Trump Dump: Foreign Policy (Thread I)

[Thanas]

Finally Trump did something right.

[LaCroix]

I wouldn't credit him. He most likely just didn't realize the meaning.

[The Romulan Republic]

I still think it desirable to gradually worry away a few of the Trump supporters at a time. If we're lucky and public opinion evolves well, in 20-30 years most of the Trump supporters who are still alive may be mentally retconning that. And I'd call that a win.

Fair enough, and let me rephrase what I said earlier:

I do not think we should worry about trying to win over Trump supporters at the expense of turning out our own side.

I remember around the election, you got people saying stuff about how the Democrats needed to stop sticking up for women and minorities and so forth. I still see it somewhat.

I'm just saying, its bad strategy to piss off and alienate your base or abandon your core values for likely incremental gains at best from the other side. Even leaving aside the obvious moral considerations.

To win those people over, we'd have to become like Trump. And I don't think we could out-Trump Trump if we tried.

Edit: Nor would a victory won on those terms mean anything.

[TheFeniX]

I remember around the election, you got people saying stuff about how the Democrats needed to stop sticking up for women and minorities and so forth. I still see it somewhat.

I'm just saying, its bad strategy to piss off and alienate your base or abandon your core values for likely incremental gains at best from the other side. Even leaving aside the obvious moral considerations.

To win those people over, we'd have to become like Trump. And I don't think we could out-Trump Trump if we tried.

Edit: Nor would a victory won on those terms mean anything.

You may or may not be referencing, unintentionally, shit I said back in 2016. I do recall people saying we should do so to win over Trump supporters, but that wasn't my personal argument. But I'll take a stab: I feel extremely shitty having to say those things, not saying them. And I didn't say them in an attempt to give a shit about people who threw in with Trump because they agreed with what he said, but more those who threw in (or those who stayed home) due to Hillary's emphasis on these rights.

It's an asshole thing to say, but Hillary had women and minorities in the bag. Well, not really. Minorities in general, but they didn't come out of the woodworks for her like they did for Obama. She IMO, even though she had the stances, effectively ignored the economy in most of her stump. Trump did not. Trump talked (and lied) about fighting for the little guy, HRC talked some game here, but she needed a lot more considering her track record.

"Ignoring" (though not really) her base to focus on swaying the mindless middle to her side... well, I mean it fucking worked for Obama. He didn't focus on a group of people, he talked big about bringing us all together. Sound familiar? Trump is fucking Bizarro Obama. So, I'd like to think it could have worked for her, because she's a tool, but not a TOTAL handjob of a human being and people could have seen that if she had showed it. And even then, I don't feel like she even went to task for women OR minorities. Instead we got "What, you going to vote for D. Fucking. Trump? That racist asshole?" She wasn't WRONG, but she was also wrong, because we've been shown over and over again that "I'm better than that asshole" does. not. fucking. work. Mccain... that other guy who ran against Obama in 2012. Kerry vs Bush. I mean, it just never works.

Say what you want to get elected, policy comes later. I mean, it's a shit situation, but it's how it works. You'd think Hillary would have fucking known this.

Julian Castro 2020 bitches. Fuck... I can dream, right? Can you IMAGINE Fox News?
"Well, Julian CASTRO would think socialism is great. Wouldn't he?"
"That's right Tom, he might send the Federales after the honest Americans!"
"Is that a reference to Mr. Castro's Hispanic heritage?"
"I'd like to think that's coincidental."

Off-topic rant over. Sorry. I'm... pretty hammered because we sold our house today. Well, we sign the papers tomorrow, but I mean. Whatever. Party time. Fuck, I have to hire someone to move my gunsafe.... oh god.

[Gandalf]

I remember around the election, you got people saying stuff about how the Democrats needed to stop sticking up for women and minorities and so forth. I still see it somewhat.

I'm just saying, its bad strategy to piss off and alienate your base or abandon your core values for likely incremental gains at best from the other side. Even leaving aside the obvious moral considerations.

To win those people over, we'd have to become like Trump. And I don't think we could out-Trump Trump if we tried.

Edit: Nor would a victory won on those terms mean anything.

You may or may not be referencing, unintentionally, shit I said back in 2016. I do recall people saying we should do so to win over Trump supporters, but that wasn't my personal argument. But I'll take a stab: I feel extremely shitty having to say those things, not saying them. And I didn't say them in an attempt to give a shit about people who threw in with Trump because they agreed with what he said, but more those who threw in (or those who stayed home) due to Hillary's emphasis on these rights.

It's an asshole thing to say, but Hillary had women and minorities in the bag. Well, not really. Minorities in general, but they didn't come out of the woodworks for her like they did for Obama. She IMO, even though she had the stances, effectively ignored the economy in most of her stump. Trump did not. Trump talked (and lied) about fighting for the little guy, HRC talked some game here, but she needed a lot more considering her track record.

To be fair, sacrifice x to elect Clinton is weirdly prolific, especially since she didn't wind up getting an FDR like win over Trump. People defended keeping Chelsea Manning locked up for a few years based on the idea that doing so would make the DNC's life easier in 2016. Apparently the Democrats are the party of idealism for all, but tend to dump them when they see Republicans in the rear view mirror.

[TheFeniX]

To also be fair, that's like one thing they stuck to their guns on and Obama got the credit or blame anyway. Even Castro pointed out major issues in their campaign. Trump was feeding everyone lies about all Americans while Clinton said outright she had women in the bag, white votes weren't worth what we all thought they were, and trump voters were vile people. Instead she doubled down with groups of voters who would never vote for a guy like trump.

These are not ideals that resonant with voters on the fence. Look at Obama's 2008 campaign. It's a primer on how to crush an opponent and the Clinton campaign ignored it. And Obama talked big, but he was nowhere near an idealist except on a few key issues such as immigration.

I'm not saying Clinton should have sold out, but there are dozens of idealistic positions that resonate with larger sections of Americans.

[Simon_Jester]

I still think it desirable to gradually worry away a few of the Trump supporters at a time. If we're lucky and public opinion evolves well, in 20-30 years most of the Trump supporters who are still alive may be mentally retconning that. And I'd call that a win.

Fair enough, and let me rephrase what I said earlier:

I do not think we should worry about trying to win over Trump supporters at the expense of turning out our own side.

I remember around the election, you got people saying stuff about how the Democrats needed to stop sticking up for women and minorities and so forth. I still see it somewhat.

I'm just saying, its bad strategy to piss off and alienate your base or abandon your core values for likely incremental gains at best from the other side. Even leaving aside the obvious moral considerations.

To win those people over, we'd have to become like Trump. And I don't think we could out-Trump Trump if we tried.

Edit: Nor would a victory won on those terms mean anything.

Sigh okay fine.

What I do want to do, and please do not interpret this as me trying to directly hack at what you do or don't want to do...

Is to continue to spread "Trump is a corrupt and lowly fucker" memes through the population to maximize the disillusionment with Trumplike candidates in future elections.

Among other things, because I'd like the next generation's worth of Republican voters to start electing presidential candidates I can live with if they win. People like McCain and Romney would not be people I want in the White House, but they're sane, reasonably competent adults who probably aren't being puppeted by foreign financiers, as opposed to "probably are but we can't prove it."

When presidential elections go south for me, I want the consequence to be me being unhappy about politics for four years, NOT me spending four years seriously thinking "crap crap crap, the only thing saving us from tyranny is the fecklessness of the wannabe tyrant, crap crap crap."

...

In addition, keeping up pressure on the "Trump is a corrupt and lowly fucker" may well make the next couple of election cycles easier for the Democrats, thus making it easier to fix this mess. We saw in the Virginia governor election that this meme is already in play, with a Democratic governor winning by a landslide in the state.

[The Romulan Republic]

I remember around the election, you got people saying stuff about how the Democrats needed to stop sticking up for women and minorities and so forth. I still see it somewhat.

I'm just saying, its bad strategy to piss off and alienate your base or abandon your core values for likely incremental gains at best from the other side. Even leaving aside the obvious moral considerations.

To win those people over, we'd have to become like Trump. And I don't think we could out-Trump Trump if we tried.

Edit: Nor would a victory won on those terms mean anything.

You may or may not be referencing, unintentionally, shit I said back in 2016. I do recall people saying we should do so to win over Trump supporters, but that wasn't my personal argument. But I'll take a stab: I feel extremely shitty having to say those things, not saying them. And I didn't say them in an attempt to give a shit about people who threw in with Trump because they agreed with what he said, but more those who threw in (or those who stayed home) due to Hillary's emphasis on these rights.

It's an asshole thing to say, but Hillary had women and minorities in the bag. Well, not really. Minorities in general, but they didn't come out of the woodworks for her like they did for Obama. She IMO, even though she had the stances, effectively ignored the economy in most of her stump. Trump did not. Trump talked (and lied) about fighting for the little guy, HRC talked some game here, but she needed a lot more considering her track record.

"Ignoring" (though not really) her base to focus on swaying the mindless middle to her side... well, I mean it fucking worked for Obama. He didn't focus on a group of people, he talked big about bringing us all together. Sound familiar? Trump is fucking Bizarro Obama. So, I'd like to think it could have worked for her, because she's a tool, but not a TOTAL handjob of a human being and people could have seen that if she had showed it. And even then, I don't feel like she even went to task for women OR minorities. Instead we got "What, you going to vote for D. Fucking. Trump? That racist asshole?" She wasn't WRONG, but she was also wrong, because we've been shown over and over again that "I'm better than that asshole" does. not. fucking. work. Mccain... that other guy who ran against Obama in 2012. Kerry vs Bush. I mean, it just never works.

Say what you want to get elected, policy comes later. I mean, it's a shit situation, but it's how it works. You'd think Hillary would have fucking known this.

Julian Castro 2020 bitches. Fuck... I can dream, right? Can you IMAGINE Fox News?
"Well, Julian CASTRO would think socialism is great. Wouldn't he?"
"That's right Tom, he might send the Federales after the honest Americans!"
"Is that a reference to Mr. Castro's Hispanic heritage?"
"I'd like to think that's coincidental."

Off-topic rant over. Sorry. I'm... pretty hammered because we sold our house today. Well, we sign the papers tomorrow, but I mean. Whatever. Party time. Fuck, I have to hire someone to move my gunsafe.... oh god.

It wasn't directed specifically at you, no.

But I reiterate that it is a mistake to assume we have minorities and women "in the bag" and can therefore afford to throw their interests under the bus to win over a few Trumpers.

Most probably won't vote Republican. But their is this thing called "staying home".

Democrats win when they get enthusiastic turnout. That's what we need to work on. And its all the more important when the other side is actively trying to suppress our votes. And when one of the major complaints against the Democrats, and one of the major attacks leveled against them, is to say that they're "just like the Republicans".

I'm not saying its the only thing we should campaign on, or even the main thing- a major national party has to be able to address a wide range of issues. And I'm certainly not saying that we should address those issues in a way that is designed to alienate white men or anything, because the last thing I want is to see politics in America divided even more heavily along racial and gender lines. But I felt then, and feel now, that sacrificing our core ideals and our base to try to win over the Right is a mistake, just like its been a mistake, in the long run, every other time the Democrats do. Its what has allowed the Republican Party to shift the national dialog further and further Right, to where one of our two major parties is stopping just short of openly supporting pedophilia and Nazism.

And while its true that Obama did not run a far Left or heavily-identity politics-based campaign (probably partly, in the latter case, to avoid frightening off voters who were already uneasy about a black President), I don't know if I would attribute Obama's win simply to that. Obama had something else Hillary didn't- personal charisma, combined with much less baggage. He also benefited from the disastrous final years of the Bush Administration.

And while he may have won two terms, his Presidency also saw the increasing Right-ward shift of America and erosion of our democracy that laid the groundwork for Trump. So I wouldn't call that an unequivocal success in the long-term.

[The Romulan Republic]

I still think it desirable to gradually worry away a few of the Trump supporters at a time. If we're lucky and public opinion evolves well, in 20-30 years most of the Trump supporters who are still alive may be mentally retconning that. And I'd call that a win.

Fair enough, and let me rephrase what I said earlier:

I do not think we should worry about trying to win over Trump supporters at the expense of turning out our own side.

I remember around the election, you got people saying stuff about how the Democrats needed to stop sticking up for women and minorities and so forth. I still see it somewhat.

I'm just saying, its bad strategy to piss off and alienate your base or abandon your core values for likely incremental gains at best from the other side. Even leaving aside the obvious moral considerations.

To win those people over, we'd have to become like Trump. And I don't think we could out-Trump Trump if we tried.

Edit: Nor would a victory won on those terms mean anything.

Sigh okay fine.

What I do want to do, and please do not interpret this as me trying to directly hack at what you do or don't want to do...

Is to continue to spread "Trump is a corrupt and lowly fucker" memes through the population to maximize the disillusionment with Trumplike candidates in future elections.

Among other things, because I'd like the next generation's worth of Republican voters to start electing presidential candidates I can live with if they win. People like McCain and Romney would not be people I want in the White House, but they're sane, reasonably competent adults who probably aren't being puppeted by foreign financiers, as opposed to "probably are but we can't prove it."

When presidential elections go south for me, I want the consequence to be me being unhappy about politics for four years, NOT me spending four years seriously thinking "crap crap crap, the only thing saving us from tyranny is the fecklessness of the wannabe tyrant, crap crap crap."

...

In addition, keeping up pressure on the "Trump is a corrupt and lowly fucker" may well make the next couple of election cycles easier for the Democrats, thus making it easier to fix this mess. We saw in the Virginia governor election that this meme is already in play, with a Democratic governor winning by a landslide in the state.

I don't disagree with any of that.

Long-term, either the Republican Party needs to change, or it needs to collapse. Because right now we are in an untenable situation: a two-party system where one of those parties is overtly hostile to democracy and civil rights, with the anti-Trump elements being forced out (like Senator Flake). So either the Democrats always win (which realistically they won't), or we will keep sliding further and further into the abyss.

Long-term, that is a scenario I see ending only two possible ways: dictatorship (and likely one that would blunder us into a global war), or civil war. Possibly both.

So I agree that long-term, we need to try to restore some sanity to the Right. But at the same time, I think those gains are going to be slow and incremental, and rely more on demographic shifts over time, rather than being what will win election cycles in the next few years.

Is that clear?

[Simon_Jester]

Uh... it's clear.

The thing is, specific short-term effects blend seamlessly into long term patterns.

Making it clear that by electing Trump or anyone like him, you open the door to massive incompetent shitfests of a kind seldom seen in American history... That is part of any desired long-term trend towards sane politicians and away from crazy ones. The people who are now forty are going to be with us for decades; convincing them is objectively important. Any of them who, ten years from now, still think Trump was a great guy and all the accusations against him were fake news? Those guys are going to be a problem. Minimizing the number of them by convincing them is important.

...


Moreover, their opinions should not be marginalized with "well, we'll wait for a demographic transition, they're not actually thinking so we can't reason with them."

Among other things, because one of the things that motivates them to vote for a shitfest in the first place is because they're aware of all this talk of a demographic transition burying them. And they don't like it, any more than you'd like the idea of the Quiverfull movement managing to outbreed all other Americans and turn America into a fundamentalist dystopia. If you faced that prospect, you might start thinking of increasingly desperate and questionable ways to prevent it, especially as you reached the tipping point of being reduced to permanent irrelevance.

Acting like people's opinions don't matter because they will some day be a permanently irrelevant minority in their own country is not the solution. Engaging with them is.

