How to deal with Trump? - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
By late
#15158471
blackjack21 wrote:
Hitler went to prison

Trump didn't lose.



You won't find many better examples of failure to respond than the collapse of the Weimar Republic. Much of the government simply stopped working.

Republican election officials say you're lying...

As do 60 judges..

Speaking of lying, Biden's approval rating, according to RCP (which is conservative) holds steady at 54, much higher than Trump ever got. The Covid Relief legislation is getting a lot of attention, he is getting plenty of attention because of it. What he isn't doing is having daily temper tantrums. Imagine that, a president that is an adult. I can see why you wouldn't like that.
#15158547
late wrote:Republican election officials say you're lying...

Why do you think I should listen to Republican election officials?

late wrote:Speaking of lying, Biden's approval rating, according to RCP (which is conservative) holds steady at 54, much higher than Trump ever got.

90%+ of Trump's media coverage was negative. 90%+ of Biden's is positive. It's not a surprise. What's a surprise is that it isn't much higher. For someone who supposedly got 81M votes--more than anyone in the entire history of the United States, and 20M more votes than Barack Obama--it's quite interesting that his numbers aren't dramatically higher.
By late
#15158555
blackjack21 wrote:
Why do you think I should listen to Republican election officials?


90%+ of Trump's media coverage was negative. 90%+ of Biden's is positive. It's not a surprise. What's a surprise is that it isn't much higher. For someone who supposedly got 81M votes--more than anyone in the entire history of the United States, and 20M more votes than Barack Obama--it's quite interesting that his numbers aren't dramatically higher.



Because they get to go to jail when they are lying.

Trying to blame Trump's crooked, venal insanity on the media is for idiots only. Anyone with an ounce of curiosity and a room temp IQ could have known that before he was ever elected. And they should have.

All you have is lies, and as I keep telling you, the gaslighting has stopped working.
#15158586
late wrote:Because they get to go to jail when they are lying.

Lying by itself isn't against the law. You need something like false statements to a criminal investigator, perjury, fraud, impersonation or some other cheats to make that work.

late wrote:Trying to blame Trump's crooked, venal insanity on the media is for idiots only.

Really? Biden hasn't been in office much more than a month and they are already increasing troops in Syria and bombing.

China Mocks Biden Syria Bombing: ‘America Is Back’
China’s state-run Global Times newspaper mocked President Joe Biden on Friday, quoting his declaration, “America is back,” in a headline about his decision to bomb Syria on Thursday evening.

Biden made the remark in a speech about foreign policy in early February, in which he vowed to limit American military engagement.

“And they know when you speak, you speak for me,” Biden told diplomats at the State Department. “And so — so is the message I want the world to hear today: America is back. America is back. Diplomacy is back at the center of our foreign policy.”

On Thursday, 36 days into his presidency, Biden took unilateral action in Syria, ordering what the Pentagon dubbed a “defensive precision strike” on members of the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF), a legal wing of the Iraqi armed forces.

:roll: That's the problem with the establishment and its fan club--all style and no substance. Trump wouldn't fire on Iran for a drone downing. Biden is barely into his second month as president and already the bombs are flying. You people were upset about tweeting, but you're remarkably silent on starting yet another war.

late wrote:Anyone with an ounce of curiosity and a room temp IQ could have known that before he was ever elected. And they should have.

Anyone knows if you put the neoliberal/neoconservative cabal in the White House, you get unnecessary wars, death, destruction, and refugees on a mass scale. I used to support these people too, but I had a change of heart.

late wrote:All you have is lies, and as I keep telling you, the gaslighting has stopped working.

All you have is razorwire, fencing and troops. It's your gaslighting that isn't working. "America's back!" to the rest of the world sounds Poltergeist II--"They're back!"

By late
#15158593
blackjack21 wrote:
That's the problem with the establishment and its fan club--all style and no substance.



Project much??

Calling this a tough situation is an understatement.

There are layers to this, a bunch of them. We are allied to the Sunni, Iran is Shia. That's a mistake, but it's one we've been doing since before anyone here was born. Even me, and I can remember dinosaurs.

Odds are, we approached Iran, and they weren't feeling cooperative. So we responded to their action.

Iran has about a million reasons to hate us, and they're basically all really good reasons. Most never knew how hard it was to get Iran to cut a deal over the nuke situation. But despite the hard work and skill, the timing was lucky. Most of the time, Iran has been too pissed. I suspect they may have gone back to being too pissed.

As a rule, a military attack does not move things towards a diplomatic resolution. But the middleast is a tangled mess, and after Trump, thinking Iran is pissed is a very safe bet.

Biden will have the dipcorp keep talking to Iran, who knows, we might get lucky again.

But getting back to where we were before Trump will take time. Some of it will take decades, some of it will never happen, and it's not going to be clear when you start if it will take months, years, decades or never.

But I am just as glad right now I am not a diplomat. Trump gutted the State Dept, and now they have more on their plate than at any time since the end of the post WW2 era. Which was, to be completely arbitrary, about 1960.

You can argue we shouldn't be in this mess. Hop in a time machine and tell a bunch of Republican presidents they are screwing up.

But here we are, there are no answers that don't suck. Just ones that just might avoid a major war.
#15158640
late wrote:We are allied to the Sunni, Iran is Shia. That's a mistake, but it's one we've been doing since before anyone here was born. Even me, and I can remember dinosaurs.

The US isn't aligned to any religious sect. The US is aligned to Saudi Arabia for obvious reasons, and it certainly isn't Wahhabism.

late wrote:Iran has about a million reasons to hate us, and they're basically all really good reasons.

From the standpoint of an Islamic Republic perhaps.

late wrote:Most never knew how hard it was to get Iran to cut a deal over the nuke situation.

Whether people knew or didn't know, the point is that such a deal is unenforceable. How did Bill Clinton's deal go with North Korea? We gave them money in exchange for not developing nuclear weapons. They used the money to develop nuclear weapons. Naivete isn't going to deliver peace. Frankly, pursuing nuclear weapons is a fools errand anyway, because they have little or no military utility today. Their military purpose was to destroy war-making industry in industrial districts in a single blow. The economy is diversified geographically today. A nuclear weapon strike would kill a lot of people in an urban area, and piss off everyone else that lives to no end. There is no point in them.

late wrote:As a rule, a military attack does not move things towards a diplomatic resolution. But the middleast is a tangled mess, and after Trump, thinking Iran is pissed is a very safe bet.

What is the justification? The US has no legal basis to even be in Syria whatsoever. If this were George W. Bush, the Democrats would be calling him a war criminal. It just so happens that the deep state wants this war, and they couldn't prosecute it with Trump.

late wrote:Biden will have the dipcorp keep talking to Iran, who knows, we might get lucky again.

Paying people not to develop weapons isn't luck. It's stupidity.

late wrote:But getting back to where we were before Trump will take time. Some of it will take decades, some of it will never happen, and it's not going to be clear when you start if it will take months, years, decades or never.

Much of the logic of your generation will evaporate as populations decline. Much of what worked in the 20th Century won't work in the 21st. The reality is that the reasons for protecting the global order aren't popular in the United States anymore, because the cost was pushing a lot of industrial workers out of the middle class and back down to the working class, and a tenuous one at that.

late wrote: Trump gutted the State Dept, and now they have more on their plate than at any time since the end of the post WW2 era.

The State Department won't enact the foreign policies of the presidents they are supposed to serve. Permanent bureaucracy is a bad idea. In many cases, the State Department is welfare for politicians' otherwise unemployable relatives. In other cases, it's an unelected political bureau pursuing political objectives without the consent of the electorate.

late wrote:You can argue we shouldn't be in this mess. Hop in a time machine and tell a bunch of Republican presidents they are screwing up.

I already did that. I'm no longer a Republican, and haven't been for 14 years.

late wrote:But here we are, there are no answers that don't suck. Just ones that just might avoid a major war.

Why do WE need to be involved in THEIR war? Maybe war cannot be averted. Why SHOULD we be in the middle of something we cannot control, prevent, or at best shape? If the problem of the world is overpopulation, is war a bad thing? What about a pandemic? If overpopulation is a problem, why not let the pandemic run its course? There are too many incongruities in the deep state's rhetoric, because it has no grounding philosophy other than serving themselves and some very narrow interests and they have no disinclination to tell lies to maintain widespread credibility. For a poorer white man who is being told he has white privilege by people who have so much more than he does, what is in it for him to support such policies?

The days of people falling in line behind this stuff are over. I know that escapes you, but that's the reality of the situation today.
By late
#15158651
blackjack21 wrote:
deleted because it's poo



You keep throwing monkey poo, hoping some will stick.

You are so far out of your depth it isn't funny.
#15158680
late wrote:You are so far out of your depth it isn't funny.

That's a non-answer, because you cannot justify in any legal sense why the US has troops in Syria. We don't have a declaration of war. We don't have an imminent threat against the United States from Syria. We don't have the invocation of a defense treaty such as NATO. We don't have any other authorization to use force. It's simply not there.

You cannot answer the question.
By late
#15158683
blackjack21 wrote:
1)That's a non-answer

2)because you cannot justify in any legal sense why the US has troops in Syria.

3)We don't have a declaration of war.

4)We don't have an imminent threat against the United States from Syria.

5) We don't have the invocation of a defense treaty such as NATO. We don't have any other authorization to use force. It's simply not there.

6)You cannot answer the question.



1)You were babbling.

2)International law doesn't work like that, esp. in a conflict zone. The original justification was attacks by IS, now it's seeking stability. I'm not sure I agree with the attack, but at the same time I am not going to start writing fiction.

3)Go learn when the last time Congress declared war.
https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-pro ... of-war.htm

4)Getting out is a lot tougher than going in. We are stuck there now. I hate it, but that's what happens when you vote Republican.

5)NATO can't do authorisation outside Europe. And since we are already in Europe, it's not needed there, that would be covered by existing treaties.
https://www.brookings.edu/research/nato-the-un-and-the-use-of-force/


6)You don't know what you're talking about.
#15158709
late wrote:4)Getting out is a lot tougher than going in. We are stuck there now. I hate it, but that's what happens when you vote Republican.

Obama was not a Republican, and George W. Bush did not put troops in Syria.

late wrote:5)NATO can't do authorisation outside Europe.

They did after 9/11. Turkey is a NATO ally and borders Syria.

late wrote:6)You don't know what you're talking about.

New Donald Trump Plans Revealed: Here are First Details of His ‘America First’ Agenda
Donald Trump is going to be around for awhile...
#15158710
late wrote:2)International law doesn't work like that, esp. in a conflict zone. The original justification was attacks by IS, now it's seeking stability. I'm not sure I agree with the attack, but at the same time I am not going to start writing fiction.


Wooooaaaahhhhh there. International law does work like that and the only reason it doesn't is because powerful nations such as the US break international law. The US doesn't have jurisdiction in Syria. In fact they are there because they choose to be. They aren't even needed considering that Russia had done the main heavy lifting getting rid of ISIS and the US has to cooperate with them in order to not get in each others way. And in fact, they entered Syria not because of ISIS but because they gave Assad an ultimatum to leave and he didn't. Then to interfere with Russia they claimed to be fighting ISIS alongside them - which was true I guess as they came out of no where chopping people's heads off. Then once they were defeated it was human rights violations and now it's stability. But the problem with claiming stability is that Assad is the state leader and doesn't want them there. So there is no reason to be there. Or there is, geopolitics. The US are only there to weaken Assad and not to stabilise the country. So you are wrong.

The idea the West is in the ME to retain peace is frankly laughable. Perhaps they have a moral duty in Iraq now, but considering the Iraqi government voted to kick them out when Soleimani was killed means they may well outstay their welcome even there.
User avatar
By ingliz
#15158719
B0ycey wrote:The idea the West is in the ME to retain peace is frankly laughable.

It is.

"Creative chaos" - Condoleezza Rice's project for the New Middle East.

When one regime was ousted analysts kept repeating the term "New Middle East" now we are without Hosni Mubarak, Muammar Qaddafi, and Zein Al Abideen Bin Ali.

Regimes that ruled more than 100 million Arabs have disappeared.

The map is full of holes waiting to be filled.


— Abdel Rahman Al Rashid, Editor-in-Chief of the pan-Arab Al Sharq Al Awsat newspaper, January 2012
By late
#15158720
B0ycey wrote:
International law does work like that and the only reason it doesn't

is because powerful nations such as the US break international law.

The US doesn't have jurisdiction in Syria.

So there is no reason to be there.


The idea the West is in the ME to retain peace is frankly laughable.




Make up your mind. It does or it doesn't.

Take a close look at the fall of yugoslavia. You don't have to be powerful to be mad dog killers..

You keep saying that, it keeps being meaningless.

If you want to pretend this isn't a disaster, be my guest. But let me give you a clue, this is really bad, and it could easily get a lot worse.

Of course. It started out being about oil and power. If you haven't seen Newman on oil, you are in for a treat:
By B0ycey
#15158725
late wrote:Make up your mind. It does or it doesn't.

Take a close look at the fall of yugoslavia. You don't have to be powerful to be mad dog killers..

You keep saying that, it keeps being meaningless.

If you want to pretend this isn't a disaster, be my guest. But let me give you a clue, this is really bad, and it could easily get a lot worse.

Of course. It started out being about oil and power. If you haven't seen Newman on oil, you are in for a treat:


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


What is this? So you have changed your position rather than admit you were wrong?? :?:

I haven't said our involvement hasn't been a disaster. You said we are there legally in Syria, and I have corrected you and said we aren't. I have also explained why we are there. Your post might as well be my source for what use it is to your original argument is. :lol:
By late
#15158727
B0ycey wrote:

So you have changed your position

rather than admit you were wrong?



Nope, and nope.

Foreign affairs are beyond the intellectual reach of most, and that includes presidents.

A lot of it is like an old chess proverb, play the board, not the player. The board is looking kinda ugly.

Which the video, it's funny and I promise, you will like it. You will find it agrees with you completely.
By B0ycey
#15158730
late wrote:Nope, and nope.

Foreign affairs are beyond the intellectual reach of most, and that includes presidents.

A lot of it is like an old chess proverb, play the board, not the player. The board is looking kinda ugly.

Which the video, it's funny and I promise, you will like it. You will find it agrees with you completely.


Forget the waffle and address this please.

late wrote:2)International law doesn't work like that, esp. in a conflict zone. The original justification was attacks by IS, now it's seeking stability. I'm not sure I agree with the attack, but at the same time I am not going to start writing fiction.


I don't want to hear about success, failure, oil, foriegn affairs, Trump, Obama or the fucking pope. Explain to me why what you wrote wasn't fiction. Not only did the UN say Americas involvement was illegal, it wasn't even a conflict zone until the West sent weapons to the Kurds. America thought there was enough movement to topple Assad and once Russia backed him the opportunity was over. They could also do more for peace by NOT SUPPLYING WEAPONS to the Kurds, staying out of it and instead bring forward a charter to the UN to protect them. There is also human rights and needless war in Yemen and the US doesn't feel the need to protect them. There are in Syria for a reason. And that reason is oil and influence in the ME.
User avatar
By jimjam
#15158733
Worship him, do a lot of screaming and flag waving and show up dressed like this at one of his peaceful free speech riots:

Image
#15158739
Trump has discredited himself enough. There is no need to do anything to him anymore unless he crosses the line. Which he arguably did during the transition but sadly the senate is to partisan right now. It would be great if he runs again against Biden which is almost 100% defeat for Trump :D
User avatar
By Rancid
#15158740
JohnRawls wrote:Trump has discredited himself enough. There is no need to do anything to him anymore unless he crosses the line. Which he arguably did during the transition but sadly the senate is to partisan right now. It would be great if he runs again against Biden which is almost 100% defeat for Trump :D


I'd rather not see him run again. He's a circus.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 9

So you are saying that you don't have data saying[…]

Why? First of all, the occupied areas aren't the […]

On April 10 was the anniversary of the Sortie of […]

There is no construction. Why are you people sprea[…]