1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

The Trump presidency

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by datalol-jack, Nov 21, 2016.

  1. timmeh

    Mobster

    Joined: May 20, 2010

    Posts: 3,372

    Location: Englishman in the USA

    It'll be interesting to see how that ties in with the Roger Stone case. There'll be a storm of rage tweets in the morning

    =====


    Trump's moved to creating videos just to bash people now.
     
  2. Rroff

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 13, 2006

    Posts: 62,095

    There is a great Twitter spat going on between Bill de Blasio and Eric Trump hah.
     
  3. kinetic747

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Apr 2, 2006

    Posts: 1,555

    Is he trying to convince us that he actually reads those newspapers?:p
     
  4. Evangelion

    Capodecina

    Joined: Dec 29, 2007

    Posts: 21,887

    Location: Adelaide, South Australia

    Trump voter suffers buyer's remorse to the tune of $100,000:

    (Source).

    Trump's failed trade war does not look like winning to me.
     
  5. timmeh

    Mobster

    Joined: May 20, 2010

    Posts: 3,372

    Location: Englishman in the USA


    He sounds worried. He was told plenty of times that Flynn was compromised but hired him anyway. He’s only bothered now because he’s worried Flynn may have said something that incriminates him
     
  6. doodah

    Capodecina

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 19,620

    Location: London

    Paging Sally Yates anyone......

    How many weeks did they take to fire him again?

    That is definitely a worried tone. Flynn's section is redacted - a fiver says there is some very incriminating stuff in that part but not directly related to Trump.
     
  7. JRS

    Capodecina

    Joined: Jun 6, 2004

    Posts: 13,529

    Location: Burton-on-Trent

     
  8. Evangelion

    Capodecina

    Joined: Dec 29, 2007

    Posts: 21,887

    Location: Adelaide, South Australia

    Remember when people claimed that Mexico would 'pay for the wall' via tariffs? Well, Trump has blinked yet again. He's about to remove tariffs on Canadian and Mexican aluminium and steel.

    Another failed trade war!
     
  9. doodah

    Capodecina

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 19,620

    Location: London

    Cummings supposedly wrote a letter warning Pence of Flynn acting as a foreign agent and asked for more information (2016), Yates directly warned the WH about Flynn and how he was a potential target for blackmail (2017), his firing for 'lying to Pence' and a whole lot more circumstantial evidence in the press......and now Trump plays dumb (coffee boy excuse being readied)?
     
  10. EvilSooty

    Gangster

    Joined: Apr 1, 2010

    Posts: 316

    Location: Nowhere

    For our purposes in the UK they are practically identical.

    Obama didn't stoke up war with anyone? Errr, what? How about Libya, Syria and Yemen for starters. Obama inherited the Libyan war? What? The Libyan war was in 2011 and he also funded jihadis in Syria destabilising that region bringing about the refugee crisis that we saw in Europe. Yemen started under him too (Saudi Arabia is a US satellite - no way they would have attacked Yemen without US permission).

    He was a warmongering nutcase, but hey, he gave a good speech and looked the part so everyone forgets about that.

    That's how shallow people are.

    Why do you paint trying to reduce sanctions on Russia as a bad thing? Why is Russia our enemy again?

    His foreign policy was a continuation of Bush's as Trump's is a coninuation of Obama's. Ignore the bombast from Trump and what has actually changed? US foreign policy has been aggressive for decades regardless of the puppet in the White House.

    The only thing I can agree on is that Trump's policy on Iran is more deranged than Obama's, but it's nothing to do with Trump or Obama. They are just figureheads. The US as a whole has been going after Iran for decades with the only difference being just how hard they come down on them.

    Climate change? Why do you think the Paris Agreement negotiated during the Obama presidency had no enforcement mechanisms? It was because the US made sure they were removed. Thanks Obama. The result being that despite his lip service to climate change nothing of substance to tackle it was achieved. Trump is worse, yes, but the US policy under Obama was already driving us to doom so at this point it's just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

    Obama was a triumph of style over substance. The problem people really have wih Trump is that he doesn't even bother with style.

    Obama, Bush, Clinton, Trump...theatre. It makes **** all difference who is in charge in the US. They are all bought and paid for.

    Do you think US foreign policy will change when the imbecile Trump is removed?
     
    Last edited: May 19, 2019
  11. Fairly sure the answer is no

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Feb 12, 2006

    Posts: 9,497

    Location: Surrey

    Yeah you're right. Trump just needs to be more sexy when he puts those kids in cages and then there won't be any issue with trump any more. Thanks genius. Your contribution has been well received. I sure hope your parents are super proud of you. Show them this post I imagine they will be crying with joy of what a smarty pants they have created.

    Why is Russia our enemy? Yes good point. They aren't are they. REMOVE THOSE SENCTIONS IMMEDIATELY. If only trump had the style to remove them like Obama would have had.
     
  12. drunkenmaster

    Caporegime

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 33,005

    So ignore what I said and say they are practically identical. First of all Bush directly started both the Afghan and Iraq wars. THe libya, Syria wars were.... uprisings, part of the arab spring uprising against leaders that had been almost all supported heavily by the US as mostly fairly evil dictatorships for decades. In no way did Obama stoke up war with any of those countries, the US wasn't at war with... any of those countries and then ISIS uprising also got involved, also thanks to Bush and turned the entire region into a **** storm of crap. Obama did not stoke up these wars, start them or invade any of these countries. Trying to equate Bush and Obama as being the same continuation of things and Trump's administration as more continuation when he's specifically trashed a sensible working agreement with Iran, is pushing towards war and constantly antagonising them, and has made multiple statements throughout his presidency about how they should just go invade various places is absurd.

    Dealing with a situation that comes up (largely due to republican foreign policy) as Obama had to do is not in any way the same as actively, purposefully banging the drums of war and attempting to get into war with countries and saying so is not just disingenuous, it's what people do when they want to make one side look worse and the other side less bad and the differences minimised which is literally the rhetoric you've repeated over and over.

    Minimal difference for the UK? Obama put in place a somewhat worldwide agreement to keep Iran nuclear testing/research in check and lower tensions with the country who was most likely to be at the time the next major place a war would happen and Trump is punching them in the face trying to start a war instead.

    Again, the trade war, which is costing UK consumers money..... do you remember the trade war Obama waged against the world while having absolutely no understanding of trade in the slightest, or you do you remember Obama helping dig the US and by extension the world out of a horrendously bad recession which the Bush administration was monumentally at fault for? Right, that recession had zero impact on the UK at all, as the current brain dead policies of Trump have no effect on us at all......

    Was Obama worthy of a nobel peace prize for saying he'd leave Iraq, when Bush, Hillary, McCain all said they would leave Iraq at roughly the same time.... errm, no, but to call him a warmongering nutcase, for attempting to reduce tensions with bigger players, and for ... being dragged into conflict within the region the US (and mostly republicans) have destabilised on purpose for decades, is insane.

    Foreign policy HAS changed under Trump and yes it WILL change under someone else's leadership.
     
  13. timmeh

    Mobster

    Joined: May 20, 2010

    Posts: 3,372

    Location: Englishman in the USA

    I was expecting this to already be posted here but Deutsche Bank found suspicious activity on Trump and Kushner's accounts but it was never investigated.

    Trump's little ego couldn't handle the thought of him having to borrow money and is claiming that he never borrowed any money as he could pay cash for everything.

    (click tweet for thread)
     
  14. StriderX

    Capodecina

    Joined: Mar 18, 2008

    Posts: 18,629

    But he did need money... he lost hundreds of millions in the 80s-90s... What a ****.
     
  15. doodah

    Capodecina

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 19,620

    Location: London

    The quicker he responds to these stories and allegations - the more likely they are true.

    What I don't understand is why so many teams within Deutsche Bank kept ignoring their own protocols and lend Trump more money? What's in it for the executives? He's a complete liability as a client.
     
  16. timmeh

    Mobster

    Joined: May 20, 2010

    Posts: 3,372

    Location: Englishman in the USA

    Trump has instructed McGahn not to comply with the House Judiciary Committee's subpoena. He's thinking he's above the law now and obstructing justice in plain sight. GOP are, of course, silent.

    Most transparent president, sure...
     
  17. Steampunk

    Soldato

    Joined: Jun 1, 2013

    Posts: 6,120

    You know what they say: If you owe the bank a thousand dollars, that's your problem. If you owe the bank a million dollars, that's their problem.
     
  18. Werewolf

    Commissario

    Joined: Oct 17, 2002

    Posts: 27,487

    Location: Panting like a fiend

    Don't forget he didn't have the cash to pay his lawyer back in one go for Stormy Daniels, that was a mere 100k or so, something a successful millionaire would likely have available at short notice, let alone a supposed billionare, instead he had to have his lawyer pay it then pay it back in instalments.
     
  19. EvilSooty

    Gangster

    Joined: Apr 1, 2010

    Posts: 316

    Location: Nowhere

    Libya was an uprising? Really? Then why did the US and NATO have to act as an airforce for the jihadis if it was some kind of popular uprising? Please explain to me why NATO got involved and under what legal grounds as it certainly wasn't in self-defence or by UN Security Council Resolution; the only legal grounds possible unless you believe 'might is right'?

    It's well known that Western intelligence services had been trying to overthrow Gaddafi for years and that Libya was on the regime change radar as it had an independent foreign policy and was sitting on large oil reserves. We, the British, backed jihadi nutters in Libya since the '90s to topple Gaddafi: the Libyan Islamic Fighting Front (LIFG). One person we allowed to go out to fight against Gaddafi was linked to them and when he returned he bombed the Ariana Grande concert in Manchester.

    https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/revealed-uk-admits-contact-libyan-group-linked-manchester-bomber

    Obama loved what we were doing and joined in.

    Uprising? Here's our own Parliament's Foreign Affairs Select Committee stating the obvious about Libya that took them years to even notice:

    "In March 2011, the United Kingdom and France, with the support of the United States, led the international community to support an intervention in Libya to protect civilians from attacks by forces loyal to Muammar Gaddafi. This policy was not informed by accurate intelligence. In particular, the Government failed to identify that the threat to civilians was overstated and that the rebels included a significant Islamist element. By the summer of 2011, the limited intervention to protect civilians had drifted into an opportunist policy of regime change. That policy was not underpinned by a strategy to support and shape post-Gaddafi Libya. The result was political and economic collapse, inter-militia and inter-tribal warfare, humanitarian and migrant crises, widespread human rights violations, the spread of Gaddafi regime weapons across the region and the growth of ISIL in North Africa. Through his decision making in the National Security Council, former Prime Minister David Cameron was ultimately responsible for the failure to develop a coherent Libya strategy."

    https://publications.parliament.uk/...m_medium=sumbullet&utm_campaign=modulereports

    There you go. Obama's war destroyed a country with the highest living standards in Africa leaving it in ruins and at the mercy of ISIS which previously had no prescence in the country. Nice one. Oh, did I mention open-air slave markets of black Africans are a thing now?

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-42038451

    Thanks, Obama.

    Right, on to Syria.

    Syria was an uprising? Only if you wilfully ignore the fact that Syria has been in the crosshairs of the US for decades then, yes, it was an 'uprising'. Here's the United States' own intelligence services giving a bit more context to the origins of the 'civil' war in a declassified intelligence report from 2012.

    This is from the US horse's mouth (their very own Defence Intelligence Agency) saying that the Syrian opposition was jihadi from the outset and that they backed them regardless. But it goes even further than that: they cheer on the creation of a 'Salafist Principality' to weaken Assad, i.e. what later became ISIS.

    Under Obama the 'moderate' jihadi rebels in Syria were given training from US forces, weapons and funded to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars.

    Thanks, Obama.

    B. THE SALAFIST [sic], THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD, AND AQI ARE THE MAJOR FORCES DRIVING THE INSURGENCY IN SYRIA.


    C. THE WEST, GULF COUNTRIES, AND TURKEY SUPPORT THE OPPOSITION; WHILE RUSSIA, CHINA AND IRAN SUPPORT THE REGIME.





    3. (C) Al QAEDA – IRAQ (AQI):… B. AQI SUPPORTED THE SYRIAN OPPOSITION FROM THE BEGINNING, BOTH IDEOLOGICALLY AND THROUGH THE MEDIA

    ...

    8.C. IF THE SITUATION UNRAVELS THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY OFESTABLISHING A DECLARED OR UNDECLARED SALAFIST PRINCIPALITY IN EASTERN SYRIA (HASAKA AND DER ZOR), AND THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE SUPPORTING POWERS TO THE OPPOSITION WANT, IN ORDER TO ISOLATE THE SYRIAN REGIME, WHICH IS CONSIDERED THE STRATEGIC DEPTH OF THE SHIA EXPANSION (IRAQ AND IRAN)


    https://www.globalresearch.ca/defen...in-order-to-isolate-the-syrian-regime/5451216

    Yemen? Jesus, no propaganda can cover for that one. Obama backed the most barbaric country in the world, Saudi Arabia, in their war on one of the poorest countries in the world and oversaw under the creature Clinton the largest arms deals in history.

    This discussion just shows how gullible people are when the perpetrator of blatant war cimes says all the right things and wears a nice suit.

    Obama, Bush, Clinton, Trump...who gives a ****. The only change in US foreign policy is which target.
     
    Last edited: May 21, 2019
  20. Rroff

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 13, 2006

    Posts: 62,095

    As with my other posts it is possible for both to be true - a huge reason for the unrest in Syria was that the country opened its arms to people displaced by war across the middle east and the approach the government used to crack down on the tensions that started to boil over internally because of it - a significant factor being sectarian differences. Something that has been largely lost sight of in events since.

    Many of the "moderate" Jihadi groups in Syria weren't and even now aren't even commanded or entirely manned by native Syrians (or those that took refuge in the country) but they didn't arrive until after the uprising had begun. There is plenty of video documentary from the early days of some of the big cities showing the initial protests - mostly disorganised, lightly armed and largely being stamped out by government forces until reinforced (mostly replaced) some time later by heavily armed mercenary types who've clearly been professionally outfitted and drilled.

    You could argue that the initial protests were staged/incited/manipulated to provoke an uprising for the US's ends and there might be some truth to that even but there is also plenty of evidence of domestic issues reaching boiling point within Syria aided or unaided.

    Don't forget also that there were massive defections from within the Syrian army itself - something not easily orchestrated by external actors in a country like Syria and another indicator of the fracturing sectarian and other domestic issues.
     
    Last edited: May 21, 2019