What's Trump Done Now?
- Thread starter Retired_Can_Soldier
- Start date
The problem is, it's not that Trump has leaked sensitive information to the Russians. That's being used by the Dems as an excuse to promote more demonization of Russia/Putin. Trump has been involved with the Russians in likely an innocent way, but nothing can be seen as innocent in the minds of the US hawks when it involves Russia.
Anybody who takes the time to think it out clearly will understand that US empire building depends on no significant deterrents by Russia or China and so Trump serves the purpose of the demonization effort on both.
Trump's Direct Saudi-to-Israel Flight Breaks Symbolic Barrier
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/a...a-israel-flight-set-to-break-symbolic-barrier
First POTUS to go the the Western Wall.
Netanyahu to Trump: We Appreciate The Reassertion Of American Leadership In Middle East | Video | RealClearPolitics
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/a...a-israel-flight-set-to-break-symbolic-barrier
First POTUS to go the the Western Wall.
Netanyahu to Trump: We Appreciate The Reassertion Of American Leadership In Middle East | Video | RealClearPolitics
Trump: US, Israel Agree Iran Must Cease 'Funding, Equipping of Terrorists'
https://sputniknews.com/politics/201705221053860580-trump-us-israel-iran-terrorists/
Considering all the money he and obomber have given to Israel and the Sauds, about 150 BILLION just this last few months, that's almost HITLARIOUS
Not to mention, you have the Sauds up to here in 911, and Israel sinking the USS liberty.
Terrorism pays pretty good it looks like.
Then you have isUS DRIVING US ARMY ONLY TOYOTAS, and getting regular supply drops, advisers, boots on the ground - an outright military invasion of Syria, and skids of cash.
https://sputniknews.com/politics/201705221053860580-trump-us-israel-iran-terrorists/
Considering all the money he and obomber have given to Israel and the Sauds, about 150 BILLION just this last few months, that's almost HITLARIOUS
Not to mention, you have the Sauds up to here in 911, and Israel sinking the USS liberty.
Terrorism pays pretty good it looks like.
Then you have isUS DRIVING US ARMY ONLY TOYOTAS, and getting regular supply drops, advisers, boots on the ground - an outright military invasion of Syria, and skids of cash.
Last edited:
I've never understood the US posturing against Islamic terrorism, while sucking on the balls of Saudi Arabia.
None at all, LOL. From where I sit right now, I can see three VLCC filled with Saudi crude. One is unloading, the other two are waiting.
trumps hasn't demonized the russians. He wouldn't. He does personal business with them. a fair amount.
It's why he won't include saudi in the 'muslim" ban. because he pesonally does business with them.
Not presidential business...family business. he knows you don't bite the hand that feeds you.
Charlie Sykes on Where the Right Went Wrong
By CHARLES J. SYKES DEC. 15, 2016
New York Times Sunday Review
MILWAUKEE — After nearly 25 years, I’m stepping down from my daily conservative talk radio show at the end of this month. I’m not leaving because of the rise of Donald J. Trump (my reasons are personal), but I have to admit that the campaign has made my decision easier. The conservative media is broken and the conservative movement deeply compromised.
In April, after Mr. Trump decisively lost the Wisconsin Republican primary, I had hoped that we here in the Midwest would turn out to be a firewall of rationality. Our political culture was distinctly inhospitable to Mr. Trump’s divisive, pugilistic style; the conservatives who had been successful here had tended to be serious, reform-oriented and able to express their ideas in more than 140 characters. But in November, Wisconsin lined up with the rest of the Rust Belt to give the presidency to Mr. Trump.
How on earth did that happen?
Before this year, I thought I had a relatively solid grasp on what conservatism stood for and where it was going. Over the previous decade, I helped advance the careers of conservatives like House Speaker Paul D. Ryan; Gov. Scott Walker; Reince Priebus, the chairman of the Republican National Committee; and Senator Ron Johnson. In 2010, conservatives won big majorities in the Wisconsin State Legislature, and I openly supported many of their reforms, including changes to collective bargaining and expansions of school choice.
In short, I was under the impression that conservatives actually believed things about free trade, balanced budgets, character and respect for constitutional rights. Then along came this campaign.
On the surface, the explanations for Mr. Trump’s improbable win in Wisconsin are simple enough: He won big margins in rural, blue-collar counties and won the pivotal Green Bay area by double digits. But he underperformed Mitt Romney in the vote-rich Milwaukee suburbs and ended up getting fewer votes in victory than Mr. Romney received in his 2012 defeat. Hillary Clinton, however, got about 39,000 fewer votes in heavily Democratic Milwaukee County than President Obama did four years earlier. Democrats simply stayed home, though that is obviously not the whole story.
That is what I saw, and this is what it might mean for the future of conservatism. When I wrote in August 2015 that Mr. Trump was a cartoon version of every left-wing media stereotype of the reactionary, nativist, misogynist right, I thought that I was well within the mainstream of conservative thought — only to find conservative Trump critics denounced for apostasy by a right that decided that it was comfortable with embracing Trumpism. But in Wisconsin, conservative voters seemed to reject what Mr. Trump was selling, at least until after the convention.
To be sure, some of my callers embraced Mr. Trump’s suggestion for a ban on Muslims entering the country and voiced support for a proposal to deport all Muslims — even citizens. One caller compared American Muslims to rabid dogs. But right to the end, relatively few of my listeners bought into the crude nativism Mr. Trump was selling at his rallies.
What they did buy into was the argument that this was a “binary choice.” No matter how bad Mr. Trump was, my listeners argued, he could not possibly be as bad as Mrs. Clinton. You simply cannot overstate this as a factor in the final outcome. As our politics have become more polarized, the essential loyalties shift from ideas, to parties, to tribes, to individuals. Nothing else ultimately matters.
In this binary tribal world, where everything is at stake, everything is in play, there is no room for quibbles about character, or truth, or principles. If everything — the Supreme Court, the fate of Western civilization, the survival of the planet — depends on tribal victory, then neither individuals nor ideas can be determinative. I watched this play out in real time, as conservatives who fully understood the threat that Mr. Trump posed succumbed to the argument about the Supreme Court. As even Mr. Ryan discovered, neutrality was not acceptable; if you were not for Mr. Trump, then you were for Mrs. Clinton.
By CHARLES J. SYKES DEC. 15, 2016
New York Times Sunday Review
MILWAUKEE — After nearly 25 years, I’m stepping down from my daily conservative talk radio show at the end of this month. I’m not leaving because of the rise of Donald J. Trump (my reasons are personal), but I have to admit that the campaign has made my decision easier. The conservative media is broken and the conservative movement deeply compromised.
In April, after Mr. Trump decisively lost the Wisconsin Republican primary, I had hoped that we here in the Midwest would turn out to be a firewall of rationality. Our political culture was distinctly inhospitable to Mr. Trump’s divisive, pugilistic style; the conservatives who had been successful here had tended to be serious, reform-oriented and able to express their ideas in more than 140 characters. But in November, Wisconsin lined up with the rest of the Rust Belt to give the presidency to Mr. Trump.
How on earth did that happen?
Before this year, I thought I had a relatively solid grasp on what conservatism stood for and where it was going. Over the previous decade, I helped advance the careers of conservatives like House Speaker Paul D. Ryan; Gov. Scott Walker; Reince Priebus, the chairman of the Republican National Committee; and Senator Ron Johnson. In 2010, conservatives won big majorities in the Wisconsin State Legislature, and I openly supported many of their reforms, including changes to collective bargaining and expansions of school choice.
In short, I was under the impression that conservatives actually believed things about free trade, balanced budgets, character and respect for constitutional rights. Then along came this campaign.
On the surface, the explanations for Mr. Trump’s improbable win in Wisconsin are simple enough: He won big margins in rural, blue-collar counties and won the pivotal Green Bay area by double digits. But he underperformed Mitt Romney in the vote-rich Milwaukee suburbs and ended up getting fewer votes in victory than Mr. Romney received in his 2012 defeat. Hillary Clinton, however, got about 39,000 fewer votes in heavily Democratic Milwaukee County than President Obama did four years earlier. Democrats simply stayed home, though that is obviously not the whole story.
That is what I saw, and this is what it might mean for the future of conservatism. When I wrote in August 2015 that Mr. Trump was a cartoon version of every left-wing media stereotype of the reactionary, nativist, misogynist right, I thought that I was well within the mainstream of conservative thought — only to find conservative Trump critics denounced for apostasy by a right that decided that it was comfortable with embracing Trumpism. But in Wisconsin, conservative voters seemed to reject what Mr. Trump was selling, at least until after the convention.
To be sure, some of my callers embraced Mr. Trump’s suggestion for a ban on Muslims entering the country and voiced support for a proposal to deport all Muslims — even citizens. One caller compared American Muslims to rabid dogs. But right to the end, relatively few of my listeners bought into the crude nativism Mr. Trump was selling at his rallies.
What they did buy into was the argument that this was a “binary choice.” No matter how bad Mr. Trump was, my listeners argued, he could not possibly be as bad as Mrs. Clinton. You simply cannot overstate this as a factor in the final outcome. As our politics have become more polarized, the essential loyalties shift from ideas, to parties, to tribes, to individuals. Nothing else ultimately matters.
In this binary tribal world, where everything is at stake, everything is in play, there is no room for quibbles about character, or truth, or principles. If everything — the Supreme Court, the fate of Western civilization, the survival of the planet — depends on tribal victory, then neither individuals nor ideas can be determinative. I watched this play out in real time, as conservatives who fully understood the threat that Mr. Trump posed succumbed to the argument about the Supreme Court. As even Mr. Ryan discovered, neutrality was not acceptable; if you were not for Mr. Trump, then you were for Mrs. Clinton.
I'm just wondering how many countries there are in the world that Trump doesn't do business with!
Gotta work some blame in there for Obama one way or another eh?
Would it be easy to Goggle a negative?