President 'The Donald' Trump and Surprising Consequences - Mod warning in OP

Lemming

Akrasia wrote: »

Never underestimate the cravenness of the U.S. congress

Trump doesn't have to declare war to attack Iran. He only needs approval by congress to declare war, and if he starts a war and Iran engage, then congress will feel they have no choice but to authorise the war in order to defend Israel who would be caught in the crossfire.

Mr.Micro wrote: »

The last wars have not ended yet. Iraq a mess, Afghanistan a mess, and most of the regions where the US and NATO tried to fix things. Going after Iran would be a big mistake IMO. The consequences would be disasterous, but it's thousands of miles from Trumpland so why not. Others can suffer the consequences.

Akrasia, as Micro has said, the US is still entangled in - and trying to extricate itself from - Iraq & Afghanistan after 16 years on a constant war footing. Attempting to have a go at Iran involves attacking a country that geographically exceeds Iraq in size by some considerable margin and

1. has not been crippled by sanctions
2. has a functioning army
3. has a motivated army
4. modern Russian anti-air defense systems
5. can shut down the Strait of Hormuz with ease, thus choking much of the world's oil supply never mind getting in the way of US military actions in the gulf region.

Not to mention it would act like a magnet for every Shia jihadi going and probably forment a LOT of unrest across the Arab world, making operating in the Gulf region even more difficult.


In short it would cost the US something dear; not only in terms of dead and wounded service personnel, equipment & hardware lost or destroyed, but economically, diplomatically, and ..... socially (lots of dead soldiers, unpopular presidency, sound historically familiar?). And all for what objective? To attempt to boost the approval ratings of an already lame-duck president who is less than three weeks into his presidency?

ThisRegard

Itssoeasy wrote: »

So Kelly Anne Conway has made a "clear violation" according to the ethics office.

This trump administration is a basket case.

Is there any form of censure that follows such a conclusion?

ECO_Mental

Rjd2 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/oliverdarcy/status/831522139585011712

Don't sleep on this guys. No way would Breitbart publish a hit on Preibus without Bannon allowing it.

Jaysus !!!! That's a real story from breibart (you have to check everything these days )

The **** is really going to hit the fan if they go after priebus, hes the only link of sanity (?) in that mad house called the WH. I don't link him much but at least he's not crazy....... And is in touch with reality at least

MightyMandarin

Water John wrote: »

Bannon, Miller, Kuschner clique pushing hard.

More like just Bannon and Miller. Kushner is only there because he's the son Trump wish he had and who he trusts more than anybody. Bannon and Miller however, share the same ideology and are both incredibly intelligent and devious.

Itssoeasy

ThisRegard wrote: »

Is there any form of censure that follows such a conclusion?

My understanding is the head of the ethics office will write to the head of the agency/department which the person who has committed the breach and inform them of the issue. In this case it's Donald trump as president. It's up to him to take action or not.

Billy86

donaldtramp wrote: »

I love listening to people who don't know what they're talking about...

Youre not alone there!

Hank Scorpio

No way this is real? Maxine Waters takes call from someone posing as Prime Minister of Ukraine. They discuss the sanctions, army placements, election
hacking etc

Edit: Apparently it is : https://www.rt.com/viral/377259-limpopo-elections-hacking-prank/

PopePalpatine

Looks like the deflector shields are back up. :rolleyes:

MightyMandarin

Idiot politician is an idiot, who would've thought it?


Nothing more than a pathetic attempt to convince yourself that Trump is a good president and all of these facts about him and Russia are..well...alternative ones.

Hank Scorpio

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Looks like the deflector shields are back up. :rolleyes:

Already said Flynn did the right thing in resigning. Made Pence look bad.

And it's not deflecting, she is clearly an idiot with no understanding of hacking, collusion or political Geography. She's the one who's been pushing non stop publicly for Trumps impeachment.

KingBrian2

Can't we all just agree politicians are for the most part idiotic. We don't need Trump in the White House to demonstrate that. All that rhetoric they have to say on the campaign trail. Your the bigger idiot if you believe. When you get a politician who can deliver on your wish list your onto a winner.

Hank Scorpio

Rjd2 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/oliverdarcy/status/831522139585011712

Don't sleep on this guys. No way would Breitbart publish a hit on Preibus without Bannon allowing it.

Stone has been saying in recent weeks, Priebus is one of the people leaking along with Ryan. What he says is to be taken with a pinch of salt but he is an ally of Trump so make of it what you may.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/305725-roger-stone-warns-of-rebellion-if-priebus-tapped-as-chief-of

mcmoustache

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Already said Flynn did the right thing in resigning. Made Pence look bad.

And it's not deflecting, she is clearly an idiot with no understanding of hacking, collusion or political Geography. She's the one who's been pushing non stop publicly for Trumps impeachment.

Got any more picks of dumb liberals? How about some feminazis shouting "Alahu Akhbar" or maybe some trigglypuff, or perhaps some middle class venial hipster going on about her gap year?

Maybe a "But, but Hillary..." or an "But Obama..."? They sometimes work.

I find that when /r/the_donald are confronted with reality, the above seems to be the common response.

Hank Scorpio

mcmoustache wrote: »

the above seems to be the common response

And what response would that be?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=102616833&postcount=3370

There's leaks coming in every direction trying to oust Trump, if you're blind to that then whatever.

The FBI cleared him of wrongdoing publicly, weeks later "anonymous sources" went directly to the media with the call logs.

Third time now, I think it was the right move that he resigned, because he made Pence look foolish. I don't buy into the wholesale Russian conspiracy thing that the entire administration is comprised. People in powerful positions don't want an US/Russia alliance.

recedite

MightyMandarin wrote: »

For anyone who supports Trump around here, I'd love to know what you think of this.

This journalist asked him a fairly straightforward question: Is the northern border secure?

His answer goes on a wild journey like this: Sec. Kelly is doing a good job->Hardened criminals are being driven out -> I won by a very large electoral college vote -> I'm fulfilling my promise to get the criminals out -> A lot of people are very happy right now.

So in a 90sec answer about how he plans to secure the northern border and not once is the word 'Canada' even uttered. Now I'm not giving out as, quite frankly, the northern border isn't even an issue, but I'm just curious as to how you think he can function well as president, when his answers are just rambles and rambles of words.

Do you think his mind works in the same way he answers?

If you actually listened to it, DJT answered in the first line; saying you can never be "totally confident". Then he goes on to describe the process for deporting the bad guys who have come in illegally. All totally coherent IMO.

Then Trudeau speaks. Announces that his country is completely open to Syrian refugees, but also domestic security is the highest priority. Does that not seem a little bit woolly? How does he manage both? he doesn't say. Just waffles on about his "allies". These allies must intercept the jihadists and make them disappear before they get to Canada.

BTW why do you think Trump should have specifically mentioned Canada by name? He is standing beside Trudeau after all, and there are not a lot of other countries along the northern border of the USA

MightyMandarin

recedite wrote: »

If you actually listened to it, DJT answered in the first line; saying you can never be "totally confident". Then he goes on to describe the process for deporting the bad guys who have come in illegally. All totally coherent IMO.

Then Trudeau speaks. Announces that his country is completely open to Syrian refugees, but also domestic security is the highest priority. Does that not seem a little bit woolly? How does he manage both? he doesn't say. Just waffles on about his "allies". These allies must intercept the jihadists and make them disappear before they get to Canada.

BTW why do you think Trump should have specifically mentioned Canada by name? He is standing beside Trudeau after all, and there are not a lot of other countries along the northern border of the USA

What? Saying that you can't be 'totally confident' doesn't give any sort of answer at all to the question 'is the northern border secure?'. If he's not totally confident then why isn't he building a wall up there aswell as down south? Doesn't he want Americans to be 100% safe from those terrible illegal immigrants (or just immigrants if you're Bannon)? Explaining the deportation process adds nothing either, it's just stating what we already know.

I never said Trudeau gets to the point, in fact I didn't mention Trudeau at all. I asked what Trump supporters, in a thread about Trump, thought about Trump in this video, nothing more. Once again the constant deflections to Obama, Hillary, or in this case, Trudeau come to light in the defense of Trump.

I think if he's asked a question about the northern border and he gives a 90 sec answer, perhaps it would be best not to ****e on about his 'big electoral college victory' or 'lots of happy people'. Would you agree that those things are at best irrelevant in this topic?

recedite

MightyMandarin wrote: »

What? Saying that you can't be 'totally confident' doesn't give any sort of answer at all to the question 'is the northern border secure?'. If he's not totally confident then why isn't he building a wall up there aswell as down south?

Its actually a good answer, and the only valid answer.

A wall is not needed. The journalist who asked the question seemed to assume that Syrians who had been granted asylum in Canada would try to move illegally to the US. But there is no evidence of them wanting to do this, or of it being a problem. Even if it became a minor problem in the future, the easiest remedy would be to find them and deport them, hence DJT's reference to John Kelly and that process which he is improving on.

In that context, and standing beside Trudeau, its quite important for DJT to reiterate that the majority of US citizens support his stance on immigration, which was clearly signaled before he was elected.

I'm not surprised you don't want to discuss Trudeau's woolly comments

ThisRegard

recedite wrote: »

Then Trudeau speaks. Announces that his country is completely open to Syrian refugees, but also domestic security is the highest priority. Does that not seem a little bit woolly? How does he manage both?

You believe that refugees from the war in Syria are terrorists?

Christy42

recedite wrote: »

Its actually a good answer, and the only valid answer.

A wall is not needed. The journalist who asked the question seemed to assume that Syrians who had been granted asylum in Canada would try to move illegally to the US. But there is no evidence of them wanting to do this, or of it being a problem. Even if it became a minor problem in the future, the easiest remedy would be to find them and deport them, hence DJT's reference to John Kelly and that process which he is improving on.

In that context, and standing beside Trudeau, its quite important for DJT to reiterate that the majority of US citizens support his stance on immigration, which was clearly signaled before he was elected.

I'm not surprised you don't want to discuss Trudeau's woolly comments

Pretty sure any answer discussing his big Electoral College victory is not the only valid answer. Therefore your initial statement is incorrect.

Billy86

recedite wrote: »

In that context, and standing beside Trudeau, its quite important for DJT to reiterate that the majority of US citizens support his stance on immigration, which was clearly signaled before he was elected.

Trump won the EC system which is how presidents have been decided since more or less the foundation of the US if I am correct. But using the numbers of the votes barometer shows that, to put it exactly as you did, majority of US citizens actually oppose his stance on immigration, something that the majority of polls on the issue specifically backs up.

recedite

ThisRegard wrote: »

You believe that refugees from the war in Syria are terrorists?

Some are. Al Nusra, Al Sham, Al Quaeda, IS and numerous smaller splinter groups all have a lot of support there. As they lose territory, the members and their families have to go somewhere.
Lots aren't, of course. They are simply devout Muslims. And a few are Christians or Yazidis.
In France and Belgium it is often the European born children of devout Muslim immigrants who become the Islamic terrorists.

recedite

Billy86 wrote: »

... But using the numbers of the votes barometer shows that...

Why not go straight to the poll that asks the question?
Here it is. 48% for the executive order, 42% against. That's a majority of those expressing an opinion for the poll.

In Europe, the majority wanting more restrictions is even higher.

MightyMandarin

recedite wrote: »

I'm not surprised you don't want to discuss Trudeau's woolly comments

If you want to make a thread about Trudeau, fire away.

I don't think Trudeau is an amazing PM, certainly the way he carries on is a bit 'Hillary-like' imo, and his actions in Quebec last week to a woman who asked a question in english were poor.

Billy86

recedite wrote: »

Why not go straight to the poll that asks the question?

OK, will do. Again.



https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/02/13/americans-arent-rejecting-trumps-immigration-ban-outright-but-it-has-a-tough-road-ahead/?utm_term=.a66f0de87a07

recedite

MightyMandarin wrote: »

If you want to make a thread about Trudeau, fire away.

No thanks. I find him a bit "cloying".

PopePalpatine

Shure there's nothing sickly-sweet about Cheeto dust. :rolleyes:

recedite

Billy86 wrote: »

OK, will do. Again.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/02/13/americans-arent-rejecting-trumps-immigration-ban-outright-but-it-has-a-tough-road-ahead/?utm_term=.a66f0de87a07

Its a strange sort of graph, as you would expect from a partisan source (Washington Post along with CNN being some of the most anti-Trump media around)

Despite that, the graph still goes above zero on both the x and the y axis for many of the polls.
In short, it supports my view, not yours.

Billy86

recedite wrote: »

Its a strange sort of graph, as you would expect from a partisan source

It's the results of nine polls taken on the ban, and not just a single cherry picked on.

Despite that, the graph still goes above zero on both the x and the y axis for many of the polls.

On three of the nine polls, which by any definition, is a minority. Not a majority.

In short, it supports my view, not yours.

You really should look up the meaning of the word 'majority' before you go using it, to be honest. I'm sorry, but there just isn't an un-patronising way to put that.

MightyMandarin

recedite wrote: »

Its a strange sort of graph, as you would expect from a partisan source (Washington Post along with CNN being some of the most anti-Trump media around)

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear...

Tell me one mainstream media source which is writing favourable things about Trump at the moment?

Washington Post at least are one of the best news sources around and their investigations just proved that Flynn broke the law and that Trump and his team knew about it weeks ago. That's not at all biased, that is facts.

johnny_tractor

if hillary had have managed to cheat the election the usa would be at war with russia now,
don't forget