The EU debate - Part III

Why not? It seems that the job is open to any kind of crookery or ****wittedness!

 

Finally watching the Trump v Clinton debate from last night.

Trump talking about "the wall" must have had Pete and Kustard phoning each other to participate in a mutual masturbation session.

 

Take fatty seriously!?

You cannot be serious.,...

 

"No you're the puppet, you're the puppet"

Sounds just like Pete!

 

Did Trump actually say that he wouldn't commit to the result of the election if he lost ?

****ing sore loser, he should be tarred and feathered and made to crawl naked behind Hilary Clinton at her victory parade if that's the case.

 

I thought that she got him badly with a few points, but that one really rattled him.
He kept bringing up Putin for no apparent reason and it made him look even more guilty.
Calling her a nasty woman fell right into her narrative, too. Total moron.

 

I've got £20 on him at 11/2 as I think there's far more than a 15% chance the American people are that dim.

 

Worth a punt, but I think that he's ****ed himself and I dread to think what they've still got on him.
There are rumours of him saying a rather racist word on film, which will probably turn up soon.

 

Says a lot about whoever lost out in the Republican vote.

 

There were absolutely loads of them and they still couldn't dig up anything on him.
I've no idea how, as there's a ton of it everywhere.
Most of Clinton's campaign adverts are just him saying things in context, FFS.

 

There must be a truck load of dirt on Trump. He's basically made his name being an obnoxious, self centred, ruthless, arrogant psychopath.

 

The problem is, everyone knows it. You can't use it to hurt him.
He steamrollered the opposition in the Republican debates using that as a selling point.
Slagged everyone off, called out all their flaws and didn't bother saying what he was actually going to do.
A few vague claims of making America great and being tough on immigrants and he won easily.

He's put himself forward as a strongman candidate, trying to be another Putin, essentially.
The problem with that is that he's a whiny little bitch who has thinner skin than an hour-old cup of tea.
You can't flip from puffing yourself up to crying about the mean lady and expect to be taken seriously.

 

Unfortunately, you've got a point!...

Any electorate dumb enough to elect dubya, cannot be discounted from any further cretinous behaviour!...

 

I've been listening to the feature that 5 live have been running in the afternoons, travelling around the US talking to voters about their views. There was an interview with a Trump supporter, she must have mentioned that 'make America great again' line half a dozen times in a 2 minute interview. The interviewer was trying to ask her about Trump's record on not paying his taxes, his comments about women, his lack of policy on Syria etc and she just kept saying that it was an attempt to undermine him and that he would 'make America great again' What the **** can you do about people like that ?

 

Build a wall?

 

Same idiots who elected dubya. Dyed in the wool republicans. They'd vote for Hitler, so long as he was the republican candidate.

On another note, I asked a good American friend of mine if the two major parties were engaged in some sort of competition to see who could elect the most totally unsuitable candidate!...

I got an ironic laugh...

 

It includes "Tax avoidance: tax that is lost when a person claims to arrange their affairs to minimise tax within the law in the UK, or in other countries with impact on the UK." - eg. taking out ISAs, shareholders being paid a salary
this is a totally spurious figure

 

I have friends in New York and California, they are in my opinion, fairly middle of the road types. They work, pay their taxes and are busy raising families. They are absolutely dreading the prospect of a Trump administration. To the point where my New York friends, who have Irish relatives, are seriously considering applying for Irish citizenship to move there if he wins.

 

Don't you think then that the legal tax avoidance loopholes should be tightened up, in order that the exchequer has more money to pay for the public services which need investment ?