So I for one plan to stop talking up 'demographic transition' as the cure to all America's ills. I don't just want people who oppose me to get outbred until they are effectively silenced. I want them to be convinced.

[The Romulan Republic]

I think to some extent you're seeing a disagreement where there isn't one.

I certainly do not think that "demographic transition" is "...the cure to all America's ills." That's an obvious oversimplification of my position.

Again, I agree that we do need to erode the Trump base long-term.

However, we also need to keep the wolves at bay in the short-term, and that's going to come down largely to turning out the base. Balancing those two concerns, without selling out our core values, is the Democratic Party's challenge. But then, being able to address multiple issues and groups simultaneously is what being a national political party is all about.

[Simon_Jester]

Okay.

Honestly, I just think that the short term and long term trends America needs dovetail together, rather than being competing for the same resources and priorities.

[The Romulan Republic]

I'd like to think that, because it would make the Democrats' job much easier, but I'm not sure they do, by and large. Turning out women and minority voters is likely going to require saying and doing things that will further alienate the Trumpers, who's main beef, by and large, seems to be the loss of dominance/privilege by straight white men (though they don't always put it in such blunt terms).

The one bit place that I think that we might find common ground is on an-anti-Wall Street establishment stance aimed at helping the middle class, but even there, I'm not convinced that it'll do much good. Because as much as some Trump supporters talked that up during the election, its my experience that they generally are fine with the Wall Street establishment as long as their guys are in power, or at least fine enough not to do anything about it other than scapegoat the country's economic woes on brown people.

This is just my perspective, based on my experiences, though. Believe me, I'd love to be wrong on this.

[Simon_Jester]

I'm not even saying "hush, don't piss off the Trump voters."

I'm saying "get the Trump voters pissed off at Trump. Identify all the Republicans who would have been just as happy, if not more so, to vote for someone more levelheaded like Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio instead. Make them really, really wish that Trump hadn't been nominated. Make Trump's name so muddy that everyone is trying to dissociate themselves from him."

The Trump voters, and Republicans in general, aren't going to vote Democrat over this in significant numbers. But bluntly, I don't care about that. I care about creating a situation where the Republicans nominating lunatic demagogues who flunked civics and lack the attention span to run a government DOES NOT become the new normal. I want future Republican presidential candidates to look more like Jeb and Rubio, and less like Palin and Trump and Herman Cain.

[The Romulan Republic]

I'm not even saying "hush, don't piss off the Trump voters."

I'm saying "get the Trump voters pissed off at Trump. Identify all the Republicans who would have been just as happy, if not more so, to vote for someone more levelheaded like Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio instead. Make them really, really wish that Trump hadn't been nominated. Make Trump's name so muddy that everyone is trying to dissociate themselves from him."

The Trump voters, and Republicans in general, aren't going to vote Democrat over this in significant numbers. But bluntly, I don't care about that. I care about creating a situation where the Republicans nominating lunatic demagogues who flunked civics and lack the attention span to run a government DOES NOT become the new normal. I want future Republican presidential candidates to look more like Jeb and Rubio, and less like Palin and Trump and Herman Cain.

Fair enough, and I agree with all of that, in theory.

I just perceive it as a very up-hill battle to try to even get them to loose their enthusiasm for Trump in significant numbers. I mean, some already have, but... if you haven't jumped ship yet, what will it take? If "grab them by the pussy", or pushing us to the brink of war with North Korea, or fucking Charlottsville wasn't the line, what is?

Polls continue to show that the vast majority of Trump supporters are satisfied with the job he's doing, and as I've said before, the only way I can explain that is that it isn't about issues, or policy, or promises kept, or even personal character/morality.

Its about his persona, and, very often, it is about wanting a white male strong man. In other words, he doesn't have to do, or not do, anything to keep them- he just has to be Donald Trump.

At the risk of sounding unduly cynical, I fear that the only thing that I think might cost him most of his supporters overnight would be if he actually started acting like a decent human being- and what are the odds of that?

I mean, you're right, anything we can do to erode, even slightly, his base, to keep this from becoming the new normal, is worth doing. But you probably shouldn't get your hopes up too high, and I'd expend more effort on trying to keep more people, particularly from the younger generations and from the ranks of frustrated progressives/third partiers, from joining the Alt. Reich ranks, rather than on trying to pry loose those who are already their.

[Simon_Jester]

Okay fine I'm done here.

[The Romulan Republic]

I'm honestly not sure what I've done here to (apparently) offend you, besides not completely agreeing with you. But alright.

[Simon_Jester]

Mostly just fatigue and a feeling that we're talking past each other.

[The Romulan Republic]

Fair enough, then.

Like I said, I don't think you're really wrong. I just have very low expectations when it comes to actually getting through to Trumpers in any meaningful way.

[Crazedwraith]

BBC

Trump hits out at UK PM Theresa May after far-right video tweets

"Don't focus on me, focus on the destructive Radical Islamic Terrorism that is taking place within the United Kingdom," Mr Trump tweeted.

The US president had earlier retweeted three inflammatory videos posted online by a British far-right group.

Mrs May's spokesman said it was "wrong for the president to have done this".

The US and the UK are close allies and often described as having a "special relationship". Theresa May was the first foreign leader to visit the Trump White House.

The speaker of the House of Commons has granted a request for an urgent question on the matter from Labour MP Stephen Doughty.

MPs have been reacting to the tweet, with Work and Pensions Secretary David Gauke backing Mrs May and calling Britain First a "ghastly, obnoxious organisation".

But while Education Secretary Justine Greening said she disagreed with Mr Trump's actions, they should not be allowed to damage the special relationship between the two countries.

The videos shared by Mr Trump, who has more than 40 million followers, were initially posted by Jayda Fransen, the deputy leader of Britain First, a group founded by former members of the far-right British National Party (BNP).

Ms Fransen, 31, has been charged in the UK with using "threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour" over speeches she made at a rally in Belfast.

Several leading UK politicians have criticised the president for retweeting her posts, as has the Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby, who said it was "deeply disturbing" that Mr Trump had "chosen to amplify the voice of far-right extremists".

And it has led to renewed calls for Mr Trump's planned state visit to the UK to be cancelled, although Downing Street said on Wednesday that the invitation still stood.

London Mayor Sadiq Khan, who has previously called for the "ill-judged" trip to be cancelled, said: "It beggars belief that the president of our closest ally doesn't see that his support of this extremist group actively undermines the values of tolerance and diversity that makes Britain so great.

"After this latest incident, it is increasingly clear that any official visit at all from President Trump to Britain would not be welcomed."

In hitting out at Mrs May, Mr Trump first tagged the wrong Twitter account, sending his statement to a different user with just six followers. He then deleted the tweet and posted it again, this time directing the message to the UK PM's official account.

After already condemning Mr Trump's actions on Wednesday, Brendan Cox - whose wife, MP Jo Cox, was murdered by a right-wing extremist who shouted "Britain first" before committing the act - told the US president to focus on problems in his own country.

TV presenter and journalist Piers Morgan, who has supported Mr Trump in the past, said the president "owes our prime minister an apology, not a lecture" after he "publicly endorsed the most extreme bunch of Islamophobe fascists in Britain".

But American conservative commentator Ann Coulter - who is one of the 45 people followed on Twitter by Mr Trump and retweeted the videos first - defended her president's words to Mrs May, saying he had "only given as good as he gets".

An unnecessary controversy
By Anthony Zurcher, North America reporter
It's clear at this point that Donald Trump won't let a perceived slight or criticism go unanswered - even if it's from a supposed friend. Even if it's from the leader of the president's closest international ally.

So shock isn't exactly the right word to describe the reaction to Mr Trump's initially botched attempt to tell Theresa May to, in effect, mind her own business. This is just another example of the US president's self-described "modern-day presidential" use of social media, where Twitter is a cudgel for score-settling no matter the diplomatic cost.

When Mr Trump assumed the presidency, one of the first foreign dignitaries he received was Mrs May, and it appeared they formed a quick bond - briefly holding hands as they walked past the White House Rose Garden. Those bonds will now be tested in a spat over a few morning retweets of inflammatory videos.

It's a wholly unnecessary controversy, but the international consequences could be all too real.

What did Trump retweet?
The first video purportedly shows a "Muslim migrant" attacking a young Dutch man on crutches. However, the claim in this tweet appears to have little substance.

A spokesperson from the Dutch Public Prosecution Service told the BBC that the person arrested for the attack "was born and raised in the Netherlands" and was not a migrant.

The Dutch embassy in Washington DC confirmed this on Twitter.

The second video retweeted by Mr Trump shows a man smashing a statue of the Virgin Mary.

This video was uploaded to YouTube in 2013. The man in the clip says: "No-one but Allah will be worshipped in the land of the Levant," which could place him in Syria.

The third video originates from the riots that took place in Egypt in 2013, and shows a man being pushed from the top of a building in Alexandria. In 2015, those involved in the the incident were prosecuted, and one man was executed.

White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders said on Wednesday that Mrs May and other world leaders knew that "these are real threats that we have to talk about".

"Whether it's a real video, the threat is real," she said.

What other reaction has there been?

Mr Trump's actions on Wednesday were criticised by both Democrats and Republicans.

Republican Senator John McCain said he was "surprised" at the president's tweets.

Meanwhile, Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah said that Mrs May was "one of the great world leaders", adding that he had "incredible love and respect for her".

Khizr Khan, the father of US soldier Humayun Khan who was killed in the Iraq war, told Today: "[Mr Trump] holds the hatred. He is an actor, he acts and fabricates these facts to exploit people, innocent people, that fall victim to his bigotry and he sees the benefit.

"We all need to unite ourselves, all decent people of the world, against the menace of terrorism."
In the UK, many politicians voiced their concerns about the videos that were shared.

Communities Secretary Sajid Javid said the president had "endorsed the views of a vile, hate-filled racist organisation".

And Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson tweeted that Britain First had "no place" in British society.

Opposition MPs were even stronger in the criticism, with Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn describing the retweets as "abhorrent" and "dangerous".

Speaking in the Commons, Labour MP David Lammy accused Mr Trump of "promoting a fascist, racist, extremist hate group".

So retweet far-right shite, and double down on it when called on it. Business as usual for Trump it seems.

[The Romulan Republic]

Don't forget pissing on America's traditional allies.

Edit: Of course, one could argue that America ceased to be an ally of Britain's when Trump was inaugurated, and the US became a Russian client state.

[K. A. Pital]

It seems like the spat between Trump and May is the burning of bridges between people I personally dislike for many reasons, some of them political, and governments I seriously dislike for purely political reasons.

I hope it furthers the collapse of the causes of both Trump and Brexit. They seemed to be aligned for a while; time for that to end.

[The Romulan Republic]

Well, I can agree with that.

I never would have thought, two years ago, that I could utter the words "Global Neo-Nazi conspiracy" in utter seriousness, but the Trump and Brexit votes, and the ties between the two campaigns, changed that.

[mr friendly guy]

I heard that Trump initially attacked the wrong Theresa May. He found someone with the same name as the UK Prime minister with 6 followers. Then he took the tweet down.

[SpottedKitty]

I heard that Trump initially attacked the wrong Theresa May. He found someone with the same name as the UK Prime minister with 6 followers. Then he took the tweet down.

You heard right. Apparently it took half an hour until Someone noticed.

And I never thought I'd hear the BBC newsreader — not just some correspondent from lower down the totem pole — ask seriously when someone's going to take You-Know-Who's phone away from him, but I did last night.

Quite honestly, I can't see any way for that state visit Himself craves so badly to go ahead, if only because there's likely to be massive public disturbances wherever he goes.

Yes, I have phrased this post carefully to avoid using a name. He doesn't deserve that dignity.