Is Trump Nuts?
POSTED BY: THGRRI
UPDATED: Tuesday, September 1, 2026 23:49
VIEWED: 120217
PAGE 45 of 100
It might not really matter. Only time will tell. If Trumps actions in the last 48 hours are any indication of what is to come than we might as well have voted Hillary in for the presidency.
Now we wait.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Nick, Second,
You guys like democracy when you win, and not when you don't. You'd rather have a coup than lose an election. While the Sanders camp is talking about who to run in 2020, the Clinton camp is talking about how to empower the CIA to overthrow the govt. One side doesn't belong in the "democratic" party.
I'm towing no line. At the moment Trump is looking okay to me. Did you notice how quickly I was willing to give up if he went into all out war on Syria? But it seems like the bombing was an organized op he and Putin worked out to throw the deep state off the scent. I'll have to accept that as necessary if it was.
But Sig has a point, if anyone is reading what she posts. If Trump signs on to the PNAC agenda, then what advantage did any of us gain. I get that T will be happy again, but it's not going to help.
Second, yes, it's the Hillary camp that started the empower Pence idea. I don't like that idea because I'm no fan of Pence. Hillary said he's harder to beat. I care less about winning elections and more about having sensible policy. Pence is a smart guy, but he's also a right wing establishment oil & coal guy. I think he's Trump's environmental problem, and it would get worse in a Pence admin. I'd rather keep Trump.
T, as for Putin, I have serious issues with Putin, more than I have with Trump. That said, he's resistance to globalism and World War. If I were a Russian or voted in their elections, I might consider other options. I know Kasperov, which of course would color my vote, but from an ideological perspective, I think a lot of Russians might support him, a lot might support Poklonskaya, who is more of a nationalist. What you're not going to see is a pro-globalist Russia. Nor are you going to see a defeat of Russia by the west. We have a couple thousand years of history on that one. We got a pro-Western ruler in for four years and used him to crash the Russian economy. They won't forgive that for centuries. You remove Putin by some other means than an election and you won't get Kasperov or Poklonskaya, you'll get another strongman just like him with less restraint, which won't be good for either of us, and much worse for everyone in the middle.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It is in the Constitution, NOT Hillary’s idea, to replace Trump with VP Pence, if Trump is slightly less or more crooked than Nixon. The Constitution does make any allowances for you liking a crooked President better than an honest Vice-President. Except in Nixon's case, V.P. Spiro Agnew was a bigger crook than Nixon. Agnew resigned rather than go to jail for tax evasion and taking bribes. Once Agnew's past got a proper investigation, after he was elected, he was ruined by what was found. Agnew is a very small time criminal compared to what Trump could have done in the last 30 years with his mysterious taxes he won't reveal to investigators. Nothing about Trump's past got non-partisan Congressional scrutiny before the election. Now is the time and the next four years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiro_Agnew#Criminal_investigation_and_r
esignation
In 1972, Republican voters were whining that Nixon was an honest man and Watergate was a witch hunt intended to overthrow a democratically elected President. It took hundreds of days of investigations by Congress to prove Nixon was a crook.
All the while Nixon was declaring he was innocent (innocent!) he told the world. Expect the same from Trump, declaring his innocence, with even more shouting and less dignity than Nixon.
Too bad Trump will not help prove his innocence by turning over his tax returns and placing his businesses into a real blind trust. It will take hundreds of days to prove Trump is, or is not, a crook. Congress has not even started the work they are responsible for in the Constitution. Congress is faking it.
Quote:
Originally posted by DREAMTROVE:
Nick, Second,
You guys like democracy when you win, and not when you don't. You'd rather have a coup than lose an election. While the Sanders camp is talking about who to run in 2020, the Clinton camp is talking about how to empower the CIA to overthrow the govt. One side doesn't belong in the "democratic" party.
I'm towing no line. At the moment Trump is looking okay to me. Did you notice how quickly I was willing to give up if he went into all out war on Syria? But it seems like the bombing was an organized op he and Putin worked out to throw the deep state off the scent. I'll have to accept that as necessary if it was.
But Sig has a point, if anyone is reading what she posts. If Trump signs on to the PNAC agenda, then what advantage did any of us gain. I get that T will be happy again, but it's not going to help.
Second, yes, it's the Hillary camp that started the empower Pence idea. I don't like that idea because I'm no fan of Pence. Hillary said he's harder to beat. I care less about winning elections and more about having sensible policy. Pence is a smart guy, but he's also a right wing establishment oil & coal guy. I think he's Trump's environmental problem, and it would get worse in a Pence admin. I'd rather keep Trump.
T, as for Putin, I have serious issues with Putin, more than I have with Trump. That said, he's resistance to globalism and World War. If I were a Russian or voted in their elections, I might consider other options. I know Kasperov, which of course would color my vote, but from an ideological perspective, I think a lot of Russians might support him, a lot might support Poklonskaya, who is more of a nationalist. What you're not going to see is a pro-globalist Russia. Nor are you going to see a defeat of Russia by the west. We have a couple thousand years of history on that one. We got a pro-Western ruler in for four years and used him to crash the Russian economy. They won't forgive that for centuries. You remove Putin by some other means than an election and you won't get Kasperov or Poklonskaya, you'll get another strongman just like him with less restraint, which won't be good for either of us, and much worse for everyone in the middle.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Not the intention to be used to overthrow the president. I know it wasn't a democracy, but that's not really a due process, it's whining. Bear in mind that it has never happened, no vice president has been installed, etc. I don't know why you don't like Trump. I'm not sure there is a reason. I'm sure this approach doesn't get you anywhere. Support a candidate to run in 2020, or move somewhere with a world leader you like, or let it go.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Agreed.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Republicans said the same about Nixon: “Shutup! He’s my President! His (Vietnam) War is to protect America from Commies, you dirty hippies!” Nixon won by a landslide in 1972. And yet Nixon and his V.P. got kicked from office in 1973-74 for small crimes. Nixon did worse than Watergate, which was a small crime he committed in 1971 to prevent public knowledge of a big crime Nixon committed in 1968, before he was President.
www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-f-will-nixons-long-shadow/2014/
08/06/fad8c00c-1ccb-11e4-ae54-0cfe1f974f8a_story.html
There are 25 million reasons to think Trump has something crooked in his past worse than anything Nixon or Spiro Agnew did. The first step to proving Trump is clean, innocent and wholesome is reading Trump’s income tax returns. The next step is a real investigation by Congress, not the fake one the Republicans are doing.
http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/18/news/trump-university-settlement-payme
nt/
Quote:
Originally posted by DREAMTROVE:
Not the intention to be used to overthrow the president. I know it wasn't a democracy, but that's not really a due process, it's whining. Bear in mind that it has never happened, no vice president has been installed, etc. I don't know why you don't like Trump. I'm not sure there is a reason. I'm sure this approach doesn't get you anywhere. Support a candidate to run in 2020, or move somewhere with a world leader you like, or let it go.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It's like beating your head against a fence post.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:And Nixon plus Spiro Agnew were noble, honest and patriotic heroes right up to the day that Republican Congressmen walked into their offices to tell them to either resign or else go to jail. I think what Barry Goldwater told Nixon was "Get the hell out of town, you creep."
Originally posted by DREAMTROVE:
It's like beating your head against a fence post.
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Barry_Goldwater
Today's Republican leaders, Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan, are too weak and dishonest to tell a Nixon or an Agnew that it was all over. Trump is perfectly safe in the White House until McConnell and Ryan grow some balls.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
As terrible a president as Obama was for 8 years I didn't bitch about him half as much as Second has in 3 months.
I did bitch about GWB a lot though.
Maybe I'm just getting lazy in my old age.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Why complain just because Trump’s past has more yet-to-be-investigated scandals than Obama and Bush and Bill Clinton and Nixon added together? Why complain just because Trump’s first hundred days have more mistakes and fewer accomplishments than any previous President?
Originally posted by 6STRINGJOKER:
As terrible a president as Obama was for 8 years I didn't bitch about him half as much as Second has in 3 months.
I did bitch about GWB a lot though.
Maybe I'm just getting lazy in my old age.
My complaint about Bush would be that going to war with Iraq meant shouldering all the responsibilities of an occupying power the moment victory was achieved. These include running the economy, keeping domestic peace, and protecting Iraq's borders—and doing it all for years, or perhaps decades.
www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2002/11/the-fifty-first-state/302
612/
Trump is on Bush’s road to making another Middle East country, Syria, the Fifty-First State of the USA. Trump added a new twist that Bush didn’t think of: a war with Russia over Syria. I do hope Congressional Republicans convince Trump not to start more wars with Islam.
Donald Trump Has Never Been an Isolationist
www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/04/donald-trump-has-never-been-iso
lationist
Here is Doyle McManus today:
Quote:I've read quite a few versions of this, and I don't get it. Sure, Trump ran as American First, but that was mostly related to trade. When it came to military action, he didn't say much, but when he talked about Iraq and Syria his preferred solution was to "bomb the shit out of ISIS." In a primary debate, he suggested he might send 30,000 ground troops to Iraq. He described himself repeatedly as "the most militaristic person you'll ever meet." He wants to increase the Pentagon's budget by $54 billion, and he recently approved a multibillion arms deal for Bahrain. He hasn't yet approved a plan to arm the Kurds, but apparently Kurdish leaders are hopeful that this will change soon.
In some ways, the most remarkable thing about President Trump’s decision to fire missiles at Syria last week was how oddly traditional he made it sound. As he explained his reasons for military action, our normally unorthodox president borrowed a well-worn list of justifications from his predecessors: United Nations resolutions, international norms, compassion for civilians (in this case, “beautiful babies”), even the proposition that “America stands for justice.”
It was as if the Donald Trump who ran as an America First isolationist had suddenly morphed, once confronted with real-life choices, into an old-fashioned internationalist.
Donald Trump is no isolationist. He's a standard-issue hawkish, blustering Republican when it comes to war in the Middle East. There was absolutely nothing surprising about his cruise missile display against Syria, and nothing to suggest it represents a policy change of any kind. Why do so many people think otherwise?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME