Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/the-fight-over-trumps-afghan-policy-has-become-an-argument-over-the-meaning-of-america-first/2017/08/04/f2790c80-785f-11e7-8f39-eeb7d3a2d304_story.html?utm_term=.b2bd608a43df

Trump also apparently allows morons like Bannon into the meetings when Bannon and have **** all experience in warfare. With Trump being a contradictory idiot criticizing Obama for wars but still keeping troops in the Middle East, how do you feel knowing the President has a low attention span and forced a revered General to keep him on the subject.

Is there any sources in that article, can't seem to find any. Seems like another hit piece.

TBF, what's stated does jive with Trump's personality, so it's probably true at this point. FFS, did you read the transcripts of his talks with other world leaders? He's a dunce; you people elected him.

Its easy to write a fiction based on something you might have heard in the past. The article doesnt list a single source.

Originally posted by Sable
Its easy to write a fiction based on something you might have heard in the past. The article doesnt list a single source.

I say go with it. Why? I don't really give a shit if the guy uses bullet points for Trump. This is an article aimed at people already whining about Trump to have something else to pearl clutch over.

But more importantly, remember the logic being used here: if something sounds like it "jives" with a persons personality, you don't really need a source. See, that's an all or nothing thing. It wouldn't just apply to Donald Trump. I readily encourage such logic

Originally posted by Surtur
I say go with it. Why? I don't really give a shit if the guy uses bullet points for Trump. This is an article aimed at people already whining about Trump to have something else to pearl clutch over.

But more importantly, remember the logic being used here: if something sounds like it "jives" with a persons personality, you don't really need a source. See, that's an all or nothing thing. It wouldn't just apply to Donald Trump. I readily encourage such logic
^
#triggered + found another "J" word which #triggers Surtur.

Originally posted by Robtard
^
#triggered + found another "J" word which #triggers Surtur.

Damn, even putting the word jives in quotes sets you off.

I do support your logic though, and I look forward to applying it. That is not sarcasm. You won't mind if I use it in the future, will you?

There is no doubt that Donald Trump is rather incoherent, has a short attention span and is lacking in knowledge on a lot of things he talks about which makes him feel very insecure but we should wait on conclusive references. I don't want this to be true because it would mean the person in the most powerful
political office in the world is...an idiot. The very fact that we are even assuming there is a possibility that is real is some kind of nightmare. IMO, he has early onset dementia or something, if you watch videos from the 90s of him talking, he was always Trump but was actually coherent. I find it kind of sad....

Yea he turned a Million dollars into 4 billion by being stupid, incoherent, and became president in less then 1.5 years of announcing he was going to run. He must be some sort of an idiot. Clearly critics on this forum are smarter then the President of the United States, which is why they are here

Why were you not concerned about Hillary having dementia when we leaned she was seeking medicine to that treats dementia. Or her laughing uncontrollably, coughing for over 5 minutes straight, more then once, and having a visible stroke on camera, oh and passing out on 9/11.

Originally posted by Sable
Yea he turned a Million dollars into 4 billion by being stupid, incoherent, and became president in less then 1.5 years of announcing he was going to run. He must be some sort of an idiot. Clearly critics on this forum are smarter then the President of the United States, which is why they are here

Why were you not concerned about Hillary having dementia when we leaned she was seeking medicine to that treats dementia. Or her laughing uncontrollably, coughing for over 5 minutes straight, more then once, and having a visible stroke on camera, oh and passing out on 9/11. #Triggered

Originally posted by Steve Zodiac
#Triggered

The post above his, another example of someone being triggered?

Originally posted by Sable
Yea he turned a Million dollars into 4 billion by being stupid, incoherent, and became president in less then 1.5 years of announcing he was going to run. He must be some sort of an idiot. Clearly critics on this forum are smarter then the President of the United States, which is why they are here

Why were you not concerned about Hillary having dementia when we leaned she was seeking medicine to that treats dementia. Or her laughing uncontrollably, coughing for over 5 minutes straight, more then once, and having a visible stroke on camera, oh and passing out on 9/11.

RoO's point was that Trump used to be far more coherent, sensible and grounded than he appears now, hence his question whether Trump in his old age is suffering from some kind of mental disorder onset by age.

Also, if you believe that "million dollar loan" fantasy story, I have another bridge to sell you. He inherited far more from his father and had assess to his father's connections in amassing his fortune.

edit: Still do wonder how Trump went from being a billion in the red to filthy rich again in a very short time, always seemed old. Like what if it was through not so legal activities. Hmmm. Anyhow, Mueller's on that too.

I actively encourage people to be concerned about the health of those in power, mental or physical

Originally posted by Robtard
edit: Still do wonder how Trump went from being a billion in the red to filthy rich again in a very short time, always seemed old. Like what if it was through not so legal activities. Hmmm. Anyhow, Mueller's on that too.

Indeed, obviously it was via nefarious means. It was probably Putin himself who got Trump out of the red.

Originally posted by Surtur
Indeed, obviously it was via nefarious means. It was probably Putin himself who got Trump out of the red.

Well no, was just just bringing the odd meteoric rise back to the top, not saying any specifics on how.

But now that you've brought it up, if it's uncovered that Trump's made millions from using his businesses to launder money in the US for Russian interest, I fully expect Trumpers like you to do your little dance in his defense; it will be hilarious.

Originally posted by Robtard
Well no, was just just bringing the odd meteoric rise back to the top, not saying any specifics on how.

But now that you've brought it up, if it's uncovered that Trump's made millions from using his businesses to launder money in the US for Russian interest, I fully expect Trumpers like you to do your little dance in his defense; it will be hilarious. Haha, so true.

Originally posted by Robtard
Well no, was just just bringing the odd meteoric rise back to the top, not saying any specifics on how.

But now that you've brought it up, if it's uncovered that Trump's made millions from using his businesses to launder money in the US for Russian interest, I fully expect Trumpers like you to do your little dance in his defense; it will be hilarious.

Which it wont be, but let me play this in reverse, what would you say if none of this came true, even though people levied all these accusations against him.

Originally posted by Robtard
RoO's point was that Trump used to be far more coherent, sensible and grounded than he appears now, hence his question whether Trump in his old age is suffering from some kind of mental disorder onset by age.

Also, if you believe that "million dollar loan" fantasy story, I have another bridge to sell you. He inherited far more from his father and had assess to his father's connections in amassing his fortune.

edit: Still do wonder how Trump went from being a billion in the red to filthy rich again in a very short time, always seemed old. Like what if it was through not so legal activities. Hmmm. Anyhow, Mueller's on that too.

I would need some proof of what he inherited before I started to believe "He inherited far more from his father and had assess to his father's connections in amassing his fortune."

Why is it a fantasy to believe the million dollar loan, but not to believe he got it all from the Russians which is what you are implying.

Originally posted by Sable
Which it wont be, but let me play this in reverse, what would you say if none of this came true, but people levied all these accusations against him.

Yeah, probably not, just laughing at what would happen if so. Not that it's true as fact.

Then those people would have been wrong?

Originally posted by Robtard
Yeah, probably not, just laughing at what would happen if so. Not that it's true as fact.

Then those people would have been wrong?

We have fundamental differences on Trump vs Obama.

Without trying out a page and not getting a response, it comes down to, Trump is a pro America President, Obama saw America as the problem, and wanted to be President of the World.

Originally posted by Sable
Yea he turned a Million dollars into 4 billion by being stupid, incoherent, and became president in less then 1.5 years of announcing he was going to run. He must be some sort of an idiot. Clearly critics on this forum are smarter then the President of the United States, which is why they are here

Why were you not concerned about Hillary having dementia when we leaned she was seeking medicine to that treats dementia. Or her laughing uncontrollably, coughing for over 5 minutes straight, more then once, and having a visible stroke on camera, oh and passing out on 9/11.

1. I am talking in regards to his current state of mind. The man is not in good mental shape and has all the personality traits associated with narcissism. This is not a good combination for a world leader bro.

2. That is a huge over simplification of how he acquired his fortune. I can make a very detailed post regarding all the lawsuits, bankruptcies and refusal to pay his workers which paint a very, veeeeery shaky path from millionaire to billionaire (This is unproven. We don't know how much money he has. He won't release his tax returns).

3. I also believe that Hilary was too old to run for office as it is a very stressful job and even Bernie Sanders, unfortunately we don't have much options. The idea that I was not cornecered is something you're projecting onto me. If it was between Hilary's physical fraility and Trumps mental stability, I'll take Hilary any day of the week. We know she has an attention span greater than a 5 year old.

And she should get us into a war lickety split. I dont believe reports he doesnt have an attention span. If that was so, how did he become the president? Its odd you would trust that lying ***** sellout with anything. Trump isnt perfect, but he knows how to outsmart most politicians and the entire media.

