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 III

1171172174176177330

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 15,442 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    markodaly wrote: »
    Some on here want this to be a precursor to war as it confirms their own bias.

    This is all about isolationism, not war. The average Trump voter couldn't give a damm about Iran and certainly do not want to be over there fighting. He promised that he would wthdraw from the deal and he did. He may want to do a new deal or spin it that way but a new war? Nope, not at all. Trump is not Bush or Clinton.

    So what is the end game. He has cancelled the deal and will impose sanctions. And if they break the sanctions and develop a nuke? Or if they don't come to the table and continue to test ballistic weapons?

    They said one of the reasons for cancelling the deal was that Iran had increased it malevolent actions in the region. So what if Iran, with now nothing to lose, increase them.

    Are you saying that Trump will simply leave them at it?


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,682 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    listermint wrote: »
    Your right, he never did fire any missiles in the last 12 months. Not like that war mongerer Hillary who fired all those missiles in the last 2 years.


    .. oh..


    wait

    Like, 'Red Line' Obama who then did nothing and watched kids being gassed to death?


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,525 ✭✭✭kilns


    markodaly wrote: »
    Some on here want this to be a precursor to war as it confirms their own bias.

    This is all about isolationism, not war. The average Trump voter couldn't give a damm about Iran and certainly do not want to be over there fighting. He promised that he would wthdraw from the deal and he did. He may want to do a new deal or spin it that way but a new war? Nope, not at all. Trump is not Bush or Clinton.
    Almost every day he praises the American military and that he is going to make it great once again and spend lots of money on it 
    what does that signal?


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,442 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    markodaly wrote: »
    Like, 'Red Line' Obama who then did nothing and watched kids being gassed to death?

    So what your saying is that you don't like Obama because he wouldn't fight a war, and don't like HC because she would?


  • Registered Users Posts: 33,380 ✭✭✭✭listermint


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    So what your saying is that you don't like Obama because he wouldn't fight a war, and don't like HC because she would?

    Was waiting for him to trip up.

    Quite easy to drag into that sort of response


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 7,861 ✭✭✭Christy42


    markodaly wrote: »
    Some on here want this to be a precursor to war as it confirms their own bias.

    This is all about isolationism, not war. The average Trump voter couldn't give a damm about Iran and certainly do not want to be over there fighting. He promised that he would wthdraw from the deal and he did. He may want to do a new deal or spin it that way but a new war? Nope, not at all. Trump is not Bush or Clinton.
    Why is it about isolationism. We can't take Trump's word on it because he is a liar.

    Isolationism would be simply leaving the deal and letting others deal with it. Instead he wants to directly attack anyone who keeps to the deal (economically).

    He has also not shown isolationist policies in Syria or North Korea. Indeed he seems far more gung ho about Syria than Clinton given the escalation of attacks and attacking when the previous administration held off.

    He has threatened north Korea with war so why are you so sure he, the obviously unstable man, will hold off?


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,525 ✭✭✭kilns


    Great coup for Trump getting 3 Americans out of NK, alot of news coming thick and fast today, the payments not even getting a second look


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,683 ✭✭✭Subcomandante Marcos


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    So what your saying is that you don't like Obama because he wouldn't fight a war, and don't like HC because she would?

    Look, whatever a damned commie demotard said, a good trumpanzee will insist that the opposite is the correct course of action, even if that means you just pretend doing what they said or did isn't the same, because small hands.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,682 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    So what is the end game. He has cancelled the deal and will impose sanctions. And if they break the sanctions and develop a nuke? Or if they don't come to the table and continue to test ballistic weapons?

    They said one of the reasons for cancelling the deal was that Iran had increased it malevolent actions in the region. So what if Iran, with now nothing to lose, increase them.

    Are you saying that Trump will simply leave them at it?

    Essentially, yes. They are not going to develop a nuke overnight and besides, Israel will do the dirty work for them. He will also probably let Saudi take a bigger role in 'policing' Iran. If things get 'hot' a few cruise missiles might be a gentle reminder of American strength.

