KTJ You Vile Self Hating Subhuman White Creature Go Fuck Yourself

[Kiwithrottlejockey]

Now bow down and kiss the arse of your Führer Dear Leader Il Duce Great Emperor Oh Mighty One!






from The Washington Post....

Trump names his Inauguration Day a ‘National Day of Patriotic Devotion’

Trump signed the presidential order on Friday, hours after being sworn in.

By ABBY PHILLIP | 6:13PM EST - Monday, January 23, 2017


President Donald Trump giving his inauguration speech on Friday. — Photograph: Alex Wong/Getty Images.

PRESIDENT TRUMP has officially declared the day of his inauguration a national day of patriotism.

Trump's inaugural address on Friday frequently referred to patriotism as the salve that would heal the country's divisions. “When you open your heart to patriotism, there is no room for prejudice,” Trump said from the steps of the Capitol after being sworn in as president.

Later that day, Trump's press secretary, Sean Spicer, said that naming a national day of patriotism was among the executive actions that Trump took in his first few hours as president.



On Monday, the paperwork was filed with the federal government declaring officially that January 20th, 2017 — the day of Trump's inauguration — would officially be known as the “National Day of Patriotic Devotion.”

“Now, therefore, I, Donald J. Trump, president of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim January 20th, 2017, as National Day of Patriotic Devotion, in order to strengthen our bonds to each other and to our country — and to renew the duties of government to the people,” the order says.

“Our Constitution is written on parchment, but it lives in the hearts of the American people,” the order continues. “There is no freedom where the people do not believe in it; no law where the people do not follow it; and no peace where the people do not pray for it.”

• Abby Phillip is a national political reporter covering the White House for The Washington Post.

__________________________________________________________________________

Related:

 • VIDEO: Trump's inaugural address in three minutes

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/01/23/trump-names-his-inauguration-day-a-national-day-of-patriotic-devotion

[Kiwithrottlejockey]

from The Washington Post....

The first days inside Trump's White House:
Fury, tumult and a reboot

President Trump, increasingly enraged at comparisons of the crowds at his inauguration and
the size of protests against him, pushed for a fiery public response. The resulting statement
from press secretary Sean Spicer — delivered on Saturday in an extended shout and
brimming with falsehoods — underscored how the turbulence and competing
factions of Trump's campaign have been transported to the White House.

By ASHLEY PARKER, PHILIP RUCKER and MATEA GOLD | 9:47PM EST - Monday, January 23, 2017


White House press secretary Sean Spicer takes questions on Monday. — Photograph: Matt McClain/The Washington Post.

PRESIDENT TRUMP had just returned to the White House on Saturday from his final inauguration event, a tranquil interfaith prayer service, when the flashes of anger began to build.

Trump turned on the television to see a jarring juxtaposition — massive demonstrations around the globe protesting his day-old presidency and footage of the sparser crowd at his inauguration, with large patches of white empty space on the Mall.

As his press secretary, Sean Spicer, was still unpacking boxes in his spacious new West Wing office, Trump grew increasingly and visibly enraged.

Pundits were dissing his turnout. The National Park Service had retweeted a photo unfavorably comparing the size of his inauguration crowd with the one that attended Barack Obama's swearing-in ceremony in 2009. A journalist had misreported that Trump had removed the bust of Martin Luther King Jr. from the Oval Office. And celebrities at the protests were denouncing the new commander in chief — Madonna even referenced “blowing up the White House.”

Trump's advisers suggested that he could push back in a simple tweet. Thomas J. Barrack Jr., a Trump confidant and the chairman of the Presidential Inaugural Committee, offered to deliver a statement addressing the crowd size.

But Trump was adamant, aides said. Over the objections of his aides and advisers — who urged him to focus on policy and the broader goals of his presidency — the new president issued a decree: He wanted a fiery public response, and he wanted it to come from his press secretary.

Spicer's resulting statement — delivered in an extended shout and brimming with falsehoods — underscores the extent to which the turbulence and competing factions that were a hallmark of Trump's campaign have been transported to the White House.

The broader power struggles within the Trump operation have touched everything from the new administration's communications shop to the expansive role of the president’s son-in-law to the formation of Trump's political organization. At the center, as always, is Trump himself, whose ascent to the White House seems to have only heightened his acute sensitivity to criticism.

This account of Trump's tumultuous first days in office comes from interviews with nearly a dozen senior White House officials and other Trump advisers and confidants, some of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe private conversations and moments.

By most standards, Spicer's statement Saturday did not go well. He appeared tired and nervous in an ill-fitting gray pinstripe suit. He publicly gave faulty facts and figures — which he said were provided to him by the Presidential Inaugural Committee — that prompted a new round of media scrutiny.

Many critics thought Spicer went too far and compromised his integrity. But in Trump's mind, Spicer's attack on the news media was not forceful enough. The president was also bothered that the spokesman read, at times haltingly, from a printed statement.

Trump has been resentful, even furious, at what he views as the media's failure to reflect the magnitude of his achievements, and he feels demoralized that the public's perception of his presidency so far does not necessarily align with his own sense of accomplishment.

On Monday, Spicer returned to the lectern, crisply dressed and appearing more comfortable as he parried questions from the press corps.

“There is this constant theme to undercut the enormous support that he has,” he told reporters. “And I think that it's just unbelievably frustrating when you're continually told it's not big enough, it's not good enough, you can't win.”

Unlike other senior aides — Chief of Staff Reince Priebus, chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon, counselor Kellyanne Conway and senior adviser Jared Kushner, the president's son-in-law — Spicer does not enjoy a close and long-standing personal relationship with Trump.


Advisers Jared Kushner, left, and Stephen K. Bannon get off then-President-elect Donald Trump’s plane as they make their way
to a meeting at Carrier Corporation in Indianapolis in December. — Photograph: Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post.

During the campaign, Trump was suspicious of both Priebus and Spicer, who ran the Republican National Committee and were seen as more loyal to the party than to its nominee. Some privately wonder whether Conway is now trying to undermine Spicer.

As Trump thought about staffing his administration following his surprise victory, he hesitated over selecting Spicer as White House press secretary. He did not see Spicer as particularly telegenic and preferred a woman for the position, asking Conway to do it and also considering conservative commentators Laura Ingraham and Monica Crowley — who ultimately stepped down from an administration job because of charges of plagiarism — before settling on Spicer at the urging of Priebus and others.

Yet if there was any doubt over the weekend about Spicer's standing with the president, it seemed to have been erased by his performance on Monday, at least for the moment. Trump told his senior team that he was pleased with Spicer's more confident and relaxed turn at the lectern.

“His very first briefing as White House press secretary was a tour de force,” Conway said. “He engaged the media, he was respectful and firm, he talked about accountability on a two-way street, he gave facts, he broke news in terms of what the president was doing.”

But tensions and internal power struggles have plagued other parts of Trump's fledgling orbit, too.

Efforts to launch an outside group supporting Trump's agenda have stalled amid fighting between Kushner loyalists, such as the campaign's data and digital strategist Brad Parscale, and conservative donor Rebekah Mercer, according to people familiar with the tensions. Major disputes include who would control the data the outside group would use, with Mercer advocating for Cambridge Analytica, a firm in which her father is invested, and who would control the lucrative contracts with vendors, these people said.

Two people close to the transition also said a number of Trump's most loyal campaign aides have been alarmed by Kushner's efforts to elbow aside anyone he perceives as a possible threat to his role as Trump's chief consigliere. At one point during the transition, Kushner had argued internally against giving Conway a White House role, these two people said.

Because Conway operates outside of the official communications department, some aides grumble that she can go rogue when she pleases, offering her own message and promoting herself as much as the president. One suggested that Conway's office on the second floor of the West Wing, as opposed to one closer to the Oval Office, was a sign of her diminished standing. Though Conway took over the workspace previously occupied by Valerie Jarrett, who had been Obama's closest adviser, the confidant dismissively predicted that Trump would rarely climb a flight of stairs.

