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 VII (threadbanned users listed in OP)
Options
Comments
-
So Trump has brought no genuine change then. Not for ordinary Americans.
Hang on a minute; that's not true. Lots of Americans now feel that they can freely tell brown people to go back to where they came from. During the tyrannical and racially divisive Obama regime, they felt trapped and restricted. Now, they can feel like their petty prejudices are a legitimate political philosophy.0 -
mcmoustache wrote: »Hang on a minute; that's not true. Lots of Americans now feel that they can freely tell brown people to go back to where they came from. During the tyrannical and racially divisive Obama regime, they felt trapped and restricted. Now, they can feel like their petty prejudices are a legitimate political philosophy.
Justice for Juicy.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out given the history of not negotiating with terrorists, could backfire badly.
https://thehill.com/policy/defense/484149-five-things-to-know-about-emerging-us-taliban-peace-deal
"The United States and the Taliban are on the verge of signing what would be a historic agreement aimed at winding down America's longest war, potentially fulfilling a key promise of President Trump's.
But first comes a weeklong test. A seven day "reduction in violence" period started Friday afternoon Washington time, midnight Saturday Afghanistan time.
The initial agreement to reduce violence is aimed at building confidence ahead of signing a broader peace agreement.
If the reduction in violence holds, U.S. and Taliban negotiators will sign the broader agreement Feb. 29, starting a phased withdrawal of U.S. troops in exchange for Taliban guarantees that Afghanistan will not be used as a base for terrorist attacks against the West."0 -
Maybe we're supposed to type "BErnie" and "BIden" for example? Who knows, could be a trend. Probably what the cool kids are doing.sid waddell wrote: »Trump has allowed Putin to do pretty much whatever he wants militarily.
Well, PUtin has allowed TRump to do pretty much whatever he wants militarily as well. Remember when PUtin threatened to strike at any vessels which launched against Syria after the chemical weapons incident? It's not as if there wasn't a Russian warship right next to the American one when it started lobbing Tomahawks. They weren't stupid enough to actually interfere.
There have been low-level incidents, such as an American military truck running a Russian one off the road this week, but realistically, what US president is going to stop the Russians from doing whatever they want militarily if there is no treaty in place to mandate action? Were we really going to take action against Russia for its Ukraine adventure, no matter who was in charge? Are we going to go shooting down Russian aircraft over Syria?
US military presence in Europe has increased to levels not seen since the Cold War, and two weeks ago the US Army announced that they are re-activating V Corps , which is a European-focused formation that had been disbanded in Germany seven years ago (A corps is the HQ element for a multi-division formation).
TRump's verbal barrage on NATO may have had the desired effect: Spending by the NATO countries has certainly increased (Which may also just be a reflection of NATO governments accepting the reality of the greater threat), but whatever he's saying, the US military is absolutely supporting and reinforcing NATO in practice.0 -
Manic Moran wrote: »Maybe we're supposed to type "BErnie" and "BIden" for example? Who knows, could be a trend. Probably what the cool kids are doing.
Well, PUtin has allowed TRump to do pretty much whatever he wants militarily as well. Remember when PUtin threatened to strike at any vessels which launched against Syria after the chemical weapons incident? It's not as if there wasn't a Russian warship right next to the American one when it started lobbing Tomahawks. They weren't stupid enough to actually interfere.
There have been low-level incidents, such as an American military truck running a Russian one off the road this week, but realistically, what US president is going to stop the Russians from doing whatever they want militarily if there is no treaty in place to mandate action? Were we really going to take action against Russia for its Ukraine adventure, no matter who was in charge? Are we going to go shooting down Russian aircraft over Syria?
US military presence in Europe has increased to levels not seen since the Cold War, and two weeks ago the US Army announced that they are re-activating V Corps , which is a European-focused formation that had been disbanded in Germany seven years ago (A corps is the HQ element for a multi-division formation).
TRump's verbal barrage on NATO may have had the desired effect: Spending by the NATO countries has certainly increased (Which may also just be a reflection of NATO governments accepting the reality of the greater threat), but whatever he's saying, the US military is absolutely supporting and reinforcing NATO in practice.
Desired effect? At the time I saw both arguments. That he wanted to weaken NATO and that he wanted to strengthen it. Simply put I see people claiming victory for Trump no matter which way it went. So can't really accept it as a win. Especially when I see the US military as being far more eager to help Saudi Arabia right now than Europe. Supporting NATO in practice has not come up for Trump and let's hope it doesn't but I am not convinced.
