• 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!

Trump says he fired national security advisor John Bolton — but Bolton says he ‘offered to resign’

PIPEWRENCH said:
The more likely scenario is Trump has gotten all the useful advice he is going to get from Bolton and is now seeking alternate input from other sources. Trump is the leader and when someone's solutions are not what the leaders thinks is the best solution a good leader seeks more information from other people. That is not necessary if you are just a puppet of the rich and powerful and all you have to do is what your master tells you to do.
Click to expand...

Bolton never had any useful advice whatsoever. You reactionaries really need to stop acting like you guys are anti-moneyed interests.
 
bomberfox said:
Bolton never had any useful advice whatsoever. You reactionaries really need to stop acting like you guys are anti-moneyed interests.
Click to expand...

Quite obviously a lot of people do according to his resume. However Trump obviously wants another opinion on what to do with Iran. I personally do not want to start a war until all peaceful options have been exhausted. Of course waiting until Iran has nukes will only create the problem Trump inherited with NK. At least Trump seems smart enough to have not continued down that road.
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
Quite obviously a lot of people do according to his resume. However Trump obviously wants another opinion on what to do with Iran. I personally do not want to start a war until all peaceful options have been exhausted. Of course waiting until Iran has nukes will only create the problem Trump inherited with NK. At least Trump seems smart enough to have not continued down that road.
Click to expand...

Smart guys always seal their scholastic records; a real genius! Why would you consider starting a war over a strike on the KSA?
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
Quite obviously a lot of people do according to his resume. However Trump obviously wants another opinion on what to do with Iran. I personally do not want to start a war until all peaceful options have been exhausted. Of course waiting until Iran has nukes will only create the problem Trump inherited with NK. At least Trump seems smart enough to have not continued down that road.
Click to expand...


Iran has said they will update their nuclear enrichment program specifically because of Trump pulling out of the agreement.

Kim Jong-Un is playing Trump like the clueless clown the man actually is. Kim has continued his weapons development programs and yet Trump thinks he h- Trump, has done a great job
 
Somerville said:
Iran has said they will update their nuclear enrichment program specifically because of Trump pulling out of the agreement.

Kim Jong-Un is playing Trump like the clueless clown the man actually is. Kim has continued his weapons development programs and yet Trump thinks he h- Trump, has done a great job
Click to expand...

Does anyone really care what the leader of Iran has to say.
let's see. If he likes Trump he is using trump and if he doesn't like Trump then Trump is wrong.:lamo:lamo:lamo

I suppose Trump should continue sanctions against NK for another 75 years. We saw how effective that was.:lamo
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
Puppets are candidates who take money for so called speeches from the rich and powerful.
Click to expand...

Puppets are those who believe a known liar is going to save them from something not real. :roll:
 
Carleen said:
Nope, just pointing out how if you speak out against Trump, you’re soon gone!
Click to expand...

That's how it works. That's why no one in the Obama administration, ever, dared to criticize or question anything Obama did. If an aid of an elected official publicly attacks or disputes the actions of that elected official, that aid will be fired.
 
joko104 said:
That's how it works. That's why no one in the Obama administration, ever, dared to criticize or question anything Obama did. If an aid of an elected official publicly attacks or disputes the actions of that elected official, that aid will be fired.
Click to expand...

Really! You can’t be serious about how many have left or were fired in the Trump admin compared to Obama
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
Quite obviously a lot of people do according to his resume. However Trump obviously wants another opinion on what to do with Iran. I personally do not want to start a war until all peaceful options have been exhausted. Of course waiting until Iran has nukes will only create the problem Trump inherited with NK. At least Trump seems smart enough to have not continued down that road.
Click to expand...

Since there was already a workable (and working) agreement in place that was preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons, could you please let me know how sabotaging that agreement so that Iran was no longer prevented from developing nuclear weapons qualifies as "smart enough not to have continued down" the road that would lead to Iran having nuclear weapons?

To me sabotaging a workable (and working) agreement in place that was preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons so that Iran was no longer prevented from developing nuclear weapons looks a lot more like "dumb enough not to have opened the road that would lead to Iran having nuclear weapons", but I am sure that you have some eminently logical reason why it isn't exactly that.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Since there was already a workable (and working) agreement in place that was preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons, could you please let me know how sabotaging that agreement so that Iran was no longer prevented from developing nuclear weapons qualifies as "smart enough not to have continued down" the road that would lead to Iran having nuclear weapons?

To me sabotaging a workable (and working) agreement in place that was preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons so that Iran was no longer prevented from developing nuclear weapons looks a lot more like "dumb enough not to have opened the road that would lead to Iran having nuclear weapons", but I am sure that you have some eminently logical reason why it isn't exactly that.
Click to expand...

If so then maybe we should do the same with NK. I am sure Kim will tell you he will no longer develop nukes.:lamo
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
If so then maybe we should do the same with NK. I am sure Kim will tell you he will no longer develop nukes.:lamo
Click to expand...

Not only did the Iranians SAY that they were NOT developing nuclear weapons (which they hadn't actually been doing in any event), but they allowed inspections that verified that they were NOT developing nuclear weapons.

If Mr. Trump could reach the same agreement with the DPRK as he has rejected with respect to Iran, I would congratulate him heartily.

He hasn't so I won't until he does.

Sometimes Mr. Trump's "I have the pianos, so I don't need to pay for them." style of negotiations does not work. The more that people are concerned that Mr. Trump will not "pay for the pianos" AFTER they have been delivered, the more likely they are to insist that he "pay for the pianos" BEFORE they are delivered. If that feeling gets strong enough, they might not even be willing to "sell him pianos" under any conditions.
 
Last edited:
TU Curmudgeon said:
Not only did the Iranians SAY that they were NOT developing nuclear weapons (which they hadn't actually been doing in any event), but they allowed inspections that verified that they were NOT developing nuclear weapons.

If Mr. Trump could reach the same agreement with the DPRK as he has rejected with respect to Iran, I would congratulate him heartily.

He hasn't so I won't until he does.

Sometimes Mr. Trump's "I have the pianos, so I don't need to pay for them." style of negotiations does not work. The more that people are concerned that Mr. Trump will not "pay for the pianos" AFTER they have been delivered, the more likely they are to insist that he "pay for the pianos" BEFORE they are delivered. If that feeling gets strong enough, they might not even be willing to "sell him pianos" under any conditions.
Click to expand...

I believe Israeli intelligence over the leader of Iran. They have already destroyed buildings once we found out they were enriching uranium there. You can save the lies that Iran is not trying to develop a bomb for the clueless.
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
I believe Israeli intelligence over the leader of Iran. They have already destroyed buildings once we found out they were enriching uranium there. You can save the lies that Iran is not trying to develop a bomb for the clueless.
Click to expand...

Israeli intelligence releases such information as the Israeli government considers to be in the best interests of Israel. Whether or not that information is true is a completely different matter.

The airstrikes that you are referring to were back around 2007 and greatly predated the completion of the JCPOA. There is no evidence that Iran was doing anything in actual breach of the JCPOA (despite the US claims that the Iranians were doing something that hadn't been included in the terms of the JCPOA but which the US said was in breach of the JCPOA).

And you can save the claims that Iran was trying to develop a nuclear bomb AFTER the signing of the JCPOA for the gullible.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Israeli intelligence releases such information as the Israeli government considers to be in the best interests of Israel. Whether or not that information is true is a completely different matter.

The airstrikes that you are referring to were back around 2007 and greatly predated the completion of the JCPOA. There is no evidence that Iran was doing anything in actual breach of the JCPOA (despite the US claims that the Iranians were doing something that hadn't been included in the terms of the JCPOA but which the US said was in breach of the JCPOA).

And you can save the claims that Iran was trying to develop a nuclear bomb AFTER the signing of the JCPOA for the gullible.
Click to expand...

Iran is trying to rig another election to get the weapons they want just like they did to Carter when they took the hostages. Only fools can't see through it once again.
 
JustHanging said:
Which begs the question: Why did he hire him in the first place?
Click to expand...

Because Mr. Trump likes to fire people and doesn't want to look rather stupid if he goes around firing people who are actually doing a good job because they know what they are doing so he has to make sure that he has people who are NOT actually doing a good job (because they do NOT know what they are doing) around to fire?
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
Iran is trying to rig another election to get the weapons they want just like they did to Carter when they took the hostages. Only fools can't see through it once again.
Click to expand...

If the Iranians are rigging American elections, and the Republicans are opposing actually doing something significant to increase American electoral security, then the US is in much worse shape then everyone thought.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
If the Iranians are rigging American elections, and the Republicans are opposing actually doing something significant to increase American electoral security, then the US is in much worse shape then everyone thought.
Click to expand...

Rigging elections seems to be fine as long as it is your party doing the rigging. I am still waiting for proof of collusion against Trump. I have heard the allegations for several years but where's the beef.
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
Rigging elections seems to be fine as long as it is your party doing the rigging.
Click to expand...

Quite right. Both the "Republican Party" and the "Democratic Party" think that gerrymandering and voter suppression (as long as they are receiving the benefits of them) are just peachy-keen and the Supreme Court of the United States of America agrees with both of them.

PIPEWRENCH said:
I am still waiting for proof of collusion against Trump. I have heard the allegations for several years but where's the beef.
Click to expand...

No one who has any actual familiarity with the Russians has ever advanced the position that the Russians are stupid enough to actually "conspire" directly with Mr. Trump (or even directly with "Claque Trump" for that matter).

No one who has any actual familiarity with Mr. Trump has ever (honestly) advanced the position that Mr. Trump would utterly reject any efforts by the Russians that were aimed at defeating Ms. Clinton and would completely refuse to accept any collateral benefits which might accrue to him from those efforts.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Quite right. Both the "Republican Party" and the "Democratic Party" think that gerrymandering and voter suppression (as long as they are receiving the benefits of them) are just peachy-keen and the Supreme Court of the United States of America agrees with both of them.



No one who has any actual familiarity with the Russians has ever advanced the position that the Russians are stupid enough to actually "conspire" directly with Mr. Trump (or even directly with "Claque Trump" for that matter).

No one who has any actual familiarity with Mr. Trump has ever (honestly) advanced the position that Mr. Trump would utterly reject any efforts by the Russians that were aimed at defeating Ms. Clinton and would completely refuse to accept any collateral benefits which might accrue to him from those efforts.
Click to expand...


Gerrymandering is the states way of giving the minority a say in our government. I personally do not agree with democracy or mob rule. That was the reason behind the senate and the districting. Should NYC nullify all the voting citizens of the rest of the state. I say no. I like to think that the individual as well as the minority have a say.
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
Gerrymandering is the states way of giving the minority a say in our government.
Click to expand...

You HAVE to be kidding.

Gerrymandering is the party in power's way of ensuring that it remains the party in power regardless of the wishes of the majority of the electorate.

If you want to ensure that "the minority" has "a say" in government, move to a system of proportional representation where each political party receives a share of the elected seats in proportion to the share of the popular vote that it gets.

PIPEWRENCH said:
I personally do not agree with democracy or mob rule.
Click to expand...

That statement can be taken in several ways. The first is that you equate "democratic elections" to "mob rule". The second is that you do not realize that the United States of America, although NOT a "Democracy" (in the classic and original meaning of the term) IS a "democracy" (in the sense that the people all have equal votes towards selecting their representatives). The third is that you simply don't like the political system that allows for free, fair, open, and honest, elections (whether those free, fair, open, and honest, elections are actually occurring is a separate matter).

PIPEWRENCH said:
That was the reason behind the senate and the districting.
Click to expand...

Actually the "reason behind the Senate" is that the Founding Fathers were well aware that there was absolutely no way that they could get the American constitution ratified without some means of ensuring that smaller states were not simply ignored by the House of Representatives. The "reason behind the Electoral College" is more complex, but, at its heart, the same conditions applied.

PIPEWRENCH said:
Should NYC nullify all the voting citizens of the rest of the state. I say no. I like to think that the individual as well as the minority have a say.
Click to expand...

Indeed, one does like to think that.

How much say do you have into selecting the candidate for your party in your electoral district?

If the movers and shakers of the political party that you support puts up a candidate that you do not think would be right to represent you, but the other political party puts up one that would be absolutely perfect IF they belonged to the political party that you support, how do you vote?
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
That statement can be taken in several ways. The first is that you equate "democratic elections" to "mob rule". The second is that you do not realize that the United States of America, although NOT a "Democracy" (in the classic and original meaning of the term) IS a "democracy" (in the sense that the people all have equal votes towards selecting their representatives). The third is that you simply don't like the political system that allows for free, fair, open, and honest, elections (whether those free, fair, open, and honest, elections are actually occurring is a separate matter).
Click to expand...

You left out the constitution which is the most important part of our keeping a democracy from being mob rule. If the majority vote to kill the minority in a democracy it is legal. Sorry if I think that is a stupid form of government.

Districts and the drawing of districts does indeed prevent mob rule. It keeps a highly populated area that may be only a single port city from taking away the vote from the rest of the people that make up the vast majority of a state. 100s of thousands of people on welfare should not be telling 10s of thousand hard working productive taxpaying citizens in the rest of the state how to live their life. This is beyond stupid. A lot of people in the city do not comprehend the vast differences between life in a city vs life in the rural areas of this country.
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
You left out the constitution which is the most important part of our keeping a democracy from being mob rule. If the majority vote to kill the minority in a democracy it is legal. Sorry if I think that is a stupid form of government.
Click to expand...

If the majority passed a constitutional amendment that gave "Whites" the "constitutional right" to kill "non-whites" on sight, then that too would be quite legal.

PIPEWRENCH said:
Districts and the drawing of districts does indeed prevent mob rule. It keeps a highly populated area that may be only a single port city from taking away the vote from the rest of the people that make up the vast majority of a state. 100s of thousands of people on welfare should not be telling 10s of thousand hard working productive taxpaying citizens in the rest of the state how to live their life. This is beyond stupid. A lot of people in the city do not comprehend the vast differences between life in a city vs life in the rural areas of this country.
Click to expand...

Quite right, and if the "state" is divided into 91 "electoral districts" with 90 of them containing 10% of the population of the "state" (that works out to an average of 0.11% each) and the remaining one containing the remaining 90% then the constitutionally determined representatives can vote that 98.90% of the "state" revenue be spent on the 90 districts that they represent and the remaining 1.1% be spent on the district that contains 90% of the population of the "state" and that is fair and equitable since each electoral district gets 1.1% of the revenue of the "state" spent on its well being. Not only that, but it would be perfectly equitable for the party that controls those 90 (out of 91) elected seats to make whatever electoral rules it feels like making.

Your defence of the moral justification for gerrymandering (and disenfranchising the voters that you don't like) is "interesting" - to say the least.
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
Gerrymandering is the states way of giving the minority a say in our government. I personally do not agree with democracy or mob rule. That was the reason behind the senate and the districting. Should NYC nullify all the voting citizens of the rest of the state. I say no. I like to think that the individual as well as the minority have a say.
Click to expand...

This is a bizarre claim, are you saying that white folks are a minority in this country? A claim that is exactly the opposite of what is happening in some states. You - and others - might wish to do a bit of reading about a man by the name of Tom Hofeller. Mr. Hofeller evidently had a bit of a problem with his family, when he died last year, an estranged daughter found some papers and computer files which revealed the story behind not only North Carolina's gerrymandering but also how his work was used by the GOP across the country.

GOP Paid Millions to Gerrymandering Expert Behind Census Citizenship Question

Tom Hofeller wasn’t just an outsider who happened to push a narrative identical to the Trump administration’s.

Last week brought a bombshell revelation in the fight over a controversial question about citizenship status on the 2020 census: Despite the Trump administration’s insistence that it wants to add the question for better voting rights enforcement rather than political gain, key wording in its legal rationale matches memos written by Tom Hofeller, a Republican gerrymandering expert. Hofeller, who died last summer, wrote that if the 2020 census asked about the citizenship status of respondents, it “would clearly be a disadvantage to the Democrats” and “advantageous to Republicans and Non-Hispanic Whites.”

Republican Party financial filings with federal regulators add a twist to this backstory: The party’s main political apparatus paid Hofeller more than $2 million for his work. That suggests that Hofeller’s memos weren’t simply independent advocacy for a pet issue, but that he and his work were deeply embedded in the heart of the GOP’s strategic operations.

According to Republican National Committee filings with the Federal Election Commission, from June 2009 until just weeks before his death last August, the GOP’s main political apparatus paid Hofeller just over $2 million for “legal and compliance” work. In fact, from Trump’s inauguration until July 2018, Hofeller was paid $422,000, in what appear to be regular monthly payments of $22,247.
Click to expand...

Yeah, yeah, Mother Jones is one of those wack-job far left websites that should never be believed.

I wonder if Trump is following a path laid out by other GOPers or is it that the GOPers are following Trump's path? When accusations are made, go to court and try to block release of evidence.
GOP lawmakers don’t want their mapmaker’s files to be seen during gerrymandering case

Republican lawmakers battled with anti-gerrymandering activists in court Tuesday, arguing over previously secret files of the deceased Republican redistricting expert Tom Hofeller.

Although the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of North Carolina Republicans last week, upholding the state’s districts for its 13 U.S. House of Representatives seats, that ruling did not stop the state-level case that’s challenging the lines used to elect members of the state legislature.

The trial in that state-level case is set to begin in two weeks, on July 15. Hofeller’s files could have a major impact on the case, if they’re allowed to be used.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom