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

RobertKK

If Trump ends up in a war, he loses the presidency.
It is a dealbreaker for many.

everlast75

RobertKK wrote: »

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/02/17/trump_on_iraq_how_could_we_have_been_so_stupid_one_of_the_worst_decisions_in_the_history_of_the_country.html

2016: "You know, if Bush is insulted, I don't care if he's insulted," Trump said Wednesday. "It was a horrible mistake. We should have never been there. Somebody says, oh, that's not good to criticize? I say criticize? It's one of the worst decisions in the history of the country. We have totally destabilized the Middle East."

"We spent $2 trillion," Trump said about the Iraq war. "Could have rebuilt our country. We could have done so much with that money. And instead, we're worse in the Middle East than we were 15 years ago. Right now, it's a disaster."

Trump was for the war in iraq.

The only wisdom he possesses is after a fact... and even then, that's not a guarantee.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/andrewkaczynski/in-2002-donald-trump-said-he-supported-invading-iraq-on-the

woohoo!!!

everlast75 wrote: »

I agree with your post... apart from the bit in bold. Trump has increased drone strikes and abolished the need to document deaths via drone strikes. Do you have a like for like comparison of figures from a reputable source?

Based on comparing invasions/wars of countries compared to Trump, and his 3 years so far as opposed to 8 for the previous 2 guys. By any definition Bush and Obama presided over mass murder. To date Trump has not on a similar scale. Btw I despise trump.

RobertKK

Christy42 wrote: »

Trump's base would become pro war. They have no issue with the escalation in drone strikes nor being hired out as mercenaries by Saudi Arabia.

Trump has been trying to push Iran for a while and remember hired noted pro bomb everythong personality Bolton at one point. His base didn't care and won't care.

Trump is not and never has been anti war.

He called the wars the US has been involved in the Middle East a waste of money and made the place worse, this before he got elected and on the campaign trail.
Yet people here who must be pro-war were supporting Hillary Clinton who was talking about no fly zones over Syria and more war.
Trump allowed Russia to win the Syrian war for Assad, the alternative would be the Hillary Clinton solution - Libya which remains a disaster to this day and we can thank her policy for reintroducing slavery to Libya by removing Gaddafi.
The last election was an election for more war or less war. Less war won.
Hillary Clinton has voted for every war going and it was her that pushed Obama to intervene in Libya, something Obama later called a ‘**** show’.
So we were lucky we did not end up with the architect of the sh1t show in charge.

beggars_bush

RobertKK wrote: »

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/02/17/trump_on_iraq_how_could_we_have_been_so_stupid_one_of_the_worst_decisions_in_the_history_of_the_country.html

2016: "You know, if Bush is insulted, I don't care if he's insulted," Trump said Wednesday. "It was a horrible mistake. We should have never been there. Somebody says, oh, that's not good to criticize? I say criticize? It's one of the worst decisions in the history of the country. We have totally destabilized the Middle East."

"We spent $2 trillion," Trump said about the Iraq war. "Could have rebuilt our country. We could have done so much with that money. And instead, we're worse in the Middle East than we were 15 years ago. Right now, it's a disaster."

Wait until Trump gets finished with the place

Christy42

RobertKK wrote: »

This would be a most stupid move by Trump if he started a war with Iran. I hear from some supporters who say they voted for him based on his anti-war stance before the election.
He would lose a lot of votes if he allows this to escalate.

Trump's base would become pro war. They have no issue with the escalation in drone strikes nor being hired out as mercenaries by Saudi Arabia.

Trump has been trying to push Iran for a while and remember hired noted pro bomb everythong personality Bolton at one point. His base didn't care and won't care.

Trump is not and never has been anti war.

RobertKK

Brian? wrote: »

Trump never had an anti war stance. That was a deluded reason to vote for him over Clinton.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/02/17/trump_on_iraq_how_could_we_have_been_so_stupid_one_of_the_worst_decisions_in_the_history_of_the_country.html

2016: "You know, if Bush is insulted, I don't care if he's insulted," Trump said Wednesday. "It was a horrible mistake. We should have never been there. Somebody says, oh, that's not good to criticize? I say criticize? It's one of the worst decisions in the history of the country. We have totally destabilized the Middle East."

"We spent $2 trillion," Trump said about the Iraq war. "Could have rebuilt our country. We could have done so much with that money. And instead, we're worse in the Middle East than we were 15 years ago. Right now, it's a disaster."

RobertKK

Igotadose wrote: »

Do you regret promoting him here on Boards during the campaign as he was not a warmonger like HRC? Elections have consequences, Trump's on you

I did not promote him, just he was and still is a better option than the proven war monger that is Hillary Clinton. Her plans were to escalate the war in Syria and try for regime change, a failed US policy which she has supported over and over again.
It was no surprise all the neocons were backing Hillary Clinton over Trump in 2016 but people wed themselves to Democrat or Republican irrespective of their policies a lot of the time.
Overall I believe the world would have been far unsafe with Hillary Clinton as she is not afraid of war unlike Trump who again and again backs away when on the brink.
He needs to do that again.

Brian?

RobertKK wrote: »

This would be a most stupid move by Trump if he started a war with Iran. I hear from some supporters who say they voted for him based on his anti-war stance before the election.
He would lose a lot of votes if he allows this to escalate.

Trump never had an anti war stance. That was a deluded reason to vote for him over Clinton.

Igotadose

RobertKK wrote: »

This would be a most stupid move by Trump if he started a war with Iran. I hear from some supporters who say they voted for him based on his anti-war stance before the election.
He would lose a lot of votes if he allows this to escalate.

Do you regret promoting him here on Boards during the campaign as he was not a warmonger like HRC? Elections have consequences, Trump's on you

RobertKK

This would be a most stupid move by Trump if he started a war with Iran. I hear from some supporters who say they voted for him based on his anti-war stance before the election.
He would lose a lot of votes if he allows this to escalate.

everlast75

woohoo!!! wrote: »

Trump would like to start a war with Iran but I doubt the American public want another middle East war. They're still in Afghanistan and Iraq. So on the old body count, Trump is coming out good, certainly compared to Obama and Bush.

I think he likes acting the tough guy but he isn't interested in foreign policy really. His real ire is saved for domestic critics, both real and imagined.

I agree with your post... apart from the bit in bold. Trump has increased drone strikes and abolished the need to document deaths via drone strikes. Do you have a like for like comparison of figures from a reputable source?

woohoo!!!

Trump would like to start a war with Iran but I doubt the American public want another middle East war. They're still in Afghanistan and Iraq. So on the old body count, Trump is coming out good, certainly compared to Obama and Bush.

I think he likes acting the tough guy but he isn't interested in foreign policy really. His real ire is saved for domestic critics, both real and imagined.

Itssoeasy

That Iranian general was an utter ****e hawk and I doubt many people will be crying into their pints over him being dead. The issue is was this a plan by the USA which involves plans for the inevitable retaliation by Iran or was this an opportunist strike with no plan ? Given who the president is I'm leaning towards it being the latter.

I'm not saying someithing on this scale will happen but the assassination of archduke franz Ferdinand in 1914 sparked WW1 when it wasn't the intention. My point is these things have a way of snowballing.

everlast75

https://twitter.com/_cromer043/status/1212987603882000384?s=20

Watching this footage is quite surreal..

everlast75

Leroy42 wrote: »

What is the justification for the killing of the Iranian General? And what was he doing in Baghdad airport?

I know we have all been brought up with the idea that the US can basically do whatever it wants, but this really does seem like an act of war to me. I cannot see any justification for it, but have only been paying loose attention to it.

Trump has made it a USA vs Iran issue. Imagine if Iran took out one of the elected leaders of the US government*. It would be all out war.

This US administration has shown no consistency (which is not surprising with the high turnover of staff) or definitive plan on the World Stage, Trump has shown zero political ability to negotiate and Pompeo and others have shown they have no spine in standing up to Trump. Mattis, Bolton and others who did assert themselves are gone.

Let us not forget that there was a peace deal with Iran that was working. Trump's own staff confirmed that it was working. Trump alone pulled the plug on it. It is on him.

We have a lunatic in the WH who is going to scorch the earth in order to try and save his artificially orange skin.

everlast75

yosser hughes wrote: »

I'm not sure he really needs to 'muster up support', as you put it. He is the favourite to win the next election.

His approval rating has never been over 50%.

55% of the american public want him impeached AND removed.

He has just been impeached for what his former national security adviser called a "drug deal" and there is a constant stream of information coming out about it.

He hasn't built any wall. Any repairs were not paid for by Mexico. The campaign promise to eliminate the national debt is now beyond a joke as the deficit has spiralled out of control. Hillary has not been locked up. His campaign chair is in prison. His deputy campaign chair is in prison. His foreign adviser went to jail. His former personal lawyer is in jail. His first National Security adviser is awaiting sentencing. His political strategist is awaiting sentencing.

Yep - there is absolutely no reason why he would pick a fight with Iran to distract from the dumpster fire that is his administration.

StringerBell

Leroy42 wrote: »

What is the justification for the killing of the Iranian General? And what was he doing in Baghdad airport?

I know we have all been brought up with the idea that the US can basically do whatever it wants, but this really does seem like an act of war to me. I cannot see any justification for it, but have only been paying loose attention to it.

He seems to have been there to meet with Iranian backed forces there, unofficial forces operating in Iraq obviously.

Igotadose

Kiith wrote: »

Conservatives in 2016 - Hillary is a war monger and will drag us into a war with Iran.
Conservatives in 2020 - Killed an Iranian general, the 2nd highest military person in the entire country? **** yeah!

Boardsies, too. Part of the but, but Hillary nonsense. Though when I think about it, the boardsies who spouted this were, for boards, on the right.

Leroy42

What is the justification for the killing of the Iranian General? And what was he doing in Baghdad airport?

I know we have all been brought up with the idea that the US can basically do whatever it wants, but this really does seem like an act of war to me. I cannot see any justification for it, but have only been paying loose attention to it.

Kiith

Conservatives in 2016 - Hillary is a war monger and will drag us into a war with Iran.
Conservatives in 2020 - Killed an Iranian general, the 2nd highest military person in the entire country? **** yeah!

yosser hughes

everlast75 wrote: »

A war is the last attempt to try and muster support by Trump.

Not much else he can do as he has completely ballsed up over ther last 3 years.

Old Trump called it.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/141604554855825408?s=19

I'm not sure he really needs to 'muster up support', as you put it. He is the favourite to win the next election.

everlast75

20Cent wrote: »

Baghdad airport attacked by the Americans, killed some Iranians and a top General.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/03/baghdad-airport-iraq-attack-deaths-iran-us-tensions

A war is the last attempt to try and muster support by Trump.

Not much else he can do as he has completely ballsed up over ther last 3 years.

Old Trump called it.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/141604554855825408?s=19

AllForIt

dodderangler wrote: »

Who gives a fúck. Why do irish people involve themselves in foreign politics more than their own??
Hes not the worst America has had and Obama killed more people than any president in USA history
But everyone loves him
From what I can see with the stats hes done more good for america than bad.
Liberals and Democrats have ruined everything everywhere so dont get involved.

I'm a bit surprised that anyone would make such a comment in a politics discussion forum.

What happens politically in the US affects the rest of the world, whether you like it or not, that's Ireland included.

Just look at what DT has said about the Irish tax haven. He want's to take jobs back to the US and not have tech companies residing here. These are tech companies - they don't need to be physically located in Ireland. It's a service industry and where they are physically located is irrelevant to their functioning.

Ireland's economy would be screwed if the tech company's left for whatever reason. And they would dump us as quick as lightening if they had a good reason to.

All that media spin about Ireland's IT graduates and our Universities being the best in the world was always a load of bull****. It was just a political spin to get the ppl of the country to think that these big tech's located here for the brilliance of our people. Absolute nonsense. They came here for the tax breaks and if for some reason they don't have them anymore, if DT brings about a situation where it's more attractive for them to relocate back to the US, they will.

kowloon

dodderangler wrote: »

Who gives a fúck. Why do irish people involve themselves in foreign politics more than their own??
Hes not the worst America has had and Obama killed more people than any president in USA history
But everyone loves him
From what I can see with the stats hes done more good for america than bad.
Liberals and Democrats have ruined everything everywhere so dont get involved.

Not sure where you heard that, but my money would be on Roosevelt.
It's hard to say how many drone deaths there have been under Trump because he revoked the transparency rule that require reporting of civilian deaths from strikes.

dodderangler

Who gives a fúck. Why do irish people involve themselves in foreign politics more than their own??
Hes not the worst America has had and Obama killed more people than any president in USA history
But everyone loves him
From what I can see with the stats hes done more good for america than bad.
Liberals and Democrats have ruined everything everywhere so dont get involved.

20Cent

Baghdad airport attacked by the Americans, killed some Iranians and a top General.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/03/baghdad-airport-iraq-attack-deaths-iran-us-tensions

TomOnBoard

serfboard wrote: »

Which they do becuase that is the narrative spewed out on media outlets owned by said same billionaires oligarchs.

Not amazing to me. Warren Buffett, who in fairness to him is in favour of people like himself paying more in tax, said that he went around his office and could find nobody, including his secretary, who paid less tax (pro rata) than him.

Fair play to Buffett for his honesty. However, it is outrageous that the system is stacked so much in favour of the 1%.

And that situation applies elsewhere also, including in Irl, although the size of the disgrace may not be as large here.

So-called democracies have failed the people when the ones with all the wealth can both buy the government they want to have and have that government pass laws that turn the ordinary voters into slaves whose efforts simply add further to the wealth of that 1%.

serfboard

Midlife wrote: »

Donald and Brexit are basically political movements backed by billionaires with the intention to make wealthy people wealthier. They succeed in crafting favourable legislation by making enough middle and working class people blame foreigners and poor people for their economic situation.

Which they do becuase that is the narrative spewed out on media outlets owned by said same billionaires oligarchs.

Midlife wrote: »

the richest 1% in America now pay less tax PRO RATA than the poorest. That is amazing!

Not amazing to me. Warren Buffett, who in fairness to him is in favour of people like himself paying more in tax, said that he went around his office and could find nobody, including his secretary, who paid less tax (pro rata) than him.

Warren Buffett wrote:

I'll probably be the lowest paying taxpayer in the office

Midlife

peddlelies wrote: »

Arrogant, simple thinking like this is why both movements happened. Opposing campaigns were backed by huge money. Maybe, just maybe, people had legitimate qualms. Labelling such voters dumb is much easier than self-reflection.

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidential-campaign-fundraising/

What does Hillary have to do with it? The traditional Democrats have presided over the massive increase in inequality that I'm talking about.

But sure yeah. It's all the fault of Mexican immigrants.

Simple thinking indeed.