What stupid shit has Trump done today?

[petee]

This is Trumptastic.

On NJ PHOTOS: Christie, family soak up sun on N.J. beach he closed to public

 

[TomUS]

Every time i look at this thread there is a new liberal depth being plumbed. It's always this twat and CRI.

Here's some liberals for ya.

 

[CRI]

In war, I think infrastructure and industry are legitimate targets (eg: WW2) but the point is irrelevant as the US war against Serbia was illegitimate in and of itself. It was nothing more than an act of aggression by US imperialism to redraw the map of Europe in favour of US and EU interests. Does anyone actually believe the crocodile tears of Clinton and Blair over their supposed concern for the situation in Kosovo and its people?

?

Decision to Intervene: How the War in Bosnia Ended

 

[mather]

?

Decision to Intervene: How the War in Bosnia Ended

I'm not disputing the atrocities of the conflict, I'm disputing the supposed 'humanitarian concern' of the Western leaders to that conflict. Clinton no more cared for the suffering of those people than George Bush cared for the suffering of the Iraqi people, both cynically used such tragedies to further US geopolitical and imperialist interests. I can't believe that I even have to point this out but some people it seems prefer to keep their eyes shut to the realities of the bloodstained history of US foreign policy.

 

[bluescreen]

Leaving aside the motives, did the US intervention make things better or worse? Would it have been better if they'd stayed out? If so, better for whom, and how?
When you add in the motives, how many more people died?

 

[redsquirrel]

Well why don't you tell us what you think.

I'd just note that the numbers of people killed in Kosovo was higher after the bombing started than before. And what do you mean by intervention? The intervention of NATO allies in the Balkans started long before the bombs began to fall.

Leaving aside the motives, did the US intervention make things better or worse? Would it have been better if they'd stayed out? If so, better for whom, and how?
When you add in the motives, how many more people died?

And what other invasions/actions are you going to defend using this line? Vietnam? Korea? The British in India? How many people would have died in Chile if Allende hadn't been overthrown!

 

[bluescreen]

Well why don't you tell us what you think.

I'd note that the numbers of people killed in Kosovo was higher after the bombing started than before.

And what do you mean by intervention? The intervention of NATO allies in the Balkans started long before the bombs began to fall.

That's true. Bombing is always awful.
I don't know, tbh. How does finger pointing and holy-moling help at all? The war stopped. Whatever the motives of those making it stop, that was better than the war going on, no?

 

[redsquirrel]

Whatever the motives of those making it stop, that was better than the war going on, no?

Is it? If you think that then fucking justify it.

Really you're going to use the same line Blair uses to defend Iraq? That scum have used to defend the murder of Allende, the invasion of Vietnam etc

How does holy-moling about the million killed in Iraq help at all - hey lets just put it all behind us!

But maybe the filth that backed these murders didn't mean for them to happen, just like the LDs didn't mean to transfer all the wealth from the poor to the rich right?

 

[redsquirrel]

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the invasion at least Saddam is gone and the people of Iraq are free.

FFS

 

[mather]

Leaving aside the motives, did the US intervention make things better or worse?

I won't leave out the motive, because that determines everything else including the outcome.

Would it have been better if they'd stayed out? If so, better for whom, and how?

A historical what if that is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. I'm not speculating on what might of happened, just commenting on what did happen.

Do you believe that the US acted out of 'humanitarian concern' or as it always does, out of it's own imperialist interests? If you believe that it did act out of 'humanitarian concern', then why don't you also believe it did the same in Iraq? After all Bush used the same rhetoric and appeals to emotion that Clinton did.

When you add in the motives, how many more people died?

As I said motive determines everything else. The US was more than happy to see Yugoslavia broken up (they did the same over Croatia and Bosnia) to suit their own objectives and those of certain EU powers. Cynically supporting and then opposing factions as it suited them. I would also like to add that if we are going to talk about atrocities and human rights violations then the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) is no innocent party either. The war was a dirty, bloody, vicious one with many poor innocents caught up in the middle while all the major powers intervened to back their favoured factions, at the expense of all the peoples and communities of Yugoslavia.

 

[chandlerp]

Is yet another Trump thread being derailed?

 

[redsquirrel]

Yes how dare people actually discuss politics on this thread rather than just post up links to shitty articles.

 

[J Ed]

Here's some liberals for ya.

The person they are cheering wants poor people to die and be bankrupted by medical costs and the financial sector and is happy to paint opposition to that as racist. US liberals talk about 'voting against their interests' a lot but it applies almost as much to Clinton as it does Trump.





