Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 cuda1179 wrote:
I'll give Obama credit for hitting ISIS. The Obama Admin did estimate it would take until 2025 to get them out of Iraq though. One year into Trump's admin and they got stomped out of their last strongpoint.

Bookmarking this so I can quote it back to you when, as happened with ISIS' predecessors, ISIS is just replaced by the next iteration of the problem and Trump's victory becomes meaningless.

 Wolfblade wrote:
NG at the border is expensive, and they're there until the wall is built (which Mexico will pay for right?)

And if you looked at the facts, Obama was actually pretty strict on deportations, and 2016 had more deportations than 2017 (despite 2017 having ICE arrest something like 10% more immigrants with out a criminal record)

And immigration courts need more the just pressure put on then, they need to be looked at when a 3yo is allowed to represent themself in court.

Also still taking credit from Obama and foisting it onto Trump I see. Obama does most of the work, but hey it ended with Trump so clearly it was all him right? The only reason it's gone so well still is because that's one area Trump didn't try to meddle with.

Plus, wasn't 2025 the estimated elimination date of ISIS? Not just their last strong point, but all of it? I mean, correct me if I'm wrong but ISIS is still around.

I guess we can give Trump credit for the most dysfunctional white house ever, and higher turnover rate in history of the white house.

Obama was A LOT less strict on deportations than it appears. Obama's biggest claim was that he used a different definition of "deported" that made it look like he deported more people. Other administrations only counted those that actually went through deportation proceedings, while Obama also included those turned away at the border.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
I'll give Obama credit for hitting ISIS. The Obama Admin did estimate it would take until 2025 to get them out of Iraq though. One year into Trump's admin and they got stomped out of their last strongpoint.

Bookmarking this so I can quote it back to you when, as happened with ISIS' predecessors, ISIS is just replaced by the next iteration of the problem and Trump's victory becomes meaningless.

I will agree that this is a failing of pretty much all Presidencies. We need to install some kind of friendly, and most importantly functional, government and policy in the area.

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:
NG at the border is expensive, and they're there until the wall is built (which Mexico will pay for right?)

And if you looked at the facts, Obama was actually pretty strict on deportations, and 2016 had more deportations than 2017 (despite 2017 having ICE arrest something like 10% more immigrants with out a criminal record)

And immigration courts need more the just pressure put on then, they need to be looked at when a 3yo is allowed to represent themself in court.

Also still taking credit from Obama and foisting it onto Trump I see. Obama does most of the work, but hey it ended with Trump so clearly it was all him right? The only reason it's gone so well still is because that's one area Trump didn't try to meddle with.

Plus, wasn't 2025 the estimated elimination date of ISIS? Not just their last strong point, but all of it? I mean, correct me if I'm wrong but ISIS is still around.

I guess we can give Trump credit for the most dysfunctional white house ever, and higher turnover rate in history of the white house.

Obama was A LOT less strict on deportations than it appears. Obama's biggest claim was that he used a different definition of "deported" that made it look like he deported more people. Other administrations only counted those that actually went through deportation proceedings, while Obama also included those turned away at the border.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
I'll give Obama credit for hitting ISIS. The Obama Admin did estimate it would take until 2025 to get them out of Iraq though. One year into Trump's admin and they got stomped out of their last strongpoint.

Bookmarking this so I can quote it back to you when, as happened with ISIS' predecessors, ISIS is just replaced by the next iteration of the problem and Trump's victory becomes meaningless.

I will agree that this is a failing of pretty much all Presidencies. We need to install some kind of friendly, and most importantly functional, government and policy in the area.

So now you want to do Nation Building?!

 Wolfblade wrote:
Trump has presides over 3 of the 5 largest stock market drops in history.
.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/18/stock-markets-value-under-trump-has-grown-by-6-point-9-trillion-to-30-point-6-trillion.html

When even hardline anit-Trump NBC agrees, you kind of have to admit you're wrong here. Or at least misleading. In general he's been great for the stock market, despite the drops.

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:
NG at the border is expensive, and they're there until the wall is built (which Mexico will pay for right?)

And if you looked at the facts, Obama was actually pretty strict on deportations, and 2016 had more deportations than 2017 (despite 2017 having ICE arrest something like 10% more immigrants with out a criminal record)

And immigration courts need more the just pressure put on then, they need to be looked at when a 3yo is allowed to represent themself in court.

Also still taking credit from Obama and foisting it onto Trump I see. Obama does most of the work, but hey it ended with Trump so clearly it was all him right? The only reason it's gone so well still is because that's one area Trump didn't try to meddle with.

Plus, wasn't 2025 the estimated elimination date of ISIS? Not just their last strong point, but all of it? I mean, correct me if I'm wrong but ISIS is still around.

I guess we can give Trump credit for the most dysfunctional white house ever, and higher turnover rate in history of the white house.

Obama was A LOT less strict on deportations than it appears. Obama's biggest claim was that he used a different definition of "deported" that made it look like he deported more people. Other administrations only counted those that actually went through deportation proceedings, while Obama also included those turned away at the border.

IIRC Trump is still using the same criteria as to what counts as "deported"

But hey I'd that's the only thing you can nitpick, I'll chalk it up as a point for "trump is a gakky president when compared to literally any other presidency."

 Dreadwinter wrote:
[
So now you want to do Nation Building?!

That's a bit of a loaded question. Is there really a right answer for it? We all want out of there. If we try to build something first we are "nation building". If we just leave we have a "power vacuum". If we stay..... we're there and no one wants that.

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:
Trump has presides over 3 of the 5 largest stock market drops in history.
.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/18/stock-markets-value-under-trump-has-grown-by-6-point-9-trillion-to-30-point-6-trillion.html

When even hardline anit-Trump NBC agrees, you kind of have to admit you're wrong here. Or at least misleading. In general he's been great for the stock market, despite the drops.

Is that including the year where he basically passed nothing, and was still on Obama's budget? AKA the growth that was stilldue to Obama's policies and actions? I think it is, and again, credit is being given to trump where it is not due.

 Wolfblade wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:
NG at the border is expensive, and they're there until the wall is built (which Mexico will pay for right?)

And if you looked at the facts, Obama was actually pretty strict on deportations, and 2016 had more deportations than 2017 (despite 2017 having ICE arrest something like 10% more immigrants with out a criminal record)

And immigration courts need more the just pressure put on then, they need to be looked at when a 3yo is allowed to represent themself in court.

Also still taking credit from Obama and foisting it onto Trump I see. Obama does most of the work, but hey it ended with Trump so clearly it was all him right? The only reason it's gone so well still is because that's one area Trump didn't try to meddle with.

Plus, wasn't 2025 the estimated elimination date of ISIS? Not just their last strong point, but all of it? I mean, correct me if I'm wrong but ISIS is still around.

I guess we can give Trump credit for the most dysfunctional white house ever, and higher turnover rate in history of the white house.

Obama was A LOT less strict on deportations than it appears. Obama's biggest claim was that he used a different definition of "deported" that made it look like he deported more people. Other administrations only counted those that actually went through deportation proceedings, while Obama also included those turned away at the border.

IIRC Trump is still using the same criteria as to what counts as "deported"

But hey I'd that's the only thing you can nitpick, I'll chalk it up as a point for "trump is a gakky president when compared to literally any other presidency."

Looks like you are somewhat wrong about Trump Deporting less

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/dec/19/have-deportations-increased-under-donald-trump-her/

To quote the article "more people who already lived in the United States were deported in fiscal year 2017 compared with 2016." The total "deportation" were slightly lower only because there were fewer coming to the border, lowering that number.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Wolfblade wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:
Trump has presides over 3 of the 5 largest stock market drops in history.
.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/18/stock-markets-value-under-trump-has-grown-by-6-point-9-trillion-to-30-point-6-trillion.html

When even hardline anit-Trump NBC agrees, you kind of have to admit you're wrong here. Or at least misleading. In general he's been great for the stock market, despite the drops.

Is that including the year where he basically passed nothing, and was still on Obama's budget? AKA the growth that was stilldue to Obama's policies and actions? I think it is, and again, credit is being given to trump where it is not due.

Well, as long as that is the standard..... The economic crash of 2001 wasn't due to Bush, it was Clinton's fault. And the Economic recovery that started in 2009 should be accredited to Bush, not Obama, right?

Maybe, on the other hand trump has been deporting long time residents with no criminal history.

 cuda1179 wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Wolfblade wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:
Trump has presides over 3 of the 5 largest stock market drops in history.
.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/18/stock-markets-value-under-trump-has-grown-by-6-point-9-trillion-to-30-point-6-trillion.html

When even hardline anit-Trump NBC agrees, you kind of have to admit you're wrong here. Or at least misleading. In general he's been great for the stock market, despite the drops.

Is that including the year where he basically passed nothing, and was still on Obama's budget? AKA the growth that was stilldue to Obama's policies and actions? I think it is, and again, credit is being given to trump where it is not due.

Well, as long as that is the standard..... The economic crash of 2001 wasn't due to Bush, it was Clinton's fault. And the Economic recovery that started in 2009 should be accredited to Bush, not Obama, right?

Unlike trump, Bush and Obama actually passed bills, or had major events happen unlike trump who's only major bill passed in the first year was a late night rush on the tax plan, and being investigated for collusion with Russia.

 Wolfblade wrote:
[
Maybe, on the other hand trump has been deporting long time residents with no criminal history..

And your point here? Criminal history or not, enforcement of Immigration is the domain of the Executive branch, and he's getting down to enforcing it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Let me just say I'm not an unabashed Trump supporter. He's done a lot of screwed up things that he should be called out for.

I am however not totally blinded by political ideology. I will give him credit on some of the things he has accomplished.


Heck, I even give Richard Nixon credit for a lot of things. He did a number of bad things, but I think he is a criminally underrated President. Watergate hurts his reputation badly, but he did get us out of Viet Nam, and a number of his policies did work out for the better.

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:
[
Maybe, on the other hand trump has been deporting long time residents with no criminal history..

And your point here? Criminal history or not, enforcement of Immigration is the domain of the Executive branch, and he's getting down to enforcing it.

I suppose, you however have been dropping a lot of points the moment you can't come up with a rebuttal.

If immigration is the only thing trump has been tougher or better on, if say that's a clear sign he's a failure, especially when there are bigger issues than law abiding illegal aliens.

Also Nixon only got us out after Daniel Ellsburg leaked the truth about the war. Nixon and co. lied about how the war was going up to that point.

 cuda1179 wrote:
I'll give Obama credit for hitting ISIS. The Obama Admin did estimate it would take until 2025 to get them out of Iraq though. One year into Trump's admin and they got stomped out of their last strongpoint.

This is just pure misrepresentation of what Obama said. Obama said IS would be a generational struggle because its a mindset, not just a country. When IS is defeated in Syria its still going to be there in Nigeria, Libya, Afghanistan and wherever else it feels like popping up.
Meanwhile Obama laid all the groundwork for later offensive operations under the Trump admin. Hell, the most important moments were started under the Obama admin. The battle for Mosul, arguably the hardest part, was prepared for and largely planned by the Obama admin and even started just before the end of his term. The only thing Trump did is look at the strategy and go "bomb more!" Hence the skyrocketing civilian death toll for a while.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As for the Syrian air strikes. Who could ever see it coming that this was a single event with the West going "now don't do that any more naughty boy", while Russia didn't jump on that grenade in the middle of nowhere! WW3 eat your heart out?

 Wolfblade wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:
[
Maybe, on the other hand trump has been deporting long time residents with no criminal history..

And your point here? Criminal history or not, enforcement of Immigration is the domain of the Executive branch, and he's getting down to enforcing it.

I suppose, you however have been dropping a lot of points the moment you can't come up with a rebuttal.

If immigration is the only thing trump has been tougher or better on, if say that's a clear sign he's a failure, especially when there are bigger issues than law abiding illegal aliens.

Also Nixon only got us out after Daniel Ellsburg leaked the truth about the war. Nixon and co. lied about how the war was going up to that point.

Well, if all fairness, didn't US troops win something like 96% of all engagements? Not saying I supported the war or that casualties didn't mean anything (they did and were horrible) but still fairly impressive for a war. we were simply fighting an enemy that was willing to be killed 30 to 1 in order to get us out.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
I'll give Obama credit for hitting ISIS. The Obama Admin did estimate it would take until 2025 to get them out of Iraq though. One year into Trump's admin and they got stomped out of their last strongpoint.

This is just pure misrepresentation of what Obama said. Obama said IS would be a generational struggle because its a mindset, not just a country. When IS is defeated in Syria its still going to be there in Nigeria, Libya, Afghanistan and wherever else it feels like popping up.
Meanwhile Obama laid all the groundwork for later offensive operations under the Trump admin. Hell, the most important moments were started under the Obama admin. The battle for Mosul, arguably the hardest part, was prepared for and largely planned by the Obama admin and even started just before the end of his term. The only thing Trump did is look at the strategy and go "bomb more!"?

Yeah, I'll pretty much say that sounds right. On the same token though I had problems with Obama taking credit for killing Osama Bin Laden.

That doesn't mean the war is going well, and would you mind citing that 96% stat? That seems awfully high and likely skewed as to what counts as "winning".

Edit: also nice of you to ignore the facts about Daniel Ellsburg leaking the information about the war.

 Wolfblade wrote:
That doesn't mean the war is going well, and would you mind citing that 96% stat? That seems awfully high and likely skewed as to what counts as "winning".

Edit: also nice of you to ignore the facts about Daniel Ellsburg leaking the information about the war.

Sorry, didn't mean to skip over Ellsburg. If I remember correctly though, didn't the Pentagon Papers mostly trash Presidents Johnson, and to a lesser degree Kennedy with Nixon as a basically a minor bonus?

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:
That doesn't mean the war is going well, and would you mind citing that 96% stat? That seems awfully high and likely skewed as to what counts as "winning".

Edit: also nice of you to ignore the facts about Daniel Ellsburg leaking the information about the war.

Sorry, didn't mean to skip over Ellsburg. If I remember correctly though, didn't the Pentagon Papers mostly trash Presidents Johnson, and to a lesser degree Kennedy with Nixon as a basically a minor bonus?

Nixon however continued to lie about the Vietnam war, and while that doesn't excuse the previous presidents, it doesn't make Nixon a better president.

(Also citation still needed for that percent you stated)

Looking for quote on that percentage. I know it was in the 90's. Having trouble finding any kind of quotation on it though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nixon did have some pretty strong Foreign Policy with a number of arms reduction deals with the Soviets, visited China and got on friendlier terms with them, created the EPA, created Title IX, and actually enforced desegregation in southern schools that was pretty much ignored by previous administrations.

A number of those things jack him up pretty well.

Oh, and his budget spent more on human services than on the military. Kind of a big deal, even today.

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
I'll give Obama credit for hitting ISIS. The Obama Admin did estimate it would take until 2025 to get them out of Iraq though. One year into Trump's admin and they got stomped out of their last strongpoint.

This is just pure misrepresentation of what Obama said. Obama said IS would be a generational struggle because its a mindset, not just a country. When IS is defeated in Syria its still going to be there in Nigeria, Libya, Afghanistan and wherever else it feels like popping up.
Meanwhile Obama laid all the groundwork for later offensive operations under the Trump admin. Hell, the most important moments were started under the Obama admin. The battle for Mosul, arguably the hardest part, was prepared for and largely planned by the Obama admin and even started just before the end of his term. The only thing Trump did is look at the strategy and go "bomb more!"?

Yeah, I'll pretty much say that sounds right. On the same token though I had problems with Obama taking credit for killing Osama Bin Laden.

In essence almost any President does this. Most of the groundwork is done by career professionals regardless of the administration. Presidents do have control ultimately, but they are far too busy to pursue all the small details of government. Bush had his incredibly awkward "mission accomplished" moment, which sounded good but there was a lack of groundwork. Trump can claim he more or less beat ISIS because of what Obama did (although to be fair IS never stood a snowball's chance in hell regardless of what admin was in). Obama can claim he killed Osama because practically speaking he did, but it might be a long time before we know how much of the investigation into where he was depended on pre 2009 work.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cuda1179 wrote:
Looking for quote on that percentage. I know it was in the 90's. Having trouble finding any kind of quotation on it though.

I can believe that percentage, but its more a reflection of how the US army functioned in Vietnam. Every engagement went somewhat like this "well we lost 10 guys but we guess we killed about a 100 of them, sounds like we won to me!" Yeah, the US 'won' the battles but lost the war. And really, when you're fighting conscripts in the jungle with infinitely more firepower at your fingertips when they use human wave tactics, it would be completely embarrassing to lose. The US had some significant setbacks in the occasional battles, but it could frame them in such a manner it didn't lose them, that was just meant to happen!

Here's another admission of failure of my part.

For years, I criticised Obama for his airstrikes, and one of the reasons why I was also against Clinton becoming POTUS, because I saw, and still do, see her as a warmonger.

Given the events of the last 24 hours, it's better that she had won. As least Clinton is honest about bombing the feth out of the Middle East...

We've just thrown a stone through the window of a house. A house that is a burning ruin...

I'll sleep soundly tonight, secure in the knowledge that some empty buildings were demolished in Syria...

The money that was wasted on these missiles would have been better thrown on a fire. At least you'd get the use of some heat of it...

Are people just ignoring all the times Trump talked about bombing terrorists, killing their families and children, bragging how the military will be glad to commit war crimes for him, and talking about nuking stuff?

Why are people still pretending he was NOT pro-War during the campaign?

 d-usa wrote:
Are people just ignoring all the times Trump talked about bombing terrorists, killing their families and children, bragging how the military will be glad to commit war crimes for him, and talking about nuking stuff?

Why are people still pretending he was NOT pro-War during the campaign?

Because many of them falsely attributed that nonsense to Hillary in their minds. My brother's a raging Trumpaholic and kept talking about how Hillary this, Hillary that when it was demonstrably Trump who'd said the nonsense or Trump who would claim that Hillary had said it.

I don't talk to my brother much anymore.

 d-usa wrote:
Are people just ignoring all the times Trump talked about bombing terrorists, killing their families and children, bragging how the military will be glad to commit war crimes for him, and talking about nuking stuff?

Why are people still pretending he was NOT pro-War during the campaign?

We're not ignoring them, just remembering all the other stuff he said about non-intervention, better dialogue and relationship with Russia, a new way of dealing with US foreign policy etc etc

Trump, by his own words, was going to be the man who didn't play by the rule book of the Washington 'elites.'

I was willing to give him the benifet of the doubt in this regard, but like I said earlier, I was wrong...




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Are people just ignoring all the times Trump talked about bombing terrorists, killing their families and children, bragging how the military will be glad to commit war crimes for him, and talking about nuking stuff?

Why are people still pretending he was NOT pro-War during the campaign?

Because many of them falsely attributed that nonsense to Hillary in their minds. My brother's a raging Trumpaholic and kept talking about how Hillary this, Hillary that when it was demonstrably Trump who'd said the nonsense or Trump who would claim that Hillary had said it.

I don't talk to my brother much anymore.

There's very little to separate Trump and Clinton when it comes to foreign policy and the bombing of people with brown faces...

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Are people just ignoring all the times Trump talked about bombing terrorists, killing their families and children, bragging how the military will be glad to commit war crimes for him, and talking about nuking stuff?

Why are people still pretending he was NOT pro-War during the campaign?

We're not ignoring them, just remembering all the other stuff he said about non-intervention, better dialogue and relationship with Russia, a new way of dealing with US foreign policy etc etc

Trump, by his own words, was going to be the man who didn't play by the rule book of the Washington 'elites.'

I was willing to give him the benifet of the doubt in this regard, but like I said earlier, I was wrong...

Then you were, quite frankly, delusional. This is a man who is known for breaking his word, known for shafting employees, known for doing everything he can to avoid being accountable for his actions and known for saying the right things to get what he wants before leaving what he touched a mess.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Are people just ignoring all the times Trump talked about bombing terrorists, killing their families and children, bragging how the military will be glad to commit war crimes for him, and talking about nuking stuff?

Why are people still pretending he was NOT pro-War during the campaign?

Because many of them falsely attributed that nonsense to Hillary in their minds. My brother's a raging Trumpaholic and kept talking about how Hillary this, Hillary that when it was demonstrably Trump who'd said the nonsense or Trump who would claim that Hillary had said it.

I don't talk to my brother much anymore.

There's very little to separate Trump and Clinton when it comes to foreign policy and the bombing of people with brown faces...

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is the perfect example of how they convince themselves that "Hillary would be just as bad/worse".

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Are people just ignoring all the times Trump talked about bombing terrorists, killing their families and children, bragging how the military will be glad to commit war crimes for him, and talking about nuking stuff?

Why are people still pretending he was NOT pro-War during the campaign?

Because many of them falsely attributed that nonsense to Hillary in their minds. My brother's a raging Trumpaholic and kept talking about how Hillary this, Hillary that when it was demonstrably Trump who'd said the nonsense or Trump who would claim that Hillary had said it.

I don't talk to my brother much anymore.

There's very little to separate Trump and Clinton when it comes to foreign policy and the bombing of people with brown faces...

Besides the obvious difference in levels of competency involved?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Are people just ignoring all the times Trump talked about bombing terrorists, killing their families and children, bragging how the military will be glad to commit war crimes for him, and talking about nuking stuff?

Why are people still pretending he was NOT pro-War during the campaign?

We're not ignoring them, just remembering all the other stuff he said about non-intervention, better dialogue and relationship with Russia, a new way of dealing with US foreign policy etc etc

Trump, by his own words, was going to be the man who didn't play by the rule book of the Washington 'elites.'

I was willing to give him the benifet of the doubt in this regard, but like I said earlier, I was wrong...

Then you were, quite frankly, delusional. This is a man who is known for breaking his word, known for shafting employees, known for doing everything he can to avoid being accountable for his actions and known for saying the right things to get what he wants before leaving what he touched a mess.

The man loudly asking why the US can't use its nukes certainly was going to have a new way of approaching foreign policy though

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is the perfect example of how they convince themselves that "Hillary would be just as bad/worse".

Hilary Clinton, by her own words, confirmed she would continue Obama's drone strike policy, a policy that was widely criticised by Amnesty International.

You're also forgetting that I am not, and never have been, a US citizen, so I had zero effect on the 2016 election, as I obviously couldn't vote.

With regard to your other point, in my reading of US history, which is a hobby of mine, brash candidates have been tempered by the office of President, when they take up that office. They discover that the campaign trail is not the same of having to run a country and be accountable.

I foolishly believed that the status of being President would somewhat sober Trump and temper his actions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Are people just ignoring all the times Trump talked about bombing terrorists, killing their families and children, bragging how the military will be glad to commit war crimes for him, and talking about nuking stuff?

Why are people still pretending he was NOT pro-War during the campaign?

Because many of them falsely attributed that nonsense to Hillary in their minds. My brother's a raging Trumpaholic and kept talking about how Hillary this, Hillary that when it was demonstrably Trump who'd said the nonsense or Trump who would claim that Hillary had said it.

I don't talk to my brother much anymore.

There's very little to separate Trump and Clinton when it comes to foreign policy and the bombing of people with brown faces...

Besides the obvious difference in levels of competency involved?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Are people just ignoring all the times Trump talked about bombing terrorists, killing their families and children, bragging how the military will be glad to commit war crimes for him, and talking about nuking stuff?

Why are people still pretending he was NOT pro-War during the campaign?

We're not ignoring them, just remembering all the other stuff he said about non-intervention, better dialogue and relationship with Russia, a new way of dealing with US foreign policy etc etc

Trump, by his own words, was going to be the man who didn't play by the rule book of the Washington 'elites.'

I was willing to give him the benifet of the doubt in this regard, but like I said earlier, I was wrong...

Then you were, quite frankly, delusional. This is a man who is known for breaking his word, known for shafting employees, known for doing everything he can to avoid being accountable for his actions and known for saying the right things to get what he wants before leaving what he touched a mess.

The man loudly asking why the US can't use its nukes certainly was going to have a new way of approaching foreign policy though

I doubt if the person at the receiving end of a bomb cares how competent a president is or isn't. You're still getting the bomb!

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I doubt if the person at the receiving end of a bomb cares how competent a president is or isn't. You're still getting the bomb!

It obviously matters how many people are at the receiving end of said bombs. On the one hand we have a man totally callous about human lives and the laws of war and on the other a run of the mill bureaucrat for the most part.

 cuda1179 wrote:
Heck, I even give Richard Nixon credit for a lot of things. He did a number of bad things, but I think he is a criminally underrated President. Watergate hurts his reputation badly, but he did get us out of Viet Nam, and a number of his policies did work out for the better.

If you set aside Watergate (which, in all fairness, is a big ask) then I think Nixon is probably the greatest modern president in terms of achievement. Of course I say that as someone who skews liberal, but by todays totally screwed up standards, so were Nixon and Reagan.

Ended the war in Vietnam
Ended the draft
Opened up China
Signed Title IX
Started the EPA
Started OSHA
Started SALT with the USSR
Signed the ABM
Did an enormous amount to desegregate schools
Sent aid to Israel which almost certainly avoided a nuclear deployment during the Yom Kippur war
Made an honest attempt at healthcare

http://www.grubstreet.com/2018/04/necco-sales-spike.html?

The site says that during the month of March, after the panic began, it received 253 emails and 167 phone calls from customers looking for Necco-brand candies. Twenty-nine people offered to pay at least double the going bulk rate, and three reportedly said they’d perform free labor in exchange for priority treatment. One woman wanted 100 pounds of Necco’s glorified Tums, which she planned to vacuum-seal to keep her prepper stash fresh “for years.” (A standard 24-wafer roll weighs 2.02 ounces, so she was requesting about 800 packs.) Another woman said she’d trade her late-model Honda Accord for all of CandyStore.com’s remaining Necco candy.

..... you're a strange bunch of people America.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

The man loudly asking why the US can't use its nukes certainly was going to have a new way of approaching foreign policy though

Of course, how many other world leaders have bragged on Twitter about how big their nuclear button is?

 reds8n wrote:
http://www.grubstreet.com/2018/04/necco-sales-spike.html?

The site says that during the month of March, after the panic began, it received 253 emails and 167 phone calls from customers looking for Necco-brand candies. Twenty-nine people offered to pay at least double the going bulk rate, and three reportedly said they’d perform free labor in exchange for priority treatment. One woman wanted 100 pounds of Necco’s glorified Tums, which she planned to vacuum-seal to keep her prepper stash fresh “for years.” (A standard 24-wafer roll weighs 2.02 ounces, so she was requesting about 800 packs.) Another woman said she’d trade her late-model Honda Accord for all of CandyStore.com’s remaining Necco candy.

..... you're a strange bunch of people America.

Wonder what the connection between the people calling, Sovereign Citizens, and doomsday preppers would look like.