Donald Trump Appreciation Thread

[hypochondriac]

It has the potential to be “a bad thing,” especially if there was not strategic reasons for it other to help Trump win the next election and curry favour pre impeachment. All I heard from our security minister after the event was the word “deescalate.” If you don’t escalate you don’t have to deescalate. Trump also managed to unify the region against America/The West. Job well done? Ok, he has removed one bad man, you really dont think they have plenty more replacements? Meanwhile sad young men are plotting their revenge in bedsits in this country and sharping their knives.

Here's a United Iran. Also note "Solemani wasn't a US ally in the fight against ISIS."

[sadoldgit]

It seems that I have joined Twitter by mistake.

[hypochondriac]

It seems that I have joined Twitter by mistake.

Are you suggesting that the sources are less valid because they happen to post on twitter? Or are you just trying to deflect from the contents of what I've posted because they largely refute your uninformed narrative?

[sadoldgit]

No, I am saying if I wanted to engage on Twitter I would log in to Twitter. As it is I have chosen to be on Saints Web, not Twitter.

[sadoldgit]

I should have added that if I was on Twitter I expect that I could find plenty of tweets arguing against western intervention in the Middle East.

[Batman]

Iran shot down a passenger jet. By accident!

 

I’m sure the outrage from Corbyn/Labour will be harsh on them.... any time now!

 

The left response is to blame trump apparently! Bad man making Iran nervous...

 

I expect Corbyn will condemn the Iran regime any moment now....

 

https://apnews.com/1b5f51dc8712b6fcddc2010bbd9de31f?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=AP&utm_campaign=SocialFlow

[egg]

I expect Corbyn will condemn the Iran regime any moment now....

 

https://apnews.com/1b5f51dc8712b6fcddc2010bbd9de31f?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=AP&utm_campaign=SocialFlow

 

The actions of the Iranian regime are appalling, but it doesn't alter the fact that the Iranians would have not needed to react to the American action if they had not taken that action. The murdering of Solemani and the rest of the convoy is no different than, say the USA, killing Dominic Raab or another senior British political or military leader as he was driven away from, say an airport on foreign soil. No difference whatsoever. It was an outrageous act that has been followed by outrageous acts. Both sides are guilty.

 

In terms of shooting protesters with live ammunition, if you condemn what the Iranians are doing, take a look at what Israel do in Gaza and the West Bank on a daily basis with their American supplied weapons and ammunition.

[badgerx16]

In terms of shooting protesters with live ammunition, if you condemn what the Iranians are doing, take a look at what Israel do in Gaza and the West Bank on a daily basis with their American supplied weapons and ammunition.

You are not allowed to criticise Israel, they never do anything wrong.

[hypochondriac]

The actions of the Iranian regime are appalling, but it doesn't alter the fact that the Iranians would have not needed to react to the American action if they had not taken that action. The murdering of Solemani and the rest of the convoy is no different than, say the USA, killing Dominic Raab or another senior British political or military leader as he was driven away from, say an airport on foreign soil. No difference whatsoever. It was an outrageous act that has been followed by outrageous acts. Both sides are guilty.

 

In terms of shooting protesters with live ammunition, if you condemn what the Iranians are doing, take a look at what Israel do in Gaza and the West Bank on a daily basis with their American supplied weapons and ammunition.

 

Are you serious? The individual responsible for one of the largest mass killings of Muslims is not in any way comparable to Dominic Raab and yes I will keep quoting informed twitter sources because they are relevant to the conversation:

Edited 13 January, 2020 by hypochondriac

[egg]

Are you serious? The individual responsible for one of the largest mass killings of Muslims is not in any way comparable to Dominic Raab.

 

Yes, I'm serious. You know I'm not comparing Raab to Solemani as a character. Focus on the principle if you can.

 

This was the killing of a senior figure of a sovereign regime on foreign soil.

 

The USA are not the worldwide police force. Should the Americans also take out the murderous leaders of Saudi Arabia and Israel, or does their conduct not matter as they support the USA economy? If they're off target, explain why there can legitimately be one rule for Iran and another rule for American allies.

[egg]

Soggy has made a point re your twitter screen shots. They're irritating and pointless - all you're doing is posting someone else's opinions from social media. There are all sorts of differing opinions/propaganda in the media/social, and referring to someone else's personal opinion doesn't make your opinion the correct one.

[sadoldgit]

You are not allowed to criticise Israel, they never do anything wrong.

 

Therein lies the problem. Criticise Israel and you are labelled an anti-Semite.

[hypochondriac]

Yes, I'm serious. You know I'm not comparing Raab to Solemani as a character. Focus on the principle if you can.

 

This was the killing of a senior figure of a sovereign regime on foreign soil.

 

The USA are not the worldwide police force. Should the Americans also take out the murderous leaders of Saudi Arabia and Israel, or does their conduct not matter as they support the USA economy? If they're off target, explain why there can legitimately be one rule for Iran and another rule for American allies.

"Trump's inaction after numerous Iranian attacks throughout 2019- against regional oil tankers, a US drone, Saudi Aramco and the US embassy in Iraq- led Khamenei to believe understandably that trump was all bluster. Khamenei's open taunting of trump was a miscalculation."

 

The assassination of a terrorist was legally justified on this basis alone, regardless if they are working for the Iranian regime or not. The weird moral equivalence that some in the West give to the likes of Iran is just bizarre.

[hypochondriac]

Soggy has made a point re your twitter screen shots. They're irritating and pointless - all you're doing is posting someone else's opinions from social media. There are all sorts of differing opinions/propaganda in the media/social, and referring to someone else's personal opinion doesn't make your opinion the correct one.

No I'm making reference to expert opinion from people who actually know what they are talking about. I'd rather publicise the views of knowledgeable people on the subject lest you think I'm just making it all up from a place of ignorance. Just because these people post on twitter doesn't make them any less legitimate. You're just annoyed because it flies in the face of your progressive anti-western narrative.

[shurlock]

Maajid Nawaz is a clown. His discussion of the Iran nuclear deal the other day on LBC -i.e. his unqualified claim that it was falling apart and being completely ignored before Trump understandably withdrew from it, in effect ripping it up- was embarrassingly ignorant. He seems guilty of many of the same things for which he attacks ‘leftists’. He has a strange obsession with the left which leads him to take equally binary, blinkered, confrontational and naive positions (in the same way parts of the left have got a strange obsession with the West). Not the sharpest tool in the box. But hey he’s got a colourful past which is good for marketing purposes.

Edited 13 January, 2020 by shurlock

[badgerx16]

Therein lies the problem. Criticise Israel and you are labelled an anti-Semite.

But the Palestinians are Semites as well.

[egg]

"Trump's inaction after numerous Iranian attacks throughout 2019- against regional oil tankers, a US drone, Saudi Aramco and the US embassy in Iraq- led Khamenei to believe understandably that trump was all bluster. Khamenei's open taunting of trump was a miscalculation."

 

The assassination of a terrorist was legally justified on this basis alone, regardless if they are working for the Iranian regime or not. The weird moral equivalence that some in the West give to the likes of Iran is just bizarre.

There's no debating this matter with you. You're convinced that Solemani was a terrorist and swallow whole everything you read to justify his murder. In doing so you fail to recognise the irony of your support for Trump killing a senior figure on foreign land for political gain, and the actions of the American supported Israeli and Saudi regimes and its treatment of Palestinians, Yemenis, and its own people.

[hypochondriac]

There's no debating this matter with you. You're convinced that Solemani was a terrorist and swallow whole everything you read to justify his murder. In doing so you fail to recognise the irony of your support for Trump killing a senior figure on foreign land for political gain, and the actions of the American supported Israeli and Saudi regimes and its treatment of Palestinians, Yemenis, and its own people.

 

That's because he was a terrorist. Quite clearly. Your only argument that he wasn't seems to be that he was part of the Theocratic Iranian regime.

 

By the same token there's no debating this matter with you. You're convinced thaat Soleimani was not a terrorist and swallow whole everything you read to villify his killing.

 

There you go again, making a ludicrous false equivalence between how the USA and Iran treats it's own people. Has the US government been literally gunning down protestors in the streets? Your hate for Trump and Western actions generally makes you sound deranged. There is literally no equivalence between how America treats its citizens and Assad who the Iranians have propped up or the Iranian people. You can think Trump is a complete buffoon but that doesn't mean you should swallow the horsesh*t.

Edited 13 January, 2020 by hypochondriac

[egg]

That's because he was a terrorist. Quite clearly. Your only argument that he wasn't seems to be that he was part of the Iranian regime.

 

By the same token there's no debating this matter with you. You're convinced thaat Soleimani was not a terrorist and swallow whole everything you read to villify his killing.

 

There you go again, making a ludicrous false equivalence between how the USA and Iran treats it's own people. Has the US government been literally gunning down protestors in the streets? Your hate for Trump and Western actions generally makes you sound deranged. There is literally no equivalence between how America treats its citizens and Assad who the Iranians have propped up or the Iranian people. You can think Trump is a complete buffoon but that doesn't mean you should swallow the horsesh*t.

 

Your responses are narrow minded and selective. I don't accept that Solemani was a terrorist - he was a senior figure in a sovereign regime. Sure, he did things as part of his role in that regime which were deplorable, but that doesn't make him a terrorist. If he was, its not for Trump to meddle in other countries affairs.

 

I refer to Trump, and the leaders of Israel and Saudi Arabia, as they are also senior figures of a sovereign regime. Like Solemani they have all done deplorable things to innocent people (gunning down protesters, air raids, taking out convoys, the list goes on). Your blinkered stance means that you can't / won't recognise that which says more about you than about me.

[benjii]

That's because he was a terrorist. Quite clearly. Your only argument that he wasn't seems to be that he was part of the Theocratic Iranian regime.

 

By the same token there's no debating this matter with you. You're convinced thaat Soleimani was not a terrorist and swallow whole everything you read to villify his killing.

 

There you go again, making a ludicrous false equivalence between how the USA and Iran treats it's own people. Has the US government been literally gunning down protestors in the streets? Your hate for Trump and Western actions generally makes you sound deranged. There is literally no equivalence between how America treats its citizens and Assad who the Iranians have propped up or the Iranian people. You can think Trump is a complete buffoon but that doesn't mean you should swallow the horsesh*t.

 

The US authorities have been literally gunning down black people for nothing for years.

 

Look, it's a dangerous precedent where a country can call someone a terrorist and take them out on foreign soil. The US entered Iraq illegally. They decided to force a regime change without lawful justification. It was those actions which have contributed significantly to the rise of Shia power plays from Iran and created ISIS, amongst other things. Meanwhile they continue to play happy families with regimes which fit the definition of "terrorist" which you seem to love so much and find so persuasive as a moral justification. So when you want to appeal to a moral justification in dealing with "terrorists", the moral force is somewhat questionable when, in fact, the real motive is political expediency.

 

This was a pointless assassination designed to give Trump fans a boner. I guess, on that basis, it worked.

[hypochondriac]

The US authorities have been literally gunning down black people for nothing for years.

That's a silly comparison and I think you know that if you're honest. There is not a moral equivalence between how either country treats their citizens. It's like pretending the North Korean public have the same rights as US citizens. Now obviously there are deep social problems in the US but come on you know that comparison isn't worthy of serious consideration.

 

Look, it's a dangerous precedent where a country can call someone a terrorist and take them out on foreign soil.

Agreed but it's not America calling him a terrorist, it's the families of thousands of people who he is responsible for killing for political purposes. Just because he does it whilst being part of the Iranian regime doesn't legitimise the terror or somehow make it OK.

 

The US entered Iraq illegally. They decided to force a regime change without lawful justification. It was those Actions which have contributed significantly to the rise of Shia power plays from Iran and created ISIS, amongst other things.

I agree America are culpable in a lot of ways but that still doesn't make Soleimani killing and maiming thousands suddenly OK.

 

Meanwhile they continue to play happy families with regimes which fit the definition of "terrorist" which you seek to love so much.

Odd comment. I haven't expressed any particular love for Saudi Arabia for example. It's a complex situation.

 

So when you want to appeal to a moral justification in dealing with "terrorists", the moral force is somewhat questionable when, in fact, the real motive is political expediency.

 

Possibly but I don't really care what the motive was for the attack, my point is you only have too look at this man's crimes to see that it is entirely justifiable. You can have a debate about American actions causing escalations, about how culpable Israel and the Saudis are and any number of things but the fact remains that Soleimani was a terrorist, his killing is entirely justified under international law and many are rightly celebrating his death with the expectation that it will slow or even prevent future mass murders.

 

This was a pointless assassination designed to give Trump fans a boner. I guess, on that basis, it worked.

 

​I don't think it was pointless at all. His reasoning may have been dodgy, we can't know for sure, but it certainly wasn't pointless.

Edited 13 January, 2020 by hypochondriac

[hypochondriac]

Your responses are narrow minded and selective. I don't accept that Solemani was a terrorist - he was a senior figure in a sovereign regime. Sure, he did things as part of his role in that regime which were deplorable, but that doesn't make him a terrorist. If he was, its not for Trump to meddle in other countries affairs.

 

I refer to Trump, and the leaders of Israel and Saudi Arabia, as they are also senior figures of a sovereign regime. Like Solemani they have all done deplorable things to innocent people (gunning down protesters, air raids, taking out convoys, the list goes on). Your blinkered stance means that you can't / won't recognise that which says more about you than about me.

 

 

If you are a senior figure in a sovereign regime as you put it, are you incapable of being a terrorist in your view? Serious question. Also, what would have been a warranted response in your mind to attacks on the US embassy, attacks on oil tankers and attacks on drone strikes?

Edited 13 January, 2020 by hypochondriac

[egg]

The US authorities have been literally gunning down black people for nothing for years.

 

Look, it's a dangerous precedent where a country can call someone a terrorist and take them out on foreign soil. The US entered Iraq illegally. They decided to force a regime change without lawful justification. It was those actions which have contributed significantly to the rise of Shia power plays from Iran and created ISIS, amongst other things. Meanwhile they continue to play happy families with regimes which fit the definition of "terrorist" which you seem to love so much and find so persuasive as a moral justification. So when you want to appeal to a moral justification in dealing with "terrorists", the moral force is somewhat questionable when, in fact, the real motive is political expediency.

 

This was a pointless assassination designed to give Trump fans a boner. I guess, on that basis, it worked.

 

Wise and true words.

[sadoldgit]

The US authorities have been literally gunning down black people for nothing for years.

 

Look, it's a dangerous precedent where a country can call someone a terrorist and take them out on foreign soil. The US entered Iraq illegally. They decided to force a regime change without lawful justification. It was those actions which have contributed significantly to the rise of Shia power plays from Iran and created ISIS, amongst other things. Meanwhile they continue to play happy families with regimes which fit the definition of "terrorist" which you seem to love so much and find so persuasive as a moral justification. So when you want to appeal to a moral justification in dealing with "terrorists", the moral force is somewhat questionable when, in fact, the real motive is political expediency.

 

This was a pointless assassination designed to give Trump fans a boner. I guess, on that basis, it worked.

 

Nail on head.

[sadoldgit]

No I'm making reference to expert opinion from people who actually know what they are talking about. I'd rather publicise the views of knowledgeable people on the subject lest you think I'm just making it all up from a place of ignorance. Just because these people post on twitter doesn't make them any less legitimate. You're just annoyed because it flies in the face of your progressive anti-western narrative.

 

But you knock “woke celebrities” for using their platform to spread their agenda. The only difference is that you criticise those you disagree with in any way you can to discredit them. You are no different to a “woke celebrity.” You have an agenda. You have an audience. You take the opportunity to spread your agenda to your audience. Other can choose to ignore you, agree with you or disagree with you, as we can with “woke celebrities” or people you cherry pick from Twitter.

[hypochondriac]

But you knock “woke celebrities” for using their platform to spread their agenda. The only difference is that you criticise those you disagree with in any way you can to discredit them. You are no different to a “woke celebrity.” You have an agenda. You have an audience. You take the opportunity to spread your agenda to your audience. Other can choose to ignore you, agree with you or disagree with you, as we can with “woke celebrities” or people you cherry pick from Twitter.

B*llocks.

[Jonnyboy]

Maajid Nawaz is a clown. His discussion of the Iran nuclear deal the other day on LBC -i.e. his unqualified claim that it was falling apart and being completely ignored before Trump understandably withdrew from it, in effect ripping it up- was embarrassingly ignorant. He seems guilty of many of the same things for which he attacks ‘leftists’. He has a strange obsession with the left which leads him to take equally binary, blinkered, confrontational and naive positions (in the same way parts of the left have got a strange obsession with the West). Not the sharpest tool in the box. But hey he’s got a colourful past which is good for marketing purposes.

 

Does he post as "Hypochondriac?"

[benjii]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ukraine-prosecutor-offered-information-related-to-biden-in-exchange-for-ambassadors-ouster-newly-released-materials-show/2020/01/14/cc45d19e-371e-11ea-9541-9107303481a4_story.html

 

Any semblance of a fair trial and Trump would be looking at porridge.

 

And what does, "she's going to go through some things", mean? Sounds quite sinister.

[benjii]

 

Healthiest president ever.

[benjii]

 

 

#mess

 

If the impeachment doesn't get him, the Alzheimer's will.

[sadoldgit]

Trial. No witnesses. How does that work?

[badgerx16]

Trial. No witnesses. How does that work?

Was always going to be so with the Republicans running the Upper House.

[badgerx16]

DT congratulated the " great state of Kansas" on the result of the Superbowl, although Kansas City is in the neighbouring state of Missouri.

[whelk]

DT congratulated the " great state of Kansas" on the result of the Superbowl, although Kansas City is in the neighbouring state of Missouri.

 

Saw a lot made of this but only a fcked up franchise competition would have a team called Kansas City not from there. One his more forgivable fck ups

[shurlock]

Saw a lot made of this but only a fcked up franchise competition would have a team called Kansas City not from there. One his more forgivable fck ups

 

There is an actual Kansas City in Missouri. Nowt to do with the NFL. Just a historical quirk that a city in one state has the name of another (neighbouring) state. To confuse things further, the state of Kansas also has a Kansas City, though its Kansas City is significantly smaller than Missouri’s Kansas City.

Edited 4 February, 2020 by shurlock

[badgerx16]

There is an actual Kansas City in Missouri. Nowt to do with the NFL. Just a historical quirk that a city in one state has the name of another (neighbouring) state. To confuse things further, the state of Kansas also has a Kansas City, though its Kansas City is significantly smaller than Missouri’s Kansas City.

The 2 KCs are part of a single metropolitan area. The Missouri part incorporates the historical original areas of the city.

Edited 4 February, 2020 by badgerx16

[shurlock]

The 2 KCs are part of a single metropolitan area.

 

Yes. Was planning to go to Arrowhead last year.

[LVSaint]

One his more forgivable fck ups

 

I like to think that a lot of his 'foot in mouth' statements are done on purpose (although he really is that dence)...for attention (and deflection of more important topics), especially something as buffoonish as this. Akin to Boris Johnson fluffing his hair up before an interview and acting like a plum as a smokescreen.

[shurlock]

I like to think that a lot of his 'foot in mouth' statements are done on purpose (although he really is that dence)...for attention (and deflection of more important topics), especially something as buffoonish as this. Akin to Boris Johnson fluffing his hair up before an interview and acting like a plum as a smokescreen.

 

Trump takes himself too seriously to do it on purpose.

[Doctoroncall]

His comments and actions are only going to get worse when he’s elected for his second term. First impeached President to be re-elected.

[norwaysaint]

I am no fan of Trump, but to try to score points off this one is a bit weak. It's hardly a shocking mistake. I think Obama could have made a similar mistake. In fact, didn't Obama once claim to have been to 57 states in the USA? People made far less fuss about that. Focus on the important stuff.

[RedArmy]

There is an actual Kansas City in Missouri. Nowt to do with the NFL. Just a historical quirk that a city in one state has the name of another (neighbouring) state. To confuse things further, the state of Kansas also has a Kansas City, though its Kansas City is significantly smaller than Missouri’s Kansas City.

And to make matters even more confusing Missouri has the Chiefs (NFL) and Kansas has Sporting KC (MLS)

[Ohio Saint]

One his more forgivable fck ups

 

Vote Trump, his f*ck ups can be easily graded.

[benjii]

The guy will be ****ing his pants and dribbling by the end of his next term, if he wins. He can't currently walk any distance unaided or eat in public, or finish a speech without spasming.

 

We are seeing quite an ugly dynastic attempt at power grabbing going on from his family and enablers .

[sadoldgit]

So much for the American justice system where political expediency means more. The land of the free and the untouchable. The Republicans should be ashamed of themselves but they won’t give a stuff. Nasty party supporting a nastier president.

[hypochondriac]

The guy will be ****ing his pants and dribbling by the end of his next term, if he wins. He can't currently walk any distance unaided or eat in public, or finish a speech without spasming.

 

We are seeing quite an ugly dynastic attempt at power grabbing going on from his family and enablers .

How in your opinion will this dynastic power grab manifest itself?

[Weston Super Saint]

How in your opinion will this dynastic power grab manifest itself?

 

The Presidency will be handed down to the first born son, everyone knows that

[RedArmy]

So much for the American justice system where political expediency means more. The land of the free and the untouchable. The Republicans should be ashamed of themselves but they won’t give a stuff. Nasty party supporting a nastier president.

[hypochondriac]

The Presidency will be handed down to the first born son, everyone knows that

The Democratic party really should be concentrating on simply beating Trump at the ballot box. The fact that virtually every democratic candidate are deeply flawed and electorally unappealing isn't the fault of the Republican party. Just like the Corbynites, if they lose to trump again they will largely have themselves to blame.

[Mystic Force]

I always thought this was a stupid idea that was never going to get the Republicans onboard, all its done has emboldened him. They should just have concentrated on beating him in the election. The worse thing about all this is that later on some even less savory character will exploit the same system for even worse outcomes. Because the much vaunted checks and balances system can be hijacked by a single election making sure the number of people elected per party does not reflect voting percentages by carefully drawing the lines, understanding that there is an advantage to representing sparsely populated areas to control the senate and stuffing a court with friendly faces.