Trump insults London mayor on UK state visit
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Alice RITCHIE and Jerome CARTILLIER, AFP 28 minutes ago 
Trump and his wife Melania are to meet Queen Elizabeth II at Buckingham Palace (AFP Photo/MANDEL NGAN)London (AFP) - US President Donald Trump kicked off a state visit to Britain Monday by branding London's mayor a "loser" before heading for lunch with Queen Elizabeth II, following delicate comments about Brexit.
Trump's plane had not even touched down when he tweeted that Sadiq Khan, who has been highly critical of the red-carpet welcome laid on for Trump, had done a "terrible job" running London.
The president called the mayor a "stone cold loser", adding: "Kahn reminds me very much of our very dumb and incompetent Mayor of NYC, (Bill) de Blasio, who has also done a terrible job - only half his height.
"In any event, I look forward to being a great friend to the United Kingdom," he added.
Queen Elizabeth II was scheduled to welcome Trump and his wife Melania to Buckingham Palace later Monday, where they will be treated to a guard of honour, a private lunch and a glittering banquet.
But beneath the pomp and ceremony, Britain is in turmoil with Prime Minister Theresa May due to step down within weeks over her handling of her country's exit from the European Union.
Trump weighed in on the divisive issue of Brexit, declaring before he arrived that Britain's former foreign minister Boris Johnson would make an "excellent" choice to succeed May.
In a round of British newspaper interviews, he also recommended her successor walk away from talks with Brussels, refuse to pay Britain's agreed divorce bill and leave the EU with no deal.
The UK-US "special relationship" was already under strain over different approaches to Iran, the use of Chinese technology in 5G networks, climate change, and Trump's personal politics.
Labour's Khan has led opposition to the three-day visit, writing a newspaper article on Sunday in which he compared the US leader to European dictators from the 1930s and 1940s.
"Donald Trump is just one of the most egregious examples of a growing global threat," Khan wrote.
His spokesman called Trump's tweets "childish" and "beneath the president of the United States".
- Baby Trump blimp -
Huge protests are being organised in London, with organisers crowdfunding a bright orange "baby Trump" blimp depicting the US leader in a diaper -- aiming for an even larger version than the one flown during his visit last year.
The leaders of Britain's main opposition parties and the speaker of parliament are boycotting the state banquet on Monday night.
In an effort to brush past the controversy, May and Trump are expected to emphasise the wider benefits of their old alliance when they hold talks at Downing Street on Tuesday.
On Wednesday, they will join other world leaders in the English port of Portsmouth to commemorate 75 years since the D-Day landings, which changed the course of World War II.
"Our relationship has underpinned our countries' security and prosperity for many years, and will continue to do so for generations to come," May said ahead of the visit.
- No-deal Brexit -
May announced her resignation last month after failing to get her Brexit deal through parliament and twice delaying Britain's EU departure.
She will formally quit as her Conservative party's leader on Friday, but will stay on as caretaker prime minister while her successor is chosen.
Three years after the referendum vote for Brexit, Britain remains divided.
Trump recommended the new government make a clean break with the EU if necessary, adding that there was "tremendous potential" for Britain to trade with his country after Brexit.
Causing more potential embarrassment for May, Trump said he might also meet with Johnson and pro-Brexit leader Nigel Farage during his UK visit.
"They want to meet. We'll see what happens," he told reporters before he left the United States.
- Strained special relationship -
May was the first foreign leader welcomed to the White House after Trump's election victory in November 2016, but their relationship has not always been rosy.
They have clashed over Trump's migration policies, while Britain still backs the Iranian nuclear deal and the Paris climate accord, both of which Trump has abandoned.
Washington has also been putting pressure on Britain to exclude Chinese tech giant Huawei from its 5G network over security concerns, suggesting it might harm intelligence-sharing.
Trump's first official visit to Britain last year was overshadowed by criticism of May's approach to Brexit, as well as large demonstrations.