Yet that assessment may misunderstand the Trump-Conway relationship. The president admires her dogged and fearless defenses of him and respects her on-camera ability to dodge, diffuse and deflect whatever comes her way, according to numerous Trump advisers. On the eve of his inauguration, Trump called Conway on stage at a black-tie dinner to sing her praises.

Trump watched on Sunday as Conway sparred with NBC's Chuck Todd on “Meet the Press”. Some Trump allies were unsettled by her performance, but not the president, according to one official. He called Vice President Pence to rave about how she handled questions from Todd, whom Trump mocked on Twitter as “Sleepy Eyes”, and called Conway to offer his congratulations. Trump was perturbed that the media focused on two words from Conway's interview: “alternative facts”.

Conway is arguably Trump's most recognizable aide, which has caused her to receive threats against her life. She has been assigned a Secret Service detail, according to someone with detailed knowledge of the situation.

In perhaps the clearest sign of where the administration's power center resides, the “Big Four” — Bannon, Conway, Kushner and Priebus — stood in the front row at Sunday afternoon's swearing-in ceremony for senior staffers, in the White House's East Room.

Conway herself said that while the advisers sometimes disagree, rumors of dissension are overblown.

“We're a cohesive unit,” she said. “The senior team exhibits many of the characteristics President Trump has always valued: cohesion, collaboration, high energy and high impact.”

Some Trump insiders have suggested tension between Conway and Priebus, but she said that could not be further from the truth. “I really respect the job that Reince is doing most of all,” Conway said. “He has a very good way of choosing battles wisely, which is a hallmark of a real leader and manager.”

Conway said she now hopes to limit her television appearances. Instead, she is taking on an expanded portfolio, which will include health care and veterans' issues, and Pence — for whom she has worked for years as a pollster — is also expected to carve out more substantive responsibilities for her.

Longtime GOP fundraiser and adviser Fred Malek said that a president benefits from having advisers with distinct perspectives, noting the Ed Meese and Jim Baker debates in the Reagan White House.

“You want to have a robust discussion and you want to have competing points of view debated with vigor,” Malek said. “To the extent that results in bruised feelings sometimes, so be it.”

• Rosalind S. Helderman contributed to this report.

• Ashley Parker is a White House reporter for The Washington Post. She joined The Post in 2017, after 11 years at The New York Times, where she covered the 2012 and 2016 presidential campaigns and Congress, among other things.

• Philip Rucker is the White House Bureau Chief for The Washington Post. He previously has covered Congress, the Obama White House, and the 2012 and 2016 presidential campaigns. He joined The Post in 2005 as a local news reporter.

• Matea Gold is a national political reporter for The Washington Post, covering money and influence.

__________________________________________________________________________

More on this topic:

 • VIDEO: Spicer promises honesty as press secretary, but says ‘sometimes we disagree on the facts’

 • Without evidence, Trump tells lawmakers 3 million to 5 million illegal ballots cost him the popular vote

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-first-days-inside-trumps-white-house-fury-tumult-and-a-reboot/2017/01/23/7ceef1b0-e191-11e6-ba11-63c4b4fb5a63_story.html

[Kiwithrottlejockey]

[Im2Sexy4MyPants]

haha

[Kiwithrottlejockey]

from The Washington Post....

Is Trump ready for war in the South China Sea,
or is his team just not being clear?

White House spokesman vows to stop China taking islands in South China Sea.

By SIMON DENYER | 5:33AM EST - Tuesday, January 24, 2017


White House spokesman Sean Spicer said on January 23rd, that the U.S. would stop China from encroaching on
international waters in the South China Sea. — Photograph: Reuters.

WAS THIS a prelude to a major escalation in the South China Sea, or is the Trump administration having trouble articulating its foreign policy?

