• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Under siege in Washington, Trump reaps Saudi arms deal, stronger ties

Nickyjo said:
So pick apart what I said.
Click to expand...

There is a much larger problem in the world today with Islam than any other religion. To say they are all the same is a laughable falsehood.
 
I understand President Reagan liked to sell weaponry to the Middle East, too.
 
RetiredUSN said:
And yet the prior administration thought it was a great idea to loosen the reigns on Iran who's has track record of proxy warfare against America and Israel is well documented.

We totally folded on Iran just to make a deal

John Kerry must be a real hero to you?
Click to expand...

Nope.
 
cAPSLOCK said:
Of course. After all God is great. Very, very, big league great.
Click to expand...

Trump speaking: He's the greatest. All the best people like him. His support is tremendous. He's really an amazing guy. The most amazing. And you know who he likes most of all? That's right, me, the President. He loves the whole Trump family, says we're the best. No one has the incredible support of God more than me. Yeah, me. You guys know it, everyone knows it. It's so amazing, I get tired of it. You know what God told me? I'm the greatest, not him. Maybe he's right, I don't know.
 
Last edited:
Nickyjo said:
Can someone break this down for me? There comments in this thread suggesting that Islam is somehow flawed in some way. What I would like to do is give some sort of analogy from a issue I worked on some years ago. The Argentine government of the 1970s killed between 15 and 40 thousands of its citizens, depending on what stats you believe, through the use of "disappearances." But they considered themselves good Catholics, fighting "the first battle of WWIII," as they put it. And as Catholics, when they kidnapped a pregnant woman, they would wait till she gave birth before killing her. I leave it to your imagination what horrors those women went through, knowing they would die once they gave birth. They were also anti-Semites, reportedly making Jewish prisoners kneel before a crucifix as part of their torture techniques. You could revisit the history of several Catholic Latin American countries whose Inquisitional logic destroyed the lives of many tens of thousands in a quasi-religious anti-communism, and who as the Contras, performed acts of terror resembling what some Islamists have done. If you add up all the deaths from this combination of religious and gangsterish anti communism, it might possibly dwarf what a billion Muslims have done for roughly the same period of time.

Do these examples mean that Catholicism was somehow flawed?

The second question I have is, assuming that Islam is flawed in some way, therefore we should.....? I may have missed it, but I don't find it stated anywhere. What should US policy towards a religion be?
Click to expand...

Any good Christian Islamaphobes want to take a swing at Nickyjo's question?
 
ajn678 said:
There is a much larger problem in the world today with Islam than any other religion. To say they are all the same is a laughable falsehood.
Click to expand...

Point taken. Your key word is "today." But the problem is that people use the shield of Islam to try to create their stupid caliphate, not with the religion. A generation ago it was crazy Catholics in the Provo wing of the IRA, more radical than the IRA Marxists, who blew up Brits. And a generation earlier check out Jewish terrorism designed to create a Jewish state and the deaths of scores of Brits in Palestine. Or go back to the wacky Native Americans while believed that their religious dance would make them invulnerable to bullets, so they could establish their Indian caliphate once again. Go further back to the crusades, and a famous incident when the Europeans were massacring all the habitants of one city. Some one mentioned to their commander that there were Christians in the town. His reply, "Kill them all; God will know his own.

Seems you could make a defensible argument that Islamists have the biggest current franchise on idiotic religious violence. But they don't have a monopoly.

Still the question remains, since we could argue about this all week, what do we do about all this? Kill them all? Ban them from the US? Invade their countries, kills their leaders, and convert the rest, as Ann Coulter suggested? Lots of outrage, few policy solutions suggested here.
 
Jetboogieman said:
This message was brought to you by the GOP for 5 cents a post.
Click to expand...

No, actually this message was brought to you by BEA.gov, BLS.gov, and Treasury. I do realize that in your world perception is reality and results don't matter. I do realize that nothing is ever going to change your mind thus you are a waste of time. One of these days you are going to realize what a screwed up mess today's Democratic Party is, I did and grew up
 
Conservative said:
No, actually this message was brought to you by BEA.gov, BLS.gov, and Treasury. I do realize that in your world perception is reality and results don't matter. I do realize that nothing is ever going to change your mind thus you are a waste of time. One of these days you are going to realize what a screwed up mess today's Democratic Party is, I did and grew up
Click to expand...

Bush never hit 4% growth and his entire economy was propped up by a housing bubble that burst. Guess who had to clean that mess up. Guess who bailed those too big to fail banks out? The OECD Tax-Payer. The cost being a 30% drop in revenue across OECD countries. At the same time the economy slowed down, as a liquidity crunch hit the real economy. This effected lending, borrowing, and spending. Consumer spending trended down, as did consumer expectations and investment expectations. Welcome to the Great Bush Recession.
 
I'm sure the Saudis will use this arms deal and weaponry in an effective and efficient manner.

Said no one ever.
 
MTAtech said:
You Republicans are the biggest hypocrites. Obama inherited from Bush an 8% decline in GDP. Over the objection of Republicans, he passed a watered down stimulus bill and an auto bailout, both of which saved jobs. Republicans put stumbling blocks in Obama's path every step of the recovery, in hopes that a bad economy would defeat him in 2012. Republicans were successful at killing Obama's jobs bill, that would have returned more jobs sooner. Then, after trying to hinder Obama during both of his terms, people like you have the chutzpah to complain the recover was too slow -- only 1.6% of steady gains and job growth?

Meanwhile, what great plans has Trump proposed -- beyond the standard tired Republican call for tax-cuts on the rich and slashing regulations on corporations -- as if those are magic elixirs to economic prosperity?
Conservative said:
You really don't understand leadership at all. Obama took a negative GDP and never had a 3% GDP. That says it all. Worst recovery in history
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
What "says it all" is your avoidance of discussing Republican culpability that was clear and obvious. Republicans kicked Obama in the knees and then complained that he didn't win the marathon.

It would be different if Congressional Republicans gave Obama everything he asked for and it didn't work. But no. They either wouldn't pass his initiatives or scaled back everything else -- and even after all of that, Obama mended the economy.

Meanwhile, what we did get was far better economic results than Obama's predecessor did.
 
Last edited:
Winston said:
Bush never hit 4% growth and his entire economy was propped up by a housing bubble that burst. Guess who had to clean that mess up. Guess who bailed those too big to fail banks out? The OECD Tax-Payer. The cost being a 30% drop in revenue across OECD countries. At the same time the economy slowed down, as a liquidity crunch hit the real economy. This effected lending, borrowing, and spending. Consumer spending trended down, as did consumer expectations and investment expectations. Welcome to the Great Bush Recession.
Click to expand...

You really don't know how to do any research do you, BEA.gov tells a different story, learn to use it as that is Treasury data. You want to believe what you are told but cannot explain how Obama took a negative GDP and never achieved a 3% GDP growth in any year and left us with a 1.6% growth. What is it about liberalism that creates this kind of loyalty?

Who cleaned up the mess, TARP recapitalized the banks and brought us out of recession, Obama had the worst recovery in history but keep believing what you are told as credibility is something that doesn't bother anyone from the left.
 
MTAtech said:
What "says it all" is your avoidance of discussing Republican culpability that was clear and obvious. Republicans kicked Obama in the knees and then complained that he didn't win the marathon.

It would be different if Congressional Republicans gave Obama everything he asked for and it didn't work. But no. They either wouldn't pass his initiatives or scaled back everything else -- and even after all of that, Obama mended the economy.

Meanwhile, what we did get was far better economic results than Obama's predecessor did.
Click to expand...

Donald Trump has pissed off the leadership of both the Democrats and Republicans which speaks volumes to me. You keep buying that liberal rhetoric ignoring that Obama had zero leadership skills and got EVERYTHING he wanted his first term. Congressional Republicans never controlled the Senate until 2014 long after Obama did his damage. There is a reason Obama lost the House in 2010-2012 and the Congress in 2014-2016, why don't you explain how with such great economic numbers that happened?

As for better results than either Bush or Trump, prove it, you cannot
 
Conservative said:
Donald Trump has pissed off the leadership of both the Democrats and Republicans which speaks volumes to me. You keep buying that liberal rhetoric ignoring that Obama had zero leadership skills and got EVERYTHING he wanted his first term.
Click to expand...
You must be dreaming. Even though Obama gave Republicans items in both the stimulus bill and the ACA, not Republicans voted for them. They were passed by reconciliation and it would have been better had he not weakened both to appease Republicans and Blue-Dog Demcrats.

You also throw around this term "leadership," and claim Obama doesn't have any. Well, over the objection of a Republican majority,
he got the Bush tax-cuts on the wealthy people like you to end. He got Obamacare passed,
that gave 20 million formerly uninsured Americans insurance. He righted the economy, over Republican opposition,
etc. If that isn't leadership, you don't know what the word means.
Conservative said:
Congressional Republicans never controlled the Senate until 2014 long after Obama did his damage. There is a reason Obama lost the House in 2010-2012 and the Congress in 2014-2016, why don't you explain how with such great economic numbers that happened?
Click to expand...
The Republicans took back the House in 2010 (from Dems 2006 win of it) mainly because they advertised false claims about the ACA, especially about "death panels," that didn't exist. The 2014 loss of the Senate was mainly a loss because far more Democratic seats were up in Republican stronghold states. In 2016, Democrats gained seats, just not a majority. In 2012, Democrats won seats in the House and Senate. 2014, even though the Republicans won more seats, more people voted for Democrats by a wide margin. Thanks gerrymandering!

Conservative said:
As for better results than either Bush or Trump, prove it, you cannot
Click to expand...
I don't have to. Business Insider did it for me over four years ago: Charts That Should Get Obama Reelected - Business Insider
 
Last edited:
MTAtech said:
You must be dreaming. Even though Obama gave Republicans items in both the stimulus bill and the ACA, not Republicans voted for them. They were passed by reconciliation and it would have been better had he not weakened both to appease Republicans and Blue-Dog Demcrats.

You also throw around this term "leadership," and claim Obama doesn't have any. Well, over the objection of a Republican majority,
he got the Bush tax-cuts on the wealthy people like you to end. He got Obamacare passed,
that gave 20 million formerly uninsured Americans insurance. He righted the economy, over Republican opposition,
etc. If that isn't leadership, you don't know what the word means.The Republicans took back the House in 2010 (from Dems 2006 win of it) mainly because they advertised false claims about the ACA, especially about "death panels," that didn't exist. The 2014 loss of the Senate was mainly a loss because far more Democratic seats were up in Republican stronghold states. In 2016, Democrats gained seats, just not a majority. In 2012, Democrats won seats in the House and Senate. 2014, even though the Republicans won more seats, more people voted for Democrats by a wide margin. Thanks gerrymandering!

I don't have to. Business Insider did it for me over four years ago: Charts That Should Get Obama Reelected - Business Insider
Click to expand...

You seem to lack the ability to read actual charts with actual data, bea.gov, bls.gov, and Treasury. Business insider doesn't tell the entire story nor put it in context. But regardless you seem to want the status quo but never answer a direct question such as how much debt is acceptable to you since apparently it isn't 20 trillion dollars? Another is what is an acceptable U-6 rate for you since apparently it is the 9.4% Obama left us. Another would be what would be acceptable GDP growth for you since it is the 1.6% Obama left us with? You see, all those incredible economic numbers you want to tout never happened as evidenced by the Congressional elections of 2010-20012-2014-2016 none of which you can explain but rather do what liberals always do, make excuses. If those numbers were as you stated Obama wouldn't have lost the House and then the entire Congress. Logic and common sense aren't something you apparently have.

Can you explain to me how Obama with those called great policies never had GDP growth of 3% whereas Bush had two years over 3%? That is especially damaging as he inherited a recession that had negative GDP growth. Growing the economy from a negative number never achieving a 3% growth is a disaster except to someone with low standards

Let's face it, you vote with your heart based upon what you like not actual results. As for leadership, another topic you know nothing about as Obama operated like a college professor and not a leader which apparently is the kind of leadership you like.
 
Last edited:
the deal we should be making with Saudi Arabia is for them to do their duty as regional hegemon. then the president should fly back home and propose a thirty year moonshot to replace oil.
 
Growing the economy from a negative number never achieving a 3% growth is a disaster except to someone with low standards

Even lower standards can be identified as, defending the party that left the economy with NEGATIVE growth.

Seriously, what you are claiming is that President Obama didn't fix the disaster left by GW good enough.

Sports analogy: HC takes over a 14 win NFL team. Over 3 years the team wins 11, 8 and 2 games. New coach comes in and in 3 years wins 3, 6 and 9 games.

You claim the first HC is better because he won 11 games while the new guy never got to 10 wins.



Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
 
Conservative said:
You seem to lack the ability to read actual charts with actual data, bea.gov, bls.gov, and Treasury. Business insider doesn't tell the entire story nor put it in context. But regardless you seem to want the status quo but never answer a direct question such as how much debt is acceptable to you since apparently it isn't 20 trillion dollars? Another is what is an acceptable U-6 rate for you since apparently it is the 9.4% Obama left us. Another would be what would be acceptable GDP growth for you since it is the 1.6% Obama left us with? You see, all those incredible economic numbers you want to tout never happened as evidenced by the Congressional elections of 2010-20012-2014-2016 none of which you can explain but rather do what liberals always do, make excuses. If those numbers were as you stated Obama wouldn't have lost the House and then the entire Congress. Logic and common sense aren't something you apparently have.

Can you explain to me how Obama with those called great policies never had GDP growth of 3% whereas Bush had two years over 3%? That is especially damaging as he inherited a recession that had negative GDP growth. Growing the economy from a negative number never achieving a 3% growth is a disaster except to someone with low standards

Let's face it, you vote with your heart based upon what you like not actual results. As for leadership, another topic you know nothing about as Obama operated like a college professor and not a leader which apparently is the kind of leadership you like.
Click to expand...
I see that you have abandoned your previous agreement and now switch to the spaghetti method of argument -- throw a lot of stuff on the wall and hope something sticks. Oh, and yes, I understand charts quite well and will show you some below.

You mentioned U-6 employment. U-6 has improved along with all the other measures and was 9.4% in January 2017 -- about where it was in Mar/Apr 2008 and down from 16.5%, that Bush left Obama. Here is that chart. As you can see, unemployment, as measured by U-6 has been dropping, starting about six months after President Obama took office and Trump is benefiting from that trend, which contradicts that he "took over a disaster."

Conservative said:
Can you explain to me how Obama with those called great policies never had GDP growth of 3% whereas Bush had two years over 3%?
Click to expand...
I already explained this in my two previous posts. GOP obstruction is the answer. Regarding Bush, you are like the Vegas gambler that counts his winnings (e.g. '2-yrs of +3% economic growth) but doesn't count his losses of sharp GDP declines. Bush had the worst job gains in modern history -- gaining a total of 56,000 jobs in eight years -- compared to Obama's 11 million job gains.
 
MTAtech;1067226006]I see that you have abandoned your previous agreement and now switch to the spaghetti method of argument -- throw a lot of stuff on the wall and hope something sticks. Oh, and yes, I understand charts quite well and will show you some below.

You mentioned U-6 employment. U-6 has improved along with all the other measures and was 9.4% in January 2017 -- about where it was in Mar/Apr 2008 and down from 16.5%, that Bush left Obama. Here is that chart. As you can see, unemployment, as measured by U-6 has been dropping, starting about six months after President Obama took office and Trump is benefiting from that trend, which contradicts that he "took over a disaster."

I already explained this in my two previous posts. GOP obstruction is the answer. Regarding Bush, you are like the Vegas gambler that counts his winnings (e.g. '2-yrs of +3% economic growth) but doesn't count his losses of sharp GDP declines. Bush had the worst job gains in modern history --
Click to expand...

You continue to show how low your standards are, yes, the U-6 has been reduced but remained above Pre Recession levels and were taken up to record highs by Obama. I have a great suggestion for you, get your leftwing group together and petition the BLS, Treasury, and Bureau of Economic Analysis to adopt leftwing numbers and ignore real data?

The problem is you don't get it, when Obama inherited a declining economy with negative GDP growth, a 3% should have been easy to obtain but he never did it. Reagan has an equally difficult recession and generated over 7% growth coming off that recession. Leadership is something you don't seem to understand as Obama isn't the first President to have opposition to his economic plan as I call attention to the "illegitimate" President of GW Bush and Democratic obstruction. Bush took his agenda to the American people and his tax cuts turned the economy around

Bush left Obama with an economy that was recovering, Obama signed a jobs stimulus bill is first month in office and it took employment down 2 million in two years and also generated record numbers of discouraged workers something again you don't understand

The Obama record was so good he campaigned for Hillary on it claiming that his record and legacy were on the ballot. How did that turn out for him in Congress??

I know this is hard for you to understand but Bush isn't in office any more and what he left Obama with was a recovery economy that Obama didn't capitalize on. Bush generated 4.5 trillion GDP in 8 years, Obama 3.5 trillion including the 842 BILLION STIMULUS

Amazing how poorly informed you are and easily indoctrinated by the leftwing rhetoric.
 
Whythink said:
Growing the economy from a negative number never achieving a 3% growth is a disaster except to someone with low standards

Even lower standards can be identified as, defending the party that left the economy with NEGATIVE growth.

Seriously, what you are claiming is that President Obama didn't fix the disaster left by GW good enough.

Sports analogy: HC takes over a 14 win NFL team. Over 3 years the team wins 11, 8 and 2 games. New coach comes in and in 3 years wins 3, 6 and 9 games.

You claim the first HC is better because he won 11 games while the new guy never got to 10 wins.
Click to expand...

Wow, such low standards, Obama did such a great job he lost the House in 2010-2012 and the Congress in 2014-2016 even campaigning for his record and legacy. Seems the only ones who think Obama did a good job are his leftwing radical friends. Results matter, you liked Obama but the people voted on his record. Obama left the country with a 1.6% GDP growth, almost 20 trillion in debt, and 9.4% U-6. Already Trump has improved the debt and U-6 by doing something Obama never did, meet with business leaders, foreign governments to promote America, and labor unions.

Obama was a community agitator with no leadership skills and the results show it, actual results but I do suggest you get with MT and the rest of your leftwing friends and get BLS, BEA, and Treasury to ignore actual numbers to report your propaganda
 
DA60 said:
Great...just great.

Selling arms to one of the most despicable governments on the planet.

Were I Trump, I would tell the Saudi Royal Family (SRF) to feck off. If they want American arms, they MUST clean up their horrific human rights record and have free and fair elections WITH women getting the vote as well as men.


I can just hear the excuse of the pathetic neocons; 'but they are an ally'.

So what?

In my book, you don't ally yourself with horrific governments who commit loads of human rights abuses - especially during peacetime.


And America has no need at all of Saudi oil. She could easily make up the loss from that scumbag SRF from other oil exporters.

https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_mbbl_m.htm


Spineless, gutless Trump makes deal with the devil to win a few brownie points. Or maybe he has no honor and does not mind the horrible way the SRF treats their citizens...especially their women.

And if Obama did it, I would have said the EXACT same thing about him.


Anyone who is for this deal just spat on the human rights of average Saudi's.
Click to expand...

:applaud

Came here to post this but it was already done.

Our ties with Saudi should be a matter of shame and disgrace to every American, no matter the president.
 
Would appreciate anyone on the left to explain to me what it is about the Trump actual agenda that bothers you, could it be the focus on economic activity, focus on job creation, and focus on National security?? How could any American be against those issues?

Maybe it is the attack on social programs that bother you because those social programs are administered by federal bureaucrats? Could it be that not enough spending is occurring because of the spending appetite for programs in the NAME of compassion? Could it be that you believe the Federal Govt. one size fits all program works in 50 sovereign states with 50 different costs of livings?

I really am trying to understand what the left truly wants?
 
Carleen said:
This is off the topic; but the headline made me think of it. Who in hell is left in the WH? He took his entire staff with him on this trip! LMAO!
Click to expand...
He left Kellyanne Conway behind. She's on the outs. Trump also took a whole gaggle of CEO's with him to the Kingdom.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom