Jump to content

Donald Trump 2018

TheFlyingBoat

By TheFlyingBoat
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 44.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Hugo Stiglitz

    3593

  • retread

    1324

  • Brisketexan

    1195

  • jimmyjazz

    1186

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

M12BH
M12BH

SInce y'all seem to be my clearinghouse for all things political, let me tell a story.  A couple of them, actually.  Three, if you want to be specific. When I was 14 I went with a family frien

ConferenceRoom
ConferenceRoom
brown water
brown water

Slocum’s Razor

Foosters

Foosters 17691

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

I don't know...when you think about it, GWB was responsible for many more American deaths than OBL.  Still, although the former never faced punishment for anything, the latter should have been put on trial.

oh no what is you doing

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RomaVicta

RomaVicta 29756

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

I agree it's not very profound to suggest that the US should follow international law.  I'm glad we are in agreement here.  

I don't know if this is the right thread for this, but I think this is an interesting point to discuss. 

Fozzz, if we'd just bombed Osama's house would you feel the same way?

Osama was a self-declared combatant calling for war against the US. I appreciate the concern over due process if there is some doubt as to a person's status as an enemy of the US, but don't know that I want to extend that to armed enemies of the US. What do you think?

We're in a murky area in this conflict. We bomb weddings and the wrong people, and then we shrug it off as an honest mistake. We're clean because we don't mean to make deadly errors. Are we terrorists? If so, are we okay with that?

Part of the problem is Bush calling this the war on terror which doesn't really mean anything in terms of specifying an enemy. We're good because we're not terrorists. Mujahadeen are evil because they are terrorist. Stupid.

The war is against any person or group plotting to harm the US or its interests.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Agent47

Agent47 157

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, 4th&Five said:

 

That's so beautiful. Runaway fires, gun massacres, the press is the enemy of the people, razor wire, stolen elections, rape judges, pipe bombs, murdered journalists, KGB in charge ...

Thanks to Trump, rednecks, fox, evangelical Christianity, the NRA and the GOP, Russia won the cold war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23356

Posted
Posted
24 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

It's kind of funny that even Nazi war criminals got a trial, while OBL was simply murdered.  I guess the world has gone further downhill since the holocaust.  

I’m pretty sure Hitler wouldn’t have been given a trial if he was in a situation like OBL.  

Like the dropping of the atom bombs in WWII, I’ve wrestled with the way we handled that and I think the correct decision was made to execute Osama bin Laden on sight.  

Holding him captive to await trial would have likely cost more American lives because Al  Qaeda would have fought harder for their leader. 

He was too dangerous to keep alive. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fozzz

Fozzz 152

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

I don't know if this is the right thread for this, but I think this is an interesting point to discuss. 

Fozzz, if we'd just bombed Osama's house would you feel the same way?

Osama was a self-declared combatant calling for war against the US. I appreciate the concern over due process if there is some doubt as to a person's status as an enemy of the US, but don't know that I want to extend that to armed enemies of the US. What do you think?

We're in a murky area in this conflict. We bomb weddings and the wrong people, and then we shrug it off as an honest mistake. We're clean because we don't mean to make deadly errors. Are we terrorists? If so, are we okay with that?

Part of the problem is Bush calling this the war on terror which doesn't really mean anything in terms of specifying an enemy. We're good because we're not terrorists. Mujahadeen are evil because they are terrorist. Stupid.

The war is against any person or group plotting to harm the US or its interests.

I don't think that would have been okay.  Would you be comfortable with other countries bombing people in the US on the grounds of self-defense?  I have a feeling people here may not like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chooky

Chooky 13292

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

I don't think that would have been okay.  Would you be comfortable with other countries bombing people in the US on the grounds of self-defense?  I have a feeling people here may not like that.

I would be perfectly comfortable with our level of civility if someone had shot Timothy McVeigh in the eye.  And free ice cream if they did it in Oklahoma.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RomaVicta

RomaVicta 29756

Posted
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

I don't think that would have been okay.  Would you be comfortable with other countries bombing people in the US on the grounds of self-defense?  I have a feeling people here may not like that.

No, I wouldn't. I'm not comfortable with the US bombing other countries. I think we are too quick to use those weapons because they're risk free to American pilots and soldiers, and it keeps the killing at a sterile distance where all we see is the cool-looking blast of a remarkably accurate weapon. 

I'd prefer the precision of special forces on the ground making decisions and representing our effort. I'm fine with killing enemies. I'm not fine with blasting everything around a possible enemy.

What do you say about the status of an American target being a known and admitted violent enemy of the US? After 9/11, I banged the drum for the effort against the terrorists who mean this country harm to be intelligence and special forces intensive. What is your proposal for dealing with these enemies?

Note: You seem to think I'm attacking your position. I'm not. These are actual, troubling issues that reflect on our entire society and who we are. Your point of view is a valid position that I'm just exploring.

Edited by RomaVicta
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Vein

Vein 114

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, Agent47 said:

That's so beautiful. Runaway fires, gun massacres, the press is the enemy of the people, razor wire, stolen elections, rape judges, pipe bombs, murdered journalists, KGB in charge ...

Thanks to Trump, rednecks, fox, evangelical Christianity, the NRA and the GOP, Russia won the cold war.

I've heard rape judges are the worst kind of judges.

Have authorities come out and say what materials were in the pimp bombs? I actually almost searched pipe bombs materials..

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fozzz

Fozzz 152

Posted
Posted
Just now, RomaVicta said:

No, I wouldn't. I'm not comfortable with the US bombing other countries. I think we are too quick to use those weapons because they're risk free to American pilots and soldiers, and it keeps the killing at a sterile distance where all we see is the cool-looking blast of a remarkably accurate weapon. 

I'd prefer the precision of special forces on the ground making decisions and representing our effort. I'm fine with killing enemies. I'm not fine with blasting everything around a possible enemy.

What do you say about the status of an American target being a known and admitted violent enemy of the US? After 9/11, I banged the drum for the effort against the terrorists who mean this country harm to be intelligence and special forces intensive. What is your proposal for dealing with these enemies?

Note: You seem to think I'm attacking your position. I'm not. These are actual, troubling issues that reflect on our entire society and who we are. Your point of view is a valid position that I'm just exploring.

I'm fine with capturing him but if he wasn't armed then murdering him obviously wasn't the right thing to do.  I don't think the confines of international law are so narrow as to leave us defenseless.  Hell, the Taliban wanted to hand OBL over to us in the 90s.

I think, particularly in the case of 9/11, that we should take account of the context of why we were targeted in the first place.  I know it was a while ago now but I don't remember much serious discussion of that matter - just obviously false bullshit like "they hate us for our freedom" or whatever.  OBL was very clear why he and his buddies did it, but those reasons were never really discussed in the media.  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chooky

Chooky 13292

Posted
Posted

This is all being said by an overtly conservative Navy Seal who retweets that fay douchebag Charlie Kirk on a regular basis.  Kind of an interesting microcosm molecule inside a peanut shell of how some conservatives who don't drool on their own shoes will process Dotard's comments about McRaven.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
happyfunball

happyfunball 481

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Ask Trump what Tora Bora is and I guarantee he couldn't tell you without being briefed first. 

Trump, "Bora, Bora is a lovely place but not as great as one of my resorts. I can't believe that Obama couldn't find Osama quicker given how small Bora Bora is as an island"

Edited by happyfunball
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DixonHur

DixonHur 11074

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, happyfunball said:

Trump, "Bora, Bora is a lovely place but not as great as one of my resorts. I can't believe that Obama couldn't find Osama quicker given how small Bora Bora is as an island"

How could he have?  Bora Bora is surrounded by big water.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tuco

Tuco 5076

Posted
Posted
Oh yeah, impeachment would be the wrong thing to do, from the perspective of the Dems.
Trump, and his fucktard base, are the gifts that keep giving. They gave quite a bit during the mid-terms.


If the Mueller report provides a compelling case for removal, an impeachment hearing would present a massive wedge issue for Senate Republicans. Either they need vote to allow a criminal to remain in the White House or they have to cross Trumpkins who actually believe it’s a deep state conspiracy. At this point, the Republicans best hope is that either the report is inconclusive (vote against removal) or that it is a lock tight case (obvious vote for removal.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nice Guy Eddie

Nice Guy Eddie 13391

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Pancho Negro said:

 

Without a doubt, the US is in a tough position when all signs pointing to the leader of a friendly country looks to have ordered a murder of someone.  Someone that was a resident of the US.    

You have to be deferential to the leader of KSA but you also can let them know there are limitations.    The US govt and Trump should actually be the ones angry that KSA would jeopardize their relationship with us over a minor journalist.   What was the worst the journalist was going to do?  We shouldn't be worried that MBS will get mad at us if we say or do anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45512

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

This is correct.

 

 

No, it's not correct at all.  It's fucking stupid.  W was just dim.  Trump is dim and dangerous.  

Yeah, Dick Cheney was an evil piece of shit with an IQ decades above that of W, but that doesn't mean he was anywhere near the threat to the Republic that Trump is.  

Plus, this is a really stupid argument:  "McKay said Trump "has no belief system," whereas Cheney, if he "had stayed in office ... would have invaded Iran.""

Well, he should have gotten on that sooner, given that he wasn't going to serve more than 8 years.  Yeesh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fozzz

Fozzz 152

Posted
Posted

I think the idea would be him serving in another administration., one with the know-how and wherewithal to lie the country into another war that gets another million people killed.  Trump is probably too stupid and unpopular for something like that to work.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23356

Posted
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Red Five said:

It’s astonishing to me that Trump hasn’t gotten anywhere close to Bush’s lowest approval rating. Like 25% IIRC. Man people really fucking hated that guy.

It took Bush a looong time to get that low.  Remember, we are still in year two of Trump.  That’s why this comparison is so silly right now.

 

1280px-George_W_Bush_approval_ratings.sv

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SuingToGetAMessageBoard?

SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Red Five said:

It’s astonishing to me that Trump hasn’t gotten anywhere close to Bush’s lowest approval rating. Like 25% IIRC. Man people really fucking hated that guy.

that was the very end of the road for GWB.  8 years of people reading 16 year olds talking about god emperor trump and we'd see it again.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
yoladu

yoladu 4065

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Chuckie Finster said:

I feel like the fact that the President humble-bragged that he had seen nicer mansions than Osama bin Laden's hideout is getting lost here.

a truly odd, reflexive comment. He is like Pavlov's Dog. The word mansion is uttered, the his response is always going to include, "i've seen better", no matter the context. - just a reflex.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...