Jeremy Corbyn or Theresa May? i am on the out side looking in but if you look at Crobyn history i am not sure how anyone can vote for him

He's promising alot of stuff without the means to pay for it

May will win 100%. The polls in the UK are always skewed against the conservatives. The question is will she keep a majority?

That have recently seem to be a sure fire way to get elected.

As opposed to Trump who...

grabbed her by the fluff?

then may grabbed trump and

russian pee tapes happened

and trump gave bj to putin

why would the brits vote for corbyn? sat on the editorial board of a hard-left magazine that praised IRA violence. and seems in love with the terror organizations of the middle east.

said by a trump lover

I'd rather eat my own fluff than vote for corbyn

it is the democrats fault he got elected. if they had ran a centrist they could have won in a land slide,but they ran a far left old woman that her own party did not trust and had to cheat to win the Democratic nomination. So far i like what he has done, for the most part

name one thing he's done which is clearly good

showered?

trump? i think his wife or butler just hoses water on him.

TPP

How is that clearly good ford?

it actually was bad (unlike paris) and it was pulled out of it.

Covfefe?

#MayLostInJune

Few excellent deregulations
Travel ban for terrorist ridden countries will be good when it gets through the supreme court
Gorsuch
Allowed ICE to do their job
Given a long leash to a military that's needed it
Stopped paying for the third world's birth control
Ended the previous administrations war on policing
Repealed a few terrible Obama executive orders
Actually had a pretty good first foreign trip (re-established good relations with Israel, pressured NATO leaders to increase spending on their military... fyi, Canada is doubling their military spending in the coming years, I promise they added a few billion onto that because of Trump)
Got out of TPP negotiations... while I'm a free trade guy the TPP had a TON of problems
Got out of the Kyoto accord 2.0
Allowed a better mixture of media outlets into press briefings
This: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/...SEAL-died-Yemen-raid.html

And as far as PR stuff, there's been a lot of small things that would be lauded under Obama but were barely reported.

There are a lot of things to be critical of too. His executive orders are a mixed bag, his intervention in Syria was dangerous, he's been unable to unite the Republicans, his budget is a mixed bag, his health care deal is Obamacare lite, he's thrown Spicer under the bus a lot, Flynn should have never been hired, etc.

So far he's like a C+, probably where Bill Clinton was at this time in his presidency, not great with some allegations against him, but not disastrous. However, with the way idiot leftists are freaking out you'd think he was Stalin.

Wow, just wow. Where do you get your information, sinistril?
Can you find said terrorist ridden countries on a map and do you know who did 9/11 and where from essentially every single IS terrorist performing terror acts in Europe recently come from?

Trump's first foreign trip was a complete and utter disaster, unless your measure stick is upside down, where the positive objectives include dethroning the US as a global leader, destroying the liberal world order, further fueling great wars in middle east (to drive arms sales, at expense of millions of human lives lost?).

Getting out of the Paris Agreement is just hilariously retarded. But thanks for all the free business that US gives up to Europe and China, thanks to it! You must be so deep into the propaganda news to even contemplate that it's a good thing to get out of LOL.

Bill Clinton was not having lawyers speak on his behalf in pre-impeachment procedures during month 5 of his presidency. But Clinton was impeached, but cleared. I don't think Trump will be cleared however. :-P Because he's a mentally ill, unstable Alzheimer-affected bully psycopat. Unfit to serve by the very definition in your constitution. And yes, the world's rolling in laughing over him, except that he's bringing US down with him.

It is interesting to see that people like you actually exist, but I'll stop wasting my energy from here on out, because the best way to combat the idiocracy in the world is to continue to be productive and making progress, rather than running around setting the world a blaze and destroying things.

1. Yes, I can mark all the terrorist ridden countries on maps. Not sure how geography is relevant here, but I'll throw it back at you: Have you BEEN to any of those countries? Do you think we should be accepting immigrants from Iran? Do you understand that we are currently bombing the heck out of places like Yemen and no country has ever bombed another country and taken their able bodied young men and given them refugee status at the same time? Do you understand that the vetting system is so broken that the US just gave a security clearance to someone named Reality Winner that wanted to burn the white house down and move to Kurdistan? Yet you expect them to vet people coming from places with few if any records. Add in the fact that when you are accepting refugees just to be nice these refugees often fail because they don't speak the language or understand the culture, so you're doing noone any good. Plus, I guess calling them terrorist ridden overlooks the fact that people from these countries go to every country that accepts them and commit crimes at an alarming rate. If you haven't served in those countries or visited them, then I don't understand you to know what crapholes they are but yeah, geography matters.
2. The Paris Climate Agreement means nothing. That's not me saying it, that's every Democrat saying it. The agreement is non-binding. Basically, it's virtue signalling. The dangerous part is that some will think it means something and it will suddenly become a political issue as it has now. Not being in the agreement does not mean the country still can't make green energy a priority, or help developing countries do the same, but essentially promising a large sum of money to a political union with no substantive power as to where that money goes is dangerous. It is better to be in control of your own money. Also, the fact that Obama wanted a huge amount of money to go towards it that is not representative to the US emissions and allows places like China, and India to pollute indefinitely is also a problem. The fact is that the agreement is just a PR tool for most countries. In fact, most countries signing it are essentially pledging absolutely nothing towards it so it is easy for them to criticise the US not getting in. Also, the agreement even if it was binding and even if it was fair is proposing to do essentially nothing. Considering what a complete disaster Kyoto was, I think there is good reason not to sign an agreement because "it's the only game in town", and Trump never said he wouldn't sign an agreement, just not that one. How is that not a fair statement? But yeah, "hilariously retarded", good point you numpty.
3. I was talking about Whitewater as for the investigation, not the impeachment that followed it; however, Bill Clinton should have been talking to a lawyer and likely was speaking to them even if they weren't speaking on his behalf. He was cleared not because he did not commit the offences he was impeached for but because of a partisan Senate, which is why if Trump were impeached (there is no evidence to suggest he has done anything impeachable yet) then he will get cleared by the Senate as well. There is no chance the Dems get a super majority and the Republicans have a long enough memory to realise that a lot of the Senators that refused to indict Bill Clinton are still sitting.
4. Having an armed NATO does not dethrone the US as a world leader. It is meant to prevent Russian aggression in Eastern Europe and possibly North Korean aggression across the pacific. Relying completely on the US to police the world is a bad idea especially when the US is riddled with major political issues. It would be much more beneficial if NATO could operate without the US to protect their sovereignty. As for the Middle East, there will be aggression there no matter what Europe does. There is already a major proxy war going on that might get a lot worse and having a strong NATO could make Saudi Arabia and Iran think twice about having a full scale war with each other. As far as the origin of the recent terrorist attacks in Europe, well, from all over actually. The Manchester attack was done by a guy with contacts in Libya. You can make any conspiracy theory as to the complicity of Saudi Arabia in the attacks, but acting like everything has one source is at best poorly thought out and at worst dangerously accusatory.

I agree the best way to make progress in the world is to be productive, not to burn stuff down, unfortunately, there are people like you that just say things without thinking them through. Be thankful there are people like me in the world, or everyone would be like you.

1. Yes I have, several times. If US border security were to accept 100 Iranians for every Saud, there would be a gross negligence on the count of the amount of Sauds let in. But facts hurt, I guess. I'm looking forward to the day KSA (estimates put it at 1 decade) is broke. Travel ban is retarded and accomplishes nothing. US immigration policies are already super strict so I don't even see how there can be a problem. The number of refugees accepted by US are close to 0. The European refugee integration problem is complex, but Europe and the world does not become safer by letting the million-sized tent camps in, or by bombing middle eastern countries into pieces. You break it, you buy it. Except US broke it, and then mostly ran away, but not before having helped KSA setup IS.
2. LOL - Trumps speech was completely retarded. Completely BS financial data cited. Incorrectly cited climate reports. Easy to see how it comes about given how many GOP members don't seem to even understand that there is a tremendous problem. Policy is completely stupid. And good luck signing a new global agreement. BTW, the reason Paris Agreement is non-binding is because Obama was a lame duck due to having lost Congress and Senate, and the reason it is not very ambitious is due to US lobbyists who watered it down to the point Obama could sign it. SO yeah, the world totally respects the US for first having made the agreement weak, and then leaving it. :P Two countries are not in, Nicaragua because they thought it was not ambitious enough, and Syria since well, go figure. China and India pollutes a lot less than the US and they are much, much further a long in ending their unsustainable energy dependency. China is a world leader. They expect 30 million jobs in sustainable energy in a few years. Last year there were 2 million Chinese just making PV cells. But good luck creating all those millions US jobs by opening a few more coal mines and turning back the clock on manufacturing technology. Everybody knows it's stupid - even US oil companies wanted to remain in the Paris Agreement, not to mention every other business category that matters. The only one cheering was some coal mining company.
If Trump thinks it didn't go far enough, nothing would stop him from going further. Each signatory sets their own goals, remember? And since it is non-binding, as you also have learned, there is no international force to limit US coal. That part in the speech was a complete distraction. You can reduce your combined total emissions completely as you see fit. But Trump seems to be going backwards, to more pollution. Thankfully some of the more productive US states and cities will continue the fight anyway, including Pittsburgh LOL. They together with the rest of the planet can carbon tax any exports from the remaining states, so I think we as a species will manage to overcome the Trump stupidity in this aspect, but it sure doesn't help with such an anti-science, anti-intelligence joke of a leadership in the WH.
3. Once the evidence is clear, and there is no doubt that Trump is owned by Russia and the WH practically is hijacked and now controlled from the Kremlin, I wonder at what point the GOP has enough spine to throw him under the bus, despite a 30% popularity rating or whatever it will be.
4. Trump is a complete disaster, he spontaneously change US policy on a whim, triggered by what seems to be a level of brain development equal to that of a 5-year old. "He got one more scoop of ice cream than I", "He made me look bad in the hand shake". He is unfit to serve. Yeah, the rest of NATO has realized by now that US existing WH leadership cannot be counted on. Trump struck out the article 5 pledge from his speech, that the entire US intelligence and defence apparatus had made sure was in (i.e. the adults in the room with the whiny toddler), to randomly ramble nonsense instead, in Brussels. Unfit to serve. If you want to avoid wars escalating in ME, perhaps you could stop trying so hard to break it. IS, Saud clan are not nice people. Saud is a desert clan that happened to find oil and became silly rich. Iran is the continuation of a more than 2 millenia old Persian empire. Yes they do have Sharia law and a not-so democratic theocratic arm of the government, but they also have a democratic arm of the government, which just re-elected a reformist, against right-wing extremists. Since you claim to be well-read into these things I'm sure you know that Iran was a complete democracy until 193, when US and UK overthrew the government to install the Shah instead as king. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/...ranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat ) The unavoidable revolution didn't happen until 1979, which initially was a completely and widely backed revolution with lots of participating groups. Unfortunately the most violent extreme groups managed to come out on top after the turmoil that followed, and over 2 decades slowly twisted the laws into theocratic ones. Saudi is SO MUCH WORSE THAN THIS! Iran is a few decades away from a largely peaceful transition away from the ayatollah in my view. State Department can't defend the position either, because it does not make sense. This poor guy has to think hard how to give an answer that doesn't end his career LOL ( https://twitter.com/...status/869649552617463808 ). The US is backing the wrong horse in this race. Obama was trying to correct that. Best would be if you'd just get the fck out of ME in total. All the talk about democracy seems very, very thin.

Good bye and good luck!

A discussion about England turned into a USA bashing session.



I just had an Englishman ask me to stop bashing England.

Jesus fluffing Christ.

Sinistril

"Stopped paying for the third world's birth control"

Yeah thats an awesome thing cause the world really needs more starving children?


As for the rest you got completely owned by Anticimex

/Ivanfluff

@Ivan
So the US should pay for the world's birth control because starving children? Not only is that not an argument, but I highly doubt you give a fluff about the world's starving children.

@Anti
1. I'll ignore the lie about letting in 0 refugees, but you did not address any arguments. You did not address the integration problem of refugees into western countries by saying it's "complex". How does letting someone into your country that cannot adopt your country's customs (ie, not raping women) and cannot succeed financially help them? Would more stable Middle Eastern countries with similar customs not be better for them? Nor did you explain how to properly vet people that are coming from places with few records that allow vetting possible. In fact, the only thing I can gather from your comment is you think there should be a travel ban on Saudi Arabia as well.
2. The financial data cited is not BS, actually. It is from an actual study. The argument that "other jobs will be created by signing into the agreement" is BS speculation. Not because it's not true that sure, jobs will be created no matter what we do, but those jobs are not guarantees and no one knows what the scope of those jobs could possibly be. But I did not refer to that data or anything Trump said. I'm trying to gather any arguments you made in this point but there's very little substance here. There are a lot of lies like saying China pollutes less than the US - not true and China is trending upwards. By the end of the agreement they'll be polluting 2 or 3 times more than the US. It's also safe to say that India will be polluting more while the US has been stable or reducing emissions for like 50 years and will continue to do so as the US green energy industry is HEAVILY subsidised. Things like every country but two signed the agreement - so? Not every country is actually doing anything in the agreement. I suggest you get familiar with what every country has pledged to do before arguing a moot point.
3. There is absolutely no evidence that would suggest that right now - not even close. I'll say this in caps in case your eyesight is bad: CONSPIRACY THEORIES ARE NOT ARGUMENTS.
4. Ok, seriously, now you're just rambling and did not address the point at all. I agree 100% the US should get out of the Middle East completely, though. I've been arguing this for years. Unfortunately, neoconservatives and neoliberals want to go in there and make more money or install democracy when no one in the Middle East wants democracy. They want Sharia Law. Let them have it. The fact that Trump left out article 5 means nothing. Actions speak louder than words and the fact that the previous administration completely ignored article 5 when Russia took Crimea is the only reason that discussion would be important in the modern day and age, which is all the more reason to have a strong NATO that meets its spending commitments outside the US. And yes, Iran was an ok place before US interference which is why I find it hilarious that the Democrats are upset that Russia might have tried to influence an election. The US has been dictating politics across the world for decades.

Anyways, you deal in a lot of conspiracy theories and insults and very little substance. I think you need to step back and look at whether or not your confirmation bias is getting the best of you. Acting like a US president has done nothing-at-all well is crazy, even Obama did some things well, even Bush did some things well, and so on. I don't think Trump is a wonderful president but he's not as awful as you think and if you think he's the devil, then the problem is probably with you.

1. Given the size and population differences, we do admit "almost zero" in comparison as anti claimed and was interpreted as just "zero"

http://www.independent.co.uk/...middle-east-a7521191.html
http://www.pewresearch.org/...-muslim-refugees-in-2016/

2. I'll just let the title speak for itself "Renewable Energy Is Creating Jobs 12 Times Faster Than the Rest of the Economy"

http://fortune.com/...olar-wind-renewable-jobs/

3. Comey

4. Do you not realize the rest of the world has already learned from our mistake and is laughing at us? Look at the recent French election where they basically had their own Trump running and lost by 32% or even the election this thread was started for where May called for the election expecting to have a majority with over 100 extra seats, and had to settle for an alliance with the DUP (assuming it happened) to remain in control.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/...manuel-macron-presidency/
https://www.theguardian.com/...ritish-election-explained

1. Yep, I'm well aware of the numbers. Still not zero. Let me ask you, how many is enough? 1 million? 10 million? You realise half the world would love to come to a first world country and there are a lot of countries out there that are ACTUALLY admitting 0.
2. Yep. It is. Which is exactly why we don't need an agreement to continue doing what we're already doing. As I said, it is a heavily subsidised industry. In the agreement or not, the US government will continue to spend large swaths of money showing they care about reducing emissions, which is more than can be said for most of the countries in the agreement. Really, the entire Paris Climate thing is a non-sequitur as far as political impact on emissions goes. Which is exactly the reason not to be in it. It is a political move, not a move that actualizes anything in reality.
3. Yes. And? He was not some smoking gun. Even a lot of liberals admitted that the best takeaway from the whole thing is he thinks Trump is a liar, and I mean, if someone insulted me like Trump has insulted him, calling him a loon or whatever, of course I'd fight back. But as far as evidence? Nothing substantial whatsoever. Definitely nothing that constitutes obstruction of justice.
4. The French election is not "learning from our mistake". She was never going to be elected because of who her father is. The French don't care about you. And May would have dominated if not for her manifesto. Once that came out, she tanked in the polls. She was her own worst enemy, it had nothing to do with Trump. I suggest reading it to see how bad it is... it's like she was trying to lose.
https://www.conservatives.com/manifesto

So who won in UK?

Hung parliament conservatives won more seats but not enough. They are going to form a coalition with a small party from Northern. Island that will give them enough seats

lar