Why would anyone cheer for this person? Especially when the majority of Democrats, and that of course includes millions of Clinton voters of varying levels of enthusiasm, support single payer.

 

[chandlerp]

Yes how dare people actually discuss politics on this thread rather than just post up links to shitty articles.

By all means discuss politics but this is a "What stupid shit has Trump done today" thread and he has nothing to do with what you're discussing.

 

[J Ed]

By all means discuss politics but this is a "What stupid shit has Trump done today" thread and he has nothing to do with what you're discussing.

Oh give it a rest, it's not as if we're talking about fish stock off the coast of Timor-Leste.

 

[chandlerp]

ok

 

[chandlerp]

Trump didn't notice the fucking huge limo waiting at the bottom the steps when le left Air Force One

 

[teqniq]

what the fuck

 

[TomUS]

The person they are cheering wants poor people to die and be bankrupted by medical costs and the financial sector and is happy to paint opposition to that as racist. US liberals talk about 'voting against their interests' a lot but it applies almost as much to Clinton as it does Trump.





Why would anyone cheer for this person? Especially when the majority of Democrats, and that of course includes millions of Clinton voters of varying levels of enthusiasm, support single payer.

I and many others voted for her to keep the extreme right out of power. It's Trump and the Repubs that propose taking health insurance away from 22 million. Hillary would not have done this. And there are many other policy differences. You used to say you would have voted for Hillary. Have you switched to Trumpski?

 

[J Ed]

I and many others voted for her to keep the extreme right out of power. It's Trump and the Repubs that propose taking health insurance away from 22 million. Hillary would not have done this. And there are many other policy differences. You used to say you would have voted for Hillary. Have you switched to Trumpski?

Delusional.

 

[CrabbedOne]

On Politico Trump Wants a Do-Over in Europe

...
The danger, warns Piotr Buras, the head of the Warsaw office of the European Council on Foreign Relations, is that Poland may be stumbling into a diplomatic catastrophe. It may not want to divide Europe, but some in the Trump administration might see an opportunity to do so. “Why,” wonders Buras, “is an American president invited to attend a regional infrastructural conference? Why not the secretary of energy or an official from the State Department?” The Three Seas Summit, he says, has to be viewed in the context of Poland’s troubled relationship with France and Germany. “If Trump wanted to drive a wedge [between new and old Europe] he could do it,” Buras says. “He could appeal to Polish national pride, he could praise it as a special ally that meets its 2 percent defense spending target, and he could use the summit to criticize Germany and the EU.”

Warsaw, then, could well become the next stage in the battle between the president and the “axis of adults.” National security adviser H.R. McMaster and Defense Secretary James Mattis may see the Poland trip as nothing more than an occasion to demonstrate America’s commitment to NATO. This would be a real accomplishment. A former senior U.S. official told me the Europeans should recognize the positive side to the visit—after a lifetime of ambiguity toward Eastern Europe, Trump is demonstrating a commitment to the region. But, as Buras suggests, the president’s nationalist advisers, particularly Steve Bannon and Stephen Miller, could use the trip to undermine the EU and empower nationalists in Europe. Trump’s instincts are much closer to Bannon’s than they are to McMaster’s—so when he shows up in Warsaw, he may be willing to go along with the nationalists, as he was in Brussels. And this is what has Europe on tenterhooks.
...

Oh dear, after the pretty disastrous last European visit the G-20 in Hamburg looms.

Trump taking rather a keen interest in the Poland's Three Seas Initiative. Perhaps because he's simpatico with the ultra conservative governments in Poland and Hungary or more likely simple personally pissed at Merkel. Never underestimate Trump's pettiness as a force in international affairs. Trump's a capitalist but not really ideological in the way Bannon is. He's not even a sincere Republican. The Donald bears grudges and punishes those who slighted him. Article seems to miss that these Polish plans are aimed not just countering rising German power but more so the threat of the Poles archenemy the Russians. As Trump is meeting Putin at the G-20 that won't go unnoticed.

 

[TomUS]

I'd just note that the numbers of people killed in Kosovo was higher after the bombing started than before.

This was the line the Milosevic side was putting out. As I recall the increased killing was due to the Serb's ethnic cleansing operations which were eventually stopped by the NATO bombing.

And what other invasions/actions are you going to defend using this line? Vietnam? Korea? The British in India? How many people would have died in Chile if Allende hadn't been overthrown!

It's case by case. If the US/UN hadn't resisted the N. Korean invasion, little Kim would be in charge of the whole place.

 

[TomUS]

Delusional.

Not at all. There's no question that Hillary would not be on a mad campaign to slash social programs, slash taxes on the rich, weaken or eliminate environmental and financial industry regulations, and greatly increase the military.

 

[maomao]

I and many others voted for her to keep the extreme right out of power. It's Trump and the Repubs that propose taking health insurance away from 22 million. Hillary would not have done this. And there are many other policy differences. You used to say you would have voted for Hillary. Have you switched to Trumpski?

So you're no longer the CIA-supporting proud liberal and Hilary fan that you were a few months ago?

 

[J Ed]

This was the line the Milosevic side was putting out. As I recall the increased killing was due to the Serb's ethnic cleansing operations which were eventually stopped by the NATO bombing

Other way around, the Serb war crimes in Kosovo that he was prosecuted for happened after NATO bombing began in retaliation for a bombing campaign which as discussed previously targeted civilian Serb infrastructure as well as military targets. The KLA, who NATO suported, were and are also serial human rights violators who targeted and murdered civilians based on their ethnicity and profited from organ and heroin trafficking.

...and yes, I said that I would vote for Clinton in a swing state and I stand by that. I also stand by what I have said previously.... that she is still an absolutely vile neoliberal warmonger, without people like Clinton there could never be a Trump presidency and frankly you are wrong she would absolutely be doing all of the things you mention Trump doing that are so awful only in some cases less so, except perhaps on Syria where she herself has said she would have gone further than Trump. The idea that by recognising all of this I am somehow in favour of 'Trumpski', which is a grossly xenophobic term which externalises blame for what is a very American phenomenon, is indicative of the sort of binary and wilfully ignorant thinking on which the ideology of liberal managerialism is dependent.

 

[TomUS]

So you're no longer the CIA-supporting proud liberal and Hilary fan that you were a few months ago?

I am still a proud liberal and Hillary fan. And as I said before, the CIA and all other US government agencies don't make policy, they take orders.

 

[maomao]

If the US/UN hadn't resisted the N. Korean invasion, little Kim would be in charge of the whole place.

That's insane. Whatever the outcome it's highly unlikely that without the Korean War any part of Korea would be a belligerent hermit kingdom in the style of today's North Korea.

You're just lies on top of lies on top of lies. What part of 'resisting the North Korean invasion' necessitated the murder of over one and a half million North Korean men, women and children?

Disgusting. Now defend Vietnam please.

 

[maomao]

I am still a proud liberal and Hillary fan.

But you only voted for her to keep the extreme right out of power?

 

[CrabbedOne]

On Politico Poll: Majority of voters back Trump travel ban

...
Asked whether they support or oppose the State Department’s “new guidelines which say visa applicants from six predominately Muslim countries must prove a close family relationship with a U.S. resident in order to enter the country,” 60 percent of voters say they support the guidelines, and only 28 percent oppose them.

The POLITICO/Morning Consult question doesn’t mention Trump, nor does it refer to the president’s executive orders on immigration. That contrasts with other polls, which mostly show greater opposition to the policy. An Associated Press-NORC Center poll last month showed a 57-percent majority of Americans thought courts were acting rightly in blocking the travel ban. That was conducted before the Supreme Court’s per curiam decision last week to let some elements of the ban go into effect while the high court waits to hear the case in the fall.

Republicans overwhelmingly back the restrictions, the poll shows. Eighty-four percent of GOP voters support the ban, while only 9 percent oppose it. But the policy is also popular among independent voters: 56 percent support it, compared to 30 percent who oppose it. Democrats tilt slightly against the ban, with 41 percent supporting it, and 46 percent in opposition.
...

Unlike a lot of Trump's policies the Muslim ban is pretty popular regardless of party. It has emotive appeal, US security wonks mostly seem to see it as an own goal from what I've read. Bit of a sad commentary on US attitudes to Muslims, refugees and immigrants in general though I've seen polling to suggest a lot of Europeans are even more easily panicked.

 

[redsquirrel]

This was the line the Milosevic side was putting out.

No that's the fact, we can debate the reasons but it's a fact that killing increased after the bombing started.

It's case by case. If the US/UN hadn't resisted the N. Korean invasion, little Kim would be in charge of the whole place.

Urgh, just when I thought slime like you could get any lower.