Parliament vs. Trump

[Slade3200]

Whoa, hold up ---- we're gonna need a hand with this....

Forkup was man enough to admit that this was not diplomatic of Parliament and that it was an attempt to effect the election.

This moved the conversation forward, and I gave my opinion that that would not work and that it would have negative long term consequences.

That you think that is moving the goal posts, is just because you are stupid.

"Diplomatic" doesn't have a jack-shit thing in the world to do with it. Rump is not a "diplomat" --- let alone no one could ever accuse him of it. He's a media CLOWN.

You seem to be confused about the distinction between reality and your own projected onanistic fantasies.

YOu are the one that is living in a fantasy world if you think Trump is not a serious contender at this point in time.

Actually I have a calendar.
It says March.
2016.

That means Rump is a TV clown. Like it or lump it.

As I said, YOU are the one living in a fantasy world, where the events of today have no possible effects in one very plausible future.

A sensible, responsible and diplomatic government would NOT personally ridicule a person who might be the most powerful man in the world in less then a year.

YOu ass.

When hundreds of thousands of citizens sign a petition to ban somebody from their country the motion must be discussed in parliament. This was the case. The fact that this actually happened should trigger a lightbulb on the reality of what Trump is and how he is perceived around the world. If trump makes it to president by some holy practical joke, this discussion will have no effect on our diplomacy with The UK. The politicians will do what they need to do to get what they want from the other side. You see the same thing happening in our government. Wait till this summer, I bet Rubio ends up giving Trump a hand massage at a pool party as Cruz grills up some terrorist baby thighs.

 

[Correll]

Forkup was man enough to admit that this was not diplomatic of Parliament and that it was an attempt to effect the election.

This moved the conversation forward, and I gave my opinion that that would not work and that it would have negative long term consequences.

That you think that is moving the goal posts, is just because you are stupid.

"Diplomatic" doesn't have a jack-shit thing in the world to do with it. Rump is not a "diplomat" --- let alone no one could ever accuse him of it. He's a media CLOWN.

You seem to be confused about the distinction between reality and your own projected onanistic fantasies.

YOu are the one that is living in a fantasy world if you think Trump is not a serious contender at this point in time.

Actually I have a calendar.
It says March.
2016.

That means Rump is a TV clown. Like it or lump it.

As I said, YOU are the one living in a fantasy world, where the events of today have no possible effects in one very plausible future.

A sensible, responsible and diplomatic government would NOT personally ridicule a person who might be the most powerful man in the world in less then a year.

YOu ass.

When hundreds of thousands of citizens sign a petition to ban somebody from their country the motion must be discussed in parliament. This was the case. The fact that this actually happened should trigger a lightbulb on the reality of what Trump is and how he is perceived around the world. If trump makes it to president by some holy practical joke, this discussion will have no effect on our diplomacy with The UK. The politicians will do what they need to do to get what they want from the other side. You see the same thing happening in our government. Wait till this summer, I bet Rubio ends up giving Trump a hand massage at a pool party as Cruz grills up some terrorist baby thighs.

I'm aware that discussion was mandated.

The way it was done was irresponsible and undiplomatic.

Yes, I do realize the implications of how he is perceived.

The implications of a international consensus that considers wanting an Immigration Policy that serves the interests of the nation's citizens instead of the interests of unwelcome invaders, to be Taboo, reflects very poorly on the health of Western Civilization.

 

[Pogo]

"Diplomatic" doesn't have a jack-shit thing in the world to do with it. Rump is not a "diplomat" --- let alone no one could ever accuse him of it. He's a media CLOWN.

You seem to be confused about the distinction between reality and your own projected onanistic fantasies.

YOu are the one that is living in a fantasy world if you think Trump is not a serious contender at this point in time.

Actually I have a calendar.
It says March.
2016.

That means Rump is a TV clown. Like it or lump it.

As I said, YOU are the one living in a fantasy world, where the events of today have no possible effects in one very plausible future.

A sensible, responsible and diplomatic government would NOT personally ridicule a person who might be the most powerful man in the world in less then a year.

YOu ass.

When hundreds of thousands of citizens sign a petition to ban somebody from their country the motion must be discussed in parliament. This was the case. The fact that this actually happened should trigger a lightbulb on the reality of what Trump is and how he is perceived around the world. If trump makes it to president by some holy practical joke, this discussion will have no effect on our diplomacy with The UK. The politicians will do what they need to do to get what they want from the other side. You see the same thing happening in our government. Wait till this summer, I bet Rubio ends up giving Trump a hand massage at a pool party as Cruz grills up some terrorist baby thighs.

I'm aware that discussion was mandated.

The way it was done was irresponsible and undiplomatic.

Yes, I do realize the implications of how he is perceived.

The implications of a international consensus that considers wanting an Immigration Policy that serves the interests of the nation's citizens instead of the interests of unwelcome invaders, to be Taboo, reflects very poorly on the health of Western Civilization.

Once again for those operating under an intellectual speed zone:

No "diplomats" were involved. The term "undiplomatic" has no function.

The gist of Slade's thought is quite correct --- if Donald Rump ever became the POTUS, we'd have one fuck of a lot more to worry about than whether or not some British MPs like to slob his knob.

 

[Correll]

YOu are the one that is living in a fantasy world if you think Trump is not a serious contender at this point in time.

Actually I have a calendar.
It says March.
2016.

That means Rump is a TV clown. Like it or lump it.

As I said, YOU are the one living in a fantasy world, where the events of today have no possible effects in one very plausible future.

A sensible, responsible and diplomatic government would NOT personally ridicule a person who might be the most powerful man in the world in less then a year.

YOu ass.

When hundreds of thousands of citizens sign a petition to ban somebody from their country the motion must be discussed in parliament. This was the case. The fact that this actually happened should trigger a lightbulb on the reality of what Trump is and how he is perceived around the world. If trump makes it to president by some holy practical joke, this discussion will have no effect on our diplomacy with The UK. The politicians will do what they need to do to get what they want from the other side. You see the same thing happening in our government. Wait till this summer, I bet Rubio ends up giving Trump a hand massage at a pool party as Cruz grills up some terrorist baby thighs.

I'm aware that discussion was mandated.

The way it was done was irresponsible and undiplomatic.

Yes, I do realize the implications of how he is perceived.

The implications of a international consensus that considers wanting an Immigration Policy that serves the interests of the nation's citizens instead of the interests of unwelcome invaders, to be Taboo, reflects very poorly on the health of Western Civilization.

Once again for those operating under an intellectual speed zone:

No "diplomats" were involved. The term "undiplomatic" has no function.

The gist of Slade's thought is quite correct --- if Donald Rump ever became the POTUS, we'd have one fuck of a lot more to worry about than whether or not some British MPs like to slob his knob.

Diplomatic is not limited to professional diplomats. That you are refusing to admit that Parliaments actions were NOT diplomatic is absolute proof that you are extremely dishonest.

Liberals :All the intellectual honestly of a crack whore.

 

[bripat9643]

What do you all think of Parliaments view of Trump?

Nobody cares

 

[bripat9643]

YOu are the one that is living in a fantasy world if you think Trump is not a serious contender at this point in time.

Actually I have a calendar.
It says March.
2016.

That means Rump is a TV clown. Like it or lump it.

As I said, YOU are the one living in a fantasy world, where the events of today have no possible effects in one very plausible future.

A sensible, responsible and diplomatic government would NOT personally ridicule a person who might be the most powerful man in the world in less then a year.

YOu ass.

When hundreds of thousands of citizens sign a petition to ban somebody from their country the motion must be discussed in parliament. This was the case. The fact that this actually happened should trigger a lightbulb on the reality of what Trump is and how he is perceived around the world. If trump makes it to president by some holy practical joke, this discussion will have no effect on our diplomacy with The UK. The politicians will do what they need to do to get what they want from the other side. You see the same thing happening in our government. Wait till this summer, I bet Rubio ends up giving Trump a hand massage at a pool party as Cruz grills up some terrorist baby thighs.

I'm aware that discussion was mandated.

The way it was done was irresponsible and undiplomatic.

Yes, I do realize the implications of how he is perceived.

The implications of a international consensus that considers wanting an Immigration Policy that serves the interests of the nation's citizens instead of the interests of unwelcome invaders, to be Taboo, reflects very poorly on the health of Western Civilization.

Once again for those operating under an intellectual speed zone:

No "diplomats" were involved. The term "undiplomatic" has no function.

The gist of Slade's thought is quite correct --- if Donald Rump ever became the POTUS, we'd have one fuck of a lot more to worry about than whether or not some British MPs like to slob his knob.

Like what?

 

[Pogo]

Actually I have a calendar.
It says March.
2016.

That means Rump is a TV clown. Like it or lump it.

As I said, YOU are the one living in a fantasy world, where the events of today have no possible effects in one very plausible future.

A sensible, responsible and diplomatic government would NOT personally ridicule a person who might be the most powerful man in the world in less then a year.

YOu ass.

When hundreds of thousands of citizens sign a petition to ban somebody from their country the motion must be discussed in parliament. This was the case. The fact that this actually happened should trigger a lightbulb on the reality of what Trump is and how he is perceived around the world. If trump makes it to president by some holy practical joke, this discussion will have no effect on our diplomacy with The UK. The politicians will do what they need to do to get what they want from the other side. You see the same thing happening in our government. Wait till this summer, I bet Rubio ends up giving Trump a hand massage at a pool party as Cruz grills up some terrorist baby thighs.

I'm aware that discussion was mandated.

The way it was done was irresponsible and undiplomatic.

Yes, I do realize the implications of how he is perceived.

The implications of a international consensus that considers wanting an Immigration Policy that serves the interests of the nation's citizens instead of the interests of unwelcome invaders, to be Taboo, reflects very poorly on the health of Western Civilization.

Once again for those operating under an intellectual speed zone:

No "diplomats" were involved. The term "undiplomatic" has no function.

The gist of Slade's thought is quite correct --- if Donald Rump ever became the POTUS, we'd have one fuck of a lot more to worry about than whether or not some British MPs like to slob his knob.

Diplomatic is not limited to professional diplomats. That you are refusing to admit that Parliaments actions were NOT diplomatic is absolute proof that you are extremely dishonest.

Liberals :All the intellectual honestly of a crack whore.

diplomacy

[dih-ploh-muh-see]

• Examples
• Word Origin

See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
noun
1. the conduct by government officials of negotiations and other relations between nations.
2. the art or science of conducting such negotiations.
​

Again ---- Rump is neither a nation nor a representative of one. Which I said over and over in vain.

Will there be anything else?

 

[Slade3200]

YOu are the one that is living in a fantasy world if you think Trump is not a serious contender at this point in time.

Actually I have a calendar.
It says March.
2016.

That means Rump is a TV clown. Like it or lump it.

As I said, YOU are the one living in a fantasy world, where the events of today have no possible effects in one very plausible future.

A sensible, responsible and diplomatic government would NOT personally ridicule a person who might be the most powerful man in the world in less then a year.

YOu ass.

When hundreds of thousands of citizens sign a petition to ban somebody from their country the motion must be discussed in parliament. This was the case. The fact that this actually happened should trigger a lightbulb on the reality of what Trump is and how he is perceived around the world. If trump makes it to president by some holy practical joke, this discussion will have no effect on our diplomacy with The UK. The politicians will do what they need to do to get what they want from the other side. You see the same thing happening in our government. Wait till this summer, I bet Rubio ends up giving Trump a hand massage at a pool party as Cruz grills up some terrorist baby thighs.

I'm aware that discussion was mandated.

The way it was done was irresponsible and undiplomatic.

Yes, I do realize the implications of how he is perceived.

The implications of a international consensus that considers wanting an Immigration Policy that serves the interests of the nation's citizens instead of the interests of unwelcome invaders, to be Taboo, reflects very poorly on the health of Western Civilization.

Once again for those operating under an intellectual speed zone:

No "diplomats" were involved. The term "undiplomatic" has no function.

The gist of Slade's thought is quite correct --- if Donald Rump ever became the POTUS, we'd have one fuck of a lot more to worry about than whether or not some British MPs like to slob his knob.

I believe i was more correct about the pool party

 

[Pogo]

Actually I have a calendar.
It says March.
2016.

That means Rump is a TV clown. Like it or lump it.

As I said, YOU are the one living in a fantasy world, where the events of today have no possible effects in one very plausible future.

A sensible, responsible and diplomatic government would NOT personally ridicule a person who might be the most powerful man in the world in less then a year.

YOu ass.

When hundreds of thousands of citizens sign a petition to ban somebody from their country the motion must be discussed in parliament. This was the case. The fact that this actually happened should trigger a lightbulb on the reality of what Trump is and how he is perceived around the world. If trump makes it to president by some holy practical joke, this discussion will have no effect on our diplomacy with The UK. The politicians will do what they need to do to get what they want from the other side. You see the same thing happening in our government. Wait till this summer, I bet Rubio ends up giving Trump a hand massage at a pool party as Cruz grills up some terrorist baby thighs.

I'm aware that discussion was mandated.

The way it was done was irresponsible and undiplomatic.

Yes, I do realize the implications of how he is perceived.

The implications of a international consensus that considers wanting an Immigration Policy that serves the interests of the nation's citizens instead of the interests of unwelcome invaders, to be Taboo, reflects very poorly on the health of Western Civilization.

Once again for those operating under an intellectual speed zone:

No "diplomats" were involved. The term "undiplomatic" has no function.

The gist of Slade's thought is quite correct --- if Donald Rump ever became the POTUS, we'd have one fuck of a lot more to worry about than whether or not some British MPs like to slob his knob.

I believe i was more correct about the pool party

I understand your pool party will be hailed as "undiplomatic".

 

[Slade3200]

As I said, YOU are the one living in a fantasy world, where the events of today have no possible effects in one very plausible future.

A sensible, responsible and diplomatic government would NOT personally ridicule a person who might be the most powerful man in the world in less then a year.

YOu ass.

When hundreds of thousands of citizens sign a petition to ban somebody from their country the motion must be discussed in parliament. This was the case. The fact that this actually happened should trigger a lightbulb on the reality of what Trump is and how he is perceived around the world. If trump makes it to president by some holy practical joke, this discussion will have no effect on our diplomacy with The UK. The politicians will do what they need to do to get what they want from the other side. You see the same thing happening in our government. Wait till this summer, I bet Rubio ends up giving Trump a hand massage at a pool party as Cruz grills up some terrorist baby thighs.

I'm aware that discussion was mandated.

The way it was done was irresponsible and undiplomatic.

Yes, I do realize the implications of how he is perceived.

The implications of a international consensus that considers wanting an Immigration Policy that serves the interests of the nation's citizens instead of the interests of unwelcome invaders, to be Taboo, reflects very poorly on the health of Western Civilization.

Once again for those operating under an intellectual speed zone:

No "diplomats" were involved. The term "undiplomatic" has no function.

The gist of Slade's thought is quite correct --- if Donald Rump ever became the POTUS, we'd have one fuck of a lot more to worry about than whether or not some British MPs like to slob his knob.

I believe i was more correct about the pool party

I understand your pool party will be hailed as "undiplomatic".

I believe it will be funded by tax payers thus making it diplomatic. I just hope they invite the queen

 

[Correll]

As I said, YOU are the one living in a fantasy world, where the events of today have no possible effects in one very plausible future.

A sensible, responsible and diplomatic government would NOT personally ridicule a person who might be the most powerful man in the world in less then a year.

YOu ass.

When hundreds of thousands of citizens sign a petition to ban somebody from their country the motion must be discussed in parliament. This was the case. The fact that this actually happened should trigger a lightbulb on the reality of what Trump is and how he is perceived around the world. If trump makes it to president by some holy practical joke, this discussion will have no effect on our diplomacy with The UK. The politicians will do what they need to do to get what they want from the other side. You see the same thing happening in our government. Wait till this summer, I bet Rubio ends up giving Trump a hand massage at a pool party as Cruz grills up some terrorist baby thighs.

I'm aware that discussion was mandated.

The way it was done was irresponsible and undiplomatic.

Yes, I do realize the implications of how he is perceived.

The implications of a international consensus that considers wanting an Immigration Policy that serves the interests of the nation's citizens instead of the interests of unwelcome invaders, to be Taboo, reflects very poorly on the health of Western Civilization.

Once again for those operating under an intellectual speed zone:

No "diplomats" were involved. The term "undiplomatic" has no function.

The gist of Slade's thought is quite correct --- if Donald Rump ever became the POTUS, we'd have one fuck of a lot more to worry about than whether or not some British MPs like to slob his knob.

Diplomatic is not limited to professional diplomats. That you are refusing to admit that Parliaments actions were NOT diplomatic is absolute proof that you are extremely dishonest.

Liberals :All the intellectual honestly of a crack whore.

diplomacy

[dih-ploh-muh-see]

• Examples
• Word Origin

See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
noun
1. the conduct by government officials of negotiations and other relations between nations.
2. the art or science of conducting such negotiations.
​

Again ---- Rump is neither a nation nor a representative of one. Which I said over and over in vain.

Will there be anything else?

1. Note that the definition is in no way limited to diplomats. So, that deflection of your was either completely ignorant, or completely dishonest.

2. Note the phrase "and other relations". As I said, this will, if Trump is elected, negatively impact the "relations" between his administration and that of the UK.

3. That you could read that definition and think it supports your position is a sign of how desperately deep in denial OR completely dishonest you are.

4. Yes, one other thing. This is a minor event. It is pathetic that you are incapable of admitting the obvious truth that even this little incident was a mistake on the part of the UK parliament members because you can't pass up even the slightest chance to smear Trump.

 

[Slade3200]

When hundreds of thousands of citizens sign a petition to ban somebody from their country the motion must be discussed in parliament. This was the case. The fact that this actually happened should trigger a lightbulb on the reality of what Trump is and how he is perceived around the world. If trump makes it to president by some holy practical joke, this discussion will have no effect on our diplomacy with The UK. The politicians will do what they need to do to get what they want from the other side. You see the same thing happening in our government. Wait till this summer, I bet Rubio ends up giving Trump a hand massage at a pool party as Cruz grills up some terrorist baby thighs.

I'm aware that discussion was mandated.

The way it was done was irresponsible and undiplomatic.

Yes, I do realize the implications of how he is perceived.

The implications of a international consensus that considers wanting an Immigration Policy that serves the interests of the nation's citizens instead of the interests of unwelcome invaders, to be Taboo, reflects very poorly on the health of Western Civilization.

Once again for those operating under an intellectual speed zone:

No "diplomats" were involved. The term "undiplomatic" has no function.

The gist of Slade's thought is quite correct --- if Donald Rump ever became the POTUS, we'd have one fuck of a lot more to worry about than whether or not some British MPs like to slob his knob.

Diplomatic is not limited to professional diplomats. That you are refusing to admit that Parliaments actions were NOT diplomatic is absolute proof that you are extremely dishonest.

Liberals :All the intellectual honestly of a crack whore.

diplomacy

[dih-ploh-muh-see]

• Examples
• Word Origin

See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
noun
1. the conduct by government officials of negotiations and other relations between nations.
2. the art or science of conducting such negotiations.
​

Again ---- Rump is neither a nation nor a representative of one. Which I said over and over in vain.

Will there be anything else?

1. Note that the definition is in no way limited to diplomats. So, that deflection of your was either completely ignorant, or completely dishonest.

2. Note the phrase "and other relations". As I said, this will, if Trump is elected, negatively impact the "relations" between his administration and that of the UK.

3. That you could read that definition and think it supports your position is a sign of how desperately deep in denial OR completely dishonest you are.

4. Yes, one other thing. This is a minor event. It is pathetic that you are incapable of admitting the obvious truth that even this little incident was a mistake on the part of the UK parliament members because you can't pass up even the slightest chance to smear Trump.

Let me guess... You are a Cruz supporter?

You use the same manipulative language as Ted the Devil himself. Over exaggerated OR statements making it sound like you are presenting the only viable options. It's transparent and phony as hell.

Don't sell your soul to the devil man, there may still be hope for you, come back towards the light!!!

 

[Pogo]

1. Note that the definition is in no way limited to diplomats. So, that deflection of your was either completely ignorant, or completely dishonest.

But it is limited to relations between nations. Rump is neither a nation nor any kind of representative of one. But he is a public figure, and as such -- fair game. Don't like it? Have a pity party.

2. Note the phrase "and other relations". As I said, this will, if Trump is elected, negatively impact the "relations" between his administration and that of the UK.

-- and if I'm elected, your ad homs here negatively impact those relations. Tough shit. Worry about that after I'm elected. Sorry, speculative "what if" fallacies are not an argument. See above: Rump is a private citizen. And even if he were not, no one is immune to criticism. As already established, you don't have the right to not be offended, and neither does Donald Rump. The fact that he can't handle critiism is his problem --- not ours.

4. Yes, one other thing. This is a minor event. It is pathetic that you are incapable of admitting the obvious truth that even this little incident was a mistake on the part of the UK parliament members because you can't pass up even the slightest chance to smear Trump.

How is it a "mistake"? Parliament is required to respond to a public petition and discuss -- check.
They were invited, but not required, to ban Rump from the country, which they declined: check.
Looks to me like they did exactly what they were supposed to do.

What would you have had them do ---- lie about their opinions?