Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VI

prawnsambo

Aretheymyfeet wrote: »

You may have a point though that's to suggest previous Presidents economic and trade policies were good. Clinton's NAFTA destroyed both US and Mexican farmers livelihoods, for example. Obama was pushing TTIP and TPP, which are hugely destructive policies. Trump appears to have killed off TTIP and TPP, though may resurrect both or worse in the future, who knows? He attacked NAFTA (rightly so), though by some accounts, his 'fix' may be even worse.

Without getting into a discussion on agriculture, the biggest problem US farmers have faced to date is Trump's current bizarre trade policies. To the extent that they've had to be bailed out. There are a lot of other problems facing US agriculture, not least being the ludicrous intensified beef farming which takes up to half of US arable land for feedstuffs.

Aretheymyfeet wrote: »

Trump is right to highlight the trade deficit with China, though again his solutions don't really cut it.

Trade deficits aren't necessarily a bad thing. But whether you agree with that or not, tariffs are a very blunt instrument and require a lot more strategic thinking than Trump and his advisers have given them. A lot of US industries that depend on imported raw materials are really struggling now.

Aretheymyfeet wrote: »

All in all, once again, he's ****, but is he really any worse than the rest and previous? Perhaps I'm wrong but you seem to almost be suggesting that US manufacturing and agriculture have not, and are not, under severe stress anyway, no Trump required?

I'm not sure where you're getting that from. Manufacturing output is falling in the US and is now at its lowest level in 10 years. Farm income is also falling.

TomOnBoard

duploelabs wrote: »

Why can't we have a minimum post count coupled with a request access on this thread?? It's not that hard

Or at least a rule that you can't use sneers like "you people" in your first day on Boards. ...

aloyisious

Aretheymyfeet wrote: »

Trump is an egomaniacal narccistic demagogue but if you actually believe the Democrats are any better, you're an idiot brainwashed by the media.

At present, Trump is pretty much a sure thing for 2020. None of the Dem contenders show any sign of being a real challenge to him. A re-elected Trump will likely be significantly more dangerous as he'll no longer need to please his base supporters. The anti intervention vote for example, which he cannot afford to lose pre 2020, may be keeping him out of any new wars for now. Post re-election, the Israeli influence may override that.

Just in case anyone thought there was a positive option, the Dems are just as much in the pocket of the Israel lobby and are arguably even more enthusiastic about aggressive empire building, if the past 15 years are anything to go by.

Both parties serve the same financial power interests. Both pursue the same global agenda. Two cheeks of the same arse and both full of shi...

Do you think Don's proposals for trade, peace and fuel deals are based on a real understanding of what makes business tick or is he just operating on a whim when he looks at the offers from the others at the table? In your opinion, is he operating in the real world or from some unreal place in his mind? Are his attempts at deal-making in any way logically comparable to those made by his US predecessors in the Oval Office?

In my reading of your posts, you seem to have a very pessimistic equal view of the activities of all US politicians, and not thinking them of redeeming features when it comes to their individual policies and/or decisions on the issues of trade, peace and fuel with other nations and their national reserves. Would I be right in my observations or are you of the opinion that the US is on a ride to self-destruction [with your blessing]?

FrostyJack

Aretheymyfeet wrote:

Yeah, nothing you say there explains why the Dems winning in 2020 would be an improvement. Would you consider say, Obama to have been a 'better' President than Trump?

In every metric Obama is superior. From intelligence, manners, personal life, morals, policy, diplomacy, economic awareness, forward thinking. His scandals were wearing a tanned suit and saluting a marine while holding coffee. He didn't have total staff turn over, hire lobbiests and family in every major position throughout the administration, ignore all the intelligence communities, help foreign governments over his own country at every possible chance. Don't get started on enriching himself and his family at every chance. Was Obama not perfect, far from it, he inherited an economy in freefall and turned it around handing Trump a perfect hand which he has turned to crap, sky rocketing the deficit. Turned every ally against America and emboldened dictators like Putin, Kim Jong Ill and Erdogan, giving them massive propaganda gains. The main thing, and rightly so, Obama got hammered for was drone strikes, yet again Trump had to be worse on that. Doubling the kills, removing oversight and hiding the figures. 12000 plus lies for Trump so far, I doubt there would even be 100 from Obama over the 8 years.

Water John

Film on TG4 should be required viewing for posters here. Good Night and Good Luck.

eire4

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Trump is not a sociopath. He has textbook Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

I would say he is both. So far civilian deaths using drone strikes are up an estimated 80% on Obama's presidency which was horrific in itself in that regard and that only after 3 years.

https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/2019/5/8/18619206/under-donald-trump-drone-strikes-far-exceed-obama-s-numbers

Then there is the way he calmly sold the Kurds down the river which involved many Kurdish deaths so I would say he is a sociopath, a narcissist and a demagogue as well.

26000 Elephants

Can Trump possibly win this latest assault he's launched on the intelligence services? Barr's investigation is the most bizarre piece of last chance theatre in the history of politics. I mean, is travelling around to world leaders asking them to incriminate his own security service the actions of a rational man? And to what end? What is the actual end goal here - to prove that Obama hacked DNC servers, passed the info to Donald's team via some shadowy spook to give him an edge in the election , so when he won it he could then discredit him by pretending it was the Russians?

Please tell me I'm getting this asre ways because my head is wrecked from it.

Thank God we still have the impeachment hearings to keep things sane and normal.

everlast75

26000 Elephants wrote: »

Can Trump possibly win this latest assault he's launched on the intelligence services? Barr's investigation is the most bizarre piece of last chance theatre in the history of politics. I mean, is travelling around to world leaders asking them to incriminate his own security service the actions of a rational man? And to what end? What is the actual end goal here - to prove that Obama hacked DNC servers, passed the info to Donald's team via some shadowy spook to give him an edge in the election , so when he won it he could then discredit him by pretending it was the Russians?

Please tell me I'm getting this asre ways because my head is wrecked from it.

Thank God we still have the impeachment hearings to keep things sane and normal.

To possibly excuse thenpardon of Manafort.
To get the sanctions lifted on Russia by blaming the Ukraine for the hack.
To confirm the validity of his election in 2016.
To sully the name of the Dems ahead of 2020.

Outlaw Pete

Any guesses? I'm hoping a high-profile arrest .. most likely it's regarding the next iPhone and the return of the button.


https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1188264965930700801

TomOnBoard

Death of ISIS leader Al Baghdadi in a military action in North West Syria seems to underlie the 'Big News'... Presser at 9am ET has been announced by the WH.

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-approves-special-ops-raid-targeting-isis-leader-baghdadi-1467982

everlast75

Is it okay if i post these in anticipation of when he probably takes credit?

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/260549166776852480?s=19


https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/252874018955354114?s=19

Aretheymyfeet

TomOnBoard wrote: »

Death of ISIS leader Al Baghdadi in a military action in North West Syria seems to underlie the 'Big News'... Presser at 9am ET has been announced by the WH.

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-approves-special-ops-raid-targeting-isis-leader-baghdadi-1467982

Yeah, Baghdadi has been 'killed' pretty much every year since 2014.

Aretheymyfeet

FrostyJack wrote: »

In every metric Obama is superior. From intelligence, manners, personal life, morals, policy, diplomacy, economic awareness, forward thinking. His scandals were wearing a tanned suit and saluting a marine while holding coffee. He didn't have total staff turn over, hire lobbiests and family in every major position throughout the administration, ignore all the intelligence communities, help foreign governments over his own country at every possible chance. Don't get started on enriching himself and his family at every chance. Was Obama not perfect, far from it, he inherited an economy in freefall and turned it around handing Trump a perfect hand which he has turned to crap, sky rocketing the deficit. Turned every ally against America and emboldened dictators like Putin, Kim Jong Ill and Erdogan, giving them massive propaganda gains. The main thing, and rightly so, Obama got hammered for was drone strikes, yet again Trump had to be worse on that. Doubling the kills, removing oversight and hiding the figures. 12000 plus lies for Trump so far, I doubt there would even be 100 from Obama over the 8 years.

Much of what you say is true. I'm not here to defend Trump. Though your seeming admiration for Obama is wholly misplaced. You seem to have left out the part where he continued the Neocon regime change wars unleashing murderous air strikes and using the worst wahabbist headchoppers in the world as proxy forces to destroy both Libya and Syria. Libya, once the most prosperous country on the African continent is now run by warlords and human slave auctions have seen a return. His foreign policies resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children, which you completely ignore. His proxies beheaded children! Trump to his credit, has started no new wars (yet), albeit he has increased bombing and drone murders in some of the existing ones, so certainly not 'good'. Obama's policies directly led to the worst migrant crisis since WW2 and the further polarisation of European societies as a result. We need not even delve into his advancing of the Orwellian global surveillance programme. Trump carrying on that mantle too.

"His scandals were wearing a tanned suit and saluting a marine while holding coffee" Really? Do brown people not really matter in your estimation of a Presidents behaviour? Why do you deem the killing of the people of Libya, Syria or indeed any of the five other countries he bombed in his final year, so unimportant or irrelevant? A bit of comic timing and a few cool mic drops and you seem to swoon over this mass murderer.

Igotadose

Aretheymyfeet wrote: »

"His scandals were wearing a tanned suit and saluting a marine while holding coffee" Really? Do brown people not really matter in your estimation of a Presidents behaviour? Why do you deem the killing of the people of Libya, Syria or indeed any of the five other countries he bombed in his final year, so unimportant or irrelevant? A bit of comic timing and a few cool mic drops and you seem to swoon over this mass murderer.

None of what you allude to are 'scandals.' Good, or bad, they were done under US laws. No different than Bushes 1 or 2, Reagan, FDR, none of them.

You disagree with them. You're entitled to your opinions.

Libya was a totalitarian hellhole and, like so many of the countries in the Arab Spring, had a violent, repressive autocratic regime terrorising its citizens. As someone whose friends father was lost in the bombing of flight 103, I shed zero tears when lunatic Qaddafi was executed by his vengeful citizens.

Aretheymyfeet

Igotadose wrote: »

None of what you allude to are 'scandals.' Good, or bad, they were done under US laws. No different than Bushes 1 or 2, Reagan, FDR, none of them.

You disagree with them. You're entitled to your opinions.'

'Libya was a totalitarian hellhole and, like so many of the countries in the Arab Spring, had a violent, repressive autocratic regime terrorising its citizens. As someone whose friends father was lost in the bombing of flight 103, I shed zero tears when lunatic Qaddafi was executed by his vengeful citizens.

Wow, you really buy into the whole right of the US and its allies to bomb the **** out of anyone ideology? Yet, other countries are the bad ones? You also seem to believe the destruction of those countries was about stopping 'repressive regimes'. Seriously?


Of course it's a scandal to destroy two countries and murder thousands of innocent civilians all for resource control and geostrategic gains. Just like it was a scandal for Bush Jr to kill a million Iraqis to gain control of oil reserves. Scandals aren't only scandalous when the western media says they are. Yes, no different to Bush 1, 2, Reagan, FDR etc...all criminals. All responsible for countless dead innocent men, women and children. Obama just another scumbag warmonger criminal too. Obama is guilty of worse than Gaddafi ever was, and that's saying something.

Gaddaffi wasn't a good guy, that's for sure but under Gaddaffi, Libyans enjoyed the following:
Free healthcare
Free electricity
Interest free loans
Newly weds received $50,000 towards finding a home
Mothers received $5,000 on the birth of a baby
Citizens received profit share on all oil revenue
Petrol was $0.14 per litre for Libyans
Government paid 50% of car purchase price
Unemployed Libyans received the average salary of their profession in benefits
University was free and any course not available in Libya, the government paid to send the student abroad for.

Do you think the people of Libya are better off now than they were under repressive Gaddafi?

'As someone whose friends father was lost in the bombing of flight 103, I shed zero tears when lunatic Qaddafi was executed by his vengeful citizens.' How very western of you. Someone you know lost someone in a terrorist attack and so, the absolute destruction of an entire country is justified? F**k Gaddafi. What about the Libyan people you so readily ignore? You also seem oblivious to the fact the West, leaders like Blair and Sarkozy, were happy to deal with Gaddafi right up until the regime change, which was more about preventing an African Gold backed currency and gaining control over Libyan oil.

Igotadose

Aretheymyfeet wrote: »

Wow, you really buy into the whole right of the US and its allies to bomb the **** out of anyone ideology? Yet, other countries are the bad ones? You also seem to believe the destruction of those countries was about stopping 'repressive regimes'. Seriously?

No, aggressive war is bad. US should never have gotten into Iraq and it was a sham. Qaddafi, however, had waged clandestine war for some time (flight 103 being just one example.) Once his citizens had had enough, the coalition took him out. Are the Libyans better off now? You'd have to ask them, I don't know. I don't believe they're clamoring for him to come back, however.

Of course it's a scandal to destroy two countries and murder thousands of innocent civilians all for resource control and geostrategic gains. Just like it was a scandal for Bush Jr to kill a million Iraqis to gain control of oil reserves. Scandals aren't only scandalous when the western media says they are. Yes, no different to Bush 1, 2, Reagan, FDR etc...all criminals. All responsible for countless dead innocent men, women and children. Obama just another scumbag warmonger criminal too. Obama is guilty of worse than Gaddafi ever was, and that's saying something.

Surprising someone saying a leader (Qaddafi) who supplied arms used to kill in Ireland, is posting that Obama is worse.

'As someone whose friends father was lost in the bombing of flight 103, I shed zero tears when lunatic Qaddafi was executed by his vengeful citizens.' How very western of you. Someone you know lost someone in a terrorist attack and so, the absolute destruction of an entire country is justified?

Getting rid of Qaddafi is good. The toll it took on Libya is awful. But, Qaddafi's still gone, and that's a good thing.

Oafley Jones

duploelabs wrote: »

Why can't we have a minimum post count coupled with a request access on this thread?? It's not that hard

Maybe because they drive traffic. The Politics forum seems to be pages and pages of people who should know better, responding to same old bollox over and over again. Maybe it’s for their own aggrandisement. It’s constantly happening and it’s being constantly called out. A new reg appears and you’ve ten pages of absolute nonsense.

As I said before, politics obviously isn’t as sensitive an issue as that of the Soccer forum.

26000 Elephants

Igotadose wrote: »

As someone whose friends father was lost in the bombing of flight 103, I shed zero tears when lunatic Qaddafi was executed by his vengeful citizens.

Dr. Jim Swire, who lost an *actual* daughter in Lockerbie thought very differently. He saw it as an extra-judicial murder, carried out as a result of actions carried out to further the policies of the US and the UK in the region, much in the way his daughter was murdered in a power play between the US and Iran, the evidence of which was completely whitewashed by both the investigation and the inquiry.

The 'vengeful citizens' as you put it, were largely Islamists, emboldened by US backing. The same Islamists responsible for Benghazi. The same islamists responsible for the whole mess that is Libya today.

Viva la revolucion my h0le.

Igotadose

26000 Elephants wrote: »

Dr. Jim Swire, who lost an *actual* daughter in Lockerbie thought very differently. He saw it as an extra-judicial murder, carried out as a result of actions carried out to further the policies of the US and the UK in the region, much in the way his daughter was murdered in a power play between the US and Iran, the evidence of which was completely whitewashed by both the investigation and the inquiry.

The 'vengeful citizens' as you put it, were largely Islamists, emboldened by US backing. The same Islamists responsible for Benghazi. The same islamists responsible for the whole mess that is Libya today.

Viva la revolucion my h0le.

FWIW this is the Trump thread and we're debating Qaddafi. Suffice it to say, if you're in favor of him still being in charge of Libya, get help. I don't think you are. If you have concerns for the Libyans, are there flights from Dublin to Tripoli you can take? I'm sure the NGO's need volunteers.

Mick Shrimpton

Well said. For a busy moderated thread, I’m constantly amazed by how much the re-reg folks or obvious trolls get away with. Maybe it is because, although they ruin the thread, it is a necessary glimpse into the nightmare that it must be supporting the utter s**tshow that is supporting the worst president the US has ever had.

Oafley Jones wrote: »

Maybe because they drive traffic. The Politics forum seems to be pages and pages of people who should know better, responding to same old bollox over and over again. Maybe it’s for their own aggrandisement. It’s constantly happening and it’s being constantly called out. A new reg appears and you’ve ten pages of absolute nonsense.

As I said before, politics obviously isn’t as sensitive an issue as that of the Soccer forum.

Aretheymyfeet

Mick Shrimpton wrote: »

Well said. For a busy moderated thread, I’m constantly amazed by how much the re-reg folks or obvious trolls get away with. Maybe it is because, although they ruin the thread, it is a necessary glimpse into the nightmare that it must be supporting the utter s**tshow that is supporting the worst president the US has ever had.

Everybody with an opinion different to yours is clearly a troll.

Aretheymyfeet

Igotadose wrote: »

FWIW this is the Trump thread and we're debating Qaddafi. Suffice it to say, if you're in favor of him still being in charge of Libya, get help. I don't think you are. If you have concerns for the Libyans, are there flights from Dublin to Tripoli you can take? I'm sure the NGO's need volunteers.

I don't think anyone is in favour of Gaddaffi here. We're simply pointing out the fact that Obama was a criminal warmongering POS, as some here seem to think he's a great lad altogether. Trump is a POS too but he has yet to destroy two entire countries killing thousands of innocent men, women and children. But give him time.

26000 Elephants

Igotadose wrote: »

FWIW this is the Trump thread and we're debating Qaddafi. Suffice it to say, if you're in favor of him still being in charge of Libya, get help. I don't think you are. If you have concerns for the Libyans, are there flights from Dublin to Tripoli you can take? I'm sure the NGO's need volunteers.

1. You made the point in this thread.

2. I never condoned Qaddafi, merely the right of anyone to say that extra judicial murder is ok, because of particular circumstances. If you are going to hold others to high standards, make sure your own are equally lofty.

3 I wont justify your last snipe with a response.

aloyisious

Aretheymyfeet wrote: »

I don't think anyone is in favour of Gaddaffi here. We're simply pointing out the fact that Obama was a criminal warmongering POS, as some here seem to think he's a great lad altogether. Trump is a POS too but he has yet to destroy two entire countries killing thousands of innocent men, women and children. But give him time.

Ref the thread-topic on the election of Don for a 2nd time, do you think he should be, given your opinion that if he has enough time, he'll equal his predecessors record?

Aretheymyfeet

aloyisious wrote: »

Ref the thread-topic on the election of Don for a 2nd time, do you think he should be, given your opinion that if he has enough time, he'll equal his predecessors record?

Not really sure what it is you're trying to say here but I'll try respond. 1. I think Trump is on course to be re-elected. 2. I don't support Trump. 3. I also don't believe him to be any worse than the usual scumbags who occupy the WH. 4. I don't see any better options in the Dem ranks, save for the still deeply flawed Gabbard. 5. I don't see any of current Dem contenders beating him (pretty much 1 again). 6. He hasn't started any new wars, though post re-election, who knows?

Does that answer your question?

Oh, and I never said he will equal Obama's destruction of two States. I said he could. We don't yet know.

abff

Aretheymyfeet wrote: »

Not really sure what it is you're trying to say here but I'll try respond. 1. I think Trump is on course to be re-elected. 2. I don't support Trump. 3. I also don't believe him to be any worse than the usual scumbags who occupy the WH. 4. I don't see any better options in the Dem ranks, save for the still deeply flawed Gabbard. 5. I don't see any of current Dem contenders beating him (pretty much 1 again). 6. He hasn't started any new wars, though post re-election, who knows?

Does that answer your question?

Oh, and I never said he will equal Obama's destruction of two States. I said he could. We don't yet know.

You say you don't support Trump. But you then go on to say that he's no worse than other presidents.

In what version of reality could those two statements be even remotely reconcilable?

duploelabs

duploelabs wrote: »

Why can't we have a minimum post count coupled with a request access on this thread?? It's not that hard

I really didn't think I'd need to say this again so soon

Oafley Jones

duploelabs wrote: »

I really didn't think I'd need to say this again so soon

Don't worry you're safe from memes.

hotmail.com

Mick Shrimpton wrote: »

Well said. For a busy moderated thread, I’m constantly amazed by how much the re-reg folks or obvious trolls get away with. Maybe it is because, although they ruin the thread, it is a necessary glimpse into the nightmare that it must be supporting the utter s**tshow that is supporting the worst president the US has ever had.

Surely the presidents that didn't prevent the US Civil War can't be surpassed for the worst president awards.

Aretheymyfeet

abff wrote: »

You say you don't support Trump. But you then go on to say that he's no worse than other presidents.

In what version of reality could those two statements be even remotely reconcilable?

The world isn't binary. I don't support Trump but I also don't suffer from the media induced hysteria his election and Presidency has caused many to fall prey to. He's a POS, an egomaniacal narccistic demagogue, as I have already said here. And as I have also said, big deal, why is that any different to the rest of them? I detailed Obama's crimes, as an example, which many suffering from TDS wilfully ignore. It's really more a style issue. People hate his style but beyond that it's mostly emotion driven media induced hysteria. How many imbeciles actually believe Russia got him elected for example? Plenty I would guess. Just more nonsense lacking any basis in reality.