    But talks about nuking Tehran or hundreds of thousands of American troops on the ground? Nope, sorry, not going to happen, people here want it to happen for whatever twisted reason for being seen as right about Trump.

    He campaigned and promised to tear up the deal, he did that.
    He never campaigned to bring America into another foreign war, in fact his rhetoric has been the exact opposite. America first, isolationism and all that.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,682 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    Christy42 wrote: »
    Why is it about isolationism. We can't take Trump's word on it because he is a liar.

    Isolationism would be simply leaving the deal and letting others deal with it. Instead he wants to directly attack anyone who keeps to the deal (economically).

    He has also not shown isolationist policies in Syria or North Korea. Indeed he seems far more gung ho about Syria than Clinton given the escalation of attacks and attacking when the previous administration held off.

    He has threatened north Korea with war so why are you so sure he, the obviously unstable man, will hold off?

    He also threatened to build a wall with Mexico and make them pay for it, it does not mean its going to happen.

    Politicians say stuff all the time, it does not mean it will come true.

    Remember Labour's 'our way or Frankfurts way'?
    Remember Leo's 'not one more red cent'?
    Remember Obama's 'Red line' on Syria or closing of Gitmo?

    Trump wants to project power, but he does not want a war.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 13,682 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    So what your saying is that you don't like Obama because he wouldn't fight a war, and don't like HC because she would?

    When have I mentioned Hillary? Please do tell!

    I don't mind Obama actually, a bit over rated is all and weak in foreign relations matters but there have been worse.
    However, I am not drinking the 'Trump is Hitler' Kool-aid just yet, as it seems most here have swallowed it by the gallons.


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,442 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    markodaly wrote: »
    Essentially, yes. They are not going to develop a nuke overnight and besides, Israel will do the dirty work for them. He will also probably let Saudi take a bigger role in 'policing' Iran. If things get 'hot' a few cruise missiles might be a gentle reminder of American strength.

    But talks about nuking Tehran or hundreds of thousands of American troops on the ground? Nope, sorry, not going to happen, people here want it to happen for whatever twisted reason for being seen as right about Trump.

    He campaigned and promised to tear up the deal, he did that.
    He never campaigned to bring America into another foreign war, in fact his rhetoric has been the exact opposite. America first, isolationism and all that.

    So he is making the US safer by taking away one of the main reasons that Iran had stopped development of a Nuke? And his plan seems to be that Israel of SA will deal with the fallout?

    So how is that better than what they had? Israel and SA would always have been used regardless. The talk about taking Iran comes directly from posters claiming US could take out Iran in 4 weeks, make mince meat out of them. Not sure who said those things!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    markodaly wrote: »
    Some on here want this to be a precursor to war as it confirms their own bias.

    This is all about isolationism, not war. The average Trump voter couldn't give a damm about Iran and certainly do not want to be over there fighting. He promised that he would wthdraw from the deal and he did. He may want to do a new deal or spin it that way but a new war? Nope, not at all. Trump is not Bush or Clinton.

    How is reinstating and even expanding sanctions on a foreign nation, a continent and a half away, designed to influence that nation's actions, in any way isolationism? Can you please explain that?

    Again his isolationist voters haven't influenced his appointments or his actions, appointing Bush era war hawks and increasing US military interventionism abroad.


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,442 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    markodaly wrote: »
    When have I mentioned Hillary? Please do tell!

    I don't mind Obama actually, a bit over rated is all and weak in foreign relations matters but there have been worse.
    However, I am not drinking the 'Trump is Hitler' Kool-aid just yet, as it seems most here have swallowed it by the gallons.

    I'm not going to go back and find it, but one of the attack points on HC was she was a war monger. You are chiding Obama for his lack of movement on his red lines, yet are also saying that Trump will do nothing should Iran break sanctions of develope nukes.

    Which is it?


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,682 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    So he is making the US safer by taking away one of the main reasons that Iran had stopped development of a Nuke? And his plan seems to be that Israel of SA will deal with the fallout?

    Maybe. If Israel project their strength by challenging Iran in Syria then yes. If Israel get the go ahead to take out nuclear research facilities in Iran, then possible yes again.

    Iran is not a threat to the US anyway. It is a threat to both Saudi and Israel and this is more likely aimed at them. It could be a deal with them. Pull out of the deal but it is they that then have to do the heavy lifting if it comes to military actions.

    To be honest its all speculation. However, Tehran wont be nuked, I am sure of that. :)


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,833 ✭✭✭circadian


    markodaly wrote: »
    Some on here want this to be a precursor to war as it confirms their own bias.

    This is all about isolationism, not war. The average Trump voter couldn't give a damm about Iran and certainly do not want to be over there fighting. He promised that he would wthdraw from the deal and he did. He may want to do a new deal or spin it that way but a new war? Nope, not at all. Trump is not Bush or Clinton.

    So it's good he's an isolationist and doesn't want to get involved in more wars. Cool, I can understand that rationale.
    markodaly wrote: »
    Like, 'Red Line' Obama who then did nothing and watched kids being gassed to death?

    Doesn't get involved in a war and is standing idly by watching kids get gassed to death.

    If Trump didn't bomb empty airfields and factories in Syria, would he also be guilty of watching children get gassed to death, or is it ok since he's an isolationist?


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,682 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    I'm not going to go back and find it, but one of the attack points on HC was she was a war monger.

    Well if I did not say it then its not my attack then is it now? Stop creating false arguments.
    You are chiding Obama for his lack of movement on his red lines, yet are also saying that Trump will do nothing should Iran break sanctions of develope nukes.

    Im chiding Obama for marching his troops up the hill with his red lines comment, then marching them back down and doing nothing.
    If Obama never mentioned red lines, then no one would have bothered as much.

    If Iran break sanctions there already mentioned options on the table than having to have an American led invasion of Iran. Stop thinking in such a monochrome way.


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,876 ✭✭✭✭everlast75


    It appears Mueller is 7 months ahead of our timeline and what we know only now...

    Good thread of info here in terms of who his team have interviewed and when..


    https://twitter.com/aliasvaughn/status/994189600368353281?s=19


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,442 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    markodaly wrote: »
    Well if I did not say it then its not my attack then is it now? Stop creating false arguments.

    I apologise I made an assumption, that was wrong.

    markodaly wrote: »
    Im chiding Obama for marching his troops up the hill with his red lines comment, then marching them back down and doing nothing.
    If Obama never mentioned red lines, then no one would have bothered as much.

    There is no doubt that that was a low point of the Obama years, he was unwise to make the statement when he couldn't back it up. But Trump has done little extra. A few missiles didn't change anything. So one could say that Trump did the exact same, threatened a lot but back up with very little.
    markodaly wrote: »
    If Iran break sanctions there already mentioned options on the table than having to have an American led invasion of Iran. Stop thinking in such a monochrome way.

    I'm not thinking in any such way. What other options? Trump has used these exact tactics in NK, raise sanctions and threaten to attack. Why would you think he suddenly thinks differently now? What other options has Trump laid out? What agreement has he made with his allies on how to deal with Iran going forward?


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,337 ✭✭✭amandstu


    Leroy42 wrote: »



    I'm not thinking in any such way. What other options? Trump has used these exact tactics in NK, raise sanctions and threaten to attack. Why would you think he suddenly thinks differently now? What other options has Trump laid out? What agreement has he made with his allies on how to deal with Iran going forward?
    If Trump was in Assad 's position who do we imagine might be the more civilized in their behaviour.?

    The USA has voted in freely (and open eyed) an individual perfectly suited for the barbaric behaviour of the likes of Assad and the N Korean (and the rest of the shower of despots) leader.

    Feels like he is also quite ready to abandon the Europeans when push comes to shove and feels secure in his US bunker.

    His first inclination was to torpedo NATO and perhaps it is a matter of time.(death by cuts unless he sees an objective benefit )


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 9,423 ✭✭✭weisses


    markodaly wrote: »
    But talks about nuking Tehran or hundreds of thousands of American troops on the ground? Nope, sorry, not going to happen, people here want it to happen for whatever twisted reason for being seen as right about Trump.

    Who wants to see this happen ? ... please refer to such a post

    Otherwise stop making things up


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,442 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    So we are now down to the point of looking at the POTUS through the level of Assad?

    He hasn't dealt with Assad at all. A few missile strikes, the 1st round of which caused no more than superficial damage. The second one required the help of his Nato allies (which he wants to torpedo).

    So the way to make America safe again, MAGA is to abandon the very relationships that have helped the US maintain its position in the world? The only alternative is that the US will no do it alone, with all the additional costs that will entail.

    Bill Clinton signed a non proliferation deal with NK in the 1990's, so making it out like Trump is the first due to his amazingness is false. W Bush canceled the deal in early 2000's, leading to the position that the US and the world found itself in the last few years.


  • Registered Users Posts: 819 ✭✭✭blackwave


    everlast75 wrote: »
    It appears Mueller is 7 months ahead of our timeline and what we know only now...

    Good thread of info here in terms of who his team have interviewed and when..


    https://twitter.com/aliasvaughn/status/994189600368353281?s=19

    All of this just reminds me of the Lester Freamon scene in season 1 of the Wire of when you follow the money who knows where you will end up. I think Mueller's investigation is going to come out with a lot more corrupt payments from various companies with questionable ethics to say the least. As this is the only Cohen connected Delaware entity that we know about at this time..

    One thing that strikes me from all of this is how lazy and sloppy a lawyer Cohen is. In the NDA's that he drafted for Trump and Stormy he then used a quite similar draft for other NDA'S which is just sheer laziness.

    Then to use the same Delaware LLC for receiving the payments from various corporate interests and to also pay Stormy Daniels is probably the stuff of wet dreams for the investigators as it makes things a lot easier to connect payments etc. You would think that someone with a legal education and his resources would have a better network of shell companies etc to siphon off payments and make payments than just the same entity the whole time.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,357 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    And here's a tweet today from The Donald threatening the freedom of the press:

    The Fake News is working overtime. Just reported that, despite the tremendous success we are having with the economy & all things else, 91% of the Network News about me is negative (Fake). Why do we work so hard in working with the media when it is corrupt? Take away credentials?


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Quoting Trump:

    Why do we work so hard in working with the media when it is corrupt? Take away credentials?

    The real question is why do the media bother using those credentials to listen to SHS lie to them?

    Why not just print the truth: "Today's horsesh!t press release from the whitehouse", no need to show up and ask questions.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,357 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    The real question is why do the media bother using those credentials to listen to SHS lie to them?

    Why not just print the truth: "Today's horsesh!t press release from the whitehouse", no need to show up and ask questions.

    They have no choice. It's SHS or The Donald's tweets.


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,442 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    And here's a tweet today from The Donald threatening the freedom of the press:

    The Fake News is working overtime. Just reported that, despite the tremendous success we are having with the economy & all things else, 91% of the Network News about me is negative (Fake). Why do we work so hard in working with the media when it is corrupt? Take away credentials?

    Also it is nice to see Trump state that his meaning of Fake is that it is negative.

    People should read all his tweets and statements regarding 'fake' news as simply negative news.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,357 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    Also it is nice to see Trump state that his meaning of Fake is that it is negative.

    People should read all his tweets and statements regarding 'fake' news as simply negative news.

    He's like a high priest. If you believe in his religion, then he is infallible. So anything negative is always fake if The Donald says so. It's unquestioned. Anyone who doesn't believe in his religion just sees him as a liar. There's a lot of clear blue water between both cohorts.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,670 ✭✭✭MikeyTaylor


    I have started a new poll.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 17,568 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    markodaly wrote: »
    But talks about nuking Tehran or hundreds of thousands of American troops on the ground? Nope, sorry, not going to happen, people here want it to happen for whatever twisted reason for being seen as right about Trump.

    Nobody here wants that to happen, are you even aware of John Bolton's opinions on the matter?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement