ChatterBank2 mins ago
London Mayor Sadiq Khan Criticises President Trump For Playing Golf.
126 Answers
https:/
/// London Mayor Sadiq Khan has reignited his long-running feud with President Donald Trump and mocked him for playing golf as Hurricane Dorian moves dangerously close to the United States. ///
Does this idiot expect Trump to sit in a Canute fashion at the waters edge, demanding Hurricane Dorian to go away from the United States?
Perhaps this so called 'Mayor of London' should be addressing the huge numbers of murders taking place in his own city.
/// London Mayor Sadiq Khan has reignited his long-running feud with President Donald Trump and mocked him for playing golf as Hurricane Dorian moves dangerously close to the United States. ///
Does this idiot expect Trump to sit in a Canute fashion at the waters edge, demanding Hurricane Dorian to go away from the United States?
Perhaps this so called 'Mayor of London' should be addressing the huge numbers of murders taking place in his own city.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I'm more interested with the motives and practical effects of their policies clearly than their "comportment".
Obama, Merkel and Blair were all the perfect models of serious comportment, but each of those pursued policies which have had profound and irreversible effects on their respective countries. And not policies which will enrich or make their countries more safe. Because, I suggest, they don't share those aims. My guess is that Blair wanted to "rub their faces in diversity" for political ends, Merkel possibly to affect an "I'm not a Nazi" posture, and Obama to weaken ther power and influence of the West generally and the US in particular.
The coarse Trump is, I think, motivated by a genuine patriotic desire.
My only unease about his policies to date are the trade war with China. Whuich is not to say I can't understand the despair of the rust-bucket states.
Obama, Merkel and Blair were all the perfect models of serious comportment, but each of those pursued policies which have had profound and irreversible effects on their respective countries. And not policies which will enrich or make their countries more safe. Because, I suggest, they don't share those aims. My guess is that Blair wanted to "rub their faces in diversity" for political ends, Merkel possibly to affect an "I'm not a Nazi" posture, and Obama to weaken ther power and influence of the West generally and the US in particular.
The coarse Trump is, I think, motivated by a genuine patriotic desire.
My only unease about his policies to date are the trade war with China. Whuich is not to say I can't understand the despair of the rust-bucket states.
Well, I'd appreciate a translation for the blind, N :)
I don't see that Trump is motivated by anything other than his own self-image. I would like to agree with you that, coarse as he is, he still cares about the country. But I just don't see that. Constantly banging on about his poll ratings, ratings of his favourite TV programs, his IQ, all the superlatives, the "I, I, I" stuff, the endless rallies, etc. It's hard not to view that with a great deal of suspicion.
I don't see that Trump is motivated by anything other than his own self-image. I would like to agree with you that, coarse as he is, he still cares about the country. But I just don't see that. Constantly banging on about his poll ratings, ratings of his favourite TV programs, his IQ, all the superlatives, the "I, I, I" stuff, the endless rallies, etc. It's hard not to view that with a great deal of suspicion.
Appearances can be deceiving, it is true. And, of course, it's easier for me to be cynical of the motives of someone whose policies I almost universally disagree with, and be more trustful of those who are closer aligned with my world view. As for any other spectator.
It isn't always about whether or not I agree or disagree with the politician, though. Margaret Thatcher stopped being PM when I was still less than a year old, so I can't possibly evaluate her except through the prism of history. I think she was wrong on a great many issues, and the less said about her last couple of years in office the better; but I'd still hold that she became PM because she cared about the UK and wanted to fix its problems, as she saw them. I trust her motives, in other words. On the other side of the coin, Ed Miliband only ever made leader of the opposition rather than PM but I simply couldn't trust him or take him seriously, even if he was more or less "on my side" more often than Cameron was.
Those two examples hardly prove anything, but there we are. I try my best to be fair and objective, and almost certainly end up failing most of the time.
It isn't always about whether or not I agree or disagree with the politician, though. Margaret Thatcher stopped being PM when I was still less than a year old, so I can't possibly evaluate her except through the prism of history. I think she was wrong on a great many issues, and the less said about her last couple of years in office the better; but I'd still hold that she became PM because she cared about the UK and wanted to fix its problems, as she saw them. I trust her motives, in other words. On the other side of the coin, Ed Miliband only ever made leader of the opposition rather than PM but I simply couldn't trust him or take him seriously, even if he was more or less "on my side" more often than Cameron was.
Those two examples hardly prove anything, but there we are. I try my best to be fair and objective, and almost certainly end up failing most of the time.
In a older and purer world people could agree broadly on aims, but disagree on means. And the fact that we disagreed with each other didn't lead us necessarily to impugn each other's moral character, just our respective judgments.
Of course, the world was never that pure, was it? But slightly less polluted than it is today, perhaps.
Of course, the world was never that pure, was it? But slightly less polluted than it is today, perhaps.
jim; //.........and be more trustful of those who are closer aligned with my world view................
.............. Margaret Thatcher stopped being PM when I was still less than a year old//
Which puts you in your late 20s. I think you may find your "world view" might change with time; since I was that age, mine certainly has.
.............. Margaret Thatcher stopped being PM when I was still less than a year old//
Which puts you in your late 20s. I think you may find your "world view" might change with time; since I was that age, mine certainly has.
THECORBYLOON
Just to keep you up to date, now 94 murders so far this year.
https:/
I wonder when we are going to read of any trials and sentences?
Just to keep you up to date, now 94 murders so far this year.
https:/
I wonder when we are going to read of any trials and sentences?
ANOTHEOLDGIT no doubt the police are investigating murders at the moment. Once they have a suspect or suspects and sufficient evidence in a case, the suspect(s) will be charged, court hearings will be arranged, a trial date set, the jury will hear the case, deliver its verdict and the Judge will pass sentence.
I have no reason to doubt there will be reports online at the various stages of the cases.
I have no reason to doubt there will be reports online at the various stages of the cases.
Khandro, asking about the golf cost source:
https:/
Others are available. Note that the above is very much official. It relates to a one-month period, so it's possible to extrapolate somewhat from that. Costs come from travel, increased security, etc. I agree that some security costs are always inevitable, so I'm not clear on how much *more* this would be than otherwise. Although, clearly, if the President spends a lot of time in the White House then it stands to reason that since that building needs to be protected anyway there would be fewer excess costs from travel, additional security arrangements etc., which wouldn't be needed if he were staying put on already-protected sites.
And, again, let me stress that I wouldn't have criticised Trump nearly so much for this but for his decision to vocally criticise Obama for the exact same thing, and for his insistence that he would be "too busy" to ever play golf.
See also https:/
https:/
Others are available. Note that the above is very much official. It relates to a one-month period, so it's possible to extrapolate somewhat from that. Costs come from travel, increased security, etc. I agree that some security costs are always inevitable, so I'm not clear on how much *more* this would be than otherwise. Although, clearly, if the President spends a lot of time in the White House then it stands to reason that since that building needs to be protected anyway there would be fewer excess costs from travel, additional security arrangements etc., which wouldn't be needed if he were staying put on already-protected sites.
And, again, let me stress that I wouldn't have criticised Trump nearly so much for this but for his decision to vocally criticise Obama for the exact same thing, and for his insistence that he would be "too busy" to ever play golf.
See also https:/
THE CORBYLOON
/// I have no reason to doubt there will be reports online at the various stages of the cases. ///
Blimey there is certainly going to be one hell of a backlog, will we have enough courts, and will we finally see the photos of these killers, or will we see the usual, 'For legal reasons we can't publish the identities'?
/// I have no reason to doubt there will be reports online at the various stages of the cases. ///
Blimey there is certainly going to be one hell of a backlog, will we have enough courts, and will we finally see the photos of these killers, or will we see the usual, 'For legal reasons we can't publish the identities'?
// You suggest it might be because of security measures , well Trump is always surrounded by security staff whether playing golf or screwing anyone else, as are all presidents. //
interesting point about 'opportunity costs' - far too cerebral for the average ABer - and whether they are "sunk costs" - that is they were going to do it anyway. SO harry's carbon footprint is nil coz those aeroplanes were gonna fly anyway .....
[the only thing you cant falsify is cash flow account]
interesting point about 'opportunity costs' - far too cerebral for the average ABer - and whether they are "sunk costs" - that is they were going to do it anyway. SO harry's carbon footprint is nil coz those aeroplanes were gonna fly anyway .....
[the only thing you cant falsify is cash flow account]
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.