Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread III
Comments
-
"I released many" is he taking about GOP members of congress or a load of doves ?0
-
-
Mancomb Seepgood wrote: »I disagree with this, she does have clear policies,radical even: Medicare for all,abolition of ICE,free state college education,and a jobs guarantee.Now one may agree or disagree with these positions but they had an impact,perhaps more of an impact than merely being anti-Trump.
Good post, I don't see how people are twisting this?
She's a socialist, and ran on radical policies like abolishing ICE. ICE have nothing got to with separating families, that's border control. People should get their facts straight.0 -
They have gone away from the middle of the road. The anti Trump senator was voted out for a young candidate far more vehemently anti Trump.
That is not listening to the Trump administration. This was most certainly a candidate who ran because of how bad Trump has been and got elected on the same reasoning.
This is further evidence on how divided the US has become.
Near as I can see she did not have much more of an actual policy than simply opposing Trump even more than the incumbent which is the opposite of what many Trump supporters have said is the answer.
Having said all that opposing those who use children for political blackmail is not bad as policies though. Definitely a good sign going forward.
The incumbent left it on the floor, when you have the papers asking why you can't bother talking to people in your ward, things are bad.0 -
ICE have nothing got to with separating families, that's border control. People should get their facts straight.
Yes, people should.0 -
Advertisement
-
oscarBravo wrote: »
That link doesn't work here but from the hyperlink I can make out you're talking about raids. I'm talking about separation at the border, that's border control, not ICE. Of course ICE goes after criminal illegals or illegals who haven't shown up for court or have bypassed the entire system, that's their job.
The celebrity and Democrat screeching about abolishing ICE are making out they're the ones separating people at the border, it's not true.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/06/19/the-facts-about-trumps-policy-of-separating-families-at-the-border/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.a18f751ddf0a
"When families or individuals are apprehended by the Border Patrol, they’re taken into DHS custody. Under the zero-tolerance policy, DHS officials refer any adult “believed to have committed any crime, including illegal entry,” to the Justice Department for prosecution. If they’re convicted, they’re usually sentenced to time served. The next step would be deportation proceedings."0 -
Good post, I don't see how people are twisting this?
She's a socialist, and ran on radical policies like abolishing ICE. ICE have nothing got to with separating families, that's border control. People should get their facts straight.
ICE obviously have an involvement in displacing families as the front line of border patrol in the US. However, disbanding ICE isn't a solution. It's very easy for a champagne socialist in New York to look for no border control when they don't live next to the Southern border too. Calling for the disbandment of ICE on the basis that they uphold the law is quite ridiculous frankly. Having such policies might win you political capital in the Bronx but unless Congress changes the law disbanding ICE will achieve nothing.
If you want to live in the US you should enter through a controlled port of entry.0 -
ICE obviously have an involvement in displacing families as the front line of border patrol in the US. However, disbanding ICE isn't a solution. It's very easy for a champagne socialist in New York to look for no border control when they don't live next to the Southern border too. Calling for the disbandment of ICE on the basis that they uphold the law is quite ridiculous frankly. Having such policies might win you political capital in the Bronx but unless Congress changes the law disbanding ICE will achieve nothing.
If you want to live in the US you should enter through a controlled port of entry.
The Koch brothers, the extreme free market wing of politics in America, much of Corporate capital and the American radical left are all lined up against ICE but they'll fail, the public are massively in favour of it and support even more vigorous approaches.0 -
You were talking about "getting facts straight" in the same post where you said "ICE have nothing got to with separating families".I'm talking about separation at the border...
I get it: being a Trump disciple means never, ever, ever admitting you're wrong.
Oh, she's not just a socialist now, she's a frigging champagne socialist? Jesus wept.It's very easy for a champagne socialist in New York to look for no border control...
I would suggest that some of you people research the concept of "democratic socialism", but that would be attributing to ignorance what's more adequately explained by mindless partisanship. It's utterly bizarre how threatened some people are by the mere idea of treating people like human beings instead of parasites.0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »
I would suggest that some of you people research the concept of "democratic socialism", but that would be attributing to ignorance what's more adequately explained by mindless partisanship. It's utterly bizarre how threatened some people are by the mere idea of treating people like human beings instead of parasites.
So unless you want to seize the means of the production, you mean social democracy. It's in vogue to use the word socialism without having to defend the indefensible. People who are against the idea are skeptical of its merits, given its ability to destabilise economies and societies. If you do mean a capitalist economy with a larger emphasis on government safety nets, don't use the word socialism and nobody will argue that with you.0 -
Advertisement
-
I love the insertion of 'champagne' in there as a pejoritive to portray her as out of touch. The only possible sense she could be described using 'Champagne' would be in the sense of serving it to others as here she is a year ago, when she was working as a bartenderIt's very easy for a champagne socialist in New York to look for no border control...
https://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/styles/article_small/public/thumbnails/image/2018/06/27/16/cortez1.jpg0 -
-
She engaged with her constituents, that ad where she is changing her shoes at the subway etc going about her normal day was inspired. She ran a very good campaign and the incumbent was not prepared. This is unusual and of course she is a Bernie Sanders disciple in terms of ideology but she struck a chord, these things happen now and then, you only need to look at the 2016 election for another example of someone striking a chord with the electorate when you might think there are some reasons they would not be electable.
Couple of other women may take Senate seats (they will be the ones the Dems have the most hope of flipping) in Nevada and Arizona. Some would draw a direct connection between Trumps election and the backlash being the election and coming to the fore of women in the opposition.
The biggest problem the Democrats face as always is actually getting their supporters to bloody vote, its incredible to think how much better the Republicans are at this. There are more Democrats then Republicans in the US but only one side knows how to get **** done when it matters. The Supreme Court pick is going to be another example of this.
This current situation where Trump is going to have his second pick would not even be happening if Obama had just pushed through his own pick, like a Republican President would have, and despite my own feelings about the man you have to admire the job Mitch Mconnell has done and is doing for his party."People say ‘go with the flow’ but do you know what goes with the flow? Dead fish."
0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »It's utterly bizarre how threatened some people are by the mere idea of treating people like human beings instead of parasites.
Aye, especially when they reside in the womb.
Have to say, I find it rich when liberals act like they have the monopoly on compassion, when the truth is that they just use compassion as a facade. Liberal policies have created so much damn suffering.0 -
Outlaw Pete wrote: »Aye, especially when they reside in the womb.
"People" don't though. Reside in wombs, I mean. That's the fiction of personhood created by American prolifers. A 12 week fetus is not a person. Unlike the owner of the womb whose actual personhood you seem to have so little respect for.
No idea what this is about so I'll leave it. If you care to explain I might engage.Outlaw Pete wrote: »Have to say, I find it rich when liberals act like they have the monopoly on compassion, when the truth is that they just use compassion as a facade. Liberal policies have created so much damn suffering.Reem Alsalem UNSR Violence Against Women and Girls@UNSRVAW"Very concerned about these statements by the IOC at Paris2024 There are multiple international treaties and national constitutions that specifically refer to#womenand their fundamental rights to equality and non-discrimination, so the world has a pretty good idea of what women -and men for that matter- are. Also, how can one assess whether fairness and justice has been reached if we do not know who we are being fair and just to?"0 -
Outlaw Pete wrote: »Aye, especially when they reside in the womb.
Have to say, I find it rich when liberals act like they have the monopoly on compassion, when the truth is that they just use compassion as a facade. Liberal policies have created so much damn suffering.
Ah Pete. I haven't seen you in here since you were defending SHS for using her official twitter account to go after a private company for refusing to serve her a meal.
You might give examples of these liberal policies you speak of. Mind you, they would have been implemented some time ago, as it's been over a year and a half since they were in power.
Anyway, we are talking about this administration. There is no doubt a specific cruelty that this admin seems to revel in when governing and that comes from the top. NFL players aren't disrepectful - they are disrespectful sons of bitches. They don't just detain families, they do so but take the kids away (and lose them). SHS doesn't just bat questions away, she does so with scorn.0 -
Now this is an interesting development.
