prosecuted, most likely for something he writes on social media. I'm sure somebody is documenting all those tweets anyway.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Strange but in the last 2 hours spoken to 3 Americans - 1 in Ohio, 1 in Michigan and 1 in CA he gets up very early--- all looking optimistically at the future with Mr Trump.

To paraphrase one:

We are pretty busy with the start of 2017 and are very optimistic for the new incoming administration! It will be a very nice change from the far left that had almost decimated the country after 8 years.

I also read a review in a trade magazine and the editorial says:

" we are hopeful that we will see a government shift to a pro-growth, pro-manufacturing agenda that allows us to once again become a nation of builders and doers. this is our heritage.We cannnot tax our way out of massive national debt, we must grow our way out of it"

I see alot of optimism there at the moment. Whether it is justified by Trump..who knows.....as I said to one of them USA was great under Obama, it was never as bleak as portrayed.

In reply to Hugh J:




You might not agree with Theresa May's view but at least she strikes me as fairly genuine. Not particularly odious, smarmy, disingenuous, pompous or self serving unlike some of her colleagues. I find a good test is whether they are braying during PMQ's. That rules out quite a few, particularly on the Tory benches.

In reply to neilh:

Anyone who thinks that the Obama administration (a) is "far left",and (b) "almost decimated the country" is very poorly informed. Obama is more or less a centrist.

In reply to neilh:
Having spoken to my uncle, he can still barely contain his rage and embarrassment at America having elected Trump. He said you really can't overestimate the belief in many American minds that the equation wealth + fame = success = intelligence + competence holds true, even when all the other evidence points in the opposite direction.

In reply to skog:

Most of the people in USA who might see assassination as a legitimate line of conduct probably voted for Trump anyway.

In reply to John Stainforth:

People that think Obama is 'far left' come from the same ignorant camp as those that go on about the BBC being Marxists.

In reply to Babika:

Surprised Sarah Wollaston has not had a mention for the blue team.

She has been happy to be very independently mined and caused Cameron plenty of headaches with her first hand experience of the NHS.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

Not sure you mean "can't underestimate".

In reply to Hugh J:



Ruth Davidson

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

When Trump denounces "fake news", the old phrases about pots and kettles, biters bit, hoist by own petard, etc. come to mind.

In reply to Hugh J:


Bush snr was ok I think.

In reply to Rog Wilko:


Exactly. Obama was probably a far more likely target.

In reply to Robert Durran:

And Clinton would have been too.

In reply to John Stainforth:

I agree...in European eyes. But to alot of Americans...he is left of centre or should I say center.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Sam Harris gives some very rational analysis on Trump and his election. He provides some good reasoning as to why Trump won and some good analysis of Trump's personality. It's not left-wing hand wringing, in fact he has more than a go at the liberal left. It's about half an hour long and well worth a listen if you've got the time.

youtube.com/watch?v=UcmmJqRbRbQ&

This was recorded a few days after the election, so not fully in context with the thread.

In reply to Hugh J:

Rory Stewart seems ill suited to being a Tory MP, he's probably a good guy

In reply to Rog Wilko:


Thanks. Edited to 'overestimate'. Was a toss-up between that and 'misunderestimate'.

In reply to Robert Durran:
Most Americans still rate Reagan.

You also have to look at the way past Presidents get on with each other ( when all said and done its a small group of people) . Obama always used to hold Bush Jnr in high regard. You only have to look at his comments about how grateful he was for the way Bush jnr did the transition to Obama to understand there was respect.

See this picture and text to get what I am saying

http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/69BC/production/_93186072_1-u9fb...

September: "Following the official opening of the African American Museum, the Bonner family wanted to have their picture taken with former President George W Bush and former First Lady Laura Bush. President Bush took the Bonner's family smart phone and looking around for someone to snap the picture tapped President Obama on the shoulder and asked him to do the honours. The Bonner Family are fourth generation descendants of Elijah B. Odom, a young slave who escaped to freedom. The Bushes were instrumental in the creation of the museum, with Laura Bush serving on the board of directors."

In reply to skog:


Probably less so than Obama does among the gun-toting lunatic fringes of US society but his protection has thankfully held up so far.
jk

In reply to TMM:



Shock and ore?

In reply to Hugh J:


Especially after Trump's incitement to her murder during the election campaign.

In reply to Tyler:


And have you seen the epic walks he's undertaken? Bit of a latter-day Eric Shipton.

In reply to neilh:

I can't see that being reciprocated on this ocassion.

youtube.com/watch?v=yEgcEMdtOBI&


Nice one. Just goes to show, you can never stop being surprised by people. Maybe there's hope yet?

In reply to Hugh J:

I hope there is hope......one comment that got me about Trump was him saying he could not got over over nasty politics was....kettel calling the pot black...but you never know.An American friend pointed out to me that in the first year of Clinton, Clinton would attack anybody who said anything against him, then he calmed down.Just like Trump is doing.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Here's the dossier for those interested
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3259984-Trump-Intelligence-Allegati...

In reply to JJL:



Takes the piss.

In reply to JJL:


If that's true Vlad has got him by the Jacob's! Looks like his penchant for young beautiful women could have caught him out.

In reply to neilh:


Yep I have the same experience, many of my american friends who were really scared by a trump victory are now starting to say that after all it may not be so bad.

I think that they are of course utterly deluded, and they remind me of what people said of 1930 Germany when Hitler got in power. "Ho, it won;t be so bad, after all, let's give it a shot, after all he probable won't be able to do what he wants in practice". Fools.

In reply to Hugh J:


First the Yanks elected a chimp's co-star. Then they elected the chimp. Now they've elected someone who makes the chimp look good.

In reply to Hugh J:










Rees-Mogg is awful - not because he's posh, but because he's a smarmy, filibustering, prick.

Bush Snr was ok I thought.

In reply to Big Ger:


Indeed they have. This must be the first time in UKC history that there is a concensus. The best thing I've seen on here in reference to Trump, is a forlorn hope that things won't be as bad as we fear.

In reply to Big Ger:
Before them they elected Herbert Hoover, a businessman who had ambitions to turn the US around with an ambitious public works programme. And presided over the great depression.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Hoover?wprov=sfla1

Hoover Dam, Trump Damn....

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

As I said later, I was struggling to name a Tory in the interest of fairness. I'm not impressed by his fillibustering either, but you can be sure that with Rees-Mogg it is an accepted modus operandi of parliament.

I still haven't thought of one I like, but need to check out this Rory Stewart guy some have mentioned.

In reply to skog:



Nah, all the folk with guns love him to bits.

In reply to colinakmc:

I wonder whether there is a real possibility that he will be 'retired' on 'medical grounds' - he seems a seriously unstable character who could flip in a medically certifiable way. Which would be interesting.

In reply to RomTheBear:

Most of my American friends have a different view...

For goodness sake, we do not have to look to American or the Hitler era for an analog: many people in Britain are saying that Brexit "may not be so bad".

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
"he will be 'retired' on 'medical grounds'"

But then we'd get Pence who makes Trump look like a bleeding heart liberal

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

'Watersportsgate'?

The new trickle down economics?

In reply to Cú Chullain:

There's a problem, isn't there - at one level it doesn't really matter whether the story is true or not, most of the world believes it *could* be true - and that should be enough.

I really don't want to think of what videos of Trump doing unpleasant things might be out there, I've still not recovered from Chuck Berry.

In reply to Hugh J:


I swear blind, a few months back, there was something on Look North West about a local Tory MP, and I remember thinking 'Blimey, he's a decent bloke (for a Tory)'. He helped people less fortunate than himself and other good things.
I've looked up North West Tory MPs, but I can't spot one I recognise as being him.

It must be a dream!

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:



Most of the world doesn't believe it, only the luvvies

In reply to Jim 1003:

So all the women that complained about Trump groping them, that he said he would legally pursue (but hasn't) were lying? The video of him bragging about his groping was a fake?

You're pathetic.

In reply to Rog Wilko:


Have you read his book "The places in between"? If not, it's strongly recommended.

In reply to Trevers:

No, I read the review but didn't quite buy it.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Pence is worse... I dislike Trump but he can be steered back, Pence believes God is on his side and people will and have died under his watch.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
His last tweet/threat "one last shot at me"... so the free press is gone in then?

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Given that so many of the us electorate didn't care about him being a misogynistic, homophobic bully you have to wonder if they'll care about this. It's odd that those things aren't seen by some as incriminating enough to rule someone out from the presidency.

In reply to Lusk:

A condescending comment.

Most Mp's of all parties do this as standard. Most mp's want to help.

In reply to DaveHK:


Yes, I find the idea that some secret compromising material might come to light quite amusing given what we already know and which he has admitted.

I wonder whether what might eventually do for him is that old favourite, lying under oath. A sizeable proportion of the US population seems to be prepared to tolerate him doing literally anything but sooner or later he will deny something that is then proved beyond doubt in some legally enforceable context.

It might well be something relatively minor in a political sense but his utter disregard for facts and the truth will get the better of him eventually. Preferably sooner than that.

In reply to DaveHK:

Getting prostitutes to pee on a bed because Obama slept in it seems pretty weird to me, the guy needs help and certainly shouldn't be anywhere near a nuclear trigger.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Here's the buzzfeed documents.
God bless America!!!
https://www.buzzfeed.com/kenbensinger/these-reports-allege-trump-has-deep-t...

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Trump has repeatedly used stuff to serve his own ends, that wasn't true - but you could believe it to be so. So he should have expected the same treatment back, especially as he has been dismissive of the press so far.

With regard to Russia and misinformation, it quite feasible that they would feed this - even if it didn't happen, to keep up the instability within the US.

Can anyone assist me here. Didn't Putin sack some close aid and appoint a guy who was a proponent of a kind of chaos philosophy (it has a name, which I can't recall) whereby the creation of confusion and misinformation amongst your enemies helps strengthen power. All this fake news that Russia seems to be spreading around its neighbours seems to back this up.

In reply to subtle:


Hilary Benn.


I'm afraid you're all too right.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Have you seen the 4chan posts from last November? Who knows what to believe but it does look like the most successful troll in history.

In reply to Bellie:

Its called hybrid warfare.......the russians are good at it.

But.......Russia will not win in the end....basically it comes down to where in the world you would prefer to live ...USA/ Western Europe or Russia. USA / Western Europe wins hands down everytime.

Its sort of a false "war".

Interestingly in Germany they have a law prohibiting publication of false news. They are starting to enforce this, and there is a gov dept ,so I read, tackling this issue.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:


The BBC are reporting from multiple sources including intelligence agency staff, and a number of journalists are claiming on twitter to have been given details very similar to the leaked documents (again from intelligence officers) during the summer of 2016. The author of the document has also been named by the press so it seems very improbable that this was dreamt up by 4chan (regardless of the truth or otherwise of the claims).

In reply to neilh:

'Interestingly in Germany they have a law prohibiting publication of false news. '

I'm all for that, in fact have advocated it here. I don't see what would be so hard about framing a law that makes it illegal to publish a story when you have evidence that it is false.

Then we could close down the Daily Mail tomorrow.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:




...who decides if the news is false? Very dodgy ground.

In reply to neilh:


...imagine if such a law existed in the USA, with Trump at the helm.

In reply to neilh:

Interestingly in Germany they have a law prohibiting publication of false news. They are starting to enforce this, and there is a gov dept ,so I read, tackling this issue.

The German Government prohibiting News that they deem false.
Haven't they tried that before?

In reply to JayPee630:


How many of those follow him because they like/support him, compared to the amount that just want to see what ridiculous bollocks he comes out with? I'm tempted to join Twitter just to see the crap firsthand!

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

There a number of things which bother me about this story. We have very short memories, think back to the pile of crap which was peddled by the US and UK to support Gulf war II. Colin Powell taking said crap to the UN security council. Is there any chance this dossier, if it exists might fall into this category.

If it is true, one wonders why it didn't get more of a push before the election, rather that when its a little late in the day. If true, its too late to stop him being sworn in, so impeachment is the only legal path

If its false, then we are seeing an unprecedented attempt to oust the elected leader of the US, isn't that a coup.

Please don't misinterpret this as support for trump, it is not, its more exasperation at what I am seeing

In reply to MarkJH:

I think I will keep an open mind on this

"Private-intelligence firms like Orbis have a growing presence. Major corporations use them to conduct due diligence on potential business partners in risky areas, but quality control can be loose when it comes to high-level political intrigue, according to executives of private intelligence companies. It appears they are also used to create smear campaigns (for lots of money one assumes) targeting potential presidential candidates, not to mention president-elects."

In reply to FactorXXX:

Think it was set up to try and avoid a repeat of past events...

For example there was a false news story about 1,000 immigrants in a German city setting fire to a church. They clamped down on it- it was totally false.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

I suppose I refer the honourable gentleman to my OP. If this story is entirely without foundation, why on earth did Trump give it legs by denying it so vehemently?

Wouldn't the sensible response have been to have given a rueful shrug and say something like 'It's ridiculous of course, but that's what democracy looks like.'

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

For me it's more that even if this isn't true, given what we know Trump has done, something very like it will be true.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


I am not sure he is capable of that sort of response.

In reply to KevinD:


Yes, there is nothing cool or measured about him. Most of the time he looks either like an oaf or a thug. The rude and aggressive manner in which he put down the CNN reporter at yesterday's news conference was shocking. And when he came to talk about the Mexico wall he seemed like a complete madman. I fear that he probably is clinically insane.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Trump doesn't do sensible considered responses. Regardless of whether this story is true or not( and let's face it, would anyone be surprised if it was? politician in sex scandal with hookers?) what I think is much more interesting is the landscape our news media now finds itself in and its vulnerability to "fake news". Journalists now trawl twitter for news, how many times do you read a news article, even in a broadsheet, that will be peppered with Twitter quotes? This makes the platform dead easy to manipulate or trolled with "fake news" IMO.

How do we stop this? I'm not sure, but I suspect it will correct itself as serious news organisations who get trolled and exposed will then up their game to avoid more embarrassment and hopefully revert to more conventional (and harder) journalistic skills. One of the problems is that we all expect our news instantly and for free now. Corners have been cut and quality has dropped. A quality news source that rises to the top will find it easier to charge for content and will hopefully be a beacon for truth and undercover reporting (yes, i'm an optimist

In reply to Cú Chullain:



Surely that should be 'trickle down pee-conomics'?

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
"I fear that he probably is clinically insane." -

As in, an unshakeable belief that he' the President of the US?

More seriously there's a big piece in today's Grauniad about the difficulties of verification of this set of allegations. Everybody's getting flustered about the Russian prostitutes (as well as some great bad-taste jokes emerging) but the real concern must be that he's got multiple connections to the Kremlin, however that might be being leveraged. Not good news for the Baltic states or Central Europe.

In reply to FactorXXX:

What a load of BS.

Why don´t you actually read up on what measures the German government agreed on before making a stupid, condescending comment?

CB

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

New President Trump, is going to bring around, 'World Pee's ?

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

I'd like to agree with this, but there's an element of the horse already having bolted. Many people bypass serious news organisations, and get their news directly from unmediated social media. Jon Sopel was talking on the radio this morning about the number of Twitter followers that Donald Trump has - it's many millions, so he has the capacity to talk directly to them, with no restraint and no journalistic accountability. And as we saw from yesterday's press conference, anyone who questions him critically gets instantly excluded.

After the US election, the Guardian ran an experiment with 10 Trump supporters seeing only Clinton social media news, and vice versa, who had previously been reliant on social media newsfeeds for their knowledge of election and campaign issues. The results were scary - either people had no idea that their own exposure was so distorted and so limited, or they refused to accept (or even read) anything contrary to what they chose to believe.

Most people don't want to change their minds, or have their minds changed. Sometimes, however, minds are changed by exposure to new information. The rise of social media newsfeeds means it's much easier to avoid anything new, and much easier to stick with like-minded FB friends and groups, with no exposure to alternatives.

In reply to tony:


Its not even that it is easier its that the newsfeeds actively adjust what you see based on what it thinks your preferences are. So can drop into a vicious circle.

In reply to tony:

I suspect Trump will be hung by his own petard via his Twitter account at some point, and it will be used by future Presidents as a lesson in how not to operate in the social media space.

But you are absolutely right, we now have so much choice of where to source our news its very hard for anyone to control it and for us to value its provenance. I still think certain news media will try and rise above the choss and sell itself on proper journalism, this is the time to make that stance and to try and break from the zeitgeist of instant free 24 hour "breaking" (unverified?) news that we all gorge on and that they struggle to survive in.

In reply to John Stainforth:
In terms of Brexit, Trump and rise of the far right on the continent, we're at risk of losing sight of the forest for the trees: Russia.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:



But what would he possibly have to do? The normal rules don't seem to apply to him.