Cont: The Trump Presidency 11: Insert something funny

Status
Not open for further replies.
Captain_Swoop said:
Trump Tweets

We have defeated ISIS in Syria, my only reason for being there during the Trump Presidency.
Click to expand...
Well, that's settled.

From: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/po...trump-over-plan-withdraw-troops-syria-n949916
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., a close Trump ally, said it would be an "Obama-like mistake" to remove American troops. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., called it a "grave error" and Rep. Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill., said Trump's declaration that ISIS has been defeated is "simply not true."... Sen. Cory Gardner, R-Colo., who is up for re-election in 2020 in a state that has been trending toward Democrats, pressed Trump to reconsider....Rubio said there are three reasons why it's a "colossal mistake" to withdraw from Syria: ISIS has been converted into an insurgency and will be a more powerful one without the U.S. presence, Syria will fall more under the control of Russia and Iran without U.S. forces and the U.S. will be more readily seen as an "unreliable ally" by the rest of the world.

Not sure why Rubio is concerned about America being seen as an "unreliable ally". After all, I think most countries already see it as unreliable, going back to 2016.
 
carlitos said:
I'm not positive, but perhaps Armitage72 was being sarcastic there.
Click to expand...

I'm not familiar with Armitage72 so perhaps it was sarcasm. It's difficult to tell when the post is something a Trumper would absolutely write and believe. Perhaps a :rolleyes: should be employed for sarcasm unless there is no doubt it's sarcasm.
 
Stacyhs said:
I'm not familiar with Armitage72 so perhaps it was sarcasm. It's difficult to tell when the post is something a Trumper would absolutely write and believe. Perhaps a :rolleyes: should be employed for sarcasm unless there is no doubt it's sarcasm.
Click to expand...

It was sarcasm, based on other posts I've seen by them.
 
acbytesla said:
I agree. The Koch Brothers have financed many fine science documentaries that I love. I know that they have done some good things with their money. Nobody is all bad...although some people come close.
Click to expand...


The problem is that we are relying upon their whims. If they decide for something good or bad, we have to accept it either way. Kind of like them being gods. We just have to sit back passively and hope for the best. Maybe if we pray to them we could convince them to be nicer to us.
 
carlitos said:
I'm not positive, but perhaps Armitage72 was being sarcastic there.
Click to expand...
If the post was sincere, it wouldn't have linked to a site reporting yelling at Sanders to "do her job." I'm sure there's plenty of right wing sites that just say librul reporters were being mean old poopy heads and never you mind what the words were.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Trump Tweets on the winding up of his foundation and the sleazebag AG and corrupt Democrats.

The Trump Foundation has done great work and given away lots of money, both mine and others, to great charities over the years - with me taking NO fees, rent, salaries etc. Now, as usual, I am getting slammed by Cuomo and the Dems in a long running civil lawsuit started by.....

..sleazebag AG Eric Schneiderman, who has since resigned over horrific women abuse, when I wanted to close the Foundation so as not to be in conflict with politics. Shady Eric was head of New Yorkers for Clinton, and refused to even look at the corrupt Clinton Foundation......

....In any event, it goes on and on & the new AG, who is now being replaced by yet another AG (who openly campaigned on a GET TRUMP agenda), does little else but rant, rave & politic against me. Will never be treated fairly by these people - a total double standard of “justice.”
Click to expand...
Except that the NY AG who sued the Trump Foundation is Barbara Underwood. :rolleyes:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...b0cebe76177c6d#block-5c1a5f14e4b0cebe76177c6d
 
Beelzebuddy said:
If the post was sincere, it wouldn't have linked to a site reporting yelling at Sanders to "do her job." I'm sure there's plenty of right wing sites that just say librul reporters were being mean old poopy heads and never you mind what the words were.
Click to expand...

While I accept that A72 was being sarcastic, I have to disagree with you regarding linking to that site. I've seen, on many occasions, serious posters* link to sites that actually disprove what they are claiming. It's like they are wearing magic glasses that make them see what they want to see and not what is actually there.

* I could name names, but I'd be in violation of the forum rules.
 
a_unique_person said:
The problem is that we are relying upon their whims. If they decide for something good or bad, we have to accept it either way. Kind of like them being gods. We just have to sit back passively and hope for the best. Maybe if we pray to them we could convince them to be nicer to us.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree at all. But if the other team does something I approve of, it would be disingenuous not to acknowledge it.
 
Remember when Trump said he had no business dealings in Russia, and we all believed him?

Yeah, neither do I.

From: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...n-giuliani-ivanka-cohen-mueller-a8690226.html
Donald Trump signed a letter of intent to begin negotiations over building a Trump Tower in Russia, a leaked document has revealed, despite the president’s lawyer insisting no such signature existed.

Why is this important? Well, apart from the fact that it is further evidence that Trump had business dealings with Russia, it also 1) makes Cohen a more credible source (since he claimed that a signed letter did exist) and 2) makes Trump/Giuliani less credible (since they claimed that no signed letter existed)
 
How effective can 2,000 troops be anyway? I have a hard time picturing what we're doing in Syria - I mean that literally - how do you deploy 2,000 people in a way that really makes much of a difference? Who are we fighting, exactly?
 
Minoosh said:
How effective can 2,000 troops be anyway? I have a hard time picturing what we're doing in Syria - I mean that literally - how do you deploy 2,000 people in a way that really makes much of a difference? Who are we fighting, exactly?
Click to expand...

To be fair, it does depend on the troops. 2000 Green berets is a respectable force for developing, training, and equipping a major armed insurrection in the target location, for instance.

100 pilots with planes and associated support personnel is a war-winner ;)

2,000 artillerymen can make a huge difference supporting a local group.

2,000 medical personnel running a field hospital could make a huge difference both materially and in a hearts-and-minds manner.

All that being said, I have no idea what we have over there now or what they're doing, and I suspect it's not quite so monolithic a force as my examples :)
 
Minoosh said:
How effective can 2,000 troops be anyway? I have a hard time picturing what we're doing in Syria - I mean that literally - how do you deploy 2,000 people in a way that really makes much of a difference? Who are we fighting, exactly?
Click to expand...

I assume they're not fighting troops, but teaching and training militias. Norway has troops in the area too, and they are doing exactly that.

And Trump can declare it as much as he wants, but despite IS having been devastated, they are not completely defeated.

There's also the matter of Assad, whose death toll and methods surpass the evil of IS.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom