Donald Trump
Comments
-
Clinton was probably the worst for making the world less safe by failing to nip terrorism in the bud, thus emboldening the terrorists into bigger and bigger strikes and more ambitious plans.ballysmate said:
I did say it was a low bar and not making him out to be any humanitarian.😉bompington said:
Trump's foreign policy incompetence might be a different flavour to previous presidents, but I don't see a lot of signs that his haphazard "pull the troops out here, launch a raid there" approach has made the world a safer place, or saved any lives. Just ask a Syrian, a Kurd, an Armenian...ballysmate said:
Yeah, bit of a stretch I suppose but all relative.rick_chasey said:
Still surprised people on here argued he was a stabilising influence on the world. Genuinely. Worries me a bit.First.Aspect said:
Ordered to plan. Not the same as having time to do it. Hopefully.rick_chasey said:
He was also toying with starting a last minute war with Iran as well. Just for the hell of it.
Compared to his predecessors he didn't start any wars or ramp up the bombing missions.
Quite a low bar really.
Could you say that the world was a safer place following the Bush or Obama administrations?
And as ever, Rick choses to misinterpret what others said.2 -
His missus was seen as a hawk and perhaps there are people in foreign lands thankful she didn't get in.Dorset_Boy said:
Clinton was probably the worst for making the world less safe by failing to nip terrorism in the bud, thus emboldening the terrorists into bigger and bigger strikes and more ambitious plans.ballysmate said:
I did say it was a low bar and not making him out to be any humanitarian.😉bompington said:
Trump's foreign policy incompetence might be a different flavour to previous presidents, but I don't see a lot of signs that his haphazard "pull the troops out here, launch a raid there" approach has made the world a safer place, or saved any lives. Just ask a Syrian, a Kurd, an Armenian...ballysmate said:
Yeah, bit of a stretch I suppose but all relative.rick_chasey said:
Still surprised people on here argued he was a stabilising influence on the world. Genuinely. Worries me a bit.First.Aspect said:
Ordered to plan. Not the same as having time to do it. Hopefully.rick_chasey said:
He was also toying with starting a last minute war with Iran as well. Just for the hell of it.
Compared to his predecessors he didn't start any wars or ramp up the bombing missions.
Quite a low bar really.
Could you say that the world was a safer place following the Bush or Obama administrations?
And as ever, Rick choses to misinterpret what others said.0 -
$8million of donors' money down the toilet.0 -
Did it make things better or worse. Unfortunately lifes not like the movie Sliding Doors so we can never know.ballysmate said:
Bomber Obama?First.Aspect said:
Bush no, Obama maybe. But they both played the cards they were dealt. Trump hasnt had many, partly through disinterest, but he has still managed to arbitrarily make things a bit worse, e.g. on a whim if he has a bad hair day or if someone at CNN says something horrid about him.ballysmate said:
I did say it was a low bar and not making him out to be any humanitarian.😉bompington said:
Trump's foreign policy incompetence might be a different flavour to previous presidents, but I don't see a lot of signs that his haphazard "pull the troops out here, launch a raid there" approach has made the world a safer place, or saved any lives. Just ask a Syrian, a Kurd, an Armenian...ballysmate said:
Yeah, bit of a stretch I suppose but all relative.rick_chasey said:
Still surprised people on here argued he was a stabilising influence on the world. Genuinely. Worries me a bit.First.Aspect said:
Ordered to plan. Not the same as having time to do it. Hopefully.rick_chasey said:
He was also toying with starting a last minute war with Iran as well. Just for the hell of it.
Compared to his predecessors he didn't start any wars or ramp up the bombing missions.
Quite a low bar really.
Could you say that the world was a safer place following the Bush or Obama administrations?
You would imagine that deciding to bomb Iran, release nuclear radiation and disrupt domestic electricity supplies to an entire arab nation before calling Rumbelows and moving to Florida to play golf would, on balance, be globally desabilising though.0 -
Feel free to correct meDorset_Boy said:
Clinton was probably the worst for making the world less safe by failing to nip terrorism in the bud, thus emboldening the terrorists into bigger and bigger strikes and more ambitious plans.ballysmate said:
I did say it was a low bar and not making him out to be any humanitarian.😉bompington said:
Trump's foreign policy incompetence might be a different flavour to previous presidents, but I don't see a lot of signs that his haphazard "pull the troops out here, launch a raid there" approach has made the world a safer place, or saved any lives. Just ask a Syrian, a Kurd, an Armenian...ballysmate said:
Yeah, bit of a stretch I suppose but all relative.rick_chasey said:
Still surprised people on here argued he was a stabilising influence on the world. Genuinely. Worries me a bit.First.Aspect said:
Ordered to plan. Not the same as having time to do it. Hopefully.rick_chasey said:
He was also toying with starting a last minute war with Iran as well. Just for the hell of it.
Compared to his predecessors he didn't start any wars or ramp up the bombing missions.
Quite a low bar really.
Could you say that the world was a safer place following the Bush or Obama administrations?
And as ever, Rick choses to misinterpret what others said.0 -
It would have been 'if' he had done it.First.Aspect said:
Did it make things better or worse. Unfortunately lifes not like the movie Sliding Doors so we can never know.ballysmate said:
Bomber Obama?First.Aspect said:
Bush no, Obama maybe. But they both played the cards they were dealt. Trump hasnt had many, partly through disinterest, but he has still managed to arbitrarily make things a bit worse, e.g. on a whim if he has a bad hair day or if someone at CNN says something horrid about him.ballysmate said:
I did say it was a low bar and not making him out to be any humanitarian.😉bompington said:
Trump's foreign policy incompetence might be a different flavour to previous presidents, but I don't see a lot of signs that his haphazard "pull the troops out here, launch a raid there" approach has made the world a safer place, or saved any lives. Just ask a Syrian, a Kurd, an Armenian...ballysmate said:
Yeah, bit of a stretch I suppose but all relative.rick_chasey said:
Still surprised people on here argued he was a stabilising influence on the world. Genuinely. Worries me a bit.First.Aspect said:
Ordered to plan. Not the same as having time to do it. Hopefully.rick_chasey said:
He was also toying with starting a last minute war with Iran as well. Just for the hell of it.
Compared to his predecessors he didn't start any wars or ramp up the bombing missions.
Quite a low bar really.
Could you say that the world was a safer place following the Bush or Obama administrations?
You would imagine that deciding to bomb Iran, release nuclear radiation and disrupt domestic electricity supplies to an entire arab nation before calling Rumbelows and moving to Florida to play golf would, on balance, be globally desabilising though.0 -
kingstongraham said:
$8million of donors' money down the toilet.
I think it's only a partial recount, and just the predominantly black areas he wants recounts on.
His last nine tweets about the election have been flagged by Twitter.0 -
Nip terrorism in the bud? It's been a common feature for several centuries. We even celebrate the failure of a terrorist attack every November.Dorset_Boy said:
Clinton was probably the worst for making the world less safe by failing to nip terrorism in the bud, thus emboldening the terrorists into bigger and bigger strikes and more ambitious plans.ballysmate said:
I did say it was a low bar and not making him out to be any humanitarian.😉bompington said:
Trump's foreign policy incompetence might be a different flavour to previous presidents, but I don't see a lot of signs that his haphazard "pull the troops out here, launch a raid there" approach has made the world a safer place, or saved any lives. Just ask a Syrian, a Kurd, an Armenian...ballysmate said:
Yeah, bit of a stretch I suppose but all relative.rick_chasey said:
Still surprised people on here argued he was a stabilising influence on the world. Genuinely. Worries me a bit.First.Aspect said:
Ordered to plan. Not the same as having time to do it. Hopefully.rick_chasey said:
He was also toying with starting a last minute war with Iran as well. Just for the hell of it.
Compared to his predecessors he didn't start any wars or ramp up the bombing missions.
Quite a low bar really.
Could you say that the world was a safer place following the Bush or Obama administrations?
And as ever, Rick choses to misinterpret what others said.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
True - only $3million of someone else's money down the panbriantrumpet said:kingstongraham said:
$8million of donors' money down the toilet.
I think it's only a partial recount, and just the predominantly black areas he wants recounts on.
His last nine tweets about the election have been flagged by Twitter.0 -
Surely you just want to go back a few more years to Carter and Regan overseeing the funding of the anti Soviet forces in Afghanistan.Dorset_Boy said:
Clinton was probably the worst for making the world less safe by failing to nip terrorism in the bud, thus emboldening the terrorists into bigger and bigger strikes and more ambitious plans.ballysmate said:
I did say it was a low bar and not making him out to be any humanitarian.😉bompington said:
Trump's foreign policy incompetence might be a different flavour to previous presidents, but I don't see a lot of signs that his haphazard "pull the troops out here, launch a raid there" approach has made the world a safer place, or saved any lives. Just ask a Syrian, a Kurd, an Armenian...ballysmate said:
Yeah, bit of a stretch I suppose but all relative.rick_chasey said:
Still surprised people on here argued he was a stabilising influence on the world. Genuinely. Worries me a bit.First.Aspect said:
Ordered to plan. Not the same as having time to do it. Hopefully.rick_chasey said:
He was also toying with starting a last minute war with Iran as well. Just for the hell of it.
Compared to his predecessors he didn't start any wars or ramp up the bombing missions.
Quite a low bar really.
Could you say that the world was a safer place following the Bush or Obama administrations?
And as ever, Rick choses to misinterpret what others said.
Might be another lesson here, its way too early to try and fully analyse the impact Trump has had. I suspect the conclusion will be that he was largely ineffective.0 -
Of all the things people could throw at him I think that is the one that would upset him the most.Jezyboy said:I suspect the conclusion will be that he was largely ineffective.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Jezyboy said:
Surely you just want to go back a few more years to Carter and Regan overseeing the funding of the anti Soviet forces in Afghanistan.Dorset_Boy said:
Clinton was probably the worst for making the world less safe by failing to nip terrorism in the bud, thus emboldening the terrorists into bigger and bigger strikes and more ambitious plans.ballysmate said:
I did say it was a low bar and not making him out to be any humanitarian.😉bompington said:
Trump's foreign policy incompetence might be a different flavour to previous presidents, but I don't see a lot of signs that his haphazard "pull the troops out here, launch a raid there" approach has made the world a safer place, or saved any lives. Just ask a Syrian, a Kurd, an Armenian...ballysmate said:
Yeah, bit of a stretch I suppose but all relative.rick_chasey said:
Still surprised people on here argued he was a stabilising influence on the world. Genuinely. Worries me a bit.First.Aspect said:
Ordered to plan. Not the same as having time to do it. Hopefully.rick_chasey said:
He was also toying with starting a last minute war with Iran as well. Just for the hell of it.
Compared to his predecessors he didn't start any wars or ramp up the bombing missions.
Quite a low bar really.
Could you say that the world was a safer place following the Bush or Obama administrations?
And as ever, Rick choses to misinterpret what others said.
Might be another lesson here, its way too early to try and fully analyse the impact Trump has had. I suspect the conclusion will be that he was largely ineffective.
His life was made easier by not opposing anything Putin did. I'm not sure that's a sustainable strategy in the long term. Well, it is, but the outcome might not be ideal for the US.0 -
Must have missed that episode of The Sweeney.Jezyboy said:
Surely you just want to go back a few more years to Carter and Regan overseeing the funding of the anti Soviet forces in Afghanistan.Dorset_Boy said:
Clinton was probably the worst for making the world less safe by failing to nip terrorism in the bud, thus emboldening the terrorists into bigger and bigger strikes and more ambitious plans.ballysmate said:
I did say it was a low bar and not making him out to be any humanitarian.😉bompington said:
Trump's foreign policy incompetence might be a different flavour to previous presidents, but I don't see a lot of signs that his haphazard "pull the troops out here, launch a raid there" approach has made the world a safer place, or saved any lives. Just ask a Syrian, a Kurd, an Armenian...ballysmate said:
Yeah, bit of a stretch I suppose but all relative.rick_chasey said:
Still surprised people on here argued he was a stabilising influence on the world. Genuinely. Worries me a bit.First.Aspect said:
Ordered to plan. Not the same as having time to do it. Hopefully.rick_chasey said:
He was also toying with starting a last minute war with Iran as well. Just for the hell of it.
Compared to his predecessors he didn't start any wars or ramp up the bombing missions.
Quite a low bar really.
Could you say that the world was a safer place following the Bush or Obama administrations?
And as ever, Rick choses to misinterpret what others said.
Might be another lesson here, its way too early to try and fully analyse the impact Trump has had. I suspect the conclusion will be that he was largely ineffective.
3 -
🤣🤣🤣Pross said:
Must have missed that episode of The Sweeney.Jezyboy said:
Surely you just want to go back a few more years to Carter and Regan overseeing the funding of the anti Soviet forces in Afghanistan.Dorset_Boy said:
Clinton was probably the worst for making the world less safe by failing to nip terrorism in the bud, thus emboldening the terrorists into bigger and bigger strikes and more ambitious plans.ballysmate said:
I did say it was a low bar and not making him out to be any humanitarian.😉bompington said:
Trump's foreign policy incompetence might be a different flavour to previous presidents, but I don't see a lot of signs that his haphazard "pull the troops out here, launch a raid there" approach has made the world a safer place, or saved any lives. Just ask a Syrian, a Kurd, an Armenian...ballysmate said:
Yeah, bit of a stretch I suppose but all relative.rick_chasey said:
Still surprised people on here argued he was a stabilising influence on the world. Genuinely. Worries me a bit.First.Aspect said:
Ordered to plan. Not the same as having time to do it. Hopefully.rick_chasey said:
He was also toying with starting a last minute war with Iran as well. Just for the hell of it.
Compared to his predecessors he didn't start any wars or ramp up the bombing missions.
Quite a low bar really.
Could you say that the world was a safer place following the Bush or Obama administrations?
And as ever, Rick choses to misinterpret what others said.
Might be another lesson here, its way too early to try and fully analyse the impact Trump has had. I suspect the conclusion will be that he was largely ineffective.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
It's not going to overturn a 177k lead...kingstongraham said:Trump was very happy when he thought Michigan were going to try and throw out all the votes from Detroit. Got a little bit of racism in there too.
Shouldn't be a surprise that urban areas vote democrat.0 -
That one county has 1.4 million residents, if it had been thrown out would have flipped the state. But it wasn't. Because that was in the end too corrupt for the people deciding (after they changed their minds).bobmcstuff said:
It's not going to overturn a 177k lead...kingstongraham said:Trump was very happy when he thought Michigan were going to try and throw out all the votes from Detroit. Got a little bit of racism in there too.
Shouldn't be a surprise that urban areas vote democrat.
He's the worst person who could have been elected.0 -
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/17/us/politics/michigan-certify-election-results.html
The gist of this is that the Republicans initially refused to certify the results in Detroit over discrepancies, while certifying predominantly white areas of Wayne County with the same discrepancies.
Georgia recount done, Biden lead around 13k. Bigger changes than expected, probably.0 -
Update:kingstongraham said:
That one county has 1.4 million residents, if it had been thrown out would have flipped the state. But it wasn't. Because that was in the end too corrupt for the people deciding (after they changed their minds).bobmcstuff said:
It's not going to overturn a 177k lead...kingstongraham said:Trump was very happy when he thought Michigan were going to try and throw out all the votes from Detroit. Got a little bit of racism in there too.
Shouldn't be a surprise that urban areas vote democrat.
He's the worst person who could have been elected.
Those two republicans in Michigan, having certified the results for Detroit (after originally refusing to)... have changed their minds, after the dealine, and decided that they now don't want to certify the results:
If all the people connected with this weren't so incompetent at trying to be corrupt, it would be a real problem.0 -
kingstongraham said:
Update:kingstongraham said:
That one county has 1.4 million residents, if it had been thrown out would have flipped the state. But it wasn't. Because that was in the end too corrupt for the people deciding (after they changed their minds).bobmcstuff said:
It's not going to overturn a 177k lead...kingstongraham said:Trump was very happy when he thought Michigan were going to try and throw out all the votes from Detroit. Got a little bit of racism in there too.
Shouldn't be a surprise that urban areas vote democrat.
He's the worst person who could have been elected.
Those two republicans in Michigan, having certified the results for Detroit (after originally refusing to)... have changed their minds, after the dealine, and decided that they now don't want to certify the results:
If all the people connected with this weren't so incompetent at trying to be corrupt, it would be a real problem.
0 -
I suppose at least they can make a big fuss about it - it's just theatre isn't it.0
-
What this Theater needs is a fat lady singing.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
bobmcstuff said:
I suppose at least they can make a big fuss about it - it's just theatre isn't it.
It's all about the delay - I don't know what the end game is supposed to be, but it doesn't matter whether the legal challenges are valid or not, if he can provide a reason for a delay, that's the aim now.0 -
I'm not convinced it is that joined up for the two Republicans who've tried to rescind their certification - sounds more like they are trying for a bit of plausible deniability, presumably they are worried about repercussions from the party.
Agree that's probably the only thing Trump's got left.0 -
I think they got a call from the campaign and decided to give it a go.bobmcstuff said:I'm not convinced it is that joined up for the two Republicans who've tried to rescind their certification - sounds more like they are trying for a bit of plausible deniability, presumably they are worried about repercussions from the party.
Agree that's probably the only thing Trump's got left.0 -
Did anyone else see that piece by Gabriel Gatehouse on Newsnight last night?Difficult to have any hope for the place.😬1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0
-
It is mind blowing just how little words mean. If trump succeeds in this slander of every US institution then what is the upside. At this point if he got shot and I had witnessed it I am not convinced I would be coming forwards with a witness statement. If he told you it was raining you would go outside to check.tailwindhome said:0 -
-
Not really given US views on abortions.
Disgusting and abhorrent but not that remarkable0
