True he's now the guy in charge and you're correct that at this current moment in time the buck stops with him. Just like the buck stopped with all the previous occupants of his role. It's just the Trump haters are using it as one of the reasons he is a bad president. Does that mean every president before him was also unfit for the role. The truth is until the majority of voters in the US make it a must do and therefore a vote winner nowt will happen.

I've got to ask one question. All these 'patriotic' Brits on here who just adore Trump... Just what is the love affair with him?

You see it in comment sections in the usual right wing rags: "I wish he was our president", "come to the UK, Donald", "we need you here, Donald". Is it because you think he's a good leader, or do you just like a good love-in with a 'strongman'?

Trump hasn't tried.....as other have said, the Republicans need the NRA, without whom they's loose massive amounts of funding. As for Trump compared to his predecessor, the comparison is like comparing Florence Nightingale to Adolf Hitler.



Obama says gun control must come in and the POTUS should not incite the far right with his own inflammatory statements, Trump laughs when someone suggest shooting immigrants and blames "mental health issues" as the reason for the shootings and ignores the statements from the shooter in Texas who claimed he wanted to shoot as many mexicans as he could...I refer you back to the video linked above of Trump saying that could only happen in the Panhandle and chuckling to himself...the panhandle is in Texas BTW.

You're either on the wind up, not particularly bright, or a right wing apologist if you can't see that Trump is the polar opposite of what a POTUS should be.

I'm not a Trump apologist and do not want him as the leader of our country, is that clear enough. What i don't agree with is all this virtue signalling. Just because I don't agree with your opinion on everything does not make me thick or until now resort to insults. By your logic of "trying" you must admire Theresa May for her attempts to get the Brexit deal through parliament... but I somehow doubt it. As I said in a previous post gun control won't happen until the voters of America insist on it.

I simply pointed out the 3 main reasons for anyone defending a President who chuckles when someone suggest shooting central American Immigrants and who then has people deleting prior tweets inciting such actions, whilst also trying to blame apparent inaction of his predecessor are either:
A: On the deliberate Wind Up
B: Not very clever
C: Right wing apologists

BTW. If you take that as an insult, you're not B as you've picked up that reality.......so is it A or C?

have a read [urlhttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35239504[/url
[urlhttps://www.businessinsider.com.au/why-obama-faced-relentless-opposition-gun-reform-after-sandy-hook-2019-8?r=US&IR=T[/url
Mental Illness eh.....if only they had checks eh?
[urlhttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38986147[/url

I hope it's A, because C has no place in a modern society

Please tell me where I have said anything positive about Trump. I have merely been pointing out that "trying" won't get job done. Only the American electorate can force that issue. There are many reasons that Trump is not a good president but gun control isn't one of them. As for reading page after page of why Trump is a bad president I'll not bother as I already know.

But it is. His buttering up to the inbred, redneck, gun-toting lobby just legitimises their behaviour in their eyes.

Just like it legitimises treating human beings like this;

People in this country should respect the fact that decent hardworking Americans voted for trump. He won simply because the democrat campaign was woeful. I spend a lot of time in the USA (long story) i witnessed Madonna, lady gaga whoever she is and other rich stars hurling abuse at trump on national tv.
Meanwhile trump was visiting the rust belt and farming communities promising to bring back jobs to the USA. I dislike trump for his shocking behaviour towards contractors and subcontractors whilst building the trump casino in Atlantic City. In not paying these people he bankrupted large and small family firms. Anybody interested google ,trump casino Atlantic city New York Times. There is lots of other information online as to his behaviour down in Atlantic City.

All democratically elected leaders will have an element of decent folk voting for them. It doesn't spare them from ridicule & criticism, nor should it.

But 2.87 million more of them voted for Clinton; he won because of the bizarre electoral college system in the US.

No more bizarre than ours though is it. Already gone through this before. 2010 election the Snp got 50 odd seats for 3 million votes and the Ukip got zilch (or 1) for 4 million.

So if something similar happened in Russia, as what's happened to Jefferey Epstein in America, how would 'western governments' react?

The hypocrisy is staggering.

I know one thing. There will have been plenty of high profile figures breathing huge sighs of relief upon hearing the news of his suicide. His trial would have opened a right can of worms.

I dont for one minute believe he commited suicide

Do you reckon Prince Andrew's dad might have been involved?

But we’re not electing a prime minister/President. We’re electing a local representative. So whilst our system is poor (should be PR) it’s nowhere near as ridiculous as the US system.

The west happily laughs at African, South American or Asian governments where the president got less votes than his challenger yet somehow still won.

Now that the USA is pulling out of the Paris climate agreement and suggesting that he want's the USA to become "an energy superpower" should Trump be officially be regarded as a "climate change denier" and what can or should be done to try and get him back on board.

The roadkill he puts on his head looks ridiculous. As for his false teeth he wants to stick 3tubes of UHU on them so they don’t start slipping from his gums.

Donald Trump wants a no deal Brexit so he can get his grubby hands on the nhs and force through more privatisation of our healthcare.

He knows Jeremy Corbyn won’t let this happen whereas Alexander Boris De Pfeffel Johnson will.

This was exposed on QT last night as Labour scaremongry - everybody knows the NHS is not going to be privatised - every major US pharmaceutical company already has a presence in the UK so what is going to change. The vast majority of drugs we use in this country are out of patent and we use generic options. Which bits of the NHS will get privatised?

The idiot shadow health secretary suggested it would cost the NHS an additional £500m a week - that was until it was pointed out that the reduction in the spina bifida drug negotiated between a US co and the government.

Are you really looking to Question Time for confirmation???

You also forgot to acknowledge one of the guests, Kate Andrews, whose 'cute and cuddly' title is the director of the Institute of Economic Affairs. Sounds like she's doing us a favour, right? Kate Andrews is also a prominent lobbyist for private healthcare companies.

On Newsnight in July, she said... “It’s time to overhaul the NHS and replace it with a system fit for 2018”

Now, what kind of system do you think she has in mind?

It isn’t much to do with pharmaceutical companies, directly at least. Drugs account for about 12% of NHS spending. The NHS already spends close to 10% of its budget on care purchased from the private sector, and how much that grows and shapes healthcare policy and delivery is probably the bigger issue.

But, on drugs Americans pay much higher prices than other countries. This is partly because they are rich and can afford it, and drug companies implement differential pricing to make their products accessible in poorer countries as well. However, they also pay higher prices than even wealthy European countries who have strong government-backed cost-containment measures in place. The Americans might view such approaches as being a bit socialist for their tastes, but their own system is fragmented and has some poorly aligned incentives, and from a selfish UK perspective, we [ireally[/i want avoid adopting something similar. It is maybe unfair that the US carries so much of the burden of funding the Global pharmaceutical industry. But i’d prefer they changed it through reforming their own crappy, inefficient system, rather than foisting it on us.

Really ?/
It's a bloody good job that you're not a fish, as you seem to have jumped on the hook pretty damn quick.

There is no doubt at all that a section of the Tory Party would very happily hive off parts of the NHS and it was more telling a few months ago, when May (I think) said that the NHS wouldn't be part of any trade deal and Trump replied that it would be all or nothing.
This seems a little more believable than a Tory on QT pretending that the NHS is "not for sale".
Of course we already take drugs from the US but, there is plenty of scope for a "takeover" AND the prospect of moving towards health insurance, which I think is where the US would be most interested.

I am amazed you can walk anything but in a straight line - you are so blinkered.

This country will never move to a insurance-based health care option. You know that and so do I - any party that proposed that would be out of power for a very long time. I am all for those that can afford it going private - takes pressure of the NHS who can use the resource to treat those that can't/wont insure themselves.

Which bits of the NHS are they going to hive off? the bigger discussion is what do we want our NHS to provide - everything to everybody? If you do could I suggest basic tax rate would need to 50-60% - when do you say enough is enough?

Of course Trump is going to say it all or nothing - he said the Mexican's were going to pay for a wall to keep their citizens in!! There is a good chance he will not be in power in a year's time. The fact you believe it suggests you would struggle to swim!!

Yesterday's Corbyn tweet was the cost of the US trade deal is now an estimated £45bn in extra costs of drugs. Diane Abbott must be doing the calculations

Let's be generous NHS funding is approx. £120bn of which drugs represent approx 15% so £18bn so that is going to rise to £63bn - really!!