• 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!

The Trump Bottom Line- A Prediction

By 2030, supporting Trump will be about the same as support for the idea that invading Iraq to stop al Qaeda from putting a mushroom cloud over a major American city was a good idea.

Supporting Trump'll be seen as an inherently bad idea done only by some silly people in the past.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
McCain and Romney were rational actors. Say what you want about your dislike about them but they weren't bat-**** insane.
This is why I termed the Party of Trump as "Branch Davidians". You say that you dislike his lack of decorum.
I disliked David Koresh's lack of decorum but there's another more accurate palette of verbiage for that sort of thing.

Obama's so called "subservient posture" is a bunch of Fox News manufactured agitprop that utterly lacks in factual basis.
Obama fulfilled the failed promise of two successive Republican presidencies, getting the #1 terrorist on the planet.
Click to expand...

Do you really think the Bin Laden operation would have shut down had Romney won? It was going on for years and would have continued. The only difference would have been Romney taking credit instead of Obama.
 
haymarket said:
Two things have been made abundantly clear as to where the entire political controversy with Trump and Russia will end up:


1- Trump will throw every single person under the bus who is necessary to save his own skin from legal jeopardy. This includes everyone who works for him or did work for him and includes his own children and family members.

2- Trump will bet that he can win a Senate conviction vote after House impeachment by securing the votes of at least 34 GOP Senators in his favor.

If he has to admit lies, he will do that.
If he has to change every story he ever told, he will do that.
If he has to sacrifice everyone around him to save his own sorry hide, he will do that.
If he has to admit he was a wide eyed political virgin who did not know his ass from a hole in the ground, he will do that.
And if doing all that stops the nation dead in its tracks and makes the current tribal climate even worse, he will do that too.

In the end, the only thing that matters to Trump is that Trump survive.

And then two other things will happen:

1 - Pardons will be given after Trump secures his acquittal before the Senate. At least to those who remained loyal and did not turn on him.

2 - Trump will not run again in 2020 after securing his acquittal before the Senate so he can claim he won his last battle and left on his own terms as president.

Mark it down. Bet on it.
Click to expand...

Mueller report comes in:

1. 40% see exactly what they want to see as to Trump's guilt
2. 40% see exactly what they want to see as to his innocence
3. 10% won't even pay any attention
4. 5% will change their minds
5. 5% will have no idea what to think

Trump will spin this as a victory; his sycophants like Ryan and McConnell will defend him.
Democrats will declare it a victory and take it to the polls.

End Result: GOP lose a ton of seats, lose the presidency in 2020, and we never have to live with a president named Mike Pence.

Translation: It's best not to impeach.
 
Mycroft said:
"do the right thing"??

You are talking about Congress, you know. They rarely do the right thing.
Click to expand...

LOL So we should disband it and declare Trump King? The job of Congress is to provide oversight of the Executive branch
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
the problem is that the dynasties, reruns, celebrities and hacks have more name recognition than the actual candidates. also i don't like how democrats need to have a designated front runner right now.

romney for example announced his 2012 presidential campaign in February/june of 2011.

one way to tell if there is a potential candidacy afloat is to see if the potential candidate is meeting with potential donors or is making a name for themselves in the political spotlight.

unfortunatlely that means we have to keep an eye on potential senators running for the presidency as well as active governors.

there are also wildcards like that environmental millionaire Steyer, or howard schultz
Click to expand...

I am not sure about Steyer because I do not know enough about him but I am not sure I like what I see so far.
 
veritas1 said:
Do you really think the Bin Laden operation would have shut down had Romney won? It was going on for years and would have continued. The only difference would have been Romney taking credit instead of Obama.
Click to expand...

If you get to ask that question, which might even be a fair one if we both had a crystal ball, then it begs the question as to why it got shut down during the Dubya administration. It LITERALLY was shut down.

The unit, known as Alec Station, was disbanded late last year and its analysts reassigned within the C.I.A. Counterterrorist Center, the officials said.
Click to expand...

It's interesting to look back on the official responses at the time, talking about making sure troops were well supplied while Army wives had to hold bake sales to raise money to buy bulletproof vests, and soldiers were scavenging junkyards in order to do DIY "up-armor" mods on Humvees, and Donald Rumsfeld was chirping about how we "have to go to war with the army we have".

And, as it turned out, bin Laden still was involved in day to day operations of Al-Qaeda after all. Captured digital media storage contained proof of that.

 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
If you get to ask that question, which might even be a fair one if we both had a crystal ball, then it begs the question as to why it got shut down during the Dubya administration. It LITERALLY was shut down.



It's interesting to look back on the official responses at the time, talking about making sure troops were well supplied while Army wives had to hold bake sales to raise money to buy bulletproof vests, and soldiers were scavenging junkyards in order to do DIY "up-armor" mods on Humvees, and Donald Rumsfeld was chirping about how we "have to go to war with the army we have".

And, as it turned out, bin Laden still was involved in day to day operations of Al-Qaeda after all. Captured digital media storage contained proof of that.
Click to expand...

So CIA took over. It never really stopped, just switched gears. Of course Bush would have loved to get Bin Laden. People forget, too, that Bill Clinton had the best chance of all and hesitated until the opportunity was lost because he was worried about blowing up a few civilians.
 
iguanaman said:
LOL So we should disband it and declare Trump King? The job of Congress is to provide oversight of the Executive branch
Click to expand...

Nobody wants Trump to be king...not even the people who voted for him.

Nobody wants to disband Congress, either.

Why do you always present hyperbole? Is that all you have?
 
veritas1 said:
So CIA took over. It never really stopped, just switched gears. Of course Bush would have loved to get Bin Laden. People forget, too, that Bill Clinton had the best chance of all and hesitated until the opportunity was lost because he was worried about blowing up a few civilians.
Click to expand...

They didn't take over...the CIA was the unit in charge.
Bush. shut. it. down.

Regarding Clinton's chance to get bin Laden:
The 9/11 Commission found "no credible evidence" that Sudan had ever made such an offer to "hand over bin Laden on a silver platter".
The FBI did not believe we had enough evidence to indict bin Laden at that time, and therefore opposed bringing him to the United States.
Meanwhile, the Clinton administration encouraged Sudan to deport bin Laden back to Saudi Arabia and spent 10 weeks trying to convince the Saudi government to accept him. The Saudis refused.
The Dept. of Justice didn't have an indictment against bin Laden until 1998 – at which point Clinton did order a cruise missile attack on an al Qaeda camp in an attempt to kill bin Laden. Up until then he was seen as a "financier of terrorism" but again, the DOJ did not have the same legal framework to prosecute financiers of terrorism that we have today, thus it would been a charge on paper only, with no backing by any Middle Eastern nation and no sanction power in place yet to put any teeth behind it.
 
Mycroft said:
Nobody wants Trump to be king...not even the people who voted for him.

Nobody wants to disband Congress, either.

Why do you always present hyperbole? Is that all you have?
Click to expand...

I disagree. Trump's fans are so eager to throw anyone who questions his judgment ON ANYTHING under the bus, that he might as well be a king.
In fact, in some perverse way, it might even be possible in Trump's absence to RUN a candidate with the first NAME "King", or run them as a candidate for the POSITION OF KING, (or King of Kings) and Trump fans would accept it without hesitation.
There's no doubt in my mind that the religious Right is eager to the point of anxiety to change the office of President to "King of Kings".
[/snark]
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
I disagree. Trump's fans are so eager to throw anyone who questions his judgment ON ANYTHING under the bus, that he might as well be a king.
In fact, in some perverse way, it might even be possible in Trump's absence to RUN a candidate with the first NAME "King", or run them as a candidate for the POSITION OF KING, (or King of Kings) and Trump fans would accept it without hesitation.
There's no doubt in my mind that the religious Right is eager to the point of anxiety to change the office of President to "King of Kings".
[/snark]
Click to expand...
Only thing perverse here is your view of the world.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
They didn't take over...the CIA was the unit in charge.
Bush. shut. it. down.

Regarding Clinton's chance to get bin Laden:
The 9/11 Commission found "no credible evidence" that Sudan had ever made such an offer to "hand over bin Laden on a silver platter".
The FBI did not believe we had enough evidence to indict bin Laden at that time, and therefore opposed bringing him to the United States.
Meanwhile, the Clinton administration encouraged Sudan to deport bin Laden back to Saudi Arabia and spent 10 weeks trying to convince the Saudi government to accept him. The Saudis refused.
The Dept. of Justice didn't have an indictment against bin Laden until 1998 – at which point Clinton did order a cruise missile attack on an al Qaeda camp in an attempt to kill bin Laden. Up until then he was seen as a "financier of terrorism" but again, the DOJ did not have the same legal framework to prosecute financiers of terrorism that we have today, thus it would been a charge on paper only, with no backing by any Middle Eastern nation and no sanction power in place yet to put any teeth behind it.
Click to expand...

The irony is that even McCain would not have killed Bin Laden since he said he would never allow an operation in Pakistan without informing the Govt. Bin laden would have been moved if he did that. Bush did not even try to get him once since he was good friends with his daddy and he got the whole Bin Laden family out of the US when all other planes were grounded.
 
haymarket said:
Two things have been made abundantly clear as to where the entire political controversy with Trump and Russia will end up:


2- Trump will bet that he can win a Senate conviction vote after House impeachment by securing the votes of at least 34 GOP Senators in his favor.

If he has to admit lies, he will do that.
If he has to change every story he ever told, he will do that.
If he has to sacrifice everyone around him to save his own sorry hide, he will do that.
If he has to admit he was a wide eyed political virgin who did not know his ass from a hole in the ground, he will do that.
And if doing all that stops the nation dead in its tracks and makes the current tribal climate even worse, he will do that too.
Click to expand...

Red --> No, he won't do that.

Tan --> Yeah, he'll do that.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
They didn't take over...the CIA was the unit in charge.
Bush. shut. it. down.

Regarding Clinton's chance to get bin Laden:
The 9/11 Commission found "no credible evidence" that Sudan had ever made such an offer to "hand over bin Laden on a silver platter".
The FBI did not believe we had enough evidence to indict bin Laden at that time, and therefore opposed bringing him to the United States.
Meanwhile, the Clinton administration encouraged Sudan to deport bin Laden back to Saudi Arabia and spent 10 weeks trying to convince the Saudi government to accept him. The Saudis refused.
The Dept. of Justice didn't have an indictment against bin Laden until 1998 – at which point Clinton did order a cruise missile attack on an al Qaeda camp in an attempt to kill bin Laden. Up until then he was seen as a "financier of terrorism" but again, the DOJ did not have the same legal framework to prosecute financiers of terrorism that we have today, thus it would been a charge on paper only, with no backing by any Middle Eastern nation and no sanction power in place yet to put any teeth behind it.
Click to expand...

I wasn't referring to Sudan. We knew what Bin Laden was. Passing up a chance to kill him was a horrible mistake which we found out to our regret. Bill Clinton said he could have killed him and passed because of having to kill some civilians. I don't recall us being squeamish about killing civilians in WWII.
 
veritas1 said:
I wasn't referring to Sudan. We knew what Bin Laden was. Passing up a chance to kill him was a horrible mistake which we found out to our regret. Bill Clinton said he could have killed him and passed because of having to kill some civilians. I don't recall us being squeamish about killing civilians in WWII.
Click to expand...

In WW2 FDR didn't have a Newt Gingrich and a Republican majority itching to make an example out of him.
It's rather disingenuous to flip flop back and forth for convenience when your side was only to eager to lambast Obama for killing civilians.

Remember, this really isn't about Bill Clinton in the larger sense.
It's about whether or not we have reached the point where one party has reached the point where they are unable to govern the country or even make rational decisions that reflect principles.
Armchair quarterbacking Bill Clinton's decisions to defend a total LACK of political will on the part of George W. Bush?
Do you really want to set the bar there?

Okay, we'll set the bar there, for your sake.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
In WW2 FDR didn't have a Newt Gingrich and a Republican majority itching to make an example out of him.
It's rather disingenuous to flip flop back and forth for convenience when your side was only to eager to lambast Obama for killing civilians.

Remember, this really isn't about Bill Clinton in the larger sense.
It's about whether or not we have reached the point where one party has reached the point where they are unable to govern the country or even make rational decisions that reflect principles.
Armchair quarterbacking Bill Clinton's decisions to defend a total LACK of political will on the part of George W. Bush?
Do you really want to set the bar there?

Okay, we'll set the bar there, for your sake.
Click to expand...

You're all over the place. You are the one who put up the pic of Obama with Bin Laden's head. All I said is that we were tracking him and trying to get him for years. Clinton had a golden opportunity and flubbed it. That's simply a fact. And despite the claims that Bush shut down everything having to do with finding Bin laden, you can rest assured that those efforts went forward. They went forward right up to when we found him. BTW, I had no issue with Obama using drones as long as he was killing terrorists. People who live with terrorists have to realize the chances they take.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom