Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
Haji 2003

Donald J. Trump [OFFICIAL THREAD]

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

On ‎10‎/‎7‎/‎2015 at 2:55 AM, hasanhh said:

 

 

LoL:

 

So the news a couple of weeks ago said that the US/Pentagon spent half-a-billion-dollars on training anti-Assad terrorists. Most of these "vetted" men and women turned their equipment over to al-Nusra .  Of those trained, only 4 or 5 are left. That equals to $100million dollar soldiers. $100million each.

 

Would it not have been cheaper to hire some hit-men from NYC?

Trump has to do better than this.

Heck, even my sister could.

BTW: al-Nutra no longer exists having changed their name to avoid bombing.

Now, Friday,the 20th, Turkey is bombing US supported and backed Kurds. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, hasanhh said:

And Obama's is not also?

Obama's foreign policy is not ideal but much better than Gary Johnson's.

I'd much prefer a candidate who stays away from foreign entanglements and keeps an isolationist policy with the Middle East. By isolationist policies, I mean no involvement in the war with  Syria, no more  trade with Saudi Arabia and no more picking Israel's nose for Netanyahu. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Gaius I. Caesar said:

Obama's foreign policy is not ideal but much better than Gary Johnson's.

I'd much prefer a candidate who stays away from foreign entanglements and keeps an isolationist policy with the Middle East.

[[[[[[By isolationist policies, I mean no involvement in the war with  Syria, no more  trade with Saudi Arabia and no more picking Israel's nose for Netanyahu. ]]]]]]

You are correct about Obama. He is still in-over-his-head and his 'dreams' -like pipelines to Europe- are kaput.

Staying away from foreign entanglements isn't really possible. Trump's "they-pay-their-share" attitude towards NATO, Japan and South Korea is a continuance of the Nixon Doctrine. The Costs of Capstone are way too much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, hasanhh said:

Staying away from foreign entanglements isn't really possible. Trump's "they-pay-their-share" attitude towards NATO, Japan and South Korea is a continuance of the Nixon Doctrine. The Costs of Capstone are way too much.

Trump is trying to make the US military as a group of mercenaries- That's not what the military is for and I want to avoid a repeat of the Nixon Doctrine.  

Whatever change happens after the election, it is imminent and going to be very drastic- I have a feeling that nobody is going to like it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Gaius I. Caesar l do not hear anything about turning the Pentagon into a "group of mercenaries". The US has blackH2O styled private companies for this --in violation of treaty, like Reagan signed along with Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s.

In these emails of Hillar, she laments the "press finding out" about US military foreign interventions.

When she was SecofState, the State Dept had a military battalion attached to it for the Dept's use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, hasanhh said:

@Gaius I. Caesar l do not hear anything about turning the Pentagon into a "group of mercenaries". The US has blackH2O styled private companies for this --in violation of treaty, like Reagan signed along with Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s.

In these emails of Hillar, she laments the "press finding out" about US military foreign interventions.

When she was SecofState, the State Dept had a military battalion attached to it for the Dept's use.

I didn't say the Pentagon, I said the military and I'd like proof of this email unless she deleted that as well. 

Trump's " they-pay-their-share " idea essentially makes the US military paid mercenaries.  Like I said, that's not what the military is for and I want to avoid a repeat of the Nixon Doctrine. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/19/2016 at 11:17 PM, magma said:

I couldn't stand Hillary's voice. It makes me cringe. I stopped watching it early.

The third debate was better than the other two, but it was excruciating in a few places. Trump spoke against abortion, in graphic detail, and Hillary was forced to talk about why she supported it. The two of them called each other puppet, and it was ridiculous.

After the debate Hillary walked over and shook the hand of the moderator and went down the steps into the crowd to shake hands and hug people. Trump walked over and shook the moderator's hand and waited on stage until his family climbed up the steps and joined him. They stood around on stage, looking like movie stars, talking to each other and finally they decided to walk down the steps and shake hands with some people, but after a really short time he and his family left and got into their car. Time is money, you know. Hillary was still hugging and taking photos with people for a long time after the Trumps left.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ I haven't watched the Today Show in years, but that looks like their logo behind them. Not sure when the Trump family photo was taken. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Gaius I. Caesar said:

I didn't say the Pentagon, I said the military and I'd like proof of this email unless she deleted that as well. 

Trump's " they-pay-their-share " idea essentially makes the US military paid mercenaries.  Like I said, that's not what the military is for and I want to avoid a repeat of the Nixon Doctrine. 

I do not believe you understand what "fair share" means. It means they pay for more of their own defense -like we do- and pay a larger percentage for the subsidized equipment they get.

Hillar doesn't believe in "proof", only looking-good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another vicious Trump Attack:

DeutscheWelle's "Made in Germany" this week (of 26Oct16) is running a prospects-of-economic-depression-terror if Trump is elected program.

It is not just the Clinton Campaign's paid media people, it is the BBC, German television and probably others who are running anti-Trump programs. Part of it is Rupert Murdock "hates" Trump --from what l read last year. But the criminal elements with-in the intelligence community are pulling-out all the stops --short of executive action, so far.

Then there is the Obama-at-the-top effect. And the D-NIA, Clapper, was at the Council of Foreign Relations Tuesday the 25th hinting but not denying that "the Russians did it" to support Crooked Hillary.

OpEd: the election must be really close for all this to go on, and one-sided, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:hahaha:

On CBS Morning News 01Nov16 was a report that Slate magazine has an "investigation" story about a computer in the Trump Tower having a strange "pinging". The purpose of this hysterical article is to assert that Trump is working for the Russians.  :dwarf: Some pompous keyboarder has seen too many reruns of the Manchurian Candidate.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/cover_story/2016/10/was_a_server_registered_to_the_trump_organization_communicating_with_russia.html   It is a laugh to read.

Slate has been addicted to anti-Trump diatribes for over a year. An example -or you may search "slate + trump" for other examples-- is: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/cover_story/donald_trump_is_unfit_to_be_president_here_are_141_reasons_why.html 

Related: l have noticed that the BBC and UK papers -like the Guardian- have been emphasizing anti-Trump articles and features also. The story going around across-the-pond is this is a Ml-6 influence operation. OpEd: a bad idea if Trump wins.  :locked:

 

Another Note: that news program quoted the FBI as saying that "there is no connection" between Trump and the Russians. Op: if there were, Trump would be denied intelligence briefings as Hillar is now prohibited to have them.

Edited by hasanhh
FBI

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, E.L King said:

@Gaius I. Caesar What's the Nixon Doctrine? 

 

 The policy declared by President Nixon in 1969 that the U.S. would supply arms but not military forces to its allies in Asia and elsewhere. It actually set up the stage for American intervention in the Middle East by funding Saudi Arabia and Iran while removing troops in Vietnam and Korea. So by the time, Carter became president and the Shah was overthrown, it was never fully integrated into practice and dismantled  by Carter, who issued a new doctrine of his own. 

It had three parts summarized by Nixon as:

1. First, the United States will keep all of its treaty commitments.

2. Second, we shall provide a shield if a nuclear power threatens the freedom of a nation allied with us or of a nation whose survival we consider vital to our security.

3. Third, in cases involving other types of aggression, we shall furnish military and economic assistance when requested in accordance with our treaty commitments. But we shall look to the nation directly threatened to assume the primary responsibility of providing the manpower for its defense.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_Doctrine

^For more details. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Gaius I. Caesar said:

 The policy declared by President Nixon in 1969 that the U.S. would supply arms but not military forces to its allies in Asia and elsewhere. It actually set up the stage for American intervention in the Middle East by funding Saudi Arabia and Iran while removing troops in Vietnam and Korea. So by the time, Carter became president and the Shah was overthrown, it was never fully integrated into practice and dismantled  by Carter, who issued a new doctrine of his own. 