He is not expected to meet Prince Harry and his American wife Meghan Markle, after saying her previous criticism of him was "nasty".
Tags
Who is online
72 visitors
Trump Insults London Mayor On UK State Visit
London (AFP) - US President Donald Trump kicked off a state visit to Britain Monday by branding London's mayor a "loser" before heading for lunch with Queen Elizabeth II, following delicate comments about Brexit.
Trump's plane had not even touched down when he tweeted that Sadiq Khan, who has been highly critical of the red-carpet welcome laid on for Trump, had done a "terrible job" running London.
The president called the mayor a "stone cold loser", adding: "Kahn reminds me very much of our very dumb and incompetent Mayor of NYC, (Bill) de Blasio, who has also done a terrible job - only half his height.
"In any event, I look forward to being a great friend to the United Kingdom," he added.
Stupid, no class, dumb ass POS.
Would that be the London mayor who encourages protests of the leader of the free world, yet has no problem with the leaders of Communist China and Russia?
I think the President is right, as usual!
Right to protest
The right to protest is a human right arising out of a number of recognized human rights . While no human rights instrument or national constitution grants the absolute right to protest , such a right to protest may be a manifestation of the right to freedom of assembly , the right to freedom of association , and the right to freedom of speech . [1] Additionally, protest and restrictions on protest have lasted as long as governments have. [2]
Many international treaties contain clear articulations of the right to protest and it is crucial for individuals who are interested in protesting to stay up to date and aware. Such agreements include the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights , especially Articles 9 to 11; and the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights , especially Articles 18 to 22. Articles 9 enunciates the "right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion." [3] Article 10 enunciates the "right to freedom of expression." [3] Article 11 enunciates the "right to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests." [3] However, in these and other agreements the rights of freedom of assembly, freedom of association, and freedom of speech are subject to certain limitations. For example, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights contains prohibitions on " propaganda of war" and advocacy of "national, racial or religious hatred "; and it allows the restriction of the freedom to assembly if it is necessary "in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, public order, the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others." (Articles 20 and 21) [3] It is important for people interested in protest to note that different places have passed their own clarification of these rights.
Protesting, however, is not necessarily violent or a threat to the interests of national security or public safety. Nor is it necessarily civil disobedience , because most protest does not involve violating the laws of the state. Also, since it is an expression of a universal right, choosing to lawfully protest is not a violation of state laws. Protests, even campaigns of nonviolent resistance or civil resistance , can often have the character (in addition to using nonviolent methods) of positively supporting a democratic and constitutional order. This can happen, for example, when such resistance arises in response to a military coup d'état ; [4] or in the somewhat similar case of a refusal of the state leadership to surrender office following defeat in an election. During points of widespread tension or controversy within a society, it is important for government institutions to recognize this right. A democracy's ability to preserve its citizen's right to protest is a result of that democracy's "political health." [2]
He may be 'right' but he is always incorrect.
In case you haven't heard, leader of the free world is now Angela Merkel. She took over after Trump abdicated that leadership.
That you support a president who behaves like an offensive nit-wit explains a lot.
Are you saying you support the free speech of radical muslims, communists, and murderous dictators?
Only according to anti-Trump left wing media.
In what area has Trump "led" the free world since starting his administration? All he has done is insult our allies, praise our opponents, and back out or minimize our participation in international projects.
Don't you consider free speech to be a basic human right?
Only for the republicans and Rump supporters.
I don't like when murderous dictators spew their shit....but they are human and they do have those basic human rights.
Other humans also have the right to countermand their speech
Yawn
Why is Melania dressed like a stewardess?
LOL!
I have never seen any comment by Khan that is supportive of either Putin or Li Keqiang.
Yes, I support their right to say it but I disagree with what they say.
Apparently, you only support the right of free speech for people or ideas who you agree with, but that isn't what free speech rights are about.
No, that would be coming from the rightwing pukefunnel. And, by the way, the most prominent international supporter of the leader of Russia would be your Shitbag.
That's a very good thing. Now lets proceed to step 2. Since you support the free speech rights of the Mayor of London to disparage the President and this country, do you also support the free speech rights of the President when he calls the bastard out on what he's doing and gives it back to him right in his face.
Remember that this is not a prep school. This is international politics, where gentlemen decide their differences based on who has the biggest club. When dealing with a worthless POS like the London Mayor in this kind of forum, you have to use the kind of language that he understands.
Has anyone threatened to arrest Donald Trump for what he said?
Trump is an intellectual troglodyte and this needs to be handled in a diplomatic manner and not as a spurned teenager on Twitter. I'd rather have Sadiq Khan as POTUS than Trump, but I doubt that the residents of London would consider a swap.
That's just ridiculous.
The Mayor of London is not disparaging this country - he is disparaging the piece of shit 'president' and rightly so.
Why? Not all speech deserves to be protected. Some speech deserves to be condemned, penalized. Holocaust denial is condemned in most of Europe, for example.
I support free speech for all. I don't have to agree with it.
I support their right to say it so we know who the loons and racists are. They are better dealt with out in the open when we know their names and their faces.
At the cost of allowing hate speech of all kinds? That's a high price.
I support the speech until it becomes a credible threat, even when there are some people who deserve to be used as shredder bait. We cannot ban speech that some people find to be offensive because sooner or later we all have ideas that somebody finds offensive and if that would happen we would all be silenced unless we agree with the majority.
I am a 20+ year member of the ACLU.
Please consider joining the ACLU to defend our rights.
The ACLU is absolutist. They've defended Nazis. I don't agree.
Holocaust denial is a good example. There's no immediate menace involved, but the consequences are necessarily negative.
The ACLU made it very clear that they defended their free speech and not their actions in both the Nazis marching in Skokie Illinois and the NAMBLA case. They also defended Fred Phelps, Jerry Falwell and Rush Limbaugh, despite the fact that all of them would make a cockroach puke.
I defend their right to say it but I also defend the right of the press and the internet to publicize their names, faces, and place of employment. I err on the side of too much freedom rather than too little.
We'll have to agree to disagree...
I respect you and I understand your stance.
In the US, it's freedom of speech. In other countries? Could not care less.
To most of the world. Bone Spur has lost all countries except those run by dictators, which he would love to be.
I believe that Trump aspires to be a murderous dictator. Could you get him to shut up Greg? Please?
He does? Can you show your proof, and please do not say "I feel like"
Thanks.
You kid yourself if you think Shitbag is anything like that.
Did she pat the Queen on the back when she met her?
What the fuck are you talking about Buzz?
[delete]
I guess when the Queen requests a gift like that, it would be impolite to refuse:
And it only had two speeches, not all of them (but if it's good enough to lie about, better lie BIG, right?) : The one given at the 2004 Democratic Convention (which launched his run for the presidency) and his Inaugural address as well as multiple other videos.
The city of London, one of the foremost cities in the world, is under the strict control of a radical muslim.
Thinking people should be very concerned about this situation.
Strict control?
Radical muslim?
Thinking people? That leaves out this 'president's' supporters.
Check it out and find out what is really going on over there. It's the same in many areas of Europe also.
Educating yourself can lead to enlightenment.
Ummm..... Greg??
The UK is a democracy. "Strict control" by any mayor simply isn't a legal possibility.
Labeling Sadiq Khan a "radical" is ludicrous. It simply isn't true.
Finally... "Muslim" is always capitalized. Like "Christian".
[deleted]
They are, and they make no secret of mocking Khan.
For the same reason I don't capitalize "democrats"
Who told you this because it isn't true.
Sadiq Khan is far from a radical Muslim. Khan is a social democrat. He and Bernie Sanders would share similar views.
He has been attacked by Muslims because he is too liberal for many.
So, the city he governs is "under the strict control of a radical muslim" and yet the city has no problem mocking him. Someone needs to proofread for you, Jasper, unless you like exposing the absurdity of your comments yourself.
[deleted]
[deleted]
deleted for context
That comment is a pure lie.
The mainstream media refuses to publish what is actually happening there. It could hurt some feelings.
John Cleese claims London is 'no longer an English city' and sparks fresh criticism
How Labour turned London into a foreign city: Fewer than half the capital's population are white British, gangsters from Somalia terrorise the suburbs and even the tramps are immigrants, reveals astonishing new book
Well, Trump is a towel...
Class act.
That's why so many millions of people support Trump, he tells it like it is.
Not only does he tell it like it is, he delivers and he has delivered despite some fairly intense adversity. It kind of reminds me of another Republican President who overcame adversity. That was the one who managed to become President without any formal education, was also mocked and ridiculed by the media, and most notably, faced the biggest crisis in American history. He also won without the popular vote.
He was assassinated early into his second term.
He was the greatest President this nation ever had.
Without even discussing whether or not Mr Trump is fundamentally correct, there is the question of "Presidential decorum". Conducting oneself as a buffoon is not... Presidential...
Delivers what?
Are you comparing this turd of a 'president' to who you think is the greatest president this nation ever had?
You say a lot of unsupportable things. Some quite ridiculous , filled with conspiracies and fantasies. But this is probably the worst.
I know, right? ...Their comments come self-ridiculed.
Come on Vic, the man has told over 9,000 lies in two years, he wouldn't know what "tell it like it is", even means.
Over 10,000 and counting.
Are you subtracting the 245 times he said he didn't conspire with Russia or the 8,000 misquotes? After all he never asked Russia to "hack" anybody!
Vic, he lies more than any president in history, we can debate and do math all day long but at the end of the day...he is a liar, through and through.
Look for yourself.
So he is a politician...Just like Obama, Just like both Clintons, Just like Bush..and so on.
I think someone had asked other liberal posters on here that if Trump really did lie as much as the left wing publications say, what one of thse lies has directly affected their lives.
I don't think anyone has ever responded.
Maybe you could be the first?
You are holding up the Washington Post and Politifact as arbiters of what is true or false? I think both have damaged any reputation they had in that regard.
If you would like to look at the open ended statements that got twisted by the media, I'd be glad to do that with you.
If you would like to discuss the things that Trump believed were true or weren't true, I'd be glad to do that with you.
Using the media, that told America that Trump was a traitor for 3 years, as a fair judge, I won't do.
Make your own seed on that topic then and stop derailing Vic
I'm responding. I didn't bring it up. If you allow someone to say Trump lies, then somebody gets to respond.
By all means, tell us what is listed as a lie, (in either link), that isn't really a lie?
Vic, this is the administration that said, "alternative facts", and, "truth isn't truth". Spin is all this admin does.
I get it, all politicians lie, and lets be honest, I trust a use car salesman more than I will ever trust a politician. But...
Hillary lies ~41% of the time, which is 1% over what the average is for any politician, left or right.
Obama was around 28%.
Trump? Just shy of 83%. No other politician has ever even come close to that. Even fox news said, "President Trump appears to have a strange relationship with the truth".
...
Lets start at day one.
Largest inauguration crowds ever. Lie.
And when confronted with facts, trump STILL lied about it. And Sean Spicer, (who follows me on twitter...don't ask, I have no idea why), tried to cast some shade by saying, "It was the largest inauguration crowd ever to WATCH...", what he left out was, "online".
Then as soon as he found out he lost the popular vote, he claimed that he lost the popular vote by, (coincidentally), the same number of illegals that voted, (which is own admin investigated and found to be another lie).
Vic, if he will lie about shit like that, he will literally lie about anything.
In any case, I hope you and yours are well. I am off to a BBQ so I will try to reply tomorrow.
How many people were at Trump's inauguration?
Exact number please....Be specific
Not as many as the turd said there were. LOL! Compare to Obama's inauguration.
There were probably a fourth as many as the turd Rump's inauguration.
245 times he said he didn't conspire with Russia? 245 lies. 8,000 misquotes?
He has been a traitor all that time.
Photos: the crowd at Donald Trump’s inauguration vs. Barack Obama’s
President Donald Trump boasted his inauguration would have an "unbelievable, perhaps record-setting turnout."
But aerial shots of the National Mall from President Barack Obama’s 2009 inauguration and today show that isn’t likely. Here’s an image taken at about 11:30 AM ET in 2009:
And here’s what it looks like today as of 11:04 AM ET.
And here they are side-by-side:
Federal and local agencies have estimated that anywhere from 700,000 to 900,000 people will be in Washington, DC, today for Trump’s inauguration. That’s roughly half the number of people who attended Obama’s inauguration in 2009.
I stand corrected. There were roughly HALF as many at the turd Rump's inauguration.
The Truthdig article does not mean what you seem to think it does Vic. Here is one short passage from it -
In an advertisement video for Trump university , Trump says.
There is no evidence he handpicked a single one of them. That lie, along with other evidence, cost him 25 million dollars.
And you fail to accept reality that trump is nothing but a lying bone spur
You are doing nothing but taunting with comments that have nothing to back them up as usual
Finally we have the two photos the media used to contradict the President clearly showing that they were taken at different times and admitting that the crowd sizes can only be estimated.
That's why my question to Mr Frost could not be answered
That's why Trump's statement was his OPINION
Which leaves us wondering why the liberal media felt such a need to commit so much air time to contradicting an opinion?????
Trump lies all the time. He is also incredibly ignorant of facts most 12 year olds know. His only actual knowledge of anything appears to revolve around real estate, building materials, and reality tv shows.
People like you are psychologically invested in his "success" and thus prone to deny what everyone else can plainly see every day.
Give it up Vic. The crowd was half the size of President Obama's inauguration.
Sucks doesn't it?
The problem with the pictures is that the one from the Trump inauguration has a "time stamp" of 11:07AM, whereas the Obama picture does not. How do we know for sure the picture was taken at 1107 AM, and not 8 or 9 AM? How do we not know the Obama picture was taken after the ceremony started, maybe an hour or so into it?
We don't because whoever posted the pictures together did not have the balls to post side by side, SAME TIME , pictures.
Gullible people will believe anything.
There's absolutely no problem with the photo. When I am online tomorrow I will post more photos.
Only half as many people attended the turd Rumps inauguration.
Suck it up buttercup.
That's the facts Jack
I never tire of seeing those pictures.
I think there's at least one typo there, Greg. It should have read "he lies like it isn't." A much better and more succinct (remember, "brevity is the soul of wit") and just simply say: "He lies."
So you don't know if the times are faked or the pictures were taken at very different times of inaugurations.
I didn't think I would get a cognizant answer...and you delivered.
I didn't say that. You did bugs. Nothing fake.
Because the question was ridiculous. Look at the photos, no normal sane person can look at them and deduce that trumps crowd was bigger.
The pictures were taken at different times and they were produced by the media in response to the Trump statement. I can take a picture of Fenway Park an hour before game time and it's not going to look as full as it would when the players step onto the field. Neither you nor anyone else knows exactly how many people were there, thus it is an opinion and not a statement of fact.
Just like the Trump rallies don't have an actual count, but despite the fact that Trump was filling up stadiums, etc, while Hillary was not, the media went on to predict that Hillary would win in a landslide. Funny how they didn't compare pictures during the campaign.
Let's face it, the media has tried to contradict every word the man says. The strange thing is that he's been right about nearly everything, especially the charge of collusion that the media lied about on a daily basis for 3 years.
Photographer admits editing inauguration photos
Source: CNN
How many people showed up to Donald Trump's inauguration?
Crowd science professor Keith Still estimated the total attendance at 300,000 to 600,000 people , or one-third the estimated 1.1 million to 1.8 million people that attended Obama's 2009 inauguration – which set a record for the total number of people in the National Mall at any one given time, and which marked the ...
Trump inauguration crowd photos were edited after he intervened
Exclusive: documents released to Guardian reveal government photographer cropped space ‘where crowd ended’
Jon Swaine in New York
Thu 6 Sep 2018 06.00 EDT Last modified on Thu 6 Sep 2018 15.23 EDT
A government photographer edited official pictures of Donald Trump’s inauguration to make the crowd appear bigger following a personal intervention from the president, according to newly released documents.
The photographer cropped out empty space “where the crowd ended” for a new set of pictures requested by Trump on the first morning of his presidency, after he was angered by images showing his audience was smaller than Barack Obama’s in 2009.
The detail was revealed in investigative reports released to the Guardian under the Freedom of Information Act by the inspector general of the US interior department. They shed new light on the first self-inflicted crisis of Trump’s presidency, when his White House falsely claimed he had attracted the biggest ever inauguration audience .
The records detail a scramble within the National Park Service (NPS) on 21 January 2017 after an early-morning phone call between Trump and the acting NPS director, Michael Reynolds. They also state that Sean Spicer , then White House press secretary, called NPS officials repeatedly that day in pursuit of the more flattering photographs.
Trump's inauguration crowd: Sean Spicer's claims versus the evidence
The newly disclosed details were not included in the inspector general’s office’s final report on its inquiry into the saga, which was published in June last year and gave a different account of the NPS photographer’s actions.
By the time Trump spoke on the telephone with Reynolds on the morning after the inauguration, then-and-now pictures of the national mall were circulating online showing that Trump’s crowd fell short of Obama’s. A reporter’s tweet containing one such pair of images was retweeted by the official NPS Twitter account .
An NPS communications official, whose name was redacted in the released files, told investigators that Reynolds called her after speaking with the president and said Trump wanted pictures from the inauguration. She said “she got the impression that President Trump wanted to see pictures that appeared to depict more spectators in the crowd”, and that the images released so far showed “a lot of empty space".
The communications official said she “assumed” the photographs Trump was requesting “needed to be cropped”, but that Reynolds did not ask for this specifically. She then contacted the NPS photographer who had covered the event the day before.
A second official, from the NPS public affairs department, told investigators that Spicer called her office on the morning of 21 January and asked for pictures that “accurately represented the inauguration crowd size”.
In this official’s view, Spicer’s request amounted to “a request for NPS to provide photographs in which it appeared the inauguration crowd filled the majority of the space in the photograph”. She told investigators that she, too, contacted the NPS photographer to ask for additional shots.
The NPS photographer, whose name was also redacted, told investigators he was contacted by an unidentified official who asked for “any photographs that showed the inauguration crowd sizes”. Having filed 25 photographs on inauguration day, he was asked to go back to his office and “edit a few more” for a second submission.
“He said he edited the inauguration photographs to make them look more symmetrical by cropping out the sky and cropping out the bottom where the crowd ended,” the investigators reported, adding: “He said he did so to show that there had been more of a crowd.”
The investigators said the photographer believed the cropping was what the official “had wanted him to do”, but that the official “had not specifically asked him to crop the photographs to show more of a crowd”.
A summary in the inspector general’s final report said the photographer told investigators “he selected a number of photos, based on his professional judgment, that concentrated on the area of the national mall where most of the crowd was standing”.
Asked to account for the discrepancy, Nancy DiPaolo, a spokeswoman for the inspector general, said the cropping was not mentioned in the final report because the photographer told investigators this was his “standard artistic practice”. But investigators did not note this in the write-up of their interview.
The newly released files said Spicer was closely involved in the effort to obtain more favourable photographs. He called Reynolds immediately after the acting director spoke with Trump and then again at 3pm shortly before the new set of photographs was sent to the White House, investigators heard. Another official reported being called by Spicer.
Nope, vic....nope, nope and nope. We know you can't accept the truth but that doesn't mean it's not true.
No? You don't think that there would be more people on the mall at 11:30 than 11:05?
Give them incontrovertible proof and it's still with the rumpsplanations.
My photos show where EVERYONE IS THERE and you still dispute it.
They sure will.
If there was any decent interest in Dirtbag's inauguration The Mall would have been full hours before the official time start, vic. I mean like it was for both of Obama's inaugurations.
Reality is not their friend.
They remind me of the joke with the punchline: "The Aristocrats"
Trump has NEVER acted presidential....he is a disgrace
Trump insults London mayor on UK state visit
While there have always been Ugly Americans abroad, Mr. Trump is by far and away the Ugliest of them. Rather than representing what is good about America, he displays everything that is wrong.
Years from now, Trump will be considered to be one of best presidents because of all his accomplishments under adverse opposition. He'll rank right up there with Reagan and Lincoln
His rough edges and abrasive personality had no effect on his popularity.
[Trolling]
No, he won't. Not even close.
Which accomplishments?
You have so many accomplishments to chose from.
That doesn't even include important positions that haven't even been filled
Not Lincoln, but he may possibly match St. Ronald (Iran-Contra) Reagan's level.
Prove he did any of those things you allege.
FoxNews has refused to let him keep hiring the "talent".
Only in your dreamworld
Holy shit.....that's just a staggering amount of -- I'm not sure WTF. I usually disdain the term "jaw- dropping" since it's become so hackneyed but that comment leaves me:
And the dementia thingy.
You forgot the mayor insulted him first!
Donald Trump’s presidential campaign pledge to ban Muslims from the US was criticised as “outrageous” by Sadiq Khan when he was standing to be mayor of London.
Actually the Supreme Leader began this back in 2015.
Actually the radical, pos, mayor was a little harsher than that. Since when did the mayor of London have all this say?
No insults Vic, truth.
I gave the truth. The mayor of London has been slamming Trump since the Presidential campaign. The mayor then added that he wouldn't attend the dinner if invited. The Queen responded by not inviting the mayor.
"God save the Queen!"
Rumplethinskin
What truth?
An adult would have taken the high road at that point.
The truth isn't an insult.
You mean like John McCain and Mitt Romney?
So, Shitbag's a 4 year old. We knew that but why is that so essential to his supporters.
No, they didn't forget. They just were never told about it.
They automatically ASSumed Trump started it.
That's what they are told to think.
So, Shitbag's toddler behavior is what you really like!?!?! He was supposed to be the leader of the free world and it turns out he's just a thin-skinned mope who has less dignity than a worm. Much less.
Where did I say I liked it? I said you probably did not know Kahn started it and you only ASSumed Trump did.
More than likely I was right.
Tell us don't like it, then.
But mommy, mommy, he started it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Well, we know one thing for sure, he would never, EVER, say something like that to KJU or Putin.
Once again, trump craps on our allies while supporting murderous dictators.
Mr. Khan is not an ally of ours, far from it in fact.
Of course he and Great Britain are our allies.
The mayor of London? No, you may be a bit mixed up on that.
Great Britain and it's Prime Minister and people are our allies.
A hate-filled mayor dosen't even figure in to that equation.
What hate?
I guess some imagine any Muslim to be "filled with hate". His opinions of Trump are just reflecting how the majority of Americans and Britain's feel about him, that Trump is nothing but an incompetent puss filled sore in global politics and embarrasses our nation daily.
Why did you bring up his religion?
Trump mentioned religion first when he announced his ban on muslim immigrants. Did you expect people not to criticize him for that religious xenophobia?
Why do you pretend it's not a factor?
Mr. Khan is London's Mayor - that is in Great Britain - thus he is our ally
Khan is a disgusting human being who is despised by Brits still loyal to a sovereign UK.
Where did you get this outrageous claim? Is this because of his religious beliefs?
He is quite popular in the UK.
So you tapped into the rightwing Brit pukefunnel (possibly even more odious than ours) to get--no surprise-a couple of hate pieces. You know nothing about how Brits really feel about him but whatever it is, he's much more well-liked than our Shitbag.
Just look at his sources. And, yes.
Where else but from deep within the bowels of right wing conservative media where the sun never shines...
This constant rant from wingers about "haters" is just the Goebbels stratagem: accuse your enemies of everything you are and are doing.
Now, that number is down to such world "leaders" as Putin, MBS and Un. The old saw applies: With friends like those you don't need enemies.
That's a textbook example of not knowing the definition of irony.
THE UGLIEST AMERICAN
He asked what the flooring was made of. At Lord Byron's grave in Westminster Abbey.
Do you remember when Obama toasted the Queen as the British National Anthem was being played and she wasn't able to touch her glass? Or when Obama gave her an I-Pod with all his speeches on it? How soon they forget.
To Trump's credit he did bring one thing to the UK that was appropriate and impressive:
She stole the show, as usual. Well done!
What was that? His third trophy wife and ex-nude model that the entire world knows he cheated on with porn stars? Yes, I'm sure the queen was impressed with his ability to afford such a woman.
I like her arm shields designed into that dress protecting her from having to hold hands with the sad sack of stupid to her left. He looks like a giant man-baby ring bearer for a wedding standing there awkwardly in a tuxedo.
Third time's a charm!
[deleted]
removed for context
She looks better naked. Which we have all seen because trump posted it all over the internet.
Another face lift and the soft pornography (model LOL) star and she'll have a beard.
Not what he wore at the state dinner. Look at this freaking slob:
Sleeves are too long, pants too baggy, coat is too short.
When you flank him with the right women, he looks much better. To respond to your point, I think the cutaway is making a comeback!
Did you ever consider that substance and intelligence is more important than appearance and who is is standing next to when he is photographed?
I do like Melania's elbow length gloves.
It is not making a comeback.
Again, who dressed him?
That sentiment goes just as much for a loose fitting Cutaway as it does for a form fitting evening gown. I hope you realize what you just said.
Speaking of substance, has anyone mentioned anything of what the President has done with the Brits? The proclaiming of the special relationship the two countries enjoy? Or the all important offer of a trade deal with the UK?
If it's not it should. It still has more style than a designer suit. That's why I like the Brits!
What's the fourth time gonna be? I'd bet good money that Melania shitcans his fat ass as soon as he's not president. It wouldn't surprise me if she's working with Dems on the sly.
The 'president' doesn't have a lick of style anywhere in his bloated disgusting pig obese fat ass body.
Again, who dressed the turd?
No one.
Maybe this guy, or at least this is what Dirtbag was going for:
But just look how much more attractive those two women are without the 250lb of stupid ugly fat in the before picture:
If he wasn't Dirtbag's dresser he should have been.
He is definitely rocking that tux
Many people aren't accustomed to full dress (white tie) tails. The only correction on the suit below is that the sleeves are too short. Proper sleeve length should extend to the thumb's knuckles and taper to the other fingers.
Yeah, but it stops at the waist instead of the knees.
It's all just a really pathetic attempt by a fat man trying to hide it.
Be Best"! This was the International Tour of the First Lady's campaign to take her "Be Best" anti-bullying campaign on the road.
The kick off was the Trump insult to the mayor of the host city and didn't stop there.
Add the insult of forgetting about the cheap pewter horse statue with a Presidential embossed seal, which was the gift Trump gave the Queen on his last visit. Melania spoke up to remind him.
Adding insult to injury, which is the Trump brand, he read his speech at dinner in a very dull, halting and sing song manner followed by nodding off at the table. MAGA
Images projected on landmarks in London
What a fat disgusting pig
Is that the way his tux is supposed to fit?
I don't think so!
You're not the only person who noticed that his tuxedo didn't fit him,
Surely, he could have afforded a stylist. And what the hell happened to Ivanka? I don't like her, either, but she usually dresses well. Not on this trip, though.
Maybe he could have borrowed Prince Phillip's valet before he put on that awful tux
Facebook is going to town on Dirtbag & The Boys
Oh, how the intertubes are having fun with Dirtbag: