Cont: The Trump Presidency: Part 19

Status
Not open for further replies.
Captain_Swoop said:
Trump Tweets

The Witch Hunt is sputtering badly, but still going on (Ukraine Hoax!). If this....

....had happened to a Presidential candidate, or President, who was a Democrat...
Click to expand...

Whaddya mean by "if"? The Starr investigation that lasted 5 years. Benghazi (7!!! different investigations), etc., etc., etc.

History to Trump is the last few minutes.
 
Segnosaur said:
.....I figure the last thing the republicans want is to actually have some success over this... much like their failed health care bill, if they win, they risk alienating not only the opposition, but a certain segment of their own voters who will be harmed as a result.
Click to expand...

Yes, and they would lose a potent campaign issue claiming that the Dems are a bunch of baby killers.
 
Davidlpf said:
Don't know how different but this could be bad, very bad. The Iranian is no match for the US military but others could join in. But just having a US president who goes around killing officials of other countries is bad a trend to start.
Click to expand...

That's not the concern; Iran won't directly face the US military. Instead there will be an increase in bombings and assassinations not only in the USA but around the world.
 
Stacyhs said:
WWI started after an assassination of an Austrian archduke and his wife. Few realized what it would lead to.
Click to expand...

This piece of **** hardly understands what he has initiated. He wanted, needed to appear tough despite (and perhaps counteract) his cowardly Vietnam-era draft-dodging, and he authorized an action lacking any meaningful strategic objective. His simpering, quisling staff acquiesced to his impulsive, infantile reactions and the military will necessarily have to clean up his mess. His abysmal ignorance of history, diplomacy, and global strategy is a feature rather than a bug to his imbecilic base and the rest of us will suffer for it.

It's hardly possible to imagine a president more lacking in the skills it takes to be president, yet he garners enough simpleton support to succeed in another election cycle, stumbling and bumbling our country into a socio-economic and environmental morass that benefits only the affluent, leaving the vast majority of his sycophants looking for a scapegoat.

MAGA is a dodge, a con, a placebo crafted by a staff dedicated to a narcissistic adolescent that never achieved a single thing on his own initiative, yet convinced idiots to act against their own self-interest. He is as stupid as his followers, though richer, and there are just enough of them to assure another electoral college victory.

Suck it progressives, moderates, democrats; you are done for the foreseeable future. Go ahead and prove me wrong, I dare you, I wish you success.
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
Trump is expanding US oil and gas production. That, more than anything else he could do, is weakening Putin. That alone proves he’s not Putin’s puppet. There’s a reason Putin backs environmentalists in the US. Had Trump not been doing that, the other stuff you refer to might be relevant. But he is, so it isn’t.
Click to expand...

Go get 'em, Trump. Who gives a **** about a few meters of sea level rise when we can show Putin that we're the big bad bully on the block.

USA! Trump! USA! Trump! USA! Trump! USA! Trump!
 
Resume said:
T
MAGA is a dodge, a con, a placebo crafted by a staff dedicated to a narcissistic adolescent that never achieved a single thing on his own initiative, yet convinced idiots to act against their own self-interest. He is as stupid as his followers, though richer, and there are just enough of them to assure another electoral college victory.
Click to expand...
Something happened to me today. I was in line behind this elderly woman wearing a MAGA hat at the supermarket. I resisted saying anything about Trump. The woman then started writing a check which I hadn't seen anyone do at the supermarket for years. I did make a comment about that not negatively just mentioning that I hadn't seen anyone do that in a long time. The woman went on a rant about how the cards were the beginning of the downfall of America.

What do you say to such wilfull stupidity and ignorance? I smiled and just nodded my head.
 
Ziggurat said:
Well, no. Obama did nothing to expand oil and gas production. It expanded despite him, not because of him. It was driven by technological advances he had no real part in. Trump took action to expand production by opening up federal land to new drilling leases.
Click to expand...

Zig, you poo-poo'ed a previous comment on this topic by stating the proposed time scale was too long. Yet, here you suggest opening up lease areas has the desired effect on Russian behavior. Yet it takes YEARS from opening up a lease area to actual production, much less enough production to affect Russian behavior.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.
 
SezMe said:
That's not the concern; Iran won't directly face the US military. Instead there will be an increase in bombings and assassinations not only in the USA but around the world.
Click to expand...

This assumes that Iran has additional warmaking capacity that they have not exercised for strategic reasons, and because of this attack they're giving up their strategic priorities for a vengeance mission.

To me, this is like saying that Germany would oppose the Allied landings in Normandy not out of strategic necessity but out of emotional turmoil.

I think a more reasonable assumption is that Iran will carry out the attacks it was planning anyway, and that this death will provide nothing to more than a transparent propaganda excuse for the violence they were going to do anyway.

I hope nobody in this thread is buying into the Iranian propaganda.
 
theprestige said:
This assumes that Iran has additional warmaking capacity that they have not exercised for strategic reasons, and because of this attack they're giving up their strategic priorities for a vengeance mission.
Click to expand...
Ya lost me. I was asserting that Iran would not go head-to-head with the US military. Do you disagree?
 
acbytesla said:
Something happened to me today. I was in line behind this elderly woman wearing a MAGA hat at the supermarket. I resisted saying anything about Trump. The woman then started writing a check which I hadn't seen anyone do at the supermarket for years. I did make a comment about that not negatively just mentioning that I hadn't seen anyone do that in a long time. The woman went on a rant about how the cards were the beginning of the downfall of America.

What do you say to such wilfull stupidity and ignorance? I smiled and just nodded my head.
Click to expand...

My parents never had debit cards, credit cards, OR EVEN A CHECKING ACCOUNT! They paid for everything in cash or, if they needed to mail a payment, with a money order. Only after my mother's death in 2003 were we (my sister and I) finally able to convince my father to get a checking account, but one of us would write the check and he would sign it.

But they weren't stupid, they grew up in the Depression and didn't trust banks. There were a lot in their generation like that.

My mother never voted in her whole life. My father was a liberal Democrat (and, long ago, a member of the Communist Party). He died in 2012, and he would be appalled at what is going on now.
 
theprestige said:
This assumes that Iran has additional warmaking capacity that they have not exercised for strategic reasons, and because of this attack they're giving up their strategic priorities for a vengeance mission.

To me, this is like saying that Germany would oppose the Allied landings in Normandy not out of strategic necessity but out of emotional turmoil.

I think a more reasonable assumption is that Iran will carry out the attacks it was planning anyway, and that this death will provide nothing to more than a transparent propaganda excuse for the violence they were going to do anyway.

I hope nobody in this thread is buying into the Iranian propaganda.
Click to expand...

Nor the American propoganda.
 
acbytesla said:
Something happened to me today. I was in line behind this elderly woman wearing a MAGA hat at the supermarket. I resisted saying anything about Trump. The woman then started writing a check which I hadn't seen anyone do at the supermarket for years. I did make a comment about that not negatively just mentioning that I hadn't seen anyone do that in a long time. The woman went on a rant about how the cards were the beginning of the downfall of America.

What do you say to such wilfull stupidity and ignorance? I smiled and just nodded my head.
Click to expand...
I’m surprised. Usually blame goes to the Yankees.
 
shemp said:
My parents never had debit cards, credit cards, OR EVEN A CHECKING ACCOUNT! They paid for everything in cash or, if they needed to mail a payment, with a money order. Only after my mother's death in 2003 were we (my sister and I) finally able to convince my father to get a checking account, but one of us would write the check and he would sign it.

But they weren't stupid, they grew up in the Depression and didn't trust banks. There were a lot in their generation like that.

My mother never voted in her whole life. My father was a liberal Democrat (and, long ago, a member of the Communist Party). He died in 2012, and he would be appalled at what is going on now.
Click to expand...

It's not that she wrote a check. Obviously, she trusted the banks enough to have a checking account. It's to her that the use of debit cards was a reason for the downfall of the country. This country has issues but the use of debit cards is certainly no more of a problem than checking accounts are.

What makes older people so nostalgic for yesteryear that blinds them about what really wasn't good then and what isn't bad today. Whereas I think the music was generally better from say 1950 to 1985, it was also less expensive to rent back then and higher education was also cheaper, and it was less crowded, almost everything else is better today.

That's not to say we don't have issues.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
How coincidental this all happened when Trump felt his ego under attack with the Impeachment. He wants to be seen as the best POTUS ever. He says it all the time. Now that is marred, despite the fact Trump is denying it's a big deal. He's wagging the dog and it's very dangerous.
Click to expand...
Stacyhs said:
I'm wondering if this assassination was done specifically to make the impeachment more difficult. Bush was not popular before 9/11 but his approval rating soared afterward. Could this have been a calculated move to make Trump appear as if he has 'saved' Americans from this (alleged) "imminent and sinister" attack that he and Pompeo claim was about to occur? In is announcement, Trump stressed how 'under (his) leadership' this alleged attack was stopped. I seriously doubt Trump thought through the possible/likely consequences of this action and was more concerned about the good press he thought this would bring him.
Click to expand...

Trump Tweets

11/29/11 - In order to get elected, @BarackObama will start a war with Iran.

1/17/12 - @BarackObama will attack Iran in order to get re-elected.

9/16/13 - I predict that President Obama will at some point attack Iran to save face!

11/10/13 -Remember that I predicted a long time ago that President Obama will attack Iran because of his inability to negotiate properly-not skilled!


He's already told us what goes through his head when it comes to dealing with and war with Iran, after all.

SezMe said:
Bwahahahah. Ziggurat thinks Trump is a successful person. Bwahahahah.
Click to expand...

He's President. That is success, right there, by most metrics. Thus, I would suggest not trying to fight that particular fight. When it comes to Ziggurat thinking that Trump is smart rather than having just enough low cunning to trick those who want to be tricked (and will frequently give Trump a lot of help to do so) and a good enough grasp of kayfabe after his involvement with pro wrestling to use it to his advantage, there's grounds to dispute, but not really when it comes to whether or not Trump qualifies as successful.

dudalb said:
I shed no tears over Soleimani buying the farm;he had plenty of blood on his hands.
But whether killing him is a wise move is another matter completely. I don't see how his removal solves anything.
It's not like he was irreplaceable genius the way that Yamamoto..another targeted killing... was In World War 2.
Click to expand...

I'm much in agreement with this and, as noted earlier in this post and before, I don't think that Trump's motives are even remotely pure or have anything to do with the good of the US.
 
Last edited:
SezMe said:
Go get 'em, Trump. Who gives a **** about a few meters of sea level rise when we can show Putin that we're the big bad bully on the block.

USA! Trump! USA! Trump! USA! Trump! USA! Trump!
Click to expand...

Whether his decision is good or bad isn’t the point here. Even if you think it’s bad, it’s still not what Putin would want. Or did you forget what was under discussion?
 
Aridas said:
When it comes to Ziggurat thinking that Trump is smart rather than having just enough low cunning to trick those who want to be tricked
Click to expand...

I didn’t say he was smart. I said he wasn’t stupid.
 
SezMe said:
Zig, you poo-poo'ed a previous comment on this topic by stating the proposed time scale was too long. Yet, here you suggest opening up lease areas has the desired effect on Russian behavior. Yet it takes YEARS from opening up a lease area to actual production, much less enough production to affect Russian behavior.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Click to expand...

Years , not decades.
 
Incidentally, I may as well poke at the Guardian in response to the Putin supports US environmentalist claim.

Republican-led committee says Russia funded 'useful idiot' environmentalists

House lawmakers say Russia backed Dakota Access pipeline protesters and supported them on social media, but evidence is thin

A close reading of the report, however, reveals that many of the committee’s claims rely on meager evidence, not least its assertion that Russia has backed land and wildlife conservation organizations including the Sierra Club and the League of Conservation Voters.

<snip>

In a statement, the Sierra Club legislative director, Melinda Pierce, called the accusations of Russian-backed financing “absurd, false smears” that “were invented by the same deceitful front groups getting paid to do the dirty work of big polluters and big tobacco”.

Footnotes supporting the congressional report’s funding claim lead back to a single 2015 publication, From Russia With Love?, that was compiled by an organization called the Environmental Policy Alliance, an industry front group created by the Washington DC public relations operative Richard Berman.

In 2014, the New York Times obtained an audio recording of Berman advising fossil fuel executives at an industry summit that they should envision their struggle against environmentalists as “an endless war”. He then asked the gathered executives to finance the Environmental Policy Alliance’s “Big Green Radicals” campaign, an effort to sully the reputation of major American environmental groups.

Berman’s organization published From Russia With Love? as part of that continuing campaign. Its claims hinge on guilt by association and focus on a private foundation called Sea Change that donated millions of dollars to environmental organizations like the Sierra Club and the League of Conservation Voters at the beginning of the decade. It then describes financial links between Sea Change and a Bermuda-based corporation that in turn has ties to a law firm whose employees are associated with Russian oligarchs and energy interests.
Click to expand...

I'm not so impressed by the evidence of Putin's "support" of the environmentalists. There's more to the article, of course, but... I think that that's plenty to start with. I will say that the premise sounds superficially plausible, though, and likely even more plausible to less ethical conservatives that are projecting what they would do onto everyone else, despite all the evidence to the contrary.
 
Last edited:
Stacyhs said:
No, he was Austrian but killed in Serbia by a Serbian anarchist.

I long ago gave up predicting what would happen in the ME.
Click to expand...
Franz Ferdinand was shot in Sarajevo in Bosnia, which in 1914 was part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire (map). Gavrilo Princip was a Bosnian Serb. We shold never stop nitpicking.
 
SezMe said:
Bwahahahah. Zig thinks Trump is a successful person. Bwahahahah.




No, wait. That's very sad, not funny.
Click to expand...
He was pretty successful in his quest to become president.
Much to the chagrin of most posters here.
I certainly never thought he could do it.
 
Stacyhs said:
We're now being told that the killing of Soleimani was because he was planning an "imminent attack to kill Americans". So far, no details of this alleged imminent attack have been given.

There was a time when we would have believed the POTUS and Sec. of State when they told us why something was done. Now? I don't believe anything either Trump or Pompeo say. Trump has lied so many times that he has no credibility whatsoever and Pompeo is just his arse kissing yes man. When Pompeo assures us that 'the world is a much safer place today' because of Soleimani's death, I put zero stock in it.
Click to expand...

The problem I have with this is that he is a general; his job is to plan how to attack possible enemies. I am pretty sure that the pentagon is full of military personnel planning imminent attacks to kill Iranians (and Iraqis and Russians and ....), does that mean they are terrorists?

Indeed it is pretty hard to think that assassinating a general transiting through an international airport of an allied country is anything other than terrorism. If there was evidence for his participation in terrorism he could have been detained and put on trial, unless he was travelling on a diplomatic passport. International law only permits the use of lethal force if there is an immediate threat to life. On this principle all US forces in the middle east would become legitimate targets for assassination as they all are possible participants in an attack on Iranians or Iraqis. The clearest example of a terrorist action was the USN blowing up an Iranian civilian airliner, the Iranians probably have more justification for viewing the US as a terrorist organisation than vice versa; the alleged target of Iranian proxies are at least legitimate military targets. Fighting against an invading and occupying army is usually regarded as legitimate military action. Extra judicial execution of resistance fighters was one of the crimes the Nazis were accused of.
 
Stacyhs said:
WWI started after an assassination of an Austrian archduke and his wife. Few realized what it would lead to.
Click to expand...

Well, I think many realised it would lead to a general war in Europe, if not immediately, then as soon as Austro-Hungary started strong-arming Serbia in response to the assassination. Probably, nobody thought the war would last four years, practically bankrupting or destroying all the initial belligerents and enriching the USA.

Certainly nobody foresaw the conflagration that enveloped the World in the late 1930's and early 40's that was a direct consequence.
 
eeyore1954 said:
He was pretty successful in his quest to become president.
Much to the chagrin of most posters here.
I certainly never thought he could do it.
Click to expand...

Was it success or accidental (Comey) with help (Russia)?

ETA: He is admittedly very successful at riling up the crowds.
 
Last edited:
There is widespread condemnation of Trump's assassination of Qasem Soleimani. Even "Fox & Friends" aired a segment with congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard in which Gabbard was critical of Trump's action .
"It further escalates this tit-for-tat that's going on and on and on. [It] will elicit a very serious response from Iran and [push] us deeper and deeper into this quagmire," she said. "And it really begs the question: for what?" Gabbard said that while there is "no question about how evil" Soleimani was, "the real question is what are we trying to accomplish here in the country?" Link
Click to expand...
 
Trump Tweets

95% Approval Rating in the Republican Party. Thank you!
 
Planigale said:
The problem I have with this is that he is a general; his job is to plan how to attack possible enemies. I am pretty sure that the pentagon is full of military personnel planning imminent attacks to kill Iranians (and Iraqis and Russians and ....), does that mean they are terrorists?
Click to expand...
In addition, where's the evidence? How is this any different from Saddam's WMDs?

Planigale said:
Indeed it is pretty hard to think that assassinating a general transiting through an international airport of an allied country is anything other than terrorism. If there was evidence for his participation in terrorism he could have been detained and put on trial, unless he was travelling on a diplomatic passport. International law only permits the use of lethal force if there is an immediate threat to life. On this principle all US forces in the middle east would become legitimate targets for assassination as they all are possible participants in an attack on Iranians or Iraqis. The clearest example of a terrorist action was the USN blowing up an Iranian civilian airliner, the Iranians probably have more justification for viewing the US as a terrorist organisation than vice versa; the alleged target of Iranian proxies are at least legitimate military targets. Fighting against an invading and occupying army is usually regarded as legitimate military action. Extra judicial execution of resistance fighters was one of the crimes the Nazis were accused of.
Click to expand...
All good points.
 
eeyore1954 said:
He was pretty successful in his quest to become president.
Click to expand...
Nitpick:
There is no concrete evidence of this, but Wolff repoted in Fire and Fury* that Trump didn't in fact want to be president, and that he and the people around him reacted with shock and horror when results came in on election night.

*I don't know if the link takes you straight to the right page, but it's at the end of the "Election Night" chapter.
 
As Sam Harris pointed out, perhaps the most successful con man in history, given he achieved, accidentally or not, the position of POTUS with his bull [manure]-ing.
 
That's why he's such a problem. Traditional bad Presidents still had vague concepts like at least not trying to be cartoonishly evil or at the very, very least simple self preservation making sure the base concept of "No matter how evil, greedy, and spiteful I want to be I at least recognize I'm better for purely selfish reasons if the country I live in continues to work and exist."

Trump is an unhinged manchild either being enabled by or using (or some sort of twisted self feeding version of both) a populace so spiteful and without hope that they want the whole system pulled down on everyone's head.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Was it success or accidental (Comey) with help (Russia)?

ETA: He is admittedly very successful at riling up the crowds.
Click to expand...

Plus, during the primaries, the rational vote was split between all the rational candidates, but the irrational vote all went to Candidate Trump.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom