Trump Doesn’t Know What To Do
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Multiple clips of Trump promising that he will prevent World War III. pic.twitter.com/1O2lPTGpR1
— PatriotTakes(@patriottakes) June 13, 2025
Iran wouldn’t capitulate, Netanyahu told him to pound sand. Putin and Zelensky aren’t doing what he tells them. He’s clueless about how anything actually works believing that the world is literally a playground where the biggest bully runs the show. He’s obviously confused and out of his depth.
Meanwhile, he has fired his national security staff, hired amateur fools to handle diplomacy, a talk show drunk is in charge of the military and a weird cult member runs the nation’s intelligence agencies. Oh, and he’s alienated all of our allies.
This is the guy who has said approximately 5,722 times in the last two years that wars would never happen if he was president. Here is his declaration at the GOP convention:
“I will end every single international crisis that the current administration has created, including the horrible war with Russia and Ukraine — which would have never happened if I was president — and the war caused by the attack on Israel, which would have never happened if I was president.”
Yeah, that’s working out very well.
Had he not done the following we wouldn’t be here today:
Trump backing out of the Iran Deal in 2018.
— PatriotTakes
His only foreign policy has been to undo anything his predecessors did and throw his weight around to our allies and adversaries alike. They can all see that he’s out of his depth and that there’s very little to gained by appeasing him. So let the games begin.
Tags
Who is online
182 visitors
whowhatwhy.org /international/trump-tries-out-being-a-warmonger-and-likes-it/
Trump Tries Out Being a Warmonger and Likes It
Klaus Marre 6-8 minutes 6/17/2025
Donald Trump, who ran on the promise of keeping the US out of international conflicts, is gearing up for war.
Donald Trump, a self-proclaimed peace president, seems to embrace the role of warmonger. In a series of social media posts, some of which read like an advertisement for the US defense industry, he left little doubt that the US is already involved in the conflict between Israel and Iran.
“We now have complete and total control of the skies over Iran,” he wrote shortly before noon on Tuesday. “Iran had good sky trackers and other defensive equipment, and plenty of it, but it doesn’t compare to American made, conceived, and manufactured ‘stuff.’ Nobody does it better than the good ol’ USA.”
While others in his administration, especially Secretary of State Marco Rubio, wanted to assure Tehran that the US was not involved in Israel’s attacks, in order to protect American lives in the region, Trump seems to enjoy being on the winning side of the conflict.
A constant during his time in the White House has always been that he relishes the power that comes with the office.
He not only enjoys the pomp and circumstance, but also the ability to issue executive orders to force sweeping changes in the country with the stroke of a pen, or being able to create chaos in the world economy by arbitrarily setting tariffs.
As Tuesday’s posts show, he clearly also likes to be the person who decides which world leaders get to live and die.
“We know exactly where the so-called ‘Supreme Leader’ is hiding. He is an easy target, but is safe there – We are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now,” Trump wrote in a second post a few minutes later. “But we don’t want missiles shot at civilians, or American soldiers. Our patience is wearing thin.”
The posts make Trump sound a lot more like a bipolar warlord than a “peace president.”
It should be noted that he ran on a platform of keeping the US out of foreign wars and making the world a more peaceful place.
Now, five months in, he has maneuvered the US to the brink of a war that could have sweeping consequences and put Americans across the globe in danger… and he is dismissing the criticism of those trying to hold him to those campaign promises, like Tucker Carlson.
In a final post (for now), Trump also made clear what it would take for Iran to end the conflict.
“UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!” he wrote , which probably does not sound like an appealing option to Iran’s leaders.
It should be noted that this social media spree comes on the heels of Trump causing panic in Tehran when he posted another message in the middle of the night their time that urged the residents of the city to “immediately evacuate.”
Taken together, it is apparent that Trump, contrary to his previous claims, has taken a liking to the idea of participating in and winning a war.
What is not so apparent is who will pay the price.
Amazingly hypocritical of anyone who is a member of the democrat party to claim anyone is a Warmonger , do democrats [deleted] [✘] forgot Barry Peace prize Obama. [deleted] [✘] bombed and destroyed more countries than trump could dream of. FFS he bombed more countries than an administration that had Dick Cheney in it [did.deleted][✘]
In his comments Trump claims the "weapons of mass destruction" allegations against Saddam Hussein in 2002 were "pre nuclear".
The lefts outrage over seeing their pet Iran lose is growing. Ben “hamas” Rhodes is in shambles. Obama’s entire foreign policy of building up Iran as a world power is falling apart.
Even you know Trump doesnt know what to do.
All he could do was try and end wars. He tried. I'm part of the MAGA base and I'm satisfied.
I hope Putin is ousted by another Russian politician.
I hope Iran's nuclear program is destroyed, and its leader removed.
Next time people will listen to President Trump.
Trying to spin trumps Middle East foreign policy as anything but a rousing success is simply ridiculous at this point.
He is the one that said he would end all these conflicts immediately. He has ridiculous amounts of hubris and there is no reason to think that will change until he's out of office.
This is just pathetic.
MT MEGA? Is that where the burning bush appeared to Moses? /s
How about "Make America Think Again"?
He believed his own BS and failed
No one cares.
Absolutely on both points
Never.
Let me finish that sentence for you...
Next time people will listen to President Trump and realize just how ignorant and simpleminded he really is.
I havent seen any of that here on NT. Havent seen much of it on other social media either. There probably are some people who are conflating their anger over Israels conduct of Gaza with their judgement on Iran. I think there is danger with allowing Iran a nuclear weapon, although I doubt they would use such weapons on a reckless impulse. But they are a totalitarian theocracy and cannot be trusted to act rationally.
Israel hasfinally realised wht to do since they decapitated Hezbollah and got the Lebanese police and Army to refuse Iranian cash transfers or confiscate them while mopping up the remnants of hezbollah and send them packing. That Crime family is done; they were nothing without Iranian cash.
Kill Iran and Hamas and the Houthi's will disappear into the dessert of alphabet hate acronyms.
Die Iran, Die.
80% of the people are english speaking liberals ruled by 20% of the population who are the ultra conservative military.
Change is coming.
Trump thought, and probably still thinks, that he would just tell other countries the way it was going to be, like he did on his TV show The Apprentice.
Now some MAGAs are discouraged by Trump support for Israels war with Iran, saying it is a betrayal of the "America First" philosophy of staying out of foreign wars. Trump responded by saying America First means what I say it means.
What has Trump done on the international stage , other than accept money from potentates in the middle eastern oil producing countries ?
He has engendered a new meaning for the word "TACO" ... Everybody knows that he is the Taco king and Two-Doll Donny, all rolled into an inept and pandering President.
So, what should Trump do? Diplomacy hasn't worked. There aren't a lot of alternatives to diplomacy except war.
Should Trump deploy the Army that the whole country pissed on yesterday? Should Trump broadcast the No Kings protests into Russia and Iran to show the strength an resolve of the United States? Should Trump replace tariffs with embargoes? Should Trump adopt Turkey's tactics toward Europe and begin flooding Russia and Iran with immigrants? We do have a few to spare.
Trump tried snapping his fingers to stop the wars. Didn't work. So what are the alternatives? Become directly involved? Go to war?
In Trump's world, a fanfare of kabuki parades and a 'what a good boy I am' plum.
So you don't have a clue about what he should do?
You totally miss the point.
The point is that Trump makes ridiculously bold claims and then falls flat on his face when he has to deliver:
Ending a war is very complex and there typically is no easy / quick answer. That is why it is disheartening and dangerous that so many people believe what this demagogue says. He has no magical powers to prevent or end conflicts between other nations. Yet people believe his idiotic bluster.
And then when he fails (of course) we have people like you defending him with naive challenges such as: "so what would you do?" while conveniently ignoring the fact that his critics were not the ones who made the ridiculous claims of negotiating prowess.
Nice deflection. But the question is a valid one. What are the alternatives?
How many actually believed he could end the war with a phone call and how many believed it was part of the normal campaign promises that are never exactly kept?
For example:n from politico
Biden Promise Tracker Scorecard
Promise Kept 33%
Compromise 32%
Promise Broken 34%
Joes broken promises:
The Canadians would never do such a thing.
First off he should fire all the the incompetents he hired from VP on down and there is a horde of them.
Second, he should drop the Ping-Pong negotiations ploy, it only makes him look weak and the nation also.
Third, leave the kabuki to adept practitioners.
Etcetera ad-infinitum.
And you miss the point too in an attempt to defend Trump.
The point is that Trump makes ridiculously bold claims and then falls flat on his face when he has to deliver:
Ending a war is very complex and there typically is no easy / quick answer. That is why it is disheartening and dangerous that so many people believe what this demagogue says. He has no magical powers to prevent or end conflicts between other nations. Yet people believe his idiotic bluster.
And then when he fails (of course) we have people like you defending him with naive challenges such as: "so what would you do?" and deflecting to Biden while conveniently ignoring the fact that his critics were not the ones who made the ridiculous claims of negotiating prowess.
First off the pic you chose occured in England, not Canada:
CAF Contingent
Known as Operation ORB, King Charles III coronation festivity’s took place in Canada and the United Kingdom. A Canadian contingent of 45 Canadian Armed Forces members participated in the coronation military parade in London. Also, Colonel Jeremy Hansen, CAF member and Canadian astronaut, carried Canada’s flag at the coronation ceremony.
While in Canada he received a 21 gun salute (I did not know we had that many) and got to make a speech ... Camilla had her beaver stuffed and Charles kissed the cod.
Read your effing links!
So how should the wars be ended? Trump tried snapping his fingers and that didn't work. Marco Rubio is engaged in diplomacy and that hasn't worked. What's the alternative? Should the United States become directly involved? Should the the No Kings protests be broadcast into the conflict zones to show the strength and resolve of the United States? Should we file injunctions and search for friendly judges?
If Trump is doing it the wrong way then what the hell is the right way? How will removing Trump end the war in Ukraine and the war in the Middle East? What is the alternative?
Trump seems to be avoiding the United States being drawn deeper into the conflicts. Why is that a bad thing? Trump seems to be trying to set the stage for diplomacy. Why is that a bad thing?
Ending a war is very complex and there typically is no easy / quick answer.
You spin Trump's incompetence as some kind of policy.
All Presidential candidates make claims that everyone understands are aspirational. Only trump is obsessively called a liar for marking them.
If one wants to know What Trump's policy is, follow his $kaching$ kids.
Seems to be a very real policy of disengagement. That's the policy Trump initiated during his first term (and Biden dismantled). Trump is pursuing a policy of disengagement more aggressively now, during his 2nd term.
