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 VII (threadbanned users listed in OP)

ancapailldorcha

This thread is a continuation of the megathreads for discussing the presidency of Donald Trump and any matters which relate to this.

Please keep discussion civil and constructive and bear the charter in mind before posting.

Update 16/5/20:

Threadbanned users:

Outlaw Pete
everlast75
mcmoustache
BonnieSituation

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

StringerBell

Sure you know yourself, he doesn't have to justify. He just says whatever he wants one day, clapping seals clap, says total opposite next day, clapping seals clap again.

Gwen Cooper

Donald will be giving a statement at 4pm.

fr336

Always worries me when Donald doesn't tweet on time

Stallingrad

2 teleprompters at the ready, will he be coherent and stay on script with no questions? We will know within the first sentence.

everlast75

fr336 wrote: »

Always worries me when Donald doesn't tweet on time

It just means that there are no war updates for Congress...

Professor Moriarty

Stallingrad wrote: »

2 teleprompters at the ready, will he be coherent and stay on script with no questions? We will know within the first sentence.

Meaningless. I wouldn't believe a word out of his mouth.

VinLieger

And here comes the lies and deflection towards Obama

RobertKK

Trump always backs down. This is a pattern.

Manic Moran

Not the best speech I've ever heard. Could have done without the digressions, reference to the previous administration, and odd commentary about our weapon systems. Also, no mention about the airliner.

On the other hand, no mention of any likelihood of a military response, so I think things are going to calm down a bit.

Gwen Cooper

RobertKK wrote: »

Trump always backs down. This is a pattern.

Were you hoping for a war?

kowloon

Manic Moran wrote: »

Not the best speech I've ever heard. Could have done without the digressions, reference to the previous administration, and odd commentary about our weapon systems. Also, no mention about the airliner.

On the other hand, no mention of any likelihood of a military response, so I think things are going to calm down a bit.

Looks like you may have hit the nail on the head earlier. The impotent attack by Iran makes it easy to avoid retaliation.
They'll want to have another go from a new angle.

everlast75

Manic Moran wrote: »

Not the best speech I've ever heard

What were you expecting exactly from Trump?

He is one of the worst orators, if not the worst, of our time.

Bumbling, incoherent, malicious, snide and boastful is his M.O.

RobertKK

Gwen Cooper wrote: »

Were you hoping for a war?

If you knew my posting history, you would know I am a pacifist.

listermint

kowloon wrote: »

Looks like you may have hit the nail on the head earlier. The impotent attack by Iran makes it easy to avoid retaliation.
They'll want to have another go from a new angle.

The americans have systems to take down these ballistic missiles. The Israeli's have them too.

If anyone thinks that the Americans didnt just allow these missiles to land on the base in awknowledgement that they made a mistake.

They let them land, they want the Iranians to be seen to have taken a response and now back to sanctions.

Simmer the pot so to speak.

VinLieger

listermint wrote: »

The americans have systems to take down these ballistic missiles. The Israel's have them too.

If anyone thinks that the Americans didnt just allow these missiles to land on the base in awknowledgement that they made a mistake.

The let them land, they want the Iranians to be seen to have taken a response and now back to sanctions.

Simmer the pot so to speak.

Exactly everyone but the hardiest of warhawaks and obviously trumpesque imbeciles realises this has been a catastrophic mistake strategically and diplomatically

BonnieSituation

RobertKK wrote: »

Trump always backs down. This is a pattern.

Absolutely chickened out of it all. Thankfully.

But he's the epitome of "all fart and no....".

How many times now has he had his bluff called now?

banie01

listermint wrote: »

The americans have systems to take down these ballistic missiles. The Israel's have them too.

If anyone thinks that the Americans didnt just allow these missiles to land on the base in awknowledgement that they made a mistake.

The let them land, they want the Iranians to be seen to have taken a response and now back to sanctions.

Simmer the pot so to speak.

From the number of images of relatively "intact" missile bodies at the impact sites it would be fairly safe to also assume that the Iranians either fired inert warheads or chose not to arm them.

Coupled with the forewarning to Iraq, this allowed Iran to appear to respond in retatlation while preventing escalation.

Very balance handling by the Iranians that reflects quite poorly on US.
Extra Judicial assassination as a tool of statecraft?
Barring Iranian UN attendance and the actual nonsense spouted regarding "imminence" with no evidence to support it.

The escalation of targeting a military leader of a Sovereign nation in a kill mission without a declaration of war or a defacto state of war is astounding!

It really changes the calculus on what is now acceptable as a means of political expedience.

The rules based system that has governed Diplomacy is being eroded by the country that sees itself as its paragon.

kowloon

banie01 wrote: »

From the number of images of relatively "intact" missile bodies at the impact sites it would be fairly safe to also assume that the Iranians either fired inert warheads or chose not to arm them.

Why retaliate at all if it makes you look incompetent?

banie01

kowloon wrote: »

Why retaliate at all if it makes you look incompetent?

Because the retaliation is purely symbolic, like throwing a shot wide in a duel.

The point of the retaliation is to demonstrate that should the Iranians wish to strike hard and escalate that they have the means to do just that.

Its not solely a matter of making a big bang, but showing that you can choose when to reach out and when to restrain oneself.

The Iranians (IF the warheads were deliberately inert), have done just that.

Whilst the Israeli's and portions of the US m.e allies may have a partial THAAD umbrella, plenty of areas are very vulnerable to Ballistic strike and Patriot isn't a certainty kill vehicle.

The purpose would be to show the capability to strike anywhere in the M.E but to demonstrate that Saudi and Gulf states are particularly vulnerable.

the Iranians couldhave launched SSMs against Gulf shipping traffic, but I'd much rather their calculus avoided outright conflict and forced escalation back on to the US.

looksee

It is endlessly fascinating to see the faces Trump pulls as he talks when he is consciously lying (he unconsciously lies the whole time) or reorganising the truth to suit his ends and he puts on that pious 'empathy' voice, 'Be grateful, and bow down before me, I am the patient and wise elder statesman saving the world' stuff. Presumably he doesn't play poker?

serfboard

banie01 wrote: »

Because the retaliation is purely symbolic, like throwing a shot wide in a duel.

The point of the retaliation is to demonstrate that should the Iranians wish to strike hard and escalate that they have the means to do just that.

Interesting analysis by the BBC here:

BBC wrote:

Given the significance of General Qasem Soleimani and the passions that his killing aroused, Iran's military strike against US bases in Iraq was a modest response.
...
The question now is what happens next. Is this the end of Iran's retaliation? Only time will tell.

Any dramatic Iranian response - the assassination of a high-ranking US officer for example - would take time and depend upon both detailed planning and opportunity.
...
this episode of direct confrontation between Tehran and Washington was preceded by a long-running Iranian campaign over many years to hamper US activities in the region. Indeed it was rocket attacks from Iran's proxies - a local Shia militia - against US bases in Iraq that formed the prelude to this recent crisis. This then raises a whole series of questions.

In killing ... Soleimani has the US now established any measure of deterrence? Will Tehran seek to constrain its allies in the region to avert further attacks against US bases or interests? And if not, will Iranian-inspired attacks resume in due course? What will President Trump do then?

While it's obvious that the Iranians don't want to get into a direct shooting war with the Americans, you'd have to imagine that these missile attacks will not be their only response, and that their plotting for a longer-term and harsher revenge, probably using proxies, will start now.

Itssoeasy

Two rockets have landed in the green zone in Baghdad according to sky news which caused sirens to sound at the US embassy. No suggestion it was from Iran.

Professor Moriarty

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Two rockets have landed in the green zone in Baghdad according to sky news which caused sirens to sound at the US embassy. No suggestion it was from Iran.

They have many proxy militias.

Itssoeasy

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

They have many proxy militias.

Well one of them has decided to act then.

aloyisious

That's the worrying thing for Iran, a freelancer going rogue on his/her own bat may do something that initiates an unstoppable ball rolling. I'd imagine that the ground forces and aircraft crews & maintenance people at the airfield were in bunkers during the missile strikes reducing the chance of casualties. One thing which followed on from the killing of Gen Soleimani was the crowd-crush at his funeral giving the authorities in Iran a chance to rein in the expressions of anger on the grounds of public safety. The mourners were allowed enough of a tension-relief valve to let off steam so things could cool down ever so slightly. There is a silver lining in each cloud.

aloyisious

It seems the Senate briefing did not go down well in GOP ranks. Two of its senators went their own [probably predictable] way slamming it and expressing the view that congress had the power to decide on war, not the president, while Senator Graham decided to call them anti-constitutional and anti-American for expressing their opinions on the briefing and what President Trump had done. One of the senators responded that Graham doesn't know anything about the constitution, which I doubt, just that Graham is knowingly lying about the constraints the constitution allows Congress apply to presidential actions.

everlast75

aloyisious wrote: »

It seems the Senate briefing did not go down well in GOP ranks. Two of its senators went their own [probably predictable] way slamming it and expressing the view that congress had the power to decide on war, not the president, while Senator Graham decided to call them anti-constitutional and anti-American for expressing their opinions on the briefing and what President Trump had done. One of the senators responded that Graham doesn't know anything about the constitution, which I doubt, just that Graham is knowingly lying about the constraints the constitution allows Congress apply to presidential actions.

The senators were told not to debate or question the decisions made on Iran. They were told that to do so help the Iranians and was unpatriotic.

So basically, people are not allowed criticise Trump and the decisions made by him.

People outside the administration are now getting a flavour of what it is like to directly work for Trump.

It is the reason the only people left working for him are lackeys. They are not allowed stand up to him.

Democrat or Republican, it is not healthy for a democracy to have a leader like that. It is disturbing.

ECO_Mental

Just thinking, now that Bolton has had his Road to Damascus moment and has now decided to testify but the Senate probably wont call him to testify, why doesn't Congress subpoena him anyway and get him to testify to congress.....that'll call his bluff and he will be on the record and give an under oath testimony that the Senate cannot ignore really.

20Cent

Interviews in front of helicopters, the constant sniffing, slurring words, incoherent rants about toilets/washing machines etc, the rush to hospital.

Is it time to face the elephant in the room seems very clear trump is using amphetamines like adderall. It's rumored he's been snorting it for years. Would explain a lot of his behaviour.

VinLieger

20Cent wrote: »

Interviews in front of helicopters, the constant sniffing, slurring words, incoherent rants about toilets/washing machines etc, the rush to hospital.

Is it time to face the elephant in the room seems very clear trump is using amphetamines like adderall. It's rumored he's been snorting it for years. Would explain a lot of his behaviour.

The adderall is looking more and more likely but my money is still also on advanced untreated syphalis slowly melting his brain. He's famously talked to Howard Stern about how lucky he was not to ever contract any STD's but as we all know Trump likes to project and lie about things that don't need to be lied about and if he says something is one way its very likely the other. Put simply he was too stupid to do anything about it which lead to his rapid mental deterioration, basically exactly what happened to Al Capone.