Donald Trump Appreciation Thread

[egg]

1 hour ago, hypochondriac said:

I thought he came accross much better there to be fair. Maybe it is the case that with English being a second language it's difficult to articulate his meaning as well as he would like. 

I think it's much more than that. He wasn't being shouted down on fox, he wasn't outgunned, he had his translator in the background giving time to talk to him where needed, thus extra thinking time.

Basically, fox didn't stitch him up with a stage managed show trial like the white house did. 

[egg]

14 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

Read this and tell me you are ok with more children suffering. It’s ok if they aren’t our children, is that it?

https://www.context.news/socioeconomic-inclusion/britains-foreign-aid-where-does-the-money-go

Two choices SOG:

1. Defence spending

2. Foreign aid

In a binary choice, it's number 1. We've underspent for years, and given the various threats, we need to sort our shit out. We face harsh realities I'm afraid. 

[badgerx16]

27 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

What about Ebola prevention in Africa? Perhaps you are ok with Musk stopping that too?

The Ebola program has been reinstated.

[sadoldgit]

3 minutes ago, egg said:

Two choices SOG:

1. Defence spending

2. Foreign aid

In a binary choice, it's number 1. We've underspent for years, and given the various threats, we need to sort our shit out. We face harsh realities I'm afraid. 

It isn’t two choices though egg. There are other places where cuts could be made. The trouble is there are good cases not to make cuts anywhere else too. That is why I said earlier we need to rethink taxes.

As for this. People don’t want migrants in small boats coming here but also don’t want to spend money making their countries better so they don’t need to leave.

[AlexLaw76]

1 minute ago, sadoldgit said:

It isn’t two choices though egg. There are other places where cuts could be made. The trouble is there are good cases not to make cuts anywhere else too. That is why I said earlier we need to rethink taxes.

As for this. People don’t want migrants in small boats coming here but also don’t want to spend money making their countries better so they don’t need to leave.

You are right.

Net zero projects could be cut to raise more money for Defence 

[badgerx16]

4 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

It isn’t two choices though egg. There are other places where cuts could be made. The trouble is there are good cases not to make cuts anywhere else too. That is why I said earlier we need to rethink taxes.

 

Given, for the moment, nobody is even considering raising taxes, where else would you cut spending to increase the defence budget ?

[egg]

5 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

It isn’t two choices though egg. There are other places where cuts could be made. The trouble is there are good cases not to make cuts anywhere else too. That is why I said earlier we need to rethink taxes.

As for this. People don’t want migrants in small boats coming here but also don’t want to spend money making their countries better so they don’t need to leave.

I knew you'd duck the question. 

Indulge me please. Of those 2 choices, what's your priority?

[badgerx16]

In the next batch of Executive Orders Trump will be signing one that removes the word Loyalty from the dictionary.

[Dr. Kucho]

What Zelensky should do is get in contact with china. Say to their president, phone your mate Putin and tell him to leave my country within 48 hours. Then say if they leave we can make a deal for the lithium and other elements my country has. 

China is digging heavily in Africa and would love to go and dig in Ukraine. Russias economy is, if I am correct, very dependent on China and would listen to their president and Trump would lose a huge deal to their main rival. 

War ended, deal made and Trump fucked.

 

Edited Saturday at 11:33 by Dr. Kucho

[egg]

13 minutes ago, Dr. Kucho said:

What Zelensky should do is get in contact with china. Say to their president, phone your mate Putin and tell him to leave my country within 48 hours. Then say if they leave we can make a deal for the lithium and other elements my country has. 

China is digging heavily in Africa and would love to go and dig in Ukraine. Russias economy is, if I am correct, very dependent on China and would listen to their president and Trump would lose a huge deal to their main rival. 

War ended, deal made and Trump fucked.

 

A big part of this, I'm convinced, is to divide the BRICS nations giving the power back to the US and the Dollar. I think Trump believes that China can be isolated, but if he cuts off Europe, buddies up with Russia, India and perhaps Brazil, it'll leave the remainder to either align with each other or do their own thing. I've said before that I forsee some interesting alignments, but China into Ukraine is a non starter for me. 

[Turkish]

[east-stand-nic]

An interesting history snippet.

 

 

[egg]

21 minutes ago, east-stand-nic said:

An interesting history snippet.

 

 

The issue is the future, not someone's take on the past. 

[badgerx16]

So, from that, what was Putin's justification for attempting to wipe Ukraine off the map ? What justification is there for Bucha, Mariupol, and the total erasure of entire towns ? Of the systematic torture and brutalization of "liberated" civilian populations, or the kidnapping and brain washing of thousands of children ?

[egg]

If we're doing people's opinions, Robert De Niro’s statement on Donald is perfect.

“I’ve spent a lot of time studying bad men.  I’ve examined their characteristics, their mannerisms, the utter banality of their cruelty. Yet there’s something different about Donald Trump. 

When I look at him, I don’t see a bad man. Truly. 

I see an evil one. 

Over the years, I’ve met gangsters here and there. This guy tries to be one, but he can’t quite pull it off. There’s such a thing as “honor among thieves.” 

Yes, even criminals usually have a sense of right and wrong.  Whether they do the right thing or not is a different story — but — they have a moral code, however warped.

Donald Trump does not. He’s a wannabe tough guy with no morals or ethics. No sense of right or wrong. No regard for anyone but himself — not the people he was supposed to lead and protect, not the people he does business with, not the people who follow him, blindly and loyally, not even the people who consider themselves his “friends.”

 He has contempt for all of them.

We New Yorkers got to know him over the years that he poisoned the atmosphere and littered our city with monuments to his ego.  We knew first hand that this was someone who should never be considered for leadership. 

 We tried to warn the world in 2016.

The repercussions of his turbulent presidency divided America and rattled New York City beyond imagination.  Remember how we were jolted by crisis in early 2020, as a virus swept the world. We lived with Donald Trump’s bombastic behavior every day on the national stage, and we suffered as we saw our neighbors piling up in body bags. 

The man who was supposed to protect this country put it in peril, because of his recklessness and impulsiveness. It was like an abusive father ruling the family by fear and violent behavior.  That was the consequence of New York’s warning getting ignored. Next time, we know it will be worse.

Make no mistake: the twice-impeached, 4-time indicted Donald Trump is still a fool. But we can’t let our fellow Americans write him off like one. Evil thrives in the shadow of dismissive mockery, which is why we must take the danger of Donald Trump very seriously.

So today we issue another warning. From this place where Abraham Lincoln spoke — right here in the beating heart of New York — to the rest of America: 

This is our last chance.

Democracy won’t survive the return of a wannabe dictator.

And it won’t overcome evil if we are divided.

So what do we do about it?  I know I’m preaching to the choir here.  What we’re doing today is valuable, but we have to take today into tomorrow – take it outside these walls.  

We have to reach out to the half of our country who have ignored the hazards of Trump and, for whatever reason, support elevating him back into the White House.  They’re not stupid, and we must not condemn them for making a stupid choice.  Our future doesn’t just depend on us. It depends on them.

Let’s reach out to Trump’s followers with respect. 

Let’s not talk about “democracy.”  “Democracy” may be our holy grail, but to others it is just a word, a concept, and in their embrace of Trump, they’ve already turned their backs on it.  

Let’s talk about right and wrong.  Let’s talk about humanity.  

Let’s talk about kindness.  Security for our world.  Safety for our families.  Decency.  

Let’s welcome them back.  

We won’t get them all, but we can get enough to end the nightmare of Trump, and fulfill the mission of this “Stop Trump Summit.”

Edited Saturday at 15:22 by egg

[egg]

Nic. You are an utter prick. 

I'm not sure how anyone sane can disagree with De Niro. He called what we're seeing. 

[badgerx16]

To put Sachs in context,

In July 2022, Sachs said he was "pretty convinced," though "not sure" that COVID-19 came out of "U.S. lab biotechnology," which is considered by the European Union to be COVID-19 disinformation by China. While Sachs has leanings toward the possibility of a virus leak from a "U.S.-backed laboratory research program," he has stated that "A natural spillover is also possible, of course. Both hypotheses are viable at this stage.".

 

He has also appeared on Russian TV debates stating that Ukraine should sue for peace and give up on it's "maximalist demands" that Russia should withdraw from all occupied territory. He has been regularly criticized because of his apparent refusal to apportion any blame to Putin for the war.

 

He was the economist who directly influenced the economic policies of Gorbachev and Yeltsin that drastically crashed the Russian economy.

 

He has views that may appeal to some, but he is nothing more than a self styled 'expert' viewing the World from his university ivory tower.

Edited Saturday at 15:48 by badgerx16

[east-stand-nic]

34 minutes ago, egg said:

The issue is the future, not someone's take on the past. 

To fix things we often need to understand in depth details of the past. There is little doubt there is more to this than Putin invading for power and land. 

20 minutes ago, egg said:

Nic. You are an utter prick. 

I'm not sure how anyone sane can disagree with De Niro. He called what we're seeing. 

Name calling, yep. About your level. People are walking away from De Niro left right and centre due to his weird ways and views. Had I have used an actor to justify a view, you would be all over me laughing. You really need to grow up when debating. 

Btw, once again where have I defended Trump or sided with him? Learn to think and engage brain before tantrum time. 

[badgerx16]

Nic, do you agree with Sachs over COVID having been bio-engineered by the US ?

[east-stand-nic]

4 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Nic, do you agree with Sachs over COVID having been bio-engineered by the US ?

The issue is the future, not someone's take on the past. 

[egg]

1 minute ago, east-stand-nic said:

To fix things we often need to understand in depth details of the past. There is little doubt there is more to this than Putin invading for power and land. 

Name calling, yep. About your level. People are walking away from De Niro left right and centre due to his weird ways and views. Had I have used an actor to justify a view, you would be all over me laughing. You really need to grow up when debating. 

Btw, once again where have I defended Trump or sided with him? Learn to think and engage brain before tantrum time. 

Looking at the past does not change the future. How far back one looks, and their take on matters of opinion, can be variable. That applies to Russia/Ukraine, Israel/Palestine, and all manner of disputes.

What matters now and in the future are just outcomes based on humanity, decency, and democracy. 

No tantrum from me poppet. I'm entitled to my view of you, and I'm correct. 

[badgerx16]

1 minute ago, east-stand-nic said:

The issue is the future, not someone's take on the past. 

I hope you continue to follow this advice.

[benjii]

Heuristic:

People who cite Jeffrey Sachs are morons. 

[whelk]

1 hour ago, east-stand-nic said:

An interesting history snippet.

 

 

😂 like I’d watch anything this dopey cunt posts.

[Gloucester Saint]

3 hours ago, egg said:

The issue is the future, not someone's take on the past. 

Jeffrey Sachs as well, the mind behind disaster capitalism. Jesus Wept. 

What next from Nic? Icke on 5G? Le Tissier on crop spaying? Trump on injecting bleach for Covid?

Edited Saturday at 18:44 by Gloucester Saint

[revolution saint]

1 hour ago, east-stand-nic said:

Btw, once again where have I defended Trump or sided with him? Learn to think and engage brain before tantrum time. 

Nic, you're a trump supporter - you've had numerous occasions to explain your position and you avoid it every single time and therefore, if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, then, well, you know the rest.

Personally I'd have slightly more respect for you if you had the courage of your convictions and owned it.  

[aintforever]

2 hours ago, east-stand-nic said:

An interesting history snippet.

 

 

The NATO expansion argument is just bollocks, the only reason countries such as Estonia have not already been invaded is because they are part of NATO. NATO countries are not a threat to Russia, they are just in the way of their imperialist intentions.

This bellend talks about NATO expansion like they are invading countries, it’s just free democratic countries choosing to be part of a defensive organisation. Who are we to deny them that right?

[badgerx16]

[sadoldgit]

7 hours ago, egg said:

I knew you'd duck the question. 

Indulge me please. Of those 2 choices, what's your priority?

It isn’t ducking the question. The simple fact is that those are not the only choices. I did say earlier that the money has to be found from somewhere. It is entirely possible to reduce every departmental budget and not just put the whole weight on one department for example.

[egg]

7 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

It isn’t ducking the question. The simple fact is that those are not the only choices. I did say earlier that the money has to be found from somewhere. It is entirely possible to reduce every departmental budget and not just put the whole weight on one department for example.

The other choice is austerity. We're spending on defence, rightly, and given the option of cutting foreign aid or austerity, it must be the former for me. 

[badgerx16]

When Churchill visited the White House in 1942 he wore a blue boiler suit. I suspect that nobody asked him if he owned a jacket.

[egg]

Just now, badgerx16 said:

When Churchill visited the White House in 1942 he wore a blue boiler suit. I suspect that nobody asked him if he owned a jacket.

Yep, he did, and his bust was in the oval office yesterday as the debacle was taking place. 

[egg]

Would love it if Zelensky wears a suit when he sees Charlie tomorrow as a feck you to Donny. And to say thanks about 20 times. 

[revolution saint]

10 minutes ago, egg said:

Would love it if Zelensky wears a suit when he sees Charlie tomorrow as a feck you to Donny. And to say thanks about 20 times. 

I'm hoping Vance and Musk come over for the state visit so they can get a real feel for the amount of free speech we have here.

[woksaintly]

My take on all this from the bigger perspective. War in Ukraine is a distraction and an expensive one. He can deal with Putin as he only has to deal with a like minded decision maker or so he thinks. With Europe he has to deal with multiple decision makers so he will find it impossible to get things done NOW. We all know his ultimate agenda is to beat China, economically. Russia, is just a stopgap pawn, a buffer to what he believes have similar business goals. To say this strategy is naïve is an understatement. He will have united European countries around the principal that until  five weeks ago the USA championed. The combined economies of Europe are no match for Russia and the USA also needs economic as well as political allies. So far Trump has pissed off Europe Canada, Mexico with embargo threats and now the ambush of Zalenski that was broadcast live has demonstrated his real position.

I do not think Russia is in a position to continually finance this war without financial support. I would not be surprised if Trump has this in mind in a total reversal of US policy by funding this regime. NATO is dead. The only way that Ukraine will survive is a combined Europe putting troops into Ukraine to kick out the Russians and then both Putin and Trump will fail. The Bully boys will get their come uppance. 

 

Edited Saturday at 21:00 by woksaintly

[hypochondriac]

45 minutes ago, woksaintly said:

My take on all this from the bigger perspective. War in Ukraine is a distraction and an expensive one. He can deal with Putin as he only has to deal with a like minded decision maker or so he thinks. With Europe he has to deal with multiple decision makers so he will find it impossible to get things done NOW. We all know his ultimate agenda is to beat China, economically. Russia, is just a stopgap pawn, a buffer to what he believes have similar business goals. To say this strategy is naïve is an understatement. He will have united European countries around the principal that until  five weeks ago the USA championed. The combined economies of Europe are no match for Russia and the USA also needs economic as well as political allies. So far Trump has pissed off Europe Canada, Mexico with embargo threats and now the ambush of Zalenski that was broadcast live has demonstrated his real position.

I do not think Russia is in a position to continually finance this war without financial support. I would not be surprised if Trump has this in mind in a total reversal of US policy by funding this regime. NATO is dead. The only way that Ukraine will survive is a combined Europe putting troops into Ukraine to kick out the Russians and then both Putin and Trump will fail. The Bully boys will get their come uppance. 

 

You don't really know what you're talking about. European troop numbers and machinery is currently pitiful and we wouldn't be anywhere near ready to defend anything substantial for years. It's possible that Zelensky could start proper conscription and try to survive without US assistance but it's pretty unlikely. 

If Trump did pull all support soon then it's very likely that Ukraine will be overrun pretty quickly and the next sad truth is that Europe have very little to stop Russia. 

[egg]

3 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

You don't really know what you're talking about. European troop numbers and machinery is currently pitiful and we wouldn't be anywhere near ready to defend anything substantial for years. It's possible that Zelensky could start proper conscription and try to survive without US assistance but it's pretty unlikely. 

If Trump did pull all support soon then it's very likely that Ukraine will be overrun pretty quickly and the next sad truth is that Europe have very little to stop Russia. 

Cue people telling you how Russia will run out of steam anytime, ignoring that they haven't yet, and that China, North Korea and Iran can supply a hell of a lot more than Europe have been able to supply Russia. If the BRICS nations stay united, you've then got South Africa and Brazil throwing their supply chain into the mix.

Where Trump is correct is that we need peace and that escalation is a real risk. The issue is the terms of that peace, but Trump's idiocy has emboldened Putin and made it more difficult than it was to do a sensible deal. 

[woksaintly]

11 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

You don't really know what you're talking about. European troop numbers and machinery is currently pitiful and we wouldn't be anywhere near ready to defend anything substantial for years. It's possible that Zelensky could start proper conscription and try to survive without US assistance but it's pretty unlikely. 

If Trump did pull all support soon then it's very likely that Ukraine will be overrun pretty quickly and the next sad truth is that Europe have very little to stop Russia. 

I think you are missing the point here. If the USA pulls the plug which is now probable, Europe will have no option but to stand up against Putin. If Europe does not then Putin will invade the Baltic States , Poland and annexe Russian friendly states such as Slovakia, Serbia and Hungary. The Russian military has been severely weakened over three years. After all, Ukraine still exists despite Russia hiring mercenaries from Iran and North Korea. Now you might argue that it has survived through both European and US support but do not underestimate the will to defend. History shows us that Vietnam survived because of a superior will despite American muscle. I would imagine that Ukraine today is 100% behind Zelkensky whereas Trump has shown the world for what he is. A fascist bully who cannot be trusted..just like Putin

[benjii]

Russia took over half of USA much easier than it has taken over 10% of Ukraine.

[benjii]

5 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

You don't really know what you're talking about. European troop numbers and machinery is currently pitiful and we wouldn't be anywhere near ready to defend anything substantial for years. It's possible that Zelensky could start proper conscription and try to survive without US assistance but it's pretty unlikely. 

If Trump did pull all support soon then it's very likely that Ukraine will be overrun pretty quickly and the next sad truth is that Europe have very little to stop Russia. 

This is bullshit. A war between combined Europe and Russia would be "won" quite easily by Europe.

Obviously "win" is a pretty disgusting phrase in context.

 

[hypochondriac]

4 hours ago, benjii said:

This is bullshit. A war between combined Europe and Russia would be "won" quite easily by Europe.

Obviously "win" is a pretty disgusting phrase in context.

 

Maybe in the long term but if Trump pulled all support tomorrow how do you propose that 'Europe' replaces star link communications or the required missiles and intelligence at the rate required to prevent Russia from making gains in the short to medium term, particularly if Russia goes all in once that support stops which would seem like the logical thing to do.

I still am not convinced that Trump is going to pull all support anyway and there's a case to be made that he would be happy if other countries proppse to buy American weapons but if he does, what's your predicted timeline for 'winning'? 

[egg]

5 hours ago, benjii said:

This is bullshit. A war between combined Europe and Russia would be "won" quite easily by Europe.

Obviously "win" is a pretty disgusting phrase in context.

 

My understanding over the last 3 years is that Europe have struggled to supply munitions, whereas Russia haven't struggled to get them. I recall a German minister concede that. With a lesser battery of munitions, how could Europe easily win a war? 

[CB Fry]

18 minutes ago, egg said:

My understanding over the last 3 years is that Europe have struggled to supply munitions, whereas Russia haven't struggled to get them. I recall a German minister concede that. With a lesser battery of munitions, how could Europe easily win a war? 

We haven't actually declared war on Russia - you know that right?

[Lighthouse]

23 minutes ago, egg said:

My understanding over the last 3 years is that Europe have struggled to supply munitions, whereas Russia haven't struggled to get them. I recall a German minister concede that. With a lesser battery of munitions, how could Europe easily win a war? 

You're equating, yet again, the surplus and often outdated equipment the west has been supplying Ukraine, with the actual weapons we have in our combined arsenals. If things did actually get hot between Europe and Russia we would have total, unchallenged air superiority for starters.

[woksaintly]

14 minutes ago, egg said:

My understanding over the last 3 years is that Europe have struggled to supply munitions, whereas Russia haven't struggled to get them. I recall a German minister concede that. With a lesser battery of munitions, how could Europe easily win a war? 

I think some people are under the impression that Europe gave ALL its weapons to Ukraine which is not the case. The issue is not necessarily about quantity. Russia has severely depleted divisions made up of conscripts and national service soldiers. All European armies are highly trained professionals notwithstanding a vastly superior air power. 

The immediate issue now is who is going to mediate a ceasefire. The only alternative with clout would be Xi from China. I cannot see anything Trump does now would be transparently favourable to Russia

[whelk]

1 hour ago, egg said:

My understanding over the last 3 years is that Europe have struggled to supply munitions, whereas Russia haven't struggled to get them. I recall a German minister concede that. With a lesser battery of munitions, how could Europe easily win a war? 

You continue to think Russia are some unstoppable beast despite the evidence of the last 3 years. They couldn’t take Afghanistan either.

[badgerx16]

12 minutes ago, whelk said:

You continue to think Russia are some unstoppable beast despite the evidence of the last 3 years. They couldn’t take Afghanistan either.

Not could we, and we have tried many times.

[whelk]

24 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Not could we, and we have tried many times.

Impossible country to take. Not many are easy as the Russians are finding out. Italy maybe?

[badgerx16]

5 minutes ago, whelk said:

Impossible country to take. Not many are easy as the Russians are finding out. Italy maybe?

It took the 8th Army and the US 5th Army 2 years to fight up the length of Italy in WW2. Excellent defensive mountainous terrain.

[whelk]

6 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

It took the 8th Army and the US 5th Army 2 years to fight up the length of Italy in WW2. Excellent defensive mountainous terrain.

It was a joke!