Trump's space on terrorism
- Thread starter Seton75
- Start date
Agreed, thought it was a terrific speech. I don't think anyone can make peace in that region but he'll give it his best shot.
The eloquent words of our President. "The Terrorists are losers"
His speeches can challenge Churchill with its inspiration and eloquence.
So that is the term he comes up with for a terrorist? The same term as what people call kids without a job? What he called Bill Maher. Wow, he really told them. A joke of a President.
His speeches can challenge Churchill with its inspiration and eloquence.
So that is the term he comes up with for a terrorist? The same term as what people call kids without a job? What he called Bill Maher. Wow, he really told them. A joke of a President.
I personally have no issue with the plain speaking term "loser". Is that a Presidential norm? No, but then President Trump is not a traditional President.
Setting the bar at "Churchill" is a little unfair. It will be hard to top him. However, I think Clinton and Obama speak very well. GWB had some good moments as well.
Setting the bar at "Churchill" is a little unfair. It will be hard to top him. However, I think Clinton and Obama speak very well. GWB had some good moments as well.
It's not the message or content with Trump on so many of the key issues this country is facing its the way he delivers his message and the unfortunate choice of words that become the focus of attention rather then the policy he's setting forth.
I guess the choice I have is whether I'd rather listen to a professional politician who talks for 30 minutes and says nothing or a president who is not reluctant to point out where the policies we've had in place are hurting America but can't articulate his position well enough so we can make an informed decision on whether he's got it right or wrong.
So now the great communicator is having trouble with word choice but not the policies? What policy is he putting forth that is so great? Insulting NATO members and pushing them aside for a photo op? Having NATO members be wary of our country's commitment of Article 5? What exactly are these great policies that he is setting forth?
The only policy I see him pushing is "greater relations with Russia." How fabulous is that.
President Trump has no issues with word choice or policies
1. Repeal and Replace Obamacare
2. Tax reform
3. In favor of the Pipeline
4. Renegoiate NAFTA
5. Stop and reverse illegal immigration
As I see it, his political positions are pretty well known and he seems to have little problem communicating them.
1. Repeal and Replace Obamacare
2. Tax reform
3. In favor of the Pipeline
4. Renegoiate NAFTA
5. Stop and reverse illegal immigration
As I see it, his political positions are pretty well known and he seems to have little problem communicating them.
Trump's policy toward NATO has been pretty straightforward.
1. They must shift their focus to ISIS
2. Member countries must pay their fair share.
I was a Captain in the Army in the early 80s. The threat at that time was clearly Russia and rightly so. They had 20 Divisions with 40,000 tanks lined up at Fulda gap ready to roll into Germany on short notice. That threat has vastly diminished, perhaps non-existent with current forces and technology. Yet, NATO continued with business as usual. Lotsa dollars, jobs, and perks flowing to a organization prepared to fight yesterday's war.
Trumps stance on them came as a result of listening to his generals and not being afraid to confront the status quo.
Article 5 is not being threatened.
Stoltenberg gave every indication that he is on board with items 1 and 2 above.
1. They must shift their focus to ISIS
2. Member countries must pay their fair share.
I was a Captain in the Army in the early 80s. The threat at that time was clearly Russia and rightly so. They had 20 Divisions with 40,000 tanks lined up at Fulda gap ready to roll into Germany on short notice. That threat has vastly diminished, perhaps non-existent with current forces and technology. Yet, NATO continued with business as usual. Lotsa dollars, jobs, and perks flowing to a organization prepared to fight yesterday's war.
Trumps stance on them came as a result of listening to his generals and not being afraid to confront the status quo.
Article 5 is not being threatened.
Stoltenberg gave every indication that he is on board with items 1 and 2 above.
Add:
6. Shift education back to the states (10th Amendment)
7. Reduce/cut federal regulations
8. Stop TPP
9. Support Local Law Enforcement / Reduce Crime (Chicago Murders)
10. Reduce the size of the Federal government and push things back to the states that belong to the states. (More 10th Amendment)
11. Appoint Judges who interpret and support the Constitution and do not legislate.
12. Protect the 2nd Amendment
13. Strengthen Defense
14. Cease placating the UN
15. Recover off-shore corporate profits.
16. Jobs
Yesterday's war? Russia interfered with our election and you think that is not an attack on our country? Russia annexed the Crimea and has been threatening Ukraine. Do you not see Russian aggression?
Do you not find it curious that a weakened NATO benefits what country the most? Here is a clue - Russia.
Do you think NATO member countries like France, England, and Germany who have all experienced ISIS terrorism are not focused on stopping ISIS?
The threat of Russia exists today. To think otherwise is ignoring the obvious.
Being vigilant against Russia does not mean the exclusion of focusing and trying to destroy ISIS and other terrorist groups like Al Qaeda. We can and need to do both.
What happened? Putin went on a killing spree since 2009 culminating in 2015 when a well known politician Nemstov was killed a mile of the Kremlin. (Oddly enough the video cameras were not working that day where Nemstov was killed) What about, Crimea and interfering with our election. Things do not happen in a vacuum. The Russian reset was naive to think that Russia would conform like a civilized country. We have plenty of proof now that it won't.
SPK is quite bright; he already knows these things. He is merely following SPKs third law of politics - any move by a political party has an equal and opposite move from the past. He enjoys pointing them out.
He could have referenced Glasnost or Salt or even good old Uncle Joe Stalin. He merely decided to pick the most recent example. Where we were eight years ago or eighty years ago is good to know - the key is to learn from it and apply it to our current circumstances.
Actually it's called false equivalencies. The Right wing and the Alt-Right love this game. While I agree that there was sufficient evidence not to press "reset" with Russia during the Obama Administration, it's pretty damn obvious now for everyone to see.
It's called selective outrage.
Obama set the stage for Russia's resurgence and Trump is happy to play stagehand.
Last edited:
Why wouldn't it be? Why would you not want to get along with a country that possesses 4,500 nuclear warheads, 1,800 of them "active?"
Because they have zero interest in getting along with us?
Russia set a goal to interfere with our election to undermine our democracy. Their goal is to divide us as a country, the same as it is with other European democracies.
Do you think our intelligence community is lying?
Cern, if your objective is to let everyone know you hate Trump and hate/dislike anyone who supports his polices, I will concede that point.
Regarding one of the several things in your reply:
I was referring to 1980s Cold War Russian threat of a massive invasion through Germany. That threat no longer exists. I believe there is universal agreement on that with NATO. There is still a Russian threat but the precise nature of how that threat manifests itself is not agreed upon by the member countries. While NATO has attempted to adapt, there is an argument that their deterrent mission is anchored in the the original charter and potentially no longer valid. Said simply, there is low odds of all out war and invasion and higher odds of economic and political maneuvering. There is also debate on the clarity of the deterrent mission.
The examples of aggression you cite are valid. The question is whether NATO is structured to address those kinds of threats.
I don't see Trumps speech or policies as weakening NATO. I see the opposite.
The Russian interference with the election is a matter unto itself. It starts with parsing the words interference vs influenced. I think influenced is a more accurate characterization. With a call for a "global society" by the left, I am puzzled why they are surprised or upset that Russia influenced our election. For centuries, countries have influenced the power structures of other nations. I am not saying I like it, but it is just a simple reality of the world.
A major component of the interference/influence was the accessing Podesta's emails and leaking them. The term "hacking" was used. In reality someone (likely a Russian operative) logged into his Gmail account by using his password which was "password". I believe there were emails that were circulated that stated that his password was "password".
My service was during the Cold War. We were drilled regularly on the reality of Russian presence in the U.S. and their tactics. I find it amusing that the country just now seems to be waking up that the Russians are active. I find it amusing that the response is shock and outrage. My response was, "no shit" , "damn, they got us" and "Podesta, what a dumbass".
Regarding one of the several things in your reply:
I was referring to 1980s Cold War Russian threat of a massive invasion through Germany. That threat no longer exists. I believe there is universal agreement on that with NATO. There is still a Russian threat but the precise nature of how that threat manifests itself is not agreed upon by the member countries. While NATO has attempted to adapt, there is an argument that their deterrent mission is anchored in the the original charter and potentially no longer valid. Said simply, there is low odds of all out war and invasion and higher odds of economic and political maneuvering. There is also debate on the clarity of the deterrent mission.
The examples of aggression you cite are valid. The question is whether NATO is structured to address those kinds of threats.
I don't see Trumps speech or policies as weakening NATO. I see the opposite.
The Russian interference with the election is a matter unto itself. It starts with parsing the words interference vs influenced. I think influenced is a more accurate characterization. With a call for a "global society" by the left, I am puzzled why they are surprised or upset that Russia influenced our election. For centuries, countries have influenced the power structures of other nations. I am not saying I like it, but it is just a simple reality of the world.
A major component of the interference/influence was the accessing Podesta's emails and leaking them. The term "hacking" was used. In reality someone (likely a Russian operative) logged into his Gmail account by using his password which was "password". I believe there were emails that were circulated that stated that his password was "password".
My service was during the Cold War. We were drilled regularly on the reality of Russian presence in the U.S. and their tactics. I find it amusing that the country just now seems to be waking up that the Russians are active. I find it amusing that the response is shock and outrage. My response was, "no shit" , "damn, they got us" and "Podesta, what a dumbass".
We are in the middle of an investigation regarding how much interference or influence they had in the process. We know Russian hackers targeted voter rolls. Also can't ignore that members of Trumps having many contacts with the Russians and then later denying that. It is a different scenario if there is a foreign government helping someone and a candidate working with that foreign government.
Recognizing that all countries are connected through economic and foreign policy does not mean it is ok for a foreign government to break our democracy.
That was on Fox news, but is also not true.
gmail literally does not allow you to use "password" as your password. See how easy it was for them to manipulate you?
It's a combination of "no shit" with outrage because these are not just conspiracy theories anymore. We have out intelligence community backing it up and people still turning a blind eye to it. Podesta certainly was a dumbass, but there a hundreds of dumbasses currently in office. Russia also hacked RNC e-mail. I'd bet they could ruin 99% of politicians if they wanted to.
Keep in mind this investigation is ongoing.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...19e428a975e_story.html?utm_term=.5a7fb3ca2885
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/russians-hacked-two-u-s-voter-databases-say-officials-n639551
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...s-target-election-systems-20160930-story.html
http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/12/politics/florida-election-hack/index.html
https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/10/07...omeland-security-and-office-director-national
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...19e428a975e_story.html?utm_term=.5a7fb3ca2885
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/russians-hacked-two-u-s-voter-databases-say-officials-n639551
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...s-target-election-systems-20160930-story.html
http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/12/politics/florida-election-hack/index.html
https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/10/07...omeland-security-and-office-director-national
Actually, now that you pointed that out I see it is all over the web, not just Fox. Not sure how that constitutes manipulation.
From what I read, the likely theory is that he was Phished. Still dumb, albeit, lotsa people get snagged by phishing.
I don't think anyone would disagree that if a candidate colluded with a foreign government or otherwise broke laws of any kind, especially treason, then they must be held accountable to include impeachment, prison, etc.
I think the state of the media and overall environment makes it near impossible to distinguish the political agendas versus a legitimate and unbiased investigation.
I believe the hardcore democrats and left would gladly put Trump in prison regardless of whether he did anything wrong or not. The same holds true for hardcore republicans and the right with regard to Hillary. I hope and pray there is enough reason left somewhere in our government to get to the bottom of this and find the truth as close as possible and that we all accept the outcome regardless of of our political views.
Watch John Brennan's testimony before congress. Not a leap at all. It is Russia's intent.
You were intentionally lied to to downplay the role of Russian involvement and it became something you believed to be true, and repeated elsewhere.
This rumor started with Assange. You think Assange doesn't know it's bullshit? He absolutely knew he was lying.
Absolutely agree with that. I will accept the outcome wherever it leads. I don't want Trump in Jail if he didn't do anything wrong.... but.... this board had lively discussions about Benghazi and E-mail during the investigations into Hillary so nothing wrong with having one with Russia now.
My opinion (and I understand that I could be wrong, and am willing to accept the outcome) is that if there was no issue with Russian collusion, we wouldn't have had so many people from Trump's team lying about their contacts with them.
Comey is set to testify next week and it appears that he may support the obstruction claims.
You are braver than I am in that you are making a call as to the outcome I think I'd have a better chance at picking the BET winner next year.
With the Russian situation I am very skeptical of what the news is reporting regardless if it is Fox, CNN, or MSNBC etc. Same with the papers. I lost my faith in their discipline to verify sources. I read WSJ but take everything with a grain of salt. Every outlet has a bias and no one is reporting straight up.
Having said that (and I guess by now you can sense that I support Trumps policies), I think (maybe it hope) there is less there than the MSM is making it out to be. I think the Dems are capitalizing on an opportunity to stall Trump's agenda. Not a bad play as long as they can keep the story alive.
On the flip side I gave money to Sandusky's Second Mile and thought he was a great guy. Was quite wrong and got burned there. Nothing surprises me anymore and if it turns out that there was the vast collusion, I would not react with shock.
FWIW, my SHU daughter just finished her MBA at Maryland. We were down in DC for the graduation and did some sightseeing.
We toured the Portrait Gallery which houses among its exhibits, the President's portraits. Net to each is a short paragraph or two summarizing their term(s). What struck me was that for the most part you could hide the name and apply to writing to the last 20 years or so. The issues have changed somewhat, i.e slavery gone but now we have immigration.
We often hate our presidents. Congress often does everything they can to stop agendas. We often have scandals. Political parties turn on their own. Every now and them we elect a military hero to take a break.....
The summaries can be read here (Use the Expand button) : http://npg.si.edu/portraits/collect...ts?objectID=dbp-1424166684336-1424166684336-1
We toured the Portrait Gallery which houses among its exhibits, the President's portraits. Net to each is a short paragraph or two summarizing their term(s). What struck me was that for the most part you could hide the name and apply to writing to the last 20 years or so. The issues have changed somewhat, i.e slavery gone but now we have immigration.
We often hate our presidents. Congress often does everything they can to stop agendas. We often have scandals. Political parties turn on their own. Every now and them we elect a military hero to take a break.....
The summaries can be read here (Use the Expand button) : http://npg.si.edu/portraits/collect...ts?objectID=dbp-1424166684336-1424166684336-1
