Donald Trump

[Fairy In Boots]

23 minutes ago, Panflute said:

He had one job.

Now he activated the "Assad must go" curse.

Statements this morning seem they're going down the route of this is a one off. From one side I can see he had to act as he'd given the "red line" talk and not following through on a threat is Obama 2.0 and we all know how useful he was. But his rethoric has boxed him into this and forced his own hand, for me it's a mistake on his part. I think looking on social media his support are way against it it's the one's who said he'd be a mad man justifying it. 

[SirBalon]

(my conspiracy) I reckon his own "party" and everyone (most of them) around him want him out and are letting him build his own grave with all of these errors and ridiculous statements.

[Panflute]

11 minutes ago, Fairy In Boots said:

Statements this morning seem they're going down the route of this is a one off. From one side I can see he had to act as he'd given the "red line" talk and not following through on a threat is Obama 2.0 and we all know how useful he was. But his rethoric has boxed him into this and forced his own hand, for me it's a mistake on his part. I think looking on social media his support are way against it it's the one's who said he'd be a mad man justifying it. 

I find these "4D chess" arguments that this is all part of some brilliant masterplan hard to believe. Neocon baby eaters like Jared Kushner are gaining influence in the administration while that of Bannon and his ilk is diminishing. This is the logical conclusion of that process.

[Fairy In Boots]

16 minutes ago, Panflute said:

I find these "4D chess" arguments that this is all part of some brilliant masterplan hard to believe. Neocon baby eaters like Jared Kushner are gaining influence in the administration while that of Bannon and his ilk is diminishing. This is the logical conclusion of that process.

Yeah the stuff about this being a way to distance the administration from Russia are utter bollocks. The pentagon and the White House is infested with these war hawk cunts utterly devoid of reality banging the war drum and Trump has given in.

It's a shame I thought he would be his own man, it's blatantly obvious that the swamp hasn't been drained. 

Just looking at the blatant hypocrisy of some of his fiercest opponents in politics virtually partying that he's bombed them. one of the main reasons Trump got in was his anti war rethoric and the fact the establishment is blatantly unhinged when it comes to the global political situation they've brought about, this could cost him a second term. 

[Honey Honey]

Looking for someone to blame other than yourselves. Trump had form during the campaign on swinging wildly from one point to the opposite.

 

 

[Fairy In Boots]

1 hour ago, HoneyNUFC said:

Looking for someone to blame other than yourselves. Trump had form during the campaign on swinging wildly from one point to the opposite.

 

 

He also had several exchanges on Syria in which he was consistent. Domestic politics I cared not a joy for so couldn't give a fuck about his flip flopping, on world politics he was fairly consistent. At least it appears that this was a one off, although they've been bombing Syria for 2 odd years

[Honey Honey]

50 minutes ago, Fairy In Boots said:

He also had several exchanges on Syria in which he was consistent. Domestic politics I cared not a joy for so couldn't give a fuck about his flip flopping, on world politics he was fairly consistent. At least it appears that this was a one off, although they've been bombing Syria for 2 odd years

If the smoke alarm is going off in the kitchen it doesn't mean the fire won't spread to the living room.

 

[Dr. Gonzo]

14 hours ago, Fairy In Boots said:

 

We shouldn't get involved, Trump was of that view originally. I personally think it's a complete and utter clusterfuck i'm dubious as to who the rebels are in Syria, I don't think the pentagon knows either but they want him to let them loose as war is good for business.

What are we going to achieve, we get rid of the Assad's then the sunni's clean house after we've gone and we've got

a) the war and cost of war both monetarily and as a public relations exercise.

b) the ethnic cleansing after we go

c) another fucking state like afghan, Iraq

d) they'll move into Lebanon next 

The smart move is to let Assad win and stop arming the cunting rebels.

Regarding PJW, he talks a lot of shit but he made a fantastic point earlier, the media and members of society who said he'll be a "hitler type war mad nutter are now the cunts egging him on" he's threatened  to stop supporting Trump if they go in, i'm the same although I know it will be the neo con cunts infesting the Washington machine that will drive it as apposed to Trump. For me PJW is the only one talking sense on this subject it seems.

Yeah if the US gets involved this is another Iraq. But this time there are actually chemical weapons (albiet Russian) and the Russians have suspended their agreement to not attack American forces.

There are a number of radical groups, not just ISIS, that will compete for the power vaccuum.

