US Politics Thread

[Federberg]

^One of your more fantastical defences of Trump mate! I don't really have the energy or interest for this right now. But Washington is more dominated by lobbyists in this Administration than ever before so your statement simply doesn't pass muster. And as for Trump and favours? Seriously?? I mean seriously? The "can you do me a favour though... " President? We should pin that comment. Anyway as I said I simply don't have the energy or desire to fight this battle right now. I just had to respond because it's truly hilarious

 

[britbox]

^One of your more fantastical defences of Trump mate! I don't really have the energy or interest for this right now. But Washington is more dominated by lobbyists in this Administration than ever before so your statement simply doesn't pass muster. And as for Trump and favours? Seriously?? I mean seriously? The "can you do me a favour though... " President? We should pin that comment. Anyway as I said I simply don't have the energy or desire to fight this battle right now. I just had to respond because it's truly hilarious

Huh? I said he'd leverage his position. How's Hillary's charity fundraising these days? Are the Saudis still pumping money in to promote the empowerment of women?

 

[calitennis127]

So after a couple days away I come back and see that the Lebanese Elmer still has not offered any intellectual defense of his use of the term "genocidal war ideology" to characterize American foreign policy - not a single foreign policy figure named, not a single book or article cited, not the slightest explanation of how the United States has been "genocidal" in the Middle East, not a single acknowledgment of atheist Christopher Hitchens' open support for the war in Iraq.

Now, let me make it clear: you don't have to agree with American foreign policy in the Middle East to object to characterizing it as genocidal. I disagreed with the wars in Iraq and Libya, but calling them genocidal is absurd. If the U.S. was attempting a genocide (which of course it wasn't), it did a terrible job at it. Of course, the little Bwoken boy doesn't know how to properly define the term "genocide" so he is using it just for effect.

All that said, let's assume for a moment that you do hold Bwoken's position that the war in Iraq was "genocidal" or an example of the USA's "genocidal war ideology." Well does the Lebanese ignoramus even know that Donald Trump ran on a non-interventionist platform in 2015 and 2016? Does he know that he called out George Bush for lying about the war in Iraq to Jeb Bush's face with Republican donors booing him at a debate?

This was Trump calling out Jeb Bush right to his face at a debate in February 2016 about the Iraq war being a mistake (I know that the Lebanese Elmer only gets information from his white left-wing slavemasters so this will be the first time he's seen this, but this is for everyone's edification). Enjoy:

 

[Federberg]

So after a couple days away I come back and see that the Lebanese Elmer still has not offered any intellectual defense of his use of the term "genocidal war ideology" to characterize American foreign policy - not a single foreign policy figure named, not a single book or article cited, not the slightest explanation of how the United States has been "genocidal" in the Middle East, not a single acknowledgment of atheist Christopher Hitchens' open support for the war in Iraq.

Now, let me make it clear: you don't have to agree with American foreign policy in the Middle East to object to characterizing it as genocidal. I disagreed with the wars in Iraq and Libya, but calling them genocidal is absurd. If the U.S. was attempting a genocide (which of course it wasn't), it did a terrible job at it. Of course, the little Bwoken boy doesn't know how to properly define the term "genocide" so he is using it just for effect.

All that said, let's assume for a moment that you do hold Bwoken's position that the war in Iraq was "genocidal" or an example of the USA's "genocidal war ideology." Well does the Lebanese ignoramus even know that Donald Trump ran on a non-interventionist platform in 2015 and 2016? Does he know that he called out George Bush for lying about the war in Iraq to Jeb Bush's face with Republican donors booing him at a debate?

This was Trump calling out Jeb Bush right to his face at a debate in February 2016 about the Iraq war being a mistake (I know that the Lebanese Elmer only gets information from his white left-wing slavemasters so this will be the first time he's seen this, but this is for everyone's edification). Enjoy:

he was all over the place on Iraq mate. Sometimes he was for it sometimes he wasn't. That's a luxury those who weren't in power at the time have. Let's be fair about it... And for the record, Trump's disinterest in foreign adventurism is one of the few things I've always liked about him

For (but not enthusiastic)...


