nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VI

Quin_Dub

The continuing discussion of the Donald Trump Presidency.

Keep it civil and please note the charter before posting

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

everlast75

amandstu wrote: »

Did Trump not say about N.Korea that they would not get nuclear weapons ("trust me ,it won't happen" or words to that effect )?

Does anyone remember that or can find a ref?

Not saying that we shouldn't try to support his efforts re N.Korea but that would have been a self serving thing to say and, viewed the enormity of the situation quite unforgivable to give false hope as we now see it.

He is a complete BS artist. He lies constantly so there is surely a quote of him saying one thing and another saying the exact opposite.

I just can't get passed all the lies and why none of his supporters or fellow "Republicans" have an issue with this. Is it that they have the "win at all costs, **** the ethics" perspective?

If you can't "win" without lying, surely they have to know that their argument cannot stand on its own merits.

That's the problem I find with debating Trump supporters. It's rarely about the facts, its about opinions or interpretations or when facts are presented, it turns into whataboutery. If you can't have a discussion in good faith then don't have one at all.

Christy42

Leroy42 wrote: »

To restate a point a made previously, surely this is just another example that Iran need to get their hands on a nuclear weapon. US, and Trump have proven that without one they will simply push you around, chop up any previous agreements and simply go with whatever they feel like at the time.

BTW, I am not advocating Iran getting nuclear weapons, just that they really have no reason not to look to get those weapons.

Around the time of the Iraq war there was a Bremner Bird and Fortune (I think) sketch to that effect. About an ambassador from a made up country giving an interview saying they wanted nukes so the US would not invade. He described 3 strategies. Say you have them and everyone knows it (N. Korea), say you don't but have them (Israel) or say you have them and don't but that one is risky because then they send weapon inspectors and if they don't find anything then...

Sometimes the Republican playbook doesn't change that much.

Midlife

The problem with Iran has very little to do with nuclear weapons. They impact on American interests in the middle east.

North Korea don't so that Trump and current (and previous) governments doesn't really care beyond PR opportunities, global leadership etc.

Iran however are different. They are a direct challenge to US/Saudi dominance of middle east. If the only goal was to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, then why tear up the deal that was in place.

North Korea are a problem all by themselves.

Iran is more about oil, Saudi Arabia and middle east geopolitics in general. As mentioned earlier, a lot of this has to do with countries piushing to replace the dollar with euro when it comes to international trading.

Saudi Arabia is a conservative middle east country sitting on huge oil reserves and happy to cosy up to the US - america loves them.

Iran is a conservatie middle east country sitting on huge oil reserves and doesn't play ball - sanctions.

It's really just new age colonialism.

dr.fuzzenstein

12gauge dave wrote: »

Calling trumps voters assholes and getting 10 "thanks" says alot about the clientele in this thread.

There is a certain type I was referring to.
These people say "I'm fed up of all that lefty/SJW/feminist bullsh*t and that's why I voted for Trump, so it's all the fault of de left that Trump is in Power".
So those people are assholes, pure and simple.

volchitsa

Midlife wrote: »

The problem with Iran has very little to do with nuclear weapons. They impact on American interests in the middle east.

North Korea don't so that Trump and current (and previous) governments doesn't really care beyond PR opportunities, global leadership etc.

Iran however are different. They are a direct challenge to US/Saudi dominance of middle east. If the only goal was to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, then why tear up the deal that was in place.

North Korea are a problem all by themselves.

Iran is more about oil, Saudi Arabia and middle east geopolitics in general. As mentioned earlier, a lot of this has to do with countries piushing to replace the dollar with euro when it comes to international trading.

Saudi Arabia is a conservative middle east country sitting on huge oil reserves and happy to cosy up to the US - america loves them.

Iran is a conservatie middle east country sitting on huge oil reserves and doesn't play ball - sanctions.

It's really just new age colonialism.

The problem is that the lesson that Iran will take away from the double standards applied to NK compared to them is that to get respect from the Americans they really need nuclear weapons.

And they would not be wrong.

Midlife

volchitsa wrote: »

The problem is that the lesson that Iran will take away from the double standards applied to NK compared to them is that to get respect from the Americans they really need nuclear weapons.

And they would not be wrong.

I agree in part..

I think they're well aware that to get respect from the Americans, they need to fall in line in an economic sense. It won't make a difference how advance their nuclear capabilities are.

The thing posted earlier is massive though. Europe and Iran have agreed a go-around to trade oil in return for Euros. Now American interests are more directly challenged by an Iran/Europe combination than Iran ever did on their own.

This is a massive massive own goal for Trump's international statecraft. And a massive massive plus for Europe.

America is now in a far worse position regarding Iran and have to either climb down and go back to the original deal or start sanctioning Europe for sticking to the original deal.

Massive massive blunder and primarly because he wanted to tear down something of Obama's that people said was good.

Seriously seriously bad leadership.

It's almost like they don't know what they're doing.

peddlelies

Quin_Dub wrote: »

"Open Borders!!!"
"Abortion for all!!!"
"Take away your guns!!!"
etc. etc. etc.

Akin to what? "Putting y'all back in chains" ?

Trump would be stupid not to attack their stances on illegal immigration. During the debate Julian Castro wanted to repeal part of the code which says it’s a federal crime to enter the country without authorization. In the second debate when asked if it should be a civil offence not a crime to enter the country illegally all candidates raised their hands. The night before they did the same thing when asked if illegal immigrants should be provided free Government health care.

Now I don't think the Democrats are for "open borders", but I do think a lot of people will have a problem with what seems like obvious encouragement of illegal immigration, and tax dollars being used to provide healthcare and other incentives to non citizens.

[Deleted User]

volchitsa wrote: »

The problem is that the lesson that Iran will take away from the double standards applied to NK compared to them is that to get respect from the Americans they really need nuclear weapons.

And they would not be wrong.

Libya is a more pertinent example.

volchitsa

Deleted User wrote: »

Libya is a more pertinent example.

I don't think so. Iran is already a formidable military force that western countries would hesitate to take on directly, even without nuclear weapons. Libya wasn't.

That's why Libya was chosen as the scapegoat for Lockerbie when in fact it was almost certainly Iran, and it's highly likely that the invasion of Iraq was intended to warn Iran off a bit without having to actually tackle them directly.

Of course it went south from there, but that's a different matter.

amandstu

everlast75 wrote: »

That's the problem I find with debating Trump supporters. It's rarely about the facts, its about opinions or interpretations or when facts are presented, it turns into whataboutery. If you can't have a discussion in good faith then don't have one at all.

I think I saw that question answered for the Republicans (why they support him) and it was "Google hypocrisy"

Whataboutery is probably a tool for weaker minds.

edit I wonder if all these one on one private meetings he has with foreign leaders is because he actually thinks he can bribe them.

everlast75

It would appear the tiny left hand doesn't know what the tiny right hand is doing. Someone is miffed anyway.

https://twitter.com/AmbJohnBolton/status/1145646367865528320?s=19

Bolton was in Mongolia when this was happening. Tucker Carlson was, of course, front and centre.

Sean.3516

batgoat wrote: »

You're classifying FDR as a bad president? FDR and Wilson tend to rank as the best US presidents... Obama while not at their level, he still brought them out of the biggest economic crash since the Great Depression... Trump meanwhile has no real achievements to speak of. So can't really think of a reason that he's better than any of them..

FDR’s economic meddling with the New Deal lengthened the Great Depression by about 8 years according to a study by Stanford economists.

Wilson was probably the closest thing the US ever had to a fascist president. He was a eugenecist who wanted America modelled on the German Empire in terms of “social order”. Not to mention he was a vicious racist who had the KKK film “Birth of a Nation” screened at the White House.

As for Obama leading them out of an economic crash. Most Depressions in the US barring large scale economic interventionism are soon followed by a boom of equal magnitude. America’s recovery after the economic crash of 2008 was the slowest recovery the US has ever had.

When people ask what Trump has achieved, first of all he hasnt messed anything up royally yet, despite the tariff silliness. One of the best things any leader can hope to achieve is to not interfere in the lives of it’s citizens and leave them the hell alone.

serfboard

everlast75 wrote: »

It would appear the tiny left hand doesn't know what the tiny right hand is doing. Someone is miffed anyway.

John Bolton calling someone else's behaviour "reprehensible" and saying that there should be consequences. That's a laugh.

Stallingrad

I know it is impossible to separate Trump from his baggage, but it must be viewed as a good thing that there are meetings like this.

Sure, it could be nothing more than PR and bluster for both of them, but that accusation would be leveled at any meeting of a US President with NK. Would HC have ever met Kim? I doubt it.

Obama warned T that the biggest danger he faced was NK, so typically T is going the extra mile to proves he can do what Obama could not.

The outright sycophancy and praise of Kim are sickening to watch though, but if this grotesque display inches NK toward normality then it will be quickly forgotten about.

Differences get resolved by diplomacy and discussion a lot more effectively than sanctions or war.

Sean.3516

serfboard wrote: »

John Bolton calling someone else's behaviour "reprehensible" and saying that there should be consequences. That's a laugh.

What did Bolton ever do that was so bad?

Igotadose

Sean.3516 wrote: »

What did Bolton ever do that was so bad?

He's the worst National Security Advisor in history, by your morality metric:rolleyes:. Previously he was the worst UN Ambassador in history.

Quin_Dub

peddlelies wrote: »

Akin to what? "Putting y'all back in chains" ?

Trump would be stupid not to attack their stances on illegal immigration. During the debate Julian Castro wanted to repeal part of the code which says it’s a federal crime to enter the country without authorization. In the second debate when asked if it should be a civil offence not a crime to enter the country illegally all candidates raised their hands. The night before they did the same thing when asked if illegal immigrants should be provided free Government health care.

Now I don't think the Democrats are for "open borders", but I do think a lot of people will have a problem with what seems like obvious encouragement of illegal immigration, and tax dollars being used to provide healthcare and other incentives to non citizens.

This is the point though..

There are perfectly good debates to have about Immigration for example - The Criminal charge vs. Civil charge (Do they get locked up or do get just get turned around and sent home etc.?) or the value of investment in the source countries to help improve their economies to encourage people to stay in their birthplace etc. are discussions that grown-ups could have.

But Trump distills all of the nuance there down to "Democrats love open borders and love MS-13!!!"

Designed , not to get people to understand why his policy/approach might be better , but simply to enrage and energise his base and work them up into a fever-pitch.

He uses no logic in his approach, he simply plays on driving heightened emotions mostly anger and fear to fuel his voters.

Professor Moriarty

Sean.3516 wrote: »

What did Bolton ever do that was so bad?

Ironically, he's a self-confessed draft dodger.

Quin_Dub

Sean.3516 wrote: »

What did Bolton ever do that was so bad?

His sole foreign policy position is "Bomb them back to the stone-age and replace their leadership with puppets that will do what we tell them"

He hasn't gotten to do it very often thankfully , but it doesn't stop him proposing it at every available opportunity.

Leroy42

Sean.3516 wrote: »

As for Obama leading them out of an economic crash. Most Depressions in the US barring large scale economic interventionism are soon followed by a boom of equal magnitude. America’s recovery after the economic crash of 2008 was the slowest recovery the US has ever had.

How many great depressions/recessions has the US had, and how many recoveries are you talking about for the sample? What were the growth rates and were the financial markets still operational unlike when Bush allowed the messing that lead to the collapse?

Sean.3516 wrote: »

When people ask what Trump has achieved, first of all he hasnt messed anything up royally yet, despite the tariff silliness. One of the best things any leader can hope to achieve is to not interfere in the lives of it’s citizens and leave them the hell alone.

Well except if you are a woman looking for an abortion. Or a farmer trying to export soya beans. Or coloured people in the southern states that are now being faced with open racism again.

Or if you are looking for education in the public arena. Or foodstamps. Or require medical care. He has, at the very least, tried to make these situations worse. And of course due to his failed economic policy (didn't he promise 5% growth to pay for the tax cuts?) Although the GDP continues to rise for 2018 tax revenues actually fell. So in effect the rise in GDP is pointless (except of course for the corporations who benefit. And that is going to negatively impact everyone in the future.

serfboard

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Ironically, he's a self-confessed draft dodger.

Wikipedia wrote:

Bolton was a supporter of the Vietnam War, but purposely avoided military service in Vietnam ...

He wrote in his Yale 25th reunion book: "I confess I had no desire to die in a Southeast Asian rice paddy."

Yes John, you didn't want to die in a Southeast Asian rice paddy. But you had no problem supporting a policy that would ensure that others did - a classic Chickenhawk:

Wikipedia wrote:

Chickenhawk ... is a political term used in the United States to describe a person who strongly supports war or other military action ... yet who actively avoids or avoided military service

Professor Moriarty

serfboard wrote: »

Yes John, you didn't want to die in a Southeast Asian rice paddy. But you had no problem supporting a policy that would ensure that others did - a classic Chickenhawk:

Chicken hawk! Equally applies to The Donald.

Kermit.de.frog

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

This is the most cringe inducing thing you’ll see this year. Is she there in an official capacity representing the US? I can’t understake Why someone so completely unqualified is even in this situation? Or is she just trumps envoy?
Can anyone explain please?

https://twitter.com/anandwrites/status/1145165584721731584?s=21

She has no business being there. None.

They are 100% right to treat her with disdain when she is always trying to interupt.

Stop moaning ffs

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

She has no business being there. None.

They are 100% right to treat her with disdain when she is always trying to interupt.

If as has been suggested by other more knowledgeable posters than I earlier in the thread, she is actually being groomed to run at some point, you’ll see the video and this type of imagery being used no doubt.
She is completely unqualified to be there. All my American pals are mortified.

##Mod Edit## Meme removed

Igotadose

serfboard wrote: »

Yes John, you didn't want to die in a Southeast Asian rice paddy. But you had no problem supporting a policy that would ensure that others did - a classic Chickenhawk:

Both are odious, however in his defense, Bolton did what many young men did during the Vietnam era, took one of the legal deferments available by joining the National Guard. Many young men did.

Of course he was hypocritical about supporting the war and then hiding from the draft. Plenty didn't support the war and did what Bolton did.

But, and it's a big difference, Trump simply bought himself a medical deferment, the well-known bone spurs.

So, Bolton's bad, Trump's still worse, *he* could've joined the national guard but instead banged around studio 54 during the war, as he likes to brag about.

TomOnBoard

On top of his chickenhawk warmongering, and probably related, Bolton is a religious bigot with a clear hatred for practitioners of Islam. A poisonous man and a danger to the whole world...

peddlelies

TomOnBoard wrote: »

On top of his chickenhawk warmongering, and probably related, Bolton is a religious bigot with a clear hatred for practitioners of Islam. A poisonous man and a danger to the whole world...

I don't like Bolton one iota, but why is it that when people criticize Islam they're "bigots", but the evangelical right in the US are fair game. I'm not saying you personally do it, but it's all a bit baffling to me.

TomOnBoard

peddlelies wrote: »

TomOnBoard wrote: »

On top of his chickenhawk warmongering, and probably related, Bolton is a religious bigot with a clear hatred for practitioners of Islam. A poisonous man and a danger to the whole world...

I don't like Bolton one iota, but why is it that when people criticize Islam they're "bigots", but the evangelical right in the US are fair game. I'm not saying you personally do it, but it's all a bit baffling to me.

Bolton doesn't just criticise Islam; he actively promotes lies and misinformation that foments hatreds for practitioners of the religion. He is in a position of huge power and has the ability to bring 'fire and fury' down on the heads of millions of people based on his bigoted beliefs.

That's a long way from commentators on Boards criticising the evangelical right for a complete hypocrisy in their support for a misogynist philanderer who is also a crook and a despot and who (along with his sleazy, leeching progeny) has been legally banned from ever holding a leadership position in a charity of any kind in the whole State of New York.

Are you still baffled or does that sort it out for you?

pixelburp

peddlelies wrote: »

I don't like Bolton one iota, but why is it that when people criticize Islam they're "bigots", but the evangelical right in the US are fair game. I'm not saying you personally do it, but it's all a bit baffling to me.

Religion of any extremity is fair game for criticism, but to be fair the "evangelical right" is correctly marked as a fringe (a powerful fringe mind) subset of Christianity with America, nevermind the world. The strawman might be sometimes invoked, but there's little insinuation that the evangelical right === Christians.

Too many discussions on Islam do not make this tacit acknowledgment, note the distinction of there being subsets and variations of Islamic belief; while often a lazy, hostile strawman is quickly invoked as a battering ram as to why Islam is incompatible with "Western" culture, in whatever form that's meant during the argument. And if that's not invoked, you'll get whataboutery to castigate the relative lay people along the lines of "well, why don't the good/normal Muslims protest against the extremists" (they do, but it's hand waved away) See After Hours on this very site to see this kind of mentality.

If bigotry is an unfair descriptor, IMO there's a dishonesty in perspective between the two relative extremes. Muslims are "other"ed far quicker and more aggressively than the evangelicals.

TomOnBoard

Trump's been burning a hole in the twitter machine today. This time, he's been screeching about how bad New York is to him and how mean they are there.

There must be some huge development from one or more of the SDNY and NY State investigations about to hit the presses! That might also explain the indecent haste with which the photo op was arranged in Korea yesterday. Deflection, deflection, deflection. ...