Trump clarifies his platform
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in Trump clarifies his platform:
Frame it how you will, however your understandable shame and embarrassment at being so late for the first two World Wars in no way excuses your attempts to be quite so early for Number 3.
Actually thought that this was quite a brilliant retort.
Certainly after reading larsons take on Churchill.
-
Maybe I should drink martinis more often.
Then again, maybe not.
-
Shucks, I thought I had you at Dickie Valentine.
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
Oh, come on Rainman, the only way Trump would ever get pushback from Hannity is if he were fucking him from behind.
-
If you think the phrase is nice, just wait till you try it.
Education is extremely important.
-
-
@taiwan_girl said in Trump clarifies his platform:
I think it is pretty obvious that he did not answer the question. The question was pretty simple: "What are your top priority items for a second term?" (But, he is talking like a politician. I would have been surprise if he (or any major candidate) would have answered differently.)
Re: hiring of people. At some point, it become probable that the problem is not with the people he hired, but with the person that is doing the hiring.
John Kelly
Rex Tillerson
John Bolton
HR McMaster
Gen. Mattis
Jerome Powell
etcHave you ever applied that same thing to Obama?
I didn't think so.
@Larry I would be happy too. I am not "marry" to one side. However, when someone bases their "reputation" on the fact that they only hire good people, and "trumpet" (no pun intended 5555) the fact that they are such a good judge of people, etc., they SHOULD be called out on it, whether or not it is Democrat, Republic, Communist, Fascist, etc etc
I do stand by my point that a number of high level respected people very close to teh President (does not matter if I agree with them or not - for example, i previously did not like Mr. Bolton and I still dont. I did not like Mr. Tillerson, and I still dont) who left/fired from the administration have had quite a bit of negative things to say about President Trump. At some point, as the English saying goes - if it walk like a duck, sound like a duck, etc etc
I do not remember the same number of high level people questioning the competency of President Obama. AGAIN, I WOULD SAY THE SAME THING IF THAT WERE THE CASE.
-
Trump is a much higher level person than Obama. It makes sense that fewer people are capable of meeting his expectations.
@Horace said in Trump clarifies his platform:
Trump is a much higher level person than Obama. It makes sense that fewer people are capable of meeting his expectations.
Indeed, it was euphemistically stated now and then in a previous incarnation of this den of iniquity, that Obama was a mere "two bit thug". Trump, it seems, is something quite other.
-
@Horace said in Trump clarifies his platform:
If you think the phrase is nice, just wait till you try it.
-
@Larry I would be happy too. I am not "marry" to one side. However, when someone bases their "reputation" on the fact that they only hire good people, and "trumpet" (no pun intended 5555) the fact that they are such a good judge of people, etc., they SHOULD be called out on it, whether or not it is Democrat, Republic, Communist, Fascist, etc etc
I do stand by my point that a number of high level respected people very close to teh President (does not matter if I agree with them or not - for example, i previously did not like Mr. Bolton and I still dont. I did not like Mr. Tillerson, and I still dont) who left/fired from the administration have had quite a bit of negative things to say about President Trump. At some point, as the English saying goes - if it walk like a duck, sound like a duck, etc etc
I do not remember the same number of high level people questioning the competency of President Obama. AGAIN, I WOULD SAY THE SAME THING IF THAT WERE THE CASE.
@taiwan_girl said in Trump clarifies his platform:
@Larry I would be happy too. I am not "marry" to one side. However, when someone bases their "reputation" on the fact that they only hire good people, and "trumpet" (no pun intended 5555) the fact that they are such a good judge of people, etc., they SHOULD be called out on it, whether or not it is Democrat, Republic, Communist, Fascist, etc etc
I do stand by my point that a number of high level respected people very close to teh President (does not matter if I agree with them or not - for example, i previously did not like Mr. Bolton and I still dont. I did not like Mr. Tillerson, and I still dont) who left/fired from the administration have had quite a bit of negative things to say about President Trump. At some point, as the English saying goes - if it walk like a duck, sound like a duck, etc etc
I do not remember the same number of high level people questioning the competency of President Obama. AGAIN, I WOULD SAY THE SAME THING IF THAT WERE THE CASE.
200 judges.
And you can bet your sweet ass ain't nobody hired that many in 40 years.
-
@Larry I would be happy too. I am not "marry" to one side. However, when someone bases their "reputation" on the fact that they only hire good people, and "trumpet" (no pun intended 5555) the fact that they are such a good judge of people, etc., they SHOULD be called out on it, whether or not it is Democrat, Republic, Communist, Fascist, etc etc
I do stand by my point that a number of high level respected people very close to teh President (does not matter if I agree with them or not - for example, i previously did not like Mr. Bolton and I still dont. I did not like Mr. Tillerson, and I still dont) who left/fired from the administration have had quite a bit of negative things to say about President Trump. At some point, as the English saying goes - if it walk like a duck, sound like a duck, etc etc
I do not remember the same number of high level people questioning the competency of President Obama. AGAIN, I WOULD SAY THE SAME THING IF THAT WERE THE CASE.
@taiwan_girl said in Trump clarifies his platform:
@Larry I would be happy too. I am not "marry" to one side. However, when someone bases their "reputation" on the fact that they only hire good people, and "trumpet" (no pun intended 5555) the fact that they are such a good judge of people, etc., they SHOULD be called out on it, whether or not it is Democrat, Republic, Communist, Fascist, etc etc
I do stand by my point that a number of high level respected people very close to teh President (does not matter if I agree with them or not - for example, i previously did not like Mr. Bolton and I still dont. I did not like Mr. Tillerson, and I still dont) who left/fired from the administration have had quite a bit of negative things to say about President Trump. At some point, as the English saying goes - if it walk like a duck, sound like a duck, etc etc
I do not remember the same number of high level people questioning the competency of President Obama. AGAIN, I WOULD SAY THE SAME THING IF THAT WERE THE CASE.
Then hold onto your hat, because if you base your view on what you say you do, you're going to have to change your opinion...
It is well known and well documented that military leaders did not like Obama AT ALL. Many of them spoke out about it. In fact, Obama was detested by the majority of the military, from the top all the way down to the bottom.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2013/11/obama-vs-the-generals-099379Here's the difference:
generals spoke out against Obama. Obama then fired him and replaced him with a yes man. The news media was silent.
Trump fires an Obama yes man, he speaks out against Trump. The press talks about it for months, adding all the negative spin they can to the story.
Some people pay attention to what's happening. Some people form their opinions based on what they hear out of the news media. -
@taiwan_girl said in Trump clarifies his platform:
@Larry I would be happy too. I am not "marry" to one side. However, when someone bases their "reputation" on the fact that they only hire good people, and "trumpet" (no pun intended 5555) the fact that they are such a good judge of people, etc., they SHOULD be called out on it, whether or not it is Democrat, Republic, Communist, Fascist, etc etc
I do stand by my point that a number of high level respected people very close to teh President (does not matter if I agree with them or not - for example, i previously did not like Mr. Bolton and I still dont. I did not like Mr. Tillerson, and I still dont) who left/fired from the administration have had quite a bit of negative things to say about President Trump. At some point, as the English saying goes - if it walk like a duck, sound like a duck, etc etc
I do not remember the same number of high level people questioning the competency of President Obama. AGAIN, I WOULD SAY THE SAME THING IF THAT WERE THE CASE.
Then hold onto your hat, because if you base your view on what you say you do, you're going to have to change your opinion...
It is well known and well documented that military leaders did not like Obama AT ALL. Many of them spoke out about it. In fact, Obama was detested by the majority of the military, from the top all the way down to the bottom.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2013/11/obama-vs-the-generals-099379Here's the difference:
generals spoke out against Obama. Obama then fired him and replaced him with a yes man. The news media was silent.
Trump fires an Obama yes man, he speaks out against Trump. The press talks about it for months, adding all the negative spin they can to the story.
Some people pay attention to what's happening. Some people form their opinions based on what they hear out of the news media.@Larry said in Trump clarifies his platform:
Trump fires an Obama yes man, he speaks out against Trump.
John Kelly
Rex Tillerson
John Bolton
HR McMaster
Gen. Mattis
Jerome Powell
etcPlease explain how the above were Obama "yes men".
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in Trump clarifies his platform:
I have to say, I'd rather be a drunken Brit than a Teetotal Yank any fucking day of the week.
We gave the world Keith Richards. You supplied Donny Fucking Osmond. And yes, fuck you.
If not for Churchill’s swooning of Roosevelt you might have said that in German.
@Loki said in Trump clarifies his platform:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Trump clarifies his platform:
I have to say, I'd rather be a drunken Brit than a Teetotal Yank any fucking day of the week.
We gave the world Keith Richards. You supplied Donny Fucking Osmond. And yes, fuck you.
If not for Churchill’s swooning of Roosevelt you might have said that in German
I doubt it. To undertake a seaborne invasion, jerry would have needed command of the sea and air superiority over the English Channel. He had neither - the Royal Navy effectively bottled up the German fleet in the Baltic thus depriving the Nazis command of the sea and, the Battle of Britain resulted in the Luftwaffe's failure to gain air superiority over the Channel. In any event, by end of September 1940 Hitler had lost interest in taking Britain and started to look eastward towards the USSR. Any chance of ever invading Britain and holding it was lost as of 22 June 1941 when the Nazis attacked the Soviet Union.
Elbows up!
-
I'm only going to bother with one, since I don't think you'd change your mind if these men all stopped by your house and told you you were wrong:
John Kelly was/is an honorable man with a terrific resume. He was in total agreement with Trump, and worked diligently to put Trumps agenda in place. But Kelly couldn't handle the position of chief of staff. The power went to his head. He was caught threatening a staffer while he was firing the staffer in the situation room. When asked if Trump knew about the firing, Kelly said "the entire White House works for me, not the president".
At that point, even though he was extremely supportive of Trumps presidency, and in spite of his stellar military career, he had to go. It shouldnt come as any surprise that a man drunk on power getting canned because of it would spew sour grapes. Unless ones opinion of Kelly is shaped by how the media spun things.
-
I'm only going to bother with one, since I don't think you'd change your mind if these men all stopped by your house and told you you were wrong:
John Kelly was/is an honorable man with a terrific resume. He was in total agreement with Trump, and worked diligently to put Trumps agenda in place. But Kelly couldn't handle the position of chief of staff. The power went to his head. He was caught threatening a staffer while he was firing the staffer in the situation room. When asked if Trump knew about the firing, Kelly said "the entire White House works for me, not the president".
At that point, even though he was extremely supportive of Trumps presidency, and in spite of his stellar military career, he had to go. It shouldnt come as any surprise that a man drunk on power getting canned because of it would spew sour grapes. Unless ones opinion of Kelly is shaped by how the media spun things.
@Larry said in Trump clarifies his platform:
The power went to his head. He was caught threatening a staffer while he was firing the staffer in the situation room. When asked if Trump knew about the firing, Kelly said "the entire White House works for me, not the president".
Interesting - what situation was that? Did that lead to his firing?
