Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VI

mcmoustache

hotmail.com wrote: »

I just think this is nonsense. Surely the bombing and killing of thousands of people is the gravest scandal of all.

Carrying out US foreign policy, detestable as it is, is not what the word "Scandal" is typically used to describe.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

Fair play to Trump on Bolton if nothing else.

everlast75

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

Fair play to Trump on Bolton if nothing else.

Bolton was a contemptible a hole.

That doesn't mean Trump isn't one too.

3 National Security advisors in 2.5 years. Only the best people eh?

Franz Von Peppercorn II

everlast75 wrote: »

Bolton was a contemptible a hole.

That doesn't mean Trump isn't one too.

3 National Security advisors in 2.5 years. Only the best people eh?

I didn’t say he wasn’t but my concern with the US is largely it’s foreign policy.

amandstu

Changing the subject to Sharpiegate,has anyone a clue as to who might have drawn in that extra bit onto the map of Dorian's anticipated trajectory?

Seems so weird.Was it something Trump was trying to draw to get his point across in private and that his advisors forgot (or were shouted down) which got mistakenly displayed publicly? (and which S**t for Potus felt compelled to defend)

mcmoustache

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

Fair play to Trump on Bolton if nothing else.

There will need to be a successor though. One would hope that he will avoid neocons but you never really know with this guy. Bolton was a horrifying choice but that doesn't mean that he can't find worse out there.

Brian?

hotmail.com wrote: »

Not with the praise heaped onto Obama here. You implied above that at least Obama was honest about it. Have you lost any sense of realness during this Trump circus?

Hold up there, I said it was wrong. But at least Obama wasn't hiding the numbers of people killed.

mcmoustache

amandstu wrote: »

Changing the subject to Sharpiegate,has anyone a clue as to who might have drawn in that extra bit onto the map of Dorian's anticipated trajectory?

Seems so weird.Was it something Trump was trying to draw to get his point across in private and that his advisors forgot (or were shouted down) which got mistakenly displayed publicly? (and which **** for Potus felt compelled to defend)

I though it was reported that he drew it himself.

Brian?

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

Fair play to Trump on Bolton if nothing else.

Yeah, but he did hire him in the first place. Credit for correcting his own mistake, is hardly any credit at all really.

Brian?

mcmoustache wrote: »

I though it was reported that he drew it himself.

I was never admitted by Trump or anyone publicly. But Whitehouse staffers leaked that it was him.

amandstu

mcmoustache wrote: »

I though it was reported that he drew it himself.

Doesn't it only seem to work as some approximation to a very rough draft?

If he drew it himself ,why not stand by it and explain it?

Or maybe he just doesn't understand weather maps;)

B0jangles

The weather chart sharpie thing makes total sense if you assume Trump is now about as cunning as a 5-year old.

Christy42

I mean I reckon Bolton resigning if he had personal reasons makes more sense.

Trump's reason is no agreed with him but Bolton has always been a warmonger. Why hire him and give him a serious role if his opinions that he was already quite public about would be an issue?

Bolton with less power is always a great thing. He is a stain on the human race. However even if it was a firing it is just fixing a mistake from Trump. It isn't like Bolton's opinions just became known to Trump. He hired the warmonger knowing he was a warmonger.

hotmail.com

rossie1977 wrote: »

hotmail.com wrote: »

The amount of bombing carried out under Obama really should horrify Irish people, in particular the thousands of bombs dropped by drones.

How this doesn't amount to a scandal and a national humiliation is something I don't understand.

The drone stuff made nearly weekly headline news under Obama and people rightly were critical of him over it.

But fact is drone strikes and civilian deaths due to drone strikes have ramped up massively under Trump and there is barely a word from the mainstream media in the US or UK about it...

It's equally horrific yes. On the issues that matter, not a lot has changes when there's a presidential change in America.

everlast75

hotmail.com wrote: »

It's equally horrific yes. On the issues that matter, not a lot has changes when there's a presidential change in America.

That last sentence is nonsense, with respect.

Look at the wode range of damage Trump has done in 2.5 years. It has set the US back years. Possibly irretrievably so.

serfboard

everlast75 wrote: »

Look at the wode range of damage Trump has done in 2.5 years.

I’m no defender of Trump, but here’s one metric - number of wars started? Zero.

hotmail.com

everlast75 wrote: »

hotmail.com wrote: »

It's equally horrific yes. On the issues that matter, not a lot has changes when there's a presidential change in America.

That last sentence is nonsense, with respect.

Look at the wode range of damage Trump has done in 2.5 years. It has set the US back years. Possibly irretrievably so.

And that's a bad thing?

everlast75

Can we put it on the record - another employee Trump didn't have the balls to fire in person?

Ffs - it is THE one thing he was supposed to be able to do...

mcmoustache

The US hasn't declared war on anyone since the second world war - although that wouldn't be a good metric when you consider Vietnam and Iraq 2.

I get what you're saying though. It's a relief that he didn't end up going for Iran. I get the impression that for all his faults, he's not pro-war like the the neocons, which is why I was a bit worried about Bolton.

Part of me thinks that it would be difficult for him, even if he wanted it. For those who remember Bush's term, the lead up to Iraq was basically a propaganda campaign to get enough of the public onside - implying connections between Hussein and Al Q'aeda and pretending that he was an existential threat. It required months of competent, if nasty, people, including many in the press staying on message. That's not something that I could see this shower of clowns achieve.

Gbear

I don't think Trump sees where he can make money off of a war with Iran.

Ultimately, I think he wants a pretty quiet life. He wants to siphon money out of the treasury and foreign dignitaries into his businesses, he wants to make quid pro quos with various dictators, he wants to ease his tax burden and earn favours from others by doing same, and, of course, he wants to keep out of prison by hamstringing investigations into his corruption.

On an aesthetic basis, and in terms of buttressing his ego by having perceived achievements, things like the Wall marry his love of self-aggrandisement with his petty racism, but it's not born of an overall vision or set of values.

Bolton is a different beast entirely. I think he's more like Bannon, in that he's a monster, with a fairly clear set of contemptible ideals that he's fanatical about pursuing.

In both cases, while their aims aligned with Trumps' they were useful to have around, but they ultimately had different aims.

everlast75

hotmail.com wrote: »

And that's a bad thing?

Yes.

Isolating the US from its allies.

Supporting dictatorships.

Rowing back on human rights.

Increasing racial tensions.

Increasing corruption in the US government.

Debasing the office of the president.

Attacking the press.

Inciting violence.

Need I go on?

Jesus- going to war is not the only metric to judge a president.

listermint

This whole Bolton trump jazz is solely about the peace deal with the Taliban. Bolton has always had some I'm sure choice words to say about it. And actively engaged in sabotage for it.

Trump's been doing a pure solo run on it especially the whole early September sign the deal stuff.

It appears this process has come to a head.

This is not family reasons this is 2 massive egos smashing off each other.

hotmail.com

everlast75 wrote: »

hotmail.com wrote: »

And that's a bad thing?

Yes.

Isolating the US from its allies.

Supporting dictatorships.

Rowing back on human rights.

Increasing racial tensions.

Increasing corruption in the US government.

Debasing the office of the president.

Attacking the press.

Inciting violence.

Need I go on?

Jesus- going to war is not the only metric to judge a president.

But from our point of view, is it a bad thing? I don't see how debasing the office of the presidency affects anyone for example.

US foreign policy is the key policy that should interest Irish opinion. So, yes, starting wars and bombing is the main metre we should use to assess how good they are.

everlast75

listermint wrote: »

This whole Bolton trump jazz is solely about the peace deal with the Taliban. Bolton has always had some I'm sure choice words to say about it. And actively engaged in sabotage for it.

Trump's been doing a pure solo run on it especially the whole early September sign the deal stuff.

It appears this process has come to a head.

This is not family reasons this is 2 massive egos smashing off each other.

My guess is Trump had this trumped up notion (no pun intended) that he would broker a peace deal the week of 9/11 and secure his long lusted after Nobel prize. He invited the Taliban to Camp David as a big incentive and foolishly thought they would quit doing what they do, i.e. bomb people. Bolton got pi$$ed that he invited them and for that reason or the bombing and/or other reasons, it was cancelled. So Trump can't help but play the victim and blurt out that it was everyone else's fault, boo hoo, no Nobel prize for 45.

Just my guess.

everlast75

hotmail.com wrote: »

But from our point of view, is it a bad thing? I don't see how debasing the office of the presidency affects anyone for example.

US foreign policy is the key policy that should interest Irish opinion. So, yes, starting wars and bombing is the main metre we should use to assess how good they are.

Okay. If that's how you judge the US president, how it affects us, then what about tanking the US economy and how that affects the world economy, including ours? Or how about isolationist affecting US investment in Ireland? Or how Irish immigrants in the US are treated. That's 3 off the top of my head.

Rjd2

mcmoustache wrote: »

The US hasn't declared war on anyone since the second world war - although that wouldn't be a good metric when you consider Vietnam and Iraq 2.

I get what you're saying though. It's a relief that he didn't end up going for Iran. I get the impression that for all his faults, he's not pro-war like the the neocons, which is why I was a bit worried about Bolton.

Part of me thinks that it would be difficult for him, even if he wanted it. For those who remember Bush's term, the lead up to Iraq was basically a propaganda campaign to get enough of the public onside - implying connections between Hussein and Al Q'aeda and pretending that he was an existential threat. It required months of competent, if nasty, people, including many in the press staying on message. That's not something that I could see this shower of clowns achieve.

He flips from warmonger to somewhat dovish quite regularly which is understandable when he has Graham in one ear and Rand in another and has no strong beliefs one way or other.

Either way he isn't that bothered. He floated withdrawing from Syria/Afghanistan which bar some Libertarians and some lefties was shouted down by mainstream Dems and Republicans. So that was that.

He has actually been a gift to neocons by accident. He hires plenty as his options are limited and obviously you have horrors like Boot and Kristol who have tried to reinvent themselves as "true conservatives" and argue that Iraq was one of those things.

The most likely Republicans to run for 2024 are Hailey and Cotton . Both are presentable, neither of them will tweet inane drivel at midnight and are competent politicians.

However unlike Trump they will actually be much more focused on the neocon agenda. Hailey especially is frightening, got the neocons in one pocket and seems popular with the Trump base.

From a purely foreign policy POV, I'd probably prefer Trump over Hailey.

Republican party is ****ed long term basically.

FrostyJack

everlast75 wrote:

Okay. If that's how you judge the US president, how it affects us, then what about tanking the US economy and how that affects the world economy, including ours? Or how about isolationist affecting US investment in Ireland? Or how Irish immigrants in the US are treated. That's 3 off the top of my head.

Nato, the attacks on it. Repealing environmental protections, pulling out of Paris accord and denying climate change. Pulling out Iran deal and nuclear missle treaty with Russia, bringing the threat of nuclear war closer to reality. Plans to pull out of other treaty with Russia after 2020 which will make it a free for all. Doing nothing openly to curb Russian interference in other countries elections, closer to home. These are just another few things he has done that no sane person would do, that affects us off the top of my head.

J Mysterio

hotmail.com wrote: »

But from our point of view, is it a bad thing? I don't see how debasing the office of the presidency affects anyone for example.

US foreign policy is the key policy that should interest Irish opinion. So, yes, starting wars and bombing is the main metre we should use to assess how good they are.

This is maybe the most stupid post I have read in some time. Please read this again and then think about it. Shameful and bizarre.

serfboard

Gbear wrote: »

Ultimately, I think he wants a pretty quiet life.

I was going to post that you don't start trade wars with China (and possibly Europe) if you want a quiet life. But then I remembered that:

Donald Trump wrote:

Trade wars are good, and easy to win

hotmail.com

J Mysterio wrote: »

This is maybe the most stupid post I have read in some time. Please read this again and then think about it. Shameful and bizarre.

Rather than resort to a hysterical response, perhaps give us a clue what you disagree with.