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

Professor Moriarty

Gintonious wrote: »

Looking forward to hearing the few supporters he has left defend him on this.

This is just getting bigger and bigger.

Drip, drip, drip.

BoatMad

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

America needs radical reform if truth be known. The one good thing to come from Donald Trump may well be that he will bring people to notice how rotten American politics is. Trump is not doing anything different to most of his predecessors but he has a bigger mouth.

I feel that America has for years come to believe its own propaganda and that it sees itself as the good guy even when it is the bad guy. Leaders like Reagan are admired and are pin up posters for what a good US president is supposed to be. However, while he had good points, it is not noted that Reagan was deeply flawed and his first term in office was reckless.

American atrocities in WW2, Vietnam and more recently, Iraq, are supposed to be excused while anything done by an American enemy of a similar nature is supposed to horrify us. I can only imagine America's reaction if Russia bombed 2 cities in say New Zealand with nuclear weapons. This is the total hypocrisy of the whole thing.

American foreign policy needs reform. In the period from 1991 to date, America has been constantly involved in war with each president since then adding another war to the ones they inherited from the last one. Sadly, this is what is causing a lot of the world instabilities. Ill thought out strategies based on 'liberating' countries and thinking the 1989 fall of the Eastern European dictatorships could be duplicated in places like Iraq and Libya is sadly what is behind a lot of the disasters and yet each president does not learn.

Not a bad summation , the recent ME campaign of course was essentially the belief in the US that the fall of the Soviet Union was an ideal time to destabilise the old Soviet client states in the ME. The US just " couldnt " pass up that piece of chocolate. Then of course 9/11 caused " outrage " ) as if this had happened out of the blue ) and the US found itself been driven by public outcry ( and thats always goes wrong )

Unfortunately we are seeing the havoc that comes when one country has greater military assets then the next 5 countries

The only hope is that countries like China will build up to compete militarily with the US . Europe has the " technical ability " and money , but has zero willpower in that regard. I dont think theres much chance of either that happening in this century

InTheTrees

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

In the period from 1991 to date, America has been constantly involved in war with each president since then adding another war to the ones they inherited from the last one.

1991?

Except for a brief pause between ww2 and Korea and maybe a few years after vietnam, its been almost constantly at war.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States

BoatMad

InTheTrees wrote: »

1991?

Except for a brief pause between ww2 and Korea and maybe a few years after vietnam, its been almost constantly at war.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States

an unfortunate circumstance of having a military greater then its next 5 adversaries

That needs a counter balance

Overheal

Kitsunegari wrote: »

If a party attempts to gerrymander votes into their district then that party should have their candidate removed from the ballot. Both parties have tried it but the Republicans are currently abusing their power to the extreme in some areas of the US. Again another complete abnormality in the US where the elected party is allowed to redraw voting districts. This should be only done by an independent census agency with no political interference or appointments.

It should DEFINITELY be an independent agency. But, for kicking out a candidate, that's not going to happen in the current system, districts are redrawn every 10 years based on census data, elections for those districts happen every 2 years

Leroy42

The one thing that is continuing to bother me, and not something I think has ever been addressed never mind explained by Trump or his supporters, is why any of his team were meeting with the Russians in the 1st place?

They were trying to win an election, you are behind in the polls and HC is the betting favorite and, at least according to them, are up against a bias and negative media. You have limited on the ground resources, lack of support from the GOP.

Despite all this other key issues that needed to be dealt with, it seems they took quite a bit of time out to have meetings with Russian representatives. Why? In the middle of a campaign which most of the way through it looked like a long shot to win, why would you take take out to talk to Russia? At most, coming from a benign POV, it could have been talking about post winning strategy, but why commit so much resources to something so unlikely.

I cannot square that circle. Flynn, Sessions, Kushner etc, all took time out of a very tight election schedule to meet with them.

Kitsunegari

What I'm struggling to understand is the policy of freezing relations with Russia over Ukraine, Syria and Russian hacking. The US are hardly the country to be trying to take the moral high ground over Russian foreign policy. They're supporting the Saudi's in a proxy war with Iran in the Middle East. They're on different sides in Syria despite the US naively, and unsuccessfully, attempting to support Islamist terrorists in the pursuit of removing Assad while bombing the rebel uprising in Yemen. Meanwhile, the EU and the US continue to condemn Russia and nothing is said about the countless US hypocrisies. Are we not being hypocritical expecting the Russians to change when the US intelligence agencies have done far more to interfere in other countries political matters than the Kremlin or Putin could ever dream of?

The DoD and the CIA ignored the rise of ISIS in order to try and use them as a strategic asset. In Iraq, the US, the French and Italians had their hands all over a massive cover-up based on discredited information that mysteriously found its way into the WH.

It's been embarrassing to see people like Samatha Power hysterically screeching about the Russians at the UN while the US commits equally horrendous acts across the world and then get lauded for her role in Ireland. A sign of the times, I guess.

Billy86

Montana doing a sterling job of giving an early example of if people deserve to die by voting for Republican Gianforte over Rob Quist, despite Gianforte being a multi millionaire from California (elitist, no?) with ties to white supremacists who believes retirement should not be a thing because Noah built the Ark when he was 600 years old (he was totally genuine on that one and not just looking for convince people to actively vote against their own interests, right!?) and who two days ago literally assaulted a journalist leading to many sponsors rescinding endorsements and many prominent Republicans admonishing him/demanding apologies over it.

But hey... he's got an (R) beside his name! All hail the almighty (R)!


No big surprise since he was expected to win anyway and by a larger margin (he outspent Quist something like 10:1), but there is absolutely zero sympathy for the 53% of people from that district who die of illness in the next 18 months coming from me.

Kitsunegari

Billy86 wrote: »

Montana doing a sterling job of giving an early example of if people deserve to die by voting for Republican Gianforte over Rob Quist, despite Gianforte being a multi millionaire from California (elitist, no?) with ties to white supremacists who believes retirement should not be a thing because Noah built the Ark when he was 600 years old (he was totally genuine on that one and not just looking for convince people to actively vote against their own interests, right!?) and who two days ago literally assaulted a journalist leading to many sponsors rescinding endorsements and many prominent Republicans admonishing him/demanding apologies over it.

But hey... he's got an (R) beside his name! All hail the almighty (R)!


No big surprise since he was expected to win anyway and by a larger margin (he outspent Quist something like 10:1), but there is absolutely zero sympathy for the 53% of people from that district who die of illness in the next 18 months coming from me.

Two terrible candidates there Billy to be fair. The bolded part of your post is incredibly harsh. I'm not sure how you can feel so strongly about that considering both ACA and AHCA are pretty crappy provisions of health care for the US.

Leroy42

Is that your response to everything Kitsunegari, two terrible candidates?

One is a blow-in, hated Trump but now loves him, won't talk about health care and has now assaulted a journalist.

The GOP candidate is happy to review the protected status of huge amounts of land currently free to use for all, the DNC candidate wants to continue to protect them and not open them up to possible sell off.

The other is a country singer..thats is about it. The biggest claim against him is that he lacks experience, but then that doesn't wash as that is one of reasons people voted Trump.

Fraid to say it but American democracy is nothing of the sort. You basically have two camps R & D and people will follow one of other regardless.

And to try to equate ACA and AHCA is not true. ACA at least was trying, though far from perfect, to extend health care to a larger part of the population and give some power back to the people. ACA is doing its best to revert to the old system where those who can afford it have great care but everyone else can just die. One act will cover 23m people less than the other. Not even close which one they should go with.

Hande hoche!

Billy86 wrote: »

Montana doing a sterling job of giving an early example of if people deserve to die by voting for Republican Gianforte over Rob Quist, despite Gianforte being a multi millionaire from California (elitist, no?) with ties to white supremacists who believes retirement should not be a thing because Noah built the Ark when he was 600 years old (he was totally genuine on that one and not just looking for convince people to actively vote against their own interests, right!?) and who two days ago literally assaulted a journalist leading to many sponsors rescinding endorsements and many prominent Republicans admonishing him/demanding apologies over it.

But hey... he's got an (R) beside his name! All hail the almighty (R)!


No big surprise since he was expected to win anyway and by a larger margin (he outspent Quist something like 10:1), but there is absolutely zero sympathy for the 53% of people from that district who die of illness in the next 18 months coming from me.

Sure the presidents shoves prime ministers out of his way. Just behaving in a similar manner to the big dog.

Trent Houseboat

To be fair assaulting a member of the press probably helped turn out the vote for Gianforte.
Has everyone forgotten Trump rallies where the mob were encouraged to abuse the press?
The president said that the press were the enemy of the people.
A reporter was arrested for asking HHS Secretary Tom Price about the same terrible healthcare bill.

It's going to be the new kissing of babies for the Republican party.

But sponsors pulling ads from a ghoulish propaganda show are the real threat to journalistic freedom.

By the way did anyone ever get an answer on where Gianforte stands on the healthcare bill that looks set to uninsured 23 million people?
We know Speaker Ryan is positively enthused by the idea.

Hande hoche!

In fairness to him, he apologised to the reported during the speech.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/26/greg-gianforte-wins-montana-congress-race-body-slam-reporter

Billy86

Hande hoche! wrote: »

In fairness to him, he apologised to the reported during the speech.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/26/greg-gianforte-wins-montana-congress-race-body-slam-reporter

After having lied through his teeth by saying the reporter started the whole physical altercation by grabbing at him until, of all people, a FOX News journalist who was also there called bullsh** on it and an audio recording of the event came out. No points earned as far as I'm concerned, he's in court for it in a week or two re assault if I recall so just trying to save face in front of the judge.

Billy86

Trent Houseboat wrote: »

By the way did anyone ever get an answer on where Gianforte stands on the healthcare bill that looks set to uninsured 23 million people?
We know Speaker Ryan is positively enthused by the idea.

Oh, he's all for it!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/montana-rob-quist-greg-gianforte-health-care_us_5919c48ce4b0031e737f5a64
https://mtpeoplesvoice.com/2017/05/18/montana-veterans-would-lose-benefits-under-gianfortes-health-care-bill/

The assault came because a journalist asked him about it again of all things. To me, it's far more damning of that 53% that they'd rather vote for their own potential deaths than be seen to be disloyal to the letter (R).

mcmoustache

Gintonious wrote: »

Looking forward to hearing the few supporters he has left defend him on this.

This is just getting bigger and bigger.

They've long since stopped defending him. Now it's deflection, whataboutery and a refusal to see what's in front of their eyes.

On the bright side, most of them have stopped running around yelling "Fake News" at news that they don't like. So that's nice.

Christy42

Leroy42 wrote: »

Is that your response to everything Kitsunegari, two terrible candidates?

One is a blow-in, hated Trump but now loves him, won't talk about health care and has now assaulted a journalist.

The GOP candidate is happy to review the protected status of huge amounts of land currently free to use for all, the DNC candidate wants to continue to protect them and not open them up to possible sell off.

The other is a country singer..thats is about it. The biggest claim against him is that he lacks experience, but then that doesn't wash as that is one of reasons people voted Trump.

Fraid to say it but American democracy is nothing of the sort. You basically have two camps R & D and people will follow one of other regardless.

And to try to equate ACA and AHCA is not true. ACA at least was trying, though far from perfect, to extend health care to a larger part of the population and give some power back to the people. ACA is doing its best to revert to the old system where those who can afford it have great care but everyone else can just die. One act will cover 23m people less than the other. Not even close which one they should go with.

It is the repeated response to go they are both bad and leave it at that. It really is like someone complaining about a murderer with someone coming along to say the pickpocket is a criminal too. There is no appreciation of scale. Sure you can the democrats candidate in Montana was not perfect but he wasn't a thug.

red ears

Make way for the Chief..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhBcgB_GZD4

Kitsunegari

Leroy42 wrote: »

Is that your response to everything Kitsunegari, two terrible candidates?

One is a blow-in, hated Trump but now loves him, won't talk about health care and has now assaulted a journalist.

The GOP candidate is happy to review the protected status of huge amounts of land currently free to use for all, the DNC candidate wants to continue to protect them and not open them up to possible sell off.

The other is a country singer..thats is about it. The biggest claim against him is that he lacks experience, but then that doesn't wash as that is one of reasons people voted Trump.

Fraid to say it but American democracy is nothing of the sort. You basically have two camps R & D and people will follow one of other regardless.

And to try to equate ACA and AHCA is not true. ACA at least was trying, though far from perfect, to extend health care to a larger part of the population and give some power back to the people. ACA is doing its best to revert to the old system where those who can afford it have great care but everyone else can just die. One act will cover 23m people less than the other. Not even close which one they should go with.

Again straight into the attacks. Of course, they were two terrible candidates. One was an experienced idiot and the other was a country singer with no political experience and vague policies. Are we not allowed to call them terrible candidates when that is what they are; terrible!

What is the appeal of either of these candidates?

Christy42

Kitsunegari wrote: »

Again straight into the attacks. Of course, they were two terrible candidates. One was an experienced idiot and the other was a country singer with no political experience and vague policies. Are we not allowed to call them terrible candidates when that is what they are; terrible!

What is the appeal of either of these candidates?

The issue is that you are using that technique of pointing out both are terrible without any consideration of scale to put them on the same level. In fact there is a large difference in the scale of how bad they are.

Zubeneschamali

red ears wrote: »

Make way for the Chief.

If you wrote his character into a movie, people would complain that it was a stupid and unbelievable caricature.

Leroy42

Kitsunegari wrote: »

Again straight into the attacks. Of course, they were two terrible candidates. One was an experienced idiot and the other was a country singer with no political experience and vague policies. Are we not allowed to call them terrible candidates when that is what they are; terrible!

What is the appeal of either of these candidates?

I'm not attacking you, I'm am merely challenging you assertion.

You are trying, by calling them both terrible, to make them the same.

I am pointing out that they are not the same. You seem to be of the view that unless the other guy is perfect then anything goes.

No political experience cannot be used as that is exactly what the Trump supporters say they want, Drain the Swamp and all that! Vague policies, well again hardly a significant difference between them.

But one of them was anti-trump 6 months ago when he last ran for election and now is pro-Trump. He will not talk about the AHCA and is actively trying to open up public lands. Oh, and he just assaulted a reporter and tried to lie about it.

Again, we had an election and the electorate must choose from those people that stand. It then becomes a choice, and sometimes that choice is down to the least worst option. SImply claiming that neither are perfect is a cop out.

Trent Houseboat

Billy86 wrote:

To me, it's far more damning of that 53% that they'd rather vote for their own potential deaths than be seen to be disloyal to the letter (R).

Their only regret is that the have but one life to give so Ryan can to afford a tax break for billionaires.

Kitsunegari

Christy42 wrote: »

The issue is that you are using that technique of pointing out both are terrible without any consideration of scale to put them on the same level. In fact there is a large difference in the scale of how bad they are.

No, that's not an issue at all. If I have to qualify every remark I make then we would addressing semantics all day like you appear to like doing. Both candidates are terrible.

This is a discussion forum not a place to re-validate your already partisan views. Instead of continually trying to get into semantics perhaps you should instead offer your own views of the candidates.

The petty nitpicking continues. A strong sign as any of a poor partisan argument.

Kitsunegari

Leroy42 wrote: »

I'm not attacking you, I'm am merely challenging you assertion.

You are trying, by calling them both terrible, to make them the same.

I am pointing out that they are not the same. You seem to be of the view that unless the other guy is perfect then anything goes.

No political experience cannot be used as that is exactly what the Trump supporters say they want, Drain the Swamp and all that! Vague policies, well again hardly a significant difference between them.

But one of them was anti-trump 6 months ago when he last ran for election and now is pro-Trump. He will not talk about the AHCA and is actively trying to open up public lands. Oh, and he just assaulted a reporter and tried to lie about it.

Again, we had an election and the electorate must choose from those people that stand. It then becomes a choice, and sometimes that choice is down to the least worst option. SImply claiming that neither are perfect is a cop out.

Where did I say they were both the same? You should really stop making assumptions and trying to argue against points that people aren't making.

So now it's a cop out to simply describe both candidates are terrible? Incredible.

Christy42

Kitsunegari wrote: »

No, that's not an issue at all. If I have to qualify every remark I make then we would addressing semantics all day like you appear to like doing. Both candidates are terrible.

This is a discussion forum not a place to re-validate your already partisan views. Instead of continually trying to get into semantics perhaps you should instead offer your own views of the candidates.

The petty nitpicking continues. A strong sign as any of a poor partisan argument.

It is not nitpicking. It has been going on since at least the start of the presidential thread and at a certain point you get sick of it.

Now it is possible (so I am not accusing you) you were simply voicing an opinion and not attempting to equalise the two candidates but be aware that it will end up looking like the common deflection tactic that happened whenever people pointed out how terrible a republican is. Just so you understand the frustration in the response.

Leroy42

Kitsunegari wrote: »

Where did I say they were both the same? You should really stop making assumptions and trying to argue against points that people aren't making.

So now it's a cop out to simply describe both candidates are terrible? Incredible.

You were answering a post decrying the election of one of them and your response was they were both terrible candidates.

Both candidates are terrible. That is all you said in terms of them. Yet you don't think they are the same?

Then why not state that? Why not say, both are terrible but A is better because XXXX?

No, you made a simplified statement to try to make it look like either one was as bad as the other.

I happen to disagree. Doesn't make me right, or you wrong. But I have put forward my reasons why I think they are not the same, you have now turned into arguing over our interpretations of your post.

If you can't stand behind your statements then maybe don't be surprised that you feel 'attacked' when people ask you to explain

seamus

BoatMad wrote: »

an unfortunate circumstance of having a military greater then its next 5 adversaries

That needs a counter balance

Or a rebalance. The United States needs to halve its military budget, at least.

The US military was so enormous when the soviet union suddenly disappeared, that everyone involved in the gravy train realised they needed to quickly find ways to keep justifying their existence. Otherwise the obvious overbloatedness of the US military would soon become something the taxpayer would start asking questions about.

And so emerged Team America, world police. Keep finding countries to "save", and you get to keep your big army.

America doesn't throw money at all of these overseas actions because nobody else can, other countries get less involved because the US steps in by choice. America chooses to position itself as the "protector" of the world because there's a huge military budget that needs to be spent.

If the US scaled back on their military, you wouldn't suddenly see a terrifyingly dangerous world full of rogue nations appear. Instead, troubled regions would be left to sort their own problems out, with no sudden influx of interfering foreign arms and money changing the balance.

Kitsunegari

Christy42 wrote: »

It is not nitpicking. It has been going on since at least the start of the presidential thread and at a certain point you get sick of it.

Now it is possible (so I am not accusing you) you were simply voicing an opinion and not attempting to equalise the two candidates but be aware that it will end up looking like the common deflection tactic that happened whenever people pointed out how terrible a republican is. Just so you understand the frustration in the response.

I really don't know why someone would become frustrated with someone making a short summation of both candidates without descending entirely into petty semantics. I find it hard to believe that people on an Irish discussion forum are attempting to pick sides continually in a contest with two broken parties, neither of which work effectively for the American people. Can't some of us not be partisan? Do we have to take sides all of the time?

Leroy42 wrote: »

You were answering a post decrying the election of one of them and your response was they were both terrible candidates.

Both candidates are terrible. That is all you said in terms of them. Yet you don't think they are the same?

Then why not state that? Why not say, both are terrible but A is better because XXXX?

No, you made a simplified statement to try to make it look like either one was as bad as the other.

I happen to disagree. Doesn't make me right, or you wrong. But I have put forward my reasons why I think they are not the same, you have now turned into arguing over our interpretations of your post.

If you can't stand behind your statements then maybe don't be surprised that you feel 'attacked' when people ask you to explain

You're really missing the point. I can describe Blackpool and Leeds as terrible teams; it doesn't mean they're both equally terrible. Arguing over the race to the bottom isn't really something I have a great deal of interest in.

Any perceived attack on the Democrats is met with sheer hostility on here. Don't you think that's being a bit OTT in terms of sensitivity?

Christy42

Kitsunegari wrote: »

I really don't know why someone would become frustrated with someone making a short summation of both candidates without descending entirely into petty semantics. I find it hard to believe that people on an Irish discussion forum are attempting to pick sides continually in a contest with two broken parties, neither of which work effectively for the American people. Can't some of us not be partisan? Do we have to take sides all of the time?



You're really missing the point. I can describe Blackpool and Leeds as terrible teams; it doesn't mean they're both equally terrible. Arguing over the race to the bottom isn't really something I have a great deal of interest in.

Any perceived attack on the Democrats is met with sheer hostility on here. Don't you think that's being a bit OTT in terms of sensitivity?

People would argue back against as it was used as a tactic to hide how terrible blackpool actually were and drive discussion away from it. Sure you can be non partisan but that more involves looking at both candidates on the same standards as opposed to using the same terms about both (which is either a largely nothing statement or a statement of equality).

I think most people here have expressed issues with the Dems. I have myself, the issue was the apparent (as in it reads that way, not that you meant it) comparison to the Republican candidate.