TRUMP - Just because.....................Naw, I just can't say it!

POSTED BY: SHINYGOODGUY
UPDATED: Monday, March 9, 2026 20:06
VIEWED: 244478
PAGE 57 of 170

PREV PAGE 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 NEXT PAGE

SIGNYM

Tuesday, August 30, 2016 2:13 AM

Quote:
Not eight short years ago, you were frothing at the mouth because of GWB being a disastrous Commander in Chief. And in a discussion about Hillary's responsibility for Libya, did you not argue that only the President had the authority to send in American troops, absolving the Scy of State from any responsibility? Back then, you were OK with blaming the President. But now, are you trying to say that the President is just an innocent bystander to what Congress does? Is "Congress" your current excuse for the string of military and intelligence nightmares under Bush and Obama? - SIGNY

You're so serious. Lighten up. SECOND

Yeah, because nothing is more hi-larious than killing a million people and destabilizing a whole region. Do the lives of poor brown people elsewhere mean so little to you that it's inappropriate (in your mind) to be serious about them?

Quote:
Did you ever see the movie Speed (1994)? Sandra Bullock must drive a city bus full of passengers faster than 50mph or else the bus explodes. Hillary will be playing the role of Sandra Bullock and the Pentagon is the city bus. Congress plays the role of Dennis Hopper, the bus bomber who choose the speed of 50mph and is monitoring the bus by watching TV coverage from traffic helicopters.

Because the Republican Congress has managed to plant an explosive under the President's chair???

That has got to be the dumbest analogy I've read in quite a while! What credible threat can Congress bring to the table that it has not done already? Delay appointments? Block bills? Fail to pass a budget? Block appropriations? Been there, done that! Congress is like Dennis Hopper, with a sparkler instead of a bomb.

A Republican Congress will be as obstructive with Hillary as they were with Obama, which is why almost nothing of Hillary's domestic agenda will make it through, and why the DNC platform is 95% DOA.

But, let's take you at your word: Let's say that Congress will allow some of Hillary's domestic agenda through if she would only go to war with the "enemy" of the day.

Is that really a bargain she should be making? Is that really a bargain you would want? Which promises to do more damage: starting yet another foreign war, or sliding on some domestic priorities?

Quote:
If it was Trump driving instead of Hillary, he’d be on the sidewalk crushing pedestrians with the bus.

So you imagine. But unlike Hillary, who we have reliable foreign-policy experience with (war, more war, proxy war, and after that... maybe nuclear war) we really don't know what Trump would do.

--------------
I think it's time you disabused yourself of that pleasant little fairy tale about our fearless leaders being some sort of surrogate daddy or mommy, laying awake at night thinking about how to protect the kids. HA! In reality, they're thinking about who to sell them to so that they can get a few more shekels in their pockets.

SECOND

Tuesday, August 30, 2016 3:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
Not eight short years ago, you were frothing at the mouth because of GWB being a disastrous Commander in Chief. And in a discussion about Hillary's responsibility for Libya, did you not argue that only the President had the authority to send in American troops, absolving the Scy of State from any responsibility? Back then, you were OK with blaming the President. But now, are you trying to say that the President is just an innocent bystander to what Congress does? Is "Congress" your current excuse for the string of military and intelligence nightmares under Bush and Obama? - SIGNY

You're so serious. Lighten up. SECOND
Yeah, because nothing is more hi-larious than killing a million people and destabilizing a whole region. Do the lives of poor brown people elsewhere mean so little to you that it's inappropriate (in your mind) to be serous about them?

Quote:
Did you ever see the movie Speed (1994)? Sandra Bullock must drive a city bus full of passengers faster than 50mph or else the bus explodes. Hillary will be playing the role of Sandra Bullock and the Pentagon is the city bus. Congress plays the role of Dennis Hopper, the bus bomber who choose the speed of 50mph and is monitoring the bus by watching TV coverage from traffic helicopters.

Because the Republican Congress has managed to plant an explosive under the President's chair???

That has got to be the dumbest analogy I've read in quite a while! What credible threat can Congress bring to the table that it has not done already? Delay appointments? Block bills? Fail to pass a budget? Block appropriations? Been there, done that! Congress is like Dennis Hopper, with a sparkler instead of a bomb.

A Republican Congress will be as obstructive with Hillary as they were with Obama, which is why almost nothing of Hillary's domestic agenda will make it through, and why the DNC platform is 95% DOA.

But, let's take you at your word: Let's say that Congress will allow some of Hillary's domestic agenda through if she would only go to war with the "enemy" of the day.

Is that really a bargain she should be making? Is that really a bargain you would want? What promises to do more damage: starting yet another foreign war, or sliding on some domestic priorities?

Quote:
If it was Trump driving instead of Hillary, he’d be on the sidewalk crushing pedestrians with the bus.
So you imagine. But unlike Hillary, who we have reliable foreign-policy experience with (war, more war, proxy war, and after that... maybe nuclear war) we really don't know what Trump would do.

What will Trump do? What he said he'd do: nuke Syria to get ISIS. He made that very clear.
http://fortune.com/2016/03/23/trump-nuclear-weapons-isis/

You never grasped the point that Congress decides how much money the Pentagon has. With a reduced budget, about the size of China's military budget, the Pentagon could only cause about one fourth the misery in the world. When the USA is not at war, the Pentagon can't justify its budget, so war is what it will be. It doesn't matter who is President. Dumb Presidents like Bush will allow the Pentagon to piss away trillions and still not capture Osama bin Laden. A smarter President like Obama will murder bin Laden while also pissing away trillions on the Pentagon. But smart or dumb, Hillary or Trump, all the trillions of dollars that Congress provides will be wasted by the Pentagon. There is a nice article hinting at how the process works: "U.S. Army fudged its accounts by trillions of dollars, auditor finds". The Army won't even bother to count the money before wasting it.
www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-audit-army-idUSKCN10U1IG

So your choice is between a stupid President or smart one. Either way you're getting a war whether you like it or not. If you don't like war, get a different Congress, one that won't lavish so much money on the Pentagon and the Int

1KIKI

Tuesday, August 30, 2016 12:33 PM

Originally posted by second:
Because of the Constitution, there is no way for me to rein in Hillary, no more than I could rein in Bush/Cheney and their rein of error.

Thanks for making my point for me. I thought you'd never get there

There IS no plan B after a president is elected. But there is a plan A2, and that's to do something before the election. Which is to narrow Hillary's margin, to the point where she either breaks for republicans and loses democrats, or breaks for progressives and loses republicans.

Originally posted by second:
But Congress can by refusing to approve thousands of Hillary's judicial and cabinet and department appointments and all her budgets and all her drafts of legislation.

I think Signy debunked that wishful thinking.

Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!

1KIKI

Tuesday, August 30, 2016 12:39 PM

Tell me 1kiki, how does shooting trump, as a collaborator, start an 'overt military confrontation' with Russia? Is there something you wish to share with the class?

I see you couldn't follow the entire conversation. Hence, your pointless post. Well, I'm not going to spell the whole thing out for you.

Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!

1KIKI

Tuesday, August 30, 2016 12:46 PM

But with trump as president, watch out, WWIII could easily start with a stupid remark or thoughtless utterance from the SFB-in-Chief.

Putin is too savvy to start a war because someone said something stupid. If he was easily provoked by people throwing shade, we would have been toast a long time ago. And I hope you realize there are safeguards in place to prevent a US 'rogue president' from starting WWIII with an impulsive nuke launch.

CLINTON OTOH will stumble into war with the full support of Congress, the State Department, and the CIA. There is literally nothing standing between her policies and WWIII. Though I suppose with Iraq, Libya, Ukraine and Syria as examples of her excellent judgment, we can rest easy.

Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!

SECOND

Tuesday, August 30, 2016 7:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:

And I hope you realize there are safeguards in place to prevent a US 'rogue president' from starting WWIII with an impulsive nuke launch.

CLINTON OTOH will stumble into war with the full support of Congress, the State Department, and the CIA. There is literally nothing standing between her policies and WWIII.

Both you and Jayne tend to hyperventilate about Hillary.
https://twitter.com/AdamBaldwin/status/770490197326831616

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

THGRRI

Tuesday, August 30, 2016 8:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
But with trump as president, watch out, WWIII could easily start with a stupid remark or thoughtless utterance from the SFB-in-Chief.

Putin is too savvy to start a war because someone said something stupid. If he was easily provoked by people throwing shade, we would have been toast a long time ago. And I hope you realize there are safeguards in place to prevent a US 'rogue president' from starting WWIII with an impulsive nuke launch.

CLINTON OTOH will stumble into war with the full support of Congress, the State Department, and the CIA. There is literally nothing standing between her policies and WWIII. Though I suppose with Iraq, Libya, Ukraine and Syria as examples of her excellent judgment, we can rest easy.

Quote:
1kiki
Putin is too savvy to start a war because someone said something stupid. If he was easily provoked by people throwing shade, we would have been toast a long time ago. And I hope you realize there are safeguards in place to prevent a US 'rogue president' from starting WWIII with an impulsive nuke launch.

I see you defending and praising Putin again comrade. And for the record if anyone is going to be toast if our troops clash its Russia. Just for fun you can follow this link and launch nukes against the Russia Federation yourself. I just did comrade.

https://whitehouse.gov1.info/launch/launch-codes.html

Quote:
1kiki
CLINTON OTOH will stumble into war with the full support of Congress, the State Department, and the CIA. There is literally nothing standing between her policies and WWIII. Though I suppose with Iraq, Libya, Ukraine and Syria as examples of her excellent judgment, we can rest easy.

One never knows but we can see Putin not only threating his old satellite countries, but invading them for the purpose of stealing territory. I find it telling comrade that, that is just fine with you.

____________________________________________

Russia trolls get contract extension
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60719

SECOND

Wednesday, August 31, 2016 2:31 AM

What does Donald Trump believe? Whatever the last person to talk to him does, apparently.

Trump tends to echo the words of whomever last spoke to him, making direct access to him even more valuable, the people said, requesting anonymity to talk about internal campaign discussions.

Trump’s blithe inconsistencies, and his maddening insistence that the media is just misinterpreting what he said before, make a lot more sense if "Trump tends to echo the words of whomever last spoke to him."

That might mean we’ll never really know what Trump is thinking about immigration — or anything else. It should be treated as a terrifying trait in a possible future president.

The answer to “What’s President Donald Trump doing on immigration?” — a question on which the lives of millions of people hang — might depend on his schedule for the day.
www.vox.com/2016/8/29/12691276/trump-believe-flop-flop

1KIKI

Wednesday, August 31, 2016 8:41 AM

Both you and Jayne tend to hyperventilate about Hillary.

And once again you've dodged the facts I posted with your usual off-topic personal snark.

You make a GREAT advocate for your position! Not. Which is why I'll continue to scroll past.

Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!

SECOND

Wednesday, August 31, 2016 4:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:

And once again you've dodged the facts I posted with your usual off-topic personal snark.

You make a GREAT advocate for your position! Not. Which is why I'll continue to scroll past.

I've got the same amount influence with India vs Pakistan or S Korea vs N Korea as I have with Democrats vs Republicans vs 1kiki. None. I am only a momentary electronic whiff on the internet, so you are no different to me.

Voters are more and more resembling the Sunni vs Shiite style of thinking from Middle East politics. Their rule-or-die attitude will ruin the USA.
www.nytimes.com/2016/08/31/opinion/win-lose-but-no-compromise.html

More and more of our politics resemble the core sectarian conflict in the Middle East between these two branches of Islam, and that is not good. Because whether you’re talking about Shiites and Sunnis — or Iranians and Saudis, Israelis and Palestinians, Turks and Kurds — a simple binary rule dominates their politics: “I am strong, why should I compromise? I am weak, how can I compromise?”

With rare exceptions, the politics of the Middle East is just a seesaw game between those two modes of zero-sum, rule-or-die thinking. Rarely, these days, does either party stop to seek or forge common ground. It’s just: I am strong, so I don’t have to meet you in the middle, or I am weak, so I can’t meet you in the middle. Shiites stick with Shiites. Sunnis stick with Sunnis. Nothing else matters. You can see how well it’s worked for them.

In the USA, that kind of sectarian/tribal thinking is reinforced by left-right social media enforcers, gerrymandering and giant campaign funders.

Politics is about winning, but it’s also about winning with a mandate to govern. And right now, everything suggests that the next four years will be just like the last eight: a gridlocked, toxic, Sunni-Shiite, Democrat-Republican civil war, with little search for common ground. That’s how you ruin, not run, a great country.

GOP officials are already sketching plans “to stymie a President Hillary Clinton agenda.” Have a nice day.
www.politico.com/story/2016/08/hillary-clinton-presidency-gop-plan-227
427

www.gocomics.com/getfuzzy/2016/08/31

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

PREV PAGE 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 NEXT PAGE