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

Billy86

RobertKK wrote: »

That is why I posted it, I saw the hypocrisy as people then said conspiracy and no one wanted to talk about it, so i dropped it.

But hey, since we're on about 30 second searches and you claim to have dropped it when people showed you it being thoroughly debunked (as opposed to them under open investigation for conspiracy, as with Trump)... how many months did it take you to drop it again?

May 2016: There was a death of a person associated with the Clintons, I remember at the time there were conspiracy theories he was murdered, and made look like a suicide.
The truth is, who knows...

August 2016: I am sure you don't want to talk about the lies from the Democrats who blamed Russia for the DNC email leaks, when it turned out to be Seth Rich, a DNC staffer who ended up murdered.

October 2016: I wonder if some of the emails contain stuff with Clinton wanting to murder civilians...

RobertKK

Billy86 wrote: »

But hey, since we're on about 30 second searches and you claim to have dropped it when people showed you it being thoroughly debunked (as opposed to them under open investigation for conspiracy, as with Trump)... how many months did it take you to drop it again?

May 2016: There was a death of a person associated with the Clintons, I remember at the time there were conspiracy theories he was murdered, and made look like a suicide.
The truth is, who knows...

August 2016: I am sure you don't want to talk about the lies from the Democrats who blamed Russia for the DNC email leaks, when it turned out to be Seth Rich, a DNC staffer who ended up murdered.

October 2016: I wonder if some of the emails contain stuff with Clinton wanting to murder civilians...

I know and people who supported Clinton did not like conspiracy.
I just avoid conspiracy unless it is hard evidence from somewhere like Wikileaks where it is confirmed.

Billy86

RobertKK wrote: »

Take your straw man and burn.

Do you accept there were already tensions between the US and China before any Trump?

Yes or no?

Are you saying you did not post on the politics forum during Obama's reign?

I said I did not frequent the forum until the run up until the election, with a focus on the election threads.

If two people with a lot of power and influence don't like each other but accept the need to co-exist, then one is replaced by a person who screams abuse at every chance they get and looks to undermine the other over and over... do you expect things to a) escalate, b) de-escalate, or c) stay the exact same?

Of course anyone could have seen this coming during the campaign. Indeed, many of us pointed it out.

Though I see you're not able to defend any of the things I pointed out about Trump, so yes, you have conceded them. Feel free to get on to addressing any of my initial three points at any stage. In the meantime...

straw man
noun
1. an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.

conditioned games

There have being over a hundred people killed since the Clintons rise to the top from the early 80's onwards. Most have been made to look like suicides usually with a bullet to the head behind the left ear.

RobertKK

Trump: “Where we see them violating international rules and norms, as we have seen in some cases in the South China Sea or in some of their behaviour when it comes to economic policy, we’ve been very firm, and we’ve indicated to them that there will be consequences.”

Billy86

RobertKK wrote: »

I know and people who supported Clinton did not like conspiracy.
I just avoid conspiracy unless it is hard evidence from somewhere like Wikileaks where it is confirmed.

So you "dropped it"... after six months. Despite there being no hard evidence on the one you mainly couldn't stop going on and on about, which had been thoroughly debunked.

On that basis, the Russian case, currently under hard investigation... it's got legs alright!

KingBrian2

RobertKK wrote: »

Trump: “Where we see them violating international rules and norms, as we have seen in some cases in the South China Sea or in some of their behaviour when it comes to economic policy, we’ve been very firm, and we’ve indicated to them that there will be consequences.”

That line certainly sounded Presidential to all you folks out there.:)

RobertKK

Billy86 wrote: »

So you "dropped it"... after six months. Despite there being no hard evidence on the one you mainly couldn't stop going on and on about, which had been thoroughly debunked.

On that basis, the Russian case, currently under hard investigation... it's got legs alright!

It may or it may not, still conspiracy, as with the deaths associated with the Clintons.

Bazzo

conditioned games wrote: »

There have being over a hundred people killed since the Clintons rise to the top from the early 80's onwards. Most have been made to look like suicides usually with a bullet to the head behind the left ear.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=576

Billy86

Some quick examples of Trump's goading China over Twitter...












...and everybody's favourite...

conditioned games

Bazzo wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=576

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/BODIES.php#axzz4XTY4Ks2K

RobertKK

Billy86 wrote: »

Some quick examples of Trump's goading China over Twitter...












...and everybody's favourite...

Tell me what is wrong with Trump saying this: “Where we see them violating international rules and norms, as we have seen in some cases in the South China Sea or in some of their behaviour when it comes to economic policy, we’ve been very firm, and we’ve indicated to them that there will be consequences.”

PopePalpatine

conditioned games wrote: »

There have being over a hundred people killed since the Clintons rise to the top from the early 80's onwards. Most have been made to look like suicides usually with a bullet to the head behind the left ear.

They've some work to do to catch up with Putin. :rolleyes:

Billy86

conditioned games wrote: »

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/BODIES.php#axzz4XTY4Ks2K

THE "BIG BANG" IS JUST RELIGION DISGUISED AS SCIENCE
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/bang.php#ixzz4XTa77kZU

Obama Setting up Shadow Government – Civil Unrest will Lead to Civil War
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/#ixzz4XTaFzdem

The Oklahoma City Bombing - Were there additional explosive charges and additional bombers?
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/OK/ok.php#ixzz4XTaowtys

.............................seems legit! :pac:

conditioned games

PopePalpatine wrote: »

They've some work to do to catch up with Putin. :rolleyes:

You wish, Putin is a good guy not like the Clintons

Billy86

RobertKK wrote: »

Tell me what is wrong with Trump saying this: “Where we see them violating international rules and norms, as we have seen in some cases in the South China Sea or in some of their behaviour when it comes to economic policy, we’ve been very firm, and we’ve indicated to them that there will be consequences.”

In isolation, not too much - diplomacy is often complex and circumstantial. In tandem with the batsh** lunacy I posted, a hell of a lot.

Now what is right about how saying China literally created global warming as a hoax to harm the US?

gormdubhgorm

MightyMandarin wrote: »

It has nothing to do with Evangelicals or people who love the 2nd Amendment. You've just simplified an incredibly complicated topic.

Trump does not have a popular mandate in the country. Fact. That doesn't mean he's illegitimate (although I see him as illegitimate given the clear interference by Russia and traitors at the highest level of the US Govt.), as he won through the electoral system which has been around since the beginning. Fair enough.

However, as much as he or his supporters might dislike it, you cannot ever ignore the fact that he does not have the popular support of his people. It has nothing to do with left or right or up or down, it's the way the people voted; and people are dead right to keep discussing it.

Trump won the election under the system that is there at the moment.

FACT!

The fact that there is this popular vote guff, ignores the fact that Trump won with the current American electoral system and won it as he would say "extremely, extremely, extremely well"

To go on about the popular vote is like going on about a bad performance in an event where everyone knows the rules. But only whinge about it afterwards because they lost.

The fact is under the current American electoral system the popular vote has no real relevance it is just a nice soundbite.

It would be like Fine Fail saying they would have never had to go in coalitions if they had a first past the post system instead of PR.

Or in sporting terms. If there was still two points for a win instead of three, or the backpass was allowed to the goalkeeper, Jack Charlton would have qualified for Euro 92 and Euro 96.

PopePalpatine

conditioned games wrote: »

You wish, Putin is a good guy not like the Clintons

At least 34 people would love to have a word with you...if they weren't dead.

KingBrian2

PopePalpatine wrote: »

At least 34 people would love to have a word with you...if they weren't dead.

American Congressional persons voted for drone wars.

CMOTDibbler

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Trump won the election under the system that is there at the moment.

To go on about the popular vote is like going on about a bad performance in an event where everyone knows the rules. But only whinge about it afterwards because they lost.

Perhaps you should share those sentiment with The Donald, because it appears he can't let it go.

He's even invented the requisite number of illegal votes to get him over that particular line.

Billy86

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Trump won the election under the system that is there at the moment.

FACT!

The fact that there is this popular vote guff, ignores the fact that Trump won with the current American electoral system and won it as he would say "extremely, extremely, extremely well"

To go on about the popular vote is like going on about a bad performance in an event where everyone knows the rules. But only whinge about it afterwards because they lost.

The fact is under the current American electoral system the popular vote has no real relevance it is just a nice soundbite.

It would be like Fine Fail saying they would have never had to go in coalitions if they had a first past the post system instead of PR.

Or in sporting terms. If there was still two points for a win instead of three, or the backpass was allowed to the goalkeeper, Jack Charlton would have qualified for Euro 92 and Euro 96.

I don't see many here saying he shouldn't be president, can you quote them for me please?

I do see many here though -and in the US- complaining that they don't like his policies. That is to be expected when you lose the popular vote. You're still president, but not a popular one. And I do see people abroad not liking him, because when you basically say you don't care about other countries' well being, that is kind of to be expected.

To carry on your football analogy, you're basically asking why other teams' football fans didn't love Alex Ferguson because he kept winning trophies for Man Utd.

MightyMandarin

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Trump won the election under the system that is there at the moment.

FACT!

The fact that there is this popular vote guff, ignores the fact that Trump won with the current American electoral system and won it as he would say "extremely, extremely, extremely well"

To go on about the popular vote is like going on about a bad performance in an event where everyone knows the rules. But only whinge about it afterwards because they lost.

The fact is under the current American electoral system the popular vote has no real relevance it is just a nice soundbite.

It would be like Fine Fail saying they would have never had to go in coalitions if they had a first past the post system instead of PR.

Or in sporting terms. If there was still two points for a win instead of three, or the backpass was allowed to the goalkeeper, Jack Charlton would have qualified for Euro 92 and Euro 96.

Have I said that it wasn't a fact?

The popular vote is a lot more important than those examples you used btw, because it's more representative of the opinions of the entire voting population of the US, not just ones in particular states.

Still though, he won. I just won't stop questioning his mandate, especially since his poll numbers are also in the gutter.

PopePalpatine

KingBrian2 wrote: »

American Congressional persons voted for drone wars.

And Russian MPs voted to decriminalise spousal abuse, and approve of the invasion of Ukraine. :rolleyes:

I notice that you didn't refute Putin's body count - which I had posted because of the inane bollocks statement that Putin is a "good guy". :rolleyes:

uck51js9zml2yt

2 republicans voting agaisnt DeVoss for education. ..And republicans suspending the rules to push through 2 nominees to through to the senate.... Interesting days ahead.

CMOTDibbler

In other news, apparently Betsy Devos is in trouble as two Republican Senators have said they're not voting for her, leaving her with just one vote: Mike Pence's tie-breaker.

If Sessions gets the nod, that 's her one vote gone.

RobertKK

Billy86 wrote: »

In isolation, not too much - diplomacy is often complex and circumstantial. In tandem with the batsh** lunacy I posted, a hell of a lot.

Now what is right about how saying China literally created global warming as a hoax to harm the US?

That was Obama and not Trump warning China over economic policy and over the South China sea, and warning of consequences - nothing different to Trump, and I would argue for a long time it is the Pentaon that has been setting foreign policy and it is irrespective of who is president.

Let us remember that the US went to war with Iraq over a UN resolution that spoke of consequences.

Trump has simply continued the policy towards China that the US already had. All of a sudden the Obama policy is a declaration of war for some.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/03/g20-obama-warns-beijing-against-south-china-sea-aggression

Part of what I’ve tried to communicate to President Xi is that the United States arrives at its power, in part, by restraining itself,” Obama told CNN presenter Fareed Zakaria. “If you sign a treaty that calls for international arbitration around maritime issues, the fact that you’re bigger than the Philippines or Vietnam or other countries ... is not a reason for you to go around and flex your muscles,” Obama added, according to Reuters. “You’ve got to abide by international law.”
“Where we see them violating international rules and norms, as we have seen in some cases in the South China Sea or in some of their behaviour when it comes to economic policy, we’ve been very firm,” added Obama. “And we’ve indicated to them that there will be consequences.”

China responded in Beijing where the G20 were meeting by not rolling out a red carpet for Obama, which was deemed to be a snub.
But US/China tensions are new according to some now Trump is in power and some are getting hysterical when the South China Sea has been another of those things under Obama that people failed to see and now that Trump is in power it is made out to be this new issue.
I don't have a problem with Obama or Trump on this, The Hague ruled what China is doing is illegal.
Tensions between China and the US have been rising for years over this and does anyone seriously believe the Pentagon would want to allow international waters to be taken over by China and militarised?
I haven't liked what I saw happening during the Obama presidency - that time period by China, and the Obama administration had military ships sailing by those newly man made islands, to make the point they are in international waters and not Chinese waters.
This has been a crisis for a long time, and like most crises they come to a head one way or another.

In 1998 the Clinton administration set out the path to war with Iraq. Hillary Clinton said: The Iraqi leader was "without conscience," having used weapons of mass destruction on "his own people," she told reporters, referring to an attack on Kurds a decade earlier. "We are facing an extraordinary threat from this man. Something will have to be done."
It was during the Clinton presidency where the UN warning of consequences ended in war.
It was argued by the US and the UK that consequences meant everything including war.
So we can say Obama was making threats including war threats against China, but people didn't take notice.

Billy86

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

In other news, apparently Betsy Devos is in trouble as two Republican Senators have said they're not voting for her, leaving her with just one vote: Mike Pence's tie-breaker.

If Sessions gets the nod, that 's her one vote gone.

Random bit of trivia*, there are 52 Republican senators of which 4 are female - 2 of those 4 are the only two (we know of) who are voting against DeVos. Just kind of a random thing that popped into my head. Credit to them as well, it's possibly the clearest case of cronyism of all of the appointments (and that's saying something!). Hopefully another 1 of the 50 remaining R senators gets their head out of their arse on that one.

*That's off me taking a glance at the Senate wiki page, so anyone feel free to let me know if I missed any!

Billy86

RobertKK wrote: »

That was Obama and not Trump warning China over economic policy and over the South China sea, and warning of consequences - nothing different to Trump, and I would argue for a long time it is the Pentaon that has been setting foreign policy and it is irrespective of who is president.

And like I said, in isolation - there's not much wrong with it. You were trying to catch me out by initially being completely dishonest in claiming Trump said it, and failed. The rest of your spiel you had ready to go is worthless.

I see Trump's "China invented global warming" comment is another you can't defend. Just like you can't defend any of the others I brought up that have heightened tensions so quickly during his campaign run and election victory. You can't refute my actual arguments, so I'm not sure why you're still even responding?

Water John

Flynn getting stroppy with Iran. Also, wanted to originally to tie them to issue in Lybia even when it was Sunni militants.
One definitely for shooting first and never asking questions.
His payment by Russia for a speaking engagement to be looked at.

RobertKK

Billy86 wrote: »

And like I said, in isolation - there's not much wrong with it. You were trying to catch me out by initially being completely dishonest in claiming Trump said it, and failed. The rest of your spiel you had ready to go is worthless.

I see Trump's "China invented global warming" comment is another you can't defend. Just like you can't defend any of the others I brought up that have heightened tensions so quickly during his campaign run and election victory. You can't refute my actual arguments, so I'm not sure why you're still even responding?

No. Trump is continuing the same policy.

Obama warned China of consequences over economic and the South China Sea issues.
Under the Clinton administration a UN resolution filed by the US and passed, warned Iraq of consequences...5 years later there was war.

I was pointing out that policy had not changed under Trump towards China. You find it hard to accept things.