Trump clarifies his platform
-
wrote on 27 Jun 2020, 15:01 last edited by
It did seem awfully normal for Phibes, now that you mention it.
-
wrote on 27 Jun 2020, 15:05 last edited by
Deeply troubling.
-
wrote on 27 Jun 2020, 15:13 last edited by
@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.
-
wrote on 27 Jun 2020, 15:51 last edited by Doctor Phibes
Maybe I should drink martinis more often.
Then again, maybe not.
-
wrote on 27 Jun 2020, 16:22 last edited by
Shucks, I thought I had you at Dickie Valentine.
-
Oh, come on Rainman, the only way Trump would ever get pushback from Hannity is if he were fucking him from behind.
wrote on 27 Jun 2020, 16:25 last edited by@jon-nyc said in Trump clarifies his platform:
the only way Trump would ever get pushback from Hannity is if he were fucking him from behind.
I've got to remember that nice phrase.
-
wrote on 27 Jun 2020, 16:28 last edited by
If you think the phrase is nice, just wait till you try it.
-
wrote on 27 Jun 2020, 16:35 last edited by
-
@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.
wrote on 27 Jun 2020, 16:39 last edited by@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.
-
wrote on 27 Jun 2020, 16:45 last edited by
Trump is a much higher level person than Obama. It makes sense that fewer people are capable of meeting his expectations.
-
wrote on 27 Jun 2020, 16:47 last edited by
@Horace said in Trump clarifies his platform:
If you think the phrase is nice, just wait till you try it.
We really need that projectile laughter emoji back.
-
Trump is a much higher level person than Obama. It makes sense that fewer people are capable of meeting his expectations.
wrote on 27 Jun 2020, 17:30 last edited by@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.
-
wrote on 27 Jun 2020, 17:37 last edited by Loki
@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.
wrote on 27 Jun 2020, 18:14 last edited by Jolly@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.
wrote on 27 Jun 2020, 18:19 last edited by@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.wrote on 27 Jun 2020, 18:21 last edited by@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".
-
wrote on 27 Jun 2020, 18:26 last edited by
John Bolton was a huge Obama fan, everybody knows that. They served in Vietnam together.
-
@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.
wrote on 27 Jun 2020, 18:41 last edited by Renauda@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.
-
wrote on 27 Jun 2020, 18:44 last edited by
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.
wrote on 27 Jun 2020, 18:49 last edited by xenon@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?