Against (or at least not pro)..

 

[calitennis127]

he was all over the place on Iraq mate. Sometimes he was for it sometimes he wasn't. That's a luxury those who weren't in power at the time have. Let's be fair about it... And for the record, Trump's disinterest in foreign adventurism is one of the few things I've always liked about him

Okay, so your retort is that in 2003 he was ambivalent and he wasn't completely against the Iraq war all the time and that he was sort of for it when talking to Howard Stern of all people? Fine, but you're holding him to a very high standard that most people did not meet. Principled conservatives such as Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan were completely against the war but they were few and far between. Mainstream Democrats such as Kerry, Biden, and Hillary voted for it.

Either way, none of that is relevant to his campaign of 2015-2016, when he took a firm stand against interventionism in the Middle East. And he did so against leading Republicans (Jeb, Rubio, Kasich) who were all staunch interventionists and then Hillary, who was obviously a long-time advocate of Middle East intervention. What he did at the February 2016 debate in criticizing the Iraq war to Jeb Bush's face took a lot of guts given how much the Republican establishment is pro-intervention. Most thought he could not take the Republican establishment on like that and still get the nomination but he had the courage to do it.

 

[Federberg]

Okay, so your retort is that in 2003 he was ambivalent and he wasn't completely against the Iraq war all the time and that he was sort of for it when talking to Howard Stern of all people? Fine, but you're holding him to a very high standard that most people did not meet. Principled conservatives such as Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan were completely against the war but they were few and far between. Mainstream Democrats such as Kerry, Biden, and Hillary voted for it.

Either way, none of that is relevant to his campaign of 2015-2016, when he took a firm stand against interventionism in the Middle East. And he did so against leading Republicans (Jeb, Rubio, Kasich) who were all staunch interventionists and then Hillary, who was obviously a long-time advocate of Middle East intervention. What he did at the February 2016 debate in criticizing the Iraq war to Jeb Bush's face took a lot of guts given how much the Republican establishment is pro-intervention. Most thought he could not take the Republican establishment on like that and still get the nomination but he had the courage to do it.

I'll credit him for his stance in the primaries. It was a valid stance to oppose interventionism, and I have always applauded him for it, much like I praised Gabbard. But he loses me when he said he was always against the war. That is not true

 

[calitennis127]

I'll credit him for his stance in the primaries. It was a valid stance to oppose interventionism, and I have always applauded him for it, much like I praised Gabbard. But he loses me when he said he was always against the war. That is not true

But why is that such a big deal? There is a 12-year gap between 2003 and 2015. People's positions change all the time. Very few people maintain identical positions on issues over extended periods. Some do but they are rare. Look at the Russia relations issue.....in 2012, Obama was poking fun at Romney for being too paranoid about Russia and told him that the Cold War is over. Then 4 years later the entire Democratic Party went straight Russophobic.

Besides, what's more important than Trump's words in 2015-2016 have been his actions as president.....unlike Bush or Obama, he has not initiated any new interventions in the Middle East. In fact, he has tried to get out of Syria twice.

 

[Federberg]

But why is that such a big deal? There is a 12-year gap between 2003 and 2015. People's positions change all the time. Very few people maintain identical positions on issues over extended periods. Some do but they are rare. Look at the Russia relations issue.....in 2012, Obama was poking fun at Romney for being too paranoid about Russia and told him that the Cold War is over. Then 4 years later the entire Democratic Party went straight Russophobic.

Besides, what's more important than Trump's words in 2015-2016 have been his actions as president.....unlike Bush or Obama, he has not initiated any new interventions in the Middle East. In fact, he has tried to get out of Syria twice.

I would have had no problem at all if he changed his position. In fact I applaud a politician who has the balls to step forward and say that they have changed their view. But he didn't do that. He said that he never supported the war. It's a character issue for me. And that little warning was quite insightful, and his mendacity since then has confirmed reservations about him

 

[calitennis127]

I would have had no problem at all if he changed his position. In fact I applaud a politician who has the balls to step forward and say that they have changed their view. But he didn't do that. He said that he never supported the war. It's a character issue for me. And that little warning was quite insightful, and his mendacity since then has confirmed reservations about him

How has he been mendacious with his foreign policy positions in recent years? His actions as president have overwhelmingly been consistent with the non-interventionist stance he took during the campaign. He resisted the calls to bomb Iran from numerous hawks, including John Bolton. So where has the dishonesty been that you are referring to? He has backed up his talk to an extraordinary degree given how much the deck is stacked against him.

Also, his main claim to being against the Iraq war was that he expressed doubts about it in numerous conversations with Sean Hannity, who was adamantly for the war at the time. And Hannity verifies his claim. So between that info and the hesitant quote on Howard Stern's show (not exactly a foreign policy discussion platform) we know that Trump was ambivalent about the war in Iraq.

What you are talking about is some minor bluffing.....he wasn't as overtly against the war as he claims now but he clearly was not a cheerleader for it either. That's better than can be said for a lot of people. More significantly, as president he has mostly done what he campaigned on in 2015-2016, and that's ultimately what is most important.

 

[Federberg]

How has he been mendacious with his foreign policy positions in recent years? His actions as president have overwhelmingly been consistent with the non-interventionist stance he took during the campaign. He resisted the calls to bomb Iran from numerous hawks, including John Bolton. So where has the dishonesty been that you are referring to? He has backed up his talk to an extraordinary degree given how much the deck is stacked against him.

Also, his main claim to being against the Iraq war was that he expressed doubts about it in numerous conversations with Sean Hannity, who was adamantly for the war at the time. And Hannity verifies his claim. So between that info and the hesitant quote on Howard Stern's show (not exactly a foreign policy discussion platform) we know that Trump was ambivalent about the war in Iraq.

What you are talking about is some minor bluffing.....he wasn't as overtly against the war as he claims now but he clearly was not a cheerleader for it either. That's better than can be said for a lot of people. More significantly, as president he has mostly done what he campaigned on in 2015-2016, and that's ultimately what is most important.

I wasn't being specific about his mendacity. Can we just agree that he isn't always truthful? A lot of his supporters are at least willing to concede this

 

[calitennis127]

I wasn't being specific about his mendacity. Can we just agree that he isn't always truthful? A lot of his supporters are at least willing to concede this

Okay, but who are you comparing him to who? Who is this ideal saintly leader you have in mind who divests of all business interests and never tells a lie? Marcus Aurelius lived a couple thousand years ago.

Of course, what you are trying to say is that he lies more than most other political figures. But what I have found is that often when people accuse Trump of "lying" it is for saying something that they find unpleasant (not necessarily untrue), as with his criticism of Baltimore. Trump wasn't "lying" about Baltimore. He was describing the harsh reality and that's why he got criticized for what he said.

 

[Federberg]

Okay, but who are you comparing him to who? Who is this ideal saintly leader you have in mind who divests of all business interests and never tells a lie? Marcus Aurelius lived a couple thousand years ago.

Of course, what you are trying to say is that he lies more than most other political figures. But what I have found is that often when people accuse Trump of "lying" it is for saying something that they find unpleasant (not necessarily untrue), as with his criticism of Baltimore. Trump wasn't "lying" about Baltimore. He was describing the harsh reality and that's why he got criticized for what he said.

I'm not a fan of politicians generally. Let me be quite clear, I wasn't a fan of HRC, I thought that Obama had his moments but a bit too left for me, so please don't think my assessment of Trump is party political. I vote for the equivalent of the Republican Party in the UK, the Conservatives, so please don't mistake my political view point. I'm a banker for goodness sakes I think politicians are self serving and bend the truth to their ends and most of the best things come from private endeavour. But Trump has taken it to new levels mate. I rather would have thought that your counter would have been that he has a tendency to exaggerate, and has a penchant for hyperbole. But let's be real, he's different. Fan or not, I thought this was pretty much established an not particularly controversial

 

[Moxie]

Okay, but who are you comparing him to who? Who is this ideal saintly leader you have in mind who divests of all business interests and never tells a lie? Marcus Aurelius lived a couple thousand years ago.

Of course, what you are trying to say is that he lies more than most other political figures. But what I have found is that often when people accuse Trump of "lying" it is for saying something that they find unpleasant (not necessarily untrue), as with his criticism of Baltimore. Trump wasn't "lying" about Baltimore. He was describing the harsh reality and that's why he got criticized for what he said.

In your usual way, you want the opposite number to be a "saint." What about just a normal reasonably honest politician who doesn't lie openly and doesn't blatantly feather his own nest? Despite the lies, which even conservative journals list at over 10,000, he uses spin and distortion to smoke screen a lot of things.

Lying: (just a tip of the iceberg) that his inaugural crowds were the biggest ever, that there was massive voter fraud in the 2016 election, that he had the biggest electoral college win since Reagan, and his claim that Mexico would pay for the wall on the border. And this was all before we got out of his first month in office. Most recently he has lied about his own take on the COVID-19 crisis, to the point of complete 180s. He said "no one saw this coming," and then he said that he knew it would be a pandemic before anyone else did. That's not just a lie, it's a cover-up of why we are so behind the curve on this.

Divesting of business interests: as I understand, all Presidents before Trump have put their assets into trust when they became President, at least in modern times. They have also disclosed their taxes prior to election. There is an emoluments clause for a reason...and yet Trump flaunts all of this. No, we're really never had a big business holder in office before, but just because you think he shouldn't have to lose money for being President, I beg to differ. This was his choice and it should come with sacrifices, for the integrity of the office and for the sake of national security. And yet, he suggests that a major summit be held at one of his properties. He's made a cash-cow of his DC property. He's made Mar-a-Lago the White House South, even though it clearly proposes a security risk. And you'll hate this, but it is clear to many that his obligations to Russia are less than kosher. You don't like that? He should have shown us his taxes, then.

 

[calitennis127]

In your usual way, you want the opposite number to be a "saint." What about just a normal reasonably honest politician who doesn't lie openly and doesn't blatantly feather his own nest? Despite the lies, which even conservative journals list at over 10,000, he uses spin and distortion to smoke screen a lot of things.

The Washington Examiner piece did not verify that he told over 10,000 "lies." It was merely reporting that the Washington Post alleged that. As you like to advise others, read your own article.

Now, of course, the Washington Post calls any claims it does not like to be "false" or "misleading." Their pretense of being objective arbiters of truth is laughable.

Lying: (just a tip of the iceberg) that his inaugural crowds were the biggest ever,

Who the f cares about a crowd? Trump's was big, so was Obama's. If you think that you're morally superior to Trump, then why are you trying to stick your chest out about your side having bigger crowds at the inaugural? You are engaging in the same atavistic hyper-masculine tit-for-tat that you supposedly dislike, aren't you?

Now, if you do want to talk about crowds in general, Trump did do a great job in his 2015-2016 campaign of drawing massive crowds across the country. Maybe you dislike the fact that he has significant popularity, but he does.

that there was massive voter fraud in the 2016 election,

This was not something that was disproved. He made a claim that some think is correct and others don't. I personally think that there is a substantial amount of voter fraud that occurs in California, although at this point it does not matter if that's the case. If the Democrats are winning 7 million votes to 2 million votes, it hardly matters if 2 million of their votes are fraudulent or not.

Either way, this isn't a "lie." This is an opinion that has not been definitively proven one way or the other.

that he had the biggest electoral college win since Reagan,

That was an inaccurate statement but that wasn't a lie. The essential truth he was getting at was that he had a decisive Electoral College victory, and he did. Why make a big deal out of this statement?

and his claim that Mexico would pay for the wall on the border.

That was a bold promise that ended up not materializing. That was not a "lie."

Most recently he has lied about his own take on the COVID-19 crisis, to the point of complete 180s. He said "no one saw this coming," and then he said that he knew it would be a pandemic before anyone else did. That's not just a lie, it's a cover-up of why we are so behind the curve on this.

That is utterly and totally ridiculous. You are simply dead wrong. When Trump issued the travel ban in late January - just about one week after Dr. Fauci said Americans had little to worry about - most Democrats were condemning it as xenophobic, ESPECIALLY in New York City. Just go look at the tweets from early February that I posted from Adam Levine and Oxiris Barbot.

Ironically, the one news network that covered the coronavirus the most in January was Fox News. Tucker Carlson, Hannity, Greg Gutfeld, and Jesse Waters were all ringing the alarm bells before the major media started to in late February when they saw that it was serious and decided to use it to attack Trump. Until that time, they were dismissing Trump's proactive approach as xenophobic.

Also, this idea that "we are so behind the curve on this" is simply not true. Most of the country is either unaffected or affected to a negligible degree. New York City is not the entire country, and when it comes to New York, there is a lot of blame to go around. Cuomo, De Blasio, and the NYC health officials all have culpability in this. Of course you want to put it on Trump, but that is simply inaccurate. The Democratic leadership of NYC really dropped the ball in a multitude of ways.

 

[calitennis127]

I think politicians are self serving and bend the truth to their ends and most of the best things come from private endeavour. But Trump has taken it to new levels mate. I rather would have thought that your counter would have been that he has a tendency to exaggerate, and has a penchant for hyperbole.

That's true, he does have a tendency to exaggerate and a penchant for hyperbole. But your allegations here that he has a tendency to "bend the truth" to his ends means nothing without specific charges or issues brought up. What issues are we talking about exactly? And when you say that he is bending the truth in a unique way, who are you comparing him to?

I am not asking you to write a comprehensive essay. Just give me one or two examples you can think of. Your charges may sound convincing to many people in the abstract, but you have to provide some specific justifications to back them up.

 

[Federberg]

That's true, he does have a tendency to exaggerate and a penchant for hyperbole. But your allegations here that he has a tendency to "bend the truth" to his ends means nothing without specific charges or issues brought up. What issues are we talking about exactly? And when you say that he is bending the truth in a unique way, who are you comparing him to?

I am not asking you to write a comprehensive essay. Just give me one or two examples you can think of. Your charges may sound convincing to many people in the abstract, but you have to provide some specific justifications to back them up.

Hmmm... off the top of my head? So many but here goes....

“When people or countries come in to raid the great wealth of our Nation, I want them to pay for the privilege of doing so...We are right now taking in $billions in Tariffs. MAKE AMERICA RICH AGAIN,”

To be fair on that one, it could be that he's just monumentally stupid, and despite experts explaining to him, he's unwilling to learn.

But this one is possibly one of the most disgusting lies of all...

“All Republicans support people with pre-existing conditions, and if they don't, they will after I speak to them," Trump tweeted in October. "I am in total support."

 

[brokenshoelace]

So after a couple days away I come back and see that the Lebanese Elmer still has not offered any intellectual defense of his use of the term "genocidal war ideology" to characterize American foreign policy - not a single foreign policy figure named, not a single book or article cited, not the slightest explanation of how the United States has been "genocidal" in the Middle East, not a single acknowledgment of atheist Christopher Hitchens' open support for the war in Iraq.

Now, let me make it clear: you don't have to agree with American foreign policy in the Middle East to object to characterizing it as genocidal. I disagreed with the wars in Iraq and Libya, but calling them genocidal is absurd. If the U.S. was attempting a genocide (which of course it wasn't), it did a terrible job at it. Of course, the little Bwoken boy doesn't know how to properly define the term "genocide" so he is using it just for effect.

All that said, let's assume for a moment that you do hold Bwoken's position that the war in Iraq was "genocidal" or an example of the USA's "genocidal war ideology." Well does the Lebanese ignoramus even know that Donald Trump ran on a non-interventionist platform in 2015 and 2016? Does he know that he called out George Bush for lying about the war in Iraq to Jeb Bush's face with Republican donors booing him at a debate?

This was Trump calling out Jeb Bush right to his face at a debate in February 2016 about the Iraq war being a mistake (I know that the Lebanese Elmer only gets information from his white left-wing slavemasters so this will be the first time he's seen this, but this is for everyone's edification). Enjoy:

It's utterly hilarious that not only is this racist cunt honestly debating semantics, but he was much more outrage by the usage of of the term "genocide" than he was with his country killing literally millions of innocents over the last 100 years. One of American's bigger ally in Israel, the same ally whose dick Trump cannot stop sucking, actually DOES employ genocidal ideology (do you want me to link you to Zionist literature or is their treatment of Palestinians enough?)... American is the country responsible for dropping two atomic bombs and somehow we just accept it as a necessary evil.

You want to come off like you're painting me into a corner when all you've revealed is what a racist psychopath you are... in addition to being an idiot.

But hey, it's genuinely hilarious watching you continue to try and defend the indefensible. Hey, Trump is doing a hell of a job at combating the pandemic btw...

Here comes Cali telling me that in fact, Trump has indeed done just that in 3...2...1

Activate meltdown and a long post that I'll only read through a few words, spot a piece of ridiculously dumb logic, point it out, drive Cali into another meltdown where he tap dances, calls me names, and links to more articles, as thousands of Americans continue to die under the watch of a reality TV stars that racists worship.

 

[Federberg]

is this for real?

 

[calitennis127]

It's utterly hilarious that not only is this racist cunt honestly debating semantics, but he was much more outrage by the usage of of the term "genocide" than he was with his country killing literally millions of innocents over the last 100 years.

The only American war of the past 100 years that I think was sensible was World War II. So, again, you are mischaracterizing my views.

One of American's bigger ally in Israel, the same ally whose dick Trump cannot stop sucking, actually DOES employ genocidal ideology (do you want me to link you to Zionist literature or is their treatment of Palestinians enough?)...

Critics of Israel in the United States, especially on the right, have been muzzled, ostracized, and called anti-semites. It's not my fault that you don't know anything about them. You may also want to take note of the fact that roughly 80% of American Jews vote Democrat and they generally hate Trump, despite his support for Israel. But I doubt you are aware of that.

American is the country responsible for dropping two atomic bombs and somehow we just accept it as a necessary evil.

I have never defended this action, but it is debated and I know people who are on both sides of it. Some say that in the long run it saved millions of lives, others just focus on the bombing itself being contemptible. But calling it "genocidal" is stupid, which is why you call it genocidal. When you refer to something as "genocidal," you have to focus on intent. You can't just say a lot of people died.

You want to come off like you're painting me into a corner when all you've revealed is what a racist psychopath you are... in addition to being an idiot.

Actually, you are a small-minded and misinformed bigot. Please stop projecting. But for the record, since my teen years, I have always opposed interventionist American foreign policy. I see it as an extension of the social views you have been brainwashed into adopting. It's a shame you don't even know what my views are.

Hey, Trump is doing a hell of a job at combating the pandemic btw...

Right, Trump is entirely responsible for the NYC disaster. The Democratic Party leadership there bears no blame, nor do the government of China or its close ally the WHO. You really know what you're talking about. Cuomo ignoring his own state's Department of Health warnings about New York's lack of pandemic preparedness in 2015 is all Trump's fault. Sure.

Activate meltdown and a long post that I'll only read through a few words,

You don't have the attention span to read a post that takes more than 45 seconds to read. You're not a "scholar" but a philistine and a textbook example of a bigot.

 

[britbox]

is this for real?

View attachment 3655

No, it's fake news.

Is This Donald Trump's Cousin's Obituary?

A supposed obituary from Donald Trump's recently-deceased cousin implores the public not to vote for the GOP presidential contender.

www.snopes.com