To be fair, there can't be many better qualified to determine what is 'fake'. He looks at it many times a day in the mirror! Trouble is, that more than 2 years of this bullshit has been coming out of his mouth / anus (difficult to identify which is which) and he's still getting away with it. The joke is on us!
Took a while, but we got there in the end. The converse premise is to construct fake (ie untrue) news that puts in him in a positive light, and wait for him to denounce it. Something about his sexual potency/prowess should suffice.
Poor old Trump probably can't sleep so he spends his nights tweeting.Melania had a new lock put on her door ages ago.
So the Orange Overlord is suggesting that any journalist who doesn't say everything he does is fair, just and brilliant should not be allowed into White house press briefings. Here's a gallery of other leaders with a similar outlook on the press... please log in to view this image please log in to view this image please log in to view this image please log in to view this image
That is absolutely outrageous - even if the dislocation claims seem slightly exaggerated. Apparently, Stormtrooper-style thuggery can be added to the list of Trump-era acceptable behaviours. Thank heavens for social media in this instance.
If you think that's bad, then don't take a look into Gina Haspel, the appointment that he's protesting. That's some disturbing ****.
Another fair point...... Commanded and overseen some serious, nasty **** Couldn’t believe her nomination when I heard about it the other day.
What was even more disturbing was to find out that in her spare time she guests as Captain Sharon Raydor in Major Crimes!!
You can just see her in the Nazi torture chamber,whip in hand. How many more nasties will Trump put in power and is Sarah Huckabee faceache the new Goebels?
Unfortunately Trump's reputation as an idiot (insert other words as required) might get in the way on the off-chance he might be right about something. For example, when it comes to the Iranian nuclear treaty we just assume that withdrawing from the treaty is a bad thing - but what does it actually say? We must be sure the treaty wasn't just a way of the west being seen to do the right thing instead of actually doing it. We are very guilty in the west of doing what's easiest rather than what's right - and paying the consequences in the future. We absolutely cannot let Iran go nuclear - if you think Trump is a madman you don't want to see nukes in the hands of religious fundamentalists with a history of funding terrorism! If this means we have to be very harsh in our terms, and that upsets a few people so be it. That's peanuts compared to the suffering a nuclear armed Iran could cause.
It would appear from the rhetoric coming from Iran that the likelihood of them resuming their nuclear programme has increased because of Trump’s decision. Has he tried to have meaningful discussions with the leadership of Iran or is he trying to negotiate by tweet?
Here's the main points of the nuclear deal (cribbed from the Guardian) Iran’s infrastructure for uranium enrichment will be reduced by more than two thirds, from 19,000 installed centrifuges to 6,104, of which only 5,060 will be used for uranium enrichment, for a period of 10 years. Iran’s stockpile of low-enriched uranium will be reduced by 98% to 300kg for a period of 15 years. Iran’s heavy water reactor will be redesigned so it produces only tiny amounts of plutonium. Iran’s underground enrichment plant at Fordow will be turned into a research centre for medical and scientific work. Iran will be open to enhanced inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency for 20 years. As for not wanting to see nukes in the hands of religious fundamentalists...errrm, which fundamentalism are we talking about here? Christian fundamentalism like the USofA and the UK, Jewish fundamentalism like Israel (great, now the Board of Deputies are going to be kicking down my front door...) or Islamic fundamentalism like Pakistan? Because they've all got nukes, so the stable door isn't so much as open as the entire stable's been knocked down already.
Just because lots of people we don't want to have nukes have them doesn't mean that Iran should have them too! There's plenty of reasons why Iran is a greater risk than the other countries listed. I would be very worried if they had them. As for the reduction in uranium processing and producing only "tiny" amounts of plutonium - why the hell do they need enriched uranium and plutonium at all? Why do they need a heavy water reactor? Yes those points in the nuclear deal seem like major reductions, but they are only reductions and they are time limited.
Not really familiar with the tech, but it is possible to build fission reactors for electricity production, whose operation / by-products does not generate material of the quality/quantity required for an atomic weapon (even "dirty nukes" ) ?? If possible, then that is what Iran should be seeking, and the rest should be assisting with.
I hope these nuts,wherever they are,look at Hiroshima being hit...and that was a "little bomb"! Imagine just two nuts sending a couple of biguns at each other. Don't bother to call your insurance man!
You forgot our own lot, probably because they like to downplay it publicly while talking it up to those that appreciate that kind of lunacy. May and Mogg might sound like a children's book, but it's a combination of religious ****e, unfortunately. Cameron and Blair did similar things, before revealing the truth on their way out the door.
All fission reactors produce plutonium but extracting it from the spent nuclear fuel is a very difficult task that I don’t think Iran is capable of currently and which they couldn’t easily develop secretly. Highly U-235 enriched Uranium is a much more simple route which uses identical technology to that used in civil nuclear power but in a different configuration. They could produce that in a few weeks using currently installed equipment as far as I can see.
Trumps posturing about the dangers of the Iran deal have little, if anything, to do with national or global security fears and everything to do with supporting the industry (and nation) that bank-rolled his nomination...... https://350.org/oil-russia-and-trump/ The immediate by-product of his decision to withdraw from the agreement has been a significant increase in the $ barrel price of crude oil, as the imminent reduction in supply comes into focus. Who seeks to gain most when that happens? Oh - that would be the remaining oil producing companies and countries once Iran is removed from the picture.