Neocons won't like a policy of disengagement. Neoliberals won't like a policy of disengagement. Globalists won't like a policy of disengagement. The very, very rich won't like a policy of disengagement. Those who want to exploit the United States won't like a policy of disengagement.
Seems like the odd coalition of unsavory bedfellows suggests that a policy of disengagement might not be a bad thing, after all.
Trump's claims are beyond outrageous. Show me any other PotUS in history who has claimed that they would have prevented a war from breaking out, that they could stop a war with a phone call, that a presidential election that has been thoroughly shown to be valid was 'rigged', that he built the "greatest economy in the world" and that he would "do it again", etc.
Trump is a fucking clown. You are trying to normalize his outrageous claims. He is not normal, he is the outer fringe. Get serious.
The MAGAs here, and elsewhere, are in denial.
A curious turn of phrase. Over the course of my life I remember the heyday of "Hustler" magazine and its use of the word: "beaver" but I do not have a field of reference for what beaver adjacent to "cod kissing" means. What do I lack?
Now to the point of the image in question: I do not see any military hardware exposed in the (parade) image. It is a significant point.
No one put those words into Trump's campaign-but him and his staff. Those words are REFERENCED AND REPEATED to show that (Machiavellian) EXPEDIENCY and HYPERBOLE was highly probably deployed to win an election. That is, now that we can see the EFFECT: It is evidenced that MAGAites got 'played' on this account by not asking for details on how Trump would end and fix other nation's wars in a single day or with his "words."
The Naked Gun
Kissing the cod is how one becomes a Newfie
I will follow the beaver reference to its destination: kissing cod . See, I am smart (enough)! Oh, I see the kissing cod is literal. How quaint.
That might be the point you are trying to make. My point is keeping promises is not, not has ever been specifically a Trump thing. I know you don't like the point but it is a valid point none the less.
The rest is just you feeling the need to copy/paste what you have already said in an attempt to ignore my question.
How many actually believed he could end the war with a phone call and how many believed it was part of the normal campaign promises that are never exactly kept?
You seem to once again somehow say it is different what Trump does it or say it is only important in this one particular instance. I would ask why but I am pretty sure I already know.
Heaven forbid you point that out, the accusations fly like they mean something
You keep ignoring the fact that Trump's promises are absurdly extreme. No other PotUS has made such ridiculous claims; Trump is in a category of his own. So why do you continue to defend this obvious buffoon?
It appears there are a great many issues that Trump was not believed on . . . and yet he was elected in spite of "no confidence" in his spoken words. Begs the question, that some conservatives (in the news) brag on Trump's spoken words when he does impose policy based on prior campaign statements.
Well, Trump denied he knew or was involved in the aspirational Project 2025, but then DOGE and other material actions directly and immediately manifested themselves right after his swearing in ceremony demonstrates his political warfare approach to lying to the public (and opposition) to accomplish means to an end.
Oh, so now it is an issue because your opinion is he makes the most outrageous claims like it is a contest. Why are you continuously blinded by hatred of one man
IMO many people don't take much of what is said in a campaign as anything other than pandering for votes depending on who their audience is. To try to hold any of their feet to the fire for anything said is nothing more than partisan bullshit. (And this goes for both sides)
So WHY have years-long campaigns of "pandering" if it adds nothing of value to the candidate? Our presidential campaigns use matching public campaign funding, and you want us to accept that as normal and not fraud, waste, and abuse just to be lied to?
Do you know how ridiculous that sounds? We do.
Furthermore, such "logic" (it is not!) would cancel out all the complains coming from those who say they believe such and so against opposing candidates! Why expend the time and energy to come on social media and complain (or pretend to do so)?
Some people should recognize that talking out of both sides of their mouth can be 'exhausting.'
There is no change of position; this is the point I made. Pay attention.
This is about the continued support of Trump despite the blatantly obvious fact that he cannot be trusted (ever) to tell the truth, and that one cannot (and should not) take any promise he makes to heart. Trump is demonstrably incompetent as an executive and is, in reality, nothing more than a celebrity who will bullshit his supporters into thinking he accomplished something when in reality he is a failure.
To wit, people like you who constantly defend Trump, are on a foundation of quicksand since he is clearly full of shit.
I am paying attention. You hate trump and everything written goes through that mindset first. And if someone doesn't buy into the trump hysteria it must be because they support trump.
Same shit different day.
Standard tactic of a Trump supporter, ignoring the facts and instead make things personal with the critic.
You obviously cannot justify your endless support of Trump.
No no no. Ignoring some opinions that some like to portray as facts
No no no. Drawing a conclusion based on hundreds of comments over the year(s). Nothing different than someone incessantly calling a person a Trump supporter that constantly supports him no matter what. If you can't take it you may consider not dishing it out with almost every comment
Yea yea yea, I get it, that is your opinion. You are welcome to it as I am welcome to mine. I sure don't feel the need to justify anything having to do with your opinion
Now the cliche 'opinions as facts' nonsense.
Do you believe anything Trump says? Do you think that his tariffs are some well-conceived strategy?
Do you believe the 2020 election was rigged?
Do you believe that Trump has improved the possibility of ending the Ukraine war?
Make an argument of some kind based on facts and sound logic that justifies your daily, inexplicable excuse-making for Trump.
Right Down the Center, please do not walk away once again and leave silence behind. There is a comment left open in need of your HONEST OPINION explaining why it is reasonable and justified for taxpayers to publicly match funding for what you consider and confidently assert are akin to a pack of liars—on both sides of presidential campaigns. I would love to read a solid opining, so I am all 'eyes.'
Sorry, your comment led me to believe an actual conversation is the last thing you wanted.
Taxpayers can spend their money as they see fit. I do believe campaign promises are often bullshit. IMO that is not the way to determine which candidate you want to give money to. What they have actually done is much more important. How they carry themselves is important. Actually almost everything is more important than campaign promises. I think Newsom is an example of that. He is pretty far left IMO yet it is obvious he is trying to position himself as a moderate over the past few months. Why do you think that is? IMO he has already started campaigning.
I sure don't feel the need to justify anything having to do with your opinion
Taxpayers do not support deliberate liars and lies; thankfully it has not come to that—yet.
Campaign promises can be bullshit. However, only a fool would expect to run and win an election against a solid opponent who decides to tell obvious truths and utilize matters of fact to his or her advantage against a blatant liar and a suspected lies.
If we fund lies and liars with intent. . . then we are the fools that sow and reap foolishness sown into thus, we are no better off for it. That makes no sense and is irrational.
Point blank: Is it fraud, waste, and abuse to publicly fund deliberate and repeat liars and their professional lies performing in the guise of developing and gaining political power to control such an intellectual and sophisticated people as ourselves, in your honest opinion?
You would think but I can't remember when a candidate decided to tell obvious truths.
It is all about power. Politics is like a game and each side thinks it is more important to win than tell the truth. See Trumps supporters that do buy into some of his bullshit or some Dems that bought into hiding Joes condition. There are not enough sophisticated and intellectual people as ourselves to make a difference right now. Hopefully that will change
I have yet to see a Trump supporter make anything remotely close to an actual argument as to why they support Trump.
The very best offered is 'I am patient' or 'Give him some time' or 'Let's see how this plays out' or equivalent. It is all unjustified wishful thinking ... belief that somehow —in spite of all the chaos and incompetence of Trump— this will all end well ... a result of some brilliant masterstroke.
Not a shred of sense offered and a consistent refusal to even acknowledge Trump's weekly failures.
It is pathetic to observe the blind partisanship at play ... at a level that not only suppresses critical thinking but is laughably irrational.
And Trump supporters just keep parroting Trump and delivering their tired, feckless cliche's like 'opinions presented as facts' instead of an actual argument.
The time to make a difference was the election. Now the very best that can be done is to oppose Trump with our voices and peaceful protests. Not nearly as effective, but there is nothing else.
People like you making excuses for Trump is counterproductive to the cause you just implied (
) you support.
TiG is merely asking that you respond honestly and sincerely...
... with an actual argument based on facts and sound logic rather than canned retorts and deflection to Biden.
It is preferable to tell the truth and win. Of course, like everything in the human experience, familiarity breeds contempt. Our political players have learned and continue to learn their "lessons" well. And thus, what we have is what we 'get' - smart people and "tons" of money vying for the goal itself: Winning. Instead of betterment and integrity being held secure and confident.
This 'problem' in politics can be fixed by pushing for genuine candidates and not the "game" itself! It starts not with the candidates oddly enough: it begins with us. Money is corrupting politics and while we look for whom to blame, money and those who use money to 'sport' us. . . "bag the Game."
Truth has beginning and end - points. Let's make it our mutual priority.
Interesting. I thought it was to ask the same questions again and again until I ignore the question and that allows making up a reason why I don't respond anymore.
Well said.
Now that is something I totally agree with. Getting there from here is not going to be easy.
No no no. You have yet to accept any reason why anyone can support Trump because you either can't understand it or just don't agree with it so the reasons they give are dismissed
It sure is entertaining as hell watching some blind partisans call others blind partisans. If I thought it was pathetic I would probably stop reading it.
Obviously that time has come and gone
Protest will not do much other than to make the protesters feel good. It seems to me it would be time better spent if the dems listened to all American, honestly determine why they lost (with something more than a 20 million dollar focus on why males don't like them) and address those issues. And maybe come up with good centrist candidates that people could vote for instead of saying one of the most centrist candidates is mentally challenged (Fetterman). Without that the protests will have very little impact IMO.
Let's use this area of agreement as a basis for communicating better between our 'camps.'
The operative word being: Honesty.
Fair enough but I would add acceptance of a differing opinion along with honesty. Then it is easier to be honest if you are not being judged or badgered.
You assume they believed him.
I will agree to differing opinion/s and honesty. Let's seek to understand why you are a conservative and why I am a liberal. Because the 'fall-out' and sparks that fly up is superfluous. We need to come together when and where we can for the sake of our mutual sanity!
And you keep ignoring the fact that they have as little to do with his popularity as they do with the fervency of opposition.
Of course I assume MAGAites believe (put their trust and confidence) in their CHOSEN candidate, as it is normal for them to 'articulate' aggressively about issues and persons they do not wish to see advance upward in the party apparatus. The number of willing voices to pushback against Trump's war/peace rhetoric is still miniscule if at all in GOP quarters, and so. . . MAGAites got 'played' by its very own master manipulator.
Finally, liberals knew Trump was full of it when he stated the ridiculous timeline to end wars between foreign nations-especially in the case of a president of Russia who just happens to be a former well-trained KGB alumni.
I said "believe", not "believe in".
Those are different things.
You claim a fact that has not been established. You seem to think that people who support Trump do not believe what he is saying. Suppose you believe a politician is full of shit and his promises (e.g. a great economy and individual prosperity due to his tariffs) are bullshit. Why would anyone continue to support and defend him?
Your 'fact' needs substantial justification. His supporters clearly buy his bullshit more than you recognize.
Wrong. Trump is (emotionally) affected by public opinion.
The Ds should indeed do that. We (the nation) should do both: criticize and defy Trump's idiotic decisions, support his few good decisions, AND prepare for the midterms to provide a partisan check on his power.
We hold these truths to be self evident.
It's a much more logical conclusion than a blanket condemnation of 77 million of my fellow citizens as some group of naive imbeciles.
For the same reason they support all politicians. They evaluate the candidates, and they vote for the one they think.... on the whole... is most likely to lead the country/state/city/etc in the direction they believe it needs to go.
Trump is affected by the opinion of his supporters. There is little evidence to suggest he cares at all about the opinion of his detractors.
The decline of his supporters influences him. It is unrealistic to assume that his current detractors are comprised only of those who did not vote for him. It is more realistic to expect that he has not gained any new supporters but rather has lost supporters (buyer's remorse) as people see what he is actually doing. As public awareness of Trump's failures sinks in (and protests raise awareness —even if temporary— of failures such as absurd overreach in the deployment of the National Guard, etc.), it is reasonable to expect a continued decline in Trump supporters.
Bottom line, Trump is most definitely influenced by public opinion when that opinion suggests a decline in support.
Based on Trumps vindictive actions I am not sure people we can assume did not vote for him will sway his thinking very much. But we shall see.
Yes, not sure swinging farther to the left is going to accomplish that. I also think not at least admitting there is some violence (even the small % there is) and saying it should stop is not a good optic for voters.
I will also mention that the wackier the parties get the more likely I will be satisfied with a split government as a check on either parties power.
Sounds fine here but my starting point may be more centrist with leaning toward fiscal conservative. For instance I do believe in some common sense gun control as well as making sure existing laws are followed and I do believe in climate change to a degree but disagree with throwing money at it is the solution without an actual plan.
'Naive imbeciles' is your (emotive) exaggerated language.
It is irrational to support someone when you believe he is totally full of shit and demonstrably incompetent. It is more rational (per human nature: as evidenced by the preponderance of faith-based beliefs) to operate on belief, habit, and confirmation bias rather than engaging in irrational contradictory behavior.
You seem to think his remaining supporters are irrational; I think that most of them believe far too much of Trump's bullshit (or at least hang on to wishful thinking). To wit, his support is IMO largely a function of natural human flaws such as stubbornness, paradoxical thinking, and confirmation bias.
You think the nation is proceeding in the direction that Trump voters expected? Even on immigration, I would expect many of his supporters (if honest) see his actions as going too far. Trump has great support in removing illegal criminals but his support softens greatly when he rips families apart who are gainfully employed, no criminal records, and have been here for years.
You think Trump supporters have no problem with higher prices given Trump was arguably elected to address high prices?
You think Trump supporters are pleased that Trump has unnecessarily soured our international relationships and created trade wars? In particular, was it the goal to alienate our best / closest trade partner Canada?
My view is that remaining Trump supporters continue to kid themselves ... believing too much of Trump's bullshit fueled by stubborn, paradoxical, partisan wishful thinking. If they were dealing with a harsh reality, there are substantially more reasons to oppose Trump's actions than to support them.
Let me throw out another possibility. While some believed Trump could end the wars with a phone call I suggest many more understood that to be hyperbole. The difference was they believed Trump would try to stop the wars doing something different than the last administration failed at terribly and with a candidate that promised more of the same. He couldn't do any worse.
Another possibility is people saw it as hyperbole but stopping an overseas war really wasn't high on the list when trying to determine who to vote for.
Just food for thought.
It is certainly reasonable to assume these protests consist almost entirely of people who did not vote for him.
What influences Trump most is a degradation of support. You seem to assume that his current detractors are ALL people who did not vote for him. It is more likely that he is losing support than remaining stable.
Further, Trump cannot handle criticism. So even when it comes from those who did not vote for him, the frequency and volume of criticism does affect him.
‘Protest will not do much other than to make the protesters feel good’
We all know that if there were conservative protests during the Biden regime, Biden would have his DOJ dogs on those that protested and treating them like they did J6 protestors.
Not so sure he is seeing a small percentage of Americans protesting as a degradation of support. He is president and can't be voted in again. He believes he has an immigration mandate. He has a huge ego. You are welcome to your opinion but I don't think these protests will move the needle.
We may be talking about 2 different things. You are talking detractors and I am talking protesters. I would still say 90% or more of his detractors are people that did not vote for him and the rest are just traitors (in his mind)
Again, I don't think his ego will allow that. IMO he is more likely going to rationalize it away.
But we shall see
They would have been put on the terrorist watchlist.
Please feel free to offer your own description. I suspect "naive imbeciles" will seem a comparative endorsement.
Your (emotive) exaggerated language.
You seem to be projecting your beliefs on to me.
Odd question, considering your criticism of Trump supporters on this forum for expressing exactly that opinion. You don't need to ask me, they've been telling you for months.
You're making the same mistake again. Trump was elected to take the country in a different direction than the Biden Administration.
To individual voters, this meant addressing any one or more of a number of issues. That could have been the economic plight of working families (who were abandoned long ago by Democrats), slowing the flow of illegal immigration, stopping things like boys playing girls sports or drag queens grooming little children, opposing "wokeness" and the cancel culture it tried to impose, supporting order and law enforcement rather than "defund the police", appointing conservative judges, and many others.
Like in all campaigns, those complex issues were reduced to manageable slogans that enabled voters to understand the general emphasis without requiring them to learn about economic theory or tax codes or DOL regulations or case law or similar minutia. Most voters understand that campaign promises are a signal of intent, not a guarantee of result.
Do we imagine Obama supporters are upset with him because he failed to deliver on lower healthcare costs? Of course not. They consider him a success because he took the country in a different direction, of which they generally approved.
Your view is exceedingly obvious in your posts. You are exceedingly unhappy that Trump was elected, you blame the people who voted for him, and you heap scorn and derision on them at every opportunity.
I think it's been made pretty clear that the majority of his supporters are either naive imbeciles or just angry bitter rightwing religious conservatives who think pushing the world closer to the edge of destruction is getting them closer their longed-for Armageddon where they believe their God will come down and wipe out their ideological enemies. Then there are the rest of conservatives who think breaking everything and rebuilding it in their image would be better than working hard to make our 250-year experiment of a constitutional Republic more perfect. They believe we failed already so they decided to hire an arsonist to just burn it all down because their closed minds and hard bitter hearts refuse to see the lgtbq and other minority Americans as 'people' that 'their' country is supposed to be run for and by.
Trump sycophants are quite the cadre of bigots, dumb shits and self-defeatists and they refuse to get educated enough to actually see anything other than their narrow myopic conservative view. And for those who try to claim it's the liberals who aren't understanding, I was one for over three decades, and I know the truth is, progressives bend over backwards to make space for conservatives while in return all they get is condemnation, disrespect and discrimination. No one is trying to force a conservative to be gay, they're just asking the conservative not to fire an employee, kick out a tenant or refuse to serve them at public businesses just because they found out they're gay. So yeah, in my book that most of them naive imbeciles.
Like I said, my conclusion is much more logical.
Then your opinion of MAGA voters is low as DP's. You just say and see it from the opposite viewpoint. As your votes up confirm...
Apparently MAGA feel justified of ignorance and intolerance. You have to wonder why they fear social justice so much...
I think you've misread. Or haven't read.
To summarize, most Trump voters... like most other voters.... are smart enough not to take campaign promises literally.
Most Trump voters.... like most other voters... choose the candidate they think.... on the whole... is most likely to lead the country/state/city/etc in the direction they believe it needs to go. Or, alternatively, choose the candidate they think is less likely to lead the country/state/city/etc in a direction they find objectionable.
People who vote for Trump are not necessarily stupid (and imbeciles is over-the-top emotive). My best friend voted for Trump and he is not a stupid man.
You think that Trump is NOT full of shit?? That he is competent? Looks like you are arguing for the sake of argument.
Odd that you do not recognize stubborn support for their party, stubborn refusal to admit that they were wrong to vote for Trump, and intentional defense of Trump even when the 'logic' of the defense is laughable. Don't presume that displayed stubborn partisanship reflects an honest, private assessment of what Trump is doing. Trump was primarily elected because of a belief that he could fix the economy (which, in essence, meant lowering prices). Those who privately and honestly believe this is going to happen as a result of Trump's actions would fall into the 'naive' category. I think (at least I would like to believe) the majority, however, fall into the 'stubborn refusal' category. Not naive, not stupid, just stubbornly partisan. A lot of these folks are emotionally so against the Ds that any R is (in their minds) better. I doubt most (at this point) believe Trump will fulfill his economic promises, his commitment to balance the budget, reduce the national debt, or his claim that tariffs are the magical elixer that will bring in the revenue to support all of his promises.
That is true too. Multiple factors can be true at the same time.
Now that voters see the direction Trump is taking our nation, there should be some level of realization that this is indeed NOT good.
You are not??
Who put him into office other than those who voted for him??
I am very critical of those who continue to support Trump. And you are not???
One can only hope that is true. And one would also hope that a Trump voter would recognize what Trump is actually doing and disapprove.
We do not believe him, but we see where he is going. LOL
I think people do indeed take campaign promises seriously. They do not believe the extremely absurd promises such as ending the Ukraine war with a phone call, but many (if not most) believed that Trump (the great negotiator) would indeed end the Ukraine war quickly. I suspect they are quite surprised at the level of incompetence he has shown (or they are oblivious to it ... confirmation bias, etc.)
That is fine when voting. But after the vote, when the voter can see where the individual is leading the nation, it would be irrational to stubbornly stick to the 'likely direction' they presumed rather than objectively evaluate what is actually taking place.
But partisanship overrides critical thinking in many (if not most) partisans.
Your conclusion was "people who support Trump do not believe what he is saying", but do you truly believe that? While you claim it would be more logical, it seems that the reality is that when he tells them something that is true, like the price of egg's, they cheer for Trump and jeer at Biden, the conservatives foil. And when Trump tells them he'll fix it they cheer again, but then when he doesn't fix anything they say, "Well yeah, but he didn't mean it, he's just owning the libs! And besides, Joe Biden was old and Democrats lied!". So, did they really not believe him? Or is it just that they have hitched their wagon and basically have no choice but to go along with whatever he says, truth or lie, the Mango Mussolini is the MAGAites ride or die? Seems far more likely the latter which would support the conclusion that they are not only naive imbeciles but also lacking any sort of conscience or shame.
One can only hope that is true
has the left become so divorced from reality and caught up in a ever more hysterical echo chamber of paranoia that his point is even remotely controversial? things are worse than in thought if that’s true.
I suppose you define 'the left' as 'those to Sean Treacy's left'.
Do you think that most Trump voters did NOT believe that Trump was going to lower prices and make our government more fiscally responsible?
Anyone who finds Jack’s point controversial is not operating in the real world. It’s just that simple.
I think people who voted for trump believe things on both points are significantly better than they would be under Harris, as was amply demonstrated by what happened between 2021 and Jan 2025.
I don't even bother hoping Trump supporters are smart, they've proven how imbecilic and gullible they are by believing Trumps lies, and then when Trump gets caught in the lie, they basically admit that they didn't really care about the truth anyway.
What the MAGAites want is a vile violent strong man with no conscience and no morals to sweep in and destroy all the protections for people that the MAGAites hate. You know, all the people that they, the once mighty white conservative Christians up on their pedestals, wrapped in their own fantasies of superiority, want either out of what they see as 'their' country, or to force back into hiding in anonymity or stay in the closet if their beliefs don't align with the white conservative Christian biblical fantasy ideology. Trump promised those folk he'd have their backs so they don't really give a fuck what he does, he's their guy. He's the arsonist they hired to burn it all down and now that he is, the rational rest of the country, who said "Oh, it will never go that far", are all panicking.
don't even bother hoping Trump supporters are smart, they've proven how imbecilic and gullible they are by believing Trumps lies, and then when Trump gets caught in the lie, they basically admit that they didn't really care about the truth anyway
The complete lack of self awareness it takes for the Biden chorus to play this card is simply unfathomable to a person capable of critical thought.
And any time that is pointed out, they scream back about men in girl's bathrooms and some deep state cover up of a Biden puppet or something. Anything to deflect and distract. They spend hours telling you conspiracy theories about Biden, which of course make absolutely NO difference now, he could have been a fucking lizard alien during his term, and it doesn't fucking matter now because he didn't sell us off to some lizard planet while he was in office. But to hear conservatives tell it, Biden and transgender Americans justify any and all means to their ends which is complete and total annihilation of any dissenting party that doesn't align with their white conservative Christian ideology.
Their ignorance and intolerance aren't bugs; they're features as many were raised to distrust education and science while embracing intolerance and the condemning of others based upon their unproved religious belief. And of course, their religious intolerance aligns with their racial and cultural intolerance towards "others" or any "sinners" who were to be identified and avoided and, in the past, potentially arrested/attacked if the white Christian community deemed them a threat to their ideology.
So, virtually none of them are actually being affected by the transgenders in bathrooms or sports, the tiny percent that transgenders represent make it impossible for there to be some pandemic of transgenders in school bathrooms. 2 or 3 incidents out of the hundreds of thousands of schools does not warrant hundreds of hours of Fox News airtime being spent fueling the fire of justification and ignorance, but they spend it because that's their goal. It's a feature, not a bug.
Trump embarrassed the shit out of the United States of America at the G-7 in Canada today.
Strange statement all the same. First you wrote, "You assume they believed him." A statement meaning a negative: 'MAGAites do Not believe Trump.' And when I state MAGAites believe in Trump, their chosen candidate, you correct me with "believe" and "believe in." The different may be there but its inconsequential unless you care to explain how it works!
I can work with that!
A personal attack in lieu of an argument.
Name the point that you are talking about. Jack made several points. It is difficult to respond to vague attacks.
I think that might be true of many current Trump supporters. They certainly have dreamed up one hell of a nightmare to believe that Trump is better than (heaven forbid) a D PotUS.
I live in Texas. There are Trump supporters everywhere.
Some of my good friends are in that group. We have them at church, I play golf with a few, I'm hosting a whiskey/cigar group this week that will have several in attendance. We don't agree on most things, but the discussions are always friendly.
So, knowing several hundred Trump supporters personally, it is absolutely my experience that they understand not to take him literally. He is their best defense against what they see as the lunatic left.
It seems odd to explain the concept of symbolism vs literalism to a liberal, considering how readily and eagerly adopt their own symbols.
The problem, as I have tried to explain to TiG, is the economic state of the American working class. The price of eggs simply became the symbol of the inability of the working class to maintain their standard of living, much less improve it.
It is just one of dozens of indicators that together describe the grim picture faces by working class families in the face of complete cluelessness from Democrats who still doggedly deny the collateral damage caused by their economic policies. Basic necessities like food, housing, utilities, and insurance are increasingly difficult for families of modest means to afford. But the affluent Democratic base doesn't feel the pain, so the party either ignored the problems and/or tried to spin some bizarre condescending gaslight combination.
You're acting like they don't love the fact that something has finally been done about the border, that violent leftist protesters are finally being shut down, that women's sports are finally being protected, and many of the other issues they care about are finally being taken seriously.
Okay. I can see that scenario. It does not change the other "possibility" that is, that others knew he was pulling a Machiavellian (throw every conceivable interest) expediency out for public consumption seeking to 'net' whomsoever he could in the aggregate. That is, for Trump he was playing the numbers 'game.' Amassing coalitions!
Therefore yes, some in the 'numbers' did trust him to end the war once taking office, while others 'decided' he was poking them instead but voted for some of him on account of his other 'promises.'
Such remarks illustrate a strange. . . almost angry illusion that is quite disturbing. You rain words down like acid. Not good.
Do you imagine he's the only one?
Trump was elected for the same reason Biden was elected, which happens to be the same reason Obama was elected, as well as W, Clinton, Reagan and Carter.
They won their election because people were dissatisfied enough with the current state of affairs that they wanted a change.
Trump supporters have been telling you all along that they were/are unhappy about a laundry list of issues, of which the economy was only one. Yet you are determined that they be held to the literal expressions of their sentiments on one issue.
You would be more correct to doubt that they every believed any of those things seriously. They simply felt that the direction the country would go under his administration would be preferable to four more years of Bidenesque management.
That's an opinion. It's one I happen to share on some issues like tariffs or immigration, but probably don't share on others. Most Trump supporters don't mind the tariffs at all and are thrilled about his immigration stance. Throw in Title IX and you have a trifecta.
Not as much as you are, no. It is what it is. We'll get through Trump just like we got through whoever was making decisions for Biden for the last 2 years. (It sure AF wasn't him.)
You're missing the point. The problem is the blaming. Your fellow Americans exercised their right to vote, did their civic duty, and chose the person they believed to be the least terrible option. When we start blaming each other for differing opinions, we lose a fundamental part of what it means to be American.
The irony is staggering.
I don't think you can fault them for declaring partial "victories". They got the hard line immigration stance they wanted, they got the roll back of some of the trans/woke nonsense, they got Ukraine and Russia talking and the US not spending more money, and they got what they will see (I don't) as an effort to help the working class by forcing manufacturing back to the USA. They got at least an attempt at cutting govt waste
You and I probably share disapproval of several of these ideas, and also probably share frustration over their poor execution, but Trump supporters are getting the things they think will make the country better in the long run.
Most people.... and I mean almost everybody... knows that Trump spouts ridiculousness like the real estate salesman that he is. People do not take him literally, any more than you take the car salesman literally when he tells you "the ride is so smooth it's like sitting in your living room". You don't go home and compare the vibrations on your sofa with those in the new Ford.
The angriest of liberals, so worked up that they totally miss the point, waste countless hours trying to prove his statements are factually incorrect, and then their heads explode when nobody cares because everybody else understood not to take him literally. They don't believe him.
Trump supporters expect that he will take their concerns seriously and implement policies that move the country in the direction they support, even if those are different to the sales banter he spouted on the campaign trail. They believe a significant number of Biden style policies have proven damaging to the country and they trust him to combat those. They believe in him.
It's very much like I suspect you may have believed in Joe Biden, even if you knew much of what he promised was impossible. You expected him to take the country in a different direction than Trump, which he did. You believed IN him, even if you knew better than to believe him.
Why would you think I would imagine that? Faux obtuseness is never a good tactic.
This is the depth of your analysis? Well, let's take this just a little deeper. What was the change going to be? Are you suggesting that the electorate wanted a change no matter what the change was? That they did not care what Trump actually would do in office, they just wanted someone who was not a D?
In reality, most people are going to come up with an assessment. They will assess the direction of the nation under Harris, assess the same under Trump, and draw a conclusion. If they concluded that Trump would be better for the nation than Harris then that conclusion is based upon certain beliefs about what Trump would do.
Which means they either believed Trump's bullshit (to some degree) or they recognized the bullshit and invented their own expectation of what he might really do. As I have noted many times in this forum, if Trump had not had the fortune of a growing economy in his first term (and thus falsely getting credit for it) he would be a distant memory now.
Some (as evidenced in this forum) held a romanticized view of Trump as a PotUS who was 'good for the economy and the border' and that will be the dominant factor. They will excuse all of Trump's negatives and naively vote for the 2017 economy and a more secure border. Others bought Trump's bullshit and voted accordingly. And some will be a mix.
We do not know how these views were distributed among the electorate that voted for Trump. But we do know what I stated: those who voted for Trump are responsible for him being in office.
As I have noted, those who still support Trump obviously are buying his bullshit. If someone "does not mind" the tariffs and the trade wars then they clearly are holding an incredibly naive hope that this will all work out well because Trump is some kind of genius. And those who are thrilled about Trump going well beyond criminals and ripping families apart where the adults have no criminal records and are gainfully employed are ... (you figure it out).
It is binary, Jack. You either are net positive on Trump or net negative. Trump has not been making minor mistakes; he is creating major problems. So you either are okay with these major problems or you are not. You either support his brain-dead stupid tariffs or not. You either support his irresponsible and incompetent hacking of the federal government or not. You either support his war on illegal immigrants to the extent he is taking it or not. You either support his intention to increase deficit spending and add trillions more to the national debt or not. You either support his extreme unpresidential behavior or you do not. You either support his irrational moves (TACO), vindictive acts (removing security forces, denying security clearances, etc.) or not. You either support his abuse of his powers (attempts to violate laws) and unheard of leveraging of his power to influence private industry (e.g. law firms, media companies, etc.) or you do not.
Trump is on the extreme in terms of bad actions, with precious few good decisions. There is nothing close to balance here. You either support him as PotUS or you do not.
Other than being obnoxious, what is the point of you inventing personal characteristics and attributing them to me? Focus on the topic instead of taunts.
I very much wish it were true that people are not influenced by campaign promises. If you think that most people ignore every promise made by a politician and instead do real research and engage in critical thinking then you are not paying attention.
Of course there were plenty of people who believed that. Just as there were plenty who believed that Obama was going to make them all financially secure and bring world peace. Open your eyes. The electorate is absolutely influenced by rhetoric. You do not think that the billions of dollars spent on campaigns is done because the rhetoric (and promises) are ineffective. Or do you??
I believed Biden was too old to be PotUS (when he was running in 2019), but there was no other choice once he was nominated.
My vote for Harris had nothing to do with promises, but rather my understanding of her presidential qualities, character, etc. vs. those of Trump. Trump is entirely unfit for the presidency. He was the worst candidate (of any running) by far for the office. And he has proven that to be true in just a few months.
But, but, but, isn't there a way I can bash Democrats, bash liberals and progressives, argue in support of the administration and conservatives while also avoiding any and all connection to or responsibility for Donald Trump and any of his damaging actions? /s
It's the new adopted super position of conservatives on these boards, all the haughty superiority and none of the responsibility for their choices. When the Trump administration limps out of power in three years leaving a burning husk of a government for the rest of us to clean up, these same sycophants will act like they had nothing to do with Trump and that they never actually supported him. They will convince themselves they made the right choice by whining incessantly about Harris and Biden as they always do, ignoring and avoiding any and all responsibility towards our nation because they have never actually given a fuck about anything but themselves.
I think it is a way to resolve cognitive dissonance.
Some people are bound to remain loyal to the GOP (even if the GOP has abandoned its principles) while avoiding being in the impossible position of having to defend Trump.
And, of course, the overriding factor is emotional, irrational partisanship. To many, anything D is bad by definition.
There is also something more nefarious at play as trump has ‘legitimized’ the darkest of motives…a latent desire to go back to a time where women were subjugated, where minorities were marginalized, where their religious beliefs were unassailable, and where thought, policy, and morality were their domain. Insidious in it’s very nature and antithetical to our founding principles.
They don't think, their policies are pig turds, and they have no morality
“…they have no morality.”
Oh, but in their mind they are the moral arbiter of justice, education, distribution of wealth, social construct, foreign policy, etc, etc…
…ignoring the injustice, educational constraints, wealth inequity, social inequalities, foreign relation inconsistencies, etc, etc taking place under their watch and conveniently obfuscating any sense of morality.
It doesn't bother them when children die of starvation or disease. It doesn't bother them when children are denied a decent education.
But gawd forbid a poor woman with no resources seeks to abort a pregnancy
No, Jack, not when you justify Trump and MAGA trashing our Constitution and the rule of law based on the far right's innate racism, sexism and homophobia it is not!
Let me state that I get your point about larger symbolism. Just seen an NYC candidate and comptroller Brad Lander detained at Immigration Court - the images of his detention showing that ICE is "doing something" be it viewed positively or negatively- it is symbolic for sure. I get your point that republicans like that 'action' has occurred.
Still there are distracting "flourishes" in your comment. 'Lunatic" left" would work simply as "the Left." You continue to speak that way with provocative adjectives throughout the end of your comment! It is not easy to separate your comment(s) from the 'angry' retorts that right and left extremists use when you speak similarly. I am making you aware of how such rhetoric comes across.
I sure 'wish' you would stop questioning the motivations of others, because I thought we 'all' had come to an understanding that we can not know the motivations of someone until they share such openly. Why make such assertions which can not be sustained (by you knowledge)?
Your mention of "almost everybody" . . . is unhelpful to this discussion. For one you do not explain whom you mean by it. Surely, "almost everybody" is a liberal use of the U.S. population which you can not possibly mean or be sure of as we are a quite divided nation right now vote-wise.
I have no proper frame to put what you wrote. I believe Biden overall to be a good man. I do not believe Trump to be a good man. That said, I do see your point about not taking Trump literally (in spite of the fact that we should when choosing a president because words matter). I will concede (going forward) that conservatives look at the overall 'body' of Trump work and ideas whether than detailed statements (actually asserted).
The fact remains that Trump is a proven liar and since he is no one should be trusting his words about 'anything.' For example, his words change like the direction of the win. But, that is not how we as a nation have learned to 'read' our politicians. That is, we get to hold their feet to their fire for lying. . . until MAGAites decided to let Trump be the liar and rhetorical bomb-throwing liar that he is with impunity.
So no, I don't and won't accept a politician known for his extreme and multiplicity of lies to lead this country. Why? Because such an individual demonstrates s/he has no validity on a regular basis. There can be no credibility granted. Case in point: We end up with a president such as we have. . . someone who is amorally leading us-without taking any principled position we can (all) recognize.
What MAGAite commenters are describing is this: They are people who have suspended their overall conservative principles in order to use another human being amorally to advance their takeover of systems of the federal government they feel they have no or little success in controlling. Trump is the symbol of 'smash-mouth" and "in yo face" confrontation and winning that they thought they should have had in office since George Washington. This explains why they accept his lies and his 'warts' of wanting to corrupt and pollute the federal system: He does so for their benefit and their interest. . .and they admire that he can capitalize for himself while 'serving' their interests.
In the above sense, Trump is a man after MAGAites' own heart. He is the leader they have been waiting for a very long time. Warts and all!
Trump is a bigot, "alpha male," cut-throat businessman, and Archie Bunker-type (which some romanticize) all rolled into one. It is his 'appeal' to his people.
It was a rhetorical question, designed to prompt you to think about your current stance. There is some irony, I guess, in having to explain that in a conversation about not taking everything literally.
It's far deeper than yours appears to be, and far more considerate of the history of US presidential elections. Most presidential elections, at least since 1960, have been decided on what general feeling the candidate is able to create in the voters.
So while you're micro analyzing the literal words he says, the majority of voters aren't paying that close attention.
I like to think of it in terms of "broader" and consider more factors rather than "deeper" by drilling down on individual items.
Let's remind ourselves that we're talking about 77ish million Trump voters, and another roughly 77 million Harris voters. So we've got literally tens of millions of different combinations of factors that drove these decisions. History tells us that a "yuuuge" number of those people will have voted on their general intangible feeling.
If you listen objectively.... i.e. without having already decided you're going to condemn these people and looking for opportunities to pick apart their statement.. they have told you what changes they expected. Those include specific issue changes, like the border, Russia, the economics of the working class, enforcement of laws, and changing various rules related to DEI and transgenderism.
They have also told you about intangible feelings. They've talked about Biden and Harris both being seen as weak leaders. They've talked about things like "America first", "elitism", "woke" and "lawfare", among many others. These aren't necessarily tangible issues, but they drove general feelings in many voters.
It's no different that Kennedy winning because he looked better on TV or GHWB talking about "a thousand points of light" or Obama talking about "hope and change" or Biden winning the presidency simply by being the opposite of Trump.
No and no. There are other options.
Nonsense. Why should it be binary? Because you declare it so?
It's a good day on the irony index.
It's not an invention. It's not even a criticism. It's simply recognizing a pattern of behavior. You take shit literally, even if it's not meant that way. You've done it several times in this very conversation.
Let's go ahead and avoid that thing where you misrepresent my statements. And again...it's not binary. Why would those be the only options??
You expected him to take the country in a different direction.
Well there we have it.
Cite me doing so.
It's not a problem I suspect you've ever faced, but political moderates are often confused by extremists for representatives of the other side, simply because we refuse to validate their extremism and we're willing to identify batshittery from both directions.
Exactly. But now we run into the other side of the problem coin, where the party in power becomes willing to justify indefensible actions simply because someone is "doing something".
They don't see you that way. They see you as negatively as you routinely describe them.
Do you suggest that liberals or other Democrats believe Trump when he makes promises? I'm going to say the overwhelming majority do not. Did you ever believe Mexico was going to pay for a wall? That's also true of his own supporters. So between almost all of you and the majority of them and almost everybody in between, we have "almost everybody".
I think if either of them qualify, you have a very different definition of "good man" than I do.
No argument at all.
I'm not sure your acceptance matters. He's the president.
Well, I choose not to apply adjectives to enhance the word: "Right." In fact, I only use words like Right and Left because they seem to clarify something for the reader/s of my comment (in my observation). I really hate the political use of 'Right'/'Left' - period. It is a tool I feel 'pushed' to use.
That said I find better usage of "MAGAite," "conservative," and "liberal" -and even so I only use them when it is essential to explain a distinction. I do not use the terms in search of something just meant to 'injure' the reader.
Note: Your recent 'series' of comments are of good read quality. That is, you bring something essential by way of explanations even when superfluous taunts and condescension are also in tow.
That is worthy of 'extra' mention.
You can't speak for what liberals "believe." We can tell you. In that case, what I thought about Trump building the wall was - "No, but let's see." After-all he said it. And for a fact-I take people at their word.
Since Trump stated he would build the wall (and put a door in it) he stated a CAUSE, thus he WEIGHTED the Effect it would have on some (if not all) his supporters. It is a thing politicians do. . . when they read polls ahead of primaries and general elections.
As a result of the above, you are incorrect. Voters not only hear what campaigners say; they listen and act on what they have been told. As the campaign is something of an 'interview.' Now then, if personally you are serious in selecting candidates based on the lies they say and you accept that campaigning is a gross waste of time. . .that is on you. It is not the norm for the public.
Townhalls are an example of voters getting up and leaving their comforts zones to be seated in 'stuffy' studios and cramped spaces to hear what a willing liar or set of liars drone on and on?
I think not.
Such words have minimal usage to this discussion as you do not clarify or share what a good man is to you. Here is why: Biden and Trump treat each other as opposites and 'repellant.' So for you to imply that neither man is good, it means you have a separate (third) category for what is a "good man" . . . if that means you feel Biden and Trump are both extremist. Then you should state it plainly—and share that you mean a good man ought to appear Moderate.
For all our exchanges, I do not recall if you clarified that you are a Moderate conservative.
Like you, I take people at their word.
I also try to give them the benefit of the doubt, as long as they remain reasonable.
So on this topic, where left leaners are constantly identifying Trump's lies, I either have to conclude that they are intelligent enough not to believe those lies, or that they are complete morons who are somehow surprised by every one. I choose the former.
You've said I am incorrect and then agreed with me in the very next sentence.
I've made no mention of townhalls. Are you confusing my statements with someone else's?
Obviously. I cannot imagine a scenario where we decide one person is "good" simply because they are at odds with another bad person. What an odd idea. Are the Mexican cartel members "good" because they got in a gang war with MS13? Seems very strange.
I think they are both men of low character.
I don't find a label that describes my views accurately, other than possibly "pragmatist" or "stoic", and even those are not wholly applicable.
It is interestingly ridiculous that you do not fault the liar for mouthing lies to the public and causing 'all' the country to be his or her collaborators in lies told to them. We tell children better. It is ridiculous to allow the nation's children to know that we value 'nothing' doing campaigning seasons of CHOOSING. That is not rational.
That too, is an incorrect sentence. I do not agree with you in how we see liars doing 'any' campaign season. To begin your comment you stated: "Like you, I take people at their word." That implies we agree: People should be taken at their word. Assuming they want to accurate, valid, and trustworthy. Trump deals in blatant lies. It is right to point out his use of EXPEDIENCY (through lies) when he is 'found out.' And once determined: Call him out.
People who lie, I have no use for them - period. People who hire other people ought to have no use for liars. So it does beg the question that a party that wishes itself to morally superior (MAGA) than the likes of "me" - hires itself a 'Master' and becomes a 'slave' of an established liar. Thereby, by sheer numbers, dragging people lie YOU down to their level when you have to defend deliberate lies made by deliberate liars.
Townhalls is placed in this discussion as an EXAMPLE: I do not need permission from anyone to add an EXAMPLE.
Besides the obvious "mention" of MS13 and 'Mexican cartel members" which I did not suggest in my comment. . . I accept your EXAMPLE and note it. I will have to accept that your opinion is Biden and Trump are bad people—I do not think Joe Biden and Trump are 'equal' in that regard. I will not belabor your opinion of these men's express goodness or poor characters farther.
Finally, we can agree on this: I, too, and a pragmatist. At the end of the day, I want what works for all people in this country. . .even it means-especially if it means I have to make space for all people to share in the liberties, prosperity, and peace of mind I long to receive.
Pragmatism, is fertile ground you and can stand on and 'discuss' a great many issues. Let's try it.
The population of undocumented immigrants has been between 6 million and 12 million for the last 30 years. By 2007 after 8 years under Republicans we had peaked at 12.2 million undocumented immigrants, and it's gone up and down since then. They only become an emergency when there is a Democrat administration in office, that's when the Republicans whine to high heaven about the manufactured crisis at the border.
Rightwing extremists present a FAR greater threat to our nation than any leftwing protesters as was made very clear on January 6th, 2021. Timeline: Far-Right Terrorism in the United States
And the number of transgender athletes causing problems in sports is about the same as saying they should close Lake Michigan to swimming because someone pissed in it. It is a manufactured crisis, and every single issue could have and should have been handled on an individual basis, which they actually were. It's just the screaming outrage of conservatives over their moronic bigoted gut reaction over the suggestion that we treat transgender persons with the same respect as any other American.
So, I get that Trump fans are happy about three things that appeal to their bigotry and conservatism, but the fact that they were willing to abandon reason and hire a reckless arsonist to solve their manufactured crisis proves they are not worthy of anyone's whiskey.
What would that gain me? Why do you object to his lies so much more than other politicians. When did we start expecting politicians to tell the truth?
To what end? And define "call him out"? What does that even mean? Do you need a constant reminder that he's dishonest? Are you that forgetful? How did it become my responsibility to restate the obvious? Do I also need to remind you that water is wet?
Interesting assertion. Why do you think this?
I personally don't agree with their views on immigration.
You suggested they "have hitched their wagon and basically have no choice but to go along". I'm simply telling you they're enjoying the ride.
All the more reason not to change the rules for them. Or have your pronouns in your email signature. If Democrats had any sense whatsoever, they would not have died on that hill.
It was a taunt, as is the above quote.
It is shallow. You stop at the one obvious factor (change) and deem that to be THE reason.
Another bullshit tactic. Here you pretend that I disagree that these are changes Trump supporters expected. You invent a fake disagreement and then state the obvious. Worse, this is not the point. The point was, if you remember, that those who voted for Trump believed he would address the economy (i.e. prices), end the wars, and better control the border. And yes, among the secondary concerns, attacking liberal issues. The point is the fact that many if not most of his supporters believed his bullshit (to some degree). And many apparently still do!
You claim the majority did not believe Trump but claim they voted for him to address these issues per his claims. Make up your mind.
I go by what people write. This is not face-to-face so we are limited to mere words. If you want to be properly understood, then say what you mean.
More invented bullshit from you.
I had hoped that Biden would merely keep the lights on until the next election. I did not want Biden to do anything other than administer for four years. When he started acting, I was disappointed (but not surprised given human nature).
What we have is what I told you. I voted for Harris as the best way to use my vote against Trump because Trump is unfit for the office, and Harris, regardless of policy, would at least be a normal PotUS (where normal is defined by past presidents other than Trump).
Had the GoP nominated a fit candidate, I would have made my decision based on analysis which considers basic party dynamics and the credibility of the candiate (my assessment).
We have always wanted our politicians to tell the truth and most have campaigned on being honest whether they turned out to be or not. Most people with more than half a brain know that many if not most politicians often spin the truth and twist facts to their advantage, but never before have we ever had such a monumental and prolific liar like Donald Trump. He's not telling the little white lies, he's not just spinning truth, he's just throwing out massive unmitigated whoppers which is why I object so vehemently to Trumps lies.
The difference between a normal politician's lies and Trumps lies are like the difference between a driver going 10 miles over the speed limit (bad, very bad, shame on you driver!) and a driver going 30 miles over the speed limit while snorting coke and drinking whiskey, running stop lights and stop signs, smashing into the sides of parked cars all while evading police. Should we just listen the drunk drivers' friends when they say "Hey, all drivers break the law! What's the big deal?" and just give that guy a slap on the wrist because hey, everyone speeds once in a while? Of course not! That driver is a true danger on the roads and should have their license revoked and spend some time in jail.
Fair enough.
I agree. It was a Republican manufactured hill that Democrats should never have even bothered climbing.
Trump's lies are legion. Period. He lies like nobody else known to me in history. Certainly more than any other president. On that note; you are WELCOME to set the record straight on the record of any other president that lies MORE than Donald Trump in and out of office. If you can not, I will understand.
Sorry. The rest of your comment is hasty 'filler.'
Democrats stand with the underdogs in our society. They find a home in the party. It offends me that conservatives can be so heartless as to go after the 'weakest' ones in the chain. Alas, I will get over it as I have no other choice. For transpersons. . .conservatives is a metaphorical "blood-sport."
Exactly. Degrees matter. (It goes without stating, but here I am. . .stating it.)
[deleted][✘]
[✘] You stated your disagreement. I answered your direct question. If knew what changes they expected, why did you ask?
[deleted]
[✘] You don't, as I've already pointed out, but that's a separate issue. In this instance, we're talking about Trump and his verbal diarrhea.
I agree with your stance. I was hoping for the same thing. I think many of us were. And that represented a different direction. We were moving away from the president being the constant focus of attention while he intentionally antagonized half of the country. That's change.
So you didn't believe her campaign promises verbatim? Interesting.
Ok. Sure. But we have always wanted lots of wildly unrealistic things.
He's certainly more reckless with what he says in public. But none of us knows how many lies LBJ told to whom, or how crooked Andrew Jackson actually was. Bernie Sanders has been telling the same 2 or 3 lies for 50 years.
Trump is certainly a massive departure from the presidents of the previous 30 years or so, most of whom were men of conviction who respected the weight of the office and chose their words carefully. Agree or disagree with their policies, men like Ford, Carter, Reagan, GHWB, GWB, and Obama understood the danger of capricious action from the WH. Either Trump doesn't get that or doesn't care, or both.
I can see that. I think for me personally, that may be why I don't object more strongly than I do. He spews such outrageous nonsense that there is a very low chance people aren't going to recognize it as such. Also, the volume of bullshit announces very clearly not to pay any attention to what he says, but rather watch what he's actually able to do. What he says doesn't affect me. What he does very well might.
I can see that. For me, it's like the difference between a movie based loosely on a real life story and a cartoon where the animals talk and shoot lasers. You're not sure how much of the first movie is accurate. You know the cartoon is completely made up, so you manage your expectations accordingly.
That's an interesting point. There were so many issues in this election where they could have claimed the common sense center. The Rs left them plenty of room to do so. It was disappointing that they didn't.
You didn't answer any of my questions.
If they did that they would still be in the majority. They support whatever whim liberal white women are feeling at the moment.
If they stood with the underdogs, they would be creating opportunity for the working class instead of trying to forgive student loans for graduate degrees. They would be protecting women instead catering to the men masquerading as women trying to invade those spaces. They would be ensuring minority kids get as good an education as white kids. They would be protecting those kids.
Well, it offends them that people are influencing 10 year olds towards transitioning.
Let's be clear, here. It's not the trans people that are usually the objection, unless it's something like Will Thomas. The bigger objection is around various forms of grooming, like drag shows for little kids or convincing a 7 year old they should transition.
There was a middle ground here, rooted in sanity and common sense, and the Democrats abandoned it.
Tough guy behind a keyboard. Get serious (major euphemism!)
You have argued that Trump voters did not believe him. If they did not believe him then the only reason they would have to vote for him is that he is an R (a change from a D PotUS). If you pay attention to the 'arguments' for Trump, they usually boil down to 'anything is better than a D PotUS'. That is not complex, not sophisticated ... it is simplistic partisanship.
I have argued that there are various types of Trump voters. There are those, like my best friend, who believed that Trump's policies would be similar to his first term (his perception of same) and thus Trump's policies would be better than those of a D PotUS. He disregarded most of Trump's negatives and based his decision strictly on an assessment of policy. I suspect he now prioritizes demeanor, character, integrity, maturity, and competence higher.
Then there are blind partisans who will vote for the R. (Apparently, no matter what.)
Then there are the gullible people who are too influenced by political rhetoric. These are the targets of campaign ads and the main targets of Trump. In my view, there are far too many in this group as evidenced by Trump's continued support (and even here by those who will defend him with the now cliche 'I am willing to wait and see how this pans out' excuse.
And of course, there are variants of the above.
That you even question this shows you do not understand how I think or my political positions. Of course, that is obvious to me given you routinely are off-base in your characterizations of me.
I apply a confidence analysis on campaign promises. There are some claims such as 'securing the border better' that I would give a higher confidence to than something like 'will end the Ukraine war with a phone call'. And on the latter promise, I had very little confidence that Trump could negotiate peace in the long term ... I expected that his notion to end the war was to throw Ukraine under the bus. What he actually did turned out to be worse than my expectation.
[deleted][✘]
You failed (intentionally IMO) to read the rest of my post.
As I noted, I go by what people write; as I explained to you, posts are mere words. No body language, etc. So if you want to be understood, then be clear. (In other words, I do not entertain the 'I did not say that' tactic used by many here ... including you.)
More evidence that you have no clue what you are talking about.
I don't do ridiculous. I told you about Trump and I won't digress. Read the comment I wrote related to this and do move on—or fall 'behind.' You asked the same question more or less the same way. I am not digressing on this. If you are done-then so am I.
Well, white kids had 200 plus years of white privilege and all it involves added to themselves. Minority kids had 200 plus years of oppression, setbacks, and repressions. . . and still "we" rise. Given time who know what will become of 'us' eh?
Have you told the religious folks in your life they are "grooming' little ones when they introduce the little ones to their god/s? Do not throw the word: "grooming" around so loosely.
Trans-people want to normalize. That is, they want to be respected from the early years and not grow up (as I did) with brain-washing that tells me I am a sinful, bad, even evil person. All which has to do with religious dictates. . . even when imposed on a secular state and upheld by human laws.
So yes, trans-people want to inform youths that if/when they are sure of their transgenderism. . .(as the adults are themselves whom experienced being told they were victims of mental illness—by untrained and trained professionals regressively) they can take PRIDE in who they were BORN to be.
I won't fault them for that.
MAGAites may never understand or accept what transgenderism is. . . or what homosexuality is. . . but the fact that conservatives can be spiteful to another human 'forever' and expect them to suffer a life as a second-class citizen because of what y'all can't process—or won't process. . .will have to be an issue y'all deal with and not 'us.'
I disagree....
You do not have a vote on it. So there.
Ha, mmmkay...
[✘] Getting back to the topic at hand, there are literally millions of reasons people have for choosing to vote the way they do. So pretending Trump voters chose him because of a campaign promise on the price of eggs and implying they're somehow going to abandon him if prices increase is complete nonsense.
I invite you to explain how the educational opportunities of 1825 are relative to the performance gap of 2025, without implying that black kids are inherently inferior.
Then I invite you to consider the more probable idea that black students perform worse as a group because less is expected of them.
I think we're talking about different things. "Grooming" has an accepted definition in the context of child predation, and defined behaviors which those who work with children are taught to notice. "Drag queen story time" or drag shows where little kids are welcome include several of those red flag behaviors.
The situation with transgenderism is different. The problem actors are usually not trans people themselves, but over-zealous political activists who put inappropriate pressure on young people who are still figuring things out, and/or attempt to cut them off from their families. We'll add insane parents who declare that their 3 year old is transgender so they can get attention to the list of people from whom we should be protecting kids.
You just demand that people state the obvious.... like it's some pledge of allegiance. Then when they ask questions you throw a strop.
That's 100% ridiculous.
I'm just asking you to make sense.
Fatalism, such as believing that you have no power in a rigged system, generates terrible outcomes (worse than having low IQ) and is easily transmitted to kids from adults. We have an entire political party dedicated to promote CRT and instill fatalism in kids. It seems an almost purposeful attempt to generate bad outcomes in the minority children who are exposed to it.
No, I would whether just point out that the BS from conservatives has never stopped since the 1800s. The majority of conservatives apparently intend to be a permanent hindrance to minorities in this country. We can see it even in the 'fierce' defense by conservatives to "take our country back" and the use of every political power y'all can muster to regress minorities.
As for black kids being inherently inferior, what would ever give you that idea? Have you not ever seen some of the 'rocks' that masquerade as white kids? /s
For too long, (some) white people have abused their 'place, rank, and status' in the majority, and taken (full) advantage of minorities by stealing their achievements, inventions, and talent through assimilation and absorption into the general population.
Now then, I bet you don't expect less of blacks in general-since you apparently are 'eager' to tell us about what you perceive to be our weaknesses. . . as long as no conservative accepts responsibility for the oppression, setbacks, and regressions. After all, transgendered are just the latest example of conservatives interfering in the freedom of people with children with gender 'issues.' You, conservatives seem to talk 'big' about freedom, parenting, and protecting children—as long as it suits your conservative ideology.
The problem is not all children can live in conservative ideology. For that matter, neither can all adults! But, there you are are with your IDEOLOGY in your hands- not listening to a damn thing, self-righteously attempting to MAKE liberals 'be' conservative. All the while, waving the biggest freedom banners one can fly, driving around the country spouting freedom paraphernalia—what is evidenced by it is the conservative wish to have (all) freedoms to cause others to be like "you."
Finally, you chose to deploy a set of talking points in your comment. That is not how humans should talk to each other when they truly intend to have a good and respectful discussion. I care not for conversations that ignore the humanity in people, but just go with what sells in think-tanks. I view the "stance" as a gross waste of time. I suggest we engage like people positively interested in subject matter or not bother at all.
That is what I am asking you to do.
It may seem that I come here to do whatever it is that some conservatives compel these "discussions" to turn into, but no, that would be plan wrong. I live my reality every day just like you live your own. You can not tell me what sense should be regarding somebody and something you are not!
Vice-versa, I can make space for conservatives in my world (even without the labeling and mockings)-everything I read and see from conservatives indicates-especially now, that you can can not tolerate Others.
That is a problem for conservatives—'go!' fix it. . .in yourselves.
Look at that: Confirmation bias reinforcement.
Admit that transgendered soldiers had jobs until conservatives decided to put a arguably unqualified (but passes 'loyalty testing by the "chief') secretary of defense into power to remove them from servicing the nation they live in and loving doing so, and going to court to finish making them 'career-less.'
Just admit it already.
I invite you to explain how "BS from conservatives" is to blame for black kids doing poorly on their SATs.
Once again, we have this conveniently nebulous accusation with no specificity, no details, and no relevant action in the last 50 years.
I know you won't accept this, but the actual truth is that "the majority of conservatives" have their own lives to live, their own bills to pay, and don't give a solitary damn about what you do or don't do.
Examples?
Evidence of their responsibility from the last 50 years?
I think it's absolutely American ideology... both conservative and liberal... to protect children.
Examples? Be specific for a change. What are you actually talking about?
Be specific. To what, specifically, do you object?
No you're not. You asked that I join the neurosis parade and obsess about Trump's lies... as if I can do anything about them.
Once again the BS about "the last fifty years" . . . MAGAite supporters don't get to pick the period for black generational loss! And for the record, the changes effected in the last 50 years are not benefits from conservative actions anyway. Conservatives, as I have stated, desire to otherize minorities in this country. That is, keep minorities in their (supposed) "place."
That is a. . . / untrue.. Conservatives are behind the Trump Administration attempting to administratively discharge transgendered servicemembers from serving their country, while not doing the same to heterosexual servicemembers. Let's talk about that!
Incorrect. The gun victims of Sandy Hook say that is a . .. untrue. The gun victims from a plethora of gun deaths say that is a. . .untrue. And as for protecting women, the fact they can get medical crises issues and die attempting to carry and birth a child that is "unsustainable" - says that the goal of conservatives is to protect ideology and not women as potential mothers.
Finally, take your "be specific" tactic , because that is certainly what it is, a fake out pretense of caring, away from me. I suggest you read and "get involved" in what is really happening to minorities, beyond conservative ideology. Because 'one' can sound and read like a 'walking talking-point' and that in itself invalidates proper discussion, in my opinion.
Interesting, for whatever reason you do not observe that Trump and MAGAites OBSESS over liberal's lifestyles and culture. Our 'duty' is to call them out for it. Why? Because using conservative power to alter our lives matters SIGNIFICANTLY to us. (Not evidently you.)
The fact that you can't find any examples within the last 50 years is a clear indication of how completely ridiculous your claims are.
So do tell, CB, how long does the victim window last? 100 years? 200? 1000? How long will it be before you look in the mirror and think you may be a touch responsible for your own situation?
They absolutely disqualify heterosexual people.
Again, you have to go back well over 60 years. Were you even alive back then?
The plethora of people who have used guns to protect their families would disagree.
"Tactic". Yes. Right. I've nefariously tricked you into communicating like a regular person.
Most of them do not care what you do until you make them. Put boys in girls sports? Now they have to care. Fire somebody because he "misgendered" or "deadnamed"? Gotta step in. Give drugs to a 10 year old so he or she doesn't develop properly? Can't let that happen. Get people kicked off of media or TV because you don't like what they said? Fuck that. Let drag queens openly groom elementary school kids? No... use some fucking common sense.
The first part of your comment is moot. As I stated conservatives are not responsible for any advance or progress in society of minority peoples. By the conservative motto. . . written by William F. Buckley: “A conservative is someone who stands athwart history, yelling Stop, at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who so urge it.”
I like myself quite fine when I look in the mirror, MAGA associates need not ever doubt that. But let's continue on. . . .
Below, you will find details from the Army 's "Standards of Medical Fitness." These standards generally apply to all other branches as well. Remember that most of these conditions are not necessarily permanently disqualifying , but they are red flags.
If you have had a medical complication at any time in your life that is mentioned here, then you need to tell your recruiter . They will tell you whether your condition can be waived , or if it is permanently disqualifying .
Remember that if you do not get an official waiver and your condition later is discovered, you could be dishonorably discharged for fraudulent enlistment. The choice is yours.
For something 'Extra':
MAGAites are big on state rights—when it serves their conversation and agenda that is. MAGAites and Trump have ordered the national guard out in California (an have stated the potential to do the same in other blue states) under the pretense of 'urgent need.' Even got an Appeals Court panel to agree with them.
This is the same party that stated states should be able to make and set their own policies, et ceteras, . . .until and when it does not set 'well' with their conservative ideology. Then it's anybody's guess what power moves they will make.
Be consistent.
I'm sure you wish that were true.
Correct. It's not their responsibility to make you successful.
Correct. It's a permanently disqualifying condition. Like Type I diabetes. High medical maintenance requirements.
What, specifically, is your presumption here? That if Trump supporters just cared more, those children would be alive? Is it all about the feelings?
Hang on... a minute ago you were whining about their over involvement with other people's children. So which is it?
But apparently MAGAite conservatives are ready and willing to set-back and repress liberals and Others. BUT I DIGRESS.
Again, the rest of all that is just argument for its own sake. I won't waste useful time on it.
No, you make shit up. That's not what "digress" means.
Digress may mean going 'backwards' in restating earlier remarks - not advancing discussion in the process, in this context. Since this "had" o be explained. . . (Big sigh!).
Trump has operated as a bullshit artist and bully his entire life. He lacks the intelligence, knowledge, and demeanor necessary to be an effective executive.
If he had not had the fortune of a growing economy during his first term, he would be a distant memory. Tragically, too many are willing to give undeserved credit and stubbornly stick with it well past the point of rational thinking.