Also you made a point previously about the money going into the wall going into the economy somewhere. Amazing how that argument comes in when it is about keeping brown people out. Would we see it if we were talking about increasing education or healthcare (both of which would go into the US economy and do something beneficial for the country).0 -
I wonder what other kind of lists the Trump admin is keeping. Considering the US espionage capability, are we on a list somewhere? https://www.axios.com/trump-memos-deep-state-white-house-ce5be95f-2418-433d-b036-2bf41c9700c3.html
"Trump's "Deep State" hit list"
---
Worse still, one of the lead organizers is married to a SCOTUS judge - Ginni Thomas, wife of Clarence Thomas0 -
Advertisement
-
I wonder what other kind of lists the Trump admin is keeping. Considering the US espionage capability, are we on a list somewhere? https://www.axios.com/trump-memos-deep-state-white-house-ce5be95f-2418-433d-b036-2bf41c9700c3.html
"Trump's "Deep State" hit list"
---
Worse still, one of the lead organizers is married to a SCOTUS judge - Ginni Thomas, wife of Clarence Thomas
Establishment Republicans on the hit list, now why would that be? Puts me in mind of cartoon with Don & fan talking about numbers of illegal aliens crossing border: Don "there's less crossing now" - fan nods, "fewer" - Don "I told you not to say that in public"0 -
Michael McFaul's take on the "Trump is tough on Russia" bullsh1t. This should be made a sticky so that it can be referred to any time 45's followers try this nonsense.
I try hard to find areas of agreement on national security issues with the Trump administration. I've praised many of their actions. But I'm fed up with this new talking point that Trump is tough on Putin. Stop insulting my intelligence! "Sorry, but Trump is not ‘tough on Russia’" Let me explain in this thread beyond this piece I wrote a year ago.
Yes, the Trump ADMINISTRATION has continued many tough policies started by the Obama administration regarding Russia, including economic sanctions, bolstering NATO (the 2% target on spending came from Obama), and assisting Ukraine.
In a few areas, the Trump ADMINISTRATION rightly has gone beyond Obama policies, including most notable providing lethal assistance to Ukraine and wiping out some Russian mercenaries in Syria. Bravo.
But Trump himself does not support a tough line on Russia. He has said so MANY times people! Maybe a thousand times by now ! He wants to be friends with Putin and get along with Russia. Don't believe me; read his own words.
Trump personally has NEVER criticized Putin. Never. Trump has never spoken out in support democratic or human rights activists in Russia. Never.
Trump did NOT want to sign CAASTA, the sweeping legislation tying his hands on preserving economic sanctions on Russians. See Statement by President Donald J. Trump on Signing the “Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act”. Statement by President Donald J. Trump on Signing the “Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act” | The White House
Today, I signed into law the “Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act,” which enacts new sanctions on Iran, North Korea, and Russia.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/statement-president-donald-j-trump-signing-countering-americas-adversaries-sanctions-act/?utm_source=twitter
Trump himself has not been an enthusiastic supporter of implementing these sanctions.
Trump Is Doing As Little As Legally Possible to Comply With Congress’ Russian Sanctions So, what does that mean?
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/01/trump-is-doing-as-little-as-legally-possible-to-comply-with-congresss-russia-sanctions.html
The lifting of sanctions on Deripaska's companies was especially probative. washingtonpost.com/politics/how-a…
Trump personally did not support giving javelins to Ukraine. Thankfully, Mattis and everyone else did. But as a cautionary condition, those missiles must be stored in western Ukraine. Far From the Front Lines, Javelin Missiles Go Unused in Ukraine. Military support to the Eastern European country is at the center of a scandal that threatens to engulf the Trump administration.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/10/03/far-from-the-front-lines-javelin-missiles-go-unused-in-ukraine/
Trump has never criticized Russian interference in our 2016 elections. Instead, he stood by Putin in Helsinki and said the exact opposite. He has never endorsed the findings of the Mueller report (which some of us believe didnt go far enough washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/…
Also in Helsinki, Trump agreed to hand over for interrogation to lawless Russia a dozen innocent Americans (Democrats and Republicans). Tough on Russia? Give me a break ! washingtonpost.com/outlook/putin-…
Trump has not pushed for passage of any of the pending legislation designed to reduce foreign interference in our 2020 elections. Most of our four dozen recommendations for securing American elections have not been pursued. shar.es/a3LEUB
Against the advice of SecDef Mattis and others, Trump pulled out of Syria, handing Putin a major victory. (In response, Mattis resigned.)
Trump repeats Putin's false propaganda all the time, be it the myth about the Crowdstrike server in hiding in Ukraine or the tale about how Montenegro is going to start WWIII.
Most recently, Trump was willing to sacrifice Ukrainian security by withholding U.S. military assistance as leverage to help his own reelection campaign. washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/…
Unlike Trump's tv defenders, Moscow understands the difference between pro-Putin Trump and his anti-Russian Administration. Putin & team hope that Trump re-election will liberate Trump from his advisors & the deep state and allow him to deepen his friendship with Putin.
So enough already. Claim rightly that the administration is following a tough Russia policy. Argue more smartly that Putin is trying to undermine Trump's reelection legitimacy by helping him. But stop insulting our intelligence by claiming that Trump is tough on Putin.0 -
everlast75 wrote: »Michael McFaul's take on the "Trump is tough on Russia" bullsh1t. This should be made a sticky so that it can be referred to any time 45's followers try this nonsense.
I try hard to find areas of agreement on national security issues with the Trump administration. I've praised many of their actions. But I'm fed up with this new talking point that Trump is tough on Putin. Stop insulting my intelligence! "Sorry, but Trump is not ‘tough on Russia’" Let me explain in this thread beyond this piece I wrote a year ago.
Yes, the Trump ADMINISTRATION has continued many tough policies started by the Obama administration regarding Russia, including economic sanctions, bolstering NATO (the 2% target on spending came from Obama), and assisting Ukraine.
In a few areas, the Trump ADMINISTRATION rightly has gone beyond Obama policies, including most notable providing lethal assistance to Ukraine and wiping out some Russian mercenaries in Syria. Bravo.
But Trump himself does not support a tough line on Russia. He has said so MANY times people! Maybe a thousand times by now ! He wants to be friends with Putin and get along with Russia. Don't believe me; read his own words.
Trump personally has NEVER criticized Putin. Never. Trump has never spoken out in support democratic or human rights activists in Russia. Never.
Trump did NOT want to sign CAASTA, the sweeping legislation tying his hands on preserving economic sanctions on Russians. See Statement by President Donald J. Trump on Signing the “Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act”. Statement by President Donald J. Trump on Signing the “Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act” | The White House
Today, I signed into law the “Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act,” which enacts new sanctions on Iran, North Korea, and Russia.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/statement-president-donald-j-trump-signing-countering-americas-adversaries-sanctions-act/?utm_source=twitter
Trump himself has not been an enthusiastic supporter of implementing these sanctions.
Trump Is Doing As Little As Legally Possible to Comply With Congress’ Russian Sanctions So, what does that mean?
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/01/trump-is-doing-as-little-as-legally-possible-to-comply-with-congresss-russia-sanctions.html
The lifting of sanctions on Deripaska's companies was especially probative. washingtonpost.com/politics/how-a…
Trump personally did not support giving javelins to Ukraine. Thankfully, Mattis and everyone else did. But as a cautionary condition, those missiles must be stored in western Ukraine. Far From the Front Lines, Javelin Missiles Go Unused in Ukraine. Military support to the Eastern European country is at the center of a scandal that threatens to engulf the Trump administration.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/10/03/far-from-the-front-lines-javelin-missiles-go-unused-in-ukraine/
Trump has never criticized Russian interference in our 2016 elections. Instead, he stood by Putin in Helsinki and said the exact opposite. He has never endorsed the findings of the Mueller report (which some of us believe didnt go far enough washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/…
Also in Helsinki, Trump agreed to hand over for interrogation to lawless Russia a dozen innocent Americans (Democrats and Republicans). Tough on Russia? Give me a break ! washingtonpost.com/outlook/putin-…
Trump has not pushed for passage of any of the pending legislation designed to reduce foreign interference in our 2020 elections. Most of our four dozen recommendations for securing American elections have not been pursued. shar.es/a3LEUB
Against the advice of SecDef Mattis and others, Trump pulled out of Syria, handing Putin a major victory. (In response, Mattis resigned.)
Trump repeats Putin's false propaganda all the time, be it the myth about the Crowdstrike server in hiding in Ukraine or the tale about how Montenegro is going to start WWIII.
Most recently, Trump was willing to sacrifice Ukrainian security by withholding U.S. military assistance as leverage to help his own reelection campaign. washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/…
Unlike Trump's tv defenders, Moscow understands the difference between pro-Putin Trump and his anti-Russian Administration. Putin & team hope that Trump re-election will liberate Trump from his advisors & the deep state and allow him to deepen his friendship with Putin.
So enough already. Claim rightly that the administration is following a tough Russia policy. Argue more smartly that Putin is trying to undermine Trump's reelection legitimacy by helping him. But stop insulting our intelligence by claiming that Trump is tough on Putin.
It's interesting, you don't know have any thoughts of your own? I'll go through more thoroughly later.
Literally just dumping his opinion and suggesting it should be stickied. I bet there isn't a single thing there that you didn't accept outright or give a second thought to. I have argued for example that Bernie, by reducing the military budget by orders of magnitude alone and being even more isolationist than Trump will give Putin even more freedom. What will Bernie do? He can't threaten war, he can sanction but your man there admits that Trump is sanctioning, and is at least as tough as Obama? So Obama and Trump are similarly tough according to him but Trump is not doing enough against Putin... His strongest claim is that 'Trump didn't want to... but he did do it". Really strong argument.0 -
Btw the reason I mention Bernie is I assume there at least a good chunk of Bernie supporters here and this guy you're quoting will be going after Bernie with similar scaremongering if he gets near office.0
-
Call Me Jimmy wrote: »It's interesting, you don't know have any thoughts of your own? I'll go through more thoroughly later.
Literally just dumping his opinion and suggesting it should be stickied. I bet there isn't a single thing there that you didn't accept outright or give a second thought to. I have argued for example that Bernie, by reducing the military budget by orders of magnitude alone and being even more isolationist than Trump will give Putin even more freedom. What will Bernie do? He can't threaten war, he can sanction but your man there admits that Trump is sanctioning, and is at least as tough as Obama? So Obama and Trump are similarly tough according to him but Trump is not doing enough against Putin... His strongest claim is that 'Trump didn't want to... but he did do it". Really strong argument.
The guy is an ex-Ambassador who has years of experience with Russia, has lived in Russia, speaks Russian and has had death threats from Russia. I believe from what I have seen of him on TV and heard from him on podcasts to be a genuine and straight up guy. He has an absolute wealth of experience and wisdom.
But if it makes you feel any better, I can confirm that I, a 40 something bloke from Dublin, agree with everything that he has said and I very much bow to his superior knowledge on the subject. Is that acceptable?0 -
Advertisement
-
everlast75 wrote: »The guy is an ex-Ambassador who has years of experience with Russia, has lived in Russia, speaks Russian and has had death threats from Russia. I believe from what I have seen of him on TV and heard from him on podcasts to be a genuine and straight up guy. He has an absolute wealth of experience and wisdom.
But if it makes you feel any better, I can confirm that I, a 40 something bloke from Dublin, agree with everything that he has said and I very much bow to his superior knowledge on the subject. Is that acceptable?
The fact of who he is doesn't make his lines of argument any stronger. He is exactly the establishment figure I'm talking about. Regarding the rest, knock yerself out. When ye don't even comment on any of the points, it's hard to know. Sorry if I was a douche about it. But I've seen very little critical things on this thread from regular posters, even reasonable conversation gets you lumped into being a blind trump supporter.
Do you think people like him will be attacking Bernie when Bernie does much the same thing? (I'm assuming you think Bernie is a big improvement on Trump and he's them most anti-establishment democrat, is why I ask).0 -
Call Me Jimmy wrote: »It's interesting, you don't know have any thoughts of your own? I'll go through more thoroughly later.
Literally just dumping his opinion and suggesting it should be stickied. I bet there isn't a single thing there that you didn't accept outright or give a second thought to. I have argued for example that Bernie, by reducing the military budget by orders of magnitude alone and being even more isolationist than Trump will give Putin even more freedom. What will Bernie do? He can't threaten war, he can sanction but your man there admits that Trump is sanctioning, and is at least as tough as Obama? So Obama and Trump are similarly tough according to him but Trump is not doing enough against Putin... His strongest claim is that 'Trump didn't want to... but he did do it". Really strong argument.
Trump argued against sanctions and has diplomatically defended Russia and attacked any notion of their wrong doing as long as he could. Obama applied sanctions and stated Russia interfered as soon as it was obvious.
I fail to see the similarity. The US military can reduced massively and still be a threat to Russia. Especially when they won't be withheld for more info on potential election opponents.
But yeah if Bernie starts saying that Russia is innocent of interfering in elections or tries to fight against sanctions I will happily attack him for it. I wait for the day.0 -
Interesting to note the difference between how Trump and Sanders responded to the news that Russia may be trying to help their respective campaigns:if Bernie starts saying that Russia is innocent of interfering in elections or tries to fight against sanctions I will happily attack him for it.MSNBC wrote:On the one hand, Sanders, in no uncertain terms, excoriated Russia publicly."The intelligence community has been very clear about it -- whether Trump recognizes it not, or acknowledges it or not, they did interfere in 2016," Sanders told reporters. "The intelligence community is telling us they are interfering in this campaign right now in 2020. What I say to Mr. Putin: If elected president, trust me, you will not be interfering in American elections."The independent senator added, "I don't care, frankly, who Putin wants to be president. My message to Putin is clear: stay out of American elections."
This was, of course, exactly the kind of message many might expect to hear from an American president who intends to succeed without foreign intervention. But the current occupant of the Oval Office had an entirely different reaction to the latest revelations. After punishing leading intelligence officials for sharing politically inconvenient information with Congress, Donald Trump lashed out -- not at Russia, but at Democrats.
