The road to 2020

[Michael Hardner]

56 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

1.  If you mean threatened to nuke NK, is there any circumstance at all in which you think it would be appropriate to make that threat? Or is it just out, no matter what.

2. Don't know enough about economics to answer your what-ifs, but I suggest not to lose sleep over it. Count the good things you have. Prosperity good, increased production good, low unemployment good. Consumer confidence go up? Good.

3. Don't know what his ratings are now, but I thought someone said they were at the highest ever.

4. The man cannot be stopped. No matter how many times you bash him down, he gets up again and comes back even stronger.

1. And Iran I think.  Is there a circumstance ? Of course.  Tweeting at a mad dictator at 2 am isn't one of them.

2. Agreed on the living in the present part.

3. "Someone" LOL.  Him !  

4. I agree that his lies are intoxicating and the future is unknown.

[bush_cheney2004]

1 hour ago, OftenWrong said:

...Don't know what his ratings are now, but I thought someone said they were at the highest ever. The man cannot be stopped. No matter how many times you bash him down, he gets up again and comes back even stronger.

 

Agreed...the Trump bashers/haters don't realize that they are just providing more combustible material to the fires that Trump ignites for continued media dominance, even in Canada.  At one point last year Trump got more attention in Canadian media than Justin Trudeau...amazing.

His opponents are hopelessly outmatched in this media driven arena, and would be wiser to not play his game.

President Trump is an incumbent with more election money raised than any opponent so far, and he goads the timid Democrats into impeaching him because it will help him get re-elected, same as Bill Clinton.  

If 2016 was a big "FU" from voters, 2020 will be more of the same.

 

[OftenWrong]

20 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Tweeting at a mad dictator at 2 am isn't one of them.

2. Agreed on the living in the present part.

3. "Someone" LOL.  Him !  

4. I agree that his lies are intoxicating and the future is unknown.

1. Ok, so apparently you object to the format of his communication. Let me know which format(s) you think are more appropriate for threatening complete annihilation. Is there a proper etiquette?

4. One should not ignore or underestimate one's enemy, and my take on Donald Trump is that he is a formidable opponent indeed. He has survived an onslaught that would leave most people curled up in a fetal position on the floor. More than just survived it, Trump can say he's been redeemed by the Mueller report. He is now a force to be reckoned with, to which Dems have no answer.

The road to 2020 looking pretty good... for Trump.

[Michael Hardner]

7 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

1. Ok, so apparently you object to the format of his communication. Let me know which format(s) you think are more appropriate for threatening complete annihilation. Is there a proper etiquette?

2. One should not ignore or underestimate one's enemy, and my take on Donald Trump is that he is a formidable opponent indeed. He has survived an onslaught that would leave most people curled up in a fetal position on the floor. More than just survived it, Trump can say he's been redeemed by the Mueller report. He is now a force to be reckoned with, to which Dems have no answer.

3. The road to 2020 looking pretty good... for Trump.

1. Please don't pretend that Trump does things properly, lest I think you are a dolt/liar.  Serious things warrant serious treatment.  See Kennedy and the Cuban Missile Crisis

2. Which onslaught ?  Please explain, and don't include onslaughts he brought upon himself.  The Muller Report didn't exonerate him.  He is "now" a force  ... he's the president, when was he a force ?

3. He starts with a 54% disapproval rate.

[OftenWrong]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Please don't pretend that Trump does things properly, lest I think you are a dolt/liar.  Serious things warrant serious treatment.  See Kennedy and the Cuban Missile Crisis

2. Which onslaught ?  Please explain, and don't include onslaughts he brought upon himself.  The Muller Report didn't exonerate him.  He is "now" a force  ... he's the president, when was he a force ?

3. He starts with a 54% disapproval rate.

I do not "pretend" things, nor do I care what you think of me. That's right, attack me. Threaten to call me names for what I think. All you are doing is giving me the win and making yourself look like a jackass.

 

[GostHacked]

12 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

I haven't seen anyone in the list yet that could be a credible threat to Trump. Why do you not want more Trump, when the nation is doing very well by most indications. Also it's reassuring that so far, Trump has more or less kept the peace. He has threatened war but seems more keen on making a deal than dropping bombs.

Not when it comes to Syria . and now threatening Iran (not unlike POTUSs of the past.  Not to mention helping Saudi Arabia bomb Yemen.

But when you run with the name 'OftenWrong' ... 

The USA seems to be more divided than ever before and with the new abortion bills coming about, there is potentially another civil unrest on a national scale in the USA.

[Michael Hardner]

34 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

I do not "pretend" things, nor do I care what you think of me. That's right, attack me. Threaten to call me names for what I think. All you are doing is giving me the win and making yourself look like a jackass.

 

Ok, so you seriously believe that Trump's method of threatening war via Twitter is acceptable?

[GostHacked]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Ok, so you seriously believe that Trump's method of threatening war via Twitter is acceptable?

Threatening war is not acceptable no matter what platform is used.

[OftenWrong]

1 hour ago, GostHacked said:

Threatening war is not acceptable no matter what platform is used.

I know, but let's discuss within the limits of reality.

[OftenWrong]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Ok, so you seriously believe that Trump's method of threatening war via Twitter is acceptable?

I consider using a medium like twitter puzzling, but not offensive. I answered your question, but you didn't answer mine.

Because you know where that leads.

[OftenWrong]

3 hours ago, GostHacked said:

But when you run with the name 'OftenWrong' ... 

I should have named myself Trump, so you people would hate me even more, right?   

Ay, there's the point... who's got liberals heads spinning? What are liberals doing? Attacking Trump. Consequently what are liberals not doing? Governing. Instead of focusing on important problems that the American people need them to solve, they are wasting time with this ongoing drama. They have politically trapped themselves in a corner with their categorical opposition to anything Trump, to the extent they can not function at all. And Donald Trump, like it or not, is the sole person who has done this to them.

- Syria over quick and clean. I like that. Mr. Putin apparently didn't like it at all. I like that, too.

- Don't know about abortion laws in US, that's a state issue I think. No idea why that's come out again, but there are political elements who are always pushing to bring this law back. Whether it involves Trump, I don't know.

- My personal view on all the unrest, don't know how big a problem it really is. It's a big country and you only hear about bad news. Unrest exists, and is escalating. I agree with Trump that the responsibility for the violence lies with both sides, and both sides are equally violent. It shouldn't be a partisan issue.

[GostHacked]

6 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

I should have named myself Trump, so you people would hate me even more, right?   

Hate is a strong word..  it's more of an indifference.

6 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

Ay, there's the point... who's got liberals heads spinning? What are liberals doing? Attacking Trump. Consequently what are liberals not doing? Governing. Instead of focusing on important problems that the American people need them to solve, they are wasting time with this ongoing drama. They have politically trapped themselves in a corner with their categorical opposition to anything Trump, to the extent they can not function at all. And Donald Trump, like it or not, is the sole person who has done this to them.

Trump has done enough to warrant being attacked. 

6 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

- Syria over quick and clean. I like that. Mr. Putin apparently didn't like it at all. I like that, too.

No Syria is still a war zone. It's just that the Saudi/USA backed ISIS terror groups got their asses kicked out of Syria by Putin.

6 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

- Don't know about abortion laws in US, that's a state issue I think. No idea why that's come out again, but there are political elements who are always pushing to bring this law back. Whether it involves Trump, I don't know.

The problem was that Roe  v Wade is a FEDERAL Law. Trump had put people on the supreme court that would counter that and give the states power to decide. And guess what is happening now.

6 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

- My personal view on all the unrest, don't know how big a problem it really is. It's a big country and you only hear about bad news. Unrest exists, and is escalating. I agree with Trump that the responsibility for the violence lies with both sides, and both sides are equally violent. It shouldn't be a partisan issue.

We shall know soon enough.

[Michael Hardner]

4 hours ago, GostHacked said:

Threatening war is not acceptable no matter what platform is used.

What about true defense?  Kennedy ?

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

I consider using a medium like twitter puzzling, but not offensive. I answered your question, but you didn't answer mine.

Because you know where that leads.

1. I consider it entirely inappropriate but the content of the message was worse.

2. The answer is yes there's a protocol.

[bush_cheney2004]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

What about true defense?  Kennedy ?

 

True defense ?   Like Bay of Pigs  ?

Methinks many of today's Trump haters/alarmists never lived through the 1960's or have have purposely forgotten those years to heighten their Trump melodrama.

[Carlus Magnus]

On ‎5‎/‎21‎/‎2019 at 10:59 AM, GostHacked said:

Welp, there are a bunch of crap candidates current and coming up. 

There is one I really want to hand the keys to the Whitehouse and that would be Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii. She is a well thought out speaker and can answer very difficult questions. I can't see any other candidate that has as much substance as her.

I do not want another round of Trump, and we really don't need Creepy Uncle Joe Biden hair sniffing things going on there.  Sanders is my next choice, but I am sure the DNC will work against him again.

Gabbard seems to be the best hope the USA has had in decades.

 

Tulsi and Yang are the only candidates that stick out as the only DEM candidates that think for themselves.  Biden is the favorite of the DNC, Big Money, and their MSM Allies.

The Dems are snuffing Tulsi out early.  Mark my words, when they get to the debates they are going to ask her, " Why are you a homophobe, how many gay people have you lynched" 

Bernie's corps is broken and dejected, he rolled over while the DNC rode him raw in the primaries, he's not going to have the same support.  IMO, Buttigeg is the type of candidate that Dems like.  Relative unknown, not much history on policy, kind of a blank slate they can paint into a presidential candidate.  He talks smoother than a used car salesman too.

 

Edited May 28, 2019 by Carlus Magnus

[Michael Hardner]

30 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Methinks many of today's Trump haters/alarmists never lived through the 1960's or have have purposely forgotten those years to heighten their Trump melodrama.

Sure.  I work with young folks who have expressed horror due to watching Chernobyl.  Not because of the accident but how the USSR worked!

 

I'll bet a few were wearing Ché t-shirts a few years ago.

[bush_cheney2004]

7 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Sure.  I work with young folks who have expressed horror due to watching Chernobyl.  Not because of the accident but how the USSR worked!

 

Nixon defeated Democrats Humphrey ('68) and McGovern ('72) partially due to all the social unrest, and today's "progressives" are giving Trump the same voter anxiety he needs to win again in 2020.   Like Nixon, Trump has been under fire from Congress, but he won't resign.

Trump's 2020 opponents never believed he would win the presidency in the first place because of their own ideology/biases, and now their party struggles to find anyone who they can agree on to defeat him.   Remarkable....

Edited May 29, 2019 by bush_cheney2004

[WestCanMan]

17 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Please don't pretend that Trump does things properly, lest I think you are a dolt/liar.  Serious things warrant serious treatment.  See Kennedy and the Cuban Missile Crisis

2. Which onslaught ?  Please explain, and don't include onslaughts he brought upon himself.  The Muller Report didn't exonerate him.  He is "now" a force  ... he's the president, when was he a force ?

3. He starts with a 54% disapproval rate.

1) It's just plain ignorance and/or petty wishful thinking, to think that Trump is not doing things properly. On foreign affairs and the economy Trump is kicking absolute ass.

I know that you'd love to pretend Obama was a better statesman than Trump, but here are those nasty little things that libs so despise that the rest of the world knows as facts:

Obama inherited an Iraq that was unstable but on a road to recovery, and not deteriorating. He pulled out his troops, left behind an arsenal fit for a decent army, and Iraq plummeted into chaos, islamic state sprung into existence with the US's discarded weapons. Obama left that jr varsity terrorist squad to grow unchecked, to the size of a relatively large country, and they were able to commit a substantial genocide. Obama said it would take several years to clean that up. He left Trump with the job of killing Assad and shutting down isis in maybe 5 years?

Trump came up against a veteran dictator in Putin. Threw down a bunch of bombs, made the US look good, made Putin look stupid, killed isis, moved on.

Yeah I get that CNN loves to say that he looked "crazy, unstable, etc" but to the rest of the world he looked like the guy with the big stick who backed his words with action. The ME looks 1,000 times better today than it did 3 years ago. That's a fact that even CNN can't dispute, that's why they don't talk about it. Believe me when I say to you that if CNN could say that the ME was worse off now than it was 3 years ago that's literally all that they would talk about. Instead they are still talking about the bogeyman in Trump's closet that the FBI still hasn't managed to find.

NoKo is pouting, mired in sanctions.

China is dealing with a US that isn't taking their shit.

Iran isn't getting billions from Trump. They don't dare take US ships hostage now. They're relegated to the sidelines, talking smack like a little guy whose friends are holding him back. If they cross a line with Trump the whole world knows what will happen, and it's been a long time coming. Iran is nothing but a stooge on the world stage right now.

One more thing - no one is going to overrun any US embassies with impunity while Trump is in charge. There won't be a whole night of distressed "come help us" radio calls without the sound of drones, F-22's, or cruise missiles inbound.  

So you tell me just exactly how Trump isn't ding things properly MH. I'd love to hear a peep. 

 

2) The Russian Collusion delusion can't actually end in total exoneration, because there's no way to conclusively prove that Trump never said a single thing that was inappropriate over the course of an entire year without video evidence of every single second of that year. What's known for sure is that the FBI tried to entrap his people and failed, the Russians made offers which were refused, and the whole investigation was predicated on bogus information which was presented to a FISA court as independently corroborated (lie) and partially verified (lie) without disclosing that the information was covertly paid for by a political rival and that at least some of it was false.

You can be disingenuous and say that he wasn't "exonerated" but the investigation, which was riddled with serious cases of malfeasance which resulted in multiple firings and demotions, was a total disaster for the Dems and the FBI.

 

3) Trump starts with CNN, MSNBC, NBC, the NYT, ABC, Hollywood, etc all attacking him 24/7, 365 days a year. He's winning on the world stage, his economy is booming, and his approval rating is equal or greater than Obama's was depending on what day of the week that is. Trump is killing it. 

 

[WestCanMan]

On 5/27/2019 at 7:03 PM, Michael Hardner said:

Tweeting at a mad dictator at 2 am isn't one of them.

Sometimes he's up sending angry tweets, sometimes he's up talking to his generals about cruise missile strikes. He's weird like that. At least he's never lying in bed while embassies are being overrun. 

The US was marginally tougher than Canada from '09 through 2016. The US is not be messed with from 2017 through May of 2019.

And don't forget, NoKo was talking about shooting missiles to Guam. Iran was talking about attacking US ships at sea. Trump isn't initiating threats of war. He's dealing with threats of war. Remember when Mattis said: "If they shoot missiles at us, that's called war"? Trump inherited that mess. Clinton's billions paid for the start of that mess. Trump hasn't even given NoKo so much as the steam off his crap. 

[bush_cheney2004]

2 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

....And don't forget, NoKo was talking about shooting missiles to Guam. Iran was talking about attacking US ships at sea. Trump isn't initiating threats of war. He's dealing with threats of war. Remember when Mattis said: "If they shoot missiles at us, that's called war"? Trump inherited that mess. Clinton's billions paid for the start of that mess. Trump hasn't even given NoKo so much as the steam off his crap. 

 

Agreed... I think many of Trump's critics ignore this aspect of his candidacy and presidency.  Donald Trump was not part of the U.S. and/or allied leadership for international or domestic policies.   His success is largely due to disrupting an entrenched status quo that was not of his making, unlike previous elected state actors (Obama/Clinton/Biden/etc.)....Clinton and Biden actually voted for the Iraq War.

President Trump can and should be held accountable for policies and actions developed on his watch, but he does not have the baggage of a typical D.C. beltway bandit and career politician, which is part of his appeal.

[eyeball]

8 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Nixon defeated Democrats Humphrey ('68) and McGovern ('72) partially due to all the social unrest, and today's "progressives" are giving Trump the same voter anxiety he needs to win again in 2020. 

Wasn't it also because 40 million Americans watched him say "sock it to me" on Laugh-in?

Quote

 

Offered a different “Laugh-In” line, “You bet your sweet bippy,” he rejected it, concerned that “bippy” might mean something naughty.

Did Nixon’s ‘Laugh-In’ Cameo Help Him Win the 1968 Election?

 

Given Trump's pussy-snatching braggadocio I think its fair to say Nixon would have gagged if he'd lived to see him in action.

[bush_cheney2004]

12 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Wasn't it also because 40 million Americans watched him say "sock it to me" on Laugh-in?

 

No....as 1968 was anything but a Laugh-In...in the United States.

Edited May 29, 2019 by bush_cheney2004

[eyeball]

1 minute ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

No....as 1968 was anything but a Laugh-In...in the United States.

That's pretty funny coming from someone who basically says move along nothing to see here with regards to Trump.

[bush_cheney2004]

Just now, eyeball said:

That's pretty funny coming from someone who basically says move along nothing to see here with regards to Trump.

 

It was meant to be funny...I'm sure Canadians watched Laugh-In too even if they didn't get all the jokes.