It had three parts summarized by Nixon as:

1. First, the United States will keep all of its treaty commitments.

2. Second, we shall provide a shield if a nuclear power threatens the freedom of a nation allied with us or of a nation whose survival we consider vital to our security.

3. Third, in cases involving other types of aggression, we shall furnish military and economic assistance when requested in accordance with our treaty commitments. But we shall look to the nation directly threatened to assume the primary responsibility of providing the manpower for its defense.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_Doctrine

^For more details. 

If Trump believes in isolation and an American First policy, that's much better than Hillary Clinton's policy which is anti-Russia and pro-goverment changing.

Trump's views are less likely to start WW3, and are more likely to lower American influence in the world, and would look to take care of the issues in America. Which is much better in our point of view. No?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, E.L King said:
2 hours ago, Gaius I. Caesar said:

 The policy declared by President Nixon in 1969 that the U.S. would supply arms but not military forces to its allies in Asia and elsewhere. It actually set up the stage for American intervention in the Middle East by funding Saudi Arabia and Iran while removing troops in Vietnam and Korea. So by the time, Carter became president and the Shah was overthrown, it was never fully integrated into practice and dismantled  by Carter, who issued a new doctrine of his own. 

It had three parts summarized by Nixon as:

1. First, the United States will keep all of its treaty commitments.

2. Second, we shall provide a shield if a nuclear power threatens the freedom of a nation allied with us or of a nation whose survival we consider vital to our security.

3. Third, in cases involving other types of aggression, we shall furnish military and economic assistance when requested in accordance with our treaty commitments. But we shall look to the nation directly threatened to assume the primary responsibility of providing the manpower for its defense.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_Doctrine

^For more details. 

If Trump believes in isolation and an American First policy, that's much better than Hillary Clinton's policy which is anti-Russia and pro-goverment changing.

If he does.  He flip flops like crazy, I wouldn't believe anything he says anymore. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, E.L King said:

I don't believe either of them. I'm just saying his policies sound better on paper.

No, what you are saying is wrong, they actually don't. Not that Clinton's policies are any better, but Trump has vague policies and whenever someone asks him how is he going to implement them,he evades the question and starts talking about an irrelevant subject or about himself.  In other words, he has no clue what he's talking about. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gaius I. Caesar said:

No, what you are saying is wrong, they actually don't. Not that Clinton's policies are any better, but Trump has vague policies and whenever someone asks him how is he going to implement them,he evades the question and starts talking about an irrelevant subject or about himself.  In other words, he has no clue what he's talking about. 

His campaign is not about specific policies, but about emotion and feeling. Some will identify with them, others won't. Mentions of policy are just window dressing. In reality, policy specifics are crafted by other power actors within Congress and the extensive bureaucracy. He's not interested in it anyway. 

"Head of state" (symbolic and ideological overseer) and "head of government" (nitty gritty policy maker) are typically two different positions in many countries, but in the US, the two roles are often fused together in one position. Trump is interested only in the former, the latter role for the "smart people" he often cites he'll bring in.

This should be obvious by now, man. This has been the consistent theme during his whole campaign. You can't look at this through a conventional lens, no matter how much you force it. 

Edited by magma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, magma said:

His campaign is not about specific policies, but about emotion and feeling.

^ See, this is a huge problem with Trump, it's all about knee jerk reactions, emotion and feeling. In other words, drama.  Hell, if I wanted drama, I would have turned on TNT and stayed home. And you are totally right, I cannot relate to his emotional tactics at all. 

5 hours ago, magma said:

This should be obvious by now, man. This has been the consistent theme during his whole campaign. 

And I am saying that it is subpar. His entire theme is subpar, he says make America great again. Okay, but how? says Caesar and Mr.Trump talks about himself again. Consistency is a virtue but not with the Donald, only thing consistent with him at this point is his bigotry and discrimination. 

5 hours ago, magma said:

You can't look at this through a conventional lens, no matter how much you force it. 

Who said that I was looking at the election in a conventional lens?  Nothing about this election is conventional, and it is by far an highly unusual and *messy* election with possibly the two most repugnant candidates I ever had the misfortune of seeing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/video/2016-11-03/jill-stein-hillary-clinton-is-queen-of-corruption 

Plus: Newsweek  Condemns Susan Sarandon    (Huh? How is this about the election?)

http://newsweek.com/susan-sarandons-endorsement-dr-jill-stein-only-helps-donald-trump-516329 

Sarandon cites Queen Hillar's "record of corruption"

Edited by hasanhh
link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That 13-year-old accusations:

Before now, the "Jane Doe"/"Kate Johnson" pseudonym for a woman accusing Trump of "rape" when she was 13 -who has again forfeited her lawsuit- had her case dismissed by a woman Federal Judge in California last May for using an abandoned property as an address and a voice-mail as her phone number; then re-filed her case in NYC in June which was dismissed, and then filed a third time -a case which her lawyer withdrew this week.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/donald-trump-rape-lawsuit-dropped-230770 

The accuser has maintained anonymity and was to have a coming-out press conference this past Wednesday (02Nov16) but cancelled at the last minute citing "threats". (lf she was anonymous had could she be 'threatened' ? Only Trump-and-lawyers could know her name and threatening is not a smart thing to do.)

The Politico article reviews some of this but also has the detail that this girl-at-13 was attending men's parties in NYC, allegedly.

So where was this girl's parent, agent whomever?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read a report in Guardian that cites a female Trump voter who came up with the theory that there was "no racism" before Obama came to power, but now things are going out of control. She basically blamed Obama presidency for the rise in racial tensions on the streets of America.

About three years ago I came up with a wild conspiracy theory that the increase in police brutality against the black people might have a solid but unverifiable link with a black man coming to power in America against all odds. It was an outcome that was accepted but not easily digested. I took my share of flak for saying it but it seems a lot of people have arrived at the same conclusion. 

Police or law enforcement reflect a society's violence in its purest form and, anecdotally speaking, one way to assess violence (and its victims) in a society is to measure it up against how the law enforcement operates.

Come next elections and we have a phenomenon called Trump. Some see it as a reaction to Obama's race and what it may entail. According to Junot Díaz:

"There’s a long-term tradition of white supremacy in this country. Trump isn’t something entirely new. But then there is the crisis for white supremacy in this country now where you have people of color standing up for themselves in ways that they’ve never stood up for themselves or at least standing up for themselves in a generational, novel way.

Trump is explained with the intersection of a number of things: our economic crisis, the way it’s easier to blame immigrants, with the happenstance that he discovered that by bashing Latino immigrants and characterizing them as “rapists” and “murderers” and “scumbags,” suddenly he’s got this groundswell of support from a group of people who were raised on this vocabulary. 

Part of it is eight years of a black president, and white America still lost their [minds] about that."

http://lithub.com/22-famous-writers-on-donald-trump/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, hasanhh said:

^^^^^ @Marbles  Obama could not have won in 2008 and 2012 without the white vote.

There were still about 50% of voters who did not vote for him. Whatever their reasons, the reaction to Obama's race need only come from a small section of conservatives entrenched in the power system to get the race relations where they are today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The impossible has now passed: the demagogue has actually won the election! The Associated Press, Google and The Guardian have already declared him the winner, with 276 of the 270 votes he needed to win. God help us all. The next 4-8 years will definitely be very, very interesting, not to mention insanely hilarious if his current gaffes are any indication of how he's going to act in office.

https://www.google.com/search?q=trump&ie=&oe=#q=2016+US+election+results&eob=enn/o//////////////

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2016/nov/08/us-election-2016-polls-trump-clinton-live

http://www.msn.com/en-my/news/politics/trump-wins-white-house-in-astonishing-victory/ar-AAk4d93?li=AAaD62f

Canada, here come the 'Muricans!

Edited by Khadim uz Zahra

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...