It could happen sooner rather than later, he's in Japan, and Abe is just about the only one who may actually want to go along for the ride.
The Trump Presidency | Biden Inaugurated
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
The very same mainstream media outlets which attack Trump day-in, day-out for 'fake news' were the same ones publishing 'Iraq has WMDs' fifteen years ago. We know that much for certain. Everything else is pure conjecture.
Shock horror the media used to trust the Executive Branch until Trump came along...
Also, it's been Trump doing most of the attacking, not the other way round.
My Girlfriends side of the family, prominent Lawyers, people who you'd trust with your life but voted and still support Trump, i was incredibly surprised (well not THAT surprised i guess) to hear them talking in depth about trusting the News Media and "where do we get the facts from?" i.e Fake News, they have fallen for it, hook, line and sinker and this is in bloody Virginia where the majority of people actually hate Trump especially round the D.C Area where they are from (Maryland) so whatever Trump has done, he's caused a massive great divide throughout the nation and this will continue long after his Presidency.
It's all a big conspiracy and you're ever so smart to see right through it. Trump is championing the little man's cause and draining the swamp. Very smart man.
It's not down to you FFS!
But the question is, who?
North Korea would be a cluster feck of epic proportions, which South Korea would pay the butchers bill for.
Iran could spark something much larger in the region, and I think the Iranian capabilities greatly exceed Iraqs. If that did kick off, and Russia did not get involved, no doubt the Iranian military would be defeated, but the cost would be far more expensive in loss of life I think than Iraq, or Afghanistan combined.
Some central or south American country that has no geo-political big brothers?
http://www.macrotrends.net/2481/stock-market-performance-by-president
"Highest stock market ever" is basically a participation award. What a fecking snowflake.
"Highest stock market ever" is basically a participation award. What a fecking snowflake.
I don't think even Trump is dumb enough to start something with North Korea. Or if he is, he will be stopped before it kicks off. If he really wants a war, Iran is the best bet. It would be a disaster, of course, but I don't think Trump realizes it or cares if he does.
Yemen is also a possibility. They'll give AQ or ISIS a lift there, or elevate one of the groups in Yemen to worlds most wanted and expand the war on terror.
I think he can definitely take some credit for the stock market. His promise of tax cuts and deregulation has got wallstreet horny since inauguration.
From the NY Times; “Trump just exponentially increased Bergdahl’s chances of getting this whole case tossed on appeal,” said Rachel VanLandingham, a professor at Southwestern Law School in Los Angeles and a retired Air Force lawyer.
So after the judge specifically said that Trump's own comments on this trial made them give Bergdahl a lesser sentence, Trump goes ahead and does the exact same thing again.
He's indeed playing 38D chess.. or he could just be a monumental moron.
Also, the dollar dropping heavily since he took over has encourages foreign investment. I’m sure he can be proud of that.
What happens if Cut Cut Cut Act goes the same way as Trumpcare?
Will he own the resulting drop in the stock market or blame it on Hillary/Obama?
obviously will be hillary or obamas fault or some combination of the two
It's funny things like unemployment numbers, jobs created, and the performance of the stock market stopped being fake news on the same day as last year's election. What a coincidence!
I wonder if Trump and others realize it was a MILITARY judge who issued the ruling.
The MSM calling certain stories wrong or making mistakes doesn't excuse the fact that Trump himself regularly lies. The fact that media outlets call him out on it is good for democracy. Trump, of course, notably only attacks those very same media outlets who attack him. The rest are fine so long as they back him.
Highly unlikely.
Not just a military judge but a serving member of the military.
The Bush vs Trump discussion is interesting.
At face value I'd argue you'd absolutely take Bush now; he was something resembling a politician, even if he was a very, very shit one at that, he at least attempted to be diplomatic, and some of his speeches in response to 9/11 were actually quite good and helped to unite Americans, something that contrasts with Trump's nasty penchant for attacking anyone who has the gall to question him.
But at the same time, how statesmanlike or diplomatic a President is often has little bearing on how they impact the lives of the people they govern. Trump's election itself provides interesting examples. Someone like Rubio or Bush, for example, would've been a lot more diplomatic and lot more Presidential than Trump, but it'd have meant jack-shit for the average person once they started enacting policies that were identical to Trump's. Naturally the current President's more extreme than the pair of them, but still - a lot of a Rubio/Bush Presidency would've entailed conservative, Republican legislator that wouldn't differ as much from Trump as he'd like you to believe. And if you're someone affected by that, semantics over how Presidential someone is can start to seem a bit irrelevant, I suspect.
Although it should be noted that any responses to Bush's foreign policy come after he served two full terms of Presidency. Trump himself is as hawkish as any other President we've witnessed and would likely reveal in the opportunity to go to war, narcissistic, nasty fecker that he is.
At face value I'd argue you'd absolutely take Bush now; he was something resembling a politician, even if he was a very, very shit one at that, he at least attempted to be diplomatic, and some of his speeches in response to 9/11 were actually quite good and helped to unite Americans, something that contrasts with Trump's nasty penchant for attacking anyone who has the gall to question him.
But at the same time, how statesmanlike or diplomatic a President is often has little bearing on how they impact the lives of the people they govern. Trump's election itself provides interesting examples. Someone like Rubio or Bush, for example, would've been a lot more diplomatic and lot more Presidential than Trump, but it'd have meant jack-shit for the average person once they started enacting policies that were identical to Trump's. Naturally the current President's more extreme than the pair of them, but still - a lot of a Rubio/Bush Presidency would've entailed conservative, Republican legislator that wouldn't differ as much from Trump as he'd like you to believe. And if you're someone affected by that, semantics over how Presidential someone is can start to seem a bit irrelevant, I suspect.
Although it should be noted that any responses to Bush's foreign policy come after he served two full terms of Presidency. Trump himself is as hawkish as any other President we've witnessed and would likely reveal in the opportunity to go to war, narcissistic, nasty fecker that he is.
Are you forgetting who was the source for those WMD stories (members of the Bush administration)and the mainstream media outlet that stuck with story for years after it was disproven (Fox News)?
I'd kill for 8 years of Dubya right now. Dubya minus Cheney isn't half bad a scenario. At least he didn't empower the white nationalists and crazy hillbillies.
Same here.
Oh well, in that sense yes, but not for creating jobs.
That's a remarkable drop: 42% down to 4.5%.
That's the 1st time I've seen him use the % measured by the Govmnt. Normally he talks about the % drop, not the number itself. He's changed his mind on how the unemployment numbers are measured!
He should be taken to task for that. Never let the fecker get away his lies.
Last edited:
It's crazy how little half a million brown faced childrens' lives lost mean to Americans. Even the 'moderates'.
You left out that arrogant ass Rumsfeld.
That's great.
Apparently he's really disliked in South Korea and they are really worried about protests when he arrives there. Also, they are extremely worried about what he will say when he gives his speech, they are scared he will go off script and start provoking and insulting the North. He's already upset the South Koreans with many of his comments and Tweets, especially when he said about the military base in SK and how much it costs etc, so this really could be a testing trip for him.
I suppose the argument would be that this is down to the relatively uneventful context of Trump's presidency thus far rather than Bush actually being worse than Trump. It's not hard to imagine that President Trump's response would have been even worse if he was in charge in the aftermath of a crisis event like 9/11.
I dunno bro... Probably blame the dems like he always does.
He'll wait for Fox & Sycophants to decide who to blame.
Just when you thought that things couldn't get more absurd................
Too clean air. FFS, seriously? cnuts the lot of em.
How is air "too clean" and wtf does that even mean? like are we now allowed to go around spraying Aerosol cans in the air just for pure heck of it?
You couldn't make it up could you? The truth is that Trump and many of his cabinet are serious Climate Change deniers, and the rest don't give a shit.
Nail on the head.
You can't measure Bush vs Trump at this point in time. You can only begin to imagine the Trump response to 9/11 with him at the helm. My problem with Trump isn't that he sends a few mean tweets....arsed....it's the little indicators in those tweets and speeches that suggests he is capable of some absolutely enormous feck ups given the right circumstances, and that risk shouldn't even exist with the POTUS.
- Status