DonLever

Donald J. Trump, 45th US President of the United States

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Gnarcore said:

I thought Hilary would 100% end up at war with Iran but maybe, just maybe Trump wouldn't.  If anything he managed to suck up to Israel and SA even worse than I thought she would. 

 

It’s like it doesn’t really matter which person is the US President.  The military establishment still dictates what happens.  

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Where is giving in to being the military establishment’s propaganda puppet, and leading your country into the tragedy that is war on that list?  The US glorification of war and violence is sickening.  

Comes under Crisis Leadership, Moral Authority and International Relations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, nuckin_futz said:

Comes under Crisis Leadership, Moral Authority and International Relations.

The Americans have a twisted way of valuing those things.  It’s almost like their moral compass always points to violence and war as the guiding light, which supersedes all else.   I know this is the bash Trump thread, and not the bash the US thread, but it seems whomever is the US President deserves bashing.  

Edited by Alflives

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 6/14/2019 at 10:04 AM, PhillipBlunt said:

The US is the clear-cut sociopath of all countries on the planet. They are still the greatest threat to the idea of world peace, and will be as long as they are run by jingoistic warmongering people.

is it just me

or is anyone else completely tired of hearing nancy pelosi speak

this past week or so i have run out of patience with her

she simply is not up to the job

she irritates me now, i cannot stand her voice

she has little to say

just vague stuff and delay tactics

but i guess she truly reflects and represents the dems approach to all this nonsense

Edited by coastal.view
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, coastal.view said:

is it just me

or is anyone else completely tired of hearing nancy pelosi speak

this past week or so i have run out of patience with her

she simply is not up to the job

she irritates me now, i cannot stand her voice

she has little to say

just vague stuff and delay tactics

but i guess she truly reflects and represents the dems approach to all this nonsense

Well....she is the House "Speaker"....:unsure:

 

To be clear, I'm not 100% sure that she represents the majority of Dems. (but she does have the most pull)

 

The biggest issue in front of her (or at least the one with the most press) is impeachment. More and more Democrats (and one Republican) are coming out in favor of beginning the process, while "Nancy" remains opposed, citing national polling that shows Americans are not in favor of Impeachment. (although that sentiment seems to be changing slowly)

 

The problem for the Dems is that they're afraid of making president Pinocchio into a martyr. Trump and his cronies have already spent considerable time and effort to paint investigations into his many instances of malfeasance into an unfair "attack" on his presidency. Pelosi (and others like her) are concerned that Impeachment proceedings will convince voters that this narrative is accurate.

 

There's also the fact that Impeachment proceedings are unlikely to result in Trump being removed from office. In order for that to happen, about 20 Republican Senators would have to support Impeachment and we've already seen far too many instances of Republicans putting their political fortunes ahead of upholding the oath of office they took after being elected, to think that this has any possibility of happening.

 

OTOH, (and this is why I think the Impeachment idea is gathering steam) Trump just can't seem to help saying and doing stupid things that reveal his corrupt nature. After what most would consider "wins" for the president, (the trip to the UK and the deal with Mexico on immigration) the Dotard was exposed by a man 10 times smarter than him, (George Stephanopolous) basically admitting that he would commit a Felony, if given the chance. His ham-handed attempts to walk back those comments later on, only dug the hole deeper and had his apologists at Faux State News lamenting the fact that he was "allowed" to be interviewed by someone not firmly attached to his nutsack.

 

Those Democrats who are in favor of Impeachment believe that proceedings will bring to light much of the damaging information that the Trump administration and the Attorney General are trying so hard to keep under wraps. As was shown in the recent town hall by Justin Amash, (the only Republican with a spine, apparently) Trump supporters live in an echo chamber, where negative news about Orange Julius Caesar never comes to light. In a now (in)famous interview, a woman who watches only "conservative news" was completely taken by surprise by Amash's criticism of Trump, telling the reporter that she had "no idea" that there was anything damaging to Trump in the Mueller report and saying that as far as she knew, the report had "completely exonerated" the president.

 

So this is the conundrum that Pelosi faces: Begin the impeachment process and risk alienating voters, or take that risk in the hope that undecided voters will get to see the damaging information that we know is there....

 

Easy to sit on the sidelines and criticize, but it isn't an easy call.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, RUPERTKBD said:

Well....she is the House "Speaker"....:unsure:

 

To be clear, I'm not 100% sure that she represents the majority of Dems. (but she does have the most pull)

 

The biggest issue in front of her (or at least the one with the most press) is impeachment. More and more Democrats (and one Republican) are coming out in favor of beginning the process, while "Nancy" remains opposed, citing national polling that shows Americans are not in favor of Impeachment. (although that sentiment seems to be changing slowly)

 

The problem for the Dems is that they're afraid of making president Pinocchio into a martyr. Trump and his cronies have already spent considerable time and effort to paint investigations into his many instances of malfeasance into an unfair "attack" on his presidency. Pelosi (and others like her) are concerned that Impeachment proceedings will convince voters that this narrative is accurate.

 

There's also the fact that Impeachment proceedings are unlikely to result in Trump being removed from office. In order for that to happen, about 20 Republican Senators would have to support Impeachment and we've already seen far too many instances of Republicans putting their political fortunes ahead of upholding the oath of office they took after being elected, to think that this has any possibility of happening.

 

OTOH, (and this is why I think the Impeachment idea is gathering steam) Trump just can't seem to help saying and doing stupid things that reveal his corrupt nature. After what most would consider "wins" for the president, (the trip to the UK and the deal with Mexico on immigration) the Dotard was exposed by a man 10 times smarter than him, (George Stephanopolous) basically admitting that he would commit a Felony, if given the chance. His ham-handed attempts to walk back those comments later on, only dug the hole deeper and had his apologists at Faux State News lamenting the fact that he was "allowed" to be interviewed by someone not firmly attached to his nutsack.

 

Those Democrats who are in favor of Impeachment believe that proceedings will bring to light much of the damaging information that the Trump administration and the Attorney General are trying so hard to keep under wraps. As was shown in the recent town hall by Justin Amash, (the only Republican with a spine, apparently) Trump supporters live in an echo chamber, where negative news about Orange Julius Caesar never comes to light. In a now (in)famous interview, a woman who watches only "conservative news" was completely taken by surprise by Amash's criticism of Trump, telling the reporter that she had "no idea" that there was anything damaging to Trump in the Mueller report and saying that as far as she knew, the report had "completely exonerated" the president.

 

So this is the conundrum that Pelosi faces: Begin the impeachment process and risk alienating voters, or take that risk in the hope that undecided voters will get to see the damaging information that we know is there....

 

Easy to sit on the sidelines and criticize, but it isn't an easy call.

Maybe Nancy should be more interested in doing what she thinks is right, instead of doing what will garner the most votes?  Which, of course, should be what all political types should be doing. 

  • Hydration 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Alflives said:

Maybe Nancy should be more interested in doing what she thinks is right, instead of doing what will garner the most votes?  Which, of course, should be what all political types should be doing. 

Maybe, But although I am on the other side as her as far as Impeachment goes, I agree with the sentiment that by far the most important thing is to get this Orange clown out of office. All other considerations are secondary.

 

This is why I would support Joe Biden as the Democratic nominee, if it was shown he had the best chance of beating Trump. Personally, he'd be about my 5th choice....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, RUPERTKBD said:

Maybe, But although I am on the other side as her as far as Impeachment goes, I agree with the sentiment that by far the most important thing is to get this Orange clown out of office. All other considerations are secondary.

 

This is why I would support Joe Biden as the Democratic nominee, if it was shown he had the best chance of beating Trump. Personally, he'd be about my 5th choice....

I know she won't run, but I believe Michelle Obama would be ideal.  I think the US need the softer voice of a female President.  Their war mongering, and glorification of violence needs to be curtailed.  It's just nuts, how the voters down there are so easily influenced by propaganda, especially propaganda that espouses war and violence.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Alflives said:

I know she won't run, but I believe Michelle Obama would be ideal.  I think the US need the softer voice of a female President.  Their war mongering, and glorification of violence needs to be curtailed.  It's just nuts, how the voters down there are so easily influenced by propaganda, especially propaganda that espouses war and violence.  

I think there are qualified women running already. In fact, I'm on record favoring a Harris - Mayor Pete ticket.

 

That being said, if Uncle Joe has a better shot of beating president Pinocchio, then that's who I want to get the Democratic nomination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Tortorella's Rant said:

Nancy has been all over the place regarding impeachment. Sad. Pick a position and stick with it. 

She has? :huh: AFAIK, she's been against it from the get-go...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said:

She has? :huh: AFAIK, she's been against it from the get-go...

She was for it from the get go - then dubbed impeachment as not worth it a couple months ago prior to the Mueller report being a flop effectively because the writing was pretty much on the wall at that point, and now she's on the fence about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Tortorella's Rant said:

She was for it from the get go - then dubbed impeachment as not worth it a couple months ago prior to the Mueller report being a flop effectively because the writing was pretty much on the wall at that point, and now she's on the fence about it.

Source? I can't find anything that shows Pelosi being in favor of impeaching Trump at any point. The closest I can find is a comment that it's "not off the table", but that doesn't really suggest to me that she's "on the fence". I think it's more a case of her not being in favor, unless new damaging information comes to light that swings popular opinion.

 

Pelosi is reluctant, because she is one of the few who was around during the Clinton impeachment (also unpopular with the public) and she saw how that worked out for the GOP.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/06/pelosi-impeachment-trump-clinton/591652/
 

Quote

“I think it was a disaster for the Republicans,” said former Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, who was a senior member of the House Judiciary Committee and a fierce Clinton defender at the time of the impeachment vote, in December 1998. “I was strategizing about how I was going to defend the unpopular position of not impeaching Clinton” when the Republicans decided to move ahead, Frank told me, bringing the GOP under widespread attack “for being too partisan, for destabilizing the country, for being antidemocratic.”    

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Alflives said:

I know she won't run, but I believe Michelle Obama would be ideal.  I think the US need the softer voice of a female President.  Their war mongering, and glorification of violence needs to be curtailed.  It's just nuts, how the voters down there are so easily influenced by propaganda, especially propaganda that espouses war and violence.  

She comes across as a very smart and genuine person.  She sings great too!

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it REALLY concerning that the UK is now on board the Saudi Intelligence train with America in blaming Iran for the attacks in the strait of Hormuz.

 

Tony Blairs swearing of seeing WMDs to effectively give NATO and the UN the two biggest powers no other recourse but to invade Iraq and Afghanistan caused 75% of the mess we se today in the ME

 

Now we're seeing it all over again

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

I find it REALLY concerning that the UK is now on board the Saudi Intelligence train with America in blaming Iran for the attacks in the strait of Hormuz.

 

Tony Blairs swearing of seeing WMDs to effectively give NATO and the UN the two biggest powers no other recourse but to invade Iraq and Afghanistan caused 75% of the mess we se today in the ME

 

Now we're seeing it all over again

The US has repeated this same scenario of lies over the last 75 years.  If Trump keeps them out of war for the remainder of his term, I will be surprised. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, RUPERTKBD said:

I think there are qualified women running already. In fact, I'm on record favoring a Harris - Mayor Pete ticket.

 

That being said, if Uncle Joe has a better shot of beating president Pinocchio, then that's who I want to get the Democratic nomination.

I believe eventually we end up with a Biden/Harris ticket for the exact reason of getting Trump out of office. 

 

As for Pelosi....right now Mitch McConnell is full on refusing to pass anything from congress. It is all well and good to impeach Trump but that doesn't get him out of office unless the Senate tries him. That won't happen.  It sure as hell will if Dems take both the House and the Senate in 2020 and Trump manages to win.  Right now he's not looking good but then again he wasn't at this point last time either. 

 

This time around I think he's lost a lot of the heartland and independents and probably can't win much of them back.  We'll see...never underestimate the stupidity of the American populace.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Duodenum said:

The Trump administration announced Monday it is sending an additional 1,000 American troops to the Middle East after it accused Iran of orchestrating attacks on two tankers in the Gulf of Oman last week. The Defense Department said the troops would be deployed for “defensive purposes” and, NPR reports, would be primarily comprised of intelligence, reconnaissance and surveillance (ISR), as well as force protection and engineers. The increase in troop levels is part of a more general, though still modest buildup that began last month after another series of attacks on ships in the region that the U.S. similarly suspects is Iran’s doing.

The U.S., it’s worth noting, is still without a confirmed Secretary of Defense as relations in the region are increasingly strained. “In response to a request from the US Central Command for additional forces, and with the advice of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and in consultation with the White House, I have authorized approximately 1,000 additional troops for defensive purposes to address air, naval, and ground-based threats in the Middle East,” acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan said in a statement. “The recent Iranian attacks validate the reliable, credible intelligence we have received on hostile behavior by Iranian forces and their proxy groups that threaten United States personnel and interests across the region.”

The move comes as Iran has threatened to disregard uranium restrictions outlined in the 2015 nuclear deal that aimed at curbing Tehran’s nuclear ambitions in return for sanctions relief. After years of deriding the nuclear deal as “the worst deal in history,” President Trump withdrew the U.S. from what’s formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action and reinstated sanctions on Iran. The Trump administration, already suffering from a serious credibility deficit with allies, is now in the awkward position of demanding that Tehran comply with an agreement the American president has not only derided, but pulled out of! “Administration officials found themselves Monday grappling with whether to press the remaining parties to the deal, including Britain, France and Germany, to demand that Iran stay in compliance,” the Associated Press reports. “They must also consider if such a stance would essentially concede that the restrictions imposed during the Obama administration, while short of ideal, are better than none.”

It’s almost like the previous administration weighed up the pros and cons and made a decision in the best strategic interest of the country. That feeling you have right now is nostalgia for competence. 

 

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/06/trump-iran-deal-pulled-out-troops-middle-east-uranium-tehran.html

 

The nostalgia is pretty real. Now the stains Pompeo and Bolton are claiming Iran is stockpiling uranium (gee, if only there was a deal in place that the US didn't back out of). Saudi Arabia getting its puppet Republicans to fight another war for them. #draintheswamp? :ph34r:

Pompeo and Bolton are truly stains, as is the idiot who hired them. Well put.

 

These stains are complicit in completely lying to their populace in hopes of getting support for another unjust and illegal war. The US is going full sociopath now, with ideologically compromised scum making poor and selfish decisions that don't reflect the wishes of their people.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.