Author Topic: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...  (Read 372676 times)

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2036
  • Age: 186
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1400 on: April 14, 2018, 09:01:36 AM »
Why has no one yet pointed out the irony of DJT pardoning an executive appointee of lying under oath and leaking classified information while publicly attacking another executive appointee for allegedly doing the same - lying under oath and leaking classified information?
ON --  THE  --  SAME --  DAY.
... Because this is our new normal.

Roadrunner53

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1559
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1401 on: April 14, 2018, 10:42:09 AM »
Is he golfing this weekend at Mara Lago? After the bombing, his tirade against Comey, his lawyer's office being raided, the doorman's story on his possible LOVE CHILD setting up the website lyincomey and pardoning Sccooter he must be exhausted. Just another week in the life of Donny.

Can't wait to see what the next episode of Donny Runs/Ruins the White House holds for us.

caracarn

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1238
  • Age: 48
  • Location: Ohio
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1402 on: April 16, 2018, 11:29:43 AM »
... except Jimmy Carter.
And he didn't get a second term. Moral of the story? Americans like blood! Give them blood, and they will love you.
As someone who was around for the Carter administration, I would respectfully disagree with you.

While it may appear from the outside that Americans are somehow all about beating someone else into submission, that is far from accurate.

Carter did not get a second term because of his lack of a foreign war, he simply was ineffective in getting anything done.  In addition there is a substantial portion of the American population that had issues with the engagements we got embroiled in.  George Jr.'s follow up to help daddy look good was one of the more recent.

Dabnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1204
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1403 on: April 16, 2018, 12:38:59 PM »
... except Jimmy Carter.
And he didn't get a second term. Moral of the story? Americans like blood! Give them blood, and they will love you.
As someone who was around for the Carter administration, I would respectfully disagree with you.

While it may appear from the outside that Americans are somehow all about beating someone else into submission, that is far from accurate.

Carter did not get a second term because of his lack of a foreign war, he simply was ineffective in getting anything done.  In addition there is a substantial portion of the American population that had issues with the engagements we got embroiled in.  George Jr.'s follow up to help daddy look good was one of the more recent.

Unfortunately approval ratings do not agree. Most presidents have seen a spike in approval ratings following military action. Here is a timeline for Bush Jr.

http://news.gallup.com/poll/116500/Presidential-Approval-Ratings-George-Bush.aspx

Many of the people who have issues with these engagements don't have those issues until after the fight is in progress and especially when things drag on longer than they expected. You know like Trump, who was adamantly against the war in Iraq 18 months after it began.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8625
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1404 on: April 16, 2018, 01:10:36 PM »
... except Jimmy Carter.
And he didn't get a second term. Moral of the story? Americans like blood! Give them blood, and they will love you.
As someone who was around for the Carter administration, I would respectfully disagree with you.

While it may appear from the outside that Americans are somehow all about beating someone else into submission, that is far from accurate.

Carter did not get a second term because of his lack of a foreign war, he simply was ineffective in getting anything done.  In addition there is a substantial portion of the American population that had issues with the engagements we got embroiled in.  George Jr.'s follow up to help daddy look good was one of the more recent.

Other than the fun sport of kicking the 'ugly American' - I have to say I'm a bit baffled by Kyle's post.  Near as I can tell, Australia has participated in nearly every modern conflict that their allies (US/France/UK) have.  Korea, Vietnam, Gulf Wars I & II, Afghanistan? check, check, double check and check.

Seems more accurate to say that virtually every developed nation has participated militarily in some armed conflict almost every single decade since WWII.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12073
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1405 on: April 16, 2018, 06:12:54 PM »
Even Japan?  The military went out of popularity pretty severely in the post WWII there . . .

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8625
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1406 on: April 16, 2018, 06:23:55 PM »
Even Japan?  The military went out of popularity pretty severely in the post WWII there . . .
yeah.. for historical reasons Japan hasn't been as militarily involved in post WWII conflicts.  Ditto Germany (though that's shifting).  And then there's the Swiss.
Mostly I was just taken aback that someone from Australia would fault the US for perpetually being involved in foreign wars.  A real pot-kettle moment.

More broadly this isn't even a historical anomaly.  I'd wager the norm is for large countries being in armed conflict more often than at peace going back several hundred years.

Kyle Schuant

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 511
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1407 on: April 16, 2018, 11:15:18 PM »
Near as I can tell, Australia has participated in nearly every modern conflict that their allies (US/France/UK) have.  Korea, Vietnam, Gulf Wars I & II, Afghanistan? check, check, double check and check.
This is correct. It's one of the things my country has to be ashamed of. When the UK was our imperial master, they also dragged us into pointless foreign conflicts, but at least they won them.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8625
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1408 on: April 17, 2018, 05:36:15 AM »
Near as I can tell, Australia has participated in nearly every modern conflict that their allies (US/France/UK) have.  Korea, Vietnam, Gulf Wars I & II, Afghanistan? check, check, double check and check.
This is correct. It's one of the things my country has to be ashamed of. When the UK was our imperial master, they also dragged us into pointless foreign conflicts, but at least they won them.
so... what's your point then?  Or are you just kicking the hornet's nest?

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3648
  • Location: Avalon
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1409 on: April 17, 2018, 05:48:43 AM »
Near as I can tell, Australia has participated in nearly every modern conflict that their allies (US/France/UK) have.  Korea, Vietnam, Gulf Wars I & II, Afghanistan? check, check, double check and check.
This is correct. It's one of the things my country has to be ashamed of. When the UK was our imperial master, they also dragged us into pointless foreign conflicts, but at least they won them.
so... what's your point then?  Or are you just kicking the hornet's nest?
It's usually been the USA in the lead on all these conflicts, hasn't it?  Dragging the others behind it?

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8625
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1410 on: April 17, 2018, 05:55:10 AM »
Near as I can tell, Australia has participated in nearly every modern conflict that their allies (US/France/UK) have.  Korea, Vietnam, Gulf Wars I & II, Afghanistan? check, check, double check and check.
This is correct. It's one of the things my country has to be ashamed of. When the UK was our imperial master, they also dragged us into pointless foreign conflicts, but at least they won them.
so... what's your point then?  Or are you just kicking the hornet's nest?
It's usually been the USA in the lead on all these conflicts, hasn't it?  Dragging the others behind it?

I don't buy that argument - all countries tout their independence as individual states, but when a conflict drags on the populace is quick to parrot "we're only here because of the US!". Either you are sovereign or you aren't.  Further, not all these conflicts were led by the US.

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3648
  • Location: Avalon
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1411 on: April 17, 2018, 06:18:56 AM »
Near as I can tell, Australia has participated in nearly every modern conflict that their allies (US/France/UK) have.  Korea, Vietnam, Gulf Wars I & II, Afghanistan? check, check, double check and check.
This is correct. It's one of the things my country has to be ashamed of. When the UK was our imperial master, they also dragged us into pointless foreign conflicts, but at least they won them.
so... what's your point then?  Or are you just kicking the hornet's nest?
It's usually been the USA in the lead on all these conflicts, hasn't it?  Dragging the others behind it?

I don't buy that argument - all countries tout their independence as individual states, but when a conflict drags on the populace is quick to parrot "we're only here because of the US!". Either you are sovereign or you aren't.  Further, not all these conflicts were led by the US.
Korea and Iraq 1 were UN so maybe arguable, although pretty clearly the USA was the biggest player in both, but I don't get who else precipated the others.

I agree each nation is sovereign.  Wilson kept the UK out of Vietnam and I wish Blair had tried to stop Iraq 2.

caracarn

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1238
  • Age: 48
  • Location: Ohio
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1412 on: April 17, 2018, 08:57:47 AM »
Near as I can tell, Australia has participated in nearly every modern conflict that their allies (US/France/UK) have.  Korea, Vietnam, Gulf Wars I & II, Afghanistan? check, check, double check and check.
This is correct. It's one of the things my country has to be ashamed of. When the UK was our imperial master, they also dragged us into pointless foreign conflicts, but at least they won them.
so... what's your point then?  Or are you just kicking the hornet's nest?
It's usually been the USA in the lead on all these conflicts, hasn't it?  Dragging the others behind it?

I don't buy that argument - all countries tout their independence as individual states, but when a conflict drags on the populace is quick to parrot "we're only here because of the US!". Either you are sovereign or you aren't.  Further, not all these conflicts were led by the US.
Korea and Iraq 1 were UN so maybe arguable, although pretty clearly the USA was the biggest player in both, but I don't get who else precipated the others.

I agree each nation is sovereign.  Wilson kept the UK out of Vietnam and I wish Blair had tried to stop Iraq 2.
This is when these discussions border on the absurd.  Of course we were the biggest player in both, because we have the largest military.  I'm sure we would have been more than happy to have someone else be the biggest player, except, oops, they don't have enough planes to even make another country take notice.  It's another disingenuous comment that fails against basic logic. 

Now don't get me wrong, I'd be more than happy if we just stayed out of conflicts and let them go on themselves, forever, because neither side has enough of an advantage on weaponry to actually win, or perhaps one does and we can just go back to countries being wiped off the face of the earth as they squabble around.  I'm definitely happy with NOT being the world's policeman.  But I think we'd get the same reaction from what was left of those countries as you would give your local police force if you needed help and they did not show up; a lot of whining about how could we just let this happen to them.

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3648
  • Location: Avalon
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1413 on: April 17, 2018, 09:35:56 AM »
Near as I can tell, Australia has participated in nearly every modern conflict that their allies (US/France/UK) have.  Korea, Vietnam, Gulf Wars I & II, Afghanistan? check, check, double check and check.
This is correct. It's one of the things my country has to be ashamed of. When the UK was our imperial master, they also dragged us into pointless foreign conflicts, but at least they won them.
so... what's your point then?  Or are you just kicking the hornet's nest?
It's usually been the USA in the lead on all these conflicts, hasn't it?  Dragging the others behind it?

I don't buy that argument - all countries tout their independence as individual states, but when a conflict drags on the populace is quick to parrot "we're only here because of the US!". Either you are sovereign or you aren't.  Further, not all these conflicts were led by the US.
Korea and Iraq 1 were UN so maybe arguable, although pretty clearly the USA was the biggest player in both, but I don't get who else precipated the others.

I agree each nation is sovereign.  Wilson kept the UK out of Vietnam and I wish Blair had tried to stop Iraq 2.
This is when these discussions border on the absurd.  Of course we were the biggest player in both, because we have the largest military.  I'm sure we would have been more than happy to have someone else be the biggest player, except, oops, they don't have enough planes to even make another country take notice.  It's another disingenuous comment that fails against basic logic. 

Now don't get me wrong, I'd be more than happy if we just stayed out of conflicts and let them go on themselves, forever, because neither side has enough of an advantage on weaponry to actually win, or perhaps one does and we can just go back to countries being wiped off the face of the earth as they squabble around.  I'm definitely happy with NOT being the world's policeman.  But I think we'd get the same reaction from what was left of those countries as you would give your local police force if you needed help and they did not show up; a lot of whining about how could we just let this happen to them.
"Biggest player" is diplomatic as well as military.   Or was, before Trump.

I suppose the question is: would some or all of those wars not have happened if the USA didn't want them to? Vietnam and Iraq 2 very obviously only happened because the USA wanted them.  Afghanistan too - while the rest of the world would have wanted Bin Laden dealt with, I can't see them trying to do it through massive ground forces.    Korea I don't know enough about, Iraq 1 was an obvious joint enterprise, particularly politically.

Would the world have been a better or worse place without the USA's wars?  For Vietnam and Iraq 2 probably better: almost certainly fewer people would have died early deaths.  Probably the same for Afghanistan, although the political imperative behind action was irresistible the methods employed created significant problems. 

Does the world want a police force that turns up to a robbery or similar level crime and turns it into a massacre?  Not really.
« Last Edit: April 17, 2018, 09:45:03 AM by former player »

caracarn

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1238
  • Age: 48
  • Location: Ohio
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1414 on: April 17, 2018, 11:36:57 AM »


"Biggest player" is diplomatic as well as military.   Or was, before Trump.

I suppose the question is: would some or all of those wars not have happened if the USA didn't want them to? Vietnam and Iraq 2 very obviously only happened because the USA wanted them.  Afghanistan too - while the rest of the world would have wanted Bin Laden dealt with, I can't see them trying to do it through massive ground forces.    Korea I don't know enough about, Iraq 1 was an obvious joint enterprise, particularly politically.

Would the world have been a better or worse place without the USA's wars?  For Vietnam and Iraq 2 probably better: almost certainly fewer people would have died early deaths.  Probably the same for Afghanistan, although the political imperative behind action was irresistible the methods employed created significant problems. 

Does the world want a police force that turns up to a robbery or similar level crime and turns it into a massacre?  Not really.

"No plan survives contact with the enemy". 

Whoever you attribute that quote to, this is what will happen once the bullets start flying, so it's still disingenuous to infer that the US always gets involved with some intent to turn things into a "massacre" as you say.  We're human and fallable.

As a student of history I still feel strongly that of the nations with the military capability to start a conflict, we still are the country who has done that far less often than others.  We did not fight territorial wars the way all the players in Europe did.  I appreciate that perspective is not always shared.  The Vietnam was was heavily protested because it became clear that it a bait and switch for the American public.  Same with WMD's are there, oops, they're really not Iraq 2.  As said the president can rather unilaterally get us into things without a lot of permission and then the quote ensues and we need to figure a way out and sometime these messes happen.  But implying the the US is a police force with malicious intent is not something I'm in agreement with.

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3648
  • Location: Avalon
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1415 on: April 17, 2018, 11:48:51 AM »
I don't think I've implied malicious intent?  I think it's probably more that there is overenthusiasm and optimism that turns into a quagmire of unintended consequences.  Which is probably the result of having such a big military and spending so much on it - to a man with a hammer every problem looks like a nail.  More effort on diplomacy would probably yield better long term results.

caracarn

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1238
  • Age: 48
  • Location: Ohio
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1416 on: April 17, 2018, 01:33:50 PM »
I don't think I've implied malicious intent?  I think it's probably more that there is overenthusiasm and optimism that turns into a quagmire of unintended consequences.  Which is probably the result of having such a big military and spending so much on it - to a man with a hammer every problem looks like a nail.  More effort on diplomacy would probably yield better long term results.
It still implies that we as a nation just like to play Call of Duty with the world.  If diplomacy worked that would be fine, but I do think in many cases diplomacy ends up being the thing that just allows more time to get stronger in the background.  Chamberlain tried diplomacy with Hitler.  Long term results, not so good.  At some point you need to understand when diplomacy is not working.  Does the US get involved too often?  Yes, I would agree with that.  But again, I do not think the hammer and nail analogy applies.  It's not our go to strategy, though it may appear that way from outside.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12073
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1417 on: April 17, 2018, 01:50:43 PM »
I don't think I've implied malicious intent?  I think it's probably more that there is overenthusiasm and optimism that turns into a quagmire of unintended consequences.  Which is probably the result of having such a big military and spending so much on it - to a man with a hammer every problem looks like a nail.  More effort on diplomacy would probably yield better long term results.

It still implies that we as a nation just like to play Call of Duty with the world

The US kinda did that the second time going into Iraq.  Then got bored and pulled out, leaving a giant power vacuum that ISIS filled.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8625
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1418 on: April 17, 2018, 03:15:02 PM »
I don't think I've implied malicious intent?  I think it's probably more that there is overenthusiasm and optimism that turns into a quagmire of unintended consequences.  Which is probably the result of having such a big military and spending so much on it - to a man with a hammer every problem looks like a nail.  More effort on diplomacy would probably yield better long term results.

It still implies that we as a nation just like to play Call of Duty with the world

The US kinda did that the second time going into Iraq.  Then got bored and pulled out, leaving a giant power vacuum that ISIS filled.

I think that is a false reading of what happened. The UN, backed by the US (under G W Bush) decided to topple Saddam Hussein's autocratic rule in 2003 and did so in under two months (capped by the now infamous "mission accomplished" speech and eventual capture of Hussein near a farmhouse).

But saying the US "got bored and pulled out" is false. We spent the next 8 years militarily involved, entrenched throughout Iraq and attempting to both rebuild infrastructure and prop up a government among the now openly warring sects.  It became yet another textbook example of a quagmire.  We even re-committed militarily several years after Saddam's defeat in an attempt to stomp out the fighting and force a government (ha!).  Ultimately it was the new Iraqi government that pushed out the US military in 2011.  At the time Obama was negotiating to allow several thousand troops to remain for training and security purposes. As it stands, 'Gulf War II' was one of our longer military campaigns and for 7+ years we had over 100,000 troops deployed.



Full disclosure: I never swallowed the 'pre-emptive strike" BS nor was a supporter of Gulf War II.

Kyle Schuant

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 511
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1419 on: April 18, 2018, 11:23:51 PM »
it's still disingenuous to infer that the US always gets involved with some intent to turn things into a "massacre" as you say.  We're human and fallable.
And yet it keeps happening. Which suggests if nothing else a failure to learn from experience. We are all fallible, but some of us are more fallible than others.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8625
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1420 on: April 19, 2018, 05:54:31 AM »
it's still disingenuous to infer that the US always gets involved with some intent to turn things into a "massacre" as you say.  We're human and fallable.
And yet it keeps happening. Which suggests if nothing else a failure to learn from experience. We are all fallible, but some of us are more fallible than others.

your argument seems to be that the US is involved in more military conflicts than other nations, and that these wars are fought specifically to boost the popularity of the president currently in power.

Even a cursory look at history calls into question the former; for centuries the defining state for most countries has been 'at conflict', not 'at peace'. Given that, your argument that its done because killing people is popular is also called into doubt.

Kyle Schuant

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 511
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1421 on: April 19, 2018, 07:24:52 AM »
I don't think popularity is their motive, I think it's frustration. Day-to-day popularity's not very important to someone who's in for a four year term unless they're impeached or die. They're like tenured professors, they have pretty good job security, even if only for four years.

The nature of the US Presidency is that everyone - including most candidates - think it's all-powerful, but there's actually very little they can do without someone else's co-operation. So they get frustrated and order some troops around. And after blowing up some brown people, they feel much better.

Popularity's just a nice side effect.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8625
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1422 on: April 19, 2018, 07:43:11 AM »
I don't think popularity is their motive, I think it's frustration. Day-to-day popularity's not very important to someone who's in for a four year term unless they're impeached or die. They're like tenured professors, they have pretty good job security, even if only for four years.

The nature of the US Presidency is that everyone - including most candidates - think it's all-powerful, but there's actually very little they can do without someone else's co-operation. So they get frustrated and order some troops around. And after blowing up some brown people, they feel much better.

Popularity's just a nice side effect.
Kyle, if your goal here is just to inflame people, please stop. Actually, regardless of your reasons, please knock it off.

You are directly accusing political leaders of waging war because "it makes them feel better" and because they are "bored".  You've even gone so far as to suggest that US leaders have orgasms after attacking other countries. Your posts on the matter lack all context and any suggestion that there's a military goal (flawed as it might be) for waging war on another country.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12073
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1423 on: April 19, 2018, 08:17:08 AM »
I don't think I've implied malicious intent?  I think it's probably more that there is overenthusiasm and optimism that turns into a quagmire of unintended consequences.  Which is probably the result of having such a big military and spending so much on it - to a man with a hammer every problem looks like a nail.  More effort on diplomacy would probably yield better long term results.

It still implies that we as a nation just like to play Call of Duty with the world

The US kinda did that the second time going into Iraq.  Then got bored and pulled out, leaving a giant power vacuum that ISIS filled.

I think that is a false reading of what happened. The UN, backed by the US (under G W Bush) decided to topple Saddam Hussein's autocratic rule in 2003 and did so in under two months (capped by the now infamous "mission accomplished" speech and eventual capture of Hussein near a farmhouse).

But saying the US "got bored and pulled out" is false. We spent the next 8 years militarily involved, entrenched throughout Iraq and attempting to both rebuild infrastructure and prop up a government among the now openly warring sects.  It became yet another textbook example of a quagmire.  We even re-committed militarily several years after Saddam's defeat in an attempt to stomp out the fighting and force a government (ha!).  Ultimately it was the new Iraqi government that pushed out the US military in 2011.  At the time Obama was negotiating to allow several thousand troops to remain for training and security purposes. As it stands, 'Gulf War II' was one of our longer military campaigns and for 7+ years we had over 100,000 troops deployed.



Full disclosure: I never swallowed the 'pre-emptive strike" BS nor was a supporter of Gulf War II.

The UN did not support the second Iraq war.  Kofi Annan (the head of the UN at the time) himself said that the war was illegal.  Under GW, the US manufactured lies about weapons of mass destruction and Al-Qaeda activities in Iraq to make the invasion more palatable.  Heck, at the beginning of the war Bush gave Saddam two days to surrender or face attacks . . . and then started bombing after one day.  That all indicates a driving eagerness to fight.

So what exactly were the military goals of that war?  It wasn't to stop an authoritative regime . . . as there were many other authoritative regimes at the time that were much more brutal that Saddam's.  It wasn't for the WMDs that didn't exist, and there was never any credible evidence of.  It wasn't because Iraq was fostering Al-Qaeda (they weren't significantly active in the country prior to the invasion).  There was no valid military reason given for the invasion.

"Winning" the war was always going to be easy.  The US is the strongest and best trained military force in the world - of course you're going to crush the poorly trained guys using a lot of outdated stuff.  That was never in doubt.  But there was no exit strategy for the war.  There was no credible strategy to rebuild the government, just (as you mentioned) feeble attempts to force one into place.  There was no understanding of the conflicts between the people who lived there.  Because of this, the invasion was quickly won . . . but was never really won.  It kept dragging on, as the US invaders became less and less popular with the people of the country they had 'liberated'.  The Iraq war went on for so long and used so many resources because of a total lack of planning done beforehand - which implies political timing rather than military reasons to attack.

Sure, the Iraqis didn't want the US there any more, but the Iraqi government had exactly as much power as America decided it would have.  (It's not like Saddam's much more powerful government was able to prevent the US from invading and doing whatever the fuck they wanted.)  The American people got bored of the war eventually, so troops were pulled out.  It wasn't because the war was really won, it wasn't because the country was stabilized, it wasn't because the government was on a firm footing, it wasn't because Americans were wildly unpopular in Iraq (they had been for years by this point).  It was because of lack of stomach to finish what had been started.  Which almost immediately led to the rise of ISIS in the area.

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2036
  • Age: 186
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1424 on: April 19, 2018, 10:34:10 AM »
The UN did not support the second Iraq war.  Kofi Annan (the head of the UN at the time) himself said that the war was illegal.  Under GW, the US manufactured lies about weapons of mass destruction and Al-Qaeda activities in Iraq to make the invasion more palatable.  Heck, at the beginning of the war Bush gave Saddam two days to surrender or face attacks . . . and then started bombing after one day.  That all indicates a driving eagerness to fight.

So what exactly were the military goals of that war?  It wasn't to stop an authoritative regime . . . as there were many other authoritative regimes at the time that were much more brutal that Saddam's.  It wasn't for the WMDs that didn't exist, and there was never any credible evidence of.  It wasn't because Iraq was fostering Al-Qaeda (they weren't significantly active in the country prior to the invasion).  There was no valid military reason given for the invasion.

"Winning" the war was always going to be easy.  The US is the strongest and best trained military force in the world - of course you're going to crush the poorly trained guys using a lot of outdated stuff.  That was never in doubt.  But there was no exit strategy for the war.  There was no credible strategy to rebuild the government, just (as you mentioned) feeble attempts to force one into place.  There was no understanding of the conflicts between the people who lived there.  Because of this, the invasion was quickly won . . . but was never really won.  It kept dragging on, as the US invaders became less and less popular with the people of the country they had 'liberated'.  The Iraq war went on for so long and used so many resources because of a total lack of planning done beforehand - which implies political timing rather than military reasons to attack.

Sure, the Iraqis didn't want the US there any more, but the Iraqi government had exactly as much power as America decided it would have.  (It's not like Saddam's much more powerful government was able to prevent the US from invading and doing whatever the fuck they wanted.)  The American people got bored of the war eventually, so troops were pulled out.  It wasn't because the war was really won, it wasn't because the country was stabilized, it wasn't because the government was on a firm footing, it wasn't because Americans were wildly unpopular in Iraq (they had been for years by this point).  It was because of lack of stomach to finish what had been started.  Which almost immediately led to the rise of ISIS in the area.

Wolfowitz and the other neoconservatives had wanted a war and regime change in Iraq for years. It was going to be the start of a whole party, including follow up wars on Syria, Iran, etc. (Remember McCain singing, "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran"?). The motives behind Iraq are actually pretty clearly laid out in the 9/11 commission report (a recommended read). The regime change was going to have us "greeted as liberators", so quote Dick Cheney. Setting aside the hubris of the whole notion, it was also a case of the optimism ray gun (to borrow an MMM phrase) turned up wayyyy too high. Just because you dream it, doesn't mean it will come true. Honestly, I think that the change in behavior over the sunset of his presidency and subsequent silence of Bush Jr. has a lot to do with a realization of the consequences of his actions and bowing to the influence of his advisors/handlers. Most of his national security staff was assembled prior to him running (based on interview with Condoleeza Rice in which she discusses a meeting selecting GW).  But hey, at least now we have limitless oil! (oh wait....)

thd7t

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1206
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1425 on: April 19, 2018, 12:04:15 PM »
So, I know that with this administration nothing can be counted on until it has already happened, but it's a big deal that the US has had any direct talks with North Korea.

I don't believe that Mike Pompeo is the right person for the job of diplomacy and I don't think that Trump is the right person to negotiate with North Korea and I don't believe that this will lead to greater stability, but I admit that I never saw this coming.

I will admit that it makes sense to me, now, considering Trump's fondness for dictators.

Dabnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1204
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1426 on: April 19, 2018, 12:26:37 PM »
The UN did not support the second Iraq war.  Kofi Annan (the head of the UN at the time) himself said that the war was illegal.  Under GW, the US manufactured lies about weapons of mass destruction and Al-Qaeda activities in Iraq to make the invasion more palatable.  Heck, at the beginning of the war Bush gave Saddam two days to surrender or face attacks . . . and then started bombing after one day.  That all indicates a driving eagerness to fight.

So what exactly were the military goals of that war?  It wasn't to stop an authoritative regime . . . as there were many other authoritative regimes at the time that were much more brutal that Saddam's.  It wasn't for the WMDs that didn't exist, and there was never any credible evidence of.  It wasn't because Iraq was fostering Al-Qaeda (they weren't significantly active in the country prior to the invasion).  There was no valid military reason given for the invasion.

"Winning" the war was always going to be easy.  The US is the strongest and best trained military force in the world - of course you're going to crush the poorly trained guys using a lot of outdated stuff.  That was never in doubt.  But there was no exit strategy for the war.  There was no credible strategy to rebuild the government, just (as you mentioned) feeble attempts to force one into place.  There was no understanding of the conflicts between the people who lived there.  Because of this, the invasion was quickly won . . . but was never really won.  It kept dragging on, as the US invaders became less and less popular with the people of the country they had 'liberated'.  The Iraq war went on for so long and used so many resources because of a total lack of planning done beforehand - which implies political timing rather than military reasons to attack.

Sure, the Iraqis didn't want the US there any more, but the Iraqi government had exactly as much power as America decided it would have.  (It's not like Saddam's much more powerful government was able to prevent the US from invading and doing whatever the fuck they wanted.)  The American people got bored of the war eventually, so troops were pulled out.  It wasn't because the war was really won, it wasn't because the country was stabilized, it wasn't because the government was on a firm footing, it wasn't because Americans were wildly unpopular in Iraq (they had been for years by this point).  It was because of lack of stomach to finish what had been started.  Which almost immediately led to the rise of ISIS in the area.

Wolfowitz and the other neoconservatives had wanted a war and regime change in Iraq for years. It was going to be the start of a whole party, including follow up wars on Syria, Iran, etc. (Remember McCain singing, "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran"?). The motives behind Iraq are actually pretty clearly laid out in the 9/11 commission report (a recommended read). The regime change was going to have us "greeted as liberators", so quote Dick Cheney. Setting aside the hubris of the whole notion, it was also a case of the optimism ray gun (to borrow an MMM phrase) turned up wayyyy too high. Just because you dream it, doesn't mean it will come true. Honestly, I think that the change in behavior over the sunset of his presidency and subsequent silence of Bush Jr. has a lot to do with a realization of the consequences of his actions and bowing to the influence of his advisors/handlers. Most of his national security staff was assembled prior to him running (based on interview with Condoleeza Rice in which she discusses a meeting selecting GW).  But hey, at least now we have limitless oil! (oh wait....)

To bring this full circle back to Trump:

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/markaz/2016/09/16/trumps-take-the-oil-madness/

I've never fully understood his stance here, perhaps because he's never fully explained it. I even tried reading "The Art of the Deal" once to get a better idea of who this guy is but I couldn't stomach it. If I recall correctly the whole first chapter rambles on about why Iraq owes us their oil for saving them. Luckily I don't think this is something he's pursued as president, maybe advisors steered him away from the idea, but if this pops back into his brain one day it could be one of the most dangerous situations that comes from his presidency. Or not, hard to say honestly.

For now I'll be optimistic and assume this was just one of those things he said to get the nationalistic crowd worked up.

thd7t

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1206
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1427 on: April 19, 2018, 12:30:22 PM »
The UN did not support the second Iraq war.  Kofi Annan (the head of the UN at the time) himself said that the war was illegal.  Under GW, the US manufactured lies about weapons of mass destruction and Al-Qaeda activities in Iraq to make the invasion more palatable.  Heck, at the beginning of the war Bush gave Saddam two days to surrender or face attacks . . . and then started bombing after one day.  That all indicates a driving eagerness to fight.

So what exactly were the military goals of that war?  It wasn't to stop an authoritative regime . . . as there were many other authoritative regimes at the time that were much more brutal that Saddam's.  It wasn't for the WMDs that didn't exist, and there was never any credible evidence of.  It wasn't because Iraq was fostering Al-Qaeda (they weren't significantly active in the country prior to the invasion).  There was no valid military reason given for the invasion.

"Winning" the war was always going to be easy.  The US is the strongest and best trained military force in the world - of course you're going to crush the poorly trained guys using a lot of outdated stuff.  That was never in doubt.  But there was no exit strategy for the war.  There was no credible strategy to rebuild the government, just (as you mentioned) feeble attempts to force one into place.  There was no understanding of the conflicts between the people who lived there.  Because of this, the invasion was quickly won . . . but was never really won.  It kept dragging on, as the US invaders became less and less popular with the people of the country they had 'liberated'.  The Iraq war went on for so long and used so many resources because of a total lack of planning done beforehand - which implies political timing rather than military reasons to attack.

Sure, the Iraqis didn't want the US there any more, but the Iraqi government had exactly as much power as America decided it would have.  (It's not like Saddam's much more powerful government was able to prevent the US from invading and doing whatever the fuck they wanted.)  The American people got bored of the war eventually, so troops were pulled out.  It wasn't because the war was really won, it wasn't because the country was stabilized, it wasn't because the government was on a firm footing, it wasn't because Americans were wildly unpopular in Iraq (they had been for years by this point).  It was because of lack of stomach to finish what had been started.  Which almost immediately led to the rise of ISIS in the area.

Wolfowitz and the other neoconservatives had wanted a war and regime change in Iraq for years. It was going to be the start of a whole party, including follow up wars on Syria, Iran, etc. (Remember McCain singing, "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran"?). The motives behind Iraq are actually pretty clearly laid out in the 9/11 commission report (a recommended read). The regime change was going to have us "greeted as liberators", so quote Dick Cheney. Setting aside the hubris of the whole notion, it was also a case of the optimism ray gun (to borrow an MMM phrase) turned up wayyyy too high. Just because you dream it, doesn't mean it will come true. Honestly, I think that the change in behavior over the sunset of his presidency and subsequent silence of Bush Jr. has a lot to do with a realization of the consequences of his actions and bowing to the influence of his advisors/handlers. Most of his national security staff was assembled prior to him running (based on interview with Condoleeza Rice in which she discusses a meeting selecting GW).  But hey, at least now we have limitless oil! (oh wait....)

To bring this full circle back to Trump:

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/markaz/2016/09/16/trumps-take-the-oil-madness/

I've never fully understood his stance here, perhaps because he's never fully explained it. I even tried reading "The Art of the Deal" once to get a better idea of who this guy is but I couldn't stomach it. If I recall correctly the whole first chapter rambles on about why Iraq owes us their oil for saving them. Luckily I don't think this is something he's pursued as president, maybe advisors steered him away from the idea, but if this pops back into his brain one day it could be one of the most dangerous situations that comes from his presidency. Or not, hard to say honestly.

For now I'll be optimistic and assume this was just one of those things he said to get the nationalistic crowd worked up.
Wait, what?  Wasn't the Art of the Deal published in the 80's?

Dabnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1204
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1428 on: April 19, 2018, 12:47:46 PM »

To bring this full circle back to Trump:

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/markaz/2016/09/16/trumps-take-the-oil-madness/

I've never fully understood his stance here, perhaps because he's never fully explained it. I even tried reading "The Art of the Deal" once to get a better idea of who this guy is but I couldn't stomach it. If I recall correctly the whole first chapter rambles on about why Iraq owes us their oil for saving them. Luckily I don't think this is something he's pursued as president, maybe advisors steered him away from the idea, but if this pops back into his brain one day it could be one of the most dangerous situations that comes from his presidency. Or not, hard to say honestly.

For now I'll be optimistic and assume this was just one of those things he said to get the nationalistic crowd worked up.
Wait, what?  Wasn't the Art of the Deal published in the 80's?

87' apparently. I don't really remember what he was going on about then but I guess he's been set on the idea that someone in the Middle East owes us oil for a long time. Perhaps it was another Trump book?

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2036
  • Age: 186
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1429 on: April 19, 2018, 02:11:25 PM »
First hit on Google:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/21/donald-trump-iraq-war-oil-strategy-seizure-isis

For the record, I believe this is the foreign policy equivalent of gaslighting, in which you do something terrible to someone (blow up their country), and then victim blame (say they should be thankful and repay us for our incurred expense).

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8625
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1430 on: April 19, 2018, 03:12:32 PM »
First hit on Google:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/21/donald-trump-iraq-war-oil-strategy-seizure-isis

For the record, I believe this is the foreign policy equivalent of gaslighting, in which you do something terrible to someone (blow up their country), and then victim blame (say they should be thankful and repay us for our incurred expense).
Isn't it also against the fourth Geneva convention...?
https://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/09/08/trumps-take-the-oil-plan-would-violate-geneva-conventions-experts-say/

Basically DJT is advocated a 19th-century approach which has been strictly prohibited and could be considered a war crime today.

thd7t

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1206
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1431 on: April 20, 2018, 06:11:35 AM »
First hit on Google:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/21/donald-trump-iraq-war-oil-strategy-seizure-isis

For the record, I believe this is the foreign policy equivalent of gaslighting, in which you do something terrible to someone (blow up their country), and then victim blame (say they should be thankful and repay us for our incurred expense).
Isn't it also against the fourth Geneva convention...?
https://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/09/08/trumps-take-the-oil-plan-would-violate-geneva-conventions-experts-say/

Basically DJT is advocated a 19th-century approach which has been strictly prohibited and could be considered a war crime today.
This is pretty much par for the course for him.  Everything is transactional.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12073
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1432 on: April 20, 2018, 08:32:52 AM »
First hit on Google:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/21/donald-trump-iraq-war-oil-strategy-seizure-isis

For the record, I believe this is the foreign policy equivalent of gaslighting, in which you do something terrible to someone (blow up their country), and then victim blame (say they should be thankful and repay us for our incurred expense).
Isn't it also against the fourth Geneva convention...?
https://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/09/08/trumps-take-the-oil-plan-would-violate-geneva-conventions-experts-say/

Basically DJT is advocated a 19th-century approach which has been strictly prohibited and could be considered a war crime today.

Yeah, but Americans don't give a shit about the Geneva Conventions.

Guantanamo Bay is a facility used by the United States to torture and humiliate suspected terrorists who were unlawfully taken hostage in countries around the world and imprisoned with no chance of a trial in a legitimate court.  That's a pretty straight-forward violation of Article 3.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7342
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1433 on: April 20, 2018, 01:59:27 PM »
Guantanamo Bay is a facility used by the United States to torture and humiliate suspected terrorists who were unlawfully taken hostage in countries around the world and imprisoned with no chance of a trial in a legitimate court.  That's a pretty straight-forward violation of Article 3.

Private Lynndie agrees with this post.

(wikipedia link to NSFW torture porn by American servicemember.)

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1705
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1434 on: April 21, 2018, 11:21:44 AM »
Trump claims Cohen won't flip. Which of course begs the obvious question, if Trump has done nothing wrong, why would he need to "flip?"

GrayGhost

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 374
  • Location: USA
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1435 on: April 21, 2018, 12:56:01 PM »
First hit on Google:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/21/donald-trump-iraq-war-oil-strategy-seizure-isis

For the record, I believe this is the foreign policy equivalent of gaslighting, in which you do something terrible to someone (blow up their country), and then victim blame (say they should be thankful and repay us for our incurred expense).
Isn't it also against the fourth Geneva convention...?
https://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/09/08/trumps-take-the-oil-plan-would-violate-geneva-conventions-experts-say/

Basically DJT is advocated a 19th-century approach which has been strictly prohibited and could be considered a war crime today.

Yeah, but Americans don't give a shit about the Geneva Conventions.

Guantanamo Bay is a facility used by the United States to torture and humiliate suspected terrorists who were unlawfully taken hostage in countries around the world and imprisoned with no chance of a trial in a legitimate court.  That's a pretty straight-forward violation of Article 3.

While extreme, these statements are in fact true. The excesses of the War on Terror have been egregious and (in most cases) unpunished. The cases of Khalid el Masri, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, and Dilawar are just examples of what you can Google up to immediately be convinced that not everything done in the name of protecting the US has been legal, justifiable, or moral.

NoStacheOhio

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2149
  • Location: Cleveland
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1436 on: April 23, 2018, 07:16:14 AM »
Trump claims Cohen won't flip. Which of course begs the obvious question, if Trump has done nothing wrong, why would he need to "flip?"

Something something something DEEP STATE!!!!!

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1705
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1437 on: April 24, 2018, 05:08:11 AM »
Ahhhhh it just keeps getting better. Trump claims to have not spent the night in Moscow yet flight records show him landing on a Friday and not departing again until early Sunday morning. Maybe he is just such a big part animal that he never had to sleep. Or more likely he spent a night or two studying trickle down economics. 

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8625
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1438 on: April 24, 2018, 05:29:37 AM »
Ahhhhh it just keeps getting better. Trump claims to have not spent the night in Moscow yet flight records show him landing on a Friday and not departing again until early Sunday morning. Maybe he is just such a big part animal that he never had to sleep. Or more likely he spent a night or two studying trickle down economics.
source?  (not doubting...just wanted to read more)


nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8625
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1440 on: April 24, 2018, 07:15:52 AM »
what I find interesting about this is (a-la Comey) Trump uses other people's recollections to refute claims that he spent the night in Moscow.  Plausible deniability?
Quote from: Comey
"[Trump had] spoken to people who had been on Ö the trip ... and they had reminded him that he didnít stay over night in Russia"

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12073
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1441 on: April 24, 2018, 07:38:24 AM »
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/flight-records-contradict-trump-pee-tape-whereabouts_us_5ade5610e4b036e7aeb59162

To be fair . . . with most people I'd say that this is a smoking gun.  With Trump though?  The guy lies all the time.  He lies reflexively, about stuff that does and doesn't matter.  Just catching him in a lie doesn't really mean anything.  I've come to suspect that this is a symptom of some sort of mental disease/degradation rather than cold calculated political manipulation . . . but I guess history will determine which of the two it is.

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3648
  • Location: Avalon
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1442 on: April 24, 2018, 08:24:34 AM »
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/flight-records-contradict-trump-pee-tape-whereabouts_us_5ade5610e4b036e7aeb59162

To be fair . . . with most people I'd say that this is a smoking gun.  With Trump though?  The guy lies all the time.  He lies reflexively, about stuff that does and doesn't matter.  Just catching him in a lie doesn't really mean anything.  I've come to suspect that this is a symptom of some sort of mental disease/degradation rather than cold calculated political manipulation . . . but I guess history will determine which of the two it is.

There's definitely something twisted about the Trump thought processes, seemingly always to do with a hyper need to protect his ego.  But I'd call his lying a habit rather than a symptom of disease, and I think Nereo's point about using others for (im)plausible deniability is a good one. 

Roadrunner53

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1559
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1443 on: April 24, 2018, 08:41:41 AM »
Will anything stop him? Will he serve out his first term? Will he serve a second term?


nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8625
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1444 on: April 24, 2018, 08:54:02 AM »
Will anything stop him? Will he serve out his first term? Will he serve a second term?
Will he serve a second term? Depends largely on who the Dems put up. As it currently stands, any candidate who can garner just a fraction of a percent more support than HRC would win if the election were held today (given the closeness of the previous race and DJT's low support/high disapproval numbers. This of course could change in 2+ years

Will he serve out his first term? I'd say it depends hugely on teh midterms. Forget impeachment - a flipped house could run a real investigation and disseminate their findings to the public. they could also compell DJT to release his tax forms and other business dealings in the form of new legislation. He could be censured for recent and future acts. I wonder if that alone would cause him to take his ball and go home (i.e. resign, declaring victory and dumping everything onto Pence).

Orca2

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 16
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1445 on: April 24, 2018, 08:56:56 AM »
Who ever thought we would be talking about the president - daily - in this manner?  It's like drinking from the fire hose but the water is coming directly from the toilet.

PathtoFIRE

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 523
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Dallas
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1446 on: April 24, 2018, 09:53:54 AM »
Here's the original reporting on Trump's flight records

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-23/flight-records-illuminate-mystery-of-trump-s-moscow-nights

Here's an article from last summer detailing some of what Trump was up to in Moscow

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-13/trump-s-two-nights-of-parties-in-moscow-reverberate-years-later

Here's reporting from the BBC in which the CIA confirms the existence of compromising Trump tapes from Moscow

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38589427
Quote
Later, I used an intermediary to pass some questions to active duty CIA officers dealing with the case file - they would not speak to me directly. I got a message back that there was "more than one tape", "audio and video", on "more than one date", in "more than one place" - in the Ritz-Carlton in Moscow and also in St Petersburg - and that the material was "of a sexual nature".
« Last Edit: April 24, 2018, 10:04:22 AM by PathtoFIRE »

Roadrunner53

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1559
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1447 on: April 24, 2018, 09:56:01 AM »
You know if he ever resigns he will thump his chest and claim everyone is against him and he can't run a government with fake news and a conspiracy against him. He will claim his presidency was the greatest and accomplished everything it said it would and the world is a better place. That there will never be a better, greater president. All the history books should be burnt and he should be declared the first president of the USA. A year before he leaves he will have statues as big as pyramids built of him and placed in every State. The Statues will be voice activated and say NO COLLUSION, FAKE NEWS, YOU'RE FIRED, HUGE...

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7342
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1448 on: April 24, 2018, 10:25:37 AM »
You know if he ever resigns he will thump his chest and claim everyone is against him and he can't run a government with fake news and a conspiracy against him.

See, I'm kind of expecting the exact opposite.  He won't complain about the obstacles, he'll just celebrate victory.  I think he'll leave office and abandon all pretense of presidential behavior.  His whole life has been publicity-seeking unabashed self promotion "yea I fucked her, she was a dirty whore and it was awesome" before he became president, and I think he's really struggling to maintain some image of respectability in his current job.  As soon as the pressure is off, he's going right back on the Howard Stern show to brag about his sexual exploits and the size of his penis again. 

I know a handful of guys who drive big trucks and love that the President is "a man's man", by which they mean anti-feminist and unabashedly racist.  They don't want him to be polite or proper.  They celebrate the fact that he fucks porn stars (while his post-partum wife recovers from childbirth) like it's a badge of honor, the way they wish they could live if only they were rich and famous enough to get away with it.  They think missile strikes are like orgasms, and they know that "Build the Wall" is just his way of re-normalizing white supremacy.  The pee tape is fucking sweet.  Obama is a weak liberal cuck and Trump is making America great again every time he grabs a pussy or shits on a cabinet secretary or murders some brown people. 

In this world, Trump doesn't need or want monuments built to him, he's just partying his way through life without a care in the world and we're all being dragged along with the awesomeness, kicking and screaming whether we like it or not, like Trump radiates every man's fantasy of success and we all can't help but soak up the excess.  He'll finish his term, light up a cigarette, and say "yea, that was pretty fun, what's next" and then he'll go off to bang a supermodel in his private jet while Mitch McConnell fetches drinks for afterwards.

So there can be no constitutional crisis.  Of course he colluded, of course he obstructed, of course he's shady and corrupt, because that's how you "win" at life and they think Trump is a lifelong winner.  They don't care how many laws he broke, because the true exercise of power is to deliberately break laws and get away with it, because you know how to own the system.  Just like deliberately cheating on all of your wives and getting away with it, or deliberately defrauding a bank on a casino loan and getting away with it, or deliberately stealing an election and getting away with it.  See?  He just can't lose.

Aging blue-collar white boomers are nostalgic for the idealized vision of their youth, when a high school education guaranteed a factory floor job making more than median wage, brown people called you sir, and your wife always had dinner and a martini waiting for you when you got home from banging your side piece.  Liberals have ruined every single part of that sentence.  I sort of understand why they like Trump, if they think he's an antidote to the last three decades of progress.  The world is changing, and not for the better if you're in their demographic.

Roadrunner53

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1559
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1449 on: April 24, 2018, 10:48:04 AM »
All good points Sol! Love this part: He'll finish his term, light up a cigarette, and say "yea, that was pretty fun, what's next" and then he'll go off to bang a supermodel in his private jet while Mitch McConnell fetches drinks for afterwards. HAHAHA!

Since being retired we have been paying more attention to politics than we ever did in our entire lives. Just amazing what Donny gets away with. It is jaw dropping and every day it is something else! Just when you think there couldn't be one more startling thing possible, it happens day after day!

I would like to know if they will find out where Cohen got the $130,000 to pay Stormy? He claims he took out a home equity loan to pay her???? Seriously! Could it be from the campaign funds? I can't wait for Mueller to have the BIG REVEAL!