Ninfan I am certainly not agreeing with you there is plenty to read. In summary though. (death by cut and paste? Well there was a lot of info that seems to go unread repeatadly by people making the same claims I know some people here struggle to click links and get bored easily but reading some of it may provide you with some context as to the events rather than just a headline)
To stay he would have had to convince the Iraqi Parliament to approve the request - they certainly didn't want to do that.
The majority of the US was opposed to prolonged involvment.
ISIS etc didn't exist and they were finishing off Al Quieda so the threat did not exist.
Sunsequent actions in the region post pull out lead to the rise of ISIS - the actions of the US may have been part of this but only a small part.
In what way is Trump not a threat - calling for the US navy to shoot at Iranian boats? Removing the Iran deal? His inablity to think before speaking?
These decades of US Cock ups were a large amount of those under a couple of fella's called George?
Is there any sucess in Syria/Egypt/Libya? Some of the most taxing and testing times in world politics for a while, any nation come out looking great from them? How do you reckon Trump would do differently? (as he seems to be short of any real policy in the area openly disagrees with Pence on the issues and seems to argue devoid of any facts)
[quote=mikewsmith ]Ninfan I am certainly not agreeing with you there is plenty to read. In summary though. (death by cut and paste? Well there was a lot of info that seems to go unread repeatadly by people making the same claims I know some people here struggle to click links and get bored easily but reading some of it may provide you with some context as to the events rather than just a headline)
To stay he would have had to convince the Iraqi Parliament to approve the request - they certainly didn't want to do that.
The majority of the US was opposed to prolonged involvment.
ISIS etc didn't exist and they were finishing off Al Quieda so the threat did not exist.
Sunsequent actions in the region post pull out lead to the rise of ISIS - the actions of the US may have been part of this but only a small part.
In what way is Trump not a threat - calling for the US navy to shoot at Iranian boats? Removing the Iran deal? His inablity to think before speaking?
These decades of US Cock ups were a large amount of those under a couple of fella's called George?
Is there any sucess in Syria/Egypt/Libya? Some of the most taxing and testing times in world politics for a while, any nation come out looking great from them? How do you reckon Trump would do differently? (as he seems to be short of any real policy in the area openly disagrees with Pence on the issues and seems to argue devoid of any facts)
This is surely the biggest gap for Trump
His lack of foreign policy knowledge, understanding, tact, diplomacy etc is glaring.
And another thing.
The £350 million for the NHS bullshit brexit lie was reneged on just hours after the results were confirmed.
What if Trump wins, and the lies about the Mexican wall have to be reneged on. It's an easy out for him as he'll just say Mexico refuses to pay, and shift the blame, but no doubt there are many, many idiots out there who actually expect him to build a wall.
Watch "Cartel Land" on Netflix to get a feel for the type of person that will fully expect that promise to be fulfilled!
These decades of US Cock ups were a large amount of those under a couple of fella's called George?
Jesus, Lefties and short memories - US meddling in Iran goes back far longer than that - right from the CIA (and MI6) involvement the '53 coup through to JImmy carters failed hostage rescue and Reagans Iran-Contra deal, and that's before we discuss the Iran-Iraq war.
Bloody pathetic trying to pin the complete mess that is the Middle East on Bush 1 or 2 - it just shows the difficulty that lefties have learning from history, because they are so busy airbrushing out their own part in it.
This is surely the biggest gap for Trump
His lack of foreign policy knowledge, understanding, tact, diplomacy etc is glaring.
Like the Man said, Clintons got thirty years of experience, but look at the mess she's left behind her.
This is surely the biggest gap for Trump
His lack of foreign policy knowledge, understanding, tact, diplomacy etc is glaring.
Like the Man said, Clintons got thirty years of experience, but look at the mess she's left behind her.
Somewhere between
[img] 
[/img]
and the good old magician, distract, divert and then play the trick. At no point can you answer a criticism about Trump without using the words Clinton. Go on give it a go.
Like the Man said, Clintons got thirty years of experience, but look at the mess she's left behind her.
Yes. Entirely Clinton's fault. Everyone else involved has been exemplary apart from her. 🙄
Currently in Florida wondering how weird its gonna be here tomorrow night!!! 🙂
As a challenge Ninfan/Jamby etc write down the 4 reasons you think Trump should be president without using the words Hillary or Clinton
At no point can you answer a criticism about Trump without using the words Clinton.
Because that's the choice you fool, its a two party system
The biggest, huuugest overwhelmingly important reason to vote for Trump is that the alternative is Hillary
"more of the same" Clinton. Theres a bloody good reason that the entirety of the existing system, the banks, the media, the companies, the international corporations, the vested interests, all support Hillary and are terrified of trump winning... and it isn't because they have the people's best interests at heart. Drain the swamp.
As a challenge Ninfan/Jamby etc write down the 4 reasons you think Trump should be president without using the words Hillary or Clinton
[img]
[/img]
mikewsmith - Member
As a challenge Ninfan/Jamby etc write down the 4 reasons you think Trump should be president without using the words Hillary or ClintonPOSTED 18 MINUTES AGO # REPORT-POST SHARE
Classic!