And it took a decade to figure this out? Trump hasn't been hiding his true nature. The press hasn't been holding back on their reporting. Blue islands dotting the country were protesting all of Trump's 1st term.
Didn't Biden beat Trump in 2020? Didn't Democrats take the reigns of government in 2020? Weren't Biden and Democrats charitable enough? Didn't Biden and Democrats give away enough, pander enough, globalize enough?
Trump was history. Democrats really did win. So, how did Trump become President for a 2nd term?
As I noted: "Tragically, too many are willing to give undeserved credit [for the economy] and stubbornly stick with it well past the point of rational thinking."
In my opinion 3 main reasons.
People did not like being told the economy is great as prices were killing them. While I understand prices are only part of the economy it is the part that resonates with people.
People were tired of Joe. Rather than try to distance herself from him Kamala said she would not have done anything differently. Her poll numbers crashed and people did not see her as a viable alternative. IMO it was her election to lose, she lost it.
Enough people felt they were better off during Trumps first term than they were during Bidens so they were willing to overlook the Trump assholery factor. Especially since the cries of end of democracy, Hitler and name du jour during the Trump first presidency never never came true.
I also think people got tired of hearing grown ass adults calling other grown ass adults bully. So fifth grade playground tactics.
This is what the indoctrination of our kids lead to. A bunch of pussies who cry ‘bully’ when they are challenged.
It is the "you get so much more if you play the victim" doctrine
Effective "executive" or "POTUS"? Bullshit artist and bully could very well lead to being an effective business or perhaps union "executive" and apparently it has, despite his lack of intelligence, knowledge of world affairs, and demeanor. What I saw early on in the 2016 primary, and from a close examination of his history, was that despite any success or effectiveness he may have had as a business executive (which I was willing to consider), he was entirely unfit for the office of POTUS, where positive attributes like intelligence, knowledge, communication skills, and emotional demeanor are far more important than the ability to bully and bullshit ones way to a "deal". Hence my parting ways with the Republican party when they nominated him the first time.
So, when someone exclaims that:
I'm sorry but I need a better explanation of what that the hell that means. What precisely has been successful about Trump's approach and actions in the ME? I'm not saying that I'm not willing to consider them, I just don't see how they can be considered a "rousing success" in the aggregate or when looking at the bigger picture.
I suppose if, like the Obama admin, you think Iran and its terrorist minions bestriding the ME like a collosous, is a good thing , the last few months have been terrible for you. Those of us who enjoy seeing a thoecracy of lunatics who have killed thousands of Americans humbled, think it’s been a good thing.
I do not consider bullshit and bullying to be among the top qualities of an effective executive. I am not using ''effective" in the sense of the ability to accomplish some specific goals such as getting people to believe (and commit money to) a name brand (in this case, the Trump brand). Rather, I am referring to the qualities that define an effective executive in general. I would reference Drucker, et. al. for these qualities.
Trump is an effective demagogue and a very practiced bullshit artist.
Sure I agree that sending money to Iran in the past was a huge political mistake, and I think it is good that their ability to produce weapons grade uranium after years of blocking inspections, and intelligence proving accelerated enrichment was taking place, has been thwarted by Israel's targeted attack. But that was Israel's doing by all accounts, not Trump's. Trump was initially opposed to those strikes but only later came to accept Israel's concerns and reasons for them, but with limited U.S. backing.
Trump's ability to broker a diplomatic deal to end Iran's nuclear program fell short, and Israel had little choice but to proceed with the preemptive strike with or without US support. In addition to growing their nuclear program toward development of nuclear weapons, Iran had also financed and trained Hamas and showed support for their terrorist attack on Israel in October 2023. The situation in Gaza has not improved much either. And now Iran and Israel are trading missile volleys and people are dying on both sides. "A rousing success" is not how one might describe it IMHO.
One could suppose from that statement that foreign policy wasn't one of your strong points
Then you double down on an ignorant exageration by Netanyahu who should know better than to lie.
The Iranians were the anthesis of the Taliban; whenever they could they could try to annoy the US but in essence the US and the Iranians were in alignment in western Afghanistan.
Not one to forget a particularly good way to dupe Congress, Netanyahu repeated his 2015 accusations this week that Iran has killed or maimed "thousands of Americans" again without evidence.
1 in 6 combat fatalities in Iraq were attributable to Iran.
Citation? Opinion? or the opinion of the injured parties?
The deaths are attributed to proxies, they didn't blow themselves up, someone pulled a trigger or pushed a button to complete a circuit.
If a gun and by extension, it's manufacturer isn't responsible for gun deaths in this country according to our own courts and almost
every supporter of the second Amendment,
then it's really just political immaturity for blaming Iran for supplying some of the IED material and/or training of
Iraqi's who were the definition of patriots to their countrymen.
Would you blame the dead Americans who relinquished the explosives that went in to the next Iraqi IED
or the Iraqi, Al Queda or Taliban who built it?
It's not complicated.
In a general interpretation of proxy, Israel potentially can be called our proxy in the Middle East.
Somebody here might can answer this for me: Has Israel co-opted the United States with our permission or the United States co-opted Israel with its permission? Why has Trump not offered Israel a singular opportunity to become our 51st state? Would Israel be insulted by the 'consideration'? Just saying.
As I watch what is happening with TBN (Trinity Broadcasting Network) and our Middle East policy conduct, I am struck by TBN's and this administration's verbal put downs of former democratic presidents as incompetent to suitably help Israel 'manage' its conflicts and wars at home. Therefore I ask stark questions of who is doing what for and to whom in this U.S. and Israel 'marriage.'
(Okay, maybe not all of this is related to your comment. I acknowledge that. And I own my words alone.)
There are too many opinions posing as facts and vice versa, lol
Good enough or, if you want more, here is a plethora claiming the same
You have to understand that the Pentagon, after saying otherwise through 2018 is going to reach the conclusion that Iran was somehow responsible for the American military being in Iraq and elsewhere and incapable of defending themselves against a $30 home made bomb of fertilizer and in some cases augmented with our own anti tank rounds or captured HEAT rounds which were pretty devastating, because they cannot blame themselves or accept the blame. It happens in every conflict.
During WWII GI's put a tin or two of TNT in a sock that was schmeared with grease to create sticky bombs to attack tank treads and all light vehicles. The Russians used electrical tape to tie 4 Gammon grenades together to throw at Tiger & Panzer tanks - they were deliberately designed to be sticky but lacked the punch to destroy much unless used in groups. Soldiers adapt.
The Military Times lost it's objectivity a long time ago before I cancelled my subscription. That article is just a repeat of Seans which has since echoed throughout the worlds internet. The consensus prior to the first Trump Administration is that someone, somewhere, if not IRAN, Then North Korea or some unheard of alphabet terrorist group would have trained the Iraqis how to exploit the weaknesses of the US/NATO equipment.
It was inevitable.
It didn't become popular to blame Iran until 8 years after the end of the conflict. Not surprisingly the Army changed it's tune during the first Trump Administration.
That's some pretty weak sauce.
Please keep in mind the first rule of computing that also applies here to AI,
Garbage in, Garbage out.
Ah, the old "Hey, if you gave a dollar to that foreign militia group, then you're responsible for anything and everything they do!".
I guess that means all the money we've given the Saudi's make the US responsible for the deaths on 9/11?
But seriously, I get the idea of those funding terrorism should be held responsible, but if we're going to be sticklers and blame Iran for other militia groups kills, why aren't we doing the same with Russia?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending Iran, I think the regime should be marched out and shot in the streets for what they've done to their own people and others. And I feel the same way about Russia, there really is no difference between the two. They both desperately want the downfall of western democracy and have used a variety of violent means to attack us and yet Trump bows to Putin while pretending to be a strongman while dealing with Iran. But he's not really fooling anyone, everyone knows, from the Shah to Kim Jong Un, that Trump is just a whiny ignorant little bitch in way over his empty head.
It is a deeply personal and hot topic for some and that I can respect. Our country has a. . . complicated relationship with the Middle East/Israel and that (entire) region of the world is draining a lot of political 'energy' (once again).
Israel intends to bankrupt Iran and that should in turn, make permanent, the end of Hezbollah, the Houthi's and Hamas.
www.mediaite.com /politics/trump/trump-punches-out-of-g7-summit-early-right-after-telling-iranians-to-evacuate-capital/
Trump Leaves G7 Summit Early, Orders National Security Council To Assemble in Situation Room
Michael Luciano 2-3 minutes 6/16/2025
Michael Luciano Jun 16th, 2025, 8:07 pm
AP Photo/John McDonnell
President Donald Trump is leaving the G7 summit in Alberta, Canada a day early amid escalating hostilities between Israel and Iran. He also ordered that the National Security Council prepare for an imminent meeting in the White House Situation Room.
Israel launched a wave of first strikes last week in what Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called a “preemptive” attack. Israeli officials have long alleged that Iran is seeking to build nuclear weapons. In last week’s bombings, Israel targeted top military officials and nuclear scientists, as well as nuclear facilities in the country. Iran has denied it is seeking a nuclear weapon and says its nuclear sites are for civilian purposes.
On Monday night, Trump posted a cryptic warning:
About 10 million people live in Tehran.
Shortly afterward, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt announced that Trump would leave the summit early:
About 20 minutes before Trump posted his warning, the president lashed out at Tucker Carlson, who has urged Trump not to further involve the U.S. in Middle Eastern conflicts.
“Somebody please explain to kooky Tucker Carlson that,” IRAN CAN NOT HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON!” he wrote on Truth Social.
Israel’s initial airstrikes last week came just two days before Trump’s envoy to the Middle East was set to meet Iranian officials in Oman for negotiations. After Israel’s attack, Iran canceled the meeting.
Sounds ominous for Iran.
BTW , an evacuation of 10 million people is totally unrealistic.
The guy who doesn't know what he's doing is going to fuck around and end up with peace in the Middle East. That will send some of you right out the window.
Believe I will need at least another lifetime to see that ... the 1949 Armistice Agreements were signed in the year of my birth and mayhem has ruled ever since.
there will never be peace in the middle east
Now, now, Dear Trout, "we" know better than to say "never." (I believe there is a 'spirit' that travels through time and space seeking out that word "never" and turns to confront it.) Albeit, a difficult concept for the Middle East to envision after all this time (and our lifetimes).
they will blow each other to pieces and start WWIII. I'm an eternal optimist in case you were asking
Yippee Ki Yay! mother fuckers.
He sure says "we" a lot.
…we, wee, whee…all the way shalom…
[deleted][✘]
Either that or give Trump 100 million dollars. That should call off the air strike.