Although policy wise, Trump is actually the opposite of that thinking since he is against globalism. The problem is a lot of countries depend on US security/economy which isn't a good thing.
Although policy wise, Trump is actually the opposite of that thinking since he is against globalism. The problem is a lot of countries depend on US security/economy which isn't a good thing.
He has a policy? I'm convinced that he just makes shit up as he goes. Eurofag here, no shitstorm pls.
He has a policy? I'm convinced that he just makes shit up as he goes. Eurofag here, no shitstorm pls.
His most famous policy is the wall for example and deporting illegals (we have plenty of pics here referencing that since it is basically a meme). Other things is bringing manufacturing back from overseas (Primarily China, but recently went through a new deal with Canada and Mexico), tax cuts and deregulation, reducing foreign dependence on US, etc. As a European, you probably would be most familiar with Trump pulling out of the Paris Climate Agreement, ditching the Iran Nuclear Deal, arguing for NATO members to start pulling their weight, and his criticism of Germany's dependence on the Russian Federation's petrol.
Basically those follow his rallies pretty much know everything he plans to do since he says the same stuff in each speech there. He usually summarizes the agenda towards the end of his speech. Lots of people got killed (figuratively) in the recent tech stock market drop but I actually pulled all my stocks around the end of the summer during most of my highs because we pretty much got an early warning months before it actually happened.
His most famous policy is the wall for example and deporting illegals (we have plenty of pics here referencing that since it is basically a meme). Other things is bringing manufacturing back from overseas (Primarily China, but recently went through a new deal with Canada and Mexico), tax cuts and deregulation, reducing foreign dependence on US, etc. As a European, you probably would be most familiar with Trump pulling out of the Paris Climate Agreement, ditching the Iran Nuclear Deal, arguing for NATO members to start pulling their weight, and his criticism of Germany's dependence on the Russian Federation's petrol.
Basically those follow his rallies pretty much know everything he plans to do since he says the same stuff in each speech there. He usually summarizes the agenda towards the end of his speech. Lots of people got killed (figuratively) in the recent tech stock market drop but I actually pulled all my stocks around the end of the summer during most of my highs because we pretty much got an early warning months before it actually happened.
It's incredible how some people speak with such confidence over a string of incoherent half-truths and lies. Amazing, he even thinks the president is watching out for his investments. God-willing you've "invested" in the Iraqi Dinar and are sitting on millions of dollars worth of what amounts to tissue paper.
It's incredible how some people speak with such confidence over a string of incoherent half-truths and lies. Amazing, he even thinks the president is watching out for his investments. God-willing you've "invested" in the Iraqi Dinar and are sitting on millions of dollars worth of what amounts to tissue paper.
Yet you can do a lot with this tissue paper. Although I do agree US currency is in a dangerous state ever since FDR broke the gold standard to fund his new deal projects that we are still effectively paying for to this day.
You may not agree with Trump's policies (even though he has been right pretty much every time so far), but if you can't even understand where he stands on the issues, that probably says more about your own comprehension of US politics than Trump's. I didn't agree with Clinton or Obama's policies, but I understood what they were. Trump has been exceptionally clear where he stands, and has hundreds of tweets to clarify it. lol
Although policy wise, Trump is actually the opposite of that thinking since he is against globalism. The problem is a lot of countries depend on US security/economy which isn't a good thing.
He is really more America first, and he's the type who wants to keep his cake and eat it too. So its not so much that he wants America to be isolated and irrelevant, as much as the winning partner of a series of bilateral agreements with the rest of the world. He's very much transactional in his approach.
Selling billions of dollars worth of arms to a country, even if they are not exactly nice people, is a win since America made bank and another country has to be buy into our economy. The idea of America having to give up anything, especially to international institutions, is so anathema that he is willing to scuttle deals that would be otherwise advantageous to America on the principle of it all.
Whether or not this works is separate from whether or not it hold up over time. You may get a few years of boons, but then a lot of small issues overwhelm the advantages. Take the border wall. Regardless of someone's position on the wall, it will be a major undertaking and maybe it will be a small boost to local economies since its a big fuck-all wall. Then twenty years from now the tides of immigration have changed and congrats you have a big chunk of resources you either have to scrap or maintain. Twenty years from now a bilateral agreement with a series of countries may be made irreverent by shifting economic or industrial emphasis. Getting exclusive rights to distribute coal to, lets say, Madagascar may not pan out if in a few years Madagascar swears off coal.
Ultimately all he cares about is the immediate impact, no amount of later blowback will phase him since he'll long be dead or retired by then, and he knows how to deflect and confuse the public argument to the point that it all becomes a bunch of partisan noise rather than anything of substance.
I won't say he makes up shit as he goes, so much as he's instinct-driven. Its a small difference, but he focuses on one thing at a time, makes up his mind on it, and will push that issue until it either isn't a winning deal, succeeds, or something new comes up. The difference, to me, is that he doesn't have an over-arching plan, but he does have a lot of moments where he has a very clear idea of what he wants. He is also inherently theatrical and plays things like a showman. He'll make speeches about speeches on things, knowing they aren't substantial but they play to his base. He'll make up shit all the time because when people counter him, they then play into his arguments regardless of the facts.
Personally, I don't think he's evil incarnate and we're not aligned on political or world views. I don't really care about his demeanor because its Trump, my main concern is more about the legacy. He's done a lot to throw just about every expected outcome out the window and now nothing is for certain, and I do think that it is good that he shook the political establishment in America to the core, but all I can really say is that he's doing a lot of things but there hasn't been the time to really see the consequences of it, even if they are going to be rather obvious.
I disagree in the sense that I think Trump's actions cater to the long game not the short one. If he wanted short term political gain he would be catering to the media and political correctness like other politicians. He wouldn't be talking about the wall or trade and would instead stick to social issues since that is what the majority of the public is interested in. He could avoid a lot of flack by just getting in line with the swamp, but that isn't what he wants to do.
Many in the media label his actions as emotional or reactive and Trump plays along with that assumption but he really isn't like that. Much of what he is doing today has been planned out years in advance, for example his rallies (he pretty much has the same speech he repeats over and over since his strategy has not changed) but also in his actions prior to running. Many people knew Trump had his eye on the presidency a few decades ago ever since he met with Bill Clinton (possibly earlier than that). Trump does praise and criticize people inconsistently, but that is because people inconsistently support or go against him or American interests. Politicians want to save face by never criticizing anyone they one supported, but Trump is different. Why support someone who is acting against you? He applies this logic to US politicians, but also to foreign leaders and factions. It doesn't makes sense for the US to be helping countries that are acting against us. People make fun of Trump for firing a lot of staff, but it is a silly criticism. What is Trump famous for? Firing people who don't perform. The government by the swamp/deep state is well known for keeping people in position even if they suck at their job. Trump is different in that he doesn't care about your background, if you cannot keep up with work, he will get rid of you. Which is really how all of government should operate. If you or I started lazing or messing up at work, how long do you think we would last?
As far as Trump making things up, I really haven't seen that. Much of what Trump says is criticized as being radical but then later is found to have merit. For example Trump knew about Obama spying on him which the media criticized as fanatical until Vault 7 was released. Trump talked about improving the economy by tax cuts and removing red tape and it worked. Trump talked about the importance of having borders and not keeping illegals and now the Mexican people are echoing Trump's sentiments with the caravan. Europe blasted Trump about leaving the Paris Climate Agreement, but now the French people are agreeing that they don't want to foot the bill for a globalists environmental plan. Negotiations on TPP, Iran Nuclear Deal, Russia, etc Trump has pretty much been right on all of these topics as the endgame that the media pundits and politicians predict never end up happening.
The wall is to stop illegal aliens. If the wall was not needed, illegal aliens would not be an issue right now. If it was not needed, we wouldn't have the caravan. Border Patrol are basically the experts when it comes to border security and for years they have said we need more physical deterrents to slow people crossing enough for us to catch them. Trump got the idea of the wall from them after all. Consider all the money America has wasted in the past giving aid to foreign country, why not use that money to aid our own country? The border wall never will become useless unless we invade Mexico or something and extend our territory, something Trump is not interested in. Defense is a fundamental job of the government, yet the government for over half a century has been neglecting it.
Trade is good when it benefits one's country, it is not good when it only benefits another country. As Trump has said he wants fair trade, a balance of imports and exports to where we are not giving our wealth away to another country such as China. It doesn't help the American people in anyway for jobs to be outsourced to another country, or for our businesses to have to comply with the regulations of a foreign conglomerate. By ending those damaging international agreements, Trump has paved the way for more American businesses to not be chained down, and in doing so allows smaller businesses to finally start being a threat to the larger corporations that have established closed door political deals. People can grow wealth when they can rise up the ladder. People can only increase their SES by switching to better jobs that reflect their merit. When there are less jobs in country, there are less opportunities for people to improve their standing since the only ones who get richer are those in the establishment capable of negotiating foreign deals on their own.
Selling arms is an extremely small portion of America's income, and is negligible. Certainly America has in the past sold arms to people acting against us and Trump wants to fix that. For example we have been giving Iran tons of supplies even though they hate our guts, Trump doesn't want to support them. He only wants to aid countries that have something to offer America back, which is again the element of fair trade. Other issues are politicians selling US assets on their own accord. A big example is the reveal of Uranium One with Hillary. We have to wonder how these politicians end up leaving office with wealth that goes beyond their salary. They abuse the power of their position and sell US assets in return for kickbacks such as "speaking fees".
The thing that strikes me as most notable is that how Trump thinks or operates really is no different from how other countries work. Most countries in the world will not tolerate invaders, they keep a strict eye on their national economy, and act to serve their national interests, not the interest of a foreign faction.
I disagree in the sense that I think Trump's actions cater to the long game not the short one. If he wanted short term political gain he would be catering to the media and political correctness like other politicians. He wouldn't be talking about the wall or trade and would instead stick to social issues since that is what the majority of the public is interested in. He could avoid a lot of flack by just getting in line with the swamp, but that isn't what he wants to do.
Many in the media label his actions as emotional or reactive and Trump plays along with that assumption but he really isn't like that. Much of what he is doing today has been planned out years in advance, for example his rallies (he pretty much has the same speech he repeats over and over since his strategy has not changed) but also in his actions prior to running. Many people knew Trump had his eye on the presidency a few decades ago ever since he met with Bill Clinton (possibly earlier than that). Trump does praise and criticize people inconsistently, but that is because people inconsistently support or go against him or American interests. Politicians want to save face by never criticizing anyone they one supported, but Trump is different. Why support someone who is acting against you? He applies this logic to US politicians, but also to foreign leaders and factions. It doesn't makes sense for the US to be helping countries that are acting against us. People make fun of Trump for firing a lot of staff, but it is a silly criticism. What is Trump famous for? Firing people who don't perform. The government by the swamp/deep state is well known for keeping people in position even if they suck at their job. Trump is different in that he doesn't care about your background, if you cannot keep up with work, he will get rid of you. Which is really how all of government should operate. If you or I started lazing or messing up at work, how long do you think we would last?
As far as Trump making things up, I really haven't seen that. Much of what Trump says is criticized as being radical but then later is found to have merit. For example Trump knew about Obama spying on him which the media criticized as fanatical until Vault 7 was released. Trump talked about improving the economy by tax cuts and removing red tape and it worked. Trump talked about the importance of having borders and not keeping illegals and now the Mexican people are echoing Trump's sentiments with the caravan. Europe blasted Trump about leaving the Paris Climate Agreement, but now the French people are agreeing that they don't want to foot the bill for a globalists environmental plan. Negotiations on TPP, Iran Nuclear Deal, Russia, etc Trump has pretty much been right on all of these topics as the endgame that the media pundits and politicians predict never end up happening.
The wall is to stop illegal aliens. If the wall was not needed, illegal aliens would not be an issue right now. If it was not needed, we wouldn't have the caravan. Border Patrol are basically the experts when it comes to border security and for years they have said we need more physical deterrents to slow people crossing enough for us to catch them. Trump got the idea of the wall from them after all. Consider all the money America has wasted in the past giving aid to foreign country, why not use that money to aid our own country? The border wall never will become useless unless we invade Mexico or something and extend our territory, something Trump is not interested in. Defense is a fundamental job of the government, yet the government for over half a century has been neglecting it.
Trade is good when it benefits one's country, it is not good when it only benefits another country. As Trump has said he wants fair trade, a balance of imports and exports to where we are not giving our wealth away to another country such as China. It doesn't help the American people in anyway for jobs to be outsourced to another country, or for our businesses to have to comply with the regulations of a foreign conglomerate. By ending those damaging international agreements, Trump has paved the way for more American businesses to not be chained down, and in doing so allows smaller businesses to finally start being a threat to the larger corporations that have established closed door political deals. People can grow wealth when they can rise up the ladder. People can only increase their SES by switching to better jobs that reflect their merit. When there are less jobs in country, there are less opportunities for people to improve their standing since the only ones who get richer are those in the establishment capable of negotiating foreign deals on their own.
Selling arms is an extremely small portion of America's income, and is negligible. Certainly America has in the past sold arms to people acting against us and Trump wants to fix that. For example we have been giving Iran tons of supplies even though they hate our guts, Trump doesn't want to support them. He only wants to aid countries that have something to offer America back, which is again the element of fair trade. Other issues are politicians selling US assets on their own accord. A big example is the reveal of Uranium One with Hillary. We have to wonder how these politicians end up leaving office with wealth that goes beyond their salary. They abuse the power of their position and sell US assets in return for kickbacks such as "speaking fees".
The thing that strikes me as most notable is that how Trump thinks or operates really is no different from how other countries work. Most countries in the world will not tolerate invaders, they keep a strict eye on their national economy, and act to serve their national interests, not the interest of a foreign faction.
I disagree in the sense that I think Trump's actions cater to the long game not the short one. If he wanted short term political gain he would be catering to the media and political correctness like other politicians. He wouldn't be talking about the wall or trade and would instead stick to social issues since that is what the majority of the public is interested in. He could avoid a lot of flack by just getting in line with the swamp, but that isn't what he wants to do.
Many in the media label his actions as emotional or reactive and Trump plays along with that assumption but he really isn't like that. Much of what he is doing today has been planned out years in advance, for example his rallies (he pretty much has the same speech he repeats over and over since his strategy has not changed) but also in his actions prior to running. Many people knew Trump had his eye on the presidency a few decades ago ever since he met with Bill Clinton (possibly earlier than that). Trump does praise and criticize people inconsistently, but that is because people inconsistently support or go against him or American interests. Politicians want to save face by never criticizing anyone they one supported, but Trump is different. Why support someone who is acting against you? He applies this logic to US politicians, but also to foreign leaders and factions. It doesn't makes sense for the US to be helping countries that are acting against us. People make fun of Trump for firing a lot of staff, but it is a silly criticism. What is Trump famous for? Firing people who don't perform. The government by the swamp/deep state is well known for keeping people in position even if they suck at their job. Trump is different in that he doesn't care about your background, if you cannot keep up with work, he will get rid of you. Which is really how all of government should operate. If you or I started lazing or messing up at work, how long do you think we would last?
As far as Trump making things up, I really haven't seen that. Much of what Trump says is criticized as being radical but then later is found to have merit. For example Trump knew about Obama spying on him which the media criticized as fanatical until Vault 7 was released. Trump talked about improving the economy by tax cuts and removing red tape and it worked. Trump talked about the importance of having borders and not keeping illegals and now the Mexican people are echoing Trump's sentiments with the caravan. Europe blasted Trump about leaving the Paris Climate Agreement, but now the French people are agreeing that they don't want to foot the bill for a globalists environmental plan. Negotiations on TPP, Iran Nuclear Deal, Russia, etc Trump has pretty much been right on all of these topics as the endgame that the media pundits and politicians predict never end up happening.
The wall is to stop illegal aliens. If the wall was not needed, illegal aliens would not be an issue right now. If it was not needed, we wouldn't have the caravan. Border Patrol are basically the experts when it comes to border security and for years they have said we need more physical deterrents to slow people crossing enough for us to catch them. Trump got the idea of the wall from them after all. Consider all the money America has wasted in the past giving aid to foreign country, why not use that money to aid our own country? The border wall never will become useless unless we invade Mexico or something and extend our territory, something Trump is not interested in. Defense is a fundamental job of the government, yet the government for over half a century has been neglecting it.
Trade is good when it benefits one's country, it is not good when it only benefits another country. As Trump has said he wants fair trade, a balance of imports and exports to where we are not giving our wealth away to another country such as China. It doesn't help the American people in anyway for jobs to be outsourced to another country, or for our businesses to have to comply with the regulations of a foreign conglomerate. By ending those damaging international agreements, Trump has paved the way for more American businesses to not be chained down, and in doing so allows smaller businesses to finally start being a threat to the larger corporations that have established closed door political deals. People can grow wealth when they can rise up the ladder. People can only increase their SES by switching to better jobs that reflect their merit. When there are less jobs in country, there are less opportunities for people to improve their standing since the only ones who get richer are those in the establishment capable of negotiating foreign deals on their own.
Selling arms is an extremely small portion of America's income, and is negligible. Certainly America has in the past sold arms to people acting against us and Trump wants to fix that. For example we have been giving Iran tons of supplies even though they hate our guts, Trump doesn't want to support them. He only wants to aid countries that have something to offer America back, which is again the element of fair trade. Other issues are politicians selling US assets on their own accord. A big example is the reveal of Uranium One with Hillary. We have to wonder how these politicians end up leaving office with wealth that goes beyond their salary. They abuse the power of their position and sell US assets in return for kickbacks such as "speaking fees".
The thing that strikes me as most notable is that how Trump thinks or operates really is no different from how other countries work. Most countries in the world will not tolerate invaders, they keep a strict eye on their national economy, and act to serve their national interests, not the interest of a foreign faction.
Wow stop posting any time
Anyone who thinks Trump hasn't blatantly lied repeatedly or has a coherent vision is deluding themselves. And how disgusting, to suggest that legitimate refugees of violence and murder need to be walled off, forced to walk thousands of miles in the desert. Forced to watch their children die in US custody. Shame on you, and every lie and myth you propagate. Shameful.
He panders to his base, not the mainstream politics.
The issue with the characterization of Iran is that to prior to Jimmy Carter installing the Ayatollah (why) as a counter against potential communist influence, Islamism was not a relevent political movement in Iran. Even then, a coup against the ayatollah was imminent until a country backed by the United States, Iraq, invaded and threw the country into complete disarray, and efforts were instead focused on defense, allowing the Ayatollah to entrench himself.
The lifting of sanctions gave moderate factions the foothold they needed, since believe it or not, Iran is Persian, not Arabic, and historically were not under the conservative regimes common to the Arabic region. This also meant that for the most part, Iran does not have an inherent issue against Israel.
With Trump rattling the saber and basically pulling out of an agreement in such a way to torpedo all the work us and other nations put into it and posturing for a hostile regime change (including ties to the son of the former Shah who has also been talking about regime change).
Iran, prior to the reimposition of sanctions, was cutting funds to Hamas since that was the Ayatollah's pet project to ensure his power-base doesn't try to start shit in his own country. They were supportive of the Kurds, and were being set to be a good counter not only to Saudia Arabia, but Turkey and Russia/China influence as well (large swaths of Greater Persia were swallowed up by the Soviet Union and mistreated).
Now you have a president who is basically pandering to the rhetoric the Ayatollah wants and needs to stop dissent in his own country. It also massively undermined faith amongst Iranians looking for their own interests: European economic and social connections are essential for their own sovereignty, but the United States has, and continues, to undermine Iran's sovereignty. Don't forget that we overthrew Morsi, the elected head of state, because he wanted to Nationalize Iran's oil. Its no coincidence that the Iran Oil flowing into the markets and Trump's decision, as part of America First, to stop that flow even though it hurts our allies.
In the long terms, Iran (excluding the Ayatollah) is like any nation: look for regional and international allies. They do not trust Russia and China due to their involvements in a lot of movements that threatened to overthrow them in the past, nor are they interested in being puppets to their interests. Likewise, the US is a distant figure, whether friend or foe, and being friendly with us opens economic barriers. However, this is only valuable if there is stability. The idea that a change in presidency can lead to existing, seemingly set in stone, legal and political treaties being torn apart and that state practically threatening to reinstate their own puppet in your regime makes the US no different than Russia/China, and thus Iran won't go out of their way to antagonize us, but they have little incentive to rely on our word again and are instead focusing entirely on Iran.
Again, the long term results of Trump's decision is up for time to reveal but to me it indicates his America First ideology and disinterest in the ramifications of that policy to places that aren't America, especially when it comes to human rights. Being buddy buddy with Kim is easy to do when you have no interest in crimes against non-Americans.
The problem with the wall is the problem huge fuck-huge walls have had in history: its never economical for the side that raises it over the long term. To me the immigration issues from Mexico are not to the point where we need a wall. Mexico is not a hostile country, nor are they a bunch of steppe nomads who may someday unite and form a great raiding party that will conquer the known world. They are, at the least, a trading partner thanks to the easy access. For a wall to be effective, it has to be complete. Otherwise, congrats, you now have an ugly slab in the middle of nowhere that people can just walk around. As far as major crime goes the big element of corruption and bribery still comes into play. Yes limiting access points will make this harder, but a compromised checkpoint isn't hard to do if there are potentially hundreds to facilitate the move of traffic, unless we reduce trade with Mexico (and South America) since why not.
I mean Europe has open borders with Europe, most states have open borders with most states. Most other barriers tend to be the military kind, with two sides putting a wall on either side of disputed territory and manning it so the other side doesn't try to interfere with their borders. Yes, crime is a major concern, however I do not believe that a wall is effective. To me even with a wall, all the current issues, strengths, and failings in policy that allows for the border to be what it is will still exist and now you have billions of dollars into a development that may or may not ever be complete or work.
This starts to get into the states and native lands. Lets say an Indian Reservation has land where the wall needs to be built and says no. Or private landowners, or federal reserves or other projects. Do you just leave a gap in that place, have to negotiate dozens of settlements for the right to build a wall there, or build it anyways? Then you get into what I consider to be the most pointless of clusterfucks and that is one country or another arguing over where the wall should go. Is that hill part of Mexico, or the US. Is anyone going to care, is anyone in the federal government going to spend the time to settle this, or will they not have the money too and just leave a gap or put up temporary fencing.
