Sorry, but beg to differ. He's been selective with his changes. He made a HUGE point of going for Clinton during the campaign, including appointing a special prosecutor just for her. That would have been the most admirable policy, but he backed off & even called the Clintons 'nice people', which they're not! Also remember that only about 35% of the electorate voted for him, so that leaves almost a couple of hundred million people to complain.
He hasn't been in power two weeks yet so I can't see how he can be accused of being selective. I'm not sure how I feel about him backing down on the Clintons, was it all bravado to fight a good campaign, does he need to spread himself too thin concentrating on something controversial, does he need anymore enemies? All of which is not my problem so do I really care that much? My main concern is how well will we do in trade deals, how much will protests here harm any such deal, I just think the majority of the UK protesting are doing so as they are being mislead by the media.
Yep, don't care too much myself, unless it affects us. The Clinton pursuit would have been quite something to follow.
Did I say it was a shocking mantra. It wasn't me that thinks he will be like some fairy godmother to the uk.
Which one do you work for, Daily Mail or The Sun? Better for the UK than Clinton would have been becomes.... Fairy godmother?
Get this signed lads and **** those snowflake ****s off https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/178844
You ****s dont need dual citizenship for that. Paddies have been trying to **** us over since easter 1916.
How So? Bobby Sands is still dead and Norn is still ours. McGuiness is about to peg it and Adams is now a royalist.