Hilary's famous attention span that is greater than a 5 yr. olds sure could have perhaps been used to pay attention to states like Wisconsin.

And perhaps now she could focus her attention on not blaming everyone but herself for her loss. You'd think even a 5 yr. old would know when to quit, yeah?

Didn't you know she's writing a book now about her epic loss and blaming everyone? Who was it here that blamed Trump for why she lost

Originally posted by Sable
Didn't you know she's writing a book now about her epic loss and blaming everyone? Who was it here that blamed Trump for why she lost

I believe that was Stop The Hate aka Steve Zodiac.

But yes her book is actually called "What Happened". I don't know why Hilary needs to write a book for that. All she needs to do is look in a mirror and boom: she'll see what happened.

Lately I've noticed multiple leftists who have no problem with all the leaking being done. Maxine Waters applauded it, says people have the right to know what those in power are doing.

Which is true, but how come we apparently didn't have the right to know what the DNC was up to? I've never seen a Democrat say we had a right to know that information. If we have a right to know the shady things people in power are doing? We absolutely have a right to know the shady things people seeking positions of power are doing.

This will turn around and bite them in the ass. I personally see Pence winning in 2024. But if not, Trump will have changed D.C. And installed his people, and then when the next democrat takes over, they will will be capsized by leaks. Trump gets mad about them, but he doesn't stop moving forward, democrats won't be able to deal with it. Obama attacked and jailed journalists durning his time, and used the espionage act more times then any other president in history. The idea democrats believe in the 1st amendment is a sham and a lie. They are tolitarians and marxists, Obama was their leader. So when 8 or 16 years passes and the next democrat takes over, they will have hell to pay, then all the people here who say the deep state doesn't exists will be calling it the deep state, a conspiracy etc etc and will have forgotten they denied it all existed during the Trump admin.


http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/jan/10/jake-tapper/cnns-tapper-obama-has-used-espionage-act-more-all-/

I just can't wait for the next democratic president in 16 years to be crippled by leaks and to hear the whine.

Originally posted by Sable
I just can't wait for the next democratic president in 16 years to be crippled by leaks and to hear the whine.

I know, there is a part of me(a very small part) that would just be fascinated to see a democratic president right now at this very moment. Just so we could highlight the difference in treatment while the BS they pulled with Trump is still fresh in our memory.

Truth is they won't be held to the same standards as Trump though. Hell it reminds me how CNN felt the need to fact check an SNL skit about Obama lol. You think they ever did that for Trump?

If the next democratic president turns out to be a woman I predict tons and tons of accusations of "sexism" whenever criticism is hurled her way. Kinda like how with Obama it was racism.

No way CNN fact checked an Obama skit

Originally posted by Sable
No way CNN fact checked an Obama skit

They 100% did lol.

Remember this is the same network that had Elmo on to talk about Syrian refugee children.

Smh.

Shows I watch on cable news
Varney and Company Fox Business
Tucker Carlson Fox
Smerconish CNN (The only real news show on CNN)

The only stuff on CNN I like are their documentary series on the 1960s, 70s, 80s, and now 90s. Mostly because Tom Hanks is working on them and he is good at that type of thing. I don't even get the Elmo thing though, what is the point? Do they think children are watching CNN?

CNN isn't the only outlet out of control. The other day on MSNBC Brian Williams and a few other people were discussing North Korea. Williams then comes out and says that "tonight our job is to scare people to death about North Korea". Even more strange was the fact that there was almost no reaction from the other people involved in the discussion. One woman shook her head, but nobody actually said anything.

Then again who knows? Brian may be right and we need to be scared to death. After such harrowing experiences as his helicopter being shot down by an RPG during the Iraq war and his accompanying Navy SEAL team six to Baghdad...plus he was also totally there when the Berlin Wall came down.

Though it was refreshing to see a media outlet tell the truth about their agenda.

I love the 70, 80, and 90's, one off the best documentaries ever produced.

msnbc is currently trying to rehab Brian Williams and Dan Rather after their career ending lies had them without jobs. MSNBC gave them jobs. Go figure.

The reason they want to scare people to death comes down to their number 1 obsession: Donald J. Trump. This is a situation worth paying attention to, but it is not something people should be "scared to death" over. They want to pump up the fear because people don't think rationally when they are afraid. Making it easier for them to twist essentially every single thing Trump does concerning North Korea into something bad. They do not care if they have to fear monger in order to accomplish this.

It's a no win situation. If he has harsh words for NK they complain about his rhetoric. If he'd done the opposite they'd say he was too soft on NK. Either way it'd be an excuse for CNN or MSNBC to give us a sanctimonious lecture about everything Trump is doing wrong with NK and how *they* know exactly what needs to be done with NK for him to begin doing things the "right" way.

Brian Williams "Look at those beautiful missiles"

That sent liberals off the deep end, also they pulled Maddow off air and replaced them with him. They went mental.

Originally posted by Surtur
Hilary's famous attention span that is greater than a 5 yr. olds sure could have perhaps been used to pay attention to states like Wisconsin.

And perhaps now she could focus her attention on not blaming everyone but herself for her loss. You'd think even a 5 yr. old would know when to quit, yeah?

Another unflattering Trump thread turned into a 'But Hillary!" thread and it's only page two; that didn't take long, sport. Unless you already did it on page 1?

Originally posted by Robtard
Another unflattering Trump thread turned into a 'But Hillary!" thread and it's only page two; that didn't take long, sport. Unless you already did it on page 1?

Was there anything else you wanted to whine about?

The Muslim thing will set them off. They just can't admit the terror attacks have to do with Islam. They want to blame the USA, poverty, politics, etc.

The Democrats will never ever admit those points. I'm curious if there are any leftists who think these points do not need to be acknowledged.

Originally posted by Sable
These are the reasons democrats keep losing elections.

Huh? Looked it up again, 15 Dem Presidents and 19 Republican presidents. So it's not like it's a sweep to the Right.

Last 100 years it's 8 Dems and 10 Reps, so again, not really a sweep. Should note that one of those ten was Nixon, who had to resign in complete and utter disgrace, not a good time for the Republicans, more like a black-eye on their record. Do wonder if we'll have a repeat of that with Trump.

Originally posted by Sable
These are the reasons democrats keep losing elections.

Anyways, read this:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/08/dhs-magical-mystery-tour-doing-the-work-the-star-tribune-wont-do-2.php

I can't figure out why such tours would be given.

Originally posted by Robtard
Huh? Looked it up again, 15 Dem Presidents and 19 Republican presidents. So it's not like it's a sweep to the Right.

Last 100 years it's 8 Dems and 10 Reps, so again, not really a sweep. Should note that one of those ten was Nixon, who had to resign in complete and utter disgrace, not a good time for the Republicans, more like a black-eye on their record. Do wonder if we'll have a repeat of that with Trump.

Do Democrats need to acknowledge the points presented? No, right?

Originally posted by Surtur
Do Democrats need to acknowledge the points presented? No, right?

Huh? Not sure what you're talking about, clearly nothing in regards to what I posted, which was about Presidents in general and then Trump.

Originally posted by Robtard
Huh? Not sure what you're talking about, clearly nothing in regards to what I posted, which was about Presidents in general and then Trump.

I am talking about the post I made. You know, you quoted Sable who was literally replying to the post I made?

It's at the top of the page. I will ask again: these points, need Dems acknowledge them? I'd say yes, which is precisely why I think you'll say no.

Sorry, I didn't read your post. Hope that doesn't hurt your feelings too much.

Sable made a comment about Dems not being able to win; when the Dem to Rep win/lose really isn't that far off, which is why I found it odd and replied too that

Originally posted by Robtard
Sorry, I didn't read your post. Hope that doesn't hurt your feelings too much.

Sable made a comment about Dems not being able to win; when the Dem to Rep win/lose really isn't that far off, which is why I found it odd and replied too that

So you whined about his comment without even bothering to read what made him say it?

Actually yeah, that doesn't surprise me.

I see, you're lashing out in a fit of bitter rage because I didn't read whatever post of yours.

His comment can stand alone though, for reasons noted. Be less angry.

Originally posted by Robtard
I see, you're lashing out in a fit of bitter rage because I didn't read whatever post of yours.

If this is what you need to tell yourself.



Would have been helpful to see what caused him to say it, but meh you won't ever admit it.

I will ask again, now that you know what post I meant, do Democrats need to acknowledge those points? Will you dare to use common sense and say yes?

Wait, you think I went back and read your post now?

Originally posted by Robtard
Wait, you think I went back and read your post now?

If not you can read it now. Nothing to fear.

Or hey maybe there is something to fear. Prove it by not reading it.

Originally posted by Surtur
If not you can read it now. Nothing to fear.

Or hey maybe there is something to fear. Prove it by not reading it.

^ Oh, look. Surtur's clever mind games.

Originally posted by Robtard
^ Oh, look. Surtur's clever mind games.

If you're a coward it's okay. Just best not to be whining in other topics and calling people cowards, you understand?

IOW: "If you don't read my post and satisfy my obsessiveness you're a coward!"

Originally posted by Robtard
IOW: "If you don't read my post and satisfy my obsessiveness you're a coward!"



Nope, just don't be a pussy and then call others pussies.

You too stupid to get that?

Lol, he most definitely upset now. "YOU DIDN'T READ MY POST!!!!1!"

Originally posted by Robtard
Lol, he most definitely upset now. "YOU DIDN'T READ MY POST!!!!1!"

If this qualifies as upset this means your butt buddy had a meltdown today due to Sable.

So a yay or nay on that? Up to you.

You're going to have to be more clear, as you're claimed 4-5 different people as my 'butt buddies', sport.

ps Do you like thinking about 'butt buddies'? You say that a lot; it's been noticed.

Originally posted by Robtard
Huh? Looked it up again, 15 Dem Presidents and 19 Republican presidents. So it's not like it's a sweep to the Right.

Last 100 years it's 8 Dems and 10 Reps, so again, not really a sweep. Should note that one of those ten was Nixon, who had to resign in complete and utter disgrace, not a good time for the Republicans, more like a black-eye on their record. Do wonder if we'll have a repeat of that with Trump.

Only a few presidential elections in our nations history. Massive state, local, federal elections every two years.

Personally, I think those are pretty reasonable points worthy of discussion.

Originally posted by Sable
Only a few presidential elections in our nations history. Massive state, local, federal elections every two years.

Hmmm. In the last 100 years Democrats have had more control of congress. So again, not so sure about the 'Dems can't win elections' claim.

Originally posted by BackFire
Personally, I think those are pretty reasonable points worthy of discussion.

If only more leftists thought this way

Well recently there is truth to it. Dems have lost many seats at the national/state/local level since Obama's election. Like over a thousand I think.

If they want to reverse that, they should look at why they are being abandoned by people who once supported them.

Originally posted by BackFire
Well recently there is truth to it. Dems have lost many seats at the national/state/local level since Obama's election. Like over a thousand I think.

If they want to reverse that, they should look at why they are being abandoned by people who once supported them.

Indeed, but they do not want to look. They want to clamp down. I can only guess because they think if they clamp down and somehow win it will prove they were right all along? I dunno.

I have not seen any evidence that Dems in power want to change things, have you?

Originally posted by BackFire
Well recently there is truth to it. Dems have lost many seats at the national/state/local level since Obama's election. Like over a thousand I think.

If they want to reverse that, they should look at why they are being abandoned by people who once supported them.

If Sable was just talking about the last few years, sure. I took it as a more encompassing statement. Fair enough though

Personally, I think it's going to flip sooner than later, especially with El Trumper as the figurehead of the Republican party.

Originally posted by Surtur
Indeed, but they do not want to look. They want to clamp down. I can only guess because they think if they clamp down and somehow win it will prove they were right all along? I dunno.

I have not seen any evidence that Dems in power want to change things, have you?

A bit.

The Better Deal thing has a lot of ideas in it that were put in there with the obvious intent to win back the white working class. But who knows how far they'll get with that or if it will work at all.

I think it's too early to tell, really. We won't know for sure until the mid terms next year, and we'll get a better sense of the actual strategy they utilize as campaign season nears over the next several months. If they end up just running as "Trump = bad, Me = ???" then I don't think they'll do very well. If they offer legitimate solutions and ideas, they have a good chance at taking back the house, or at least making big gains in it.

Originally posted by BackFire
A bit.

The Better Deal thing has a lot of ideas in it that were put in there with the obvious intent to win back the white working class. But who knows how far they'll get with that or if it will work at all.

I think it's too early to tell, really. We won't know for sure until the mid terms next year, and we'll get a better sense of the actual strategy they utilize as campaign season nears over the next several months. If they end up just running as "Trump = bad, Me = ???" then I don't think they'll do very well. If they offer legitimate solutions and ideas, they have a good chance at taking back the house, or at least making big gains in it.

I saw someone talking about how the better deal sounded quite familiar to a lot of the platforms Trump wanted. What would you say to that?

They said, as I recall, that the only thing missing is building a wall.

Some of it, like infrastructure, is similar, though the dems generally want to go about achieving it a bit differently.