Cohen is indisputably not the brightest, so God knows what he will admit on camera to. The fact that he is doing it at all is baffling.
https://twitter.com/MichaelCohen212/status/1013580058760540160?s=190 -
If he had said anything worthwhile it would have already been leaked.
A simple PR exercise, setting Cohen up as the simple guy just trying to get through life.
Something like - Trump was always great, always helped him out etc. His main work was on charities etc and sometimes he needed to ward off people trying to extort funds from Trump's generous and giving nature. If he did things that people consider odd it was only for the greater good and his love of America and if that led to Trump being POTUS than he feels he did America a favour.
Oh, and he loves Vets and coal and Space Force.0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »
Chicago Tribune not readable from Ireland as of the GDPR day. Super annoying, LA Times, NY Daily News, others.0 -
The Trump administration performance on US-SAUDI developments and relationships has been a major success for this administration in a short time period.
Not really:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/white-house-backs-off-trump-tweet-on-oil-agreement_us_5b384439e4b0f3c221a17e7d
So, as is to be expected, Trump tweeted a lie and his "administration" needs to fix things yet again. How is it you define "major success?" I don't think those words mean what you think they mean.0 -
Advertisement
-
Not really:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/white-house-backs-off-trump-tweet-on-oil-agreement_us_5b384439e4b0f3c221a17e7d
So, as is to be expected, Trump tweeted a lie and his "administration" needs to fix things yet again. How is it you define "major success?" I don't think those words mean what you think they mean.
If Trump does it, it's a major success. In fact Trump doesn't even have to do something for it to be a success - he just has to claim to have done so and his supporters will believe it and rush to the forums for some premature bragging.
A good example of this was his North Korean trip. FOX "news" were broadcasting as though world peace had broken out thanks to the only genius who could do it and his supporters here were repeating the nonsense as though Trump had gotten something out of this for the US that they hadn't gotten multiple times already.
If Trump supporters hadn't rushed to glorify a diplomatic performance and had actually compared it to other diplomatic performances or even just compared the concessions that each side was making, they might have realised that it was mediocre at best. But that's not how it works if you support Trump. When you support Trump, every thing he does is the best thing ever, even if he didn't actually do it.0 -
The Trump administration performance on US-SAUDI developments and relationships has been a major success for this administration in a short time period.
Not really:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/white-house-backs-off-trump-tweet-on-oil-agreement_us_5b384439e4b0f3c221a17e7d
So, as is to be expected, Trump tweeted a lie and his "administration" needs to fix things yet again. How is it you define "major success?" I don't think those words mean what you think they mean.
I pretty much outlined why I thought it was a success in my post, all 30 lines of it. Its been a huge success for both nations so far with I expect further developments to come. People expect too much short term.
People get too distracted and focus too much on Trumps tweets, poeple should be looking at whats really going on regarding the issues and ignore the tweet storms.
Mexicos new president could be another positive development for Trump adminstration, Obrador and his MORENA party are taking on corruption, political dynastys, crime and promising to refocus on Mexico with less involvment with their Central American neighbours (any of that sound familiar) and swept to victory in the Presidential race as well as gubernatorial seats. I wonder will they liberal intellegentsia call him a populist. I hope he brings some stability to his nation.
Why is it a positive for DT, well Obrador is known for his hard rhetoric regarding the US and Trump, now that he is in office, expect that to continue and the GOP will surely maximise any oppurtunities they see if Mexico escalate the rhetoric and actions with the US. (And yes I know ALL the things Trump has said about Mexico, no need for the whatabouttery DT said this responses )
My point is simply that as life and events move forward in time the new Mexican president rhetoric may embolden Trump administration and his supporters and lock in further wins in November and 2020 for the GOP.
Remember elections to a large degree (but not exclusively) are not won by getting your base or loyal supporters to vote for you, they will do that come what may, elections are won by getting the moderate middle of the road voter who can be swayed to vote for you.0 -
I pretty much outlined why I thought it was a success in my post, all 30 lines of it. Its been a huge success for both nations so far with I expect further developments to come. People expect too much short term.
People get too distracted and focus too much on Trumps tweets, poeple should be looking at whats really going on regarding the issues and ignore the tweet storms.
But that is exactly the point that people are making to you.
You come on here posting about how this or that is the greatest thing ever, and when questioned on the details you never can. So one is left to the only conclusion that you are taking the headlines and making them out to be something they aren't since you didn't actually dig any deeper.
The Trump-Kim summit is a perfect example. You fell for the PR hook, line and sinker. You claimed that others not jumping on the bandwagon were Trump haters, clouded to reality by their dislike of Trump.
All of this was based on nothing more than Trump saying how great it was, how the world was now safe and the bodies of the soldiers would be home.
The reality, of course, is far from what Trump sold you. It very much appears, and the US own services are saying this, that quite apart from denuking, NK are actually increasing work.
No soldiers remains have been returned. So far, as was pointed out, the summit was nothing more, or less, than many other summits in the past. But Trump, and his supporters, want to sell everything as the best ever.
Have you ever been able to dig up an details of the bills that passed on opioids? You know, perhaps the greatest day of his presidency?
You think that claiming "I don't look at short term" somehow absolves you of any need to give any details. So you really need to look at yourself before complaining that people are too taken in by Trumps tweets.0 -
The Democratic party imploded after SHS was refused service in a restaurant? Got a link?Another good win for the Trump administration .
They have had quite a few this week , add this to the opioid bill passing thru the house, NK returning US remains from the war and the Dems self-imploding over the RedHen-Sarah Saunders-Maxine Waters restaurant debacle .
Democrats are putting all their eggs in one basket, win the house and impeach, whilst the Trump administration is constantly moving forward implementing its program taking the small wins as well as the big ones and in doing so winning over the moderates and destroying any chance the Dems have of achiving their one and only objective. .
Here you go .. Pelosi, Schumer and Maxine in a tit for tat public spat over Maxines comments
http://thehill.com/homenews/media/395092-maxine-waters-on-criticism-from-pelosi-schumer-leadership-will-do-anything
Add in the ousting of Crowley in NY by Cortez, remember he was the 4th highest ranking Democrat in Congress, chair of their house caucus, and he has lost to an newcomer.
Id call that imploding , if your #4 guy is losing his seat , and your leaders are in spats with members of the House, especially in the run into a November mid-term cycle.
Look at multiple events to determine a cycle, dont be looking at a single events.
Ive been consistent in what I said the Dems need to do to recover, Cortez whilst not an ideal candidate represents the sort of change and re-energising they need. I still doubt they will get their act together by November and even 2020 is too close, too much of HRC baggage still hanging about that party for it to take on Trump in 2 years.0 -
Saying long term repeatedly does not make it a success. Trump is costing up to those directly funding its enemies while distancing itself from its allies. That is a fact.The Trump administration performance on US-SAUDI developments and relationships has been a major success for this administration in a short time period.
Not really:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/white-house-backs-off-trump-tweet-on-oil-agreement_us_5b384439e4b0f3c221a17e7d
So, as is to be expected, Trump tweeted a lie and his "administration" needs to fix things yet again. How is it you define "major success?" I don't think those words mean what you think they mean.
I pretty much outlined why I thought it was a success in my post, all 30 lines of it. Its been a huge success for both nations so far with I expect further developments to come. People expect too much short term.
People get too distracted and focus too much on Trumps tweets, poeple should be looking at whats really going on regarding the issues and ignore the tweet storms.
Mexicos new president could be another positive development for Trump adminstration, Obrador and his MORENA party are taking on corruption, political dynastys, crime and promising to refocus on Mexico with less involvment with their Central American neighbours (any of that sound familiar) and swept to victory in the Presidential race as well as gubernatorial seats. I wonder will they liberal intellegentsia call him a populist. I hope he brings some stability to his nation.
Why is it a positive for DT, well Obrador is known for his hard rhetoric regarding the US and Trump, now that he is in office, expect that to continue and the GOP will surely maximise any oppurtunities they see if Mexico escalate the rhetoric and actions with the US. (And yes I know ALL the things Trump has said about Mexico, no need for the whatabouttery DT said this responses )
My point is simply that as life and events move forward in time the new Mexican president rhetoric may embolden Trump administration and his supporters and lock in further wins in November and 2020 for the GOP.
Remember elections to a large degree (but not exclusively) are not won by getting your base or loyal supporters to vote for you, they will do that come what may, elections are won by getting the moderate middle of the road voter who can be swayed to vote for you.
There is no long term view. I am not certain Trump is aware of the concept right now. Nothing he has done has been with a view to the long term. Hence the abandonment of Trumpcare when it failed. He saw it fail and he stopped working on it and pretended he never tried. Same thing with the immigration bill. As soon as it failed he claimed he had nothing to do with it.0 -
I pretty much outlined why I thought it was a success in my post, all 30 lines of it. Its been a huge success for both nations so far with I expect further developments to come. People expect too much short term.
People get too distracted and focus too much on Trumps tweets, poeple should be looking at whats really going on regarding the issues and ignore the tweet storms.
But that is exactly the point that people are making to you.
You come on here posting about how this or that is the greatest thing ever, and when questioned on the details you never can. So one is left to the only conclusion that you are taking the headlines and making them out to be something they aren't since you didn't actually dig any deeper.
The Trump-Kim summit is a perfect example. You fell for the PR hook, line and sinker. You claimed that others not jumping on the bandwagon were Trump haters, clouded to reality by their dislike of Trump.
All of this was based on nothing more than Trump saying how great it was, how the world was now safe and the bodies of the soldiers would be home.
The reality, of course, is far from what Trump sold you. It very much appears, and the US own services are saying this, that quite apart from denuking, NK are actually increasing work.
No soldiers remains have been returned. So far, as was pointed out, the summit was nothing more, or less, than many other summits in the past. But Trump, and his supporters, want to sell everything as the best ever.
Have you ever been able to dig up an details of the bills that passed on opioids? You know, perhaps the greatest day of his presidency?
You think that claiming "I don't look at short term" somehow absolves you of any need to give any details. So you really need to look at yourself before complaining that people are too taken in by Trumps tweets.
Heres a detail , NK hasnt tested any nuclear devices since the summit was announced and happened, nor have they tested an ICBM.
Those are the details I like and I see as a success, and yes its a long term issue.
Just cause you ignore this sort of DETAIL , doesnt mean I dont post details.
It just means you dont see it as a detail, nothing I can do about it.
You dont like my details, its a free country , thats fine, Im comfortable with them.
Thankfully this lack of planning and long term vision was not around during many of the other major crisis the world has faced in the last 50 years.
You lot would be playing the same whiny ill-judged analysis " but nothings happened" if this was 1986 and we had just had the Reykjavik summit , but nothings happened, nothing happened ad nauseum on repeat , the summit was a failure would be the cries from the left , but 18 months later we had the INF treaty . And one could legitimately argue those talks (which actually collapsed) ultimately led to glasnost and perestroika.
So yes things are long term , socio-geo political events play out over years even decades. If you think otherwise you know nothing about history.
And this is why Trump is winning, his administration momentum is moving forward playing a long term strategy , whilst his detractors are consumed with over-analysing the first press release and a few tweets.0 -
They are not sticking to the deal: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/07/02/north-korea-reportedly-expands-major-missile-plant-report.htmlHeres a detail , NK hasnt tested any nuclear devices since the summit was announced and happened, nor have they tested an ICBM.
Those are the details I like and I see as a success, and yes its a long term issue.0 -
Heres a detail , NK hasnt tested any nuclear devices since the summit was announced and happened, nor have they tested an ICBM.
Those are the details I like and I see as a success, and yes its a long term issue.
Just cause you ignore this sort of DETAIL , doesnt mean I dont post details.
It just means you dont see it as a detail, nothing I can do about it.
You dont like my details, its a free country , thats fine, Im comfortable with them.
Thankfully this lack of planning and long term vision was not around during many of the other major crisis the world has faced in the last 50 years.
You lot would be playing the same whiny ill-judged analysis " but nothings happened" if this was 1986 and we had just had the Reykjavik summit , but nothings happened, nothing happened ad nauseum on repeat , the summit was a failure would be the cries from the left , but 18 months later we had the INF treaty . And one could legitimately argue those talks (which actually collapsed) ultimately led to glasnost and perestroika.
So yes things are long term , socio-geo political events play out over years even decades. If you think otherwise you know nothing about history.
And this is why Trump is winning, his administration momentum is moving forward playing a long term strategy , whilst his detractors are consumed with over-analysing the first press release and a few tweets.
So did you call out Trump when earlier in 2017 they continued to test missiles despite Trump calling Kim Rocket man and threatening total annihilation?
You seem to be suggesting that Trump agreeing to the summit has something to do with the lack of testing? Even the WH is not pushing this line. Trump put no preconditions on the summit.
NK stopped testing because 1) they achieved the project plan ie have verifiable nuclear weapons and 2) the testing site collapsed.
So, as usual, you are given Trump credit for something he had nothing to do with.
And the question is on what basis to do give Trump this credit? There are no independent reports about the meeting claiming it was a massive success. The only really positive (apart from talking is better than not) is coming from Trump himself.
You made the point that people should not focus on his Tweets, but there is no other explanation as to why you think it was success than you are taking his word on it.
In the post you recently reposted you included the lineNK returning US remains from the war
There is no evidence of this happening, even Pompeo has admitted to congress that there has been not movement on this. So why do you post this as a positive? The US has been asking for the remains for years, all Trump did was ask the policy of the US.
So on what basis did you make that statement? One can only conclude that you took Trump's word.
What is strange is that you continually blame others on here for not liking your details, yet time and time again, (the latest being you spin on the Saudi story taken directly from Trump) yet you seem totally oblivious to the fact that in nearly all cases Trump tweets need to be reviewed pretty soon after and rarely stand up to scruntiny.
You talk about the long term and my advice was that you should heed you own advice. Stop trying to jump on every little tweet that Trump sends out to try to push the agenda that Trump is winning. Surely even you can see that the most basic approach when dealing with anything Trump is to avoid a quick reply and wait for the real story to emerge.0 -
FreudianSlippers wrote: »
They are not sticking to the deal: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/07/02/north-korea-reportedly-expands-major-missile-plant-report.htmlHeres a detail , NK hasnt tested any nuclear devices since the summit was announced and happened, nor have they tested an ICBM.
Those are the details I like and I see as a success, and yes its a long term issue.
Well thankfully there are adults involved in the negotiations who understand that the road to peace and stability is long and winding and has many turns , and some steps back as well as forwards. Im sure this event is part of the discussions taking place outside of the medias microscope.
As long as the overall momentum is moving forward then Trump administration so far seem are comfortable with handling the issues that arise.
I lived thru the Rekjavik summits, glasnost, peristrokia, heck I even have a piece of the wall somewhere in the attic . I lived thru the northern Ireland peace process, where back channels and unofficial talks were taking place throughout the 80s, with the first major ceasefires being in 94 and ultimatley leading to Good Friday agreement in 98 or thereabouts.
Do you think there were'nt any deals broken, words or bonds broken in that time frame ... too many to even mention , but again as a long term game it ultimately played out.
And by and large the media understood this, they understood the seriousness of these events, they understood the part they had to play, they understood there were breakdowns in talks, they understood the complexity of it all , and they did not jump the gun by calling these talks failures, or laying the blame at those who were trying to get stability. They were more interested in a positive outcome than they were in one party (Trump) failing.
Thats all changed since Trump, the media are both jeopardising positive outcomes and also just interested in gaining brownie points with their Trump derangement readers. One positive of the internet is this is all public record now and will come back to haunt them , long term.
Maybe its because of the video age, people are expecting results by the end of the daily news cycle. Looking for instant gratification in their world events, no patience or understanding of the real pace that things move at.0 -
Advertisement
-
Well thankfully there are adults involved in the negotiations who understand that the road to peace and stability is long and winding and has many turns
I take it Trump is not one of them?
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/10068378234697359360
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement