• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

The 2019 Trump Presidency Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
JGrimez said:
Why?

If there was a disproportionate number of Muslims in the US congress/senate and who passed laws beneficial to Saudi, would you be cool with that? What about Russians? North Koreans? Israel looks out for his own interests - not the US'

People support Israel because they're told to, even though the state is the biggest violator of international law and one of the biggest violators of human rights. How does this make any sense for anyone who cares about humanity? People are scared to even say they disagree with the state's actions sometimes (especially on TV). I'm a fucking Israeli and I will still call out their actions when warranted. Makes me sick to see these brainwashed, super pro-zionist Americans that really have no idea how they're being controlled or manipulated. And notice how this is an issue that's never disputed? Both parties are always in agreeance.

As much as I dislike Illhan Omar she's calling them out (just in a dumb way) and I'm also not a fan of Marc Lamont Hill but I give him respect for speaking up (and losing his CNN job in the process): Marc Lamont Hill at UN
Click to expand...

Re: “why?”:

I could not get into it even if I wanted to.
 
a few days ago, a reporter asked sarah sanders:

A white nationalist, he was planning a plot against Democrats [and] against journalists. The president has tweeted the journalists and the media are ‘the enemy of the people.’ Is there any plan for the president to maybe tone down his rhetoric? Do you think this contributes to these kinds of extremists getting these ideas?
Click to expand...

to which she responded:

sarah sanders said:
I certainly don’t think that the president, at any point, has done anything but condemn violence – against journalists or anyone else. In fact, every single time something like this happens, the president is typically one of the first people to condemn the violence, and the media is the first people to blame the president.
Click to expand...

does anybody think that's anything but spin and lies?

trump has publicly condoned and encouraged violence against reporters e.g. ‘I shouldn’t say this’: Trump praises violence against reporter

alasdair
 
alasdairm said:
A white nationalist, he was planning a plot against Democrats [and] against journalists. The president has tweeted the journalists and the media are ‘the enemy of the people.’ Is there any plan for the president to maybe tone down his rhetoric? Do you think this contributes to these kinds of extremists getting these ideas?r
Click to expand...

Did this happen? I hadn't heard of any such thing, unless it's the Coast Guard guy (and I'd not heard who his intended targets were).

To your point - Trump is easily cited for such violence-encouraging remarks on multiple occasions, joking or not (NOT!). What's Sarah going to do? All she can do is spin, deny, and deflect. There is no alternative.
 
i believe the reporter was referring to the coast guard guy.

she could have taken a different tack. but she chose to simply respond with a demonstrable lie. if she believes there's no alternative and that's her job, it's sad af.

alasdair
 
Seems it was the Coast Guard guy

But in court filings, prosecutors said he was also a “domestic terrorist” and self-described white nationalist who studied the methods of the Unabomber, the Virginia Tech gunman and other extremist killers; stockpiled guns and drugs; drew up a target list of prominent cable news journalists and Democratic politicians to be killed; and wrote, prosecutors said, of wanting “to murder innocent civilians on a scale rarely seen in this country.”
Click to expand...

= = = =

What White House spokesperson has ever said the President sucks? Ever?
 
lying or saying the president sucks is a false dilemma.

the entire trump administration is built on lies so i'm not surprised just disappointed. they've taken lack of respect for the truth to unprecedented new heights.

alasdair
 
alasdairm said:
the world's greatest negotiator fails to negotiate anything. again.

fox news puts a brave face on it and spins it as you might expect. but just another failed negotiation: Trump cuts short North Korea summit after dispute over sanctions: 'Sometimes you have to walk'
Click to expand...

Somehow Trump turning his failure into a virtue. :|

Trump twitter said:
With complete Denuclearization, North Korea will rapidly become an Economic Powerhouse. Without it, just more of the same. Chairman Kim will make a wise decision!
Click to expand...

Looks like someone forgot to tell Kim.

All this tyrant wants is the odd sort of legitimacy that chatting with a US President provides. I think he is enamored with the idea of being seen as a global player- I doubt there is actual intent to denuclearise.
 
We've seen the world fail at denuclearizing Iran. Trump's trying a different approach, but I sincerely doubt anything said or done will change Kim's intent and direction. He (Kim) got attention for pushing the limit. As soon as he gets less attention than he wants, he'll be right back at it. There is no reason for him to denuclearize, at least from his position. At best, we could get empty promises; at worst, more rocket and nuclear testing. I think this is a failed area for Trump, and any President.
 
yeah, trump was making "mission accomplished!" style claims about north korean denuclearization e.g. in july last year when he claimed the north korean nuclear threat had "dissipated" and earlier in june he claimed he had "solved" the problem.

not so much.

i'm trying to see jgrimez' "turnaround" but it's hard...

alasdair
 
52757214_2262278527164227_8716018236056928256_n.jpg
 
It's amusing reading some reactions here. Taking delight in what is perceived as a failure on Orange Man's part.
Some of you are correct, NK doesn't really have an incentive to denuclearize. Why trust the US? They convinced Gaddafi to abandon his nuclear ambitions and not long after US-backed rebels bayonet'd him up his ass for the crime of attempting to empower the continent with a pan-African currency.
Kim would like to think he's got better buds to protect him but he'd have to get some big incentives and demonstrable concessions before giving up his nukes. The US isn't the type to just give stuff away first so I wouldn't be surprised if this remains a stalement for the foreseeable future

BUT

you're a bit nuts if you expected a deal to happen after this meeting. Criticizing Trump for not being a miracle worker is actually a huge compliment. Stupid Trump, couldn't get a Nobel Peace Prize after 2 meetings with NK lol (he already definitely deserves one though, if we go by the benchmark set by Obama). Even sitting down and simply talking on amicable terms with Kim is amazing. Remember not long ago he was lobbing missiles over Japan and residents were getting warning emergency texts on their phones. Most importantly though, the two Koreas seem to be on much better terms:

Sep'18 said:
Both countries' defense chiefs also signed a 17-page accord in which the two countries vowed to "cease all hostile acts against each other."

"The era of no war has started," said Moon, the first South Korean president to visit Pyongyang since 2007.
Click to expand...

So yeah like I've said previously, I'm going to hold Trump's feet to the fire with Venezuela, which unfortunately is looking like the US military is about to forcibly create regime change there. It's a plan has that been in the works for long before Trump but I was hoping he would be able to stop it. The shadow government and their plans are too strong (hello John Bolton & Elliot Abrams) and geopolitically it's a good business decision. For Trump it means certain re-election if the US is engaged in a conflict. Classic campaign move.

gettyimages-1128202302.jpg
 
Criticizing Trump is a pastime of it's own. If he'd brokered a deal, the haters would say the deal sucks and is bad for us. That he didn't broker a deal, he's a failure at negotiating. There are some who will criticize no matter the outcome. And, as I stated, I don't think there is a good outcome to be had other than to muzzle NK as best we can (leaving them on their own wasn't doing us, or Japan, any favors). To my recollection, both sides praised his (Trump) coming out of the talks without committing us to a bad deal. That's a win, or at least not a loss, by the book each side of the aisle uses. There will remain those that criticize Trump because that's all they have, regardless of what happens.






= = = =

The way I view it - what's the best anyone could do in a given situation? Past Presidents allowed NK to build up to where they are with their saber rattling and test launches. That's a failure in my view. Trump has stopped the launches, and at least has Kim considering options. That may not be a 'closed deal' win, but it's better than where we where. Could anyone have gotten a 'closed deal' win? I don't think so. With that, I'm saying Trump did ok with something nobody else has successfully addressed.

For people that want to then argue 'the worlds greatest negotiator didn't get a win', or 'Trump claims a win when it clearly isn't so' are too focused on the individual than on the situation. It's their right to do so, but it shows their concerns are about Trump the man, as opposed to what our current President is doing on the world stage.

I've always wanted to leave a place better than when I arrived - in all aspects. Humans in general want to leave a mark for history that not only says "I was here" but that "I mattered, I made a difference". Some have been misguided in executing that (Hitler, or mass shooters for example) but the intent is the same - make a mark for others to remember you. This is part of why we reproduce - to leave something of ourselves that will continue after we are gone. The same for artistic efforts whether they be writing, paintings, movies, or anything. Leave a mark. And while there is a self centered aspect to it, not all are after the personal recognition as much as they are after 'make a mark'. In my mind, it is an individual's desire, but the mark left is less about the person and more about the situation. What was it like before they arrived? What was it like after? Was that good or bad? Did they make a mark? Not WHO was it, but WHAT was it they did?
 
Last edited:
grimez, all i have to go on are his own words. he makes lofty promises then totally fails to deliver on them. seriously, talk about drinking the kool aid...

saw this today: FORDHAM CONFIRMS: TRUMP WAS OBSESSED WITH HIDING HIS SAT SCORES

seriously, if he's the genius he keeps telling us he is, why isn't he encouraging the release of these results?

i'll draw the only obvious conclusion.

alasdair
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top