Trump

OffSheGoes35 said:

I'm sorry I interrupted the primetime main event, mrussel vs. Pjfan, with my jackassery. I will try my hardest not to let that happen again. I make no promises though, because I really am a jackass.

hedonist said:

Ha, mrussel! One of my favorite scenes, films and actors.

Trumps many others

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

show previous quotes

hedonist said:

Ha, mrussel! One of my favorite scenes, films and actors.

Trumps many others

The thing I like about Keyser Söze is that for some reason you just can't put your finger on why Trump will lose.

BS44325 said:

show previous quotes

rgambs said:

lukin2006 said:

mrussel1 said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

^^^
Hitler is a no go for any argument. Educate yourself on that fact please.

So again I state that a plane getting shot down involving Russians is common in the US media.

Ah, says who? We aren't talking about genocide, we are talking about expansionism. The correlations are clear and at least Hitler negotiated it vs. Putin's nakedly aggressive move. Notice I didn't compare it to Poland. Educate yourself in history please.

Second, please explain that last statement. Are you saying that you don't believe a Russian weapon was used?

An American telling a Canadian to educate himself on history is the equivalent of American telling us to get a geography lesson, oh yeah, I forgot the US won WW2 on its own...silly of me.

Your statement is suggesting that every Canadian knows more world history and geography than any American.
That's pretty ignorant.
You aren't speaking to a Trump supporting, two-tooth, rebel flag waving yokel from 'sippi... Mrussel1 is an educated, informed intellectual who happens to have a close personal tie to European aggression and WW2 fallout, and would surely smoke YOU on the history of the subject. The poster he was replying to is clearly out of his/her depth on the issue, as evidenced by the lack of critical discussion.

This isn't an American vs Canadian thing. MRussel1's analysis of the subject has been spot on. I couldn't give a rats ass about the "khan" situation, which is another topic altogether, but nothing drove me crazier yesterday then when Trump said "Russia isn't going into the Ukraine". Russia is already there you fuckhead!! It is stupid shit like this that makes it very hard for me to like Trump. Sure it's possible that he's using these statements for some future grand strategy on foreign policy in a Trump administration (I actually see a play here which I would be happy to discuss in another post) but my gut still tells me that he's just making up shit as he goes along. The problem with this of course is Putin uses these statements for domestic consumption which then bolsters his aggressive actions. If there is no Trump grand strategy underneath these words then the words themselves become extremely dangerous and I completely understand why the foreign policy establishment would look on horrified.

All this said...and before any Trump hater pats him/herself on the back for being on the right side of this issue...I also need to note that the only thing that drives me crazier then Trump's statements on Russia is the Democrats new found hawkishness on the same subject after a complete abdication of responsibility on Russia since 2008. MRussel1 has done a proper breakdown of the history but he has left out where the two parties have been on this in the last 8 years.

During the 2008 campaign Putin pushed into parts of Georgia and took South Ossetia. McCain and Palin spoke very hawkishly on this and were criticized as warmongers for doing so. Palin we all remember was made out to be an idiot with her comments on Russia but she was far more prescient on Putin's intentions then even the oh so wise foreign policy establishemnt. When Obama took power he treated Medvedev/Putin with kid gloves and Clinton began the Russian reset. This reset included the cancelling of a missle shield in Poland which was scene as America turning it's back on a NATO ally. Palin (the idiot) vocally warned that failing to confront Putin would result in the invasion of Ukraine next but again the establishment and the left laughed at the moronic war wonger. The celebrated reset overtime proved to be an absolute disaster as Putin continued to turn anti-democratic and pushed to reassert Russian influence on it's border, the middle east, and south america. As the 2012 election rolled around Romney began to speak hawkishly on this subject while Obama was promising Medvedev "more flexibility" and Clinton was approving Russian takeovers of US Uranium. When the 2012 debates came Romney called Russia the number one geo-political foe and Obama said "The 1980's called and they want their foreign policy back". The democrats just laughed...oh snap...and ran a commercial of that over and over again. When the invasion of Ukraine happened with Putin's little green men NATO and the US were caught completely flat footed and since then the US has been obstructed by Putin globally at every turn including in Syria. These are all absolute facts so to all of a sudden see the Democratic party turn into hawks on Russia when all they have done is enable them through weakness for the last 8 years completely blows my mind. The Obama/Clinton foreign policy completely failed to check Putin in any way whatsoever and now they want to act as the defenders of NATO? The Clinton Foundation took a ton of kickbacks on the sale of Uranium to Russia and yet the Clintons are going to accuse Trump of being the Manchurian Candidate? I have a ton of problems with Tump on this...believe me, believe me....but I refuse to allow the Democrats to covince me that they are the defenders of the west in the face of Russian aggresion. They not only failed for 8 years but they demonized those who advocted for action. Sure I welcome them to the party now...better late then never I guess...but nobody should forget just how bad the Obama administration has been on this issue. This is their legacy and not Trump's.

In a scathing commentary piece published on Syracuse.com, a New York Republican congressman announced that he will be voting for Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton in November, saying GOP nominee Donald Trump is “unfit to serve our party and cannot lead this country.”

With his announcement, Rep. Richard Hanna, a three-term congressman serving New York’s 22nd District, becomes the first GOP member of Congress to turn his back on his own party’s choice and publicly state that he will vote for the opposing party’s nominee.

“Months ago I publicly said I could never support Trump. My reasons were simple and personal. I found him profoundly offensive and narcissistic but as much as anything, a world-class panderer, anything but a leader. Little more than a changing mirror of those he speaks to,” Hanna wrote. “I never expect to agree with whoever is president, but at a minimum the president needs to consistently display those qualities I have preached to my two children: kindness, honesty, dignity, compassion and respect. I do not expect perfection, but I do require more than the embodiment of at least a short list of the seven deadly sins.”

“If I compare the life stories of both candidates I find Trump deeply flawed in endless ways. A self-involved man who is worth billions yet is comfortable — almost gleefully — using bankruptcy laws to avoid the consequences of his own choices. A man of character would not defend his actions but rather display shame and or at least regret. He is unrepentant in all things. Think about those average people who paid for his choices.”

Like other conservatives before him, Hanna said Trump’s comments on the parents of a fallen war hero were the last straw.

‘In his latest foray of insults, Mr. Trump has attacked the parents of a slain U.S. soldier. Where do we draw the line? I thought it would have been when he alleged that U.S. Sen. John McCain was not a war hero because he was caught. Or the countless other insults he’s proudly lobbed from behind the Republican presidential podium,” he wrote. “For me, it is not enough to simply denounce his comments: He is unfit to serve our party and cannot lead this country.”

Hanna then stated he will be casting his vote for Clinton, saying he’s doing it based upon his belief that, “being a good American who loves his country is far more important than parties or winning and losing.”

“I trust she can lead. All Republicans may not like the direction, but they can live to win or lose another day with a real candidate. Our response to the public’s anger and the need to rebuild requires complex solutions, experience, knowledge and balance. Not bumper sticker slogans that pander to our disappointment, fear and hate.”

Gern Blansten said:

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/290088-utah-poll-clinton-in-dead-heat-with-trump

Dumbass is going to wish he wouldn't have bashed Romney...

Gern Blansten said:

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/08/rep-richard-hanna-becomes-first-gop-congressman-to-dump-deeply-flawed-trump-and-back-clinton/

In a scathing commentary piece published on Syracuse.com, a New York Republican congressman announced that he will be voting for Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton in November, saying GOP nominee Donald Trump is “unfit to serve our party and cannot lead this country.”

With his announcement, Rep. Richard Hanna, a three-term congressman serving New York’s 22nd District, becomes the first GOP member of Congress to turn his back on his own party’s choice and publicly state that he will vote for the opposing party’s nominee.

“Months ago I publicly said I could never support Trump. My reasons were simple and personal. I found him profoundly offensive and narcissistic but as much as anything, a world-class panderer, anything but a leader. Little more than a changing mirror of those he speaks to,” Hanna wrote. “I never expect to agree with whoever is president, but at a minimum the president needs to consistently display those qualities I have preached to my two children: kindness, honesty, dignity, compassion and respect. I do not expect perfection, but I do require more than the embodiment of at least a short list of the seven deadly sins.”

“If I compare the life stories of both candidates I find Trump deeply flawed in endless ways. A self-involved man who is worth billions yet is comfortable — almost gleefully — using bankruptcy laws to avoid the consequences of his own choices. A man of character would not defend his actions but rather display shame and or at least regret. He is unrepentant in all things. Think about those average people who paid for his choices.”

Like other conservatives before him, Hanna said Trump’s comments on the parents of a fallen war hero were the last straw.

‘In his latest foray of insults, Mr. Trump has attacked the parents of a slain U.S. soldier. Where do we draw the line? I thought it would have been when he alleged that U.S. Sen. John McCain was not a war hero because he was caught. Or the countless other insults he’s proudly lobbed from behind the Republican presidential podium,” he wrote. “For me, it is not enough to simply denounce his comments: He is unfit to serve our party and cannot lead this country.”

Hanna then stated he will be casting his vote for Clinton, saying he’s doing it based upon his belief that, “being a good American who loves his country is far more important than parties or winning and losing.”

“I trust she can lead. All Republicans may not like the direction, but they can live to win or lose another day with a real candidate. Our response to the public’s anger and the need to rebuild requires complex solutions, experience, knowledge and balance. Not bumper sticker slogans that pander to our disappointment, fear and hate.”