So to me I won't say the wall will be a failure, but I think its avoiding the problem that led to its own creation and ultimately the United States will front the cost for its creation and issues. To me that 50 billion dollars can go to defense in ways that matter, like active-protection systems, or in improving border security through training and tactics rather than just throwing money and concrete at a problem.
The idea of a deep state is a pointless term to me. There are unelected people in government, most of which are involved in mundane tasks that need to be done for the government to function. These aren't political positions and to me they are allowed to have political views.
Regarding staff, there is a way to handle issues with staff. As the President of the United States, it is not to me proper etiquette to resort to calling people names and using grade-school insults against opponents. Yes everyone thinks it, but saying that your secretary of state is an idiot one day and praising him the next is not exactly anything that would inspire belief in someone's ability to effectively lead. Firing people via twitter, failure to tell his staff about major changes until after they already happened, making a bunch of baseless or false claims.
People disagree about Reagan, but to me a strong president doesn't say there are good people on both sides of a white-supremacist rally, he strongly condemned the Soviet Union as the Evil Empire. He did not publicly undermine allies even in the midst of major conflicts with them over trade and policy, but instead framed things as a united cause, with America's interests aligned with theirs. Frankly, with things like Iran-Contra, he also did extremely shady shit, but (granted twitter did not exist) he did not constantly bring up the issue, he knew how to wear the Teflon skin to dodge blow-back while still absorbing success. To me, Trump has a masterful ability to have a major positive (the economy) and blow it into the gutter by focusing on something else.
As far as the swamp, have you looked at his administration? I mean you had several major cases of unethical behavior leading to people quitting/resigning, hell, even Trump's father ran the democratic political machine in his time, given Trump a lot of the early connections he used to build his empire. He rails against the idea of chain-immigration, yet his wife's parents were recently given citizenship through the very same process of chain-immigration Trump is against. He spends most of his time at his own place, and he values loyalty over all else. To me this is all signs of him being the same exact sort of politician that every politician is and has been, just with his own crowd. For what its worse, I feel the same about the Clintons.
Related, the idea that a bunch of Hondurans are such a threat to the United States that we need to deploy more troops to the Border than we have stationed in Afghanistan is just hilarity.
As a moderator, Since I know this can to go bad places fast, I'll just get this out of the way now.
Discussing politics is already a tricky thing, but don't go into insults or veiled insults. This is a warning not to engage in any stupidity, insults or attacking other users regardless of how much you agree, disagree or abhor their views.
In the words of famed warlord Humungus, "Just Walk Away."
Anyone who thinks Trump hasn't blatantly lied repeatedly or has a coherent vision is deluding themselves. And how disgusting, to suggest that legitimate refugees of violence and murder need to be walled off, forced to walk thousands of miles in the desert. Forced to watch their children die in US custody. Shame on you, and every lie and myth you propagate. Shameful.
Well, lets start. Where has Trump "blatantly lied repeatedly"? So far the media and the democrats have been caught in the most lies (you can keep your doctor, shovel ready jobs, no spying is being done on Trump, fake dossier, what difference does it make it was the video, wiped servers? like with a cloth?, Ford and Kavanaugh with the fake rape allegations [with her being caught lying repeatedly in the process by her own friends], no one is crossing the border illegally, the refugee caravan is a myth, I didn't "acosta" her the video is doctored, etc.)
We have no obligation to take in people of other countries just because they want to be American. If they were truly refugees they could have taken refuge in Mexico, yet they choose to fight the Mexican police! Funny because I have actually been involved in the rescue of actual refugees fleeing real violence and threats, but somehow I never saw them fighting people who were offering refuge and asking for more.
And if you seriously think those people simply walked there take a look at a map. When one starts combat operations, you always consider the logistics of the mission at hand. Traveling that distance on foot in a matter of weeks is completely impossible without support. The military doesn't even perform those kind of foot marches. Makes you wonder who is supporting them...
Saladofstones said: ...
He panders to his base (like all politicians. Why would you cater to people who aren't voting for you and you don't agree with?) and because he does not pander to mainstream politics it is why his supporters like him. Like I said, if he was looking for short term political benefit he could get in line with political correctness. His strategy is long term for actual benefits to America, not just what is hip to support.
Iran may have been X, but I am personally concerned about what Iran is today. Japan used to be our enemy, but I don't hold them to the mid 20th century standard and think they are prone to Pearl Harbor us into WWIII. I don't think we should be supporting Iran unless something changes making them less of a risk to us. Iran nuclear deal plain and simple did not work. Iran violated the terms of the agreement. Doesn't matter how much work was put into something if it fails. It is a cadmean victory.
You want America to be bound to a treaty that another signer has already violated? If that makes us no different than Russia and China, so be it, it means being smarter than people like the Europeans who compromised with Hitler over and over until he became a threat at their doorstep. We have no obligation to adhere to an agreement if the terms have been broken. And assuming bowing down and appeasing Iran will prevent them from antagonize us because we give them something is not only an awful tactic (counterinsurgency dictates to never negotiate with terrorists because you are giving up something without gain) it is the same logic Clinton used in justifying passing US nuclear tech to North Korea, and now look at them. They are a huge threat to our allies like the land of animu/moe.
About Iran's stability, that goes back to my first comment. It is bad when foreigners rely on the US for their own sovereignty. If you can't establish sovereignty on your own you don't have it. Sovereignty is defined by the characteristic of independence. An ally dependent on us isn't really an ally because they can't help us and are only friendly because they are living on our fat (I mean, us Americans are fat but we only have so much to go around). National stability does not occur from us giving power to someone else. We saw that failure with Bush in Iraq where we let the people vote in the same poor leadership we just ousted. Real stablity happens either if we dominate the area like Japan and slowly give them back freedom over generations or they do it on their own.
In the middle east, the enemy of our enemy is not necessarily our friend. We made that mistake with the Mujahideen during the Soviet-Afgan war. We don't want to repeat history, which as you pointed out, many mistakes have been made in the middle east. So Trump is acting to not make those same mistakes. The US is not the world police nor should we be. It does not help us to fight on behalf of another country, only for our own. Ironically the world has constantly complained about the US sticking their finger in everyone's business. So now when Trump starts making moves to pull out, all of a sudden everyone waffles and talks about how great things are and Trump shouldn't change anything...
As far as Mexico they are very much a hostile country. The government has warned for years for Americans not to travel into Mexico. They do not like us. As one who has been there for work in the past they do not view America as their friend like we do with Canada. If they can fuck us over they will take any opportunity because they think America should be long to them.
You don't need to wait for a great raiding party from Mexico, it has already happened through illegal aliens.
For a wall to be effective it has to be complete which is the whole point of Trump and the wall. It is much harder to compromise a few checkpoints that have high overlapping accountability in personnel than fencing where there are multiple ingress points and people can be bribed to simply look away. If the wall is not the solution what is? The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over an expecting a different outcome. If someone has a better plan than the wall that is cheaper, I'm all for it. However the only alternatives that have been suggested is the status quo which clearly has proven to be unacceptable. The military are experts on defense, and classical military strategy place the importance of physical barriers (not just fire supremacy or LP/OP [Listening/Observation Post]) as critical to any defense.
If Indian reservation says no it doesn't matter. Imminent domain is a thing and Democrats have had no qualms about using it to build the high speed rail to nowhere in California. A wall on the other hand is a factor of national security. We don't have a country if we don't have a secure border. If a guy is building WMD in his basement and we know it but he tells us we can't go in because of his 4th amendment rights, sorry we still have the authority to go in and blow it up. 4th amendment only protects against unreasonable search and seizure.
Mexico has no say over the wall unless they are officially funding it. Trump gave Mexico an opportunity to officially fund the wall or he will make them pay for it through trade. They failed to agree to be official partners of the wall so now they lost any influence on the subject.
I have had training in human intelligence, and a major aspect of this is social engineering. Those mundane tasks manned by gov employees that you think are harmless are awfully important. You an infiltrate a multi-million dollar security system with one clerk and a little charm to make them break protocol. It has been done many times in the past and continues to be done today. You can even visit the DEFCON conventions and see it happen live by some people with seriously good skills. The deep state is very much alive, evidence especially with all the leaks we have had.
The President can say what he wants how he wants. That kind of honesty is what a lot of people like. It isn't hard to figure out what Trump is thinking, I hope at least everyone can agree with that. A good leader does not become blind to someones failings, they call them out on it so they can improve. Those who can't take criticism from their boss (especially when it is true) honestly are not fit for any job. Trump praises people when they do a good job and blasts them when they don't. That is a good thing. Ironically, the kind of non-partisan behavior people have constantly claimed they want to see in Washington. You talk about people in his admin being part of the swamp, which is why he got rid of them. Again, Trump doesn't stand by people just because they supported him, he stands by them based on their true character, or what their actions are over time. No one is omniscient where you can just look at a person and know they will be fit for a job all the time no matter what. People have the capability to disappoint.
Again, you keep talking about baseless and false claims but I have yet to see what these are. Reality has for the most part only confirmed how Trump thinks. Trump doesn't tell his staff about major changes because Trump is working faster than most of his staff. In private contracting we aren't told everything that is happening when they happen. It isn't like a sports game where we can afford a play by play. We have to react to the evolution of the situation and do our job best we can. Adapt or die. Evolution at its finest.
If you think all white supremacists are evil by default, then are all Black Lives Matters evil by default? When you paint a broad brush on people that typically isn't a good thing, that was a major criticism of Hitler and Stalin. Reagan called the Soviet Union the evil empire, he didn't say every single Russian or citizen of satellite states are is evil by default. I don't agree with democrat agenda but I don't think every democrat is evil. Nor do I think every Republican is a grand patriot and a swell guy to be around. I've worked with some liberals and have trusted my life to them. I've also reported some criminals who were republicans. I've done vice versa too.
The media wants Trump to be a punching bag, but they live in a glass house where they panic when someone gives them a taste of their own medicine. They can dish it but they can't take it. Again, if the media stopped lying about Trump, Trump wouldn't need to tweet and people wouldn't be following his twitter account.
Trump has more successes and ambitions than just the economy. A good economy is not enough to make America great again.
What if Trump's father was a dog for the Democrats? Trump himself was a democrat (hell, I was pretty liberal when I was a child growing up in California if you can imagine that). Like he said the democrats have the finger in everything and like a mob, you have to support democrats in business or you get attacked. Look at Microsoft and their failure to donate to the DNC with Clinton. It is how Apple survived from bankruptcy because Clinton brought the monopoly ban hammer as retaliation.
Regardless if Trump's wife's parents used chain immigration, it doesn't make it a good thing. If someone you like did crack, does that mean you can never say crack is bad for you? It isn't a logical argument.
Trump valuing loyalty is important, especially when again you have people in the deep state and swamp trying to sabotage him in every direction. Look at the FBI and how they tried to set Trump up with the fake dossier. Hillary got the red carpet in contrast with her emails and Benghazi where she had several lawyers (some of whom were witnesses to the situation) to back her up and they just considered it case closed without a 2+ year investigation. I mean they found Trump had no Russian collusion, so now they switch to illegal use of campaign funds (hard to use campaign funds by a monetary transaction that occurs before you start a campaign!).
The caravans are a threat, or is the Mexican police fighting them just "hilarious" and a joke? Again reality tends to favor Trumps perception more times than not. And again, I don't see them as refugees in any respect. I have met real refugees fleeing real threats, they aren't like them.
This site fact checks several statements made by Trump. For everyone who don't know this site, it fact checks many statements/stories made for a variety of things. I think it's pretty great.
This site fact checks several statements made by Trump. For everyone who don't know this site, it fact checks many statements/stories made for a variety of things. I think it's pretty great.
This site fact checks several statements made by Trump. For everyone who don't know this site, it fact checks many statements/stories made for a variety of things. I think it's pretty great.
I've read that before and many of things that it labels as lies are not.
For example the first example at the top: "Says the United States loses '250 Billion Dollars a year on illegal immigration, not including the terrible drug flow. Top Border Security, including a Wall, is $25 Billion. Pays for itself in two months.'"
Politifact: False, Unclear where number comes from.
What? If you can't determine something is false you don't label it as such. You can disagree with the plausibility but that has nothing to do with trustfulness. Especially since no one knows exactly how much illegal aliens come through since they come off the books and hence impossible to accurately survey. That is like saying all estimations are false by default. So when Gov Brown of California says the high speed rail will bring in a trillion dollars for CA, where is the lie there?
And if you read the articles they go into a lot of conjecture but take it as fact. For example they say Trump is wrong for criticizing the CA state on the wildfire issue in California isn't due to forestry mismanagement because the issue is "complex". I'm sorry but CA did not have wildfire issues where fires went on for weeks and months at a time back when we made firebreaks and had several major logging companies regularly combing through forests and cutting and planting trees.
And if you want to hold that standard to Trump, everyone else is a lot worse. For example the media calling Trump a white supremacist, Russian spy and a racist or a traitor, or Obama saying republicans want to throw grandma off a cliff. "Pure fantasy" as politifact might say.
Politifact is heavily biased and a lot of what they write is pretty misleading. But then again that is how it is with most "fact checking" sites. For example you wouldn't go to NRA's fact checking to see arguments for gun control.