The Trump Presidency | Biden Inaugurated

Status
Not open for further replies.
matherto said:
Airstrikes are really good interference.

I bet it all goes quiet about the Russia influence now because he's done this.
Click to expand...
utdalltheway said:
Never fails does it. Massive case of misdirection. Or am I too cynical?
Click to expand...

Don't worry lads, you are both right, it is great interference and you are not being too cynical because part of the reason Trump sent missiles off in to the air was to divert attention away from the stories at home. I.E. Russia and Kushner v Bannon. Not to worry though those stories will be back for sure, they are not going anywhere.

The Kushner/Bannon story is way too funny and Bannon apparently DESPISES Kushner and seeing as Breitbart have run over 5 stories against Kushner in the last two or three days, it's difficult to see how that story is going anywhere, not to forget that Kushner is Donald's new toy thrown to the front of the spotlight so if anything that story and others will only be getting bigger when all the Swedish terror attack and Syrian stuff dies down a little. As for the Russian story, well it's just too darn big, implicates way too many people and far too many journalists have invested far too much time and energy in to it for it to go away. Like the Terminator, that too will definitely be back. Rest assured lads, recent events have just been minor distractions. I reckon back to normal and business as usual after the weekend. With the new added fun that a lot of Trump supporters have now joined the hate team too.
 
Santi_Mesut_Alexis_87 said:
He criticizes China and yet Ivanka has become rich by selling products made in China.
Click to expand...

Honestly I don't know if he really doesn't understand how irony works and how indescribably stupid he comes off given how well he uses China or if he actually genuinely does realise the reaction people have when he bangs on about them and the hypocrisy of it all and chooses to completely blank it all.

@langster we can only hope what you've just posted is true and nothing about his trainwreck of a presidency will go away because of this little diversion. It was just staggering to see so much support come from people around the world but then it only took a minute to realise how many of his own supporters were outraged at it on social media/reddit/etc that it gives me hope at least.
 
Raoul said:
And in the process completely destroy any glimmer of bipartisan governance, and ensure continued, indefinite gridlock. That's no way to run a country.
Click to expand...
They tried to be bipartisan under Obama and look at where it lead: an idiot wannabe dictator being president, with GOP comfortably controlling both senate and house.

Yep, they could have done the right think and allow Gorsuch to become SCOTUS (and to be fair, he isn't that bad for a Republican) and try to filibuster when Trump nominates a more Nazi judge, but it is totally certain that Republicans would have used nuclear option in that case too. They haven't cared for doing the right thing ever during the Obama terms and still won, they won't start doing the right thing now.
 
MrMarcello said:
Hmm. Could that potentially lead to an Oswald-type and incident? Those far right loons aren't shy about taking on the gub'nent.
Click to expand...

Doubtful as a lot of them are keyboard warriors and wouldn't have a clue in terms of coming up with a plan to try to take Trump out.
 
The Russia hearings will go on, but Trump may have stumbled onto something that completely changes his policy calculus. He will be received much more warmly by the public and members of Congress if he behaves more like a traditional establishment politician who is not an isolationist and not afraid of projecting American power into the international arena. For someone who has been losing consistently since he took office, he will no doubt look at this new posture as a way to start winning, and in the process get a hell of a lot more support from Congress than he has up til now, especially from the likes of McCain, Graham et al.

When you add in this week's news that Trump may be ditching Bannon soon, it all seems to indicate the long awaited policy reorientation back back into his NY roots. Trump loves winning and having high poll numbers and in politics, there's no better way to do that than having a muscular foreign policy.
 
Five Top Papers Run 18 Opinion Pieces Praising Syria Strikes–Zero Are Critical
TrumpsHeartCameFirst-300x180.jpg

http://fair.org/home/five-top-papers-run-18-opinion-pieces-praising-syria-strikes-zero-are-critical/
 
Did Trump really give the go ahead for the strikes from his golf course?
 
It is too true, however disgraceful it may be to human nature, that nations in general will make war whenever they have a prospect of getting anything by it; nay, absolute monarchs will often make war when their nations are to get nothing by it, but for the purposes and objects merely personal, such as thirst for military glory, revenge for personal affronts, ambition, or private compacts to aggrandize or support their particular families or partisans. These and a variety of other motives, which affect only the mind of the sovereign, often lead him to engage in wars not sanctified by justice or the voice and interests of his people.
Click to expand...

from: http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa04.htm

quoted here: https://theintercept.com/2017/04/07...edia-and-bipartisan-praise-for-bombing-syria/
which basically sums up what a masterstroke this is from Trump, because of the Russian hysteria and the orgasms from the media.
 
Mr Pigeon said:
Did Trump really give the go ahead for the strikes from his golf course?
Click to expand...

I think George Bush Snr showed up on the greens after starting the first Gulf War. IT was more of a psychological ploy to unnerve Saddam that Bush was playing 9 holes while he was getting pounded.
 
Raoul said:
I think George Bush Snr showed up on the greens after starting the first Gulf War. IT was more of a psychological ploy to unnerve Saddam that Bush was playing 9 holes while he was getting pounded.
Click to expand...
It's an interesting tactic for a President who doesn't spend nearly every weekend wasting taxpayers' money having a jolly.
 
Fergies Gum said:
Yep, he was there hosting the China president.
Click to expand...
I wonder how these world leaders feel about not going to the White House. Is it a power thing for Trump (you're only important enough to meet when I've got five minutes free) or just an excuse for him to be there (hurr me gofling and need reason to go dere). Obviously he doesn't talk like that but...
 
Mr Pigeon said:
I wonder how these world leaders feel about not going to the White House. Is it a power thing for Trump (you're only important enough to meet when I've got five minutes free) or just an excuse for him to be there (hurr me gofling and need reason to go dere). Obviously he doesn't talk like that but...
Click to expand...

I think a lot of world leaders are eager to meet him so as to know how best to deal with him since most relevant countries are in one way or another economically interdependent on the US by way of trade.
 
Mr Pigeon said:
I wonder how these world leaders feel about not going to the White House. Is it a power thing for Trump (you're only important enough to meet when I've got five minutes free) or just an excuse for him to be there (hurr me gofling and need reason to go dere). Obviously he doesn't talk like that but...
Click to expand...

Pulling the trigger from the resort is the least worrisome aspect of this. This was a very important meeting and, since he had hosted Abe there, he had to at least extend the same amount of courtesy to Xi.

Treating the Japanese leader better than the Chinese leader would be quite the faux pas given current geopolitics...even for Trump.
 
berbatrick said:
from: http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa04.htm

quoted here: https://theintercept.com/2017/04/07...edia-and-bipartisan-praise-for-bombing-syria/
which basically sums up what a masterstroke this is from Trump, because of the Russian hysteria and the orgasms from the media.
Click to expand...

This notion that Trump is playing some kind of 7D chess (also pushed by some of his trolls now) is a bit tedious. I have no idea and can only speculat what caused him to order the strike, but it looks like it has fractured his own supporters with alt right and other vocal supporters criticizing him. Now lefties have assumed that Trump is a master distractor ordering military strikes to cause diversion about Russia. Greenwald literally laid into the same media for kicking up a fuss about Russia and Donald's comments about US is as bad as Russia.

You were here arguing about Hillary Clinton's bombing idea. Wonder what Bernie would have done? Didn't he say he will get rid of ISIS too? Looks like the entire world is on Trump's side apart from Russia and Alt right, and irrelevant libertarians like Rand Paul. Millenial darling Justin Maplesyrup came out and said he supports US strike.

This military strike has thrown up all sorts of weird alliances. Establishment right now has become military hawks, hard right/alt right have become noninterventionist, Establishment Dems are agreeing with this proportional (???) response and hard left are aligned with hard right now? Wonder what independents think.

Personally, what is your stand on this?
 
fishfingers15 said:
This notion that Trump is playing some kind of 7D chess (also pushed by some of his trolls now) is a bit tedious. I have no idea and can only speculat what caused him to order the strike, but it looks like it has fractured his own supporters with alt right and other vocal supporters criticizing him. Now lefties have assumed that Trump is a master distractor ordering military strikes to cause diversion about Russia. Greenwald literally laid into the same media for kicking up a fuss about Russia and Donald's comments about US is as bad as Russia.

You were here arguing about Hillary Clinton's bombing idea. Wonder what Bernie would have done? Didn't he say he will get rid of ISIS too? Looks like the entire world is on Trump's side apart from Russia and Alt right, and irrelevant libertarians like Rand Paul. Millenial darling Justin Maplesyrup came out and said he supports US strike.

This military strike has thrown up all sorts of weird alliances. Establishment right now has become military hawks, hard right/alt right have become noninterventionist, Establishment Dems are agreeing with this proportional (???) response and hard left are aligned with hard right now? Wonder what independents think.

Personally, what is your stand on this?
Click to expand...

The thing about the Presidency is irrespective of what policies you campaign on - whether you're Trump or Bernie - you are given intelligence briefings of information that you never knew about once you're in office and are often forced to change your policy calculus based on it. I have absolutely no doubt that if Sanders was President, that he would also turn into a hawk, because not doing so would be to ignore what you are presented with by the IC.
 
Raoul said:
Airstrikes must be good business for Greenwald's "Look at me, aren't I alternative and relevant" brand.
Click to expand...

They are under a Republican, he was a liberal favourite before 2008. But because the Dems have, since last June, decided to attack the GOP from the right on foreign policy, this will keep him alternative and irrelevant.
Unfortunately the quote is not from Greenwald but from the year 1787.


fishfingers15 said:
This notion that Trump is playing some kind of 7D chess (also pushed by some of his trolls now) is a bit tedious. I have no idea and can only speculat what caused him to order the strike, but it looks like it has fractured his own supporters with alt right and other vocal supporters criticizing him. Now lefties have assumed that Trump is a master distractor ordering military strikes to cause diversion about Russia. Greenwald literally laid into the same media for kicking up a fuss about Russia and Donald's comments about US is as bad as Russia.

You were here arguing about Hillary Clinton's bombing idea. Wonder what Bernie would have done? Didn't he say he will get rid of ISIS too? Looks like the entire world is on Trump's side apart from Russia and Alt right, and irrelevant libertarians like Rand Paul. Millenial darling Justin Maplesyrup came out and said he supports US strike.

This military strike has thrown up all sorts of weird alliances. Establishment right now has become military hawks, hard right/alt right have become noninterventionist, Establishment Dems are agreeing with this proportional (???) response and hard left are aligned with hard right now? Wonder what independents think.

Personally, what is your stand on this?
Click to expand...

Yes, I don't support what he did, I don't think the US should get involved. (Apart from some Kurdish groups, who have an understanding with Assad), there are only bad choices in that part, and hitting Assad strengthens an equally bad or worse faction. Bernie issued a statement saying he is afraid that this will lead to another long engagement in the Middle East which should be avoided and that the president must consult Congress before war. This was a raid not on ISIS but on Assad.
If Bernie was prez? He basically never gave a clear answer, he wanted to "build a coalition" which could be a keyword for either the UN or Arab states, I don't know.*

And I have no love for Trudeau. In the article, there are 2 quotes from him: on Thursday,he wanted an investigation to find out who did the chemical strike, on Friday he supported Trump for hitting Assad over the chemical strike. #notmydarling

People who have been in favour of bombing Assad have been Bush/Cheney-style neocons, and Hillary-style Democrats. They are united, and are now united in praising Trump.
People opposed to intervention have been right-wing nationalists (because America first, not the world police, closed borders), libertarians, and leftists. And of course Trump/Hillary loyalists have a problem. Trump promised no attacks on Assad, Dems said he is a Russian stooge. This contradicts both.

I think independents will support war, because there has been no criticism of this from any mainstream politician or media.

*Edit: I was seeing some old videos of him, if he believes what he did during the 1980s, I'm sure he wouldn't have intervened at all.
 
He's speaking like he has experience of these things...the shameless opportunist. Perhaps he'll bomb Shawshank once he sees the evil prison regime on his tv.
 
berbatrick said:
They are under a Republican, he was a liberal favourite before 2008. But because the Dems have, since last June, decided to attack the GOP from the right on foreign policy, this will keep him alternative and irrelevant.
Unfortunately the quote is not from Greenwald but from the year 1787.




Yes, I don't support what he did, I don't think the US should get involved. (Apart from some Kurdish groups, who have an understanding with Assad), there are only bad choices in that part, and hitting Assad strengthens an equally bad or worse faction. Bernie issued a statement saying he is afraid that this will lead to another long engagement in the Middle East which should be avoided and that the president must consult Congress before war. This was a raid not on ISIS but on Assad.
If Bernie was prez? He basically never gave a clear answer, he wanted to "build a coalition" which could be a keyword for either the UN or Arab states, I don't know.*

And I have no love for Trudeau. In the article, there are 2 quotes from him: on Thursday,he wanted an investigation to find out who did the chemical strike, on Friday he supported Trump for hitting Assad over the chemical strike. #notmydarling

People who have been in favour of bombing Assad have been Bush/Cheney-style neocons, and Hillary-style Democrats. They are united, and are now united in praising Trump.
People opposed to intervention have been right-wing nationalists (because America first, not the world police, closed borders), libertarians, and leftists. And of course Trump/Hillary loyalists have a problem. Trump promised no attacks on Assad, Dems said he is a Russian stooge. This contradicts both.

I think independents will support war, because there has been no criticism of this from any mainstream politician or media.

*Edit: I was seeing some old videos of him, if he believes what he did during the 1980s, I'm sure he wouldn't have intervened at all.
Click to expand...

He literally said "I will get rid of ISIS" in the debates. Does that mean he would have formed an alliance with Assad? I don't agree with Raoul on many things and I think he makes a lot of wrong judgement calls, but I'll have to go with him on this one. I have no idea on what Sanders would have done, but he will have to act on the reports given to him. It's poor form to criticize someone for having a view on an issue and giving a free pass to another who never says a word about it. Look at all you hard lefties up in arms about Hillary Clinton being a war hawk. This "SHE WOULD GO TO WAR WITH RUSKIES" hyperbole was too much then and too much now.

It's fine and dandy for all of us sitting in our warm couches crying foul about US entering another long conflict, but it's entirely another listening to Greenwald waxing eloquent about Trump playing a blinder for distraction. And no, not everyone who supported the strike is a neocon or an establishment Democrat. And I like the blithe way you've described the independents who are like sheep without shepherd that will support the war because of no criticism in media, as if the virtue of reasoned understanding only exists with ideological puritans who won't trust the media. This is how good hardworking people turned to vote for the Donald, listening only to Fox and friends.

The truth of the matter is, no matter how many hard hours you spend reading Jacobin, breitbart, huffpost, wiki and other left/right leaning sites to understand Syria, there are only bad options. How cute we argue about semantics about Iraq strike by US and Assad's strike in Syria and differentiate between carpet bombs and WMD's. Perhaps you'd want to prosecute Obama for war crimes as well, arming those damned rebels with weapons? I just think you lot are too quick to criticize despite having no solutions yourselves.
 
Dan said:
I'm glad he's clarified this.

Click to expand...


:lol: He's said this because of the reports that attacks have been launched from the runway since the Tomahawks hit, so he's saying they were bombed, but fixed quickly and not a cock up. His precious ego on show again.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.