....... write down the 4 reasons you think Trump should be president without using the words Hillary or Clinton
1. It would be a boom to the wall building industry
2. It would bring about an increase in grass roots protest movements
3. The first lady would add a little style to the role
4. He is not Hilary
Dammit, its difficult.
Its hardly classic, he's just trying to create a false construct because he knows that Hillary is the embodiment of neo-liberal corporatism, which ordinarily he would rail against... but can't because, well, because Donald.
The choice is Trump or Clinton, not Trump versus Obama (change? What changed?) or Trump versus Sanders. Even the republicans, most of whom hate trump because he's not right wing enough (spent years as a democrat and was golfing buddies with Bill, remember?) can see that.
.
So what you're saying is there isn't a single good reason that Trump should be president. Well I'm sold.
Obama's observation that he can't be trusted with a Twitter account sums the situation up perfectly.
The most powerful person in the world, doesn't have the self control to speak his mind, without causing serious problems.
WW3 would be horrific enough but the knowledge that it was started in 140 characters or less would be the ultimate indictment of humanity.
Hillary is the embodiment of neo-liberal corporatism,
Indeed, as is Trump. How can a man that gets the nomination of the Republican party be anything other than neo liberal establishment? Only an idiot would be taken in by his man of the people act.
I think the story where Trump turns up at a children's charity event, sits on the stage next to donors then leaves afterwards sums him up, he had never given money to the charity, he wasn't invited and in his world this was standard behaviour.
Guess the link between Trump supporters, Brexit voters and pro gun ownership supporters... 😀
[url= http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo ]5-30-8 have have it moving to 72% to 28% for Hillary[/url]
I don't actually think it will make much difference who wins. For a start they'll have a slender congressional majority and if it's Trump and he really does want to try and follow through on some of his more radical ideas he'll get no where.
He might do enough damage to screw up some domestic US policies but his hands will be too tied for him to do much internationally apart from cause embarrassment to the US.
Right-wing red-neck support will quickly get disillusioned and he'll lose congress by a massive amount in two year's time and will be even more of a lame duck than Obama has been in his last term.
Regardless of whether Trump would be a lame-duck or not, his presidency would be an absolute disaster for international diplomacy, at a time when, arguably, it is more important than ever.
There are no positives of a Trump Presidency.
As a challenge Ninfan/Jamby etc write down the 4 reasons you think Trump should be president without using the words Hillary or Clinton
The world will forget about Brexit.
The world will forget about Brexit.
The world will forget about Brexit.
The world will forget about Brexit.
Trump
Anti-establishment figure, whats gone on to date "isn't working" his supporters want to try somethig very different
Focus on domestic business winding back offshoring, increase tax take from business sheltering profits offshore
Endung deeply unpopular Obama-care
Have NATO members pay their way and stop hiding behind the US
Obama has been a disaster in Iraq, the withdrawl has done more damage than the invasion (which was a mostake as coalition & public was never ready for the long term / withdrawal). Read Emma Sky's excellent book Iraq: The Unravelling. Domestically not mich better, the first black President leaves with black human rights worse than ever. So much hope and promise wasted.
One more practical perspective that I heard from the US in choosing between two bad candidates
Vote Hilary - Congress shuts how down and you get paralysis
Vote Trump - Congress stays open and you get "some" progress
What do you want in a world if the lesser of two evils - progress or paralysis?
(Not my views BTW - just repeating an observation)
Well if we are talking about evils I would say paralysis of said evil is probably better than allowing it progress.
As for predicting the rise of ISIS I predicted it on here. During the attack on libya by UK and US. I said it would lead to chaos and militant "islamic" groups becoming strong and launching attacks on Western and middle eastern targets. It was obvious and inevitable
Jambalaya, analysis of trumps tax plans say that the rich will pay less tax, normal families will pay more and there will be a 6.2 trillion deficit over the next decade. 44% of his cuts would go to the richest 1%, not sure how this is good for anyone except the already wealthy.
He just doesn't want to be beaten by a woman, I think that is a huge part of his issues.
edenvalleyboy - Member
Guess the link between Trump supporters, Brexit voters and pro gun ownership supporters...
POSTED 3 MINUTES AGO # REPORT-POST
What an ignorant stupid dumbed down little boy you are.
I can't be bothered to look up facts on the internet and selectively quote them, so can everyone just please get very angry about this posting of mine.
Whatever you believe, this is in direct contradiction to it, you can trust me on that.
Thanks.
#MakeSingletrackGreatAgain
#shakesfistatoldnpastit
What if Trump wins, and the lies about the Mexican wall have to be reneged on. It's an easy out for him as he'll just say Mexico refuses to pay, and shift the blame, but no doubt there are many, many idiots out there who actually expect him to build a wall.Watch "Cartel Land" on Netflix to get a feel for the type of person that will fully expect that promise to be fulfilled!
I watched that last week. Its absolutely insane! The levels of violence are completely unhinged. Well up there with ISIS for being both unbelievably brutal and so arbitrarily applied. So you've the psychotic drug cartels on one side, and a bunch of tooled up red-neck vigilantes on the other.
Very easy to see why the general populace are getting the **** out of Dodge in their millions, for a better life in the US, where you're less likely to be beheaded, or gunned down in the street
Difficult to see how building a wall will help. When people are so desperate to get over/under/round/through it
How about spending all that money on trying to address the actual root problem? Naaaah..... lets just offer ridiculously populist, racist claptrap as a simple (and totally unworkable) solution to a very complex problem.
Not for one minute did trump want to win,he knew full well that people who insult the latinos don't win (or at least his many advisors did).And that's aswell as all the others he's alienated.He's just a bored rich narcissist who wanted the only ego trip left that gets his tiny cock hard,he needs to see himself on T.v screens everywhere he turns.
Endung deeply unpopular Obama-care
Unpopular with who? It's like the Brexit vote, almost a 50-50 deal amongst those who express a preference. A third of people feeling unfavourable about the Affordable Care Act. The irony is people are generally more favourable when it's referred to as the ACA rather than Obamacare. Odd eh, almost like it's less to do with policy, more to do with a name.
Have NATO members pay their way and stop hiding behind the US
They do pay their way or do you think that Luxembourg should pay the same as the US? [url= https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/03/30/trumps-claim-that-the-u-s-pays-the-lions-share-for-nato/ ]From the Washington Post:[/url]
The U.S. share is calculated on the basis of gross national income — the total domestic and foreign output claimed by residents of a country — and adjusted regularly. Currently that would be about 22 percent, compared to about 15 percent for Germany, 11 percent for France, 10 percent for the United Kingdom, 8 percent for Italy, 7 percent for Canada, and so forth.
“The volume of the US defense expenditure effectively represents 73 per cent of the defense spending of the Alliance as a whole,” NATO says in a discussion of indirect funding.
......
NATO concedes this imbalance has been an issue since the start of the alliance: “The combined wealth of the non-US Allies, measured in GDP, exceeds that of the United States. However, non-US Allies together spend less than half of what the United States spends on defense.”
In the Times today it talks about how Trump sits in his campaign headquarters compiling lists of people he is going to get back if he wins... 😯
Unpopular with who? It's like the Brexit vote, almost a 50-50 deal amongst those who express a preference. A third of people feeling unfavourable about the Affordable Care Act. The irony is people are generally more favourable when it's referred to as the ACA rather than Obamacare. Odd eh, almost like it's less to do with policy, more to do with a name.
Plus, it's only unpopoular with some Americans because it's a "change": Fundamentally, the American ethos is about being self-sufficient, with "small" government. However, the ACA/Obamacare is something that had to happen, and has to continue, for the sake of many millions of Americans.
Yes, it needs reform, but it's a start. If Trump got in, he would abolish it completely, which would be a massive step backwards.
I bet that's a big list.
In the Times today it talks about how Trump sits in his campaign headquarters compiling lists of people he is going to get back if he wins...
Pretty much what Richard Branson said as well:
https://www.virgin.com/richard-branson/meeting-donald-trump
It was posted a few pages back on here, and is a somewhat scary read.
@atlaz the NATO commitment is 2% of GDP, Luxembourg is the richest EU nation per capita (all those tax dodge deals done by Junker whilst he was President etc), it should pay more per head. Obama had the right idea when he told Europe that they needed to take action against Russia, the US has virtually no trade so he pushed the EU to introduce sanctions (cost to them). Without Obama's pressure EU would have rushed under the carpet Ukraine and Malaysian airliner.
As a challenge Ninfan/Jamby etc write down the 4 reasons you think Trump should be president without using the words Hillary or Clinton
1.Troll
2.Troll a little bit more
3.Troll again
4.Troll yet again
We're in jeopardy...
Normal Jeopardy or Black Jeopardy?
Its hardly classic, he's just trying to create a false construct because he knows that Hillary is the embodiment of neo-liberal corporatism, which ordinarily he would rail against... but can't because, well, because Donald.
It seems a perfectly logical position to me: Clinton is (by some distance) the least worst of the two.
(all those tax dodge deals done by Junker whilst he was President etc),
Splitting hairs, but it was mainly put in place when he was finance minister and treasurer, before becoming pm of Luxembourg. He was never president.
Anyway, enjoy your shit Sandwich, USA.
1 He says what meemaw and Zeke wanna hear, no holds barred, sir.
2 sumfin' bout illegals
3 sumfin' bout Obamacare
4 sumfin' bout that lyin' woman, dammit.
The point being if you can defend anything the Donald comes out with but find not one reason you could vote for him it makes it look more and more like trolling
[img] 
[/img]
[url= https://twitter.com/rob__mccallum/status/795278821977128960 ]Source: @rob__mccallum[/url]
