Deranged Rhino Posted March 24, 2018 Posted March 24, 2018 Still on the road, had a chance to pop on. A few things re Bolton: There is one (and a half) reason he was hired: Iran. It's happening, but it won't be a war. Watch. Anyone who says Bolton is a Russian plant or stooge is exposing themselves to you as either ignorant or partisan or lying. McMaster was fired for leaking. Period. Anyone worried that Bolton is going to run over Trump's agenda is ignorant, partisan, or lying. McMaster couldn't get Trump to do anything he didn't want to do. Same goes for Bolton. Anyone who says Bolton being hired is proof Trump has no core belief is ignorant or partisan or lying. Bolton's hiring sends a strong message to exactly who Trump is targeting (Iran / DPRK). Solving the issues in both those countries for the betterment of us all is and always has been a central plank in Trump's agenda. Watch who writes any of the above over the next few days - it's going to expose a lot of soft minds we can safely ignore.
3rdnlng Posted March 24, 2018 Posted March 24, 2018 29 minutes ago, Buftex said: Ignore the fact that he is the antithesis of everything Trump claimed to stand for, in regards to foreign policy wise, during the campaign. Bolton only furthers the theory that Trump has no core beliefs, only that he is using the country for his own self-serving purposes. Trump is the president, not Bolton. Trump is not afraid to call other country's bluff or to cause outlaw countries like North Korea to stand up and notice who his advisors are. Remember, he's a negotiator and knows that it's pretty hard to negotiate from a weak position. Obama was a laughingstock when it came to dealing with other countries. Trump is not.
DC Tom Posted March 24, 2018 Posted March 24, 2018 1 hour ago, Buftex said: Ignore the fact that he is the antithesis of everything Trump claimed to stand for, foreign policy wise, during the campaign. Bolton only furthers the theory that Trump has no core beliefs, only that he is using the country for his own self-serving purposes. Trump's only purpose is self-aggrandizement. Policy-wise, he's a weather vane, parroting the opinions of those he last talked to. 2
Deranged Rhino Posted March 24, 2018 Posted March 24, 2018 Just now, DC Tom said: Trump's only purpose is self-aggrandizement. Policy-wise, he's a weather vane, parroting the opinions of those he last talked to. Not when it comes to Iran or DPRK. Actions. Not words. KSA was in town for a reason this week. Iran deal is going away. That's not new. DPRK deal will be historic (it's done already). On the rest, you may have a point.
Buftex Posted March 24, 2018 Posted March 24, 2018 11 minutes ago, DC Tom said: Trump's only purpose is self-aggrandizement. Policy-wise, he's a weather vane, parroting the opinions of those he last talked to. Exactly. Precisely the reason the appointement of John Bolton scares some people. He is the king war hawk. And, despite his expressed distaste for "stupid wars", the one area that Trump seems to be learing he can get some praise from both sides of the aisle, is when he flexes his support for the military.
Deranged Rhino Posted March 24, 2018 Posted March 24, 2018 1 minute ago, Buftex said: Exactly. Precisely the reason the appointement of John Bolton scares some people. He is the king war hawk. And, despite his expressed distaste for "stupid wars", the one area that Trump seems to be learing he can get some praise from both sides of the aisle, is when he flexes his support for the military. If you think Bolton can tell trump what to do, you're not paying attention. McMaster could not get him to NOT congratulate Putin. He couldn't get him "in line" with preserving the Iran deal.
Buftex Posted March 24, 2018 Posted March 24, 2018 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: If you think Bolton can tell trump what to do, you're not paying attention. McMaster could not get him to NOT congratulate Putin. He couldn't get him "in line" with preserving the Iran deal. I hope you are right...I just don't think McMaster would have been as likely to push Trump to staring another war, as Bolton is. I think the whiff of starting a war excites Trump very much...Bolton is just as likely to encourage him. Edited March 24, 2018 by Buftex
outsidethebox Posted March 24, 2018 Posted March 24, 2018 4 minutes ago, Buftex said: I hope you are right...I just don't think it McMaster would have been as likely to push Trump to staring another war, as Bolton is. I think the whiff of starting a war excites Trump very much...Bolton is just as likely to encourage him. Your TDS is getting the best of you. How did you feel about Hillary's push for what seems like a war with Russia?
Deranged Rhino Posted March 24, 2018 Posted March 24, 2018 3 minutes ago, Buftex said: I hope you are right...I just don't think it McMaster would have been as likely to push Trump to staring another war, as Bolton is. I think the whiff of starting a war excites Trump very much...Bolton is just as likely to encourage him. If Trump launches an invasion of Iran (or any country) I will fully admit I was wrong. I'm (seemingly) way out on a limb in light of the most recent developments with that belief, but remember we are in an information war. Nothing is as it seems. If Trumps goal was to placate the media by giving them a war, it would have happened months ago in Syria when his harshest critics suddenly lauded him for launching cruise missiles. Bolton is there to scare the piss out of the Mullahs who are on the verge of being overthrown by the Iranian people. Once Iran is dealt with (again, I'm not meaning a war in the traditional sense), Bolton will be gone. The next NSC (imo) will be Flynn - 2019 if not sooner. 1
Buftex Posted March 24, 2018 Posted March 24, 2018 1 minute ago, westside said: Your TDS is getting the best of you. How did you feel about Hillary's push for what seems like a war with Russia? Ha-ha! I am not necessarilly a huge Clinton fan, but I do believe she would have a coherent foreign policy, and would have filled her cabinet postions with better people than Turmps' "best people". I have no doubt you will disagree..
outsidethebox Posted March 24, 2018 Posted March 24, 2018 Just now, Buftex said: Ha-ha! I am not necessarilly a huge Clinton fan, but I do believe she would have a coherent foreign policy, and would have filled her cabinet postions with better people than Turmps' "best people". I have no doubt you will disagree.. I think Trump may be a womanizing fool, but the Clintons are straight out crooks. I'm no Trump supporter, though I did vote for him. That was the first time in over 30 years of voting that I voted republican in a presidential vote. That's how much I despise Hillary. I voted for Bill Clinton, Obama and every democratic presidential candidate in between.
Buftex Posted March 24, 2018 Posted March 24, 2018 1 hour ago, westside said: I think Trump may be a womanizing fool, but the Clintons are straight out crooks. I'm no Trump supporter, though I did vote for him. That was the first time in over 30 years of voting that I voted republican in a presidential vote. That's how much I despise Hillary. I voted for Bill Clinton, Obama and every democratic presidential candidate in between. Sure, the best way to ensure that the crook doesn't get into office, is to vote for the sociopath, who happens to be as big a crook as you can imagine. You should probably reassess your voting litmus test.
/dev/null Posted March 24, 2018 Posted March 24, 2018 3 minutes ago, Buftex said: Sure, the best way to ensure that the crook doesn't get into office, is to vote for the sociopath, who happens to be as big a crook as you can imagine. You should probably reassess your voting litmus test. Because Hiliary Clinton was such an honest and trustworthy candidate that never lied or cheated
Nanker Posted March 24, 2018 Posted March 24, 2018 If the TDS Left doesn’t stop their impeachment nonsense, going to war will become Trumps main play.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 24, 2018 Posted March 24, 2018 8 hours ago, /dev/null said: Because Hiliary Clinton was such an honest and trustworthy candidate that never lied or cheated Hell hillary cheated Bernie Sanders in her own party’s election 1
stony Posted March 24, 2018 Posted March 24, 2018 10 hours ago, westside said: I think Trump may be a womanizing fool, but the Clintons are straight out crooks. I'm no Trump supporter, though I did vote for him. That was the first time in over 30 years of voting that I voted republican in a presidential vote. That's how much I despise Hillary. I voted for Bill Clinton, Obama and every democratic presidential candidate in between. Pretty much a microcosm of the candidates for 2016. 1
outsidethebox Posted March 24, 2018 Posted March 24, 2018 9 hours ago, Buftex said: Sure, the best way to ensure that the crook doesn't get into office, is to vote for the sociopath, who happens to be as big a crook as you can imagine. You should probably reassess your voting litmus test. Are you ssying Trumps womanizing is worse than Clintons uranium deal with Russia? How about that Clinton foundations pay to play? Not to mention how she screwed Bernie Sanders Democratic nomination from him. Yes, my litmus test is just fine. I don't understand how today's democrates can support that crooked Clinton!!
Tiberius Posted March 24, 2018 Posted March 24, 2018 12 hours ago, DC Tom said: Trump's only purpose is self-aggrandizement. Policy-wise, he's a weather vane, parroting the opinions of those he last talked to. The silver lining in the Bolton thing is he probably won't get a long with Trump either. And Bolton won't be on TV so he probably won't hear what he says anymore 12 hours ago, Buftex said: Ha-ha! I am not necessarilly a huge Clinton fan, but I do believe she would have a coherent foreign policy, and would have filled her cabinet postions with better people than Turmps' "best people". I have no doubt you will disagree.. There is no doubt she would be a better president. She was sec of state and that went fine. She was competent. Can you imagine Trump being Sec of State in any competent fashion? Neither can I. 1
Tiberius Posted March 24, 2018 Posted March 24, 2018 George Will on Bolton: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-second-most-dangerous-american/2018/03/23/90751d80-2ec6-11e8-8688-e053ba58f1e4_story.html?utm_term=.0fe201462f4c The first two charges against the major Nazi war criminals in the 1945-1946 Nuremberg trials concerned waging aggressive war. Emboldened by the success, as he still sees it, of America’s Iraq adventure that began 15 years ago this month, Bolton, for whom a trade war with many friends and foes is insufficiently stimulating, favors real wars against North Korea and Iran. Both have odious regimes, but neither can credibly be said to be threatening an imminent attack against the United States. Nevertheless, Bolton thinks bombing both might make the world safer. What could go wrong? Much is made of the fact that Bolton is implacably hostile to strongman Vladimir Putin, whom the U.S. president, a weak person’s idea of a strong person, admires. And of the fact that the president has repeatedly execrated the invasion of Iraq that Bolton advocated. So, today among the uneducable, furrowed brows express puzzlement: How can the president square his convictions with Bolton’s? Let’s say this one more time: Trump. Has. No. Convictions.
Koko78 Posted March 24, 2018 Posted March 24, 2018 1 hour ago, Tiberius said: She was sec of state and that went fine. She was competent. Please list her diplomatic accomplishments as Secretary of State. In fact, go ahead and list her legislative accomplishments from her days in the Senate while you're at it.
Recommended Posts