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

US Politics The 2020 Trump Presidency Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Any Trump appointee is woefully under qualified a security risk or whatever.
that's not the case and i propose you're exaggerating and misrepresenting my position. i think he's made many poor appointments - and i've posted specific examples in this and other threads - but i don't believe i've ever made such a blanket statement. i thought james mattiss was a solid choice for defense secretary. you're demonstrably incorrect.

There are plenty of Obama appointees who bought their positions were utterly incompetent and clear security risks.
sure obama appointed people who were under-qualified. but this is the trump presidency thread and we're discussing a trump appointment. if your response is "well obama hired poor people too" that's just more whataboutism and you're really just agreeing with me.

On that basis we could discuss for example the pluses and minuses of say Geoffrey R. Pyatt? an Obama appointee? Or shall we discuss the behavior of Dem linked advisors selling pay to play access under Obama? Nursultan Nazabayev buying access for example
we could. there's nothing stopping you from starting a thread on these people, is there? but we're discussing a specific trump appointee and i think you're making the mistake of, deliberately or otherwise, confusing an absolute and a relative point.

alasdair
 
that's not the case and i propose you're exaggerating and misrepresenting my position. i think he's made many poor appointments - and i've posted specific examples in this and other threads - but i don't believe i've ever made such a blanket statement. i thought james mattiss was a solid choice for defense secretary. you're demonstrably incorrect.

sure obama appointed people who were under-qualified. but this is the trump presidency thread and we're discussing a trump appointment. if your response is "well obama hired poor people too" that's just more whataboutism and you're really just agreeing with me.

we could. there's nothing stopping you from starting a thread on these people, is there? but we're discussing a specific trump appointee and i think you're making the mistake of, deliberately or otherwise, confusing an absolute and a relative point.

alasdair
Its all good...
Actually James Mattis = good appointment haha the Guy is a Jarhead called Mad dog by his colleagues. He showed also serious fiducary failings being on the board of Theranos, the Elizabeth Holmes pump and dump scam. He was also very keen on bombing wedding parties, which an Obamarism. So that proves the point that they are all useless dishonest oxygen wasters. Swamp dwellers swamp.

My position is clear, the reps and dems are the two sides of the uniparty they are the same creature and as bad as each other.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
i disagree and i think your logic is flawed.

the statements "i'm not racist" and "i have a black friend" are not mutually exclusive. it's perfectly possible for both of those to be true.

the statements "any trump appointee is not qualified" and "this one trump appointee is qualified" are mutually exclusive. it's not possible, logically, for both to be true.

your claim was that my position is "any trump appointee is not qualified". that is not the case.

alasdair
[Be] clearer in why you are taking this position.
so explain why Mattis was a good choice.
or why any of this circus is valid or matters.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You are making criticisms of Trump appointments because you have some kind of partisan angle
no. i criticised a specific trump appointment and laid out a few reasons to support my position. i don't think there was anything snide about it.

you disagree? that's fine. i'll agree to disagree. thanks for your comments.

alasdair
 
Last edited by a moderator:
no. i criticised a specific trump appointment and laid out a few reasons to support my position. i don't think there was anything snide about it.

you disagree? that's fine. i'll agree to disagree. thanks for your comments.

alasdair
why was Mattis a good choice? I am waiting...
 
you can wait.

i outlined why i feel grenell is a poor choice. you disagree.
i stated that i feel mattiss was a solid choice. you disagree.

i don't see anything to be gained by being drawn in so i agree to disagree.

alasdair
 
Reddit article titled fairly well. Counter logic works folks!

Trump is pissed at new intelligence reports showing the Kremlin has picked its preferred 2020 candidate: him. Trump railed Friday about new analysis by U.S. intelligence officials indicating Russia is already working to get him reelected. To him, it's just another partisan plot to discredit him.
 
"A look back at the assassination of Soleimani, the subsequent missile attack on 2 US bases in Iraq and the almost simultaneous shooting down of a Ukrainian passenger plane:

Far from being arch enemies, all politicians and members of the political or 'elite' class around the world have more in common with each other than they do with their respective populations. They all share the common goal of maintaining themselves in power and keeping their potentially 'restless' populations under control and relatively happy, because it is from their populations that they derive their power (and wealth).

Soleimani had become an increasingly powerful figure in both the Iranian military and Iranian political and social life over the past few years. The political class in any country is usually very wary of military leaders accruing too much power and influence, because when they do, they tend to get ideas that they can do a better job. So it's possible that Soleimani was seen as a growing threat to the Iranian government and the Ayatollah and his coterie.

Through spying and electronic eves-dropping and direct discussions with Iranians, individuals in the Trump government may have become aware of this and came up with the idea of getting rid of him in the knowledge that the Iranians would not mind so much. The thinking behind this may have been Trump's awareness that with the recent alarming spread of Iranian influence across Iraq and into Syria and Lebanon (much of it thanks to Soleimani), the Israelis were reaching the point of no return where they might initiate a real war against Iran (and the Iranian government was likely aware of this). If such a war were to occur, Trump would be forced to side with Israel, and he was not inclined to have the US embroiled in another major ME war (his 'base' of supporters in the US would not be happy). At the same time, the Iranian government does not have a death wish, and they very likely would not win such a war (Israel has 400 nukes and the psychos to use them).

Killing Soleimani may have been seen, therefore, as a good way to stay Israel's hand, appease the Zionists by showing them that Trump was looking out for their interests, while presenting himself as a leader who was taking a 'strong stance' on Iran. Notice that, in the immediate aftermath of the assassination, Trump tweeted that he did it to "prevent a war, not start one". That was perplexing to many people since killing Soleimani appeared to be the best way to START a war between the US and Iran. But perhaps the war that Trump was preventing with this action was not primarily a war between the US and Iran but between the US and Israel (then pulling the US in). Notice also that Trump felt he had to further justify the assassination to his base by claiming the Soleimani was a 'bad man' who had been responsible for killing US troops in Iraq.

From the Iranian perspective, killing Soleimani removed a threat to their power, but the Iranian government had to go through the motions of being 'outraged' and responding with the missile attack on 2 US bases in Iraq, an attack that was very likely signaled to the US beforehand. All of this was necessary because the Iranian people, as oblivious as the American people to the way global politics really works, demanded it as a response to the egregious murder of their beloved general by the 'great Satan'. The outpouring of grief and the multiple millions of people who attended the various funeral proceedings for Soleimani is perhaps an insight into the extent of the threat he posed to the established powers in Iran.

The shooting down of the Ukrainian plane was the final element, but this was most likely a 'wild card', thrown in by elements within the Israeli intelligence establishment to highlight the fact that they were not fooled by the whole spectacle and perhaps as a warning to the US and Iranian players of what they can do. As I wrote at the time, someone very likely 'messed' with either the plane or the missile system to provoke the shoot down. Given all of this, it's no surprise that the Iranian government took responsibility for the downing of that plane, and quickly made it go away."
 
What you don't get because you see what you want to see is that whilst I don't give a shit about Alasdair and his debating strategy others have been bullied by this strategy and it doesn't help debate.
OK NOVA you know I like you right so, do this for me

can you tell me if he's committing a logical fallacy? Or is he using logic in a pedantic way you yourself wouldn't choose but is still valid in the discourse of public discussions? (I'm #1 in pedantic behavior and have always liked how well thought-out his opinions were).

This is why I was trying to instill new rules based on not committing logical fallacies and I was going to create a mini-primer especially as they pertain to online discussions, because we can all have mature discussions without resorting to fallacies. I don't know what of his posts you're referring to and I am sorry I don't have more time to go back and read them all, but he generally 99% of the time I read his posts, are pointing out 6 year old trump tweets that 100% contradict what trump says now... I don't know why you wouldn't get along with him? :)
 
88204944_10157713194440520_5320215417354977280_o.jpg
 
2020 Coronavirus:
-Trump declares public health emergency 1 month after discovery
-Responded while only 1000’s were infected / 0 US deaths

2009 Swine Flu:
-Obama declares public health emergency 6 months after discovery
-Responded after MILLIONS were infected / 1000+ US deaths
 
Really? that is some serious delusion, given Israel has never negotiated in good faith becuase the extreme Zionists will reverse any concessions.

how about the basis of the Oslo Accord 1993?
The agreement Yitzak Rabin was murdered for by an extreme Zionist with the collusion of Shin Bet. To remind you subsequent to that Israel reneged on its side of the deal.

Occupied Territory, you do get what this means?
UN resolutiuon 446:
"The policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East"

West Bank, Gaza and the Golan and the Sheeba farms are all occupied.

That includes the property that little weasel Kushner and his family own on occupied territory.

For the moment Israel is getting top cover from the most zionist US president in living memory, it will not last. Trump and Kushner will be gone and Israel will have to negotiate in good faith with its neighbors. Sheldon Adelson is trying to get as much bang for buck before Trump implodes.

Don't get me started on pissrael and their handouts and prevention under penalty of jail in all of the EU to even do scientific research into the holohax, thats like telling archaeologist to stop digging up dinosaur bones because history should be left as is & no research shall be allowed as it stirs feelings and pockets of the freeloading benifits they get annually.
 
2020 Coronavirus:
-Trump declares public health emergency 1 month after discovery
-Responded while only 1000’s were infected / 0 US deaths

2009 Swine Flu:
-Obama declares public health emergency 6 months after discovery
-Responded after MILLIONS were infected / 1000+ US deaths

If I were you, I'd be very afraid. Because most of us, even among those who voted for Trump, are not nearly as blindly worshiping of trump.

If this Coronavirus situation goes badly, it could kill his presidency. He is responsible for making huge cuts to the health budget, to health related departments. For years he and other presidents have ignored repeated warning that a serious pandemic was inevitable. Far from spending money on preparing for he, he wanted his stupid wall.

From just 2 years ago..


He has been repeatedly going on record saying that everything's fine and under control. Which will make him look even more incompetent if people start seeing people die around them.

And then of course there's the economic damage. Destroying his biggest political asset.

The democrats will no doubt hammer all these points home over and over up to the election.

So yeah, it's by no means certain, as this election never has been. But I'd say this has made things much more uncertain than they otherwise would have been.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top