Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VI

Hande hoche!

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

The dogs surely must have died if they caught up to him when he blew him self off

That's what I would have though. Come on reporters, you can't all be cat people.

hotmail.com

weisses wrote: »

Reagan was not the healthiest of presidents .... He had a nap and acted as an actual president

|strange you didn't know that with your vast knowledge of past presidents

Oh so a sleep in the afternoon and having little control over the cabinet was grand.

Hande hoche!

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

Shout out to the Kurds too, also hat tip to the Turks.

Exxon mobil got a mention.

weisses

hotmail.com wrote: »

Oh so a sleep in the afternoon and having little control over the cabinet was grand.

Sure .. if you can leave office with a 68% approval rating you probably did alright

BorneTobyWilde

It was funny when he said his name as the start. could see clearly he was reading it
spelt out differently so he'd get it right

A Boo Ba Car Al Bag Daddy

Hande hoche!

The dog was injured. Hope it gets a medal.

duploelabs

hotmail.com wrote: »

Good to get alternatives views.

I welcome alternative views on Trump, provided they're grounded in imperical facts and honest rhetoric

26000 Elephants

Hande hoche! wrote: »

That's what I would have though. Come on reporters, you can't all be cat people.

"He was a wonderful dog- a very talented dog..."

This is getting surreal at this stage.

BorneTobyWilde

''I'll protect the oil, not he Kurds, great money in the oil''

At least he'd honest

BorneTobyWilde

Has drifted off on to the oil. Why should we sacrifice our troops, spend trillions and not have first daps on the oil .

26000 Elephants

Has he just admitted that he is just going to take the Syrian oil? Because they were not getting Syrian leases?

Well, that was honest!

Hande hoche!

Enjoyed the description of the mechanics of a suicide vest.

BorneTobyWilde

I'm surprised he didn't try to start a
USA USA USA chant

Aretheymyfeet

weisses wrote: »

If you refer to ISIS then that is an incorrect statement



Most of these things were discussed at length i believe

Last few weeks its Ukraine ..another one of his brain farts ... Its hard to keep up with Trump and his cronies

Eh, I speak of the so called 'moderate opposition' Obama supported knowing they were made up predominantly of the Muslim Brotherhood, Salafists and Al Qaeda, as evidenced by the US DIA Report 2012. Look it up.

Most were discussed at length you say? I am responding to a poster who appears upset by his tweets and general loutish persona.

Hande hoche!

That was certainly a memorable conference.

Aretheymyfeet

26000 Elephants wrote: »

"Dems and established media, Intel and beyond"

Yeah, so basically everybody with an IQ that runs into double digits. Once you discount all the above, you are left with the crackpots, the grifters and the gullible. Are you telling me you are happy to count yourself as a fellow traveller to that lot?

I'm not really sure I need to actually provide too much in reply to this other than to point out the obvious fact that if you think the Dems, US intel agencies and corporate media are in any way credible, there's not much reasoning to be done here. Pretty delusional naive stuff.

Outlaw Pete

Wish I could say that much of the replies pathetically sneering at Trump were surprising, but sadly they're not, par for the course.

Our world is safer today thanks to the current American administration, and that includes the leadership of Donald J. Trump, and we would do well to remember that not too far from here ISIS was responsible for bombing an arena that was packed predominantly with children enjoying a pop concert and that the focus of some is business as usual (with regards to the nitpicking) is quite telling and ultimately very revealing about just what it is that drives these folk's and their 24-7 condemnation of Donald Trump.


https://twitter.com/Behind__News/status/866913779283623936

duploelabs

Aretheymyfeet wrote: »

I'm not really sure I need to actually provide too much in reply to this other than to point out the obvious fact that if you think the Dems, US intel agencies and corporate media are in any way credible, there's not much reasoning to be done here. Pretty delusional naive stuff.

For someone who came here claiming impartiality, you certain do use the talking points and rhetoric of a Maga hat wearer

26000 Elephants

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Our world is safer today thanks to the current American administration,

It's no safer today than it was yesterday. Killing Al-Bhagdadi will leas to a few quick promotions- no more. The rhetoric of going in and "taking the oil" is the sort of behaviour that recruits hundreds of more young arabs to the AQ cause.

Any advantage that might have been made by this success was quickly lost by Trumps triumphalism and poor choice of language - that will simply stoke the desire for the inevitable revenge strike.

Aretheymyfeet

duploelabs wrote: »

For someone who came here claiming impartiality, you certain do use the talking points and rhetoric of a Maga hat wearer

So, anyone who questions the credibility of the US intelligence agencies, or the corporate media, or the Dems, must be a MAGA hat wearer? What a pile of binary thinking ****e.

Hande hoche!

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Wish I could say that much of the replies pathetically sneering at Trump were surprising, but sadly they're not, par for the course.

Our world is safer today thanks to the current American administration, and that includes the leadership of Donald J. Trump, and we would do well to remember that not too far from here ISIS was responsible for bombing an arena that was packed predominantly with children enjoying a pop concert and that the focus of some is business as usual (with regards to the nitpicking) is quite telling and ultimately very revealing about just what it is that drives these folk's and their 24-7 condemnation of Donald Trump.

It's a positive development and an accomplishment for the Trump administration. Just some of the statements and details are unusual. That's my take, for what it's worth.

pixelburp

By Trumps own tweets, on the subject of Obama + the assassination of BinLaden, we shouldn't be praising the president for the military's actions ANYWAY. Crippling Isis should always be applauded regardless but as ever, why should we praise a man who either says "don't praise the President", or shows a fundamental ignorance of geopolitics on a weekly basis, from Syria to Brexit to Kashmir?

Can't have it every way Outlaw Pete.

Igotadose

Aretheymyfeet wrote: »

I'm not really sure I need to actually provide too much in reply to this other than to point out the obvious fact that if you think the Dems, US intel agencies and corporate media are in any way credible, there's not much reasoning to be done here. Pretty delusional naive stuff.

So... do enlighten us. Delusional? Binary? Not credible -is *any organization* credible in your view? RT? Breitbart? NYT?

Oh, regarding your polemic about Qaddafi's benefit to the Libyans, the twaddle about free housing and child benefits has been debunked by Libyans: http://www.allsiam.net/libya/

(this didn't take terribly long to find. Is it false?)

duploelabs

Aretheymyfeet wrote: »

So, anyone who questions the credibility of the US intelligence agencies, or the corporate media, or the Dems, must be a MAGA hat wearer? What a pile of binary thinking ****e.

Binary because I pointed out your talking points of corporate media, using 'Dems' and not Republicans too, and credibility of intelligence agencies?? I merely pointed out a similarity of your rhetoric fella

aloyisious

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.

OK. If you were a voter in the US, given the choice between Don or the Dem candidate, which of the candidates would you vote for, mindful you were interested in the future of the US and were committed to making your vote count?

26000 Elephants

Igotadose wrote: »

Oh, regarding your polemic about Qaddafi's benefit to the Libyans, the twaddle about free housing and child benefits has been debunked by Libyans.

It doesnt actually debunk the part about the houses. It does confirm that the grant was part of Libyan law, though.

It then gets a bit subjective. It says "I dont know of anyone who got this grant". Now, not to nitpick, but isnt there a first time buyers grant in Ireland? But i too can honestly make the statement "i dont know anyone who gets this grant". Does that make it untrue?

MadYaker

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Wish I could say that much of the replies pathetically sneering at Trump were surprising, but sadly they're not, par for the course.

Our world is safer today thanks to the current American administration, and that includes the leadership of Donald J. Trump, and we would do well to remember that not too far from here ISIS was responsible for bombing an arena that was packed predominantly with children enjoying a pop concert and that the focus of some is business as usual (with regards to the nitpicking) is quite telling and ultimately very revealing about just what it is that drives these folk's and their 24-7 condemnation of Donald Trump.


https://twitter.com/Behind__News/status/866913779283623936

I thought he said ISIS were completely defeated months ago?

Outlaw Pete

Caliphates.


Trump got stick last week when it came out that the White House had been instructed to tell federal agencies not to renew subscriptions for the New York Times and the Washington Post, but sure all they do is prove him right with this kind of crap..


https://twitter.com/BuckSexton/status/1188474056460374020

aloyisious

I saw Mark Esper on CNN being interviewed about the killing of the Isis leader and listened to him saying it was a hard decision for Don to make. I thought it a peculiar statement to make when one considers Don's duty as president and can't say that Don would have hesitated too much or even wondered if he should refuse to sanction the kill mission. I assume Mark thought it was the diplomatic thing to do when it came to making statements about the killing of an enemy in cold blood on TV.

aloyisious

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Caliphates.


Trump got stick last week when it came out that the White House had been instructed to tell federal agencies not to renew subscriptions for the New York Times and the Washington Post, but sure all they do is prove him right with this kind of crap..


https://twitter.com/BuckSexton/status/1188474056460374020

Black humour shaded as a story?