Trump isn't an outsider. Look at who he's appointing and who all his friends are
http://www.mintpressnews.com/wp-cont...ry-clinton.jpg

Nice try, but mixing at a social event doesn't count.

Unproven assumption. Yes, he fires off tweets, so what, as for the locker room slur, so what, women make themselves available to rich and successful men, and why didn't these women publicly complain years ago, instead of waiting till Trump was in the campaign? He hasn't been sworn in yet, and you are dissing him.

You think Canadian society, is man friendly? Well government spending started to climb when women got the vote.

It shows he isn't an outsider.

Trump has cancelled an order with Boeing. Via Twitter.

http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement...ng_stock_drops

He even has to lie about the reason for cancelling.

Presumably this means he's buying an Ilyushin or is he upset that the taps won't be solid gold and that ordinary people would be travelling both him?

You could put it that way since none of us are aware of what the future is going to be - however it is an opinion that is based on evidence, namely the way Trump behaves


He is supposed to be the President, not some spotty teenager with a social media fixation, and a thin skin.. His job is to run a country, not react to every perceived slur - he will get a lot worse in the next few years.


He openly admitted he saw nothing wrong with sexual assault, that is a crime which would get most of us in front a judge at the very least. This is a man who is going to sit at the top position in making the law and he admits to breaking it.


It still does not mean they should put up with a sexual assault.


Have you been looking at the news - heard of Jimmy Saville, or the current issues with football coaches - why did people not complain then. Because they are scared, and embarrassed (in case people do what you did and blame them).


Have you ever applied for a job? been turned down? How did they know you could not do the job? Should they have taken a risk? Simple reason is they looked at you, they looked at your experience and reputation and found something wanting - well there is plenty to find wanting in Donald Trump. That is before you look at the policies that he has and you find them wanting.

So that's a yes then. You don't think women should be involved in politics.

I disagree with you btw. And Canada is one of the most desirable countries to live in, with a high standard of living. So I don't think people have a raw deal there.

He is a political outsider, i.e. he's never help a public office before he won the election. Trump isn't one of the established gang of career politicians, which is why the established cliche political cartel in Washington don't like Trump rocking the boat.

Nit-picking. Again, you are dissing Trump before he has even started work as POTUS.

Wait and see how he does when he is POTUS.

Shut down twitter it's just causing problems.

There is an 8 letter expletive I could use to answer that, but will resist the temptation - just ask any of those women who were assaulted by Trump if it is nit picking.


No. If I think he will be a bad President - I have every right to say so. This is a debating forum - to criticise is the nraison d'etre of it's existence.

Look at the policies and it is clear they will lead to inflation, huge debt for the US economy, His tax policies will only help the top 1%, while costing everyone else. His weak response to Putin will put Eastern Europe at risk since Putin has his eye on Russia taking over at least 4 (Finland and the three Baltic States).

Those policies he has articulated can be assessed and they are almost without exception damaging. (There is a reason why the hacks released via Wikipedia were almost exclusively from Democrat sources - Putin wanted a Trump victory because he knew he could not get anything passed Clinton, while Trump is a hostage to his business interests (Russian authorities are not above making up reasons to seize the assets of businessman who cross them).

I have no reason just to wait and see, I might not be a US Voter but if the US Economy runs into problems, it always causes problems in the UK economy.

They don't like him because he has no idea what he's doing, and he's appointing a group of nincompoops to high positions of government. I mean, honestly, please try to defend putting Ben Carson as HUD Secretary. Go ahead.

His political "policies" are incoherent, and he is completely out of his depth. That's why people who have spent their lives learning things like foreign policy and public policy are completely disgusted by him. Trump only cares about Trump, and he doesn't really care about things like policies.

He's ridiculous, and if all you care about is that he's an 'outsider' (depsite living in a tower with his name on it) then you're just buying his meaningless populist rhetoric.

That's a bit like putting a blind man in the pilot seat of an a jumbo jet and saying, "you're nit-picking, wait an see how he does when he takes off".

The giving women vote genie is out of the bottle, so that is irrelevant what I think, but don't blame men for government expenditure and free stuff, as men didn't ask for it.


Unless you are a man.

No. If I think he will be a bad President - I have every right to say so. This is a debating forum - to criticise is the nraison d'etre of it's existence.[/quote]

At least Trump wasn't having sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky in the oval office.

Yes, it is a debating thread, and I think Trump will be a good president. It's called Another Point Of View.

You'd have preferred Clinton the proven liar with blood on her hands, and a burning desire for a war with Russia then?

Trump isn't president yet, pretty hard for him to have had sex with anyone in the Oval office.

James Keir Hardie
James Ramsay Macdonald
Clement Richard Attlee
Hugh Todd Naylor Gaitskell
James Harold Wilson
Leonard James Callaghan
Michael Mackintosh Foot
Neil Gordon Kinnock
Gordon Brown
Edward Milliband
Jeremy Corbyn

Are all men , all Labour leaders who have traditionally worked to increase public spending, by the way women did not get voting parity with men until 1929 and the first two on that list came before then.

Maybe we should add

Donald Trump

Since the policies he has outlined will see a huge increase in the debt the US has

Blood on her hands? I doubt if she's had that since her last period. If you mean Benghazi then look at the Republicans - including some of Trump's newest bestiest friends - who blocked increased security at embassies.

Perhaps you are the sort who believes that Hillary ran a child sex ring from a pizza restaurant

There it is folks, the big switch. You can't defend Trump so you go after Clinton.

too easy.

Women started getting the vote so government expenditure started going up as women are majority of voters, and women wanted stuff.

As for Trump, wait till he is POTUS, and stop listening to the biased US MSM, and their dire predictions, no-one knows what kind of POTUS he'll be.

Clinton is a politician but when various fact checking sources compared Trump and Clinton - Trump was the bigger liar by far - indeed according to PolitiFact

Clinton score for truthful was 72, Trumps was 14
Clinton score for false/pants on fire was 26. Trumps was 68

As for blood on her hands - on what basis? Syria - that would have been a decision for the President, not the Secretary of state.

And a burning desire for war. Trump's weak response to Putin is likely to create a war - sometimes it is important to be strong in front of an aggressor.

No so, Clinton was symbolic of all that is rotten in the US political system. IMO the US voters who voted for Trump voted wisely.