After ever listening to a thing Trump has ever said, the likelihood that he's an empty vessel president being pushed around by his advisors a la Reagan and Bush is very likely. Which is reassuring to a degree, because he thinks like a child, but is pretty worrying when his advisors are all corporatists, war mongers, and figures of political corruption.

[Dr. Gonzo]

1 hour ago, Fairy In Boots said:

He also had several exchanges on Syria in which he was consistent. Domestic politics I cared not a joy for so couldn't give a fuck about his flip flopping, on world politics he was fairly consistent. At least it appears that this was a one off, although they've been bombing Syria for 2 odd years

He's changed his views whenever it's been politically advantageous for him. He also campaigned on draining the swamp, yet went for a personification of lobbying with DeVos and Koch brother backed politicians, for example. He's not been consistent politically in the very short time he's been politically active... he's even done a lot of shit he criticised Obama for. You shouldn't be surprised you were duped.

I mean just look at US foreign policy since he took office. He took US support of the Said Arabia indescriminate bombing campaign in Yemen, and ramped it up. A botched Navy seal raid and a huge increase in the use of drone strikes in the last few weeks show he's no anti-war politician. The way he favours US military spending getting INCREASED when it's already so high should tell you he plans on fucking using it. Go back and watch clips on shit he's said, it's not good watching if you don't want the US to start unnecessary wars.

[Fairy In Boots]

2 hours ago, HoneyNUFC said:

If the smoke alarm is going off in the kitchen it doesn't mean the fire won't spread to the living room.

 

lol let's be fair flip flopping on domestic politics isn't as serious as flip flopping on foreign policy. Most of not all tweek domestic policy on the campaign trail if a policy flops. Foreign policy tends to be stuck though and in fairness he was being consistent up until the chemical attack. I question those around him and their influence on him, 

2 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

He's changed his views whenever it's been politically advantageous for him. He also campaigned on draining the swamp, yet went for a personification of lobbying with DeVos and Koch brother backed politicians, for example. He's not been consistent politically in the very short time he's been politically active... he's even done a lot of shit he criticised Obama for. You shouldn't be surprised you were duped.

I mean just look at US foreign policy since he took office. He took US support of the Said Arabia indescriminate bombing campaign in Yemen, and ramped it up. A botched Navy seal raid and a huge increase in the use of drone strikes in the last few weeks show he's no anti-war politician. The way he favours US military spending getting INCREASED when it's already so high should tell you he plans on fucking using it. Go back and watch clips on shit he's said, it's not good watching if you don't want the US to start unnecessary wars.

I know he want an increase in spending that's always been consistant from him. Do you think Hillary would have been much different? 

[Dr. Gonzo]

1 hour ago, Fairy In Boots said:

lol let's be fair flip flopping on domestic politics isn't as serious as flip flopping on foreign policy. Most of not all tweek domestic policy on the campaign trail if a policy flops. Foreign policy tends to be stuck though and in fairness he was being consistent up until the chemical attack. I question those around him and their influence on him, 

I know he want an increase in spending that's always been consistant from him. Do you think Hillary would have been much different? 

I think Hillary would have been more of the same of the Obama administration, but with a slightly harder line, like the no-fly zone that she proposed and with strong sanctions on Russia. But a no-fly zone is different to retaliatory missile strikes. People said that would trigger a war - but now we've got a situation where we've used military force against a sovereign nation, and Russia has suspended it's agreement to not engage with American forces in Syria. That sounds like a worse situation to me.

And I don't think Hillary was a great candidate, was easy to attack on legitimate grounds to attack her, but at least we had at least a semblance of an idea of her policies. As things stand now, the President of the United States is a man who changes his mind about things on a regular basis and who has no clear policies. This is a major turn on his supposed anti-war stance. But again, I ask, why would the world's best funded and largest military increase military spending if there was no plan to use force? A way to measure how someone intends on governing is by examining how they intend to spend taxpayer money. Everyone knows politicians lie - and Trump has had too many inconsistent positions throughout his very short political career (and beyond!) for us to measure how he will govern by his words alone. His budget and his actions indicate his truest intentions.

Big military budget increase for the world's most advanced and most funded military indicates an intent to be more reliant on that military. Simple. The problem is we don't really have any clear indication on what US policy on Syria will be at all. This is completely inconsistent with his campaign rhetoric, and commitment to this new hard line against Assad's rule of Syria would throw even more instability on the world's most unstable region - even more so than these missile strikes that have just happened.

However, I'm also not convinced that this isn't the old trick of using military force to create a distraction from domestic political pressure - i.e., wagging the dog. The Russian Defense Minister has said "the combat efficiency of the U.S. strike was very low" - 23 out of 49 Tomahawk cruise missiles reached the air base. Six MiG fighter jets were destroyed, but they were already under repair. Which is interesting because these are meant to be precision weapons. And we saw how quickly they worked against the Iraqi military (not the insurgency which successfully proved to be a thorn in the US military's side - but Saddam's actual military forces). And that was against a standing army that wasn't in the midst of a brutal civil war - although Iraq also didn't have the support of the Russian military. But it's certainly something to think about. Although the last time a US president was accused of "wagging the dog" pre-September 11th, it was Bill Clinton going after a fringe group of Arabs known as Al Qaeda. And with hindsight, I'm pretty sure we'd all say that was justified considering the events we know follow.

At this point, nobody really knows what the fuck is going on other with US foreign policy other than Trump, Tillerson, Mattis, Kuschner and (probably) Bannon (who knows how frozen out he is right now, it's reported he threatened to quit) and (maybe) other members in the administration. Neo-cons are hopeful of a real commitment against Syria, for sure. Russian government public statements indicate they are particularly unhappy about this, and warn that war is close. And I think everyone else is wondering what the fuck is going on.

[The Artful Dodger]

When you take it at face value; a strike to show the strength of America and that it is prepared to use it to deter the use of chemical weapons, by a regime which there is clear evidence is murdering people with these things, then there's not much cause for furore. I mean we have 'red lines' and 'points which won't be passed', but what do they mean if you can't back it up? In some respect I can support that idea, IF, big IF, that's the reasoning and based on sound evidence. The problem comes when it's a political motive and clearly done haphazardly, with little reliance on evidence.

This shadow boxing with Russia is just an irrelevance, sick of Putin getting his chance to flex the little dwarf knows Russia is militarily incapable of conducting a proper war.

[Machado]

Nothing like a good knee jerk show off. 59 tomahawks - each costing $1.8M... you do the math.

Where's his plan to defeat ISIS in 30 days? It's been about 70. Is he waiting for something?

Maybe he's spent the last 70 days educating his Generals on all that he knows about ISIS. After all he knows more about ISIS than they do. I know this because he said it.

[Kowabunga]

If I may ask , can we already say The Droneald instead if Drone-bama?

 

[Spike]

13 hours ago, Machado said:

Nothing like a good knee jerk show off. 59 tomahawks - each costing $1.8M... you do the math.

Where's his plan to defeat ISIS in 30 days? It's been about 70. Is he waiting for something?

Maybe he's spent the last 70 days educating his Generals on all that he knows about ISIS. After all he knows more about ISIS than they do. I know this because he said it.

And? They didn't just cost $1.8M, they already existed in an Arsenal. Complain about the cost when they are being manufactured not when they are being launched.

$600B p/a military budget.

59*1,800,000 = 106,200,000

106,200,00/600,000,000,000=0.0000177

0.0000177% of the military budget was spent on that attack. 

[Honey Honey]

Or as infowars put it, $100m to blow up sand and camel shit

[Fairy In Boots]

11 hours ago, HoneyNUFC said:

Or as infowars put it, $100m to blow up sand and camel shit

Defeating the globalist peadophile vampire elites - priceless. 

[6666]

Sean Spicer continues to be comedy gold. The fact that he has the job of dealing with the media is proof that Donald Trump is just trolling.

[Harry]

 

[Harry]

 

[God is Haaland]

[Vegan Kel]

I was a supporter of Trump because I naively thought he was a genuine alternative to the Rothschild controlled system but he's just another puppet who will send his compatriots to the Middle East to die for Israel.

Still a far better candidate than Killary though

[Dr. Gonzo]

56 minutes ago, Salford Kel said:

I was a supporter of Trump because I naively thought he was a genuine alternative to the Rothschild controlled system but he's just another puppet who will send his compatriots to the Middle East to die for Israel.

Still a far better candidate than Killary though

Sounds like David Duke is the man you'll want for POTUS next time around.

[Harry]

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/04/28/poll-trump-white-house-press-corps-journalists-215051

 

[Vegan Kel]

On 4/21/2017 at 2:23 PM, Dr. Gonzo said:

Sounds like David Duke is the man you'll want for POTUS next time around.

If it sounds like that to you then you should probably seek mental health advice