"I was told it was happening, I was told a week ago, they said, 'You know, they're trying to start a rumor.' It's disinformation," the president told supporters at a Las Vegas rally. "That's the only thing they're good at."
The Republican added that the very idea of Moscow trying to support his re-election effort is a "hoax." Leading White House officials fanned out on the Sunday shows to echo Trump's position.
Whatever one thinks of the broader political or electoral context, the differences between the two camps is striking. Against the backdrop of reports that Russia wants to help Trump, the Republican lashed out at Democrats. Against the backdrop of reports that Russia wants to help Sanders, the senator lashed out Moscow, explicitly demanding that Putin "stay out of American elections."0 -
everlast75 wrote: »Michael McFaul's take on the "Trump is tough on Russia" bullsh1t. This should be made a sticky so that it can be referred to any time 45's followers try this nonsense.
I try hard to find areas of agreement on national security issues with the Trump administration. I've praised many of their actions. But I'm fed up with this new talking point that Trump is tough on Putin. Stop insulting my intelligence! "Sorry, but Trump is not ‘tough on Russia’" Let me explain in this thread beyond this piece I wrote a year ago.
Yes, the Trump ADMINISTRATION has continued many tough policies started by the Obama administration regarding Russia, including economic sanctions, bolstering NATO (the 2% target on spending came from Obama), and assisting Ukraine.
In a few areas, the Trump ADMINISTRATION rightly has gone beyond Obama policies, including most notable providing lethal assistance to Ukraine and wiping out some Russian mercenaries in Syria. Bravo.
But Trump himself does not support a tough line on Russia. He has said so MANY times people! Maybe a thousand times by now ! He wants to be friends with Putin and get along with Russia. Don't believe me; read his own words.
Trump personally has NEVER criticized Putin. Never. Trump has never spoken out in support democratic or human rights activists in Russia. Never.
Trump did NOT want to sign CAASTA, the sweeping legislation tying his hands on preserving economic sanctions on Russians. See Statement by President Donald J. Trump on Signing the “Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act”. Statement by President Donald J. Trump on Signing the “Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act” | The White House
Today, I signed into law the “Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act,” which enacts new sanctions on Iran, North Korea, and Russia.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/statement-president-donald-j-trump-signing-countering-americas-adversaries-sanctions-act/?utm_source=twitter
Trump himself has not been an enthusiastic supporter of implementing these sanctions.
Trump Is Doing As Little As Legally Possible to Comply With Congress’ Russian Sanctions So, what does that mean?
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/01/trump-is-doing-as-little-as-legally-possible-to-comply-with-congresss-russia-sanctions.html
The lifting of sanctions on Deripaska's companies was especially probative. washingtonpost.com/politics/how-a…
Trump personally did not support giving javelins to Ukraine. Thankfully, Mattis and everyone else did. But as a cautionary condition, those missiles must be stored in western Ukraine. Far From the Front Lines, Javelin Missiles Go Unused in Ukraine. Military support to the Eastern European country is at the center of a scandal that threatens to engulf the Trump administration.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/10/03/far-from-the-front-lines-javelin-missiles-go-unused-in-ukraine/
Trump has never criticized Russian interference in our 2016 elections. Instead, he stood by Putin in Helsinki and said the exact opposite. He has never endorsed the findings of the Mueller report (which some of us believe didnt go far enough washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/…
Also in Helsinki, Trump agreed to hand over for interrogation to lawless Russia a dozen innocent Americans (Democrats and Republicans). Tough on Russia? Give me a break ! washingtonpost.com/outlook/putin-…
Trump has not pushed for passage of any of the pending legislation designed to reduce foreign interference in our 2020 elections. Most of our four dozen recommendations for securing American elections have not been pursued. shar.es/a3LEUB
Against the advice of SecDef Mattis and others, Trump pulled out of Syria, handing Putin a major victory. (In response, Mattis resigned.)
Trump repeats Putin's false propaganda all the time, be it the myth about the Crowdstrike server in hiding in Ukraine or the tale about how Montenegro is going to start WWIII.
Most recently, Trump was willing to sacrifice Ukrainian security by withholding U.S. military assistance as leverage to help his own reelection campaign. washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/…
Unlike Trump's tv defenders, Moscow understands the difference between pro-Putin Trump and his anti-Russian Administration. Putin & team hope that Trump re-election will liberate Trump from his advisors & the deep state and allow him to deepen his friendship with Putin.
So enough already. Claim rightly that the administration is following a tough Russia policy. Argue more smartly that Putin is trying to undermine Trump's reelection legitimacy by helping him. But stop insulting our intelligence by claiming that Trump is tough on Putin.
I'll start out by noting something interesting that dovetails with my point about Bernie, notice McFaul retweets the the article from his pal implying Bernie is just like Trump. Which is exactly what I'm talking about.
https://twitter.com/McFaul/status/1231832946362814467
So McFaul is an Obama appointee, who when I looked at one article about him to see what he was like, is highly ideological. So again, obama appointee, highly ideological. Assumed he would not agree with Bernie's anti-establishment views, and low and behold, he doesn't.
Anyway I'll just go through a couple of points, take it or leave it:
1. He says the Trump ADMINISTRATION has continued many tough policies on Russia. Which goes against his point. Trump is the president and I don't know what other president he would not credit for the policies that went on during their time in office. In fact the only way this even makes sense is if HE believes the 'deep state' conspiracies.
2. Again says the ADMINISTRATION has gone beyond Obama policies in tackling Russia. Wow his ADMINISTRATION has been stronger on Russia than Obama's ADMINISTRATION... think about it for a second :P
3. His main grievance is that Trumps public statements are positive about Putin, when Trump is literally positive about president Xi while waging a trade war and maneuvering against them on every front, in fact while bringing the CCP under the kind of light they have never seen.
4. Again more 'Trump didn't want to but did', this time in reference to CAASTA. Still as weak a point as it was before. What does the fact that Trump may have initially been against it, or had different ideas got to do with him doing a thing. You're going to criticise him for doing the thing you wanted... ok.
5. He claims Trump is doing little to comply with congress' Russian sanctions, yet in the very article linked (did anyone read it or am I the only one dumb enough? :P), the closing paragraph reads: "As I noted Monday, there aren't actually many instances so far of this administration going easy on Russia" from Slate, who are a very left leaning publication.
I could go on, 'Trump didn't support Javelins automatically, but listened to his key advisor and then provided them, something MY administration couldn't do for some reason I'm gonna have the absolute NECK to criticise him for'.
Overall he believes there is a deep state working against Trump, he says Putin believes that too, and as we all know Putin is never wrong.
Anyone replying to me, please don't start with 'Trump hates Brown people though'0 -
Call Me Jimmy wrote: »Anyone replying to me, please don't start with 'Trump hates Brown people though'
It always interests and somewhat amuses me how frequently Trump supporters make claims like this out of the blue, without any solicitation. The overwhelming impression it gives off is that his supporters are well aware that Trump is a racist, but do not care and absolutely do not want anyone pointing it out to them.0 -
It always interests and somewhat amuses me how frequently Trump supporters make claims like this out of the blue, without any solicitation. The overwhelming impression it gives off is that his supporters are well aware that Trump is a racist, but do not care and absolutely do not want anyone pointing it out to them.mcmoustache wrote: »Hang on a minute; that's not true. Lots of Americans now feel that they can freely tell brown people to go back to where they came from. During the tyrannical and racially divisive Obama regime, they felt trapped and restricted. Now, they can feel like their petty prejudices are a legitimate political philosophy.
That was in reference to this ^^. And again, calling out the establishment hacks should not be synonymous with being pro Trump...0 -
Call Me Jimmy wrote: »That was in reference to this ^^. And again, calling out the establishment hacks should not be synonymous with being pro Trump...
Doesn't pass the smell test I'm afraid. That post was not quoting or I nreference to you and was directly responding to someone else in an entirely different matter regarding how America has changed under Trumps presidency.0 -
Doesn't pass the smell test I'm afraid. That post was not quoting or I nreference to you and was directly responding to someone else in an entirely different matter regarding how America has changed under Trumps presidency.
Oh you've smelled something, why didn't you say? The righteousness is mindblowing. I didn't even consider it was calling me racist, it was inane was my point.0 -
Your defensiveness on the matter really isn't doing anything but strengthening my original point. No righteousness here (quote ironic given what you were doing is pretty standard virtue signalling), just pointing out the obvious.Call Me Jimmy wrote: »Oh you've smelled something, why didn't you say? The righteousness is mindblowing. I didn't even consider it was calling me racist, it was inane was my point.0 -
Your defensiveness on the matter really isn't doing anything but strengthening my original point. No righteousness here (quote ironic given what you were doing is pretty standard virtue signalling), just pointing out the obvious.
You were wrong, now you say defending myself from your insinuations is evidence of it... deranged0 -
Advertisement
-
Join Date:Posts: 13662
Doesn't pass the smell test I'm afraid. That post was not quoting or I nreference to you and was directly responding to someone else in an entirely different matter regarding how America has changed under Trumps presidency.Call Me Jimmy wrote: »Oh you've smelled something, why didn't you say? The righteousness is mindblowing. I didn't even consider it was calling me racist, it was inane was my point.Your defensiveness on the matter really isn't doing anything but strengthening my original point. No righteousness here (quote ironic given what you were doing is pretty standard virtue signalling), just pointing out the obvious.Call Me Jimmy wrote: »You were wrong, now you say defending myself from your insinuations is evidence of it... deranged
Mod note:
Lets not make things personal0 -
Call Me Jimmy wrote: »Anyone replying to me, please don't start with 'Trump hates Brown people though'
When you are reviewing what the previous administration did versus what Don has done, have you taken into consideration what Don [as opposed to what his administration actually does in its day to day work for other US citizens AND in co-operation with other nations] does or wants the administration to do?
I know a lot of people don't like the "deep state" within the US but that deep state is the organisation of civil and public servants doing more to help the US citizens in their day to day living, as against the people Don gave the US citizens a promise he would drain from the swamp.
It was the policy of the Obama admin not to provide Javelin missiles to Ukraine as it did not want to get involved in a war with Russia, as against Don's policy of giving Ukraine the missiles in return for Ukraine taking action against the Bidens without a care in the world as to what happened conflict-wise between Russia and Ukraine.
Administration staff AKA public service AKA the deep state continues to work for the citizens whatever the intent [and name] of the administration head toward the same citizens. Don shows all the signs of disliking that public-minded policy for whatever cause.0 -
I would note that Trump seems pretty pro establishment. The establishments main issue with Trump is that he makes his supporters look bad whenever he starts going off on ridiculous rants and he tends to be more obvious with his racism etc. He also veers heavily towards forcing loyalty and getting in yes men. His attacks on the justice system are not a negative for the rich wanting to stay in power but he is fairly blunt which calls attention to the loop holes Trump is abusing to get his own way.
However he is fairly pro tax breaks for the rich. Anti workers rights, anti environmental laws that help keep the established people in place. He is not anti establishment. Bernie might be but Trump certainly isn't in spite of his bluster.0 -
I would note that Trump seems pretty pro establishment. The establishments main issue with Trump is that he makes his supporters look bad whenever he starts going off on ridiculous rants and he tends to be more obvious with his racism etc. He also veers heavily towards forcing loyalty and getting in yes men. His attacks on the justice system are not a negative for the rich wanting to stay in power but he is fairly blunt which calls attention to the loop holes Trump is abusing to get his own way.
However he is fairly pro tax breaks for the rich. Anti workers rights, anti environmental laws that help keep the established people in place. He is not anti establishment. Bernie might be but Trump certainly isn't in spite of his bluster.
A lot of the hate for Trump seems to be personality driven rather than policy.
I've made this point repeatedly on here that there has been no substantive changes to the economy or society while Trump has been in office. There has been no change to the way things are done there. This disrupter label is a nonsense and the moral panic about him just keeps his voters happy.
And a lot of non Trump haters find his speeches and press conferences hilarious. They don't take him seriously. A point missed by many.0 -
aloyisious wrote: »When you are reviewing what the previous administration did versus what Don has done, have you taken into consideration what Don [as opposed to what his administration actually does in its day to day work for other US citizens AND in co-operation with other nations] does or wants the administration to do?
I know a lot of people don't like the "deep state" within the US but that deep state is the organisation of civil and public servants doing more to help the US citizens in their day to day living, as against the people Don gave the US citizens a promise he would drain from the swamp.
It was the policy of the Obama admin not to provide Javelin missiles to Ukraine as it did not want to get involved in a war with Russia, as against Don's policy of giving Ukraine the missiles in return for Ukraine taking action against the Bidens without a care in the world as to what happened conflict-wise between Russia and Ukraine.
Administration staff AKA public service AKA the deep state continues to work for the citizens whatever the intent [and name] of the administration head toward the same citizens. Don shows all the signs of disliking that public-minded policy for whatever cause.
Aye, I just give Trump the same treatment as other presidents regarding what he does versus what his administration does. I don't say about any president, or even Obama 'You didn't build that'. In my mind he gets credit for the policies that were promoted during his presidency, successes and failures. The administrators should simply be enacting whatever the policies are, which were mandated by the electorate. And yes there's always going to be tension there and disagreements, but the administrators who help the public have no legitimacy in any actions that are not 100% aligned with the goals of the president.0 -
I would note that Trump seems pretty pro establishment. The establishments main issue with Trump is that he makes his supporters look bad whenever he starts going off on ridiculous rants and he tends to be more obvious with his racism etc. He also veers heavily towards forcing loyalty and getting in yes men. His attacks on the justice system are not a negative for the rich wanting to stay in power but he is fairly blunt which calls attention to the loop holes Trump is abusing to get his own way.
However he is fairly pro tax breaks for the rich. Anti workers rights, anti environmental laws that help keep the established people in place. He is not anti establishment. Bernie might be but Trump certainly isn't in spite of his bluster.
What type of things are you referring to re: Bernie being anti establishment vs Trump?
Surely the economic nationalism / mercantilism bring back the factories is anti-establishment for one (I thought it was the complete antithesis to the prevailing wisdom in the business world too).0 -
Call Me Jimmy wrote: »What type of things are you referring to re: Bernie being anti establishment vs Trump?
Surely the economic nationalism / mercantilism bring back the factories is anti-establishment for one (I thought it was the complete antithesis to the prevailing wisdom in the business world too).
What factories? Manufacturing is in recession in the US last I checked. Trump doesn't give a **** about manufacturing. He just says that to get votes. That was obvious 4 years ago.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2020/01/10/upshot/economy-in-a-nutshell-manufacturing-in-recession-services-booming.amp.html
Bernie has plans for the healthcare system (not it'll be so easy - actual plans) and education. Investing money back into the people of the US. Trump has attempted to allow insurance companies to avoid people with pre existing conditions (currently in court and supported legislation to get rid of it in 2017) to help the insurance companies make even more money. He has also repeatedly tried to cut education funding. Bernie wants to socialise more of it and pump more money into education.
Trump has funnelled money back towards the military which is a big operation in the US and allowed sales of weapons to Saudi Arabia again. Bernie would be reducing the military funding (unsure of his Saudi position).
Essentially Trump has been nearly entirely pro big business and already rich people (the trade war was a dumb idea which helped no one, it was not pro establishment but that is only one policy). Bernie is largely the opposite.
As to whoever said that the issue people had with Trump was personality. See the above. He has attempted to guy the US working class. I am absolutely against most of his policies. The fact that most of his speeches show he doesn't have a clue what is going on also does not help his case.0 -
hotmail.com wrote: »A lot of the hate for Trump seems to be personality driven rather than policy.
I've made this point repeatedly on here that there has been no substantive changes to the economy or society while Trump has been in office. There has been no change to the way things are done there. This disrupter label is a nonsense and the moral panic about him just keeps his voters happy.
And a lot of non Trump haters find his speeches and press conferences hilarious. They don't take him seriously. A point missed by many.
"A lot of" tends to be followed by statements not backed up by any data.
A lot of hate for Trump seems to be personality driven and not policy? Says who exactly? You are trying to say people are playing the man and not the ball. That's nonsense. The outrage against trump is based on his actions as president. The implementation of racist policies and before you say they aren't racist, or he isn't racist, it is Stephen Miller deriving this plans that he implements, so go sell that BS somewhere else. The interference with the judicial system. The calling of the press "enemy of the people". His tax cuts for the rich. His attack on the healthcare system. The divisive actions of his administration. The list is long.
A lot of Trump haters find his speeches hilarious - says who? Care to take a poll here and see what comes out?
And btw - the phrase Trump hater has a connotation that people who don't like him are incapable of making a rational conclusion. The fact that he winds people up is *not* a good thing, but it does not stop people from logically calling him out on what he does.0 -
hotmail.com wrote: »A lot of the hate for Trump seems to be personality driven rather than policy.
I've made this point repeatedly on here that there has been no substantive changes to the economy or society while Trump has been in office. There has been no change to the way things are done there. This disrupter label is a nonsense and the moral panic about him just keeps his voters happy.
And a lot of non Trump haters find his speeches and press conferences hilarious. They don't take him seriously. A point missed by many.
Tbf there's no substance behind that assertion , the thread is littered with policy decisions from trump and his administration. Literally littered.
Making it about personality is akin to the never trump guff which I'm sure you subscribe to.
How's trumps defunding and eliminating leadership in the centre of disease control doing...0 -
Advertisement
-
everlast75 wrote: »"A lot of" tends to be followed by statements not backed up by any data.
A lot of hate for Trump seems to be personality driven and not policy? Says who exactly? You are trying to say people are playing the man and not the ball. That's nonsense. The outrage against trump is based on his actions as president. The implementation of racist policies and before you say they aren't racist, or he isn't racist, it is Stephen Miller deriving this plans that he implements, so go sell that BS somewhere else. The interference with the judicial system. The calling of the press "enemy of the people". His tax cuts for the rich. His attack on the healthcare system. The divisive actions of his administration. The list is long.
A lot of Trump haters find his speeches hilarious - says who? Care to take a poll here and see what comes out?
And btw - the phrase Trump hater has a connotation that people who don't like him are incapable of making a rational conclusion. The fact that he winds people up is *not* a good thing, but it does not stop people from logically calling him out on what he does.
Oh I never said Trump wasn't racist.
A large proportion of America is racist. It is a racist country. A lot of the people who call out racism have their own issues and prejudices.
Regarding Trump speeches being funny and ridiculous. Do you not have a sense of humour? He's absolutely bonkers and the president of a country .0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement