Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > Donald Trump thread

Donald Trump does seem to be upsetting a lot of people. But he knows that, and probably does it deliberately. He can see who is enemies are, and who rallies around to defend them.

He certainly is not going to wait until Mann v. Steyn gets to court, before punting Climate Science in the long grass.

Jan 15, 2017 at 9:28 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

GC... from my estimation, Trump grants favours according to whether he sees an advantage...and it helps if they do not insult him. If Giss were able not to insult Trump, he would have no motivation to shut off funding. If he sees mileage in Steyn taking Mann to ncourt, he would act accordingly.. narrow self-interest seems to be his way of proceeding.

Jan 15, 2017 at 11:01 PM | Unregistered Commenterdiogenes


Trump will face a series of legal challenges, however he intends to shut down Climate Science's interference with the US Economy.

Turning off the money supply from US Taxpayers cannot happen overnight, and so much is contained within other budgets and commitments, such as the UN.

He has no intention of proceeding in accordance with Mann's proposed timeframe (indefinite delay)

Pruitt will crush the EPA's Legal Weapons of Massive Economic Destruction, but cannot intervene with the Civil Courts, directly to help Steyn.

Tax evasion put Al Capone behind bars, financial fraud helped to bust FIFA Corruption. Both involved Criminal Justice, Criminal Investigators and access to financial as well as all sorts of other records. Trump might want Mann in Court, but he does not need Mann in Court, to discredit Climate Science, and drag Climate Scientists through the mud.

IF he is to honour his election commitments, he needs to reopen US manufacturing and industry ASAP. This will discredit his Democrat opponents, especially if he shows that the Democrat EPA caused the decline in the first place.

Jan 15, 2017 at 11:58 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

It astounding that this week 95% of MSM looked like they're on drugs whilst Trump looks very sane.
How on Earth did they get into spending the first 20 minutes of a news prog doing wacky conspiracy theories about a super extraordinary story that they haven't any evidence for ?
After all there was genuine proper video from Project Veritas of Team Hillary staff saying how they planned to cheat the election ..yet MSM would even mention them . and they hardly discussed the Podesta emails.

The only slack I can give them is that there is Process Bias in the industry. Like if you hold back a story you might get left behind.
Someone did a wacky dossier, someone then mentions it was mentiond in an intelligence briefing, it's easy to jump to a conclusion that legitimacy might be about to appear .so rush to print. And its difficult to put the brakes on when you've got into believing your own monstering of Trump.
- it wouldn't surprise if the dossier was a Team Trump sting he knew the media would get sucked in and discredit themselves.

Jan 16, 2017 at 12:36 AM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

And then today MSM banged on with a narrative "Trump insulted Congressman John Lewis"
When everyone else can see that its the other way round : Lewis was first vile to Trump and Trump didn't send an insult back but just mentioned the obvious that Lewis should do something about the crime in his constituency nstead of throwing insults .

( Team Trump were quoted as jokingly saying journalists might be drug tested prior to future Trump press conferences.

Jan 16, 2017 at 12:47 AM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

Team Trump were quoted as jokingly saying journalists might be drug tested prior to future Trump press conferences.

Jan 16, 2017 at 12:47 AM | stewgreen

There is a lot to be said for drug testing all those wanting to enter the White House, whether they want to work or live there.

Jan 16, 2017 at 4:31 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

More from the UN-Democratically appointed elite, on how to maintain profit margins, despite Trump.

Jan 16, 2017 at 4:43 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

A Donald Trump thread would not be complete without a quote from the greatest living Oxfordian scourge of climate-bollocks skeptics: Yes, you guessed it, Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you Prof Myles "11 Degrees" Allen. Courtesy of climate sturmbannführer McGrath at the BBC, Prof Allen believes that the statements of the transition team to date are far removed from the views expressed by their grassroots supporters.

“We’re in a situation where the foot soldiers of denial are well behind their generals,” he told reporters.

Do you think he's talking about people who might comment at this blog when he disparages the foot-warriors?

Jan 17, 2017 at 3:45 AM | Unregistered Commentermichael hart

michael hart, substitute "taxpayers" for "foot soldiers of denial" and the "soon-to-be-surplus-to-requirements" Myles Allen starts to make sense.

Jan 17, 2017 at 1:27 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Some suggestions about how the US can make an International difference.

Jan 17, 2017 at 3:36 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

An interesting viewpoint.

This sort of thing has been going on for a long time.

Jan 19, 2017 at 9:19 AM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Americans Claim Role in Yeltsin Win
Russia: Consultants say they spent months in Moscow secretly devising U.S.-style strategy.

Jan 19, 2017 at 11:07 AM | Unregistered Commenterhusq

An interesting viewpoint.

This sort of thing has been going on for a long time.

Jan 19, 2017 at 9:19 AM | Entropic man

Tyranny by the Progressive Elite has been creeping up on the UK, USA and EU for years. 2 down, 1 to go.

Jan 19, 2017 at 1:07 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Golf Charlie

Make that three autocracies.

You may have noticed the lengths to which Theresa May has gone to keep Parliament out of the Brexit process.

Jan 19, 2017 at 2:32 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Jan 19, 2017 at 2:32 PM | Entropic man

Did you notice how successive Prime Ministers and the Westminster bubble have kept the UK population out of all decisions about the Common Market, EEC, EU and even the Euro since 1974? The latter was Gordon Brown's best achievement.

The EU exists because democracy has been dictated to, and no one asked for that, or voted for it. Very Stalinist.

You may have noticed that BREXIT will mean BREXIT, but as it has not occurred before, the EU has not decided what "rules" should be applied, and the UK Civil Service remains in a dither.

As we do live in a Democracy, you are entitled to a view about how BREXIT should occur, despite having advocated for the opposite, and supported the lack of Democracy in the EU.

Jan 19, 2017 at 3:45 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Golf Charlie

We are, by custom and practice, a representative democracy.

We elect a parliament, whose largest party forms a government. That government appoints ministers who make policy within a framework of laws passed by Parliament. If this goes wrong and a government loses the support of parliament, the traditional recourses are an election, usually before a vote of no confidence becomes necessary.

This is why referenda are such a silly idea. They generate conflicts of governance like the current Brexit process. which our normal checks and balances are not designed for.

Jan 19, 2017 at 5:40 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Entropic Man at 5.40pm.

Thank you for that comment. I almost entirely agree. I am not against referendums per se, but I think our politicians have been far too keen to use them without thinking through why they are doing so, and the post-referendum implications.

As you say, we live in a Parliamentary democracy (sort of) and our constitutional theory is that Parliament is both supreme and decides. I am annoyed that our MPs and leaders have not had the wit to have a sensible debate about the role (if any) referendums should have, before resorting to them on an ad hoc basis without a plan as to what happens after the referendum, especially if the referendum produces a result they neither expected nor wanted.

Having said that, we have had a referendum, most politicians prior to the vote said they would respect the outcome of the vote, and now they need to do so instead of trying to undermine it. They also need to learn from this and not have any more referendums without first having a serious debate about the place of referendums in our Parliamentary democracy.

Jan 19, 2017 at 7:42 PM | Unregistered CommenterMark Hodgson

Mark I am somewhat surprised by your response to the hypothetical situation I set (only hard Brexit possible which will produce significant economic and political problems). Your response was that the referendum's result was definitive and should be complied with come what may. My view is that the public's decision should always be capable of being overturned - but possibly only by another and better thought out referendum. I would make an analogy with a criminal trial result. No one wishes to overturn the decision of a jury, but in the case of significant new evidence appearing a jury decision can be rendered unsafe with possibly a retrial being commissioned.

Jan 19, 2017 at 8:45 PM | Unregistered CommenterSupertroll


Perhaps my response was because I didn't accept your hypothesis, but even if I did, my view is that democracy must prevail, for better or worse. That's what democracy is about.

I am very concerned that a vociferous section of those who voted to remain are successfully manipulating the MSM (who, let's face it, are very pliable in this regard) to overturn or subvert the decision by creating a narrative along the line of your hypothesis (not that I'm accusing you of being one of them!).

The problem I have with your hypothesis is the assumption that those who feel the decision might boil down to "only hard Brexit possible which will produce significant economic and political problems" must be right, while those who disagreed (and by a majority voted the other way) must be wrong. Why have a second referendum in those circumstances? What if it produces the same result? Is the second result finally accepted as definitive,or does the fight go on? Maybe by continuing to chip away with new variations of the arguments now raised post-referendum which weren't raised pre-referendum? If the second result goes the other way, can those who won the first referendum but lost the second one seek a "best out of 3"?

I don't think we should have had a referendum, but having done so, I do think we need to accept the result. Anything else subverts democracy. How can we have a system where the minority, absolutely convinced though they may be that the majority decision is disastrous, get to overrule the majority? After all, however well-intentioned the minority, they might be wrong. And even if they're not wrong, if the minority view prevails, what was the point of the referendum?

Jan 19, 2017 at 9:07 PM | Unregistered CommenterMark Hodgson

Entropic Man, Supertroll & Mark Hodgson,

without a Referendum, how else would anyone have known how badly the EU was doing? No Prime Minister had dared to ask the question before.

How many people voted to Remain because of all the pro Remain publicity, paid for in part by the EU, endorsed by the main political parties, and all the terrible scare stories about the immediate consequences of BREXIT, all of which was broadcast by the BBC?

How out of touch with "the common people" are the political classes, who all claim to be listening to the needs and views of their local people, with carefully selected "focus groups"?

The EU did not listen to the UK Prime Minister when he went to them asking for a few crumbs to present to the UK as evidence that the EU cared. The EU remain arrogant and hold EU Citizens in contempt. If the EU can't self correct, then like Climate Science, why should it be trusted by the people who pay for it?

Jan 19, 2017 at 10:28 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

I do find myself, once again, completely out of step with the overwhelming number of contributors to this site. I asked a relatively simple question - what should happen if it could be shown that Brexit would have significant adverse economic and political consequences. All responders either refused to acknowledge this could happen or (if I have read them correctly) adopt a stance of "full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes", refusing to alter the "will of the people" by asking the people if they are still content. Even greater damnation is reserved for parliament (elected to do the people's business) if they should contemplate revisiting some aspects of Brexit that were not covered in either the original referendum question or platforms discussed by leavers prior to referendum day.

I despair, I have the feeling of being on a runaway train on a route with no emergency exit tracks and multiple inexperienced train drivers.

Jan 20, 2017 at 8:08 AM | Unregistered CommenterSupertroll


I have a great deal of respect for your views, but as you will gather, I cannot begin to agree with you on this. For me democracy is paramount. The idea that we have to have another vote because the voters got it wrong, is in my opinion ridiculous. Democracy is democracy, warts and all.

Over at Dung's thread you asked if the vote had gone the other way, would Brexit voters have taken it lying down? I can't speak for the others, but speaking for myself the answer is a categorical yes. I fully expected the result to go the other way, and was completely resigned to it. For me, that would have been the end of the story, probably for good, since I take the view that if we stayed in for a few more years it would probably be too complicated to leave thereafter. That's why I'm particularly infuriated by those remainers who refuse to accept the decision. After all, the odds could hardly have been stacked more in favour of remain winning, yet still they lost.

I didn't earlier respond to your court case analogy simply because I didn't find it appropriate - sorry! Democracy is one thing, justice is another. In my opinion, the people regularly get it wrong (though not in this case); I don't feel I have the right to subvert their decision. I was devastated by the election of the Thatcher government - I accepted it, and didn't call for a second election to take place if/when the people better understood the devastation she was unleashing on the (then) industrial north. Democracy is undoubtedly imperfect, but it's the best we have. You destroy it if you don't accept the results it produces, however unpalatable to you personally.

Jan 20, 2017 at 9:09 AM | Unregistered CommenterMark Hodgson

Mark. Good counterargument of yours using Thatcher. Will have to think carefully about it. You seem to be implying that democracy (or our particular verson of it) is paramount. Yet I cannot agree. Invoking Goodwin's Law, the people democratically voted for Hitler.

Jan 20, 2017 at 9:41 AM | Unregistered CommenterSupertroll

Mark, like you I expected the vote to be for Remain. I would have been disappointed, but the important thing would have been that the people had finally had a chance to express their views. Although I might have grumbled a bit that it was hardly fair with all the resources of government, civil service, leaders of other countries, the BBC etc. and other organisations all ganging up to tell us to stay, but I would certainly have accepted the result. We should then have worked together wholeheartedly to make the thing work. Can the Remainers not do the same the other way?

Jan 20, 2017 at 9:42 AM | Unregistered Commentermike fowle

Supertroll, how many of the people who produced dire warnings about BREXIT, have admitted having got it wrong?

Was it the same people who produced the other dire warnings, that you are still worried about?

Jan 20, 2017 at 10:28 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie