Will President Trump run for a second term?

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Fri Dec 07, 2018 12:34 pm

tude dog;1521503 wrote: I think a war costing so many lives and destruction of much of the country tends to evoke emotions. Lincoln didn't start the war but to end it destroyed much of the South.

Who speaks of History? Lincoln himself by present standards could be frowned upon for his attitude towards Neegros. It is a complicated story.

The first I heard of it I took a view similar view as the Don, a pox on both the white nationalists and supremacists and counter-protesters. According to a popular view, Don's sin was not condemning the white nationalists and supremacists, fast enough.

I agree, Lincoln would be viewed as racist by modern standards. Though he did grow and evolve, and listened to what black Americans said.

With Trump, he calls women pigs, fat dogs, losers, and other horrible things. He has no filter. But when it comes to white nationalists he's very reserved in his criticism. He usually refuses to condemn them. He'll follow up with a pre written statement by his handlers. Which he reads like a robot, but again he will veer off script and soften criticism of the neo Nazis. The neo Nazis love him because of this. His silence speaks louder than his words.

Post by **spot** » Fri Dec 07, 2018 1:59 pm

tude dog;1521505 wrote: The shame is that the attempt by President Reagan to kill that bastard failed.

Colonel Gaddafi may have been demonized in the US but he ran a very prosperous North African non-aligned secular republic for several decades. President Reagan, if I remember, managed to injure a few dozen locals and a toddler, and kill two US pilots during the raid.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Fri Dec 07, 2018 2:07 pm

spot;1521497 wrote: If I recall, he said he reserved the option to use nukes before being attacked. Since that's the same reservation every US President has made since Truman it's not something he can be picked out for.

I'd much rather pass judgement on what he's done than on what people think he might do. He hasn't taken America to war. President Osama took America to war, President Bush 43 took America to war, President Clinton took America to war, President Bush 41 took America to war, President Reagan took America to war, President Carter took America to war. Gerald Ford was the most recent President to opt for a peaceful Presidency until President Trump's term, and the gung-ho American people not surprisingly rewarded Gerald Ford by refusing to re-elect him.

I think I can speak objectively in saying that history is not going to judge the post-war American electorate any less harshly than it judges the Confederacy, regardless of which President you focus on. President Trump is the one beacon of hope to appear from Washington since President Kennedy.

He's also said that he will scrap SALT and SALT2 and start making new nukes wholesale, that's hardly the actions of a peaceful president (or even of a sane one)!

Post by **spot** » Fri Dec 07, 2018 2:26 pm

Bryn Mawr;1521509 wrote: He's also said that he will scrap SALT and SALT2 and start making new nukes wholesale, that's hardly the actions of a peaceful president (or even of a sane one)!I've never yet believed a word President Trump said, I've seen no evidence so far that I've ever been wrong to do that.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Fri Dec 07, 2018 3:15 pm

tude dog;1521501 wrote:

I didn't like the guy to be sure but that is way beneath even me. It is akin to comparing somebody to Hitler which I never do.

I apologize.

Happy Chanukah.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Fri Dec 07, 2018 3:33 pm

yaaarrrgg;1521506 wrote: I agree, Lincoln would be viewed as racist by modern standards. Though he did grow and evolve, and listened to what black Americans said.

I have no idea where that comes from.

I'll have to start a thread on our first President George Washington, slave owner whose view of his neegros did evolve.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Fri Dec 07, 2018 3:35 pm

spot;1521508 wrote: Colonel Gaddafi may have been demonized in the US but he ran a very prosperous North African non-aligned secular republic for several decades. President Reagan, if I remember, managed to injure a few dozen locals and a toddler, and kill two US pilots during the raid.

He was responsible for murdering U.S. Army soldiers in Berlin, Germany.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Fri Dec 07, 2018 3:50 pm

AnneBoleyn;1521511 wrote: I apologize.

Happy Chanukah.

No worries, I got something of a smile of it. Seems my reputation beholds me.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Fri Dec 07, 2018 4:02 pm

I don't see a need to start a thread on President Washington, the slave owner.

This seems to tell the story.

10 Facts About Washington & Slavery

Post by **LarsMac** » Fri Dec 07, 2018 7:45 pm

tude dog;1521515 wrote: I don't see a need to start a thread on President Washington, the slave owner.

This seems to tell the story.

10 Facts About Washington & Slavery

It may be worth noting that at the time of the American Revolution (or Colonial Rebellion, if you prefer) and the ratification of the US Constitution, Slavery was a perfectly acceptable practice within the British Empire.

By the time the British ended the practice, President Washington's slaves had been free for the better three decades.

(Just an "Oh, by the way."

Post by **spot** » Sat Dec 08, 2018 4:36 am

LarsMac;1521517 wrote: IBy the time the British ended the practice, President Washington's slaves had been free for the better three decades.I hate to quibble but that was certainly not the case in Britain itself. The Lord Chief Justice of Britain had declared in 1706 that already by then, under British law, there could be no slavery on British soil: "as soon as a ***** comes into England, he becomes free. One may be a villein in England, but not a slave."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_ ... nd_serfdom

Post by **spot** » Sat Dec 08, 2018 4:52 am

tude dog;1521513 wrote: He was responsible for murdering U.S. Army soldiers in Berlin, Germany.

If we're going to count up how many serving foreign soldiers any particular country has deliberately killed despite not being at war with those forces at the time, with the authority of their head of state, I absolutely guarantee that the USA will head the list. Pick a decade and I'll list the incidents. This "we're entitled but nobody's allowed to do it to us" attitude gets right up my nose. Have you never heard of CIA destabilization? Bloody American Exceptionalism is the death of all moral values, your attitude glorifies and perpetuates a rogue state.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Sat Dec 08, 2018 10:36 am

spot;1521519 wrote: I hate to quibble but that was certainly not the case in Britain itself. The Lord Chief Justice of Britain had declared in 1706 that already by then, under British law, there could be no slavery on British soil: "as soon as a ***** comes into England, he becomes free. One may be a villein in England, but not a slave."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_ ... nd_serfdom

I am not one to relish in quibble, but.

It is insincere to abolish slavery in one's backyard and claim a moral victory all the while profiting from slavery.

Slavery Abolition Act 1833

It cost 600,000 lives here to settle the question. Race relations here are a constant irritant. Not something one can settle with a law or two.

Gee, just wish we had the civilized society you have over the pond.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Sat Dec 08, 2018 10:38 am

spot;1521520 wrote: If we're going to count up how many serving foreign soldiers any particular country has deliberately killed despite not being at war with those forces at the time, with the authority of their head of state, I absolutely guarantee that the USA will head the list. Pick a decade and I'll list the incidents. This "we're entitled but nobody's allowed to do it to us" attitude gets right up my nose. Have you never heard of CIA destabilization? Bloody American Exceptionalism is the death of all moral values, your attitude glorifies and perpetuates a rogue state.

Not we, you do the counting.

magentaflame · Post by **magentaflame** » Sun Dec 09, 2018 2:29 pm

spot;1521519 wrote: I hate to quibble but that was certainly not the case in Britain itself. The Lord Chief Justice of Britain had declared in 1706 that already by then, under British law, there could be no slavery on British soil: "as soon as a ***** comes into England, he becomes free. One may be a villein in England, but not a slave."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_ ... nd_serfdom

No, you're young villians became the slaves.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Tue Dec 11, 2018 3:04 pm

God if you so believe help America if Trump runs again and wins. No one else will be able to help/

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Wed Dec 12, 2018 6:04 am

Ted;1521546 wrote: God if you so believe help America if Trump runs again and wins. No one else will be able to help/

If that happens Ted, then we will get what we deserve. At long last, many think.

Post by **spot** » Thu Dec 13, 2018 1:45 pm

Quote of the day:"I think I have the greatest face in the history of politics. I have people that I love and that love me, frankly, that includes a lot of women. Iâ€™ve got a tremendous percentage of women last time, remember?"

What a man.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Sat Dec 15, 2018 12:59 pm

In my view Trump is a scum bag; nothing more. I do not trust him any more than I trust Putin. With friends like him one does not need any enemies.

Post by **spot** » Sat Dec 15, 2018 1:51 pm

Ted;1521564 wrote: In my view Trump is a scum bag; nothing more. I do not trust him any more than I trust Putin. With friends like him one does not need any enemies.

I'm reminded of two Presidents, one the Americans had and one they didn't. They had President Reagan who was by every possible measure worse than President Trump, I can't think of any test which President Reagan wouldn't fail more blatantly, starting with IQ or trustworthiness. The President they never had was President Jerry Springer, something I think we should all regret.

When passing judgement on President Trump I think the first thing we need to abandon is any desire to like him. Disliking him is irrelevant, it's axiomatic, it's inevitable, it has no bearing on whether he's taking the world in the right direction. My sole concern is the financial collapse of the USA and he's taking us there quicker than anyone else could manage.

Why do you think liking a President is ever desirable, Ted?

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Sat Dec 15, 2018 4:32 pm

spot;1521565 wrote: I'm reminded of two Presidents, one the Americans had and one they didn't. They had President Reagan who was by every possible measure worse than President Trump, I can't think of any test which President Reagan wouldn't fail more blatantly, starting with IQ or trustworthiness. The President they never had was President Jerry Springer, something I think we should all regret.

When passing judgement on President Trump I think the first thing we need to abandon is any desire to like him. Disliking him is irrelevant, it's axiomatic, it's inevitable, it has no bearing on whether he's taking the world in the right direction. My sole concern is the financial collapse of the USA and he's taking us there quicker than anyone else could manage.

Why do you think liking a President is ever desirable, Ted?

For me, likable goes a long way. For me to be liked one much seems to me as having some sense of decent moral character.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Sun Dec 16, 2018 2:52 am

spot: 1. "Disliking him is irrelevant, it's axiomatic, it's inevitable, it has no bearing on whether he's taking the world in the right direction."

2. "My sole concern is the financial collapse of the USA and he's taking us there quicker than anyone else could manage."

1. Spot, you never mention the USA's horrific role backing the Saudi's cruel and disgusting plunder of Yemen while praising Trump for his so-called isolationism. Why is that?

2. Our financial collapse will also be yours, IMO. Can you tell me why this wouldn't be so?

Post by **spot** » Sun Dec 16, 2018 3:28 am

AnneBoleyn;1521567 wrote: spot: 1. "Disliking him is irrelevant, it's axiomatic, it's inevitable, it has no bearing on whether he's taking the world in the right direction."

2. "My sole concern is the financial collapse of the USA and he's taking us there quicker than anyone else could manage."

1. Spot, you never mention the USA's horrific role backing the Saudi's cruel and disgusting plunder of Yemen while praising Trump for his so-called isolationism. Why is that?

2. Our financial collapse will also be yours, IMO. Can you tell me why this wouldn't be so?
1. I think perhaps you should give a paragraph on what you think that horrific backing role is. I'm trying to think of what you might include. The USA supplies and trains the Saudi Arabian air force? It's done that since the sixties without a break. I disapprove intensely, but it seems to me that you're not asking why President Trump's administration is backing "Saudi's cruel and disgusting plunder of Yemen", I think you're asking why it's not withdrawing backing which already existed prior to his Presidency.

I reckon that Saudi Arabia's support for Israel is the weight in the pan. I think the understanding is that if either US support for Saudi Arabia or Saudi support for Israel is withdrawn, the other plank evaporates at the same moment. It's long-term, it's strategic and I don't think any single Presidency is going to pull that specific plug.

If you actually have instances of support relating to Saudi Arabia's rape of Yemen since President Trump took office, I'd be pleased to discuss them. All I have is negatives, like the President hasn't allowed the Pentagon to join in the bombing spree or lob cruise or drone missiles from offshore, which is very unlike White House administrations historically.

2. The British economy isn't hard-wired to the Dollar any more than any other European country is. A collapse in the Dollar would reduce world trade to an extent and for a while, I don't think it would trigger a major world recession or a nuclear war. There are swings and roundabouts in focussing American minds on their own affairs, a sudden collapse in the US financial system is a small price to pay for the removal of this top-down American Exceptionalist destabilization we've all had to applaud for the last century. Gritted teeth can only grit for so long.

Oh... PS. Plunder of Yemen. There is no plunder, the Yemen has no assets to plunder, the Yemen is and always has been a poverty-stricken hell-hole watering station on the way to India. We used to call it Aden when we owned it. There's no plunder to be had. The Saudis are destroying Yemen for purely religious reasons, and to remove a potential gathering-ground for anti-Saud revolutionaries in the unlikely event that any Saudi Arabians can summon up the nerve to demand republican government.

Post by **spot** » Sun Dec 16, 2018 4:47 am

tude dog;1521566 wrote: For me, likable goes a long way. For me to be liked one much seems to me as having some sense of decent moral character.

President Carter had moral character in spades, it didn't do him much good - who on earth ever liked President Carter?

President Kennedy was a fornicating womanizer with the moral character of a street-fighting ginger tom in summer, despite which the entire world justifiably admired both the man and his achievements.

Post by **spot** » Sun Dec 16, 2018 4:57 am

tude dog;1521522 wrote: Not we, you do the counting.

I didn't ask you to count, all I asked was for you to name any decade where you think I might be wrong and I'll do the counting and show I wasn't.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sun Dec 16, 2018 6:27 am

spot;1521565 wrote: My sole concern is the financial collapse of the USA and he's taking us there quicker than anyone else could manage.How is Trump "taking us there"? Trade wars? Tax reform? Something else?

Post by **spot** » Sun Dec 16, 2018 7:54 am

Ahso!;1521571 wrote: How is Trump "taking us there"? Trade wars? Tax reform? Something else?

He's poured money from federal tax and borrowing resources into spending ever since he took office. He's done this because it heats the economy, puts up the indicators, gets his base out at election time.

He's kept himself as the only topic of political conversation in the country by continually tweeting bull****. It gets his base out at election time.

He's pushed every xenophobic button he can reach because it gets his base out at election time. The exception is the old-hat Commie Sicko Rooskie button Reagan relied on. Maybe he's holding that one back for a rainy day, who knows. It would certainly get his base out at election time if he ever sees a brick wall looming, I'd watch out for that one.

Post by **spot** » Fri Dec 21, 2018 3:33 am

I note President Trump has ordered the removal of all US military units from Syria and half the remaining contingent from Afghanistan. I take it we all approve?

I further note Mad Dog Mattis, whose moral deficiency I discussed elsewhere on the site, has stormed out of the Administration in protest. If he'd like to make a public apology for his mistakes while leading the Marines in Iraq I'll consider what he says. Engage your brain, General, before you engage your weapon. Let's not be naive. Bad things happen in wars.

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Fri Dec 21, 2018 9:32 am

Though for Trump the decision is entirely based on short term self-interest. And it looks like he's doing what Putin asks.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Fri Dec 21, 2018 1:40 pm

Plus I see he's been approved a massive budget for his wall, that he said Mexico were going to pay for. If his previous record is anything to go by, he'll take on Immigrant Labour working for Minimum Wage, then refuse to pay them. They'll try to take it to Court, but he will simply bring out all the most expensive lawyers who will merely bully them into the ground. He has a long track record of these techniques. I'm just surprised anyone takes on any contracts with his name on them.

Post by **spot** » Fri Dec 21, 2018 3:10 pm

As I understand payment for the wall, President Trump invited the Mexican Government to pay for it. When they refused he said the US would source the money up front, and once it was built would get the cost back by imposing the same amount of financial penalties on Mexican trade. Either way, he said, Mexico will pay for the wall but has no veto over the timetable.

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Fri Dec 21, 2018 5:19 pm

If he imposes tarrifs on Mexican goods, then aren't US consumers really paying for the wall? Likewise is he imposes a tax on exports, then he hurts US businesses. Mexico is probably better off to just buy from China.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sat Dec 22, 2018 7:59 am

yaaarrrgg;1521612 wrote: If he imposes tarrifs on Mexican goods, then aren't US consumers really paying for the wall? Likewise is he imposes a tax on exports, then he hurts US businesses. Mexico is probably better off to just buy from China.

Barriers to trade generally rebound on the party raising the barrier. It was interesting to note that Trump had to give way in the battle of the tariffs with China.

Post by **spot** » Sat Dec 22, 2018 8:47 am

I'm not sure the financial penalties equate with tariffs, I'm sure there are alternative techniques for clawing back $40bn between nation states.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:40 am

spot;1521615 wrote: I'm not sure the financial penalties equate with tariffs, I'm sure there are alternative techniques for clawing back $40bn between nation states.

But that's the way he described the claw-back

Post by **spot** » Sat Dec 22, 2018 11:57 am

Bryn Mawr;1521617 wrote: But that's the way he described the claw-back

It don't doubt it, but he has the mental capacity of a sly marshmallow.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Fri Dec 28, 2018 2:41 pm

I love that phrasing "sly marshmallow" In my view that is all he has.upstairs.

Post by **spot** » Fri Dec 28, 2018 3:40 pm

He appears to have unilaterally handed the whole of Syria back to the Syrian government this week, purely on a whim. What a guy.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Fri Dec 28, 2018 4:51 pm

spot;1521737 wrote: He appears to have unilaterally handed the whole of Syria back to the Syrian government this week, purely on a whim. What a guy.

I am not shocked. He is an isolationist. He seems to have a hard time understanding the difference between business relationships and international relations.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Sat Dec 29, 2018 7:05 am

A country under the control of its own Government? Strange concept. Mind you, I guess that's what Brexit's about as well.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Sat Dec 29, 2018 1:41 pm

FourPart;1521744 wrote: A country under the control of its own Government? Strange concept. Mind you, I guess that's what Brexit's about as well.

It is not like the Syrian people voted in that bastard President Bashar al-Assad to rule(n) the place. He and his daddy Hafez have no problems about murdering thousands of their subjects.

The door is now open to Don's buddy Putin and the next nuclear power in the middle east, IRAN.

Post by **spot** » Sat Dec 29, 2018 4:41 pm

tude dog;1521750 wrote: He and his daddy Hafez have no problems about murdering thousands of their subjects.Though of course when it's the American police doing it to Americans, it's called lawful deaths. Is that the expression?

I hope you'll not try to dispute the "thousands", either.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Sat Dec 29, 2018 9:16 pm

spot;1521752 wrote: Though of course when it's the American police doing it to Americans, it's called lawful deaths. Is that the expression?

I hope you'll not try to dispute the "thousands", either.

Thousands within what time period are you speaking of? Lawful death not an expression I've ever heard of; maybe Justifiable Homicide is what you mean.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Sun Dec 30, 2018 9:53 am

spot;1521752 wrote: Though of course when it's the American police doing it to Americans, it's called lawful deaths. Is that the expression?

I hope you'll not try to dispute the "thousands", either.

Like some context which tells me more than just numbers.

These men and women do a most dangerous job, and all to many pay the ultimate price for their service. All too often their K9s.

2018 Honor Roll of Heroes

List of American police officers killed in the line of duty

Post by **spot** » Sun Dec 30, 2018 12:20 pm

tude dog;1521755 wrote: Like some context which tells me more than just numbers.

These men and women do a most dangerous job, and all to many pay the ultimate price for their service. All too often their K9s.

I'd say the context is professionalism. A professional police force would make it a matter of honor that they killed fewer people than the losses they suffered themselves. That would be a mark of genuine service to the community. It baffles me that this isn't obvious to everyone.

Post by **spot** » Sun Dec 30, 2018 12:24 pm

AnneBoleyn;1521754 wrote: Thousands within what time period are you speaking of? Lawful death not an expression I've ever heard of; maybe Justifiable Homicide is what you mean.
The identical period tude specified - from 1971 when the current President's father took office, to today. As in He and his daddy Hafez have no problems about murdering thousands of their subjects. Though I'd prefer the term "citizens". I'm a subject, you're a citizen as are Syrians. It's a matter of our respective Constitutions.

Justifiable Homicide is a reasonable US paraphrase, yes.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Sun Dec 30, 2018 1:48 pm

AnneBoleyn;1521754 wrote: Thousands within what time period are you speaking of? Lawful death not an expression I've ever heard of; maybe Justifiable Homicide is what you mean.

I think it's a case of Black Guy gets pulled over for speeding:

Cop shouts, whilst pointing gun aggressively: "Show me your Driving Licence"

Driver reaches in pocket to get Licence.

Cop empties gun into Driver. Cop: "He was going for his gun - Lawful Killing".

Something that has become so commonplace that it ceases to be newsworthy.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Sun Dec 30, 2018 2:36 pm

It's newsworthy and black organizations make sure these killings do not go unreported.

Unfortunately, the act of reporting doesn't equate to the act of decreasing.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Sun Dec 30, 2018 5:10 pm

spot;1521758 wrote: I'd say the context is professionalism. A professional police force would make it a matter of honor that they killed fewer people than the losses they suffered themselves. That would be a mark of genuine service to the community. It baffles me that this isn't obvious to everyone.

All things considered if not for the professionalism and restaurant exercised by the police the number of perp deaths would be much higher.

Post by **spot** » Sun Dec 30, 2018 5:24 pm

tude dog;1521765 wrote: All things considered if not for the professionalism and restaurant exercised by the police the number of perp deaths would be much higher.

I expect supporters of the Syrian government say much the same about the Syrian police force, don't you?

Who you cheer for all depends on where you live. It's tribalism. It's primitive. It's sick-making.