On Monday, new White House spokesman Sean Spicer said the United States would prevent China from taking over territory in international waters in the South China Sea.

His comments were widely interpreted as doubling down on remarks by Trump's nominee for secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, on January 11th that the United States would not allow China access to islands it has built in the South China Sea, and upon which it has installed weapons systems and built military-length airstrips.

“The U.S. is going to make sure that we protect our interests there,” Spicer said when asked if President Trump agreed with his nominee.

“It's a question of if those islands are in fact in international waters and not part of China proper, then yeah, we're going to make sure that we defend international territories from being taken over by one country.”

Experts had initially thought Tillerson might have mis-spoken, but Spicer's remarks appeared to raise the likelihood that the administration was indeed considering blocking China's access to its new islands in the Spratlys.

China's Foreign Ministry reacted calmly to Tillerson's remarks last week, declining to be drawn into how it would react in a “hypothetical” situation. On Tuesday, it said it had “non-negotiable sovereignty” to the Nansha — or Spratly — islands and surrounding areas, and added it insisted on solving disputes through peaceful bilateral negotiations with other countries in the region.

“The United States is not a country directly involved in the South China Sea,” ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying told a news conference. “We urge the United States to respect facts and speak and act cautiously to avoid damaging peace and stability in the area.”

Last week, state-run China Daily dismissed Tillerson's remarks as “not worth taking seriously because they are a mishmash of naiveté, shortsightedness, worn-out prejudices and unrealistic political fantasies.” But nationalist tabloid the Global Times warned that any move to blockade the islands could provoke a “large-scale war”.

That is an assessment broadly shared by many foreign policy experts.

Mira Rapp-Hooper, a South China Sea expert at the Center for a New American Security, called the threats to bar China's access in the South China Sea “incredible” and told Reuters it had no basis in international law.

“A blockade — which is what would be required to actually bar access — is an act of war,” she added.



Chen Xiangmiao, a research fellow at the National Institute for the South China Sea, said Spicer appeared to have kept the same “hard-line attitude” displayed by Tillerson and Trump before his inauguration and during the campaign.

“Trump is the president now; he is no longer in the campaign phase, and what he said may actually be put into practice,” he said. “China needs to be more alert.”

Chen said what worried experts here was “whether Trump and his team truly understand the South China Sea issues, whether they truly understand China's stance and situation and whether they truly understand America's interests in that area.”

Trump himself has criticized China for building what he called a “massive fortress” in the South China Sea.

But what exactly does he want to do about it?

There is confusion in foreign policy circles.

Bonnie Glaser, a senior adviser for Asia at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, was quoted as saying last week that she had heard from some members of the Trump transition team that Tillerson “mis-spoke” during five hours of Senate testimony. But on Monday she told Reuters that Spicer's remarks were “worrisome” and more evidence of “confusing and conflicting messages.”

As Chinese media have pointed out, Vietnam, the Philippines, Taiwan and Malaysia also control islands in the disputed waters of the South China Sea, yet the United States is not demanding they leave the area.

Asked how the United States would enforce any move against China, Spicer seemed keen to change the subject, saying only: “I think, as we develop further, we’ll have more information on it” — before turning to another question.

As Bill Hayton, an associate fellow at Chatham House and South China Sea expert, pointed out in a piece for Foreign Policy last week, there are different interpretations of what the new administration might be thinking.

One is that Tillerson can be taken both seriously and literally: that the United States government will attempt a blockade as a way to force Beijing to respect last year's ruling by an international tribunal that China's claim to the waters encompassed by its “nine-dash line” was not supported by the international law of the sea.

A blockade would be an attempt to force China to allow other nations more freedom to fish and drill for oil in the disputed waters, and “above all, give up any attempts to block U.S. naval ships transiting, exercising, or gathering intelligence in the South China Sea,” Hayton wrote.

Indeed, that is one of the main bones of contention between Washington and Beijing over the vital waterways. Chinese think tanks complain that U.S. military vessels and aircraft are conducting operations and reconnaissance missions close to its shores more and more frequently.

Beijing insists it will allow commercial shipping free passage but clearly believes the U.S. Navy should stay out of its back yard, and it seized an American underwater drone in the South China Sea last month apparently to make that point. The United States says its navy has the right to sail in international waters.

But as Hayton pointed out, a U.S. attempt to enforce its position through a blockade could provoke military conflict and lose the support of American allies in Asia keen to avoid a superpower confrontation.

Yet there is another possibility: that Tillerson and Spicer are in fact indirectly referring to concerns about Scarborough Shoal, a partly submerged chain of reefs and rocks close to the Philippines that China seized in 2012.

Senator John McCain (Republican-Arizona) is among those who have warned that China was planning to build a military base on Scarborough Shoal, to form a triangular network when combined with existing bases in the Spratly and the Paracel islands.

The Obama administration, Hayton pointed out, was reported to have told China in 2016 it was prepared to physically deter any attempts to build on the shoal, and had deployed ships and aircraft to the area to back up that threat.

An attempt to stop China building a new island on Scarborough Shoal would imply greater continuity with policy under Obama, and be less confrontational than preventing China's navy from getting access to existing islands. Indeed, Beijing knows that any attempt to build a new island on the Shoal would be provocative in itself.

“Tillerson may therefore have been simply stating that he wants this strategy to continue — stopping any island-building on Scarborough Shoal by denying construction vessels access to it,” Hayton wrote.

Dean Cheng, a China expert at the conservative Heritage Foundation, told Reuters the administration had left open the possibility of economic measures — instead of military steps — against China and firms that carry out island building.

Yet given a chance this week to clarify where his government stands on the South China Sea, Spicer appears to have muddied the waters still further.



• Emily Rauhala and Congcong Zhang contributed to this report.

• Simon Denyer is The Washington Post's bureau chief in China. He served previously as bureau chief in India and as a Reuters bureau chief in Washington, India and Pakistan.

__________________________________________________________________________

More on this topic:

 • VIDEO: Trump administration vows to block Chinese expansion in South China Sea

 • VIDEO: Here's what happened at Rex Tillerson's rocky Senate confirmation hearing

 • VIDEO: Why China is militarizing the South China Sea

 • Trump kills TPP, giving China its first big win

 • Forget Xi's ‘defense’ of globalization. China just fortified the Great Firewall.

 • China returns seized U.S. naval drone despite Trump's call to ‘keep it’

 • Beijing's dilemma after South China Sea ruling: Double down or cool down?

 • PHOTOGRAPH GALLERY: See what President Trump has been doing since his inauguration

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/01/24/is-trump-ready-for-war-in-the-south-china-sea-or-is-his-team-just-not-being-clear

[Kiwithrottlejockey]

from The Washington Post....

Donald Trump just forfeited in his first fight with China

Donald Trump acts like he's getting tough on China,
but one of his first acts was a total capitulation.

By MATT O'BRIEN | 10:27AM EST - Tuesday, January 24, 2017


On his fourth day in office, President Trump signed an executive order formally withdrawing the U.S. from the
Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal. Crafted by the Obama administration, the trade deal failed to be ratified
by Congress during Obama's two terms. — Photograph: Daron Taylor/The Washington Post.

DONALD TRUMP meant what he said about trade.

When he isn't getting attention for telling demonstrable falsehoods about the size of his inauguration crowd, Trump has been busy filling his administration with people who want to get tough on China, threatening to put tariffs on companies that outsource jobs, and, as he did on Monday, pulling the United States out of big trade deals. Indeed, he officially killed the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and is expected to announce that he wants to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement as well.

How much does this matter? Well, when it comes to the TPP, maybe not as much as you might think for an agreement that would have created a single market for most of the Pacific rim other than China. At least not in economic terms. The U.S. International Trade Commission, after all, estimates that the TPP would have raised our inflation-adjusted incomes only by 0.23 percent — in total — between now and 2032. That's not nothing, but it's pretty darn close. That's because the TPP wasn't really about reducing tariffs. Those are already quite low for the countries involved. It was more about making other countries follow our rules for patents and intellectual property, raising prices for Asian consumers and profits for American companies. That'd be better for our shareholders, but not necessarily for our workers. In all likelihood, it wouldn't change our jobs picture very much for good or ill.

No, the real reason to support the TPP wasn't economics so much as geopolitics. It was about keeping an economic foot firmly planted in China's backyard, and writing the trade rules so they couldn't. If this sounds like a less quantifiable benefit, well, that's because it is. At the same time, though, this kind of logic was a part of almost all our trade deals the past 70 years. Initially, these were about setting a system to promote prosperity abroad so fragile postwar democracies could resist Communist pressure. But even after the Berlin Wall came down, they were still a way to not only open up markets, but also reward countries for reforming their economies like we wanted. As Paul Krugman argued at the time, that was why NAFTA made more sense than any economic model would have told you. If we rejected Mexico's liberalizing government, it might have collapsed — and an anti-American one could have taken its place.

Now, that's not to say that all trade deals are economically irrelevant. They aren't. NAFTA really did move a decent chunk of our manufacturing base south of the border, whether a giant sucking sound accompanied it. And granting China Permanent Normal Trade Relations status in 2000 really did seem to give companies the confidence they needed to shift production there on a far larger scale than they had before, since they no longer had to worry about the risk of tariffs rising.

What we are saying, though, is that the era of big trade deals is over. And that was true even before Trump announced his candidacy before a raucous crowd of paid actors. The simple story is that we've already pushed tariffs about as low as they can go, and all that's left is to negotiate over non-tariff trade barriers. But the problem is that those sorts of things — say, rules about intellectual property or government procurement — are what we used to think of as the sole province of domestic policy. Which is why they can feel like they're infringing on a country's sovereignty. The result is that these new trade deals are more difficult politically and less useful economically than previous ones.

But what's changing with Trump is that we aren't even trying to lead on trade anymore. He doesn't see these deals as a way to win friends and influence people, but rather to win manufacturing jobs and influence his approval rating. That might sound like common sense to some people, but it does leave an opening for other countries — yes, China — to negotiate where we're not. The risk, then, is that globalization might not proceed on our terms or with our values. But there's a greater danger. It's not that Trump won't make further progress on trade, but rather will backtrack on where we are. New trade deals might not help much, but unraveling old ones would hurt. At that point, we wouldn't have the luxury of worrying about whose globalization we had. The answer would be nobody's. And the whole world would be a little bit poorer.

Or as Trump calls it, America would be great again.

• Matt O'Brien is a reporter for Wonkblog covering economic affairs at The Washington Post. He was previously a senior associate editor at The Atlantic.

__________________________________________________________________________

More on this topic:

 • VIDEO: President Trump signs order to withdraw from Trans-Pacific Partnership

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/01/24/donald-trump-just-forfeited-in-his-first-fight-with-china

[Kiwithrottlejockey]

[Im2Sexy4MyPants]

wow nobody went to see trump
so says the fake news
maybe they are just full of shit

http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2017/01/politics/trump-inauguration-gigapixel/

[Kiwithrottlejockey]

(click on the picture to read all about it)

[Im2Sexy4MyPants]

Sopranos vs the leftist nazis lol

what they said

[Kiwithrottlejockey]

Donald J. Trump is a hilarious comedian (or village idiot).

He claims he is going to make Mexico pay for his wall by slapping a 20% tax on imports from Mexico.

Errrrrr....no....that won't be Mexico paying for the wall. That will be American consumers paying for the wall when an additional 20% is slapped on the price of Mexican-made goods....on the American side of the border.

Faaaaaark.....Trump is a stupid dumbarse!! And the people most likely to purchase Mexican-made goods are his stupid white-trash supporters. 

Talk about an “own goal”, eh?  SNIGGER.... 

[Im2Sexy4MyPants]

mexico will end up paying for the wall
hes doing what he said he would do unlike that other blacktrash lying cunt

[Kiwithrottlejockey]

Message for stupid dumbfucks........a 20% tax slapped on top of the price of imported consumer products from Mexico (or any country) is a 20% increase on the price of those goods, as paid for by American consumers. And it tends to be the poor white trash who voted for Trump who purchase cheap consumer products from Mexico, China and other places, because they cannot afford the price of American-made goods. So it will be the stupid morons who voted for Trump who will end up paying for the wall. Hilarious, eh? The dumbfucks cheered when Trump promised to build the wall, now those stupid dumbfucks are going to pay for it through the increase in the price of consumer products, which will still be way cheaper than American-produced consumer products.

I wonder why Trump supporters (including those living in Woodville, NZ) are too thick to work that one out? Inherent stupidity, perhaps? 

[Im2Sexy4MyPants]

bye bye world government,bye bye worthless un,bye bye nato,bye bye tpp,bye bye chinese century,bye bye global warming tax.....

welcome to the new age with real freedom and people power the new american century

trump is about to bring out the suppressed technology and welcome the world to a new space age
which the us will control...

china is about to be left in the dust
communism is about die for ever....

trump is ripping the leftists a new arsehole and bringing real hope and change
obama's crap is finished....

fuck the world governments unelected elite morons and fuck their useful self victimised idiot lefty minions.

welcome to reality you race baiting,self hating pile of crap you better go over and help china ;p

[Kiwithrottlejockey]

America is a has-been nation and they were going to lose it anyway, but Trump is dragging them down the gurgler quicker.

How dumb to slap a huge tax on your own country's consumers to pay for a stupid wall, then claim Mexico is paying for the wall.

Only a stupid thicko would come up with such an idiotic scheme and expect intelligent people to believe it.

It's hilarious that there are people in Woodville, NZ who are so gullible and unsophisticated, eh? 

[Im2Sexy4MyPants]

u small dick jumped up leftist twerp that dont know shit lol

[Kiwithrottlejockey]

So....to sum up....Trump announced he is going to slap a 20% tax on top of the price of consumer goods imported into the USA from Mexico.

The 20% tax is to pay for his stupid wall.

However, the 20% increase in the price of those goods will be paid for by American consumers who purchase those goods.

So it is actually Americas who are paying for Trump's wall.

Yet Trump supporters are so dumb, that they believe Trump's bullshit that Mexico will pay for the wall, even though it will be American consumers.

Hilarious, eh? Yeah, I know I shouldn't laugh at dumbarses, but Trump-supporting dumbarses are so stupid that one cannot help laughing at them.

[Im2Sexy4MyPants]

how many days has he been in ? hes already fucked up all obama's globalist shit
and he's already doing a great job draining the swamp

[Kiwithrottlejockey]

Is everybody else in Woodville as deluded and messed-up as you?

Do other Woodville folks have REAL lives, are they are as dumb as you and cheering on a bigot on the other side of the world?

Perhaps you should get a REAL job instead of being a perpetual idiot.

[Im2Sexy4MyPants]

stfu you stupid sjw religion pussy snowflake brainwashed communist drone isis supporter

we are lucky the left losers are joke

hahaha

[Im2Sexy4MyPants]

[Kiwithrottlejockey]

« Last Edit: Today at 16:10:45 by Im2Sexy4MyPants »

Typical Trump supporter. Too DUMB to even get a post right first time, having to edit it to cover up mistakes.

No wonder you're stupid (and gullible) enough to believe Trump's bullshit.

I bet other Woodville folks see you as their pet village idiot, eh?   

[Im2Sexy4MyPants]

Libtard

[Donald]

🙄

[Donald]

Sexy...."u small dick jumped up leftist twerp that dont know shit lol "


...yeah....always found sexy to be a very intelligent and perceptive person😳

..sad to lose his input to this board....still can't understand why🙄