Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VI

Stallingrad

hotmail.com wrote: »

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

"I don't see how debasing the office of the presidency affects anyone for example."

The above quote shows you have as much understanding of a Presidency as Trump has.

everlast75

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1171760235935125508?s=20


Can he not just ****ing leave it, given the day that is in it.

Miserable, petty, sulking little....

Tchaikovsky

He's solemnly reflecting on 7/11 9/11

aloyisious

My regrets to anyone who lost relatives, friends etc on this day in NYC and the Pentagon, and in the one plane prevented by passengers from completing its bomb-run, in 2001.

Speaking of drone bombing in Afghanistan, I was surprised to see a short film on the topic yesterday with RAF controllers delivering drone missile and bomb runs there, the operations remote-controlled from a base in Nevada, USA.

I noted how Don has been to the Carolina States in the past few days showing an interest in how the States were affected by the hurricane-storm but also supporting the GOP candidates in the elections in Carolina. I think he was using the storm for party political purposes there.

duploelabs

aloyisious wrote: »

My regrets to anyone who lost relatives, friends etc on this day in NYC and the Pentagon, and in the one plane prevented by passengers from completing its bomb-run, in 2001.

Speaking of drone bombing in Afghanistan, I was surprised to see a short film on the topic yesterday with RAF controllers delivering drone missile and bomb runs there, the operations remote-controlled from a base in Nevada, USA.

I noted how Don has been to the Carolina States in the past few days showing an interest in how the States were affected by the hurricane-storm but also supporting the GOP candidates in the elections in Carolina. I think he was using the storm for party political purposes there.

He's also blocked hurricane refugees from the Bahamas from entering the states as he believes some of them may be gang members. A true humanitarian

Tchaikovsky

I hate him with the power of a thousand cancer-causing windmills.

serfboard

duploelabs wrote: »

He's also blocked hurricane refugees from the Bahamas from entering the states as he believes some of them may be gang members black.

FYP.

J Mysterio

hotmail.com wrote: »

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

I don't see how debasing the office of the presidency affects anyone for example.

It shouldnt need pointing out to you but a sitting US president 'debasing the office' affects the president, subsequent presidents, the American people and their allies. It sullies their reputation and standing in the world. It's not a good thing. How could it be? Doesnt make any sense.

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.

You think the metric we should use to judge the success of a US administration is how many bombs they drop and how many wars they start? That is not only bizarre, it is sick, and I would recommended you think deeply about why you believe such a thing and why. That is very strange and unhealthy. You must be very sad about the loss of John Bolton.

TomOnBoard

Manic Moran wrote: »

I haven't spoken to anyone about it, honestly, neither have I seen much cross my feed.

I don't know if I have an opinion either. There's the old saw that you don't make peace with your friends, but with your enemies. Honestly, the purpose of Afghanistan to my mind was to deny a base of operations for those who would strike at the US. Though I would prefer to see a more democratic/less totalitarian Afghanistan than the Taliban rule had, I think at this point the 'point has been made' about hosting folks who attack us, and if the Afghans can't sort themselves out, we've given them fifteen years of trying to help. The general concepts put out by the negotiator didn't seem too far off the mark.

That said, I can't say I'm actively sorry to see the talks failed either, as the Taliban have not stopped their attacks pending discussion outcomes, neither have they apparently engaged with the Afghan government. So for now, I'm also happy enough to see operations against them continue.

Regardless of the philosophical questions as to whether making peace is a good or bad thing, I would have thought that anyone close to the US military would see that attempt at self-aggrandisement by POTUS to have been appallingly ill-judged and crassly insulting to the memories of the thousands who died on 9/11.

Not only does it fly in the face of the long-held view of successive US administrations that "we don't negotiate with terrorists", the pros/cons of which are debatable, but it was disgracefully inept! He arranged for those who offered succour and shelter to the architects of the 9/11 massacre to meet in one of the most sacred places of shelter for US Presidents just days before the anniversary of their awful crime. Who does that?? And, given the loss of lives, including Military personnel at the Pentagon, how can one NOT have an opinion thereon?

Zubeneschamali

J Mysterio wrote: »

It shouldnt need pointing out to you but a sitting US president 'debasing the office' affects the president, subsequent presidents, the American people and their allies

Yes, but here in Ireland we are none of those things.

Trump is obviously much worse for America and Americans than Obama or, say Dubya, but in World terms Trump is mostly just a clown. He hasn't killed tens or hundreds of thousands of non-American folks the way American Presidents often do, he just tweets pro-dictator nonsense and steals US taxpayers money.

Mainly "not our problem" kind of stuff.

TomOnBoard

Igotadose wrote: »

Ross failed on the citizenship/census question and now bringing more embarrassment to Trump. Next cabinet secretary to go.

Ross will never be pushed out by Trump, no matter how badly he acts!

Ross has all the dirt on Trump dealings with Russian Oligarchs through his role as VP of the Bank of Cyprus, so Trump will keep him close for ever!

hotmail.com

J Mysterio wrote: »

It shouldnt need pointing out to you but a sitting US president 'debasing the office' affects the president, subsequent presidents, the American people and their allies. It sullies their reputation and standing in the world. It's not a good thing. How could it be? Doesnt make any sense.



You think the metric we should use to judge the success of a US administration is how many bombs they drop and how many wars they start? That is not only bizarre, it is sick, and I would recommended you think deeply about why you believe such a thing and why. That is very strange and unhealthy. You must be very sad about the loss of John Bolton.

Just more hysteria. Difficult to conduct a conversation in this way.

But I do stand by that debasing the office of the presidency is not something people care about. Perhaps you need to talk to real people outside of the US political bubble.

hotmail.com

Stallingrad wrote: »

"I don't see how debasing the office of the presidency affects anyone for example."

The above quote shows you have as much understanding of a Presidency as Trump has.

Resorting now to insults when you're faced with something you disagree with.

The anti Trumpers seem only able to debate with pro Trumpers.. those that bring up separate points seem to confuse them.

J Mysterio

hotmail.com wrote: »

Just more hysteria. Difficult to conduct a conversation in this way.

But I do stand by that debasing the office of the presidency is not something people care about. Perhaps you need to talk to real people outside of the US political bubble.

Very strange.

Do you also standby your assertion that the measure of US Foreign Policy success is how many bombs they drop and wars they start?

I can understand how it might be difficult for you to conduct a conversation given your views and, if that is your starting position, everything must be hysterical in comparison for you (e.g. people opposed to war, people who expect the US president to conduct themselves well).

eire4

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yes, but here in Ireland we are none of those things.

Trump is obviously much worse for America and Americans than Obama or, say Dubya, but in World terms Trump is mostly just a clown. He hasn't killed tens or hundreds of thousands of non-American folks the way American Presidents often do, he just tweets pro-dictator nonsense and steals US taxpayers money.

Mainly "not our problem" kind of stuff.

I would disagree. Like it or not the US is the most powerful country on the planet and when the president of that country is a far right demagogue with authoritarian ambitions that is a danger to us all. For instance he has done horrific damage with drone strikes that have killed so many innocents.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/middle-east-civilian-deaths-have-soared-under-trump-and-the-media-mostly-shrug/2018/03/16/fc344968-2932-11e8-874b-d517e912f125_story.html

Or take his climate stance which again hurts us all by his refusal to work towards ways in which we can get off fossil fuels and help mitigate the damage to our climate.

J Mysterio

He is also a proponent of Brexit and has been extremely critical of the EU. Both of which affect us deeply.

Stallingrad

hotmail.com wrote: »

those that bring up separate points seem to confuse them.

There was nothing confusing about your post. And if a Trump supporter can convince me the man is fit for office despite all the evidence to the contrary I am all ears, but I have yet to hear one try.

If you can please go for it.

Zubeneschamali

eire4 wrote: »

Or take his climate stance which again hurts us all by his refusal to work towards ways in which we can get off fossil fuels and help mitigate the damage to our climate.

Well, sure, but any republican president is going to be a climate denier, same as Trump has to pretend to be a Christian, it goes with the Party nomination.

The fact that Trump is corrupt and incompetent and surrounded by corruption and incompetence means he is getting less done than a regular Republican, and that's a good thing.

Manic Moran

TomOnBoard wrote: »

Regardless of the philosophical questions as to whether making peace is a good or bad thing, I would have thought that anyone close to the US military would see that attempt at self-aggrandisement by POTUS to have been appallingly ill-judged and crassly insulting to the memories of the thousands who died on 9/11.

Not only does it fly in the face of the long-held view of successive US administrations that "we don't negotiate with terrorists", the pros/cons of which are debatable, but it was disgracefully inept! He arranged for those who offered succour and shelter to the architects of the 9/11 massacre to meet in one of the most sacred places of shelter for US Presidents just days before the anniversary of their awful crime. Who does that?? And, given the loss of lives, including Military personnel at the Pentagon, how can one NOT have an opinion thereon?

As opposed to what? Keeping hatred because one refuses to accept the possibility of anything else? The people responsible for the 9/11 attacks are dead. The man who led the Taliban in 2001 is dead. We have generally made our point: F** with us, and we kill you and wreck your s**. Is the current Taliban really about to repeat the mistakes of the dearly lamented Mullah Omar, given what happened to him and his government?

I can't say I'm thrilled at the thought that such negotiations are necessary, but the reality is, it is. We are not going to go and invade Pakistan with overwhelming force sufficient to cordon and clear the Taliban. We cannot magic the Afghan security forces into defeating the insurgency if they don't have the will to do so. Our three remaining choices, so, are to either negotiate with them and get the best deal we can for our future requirements, continue as we are indefinitely, or to just up stakes, pull out like we did in Vietnam, and let the Taliban do what they want without even the pretense of any constraints. The latter, though arguably a policy we should have taken from the start (Go in, wreck the Taliban, leave immediately) would now be nothing but a defeat. The second is the course basically taken for the last 18 years. There will, starting tomorrow, be soldiers eligible to deploy to Afghanistan who were not born when the attacks which started the war happened. There is no reason to believe that continuing as normal will change this trend and that we won't be there in another 18 years if nothing changes.

"We don't negotiate with terrorists" is a great by-line, but the reality is, if we have to, we do. As does every other country faced with an insurgency they can't (or won't) defeat. Being in Ireland, this should be something of which you are well aware.

jochenstacker

Stallingrad wrote: »

There was nothing confusing about your post. And if a Trump supporter can convince me the man is fit for office despite all the evidence to the contrary I am all ears, but I have yet to hear one try.

If you can please go for it.

And the rest was silence.

listermint

Manic Moran wrote: »

As opposed to what? Keeping hatred because one refuses to accept the possibility of anything else? The people responsible for the 9/11 attacks are dead. The man who led the Taliban in 2001 is dead. We have generally made our point: F** with us, and we kill you and wreck your s**. Is the current Taliban really about to repeat the mistakes of the dearly lamented Mullah Omar, given what happened to him and his government?

I can't say I'm thrilled at the thought that such negotiations are necessary, but the reality is, it is. We are not going to go and invade Pakistan with overwhelming force sufficient to cordon and clear the Taliban. We cannot magic the Afghan security forces into defeating the insurgency if they don't have the will to do so. Our three remaining choices, so, are to either negotiate with them and get the best deal we can for our future requirements, continue as we are indefinitely, or to just up stakes, pull out like we did in Vietnam, and let the Taliban do what they want without even the pretense of any constraints. The latter, though arguably a policy we should have taken from the start (Go in, wreck the Taliban, leave immediately) would now be nothing but a defeat. The second is the course basically taken for the last 18 years. There will, starting tomorrow, be soldiers eligible to deploy to Afghanistan who were not born when the attacks which started the war happened. There is no reason to believe that continuing as normal will change this trend and that we won't be there in another 18 years if nothing changes.

"We don't negotiate with terrorists" is a great by-line, but the reality is, if we have to, we do. As does every other country faced with an insurgency they can't (or won't) defeat. Being in Ireland, this should be something of which you are well aware.

You actually didn't address his point.


At all.

Manic Moran

listermint wrote: »

You actually didn't address his point.

At all.

With respect, the bottom line of his point (as per his closing statement) was that I should have an opinion, which I would take to mean a position of personal preference, approval or disapproval, that sort of thing.

I have just explained the cause of my ambivalence: Why I am neither cheering the move, nor condemning it. The situation just is what it is.

rocksolidfat

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.

If you truly believe that to be the case, are you not utterly horrified by the massive increase in bombings and drone strikes in Yemen since Trump took office?

And are you not disgusted by Trump vetoing bills to withdraw support for this conflict, as he did only in April of this year? https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/apr/16/trump-yemen-war-veto-military-aid

Added to that, and with how aggressive and just generally scummy they are, are you not horrified by the fact that this same Trump administration is also point blank giving extremely sensitive nuclear research info to the Saudis? https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/apr/16/trump-yemen-war-veto-military-aid

TomOnBoard

Manic Moran wrote: »

As opposed to what? Keeping hatred because one refuses to accept the possibility of anything else? The people responsible for the 9/11 attacks are dead. The man who led the Taliban in 2001 is dead. We have generally made our point: F** with us, and we kill you and wreck your s**. Is the current Taliban really about to repeat the mistakes of the dearly lamented Mullah Omar, given what happened to him and his government?

I can't say I'm thrilled at the thought that such negotiations are necessary, but the reality is, it is. We are not going to go and invade Pakistan with overwhelming force sufficient to cordon and clear the Taliban. We cannot magic the Afghan security forces into defeating the insurgency if they don't have the will to do so. Our three remaining choices, so, are to either negotiate with them and get the best deal we can for our future requirements, continue as we are indefinitely, or to just up stakes, pull out like we did in Vietnam, and let the Taliban do what they want without even the pretense of any constraints. The latter, though arguably a policy we should have taken from the start (Go in, wreck the Taliban, leave immediately) would now be nothing but a defeat. The second is the course basically taken for the last 18 years. There will, starting tomorrow, be soldiers eligible to deploy to Afghanistan who were not born when the attacks which started the war happened. There is no reason to believe that continuing as normal will change this trend and that we won't be there in another 18 years if nothing changes.

"We don't negotiate with terrorists" is a great by-line, but the reality is, if we have to, we do. As does every other country faced with an insurgency they can't (or won't) defeat. Being in Ireland, this should be something of which you are well aware.

You're clearly and deliberately missing my point!

My problem is this:

The Taliban aided and abetted bin Laden's existence in Afghanistan, providing him with shelter and support. He launched the 9/11 attacks from that sheltered position, at a time when he was being chased as an absolute terrorist out of Sudan and other places. He was a pariah already, having arranged the US Embassy bombings as well as the attack on the USS Cole, among many other attacks and atrocities. He then, with the Taliban's succour and shelter, launched the 9/11 attacks.

Now, less than 20 years after that, and on the Anniversary of the most heinous attack by foreigners on the US since Pearl Harbour, the President arranges fro the same Taliban, to come to Camp David, for what was clearly an exercise in self- aggrandisement. That was totally and absolutely an appalling decision. It flew in the face of the memories of all those who were murdered and injured, and many first responders who survived (to the extent that they still live, despite their massive injuries, recently derided by Moscow Mitch).. It was simply inexcusable!

As to whether there ought to be peace talks or otherwise with the Taliban, that was never the issue for me. Those talks have been going on in Quatr for many months now. However, they seem to have excluded the sitting Afghan regime, and have focused on US/Taliban perspectives. I fail to see how meaningful progress can be attained in this manner, where the current Government, despite its many deficiencies are not only un-involved, but are also not consulted.

Finally, my reply to your post was that I was struggling to see how someone in the Military could say that he had no opinion on Trump's Camp David invitation to the Taliban within days of the 9/11 anniversary, an anniversary of the many Military personnel who were killed and injured. Simply that!

TomOnBoard

Manic Moran wrote: »

With respect, the bottom line of his point (as per his closing statement) was that I should have an opinion, which I would take to mean a position of personal preference, approval or disapproval, that sort of thing.

I have just explained the cause of my ambivalence: Why I am neither cheering the move, nor condemning it. The situation just is what it is.

Sorry, No!

The bottom line of my point is that WaterJohn asked you:

"Manic, any opinion on Trump bringing the Taliban to Camp David? How do those in the military feel about it?"

And, frankly you never answered his question,but went off on a deflection around whether negotiation with the Taliban is a good or a bad thing.

You are seen around here by many of us as a good window into US Military thinking, and valued as such. Some posters have tried to eviscerate you, but many others, including myself, have valued your insights, having seen them as largely agnostic to the current power, and have supported you in your postings.

On this occasion, however, I regret that your otherwise sensible postings demonstrate a failure to call out Trump for a manifestly appalling decision. Not only that, your responses here demonstrate a level of obfuscation that I would not have expected from you.

BorneTobyWilde

Is this the year 9/11 fades into the memory. Usually this day is full of programs on Discovery and History channel, Rte, Channel 4. This year nothing, not one reminder of this day. Seems rest of world is letting American remember while they just forget.

Itssoeasy

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Is this the year 9/11 fades into the memory. Usually this day is full of programs on Discovery and History channel, Rte, Channel 4. This year nothing, not one reminder of this day. Seems rest of world is letting American remember while they just forget.

There’s plenty of footage of the news from the day on YouTube. I realize that’s not the point you’re making but I assume there will be a big thing made of it in two years time for the twentieth anniversary.

TomOnBoard

Itssoeasy wrote: »

There’s plenty of footage of the news from the day on YouTube. I realize that’s not the point you’re making but I assume there will be a big thing made of it in two years time for the twentieth anniversary.

I actually get what the OP is saying.. This is the 1st year in my memory that the planes flying into the towers have not figured as mainstream news media footage on this day. That makes me wonder if there is an editorializing going on that is intending to make so-called ' peace talks ' with the Taliban more generally acceptable...

Perhaps, on the other hand, media outlets have become simply embarrassed at the antics of some politicians to interject themselves into a 9/11 heroism narrative. Witness the claims by Trump today at the Pentagon ceremony that he actually 'went down there, along with some of his people' to help! Not a single 1st responder or their on-site records has ANY record of that! Clearly, it's yet another lie, this time leveraging the souls of almost 3000, simply to big-up Trump! How SICK is that?

TomOnBoard

I could never see why Trump brought Bolton in as NSA. Now that he is O.U.T., whether he was tired or resigned, he will be absolutely no loss..

Is it too much to hope for, that they might actually get someone of some sense to replace him??

Manic Moran

TomOnBoard wrote: »

The bottom line of my point is that WaterJohn asked you:
"Manic, any opinion on Trump bringing the Taliban to Camp David? How do those in the military feel about it?"

And, frankly you never answered his question,but went off on a deflection around whether negotiation with the Taliban is a good or a bad thing.

On what am I supposed to base a personal opinion on that subject other than my personal thoughts over whether or not negotiation with the Taliban is a good or bad thing?

As I told him, I'm not sure I have an opinion. I'm abivalent on the matter, and I explained why I am not totally against the idea, as some seem to think I should be.

What more do you want?