Trump Is Giving This Country Its Identity Back

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-17-2017, 05:54 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Syria crossed the line with the using of chemical weapons and it got to the point where it no longer can be annoyed.

A bad leader would keep ignoring it.  Trump took action.

Syria did exactly the same thing which prompted Trump to advise Obama to not use force in Syria.

Quote:North Korea also crossed a red line and took it to a point where it can no longer be ignored.

A bad leader would keep ignoring it.  Trump took action.

What red line? What action?

Quote:Good leaders adapt.


Exactly.  He's trying to limit the power of ISIS there and he saw an opportunity to significantly weaken them without putting any American lives in danger.

Exactly? You said they bombed the tunnels before they became a threat. Now you're agreeing with me the tunnels were bombed because they had already become a threat.

Quote:Sounds like the move of a good leader to me.



Either he adapted his position based on new information or research, or he's playing along with them because we need them as an ally against North Korea.

Oh, so China really is a currency manipulator, but Trump is lying to us because he needs China?

Quote:That's what good leaders do.

He's been in office for THREE MONTHS!


Quickly in government-talk doesn't mean you can just say "take it out and put this in!"

He's working on it.

Once again, he's listening to those around him and adapting to best suit our country.

That's what great leaders do.

So you have heard him say things just to be popular.

[GMDino]

(04-17-2017, 12:17 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As I said a 100 times: Everybody wanted a Washington outsider until we got one. 

(04-17-2017, 04:27 PM)bfine32 Wrote: If you feel that way, that's on you. I'm of the opinion he chose Charles Manson as an example for a reason; you and others can suggest he did no such thing. The reason was to show how unqualified Trump was as an outside Candidate. But I will carry on.

(04-17-2017, 05:25 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Next on "As The Board Turns"


Poster A places a sitting President in the same category as one of the most infamous mass-murders in our history and no one can say he has compared the two because doing so is ignoring the bigger picture that was presented.

(04-17-2017, 12:35 PM)GMDino Wrote: I believe a sane, rational, non con artist would be more accepted.  But some just want to focus on the "outsider" part of the equation.

Manson (either one) is an outsider.

*I* am an outsider.

The vast majority of this country are outsiders.

The one that have the millions of dollars to get elected is barely an outsider given all his political connections anyway.

(04-17-2017, 01:16 PM)GMDino Wrote: Calling him the "perfect outsider" while denying you support him and missing the point of my comparison let's me know you just want to argue and not face the reality of who Trump was/is.

In other words:  Stop.

[BFritz21]

(04-17-2017, 06:18 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Syria did exactly the same thing which prompted Trump to advise Obama to not use force in Syria.

He was against it at first, but then he told Obama not to seek congressional approval because Syria would know that it's coming.  

Trump also said he was against sending troops into Syria, which he didn't do when we just bombed them.

(04-17-2017, 06:18 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: What red line?  What action?

The symbolic red line where you say "cross this and we'll take action."

And the action is Trump sent the carrier into South China Sea and is telling North Korea that they're playing with fire and he has been preparing/considering a strike if they keep acting a fool.

(04-17-2017, 06:18 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Exactly?  You said they bombed the tunnels before they became a threat. Now you're agreeing with me the tunnels were bombed because they had already become a threat. 

Maybe they were becoming more of a threat?

What's the difference?  I think you're arguing this point just to argue because he took action where it needed to be taken.

(04-17-2017, 06:18 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Oh, so China really is a currency manipulator, but Trump is lying to us because he needs China?

Maybe or maybe he has come to the conclusion that they're not.  Good leaders adapt positions when need-be or when new information is known.

(04-17-2017, 06:18 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: So you have heard him say things just to be popular.

When did I EVER say that?

He's listening to the people around him and changing with what needs to be done.  If he kept doing things that didn't need to be done or were wrong, you'd be bitching at him for that.

Good leaders adapt to what needs to be done, so why are you hating him for it?

[ballsofsteel]

Thump is showing the world how tough he is.
He bombed an airfield in Syria with 59 tomahawk missiles that cost a million bucks a piece. The airfield was up and running the next day.
He dropped the mother of all bombs (cost unknown) on a remote location in Afghanistan and supposedly killed 26 Isis followers. How exactly did our govt. determine that if everything was obliterated? More BS
Thump is the ultimate Flip Flopper.
Why don't he release his tax returns? What doesn't he want us to see?
Is Thump practicing to go on the PGA tour?
Thump doesn't want to be president. Let him resign. The mannequin isn't much better but better than whats in there.
Thump is an embarrassment.

[Vas Deferens]

(04-18-2017, 07:03 AM)ballsofsteel Wrote: Is Thump practicing to go on the PGA tour?

How many times do you think he's used a women's restroom when the men's was occupied on the track? Talk about flip flopping.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-17-2017, 10:33 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: He was against it at first, but then he told Obama not to seek congressional approval because Syria would know that it's coming.  

Trump also said he was against sending troops into Syria, which he didn't do when we just bombed them.


The symbolic red line where you say "cross this and we'll take action."

And the action is Trump sent the carrier into South China Sea and is telling North Korea that they're playing with fire and he has been preparing/considering a strike if they keep acting a fool.
Maybe they were becoming more of a threat?

What's the difference?  I think you're arguing this point just to argue because he took action where it needed to be taken.

Maybe or maybe he has come to the conclusion that they're not.  Good leaders adapt positions when need-be or when new information is known.

When did I EVER say that?

He's listening to the people around him and changing with what needs to be done.  If he kept doing things that didn't need to be done or were wrong, you'd be bitching at him for that.

Good leaders adapt to what needs to be done, so why are you hating him for it?

Realizing (or admitting) NATO isn't obsolete and He needs China for political and strategic reasons isn't great leadership, it's recognizing reality. Basically, He pulled His head out of His ass. Props for that, but not being an idiot is hardly praise worthy.

He flipped on Syria from one extreme to another when faced with the same situation. His opinion seems to be based upon inconsistencies rather than evidence based decision making. What's worse is His inconsistency affects policy which resulted in the use of military force which violated the same UN resolution He attacked Syria for violating at the risk of escalating an already volatile situation.

[Belsnickel]

(04-17-2017, 10:33 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Maybe or maybe he has come to the conclusion that they're not.  Good leaders adapt positions when need-be or when new information is known.

They haven't been for years. The sources that told him they were still doing it were right-wing conspiracy nuts. He didn't change his stance when everyone told him he was wrong when he said it, so why now?

[hollodero]

(04-18-2017, 10:07 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: What's worse is His inconsistency affects policy which resulted in the use of military force which violated the same UN resolution He attacked Syria for violating at the risk of escalating an already volatile situation.

I'm generally with you, but I saw you writing that some time now and I'm not so sure about that. The same resolution? Banning chemical weapons is within the same resolution as not attacking souvereign countries?

[Dill]

(04-17-2017, 04:05 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Welp color me as the only one that doesn't think he was comparing trump to Manson when he said Manson.

Is this like you not comparing him to Hitler when you use Hitler as a comparison example?

What part of "beyond the point" did you miss.

Slow down a little. Parse analogies before you dismiss them. What is and is not being compared? Settle that first before shouting "He said Trump and Manson in the same sentence!"

[Dill]

(04-18-2017, 07:03 AM)ballsofsteel Wrote: He dropped the mother of all bombs (cost unknown) on a remote location in Afghanistan and supposedly killed 26 Isis followers. How exactly did our govt. determine that if everything was obliterated?

That was easy, Balls. They found the front desk to the tunnel system and compared the list of "checked in" to "Checked out".

[Dill]

(04-17-2017, 10:33 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: And the action is Trump sent the carrier into South China Sea and is telling North Korea that they're playing with fire and he has been preparing/considering a strike if they keep acting a fool.
Maybe they were becoming more of a threat?

Maybe or maybe he has come to the conclusion that they're not.  Good leaders adapt positions when need-be or when new information is known.

Two Questions:

What will happen if Trump sends 59 Tomahawk missiles into North Korea for testing a missile?  What will North Korea do? Will Kim say "Ok Ok. No more tests"? Or will an artillery barrage fall on Seoul? Or something else? What options does he have, in your view?  I am not asking about the wisdom of Trump's new engagement with North Korea. I am just asking what YOU think Kim's options are.

Trump changed his position on China after a half hour discussion with Xi. Then he told the world that is what happened. From this, what should other world leaders conclude about Trump's decision making skills? They have already learned that he believes Breitbart over his own CIA and FBI. Ivanka may have swayed his Syria policy, along with pictures of gassed children.  Will they see Trump as a strong, capable leader reacting to new intel or someone being schooled in foreign policy basics as he lurches from one action to another, following his feelings and approval polls? 

Regarding the last question. I keep hearing two conflicting messages from Trump supporters. One is that Trump is sending the world leaders "messages" of some sort, and now they respect us. And this seems very important to them--part of making America great again. Rush and Hannity were bragging yesterday that his "diplomacy" had moved China to action.

The other message is that they don't care what other world leaders think. And we don't need China or diplomacy or policies that require us to work with others to effect international political goals. So I am just trying to sort out where you are at on this issue.

[Belsnickel]

(04-17-2017, 10:33 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: When did I EVER say that?

He's listening to the people around him and changing with what needs to be done.  If he kept doing things that didn't need to be done or were wrong, you'd be bitching at him for that.

Good leaders adapt to what needs to be done, so why are you hating him for it?

I'm still waiting for people that were with him on bashing Obama for golfing so much to start bashing him for golfing much more than Obama. Is that good leadership, realizing that the job is hard and so you remove yourself from it even more than your predecessor, whom you berated for doing it far less often?

[Vas Deferens]

(04-18-2017, 12:25 PM)Dill Wrote: Trump changed his position on China after a half hour discussion with Xi. Then he told the world that is what happened. 

Maybe he changed his mind after ivanka's china TM requests were approved the same day as their mara largo steak dinner with Xi...  Draining the swamp fo sho.

(04-18-2017, 01:00 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I'm still waiting for people that were with him on bashing Obama for golfing so much to start bashing him for golfing much more than Obama. Is that good leadership, realizing that the job is hard and so you remove yourself from it even more than your predecessor, whom you berated for doing it far less often?

Don't hold your breath on anyone even admitting they bashed obama about that, just like its hard to find anyone that will admit to voting for Daddy.

[Vas Deferens]

Maybe his resident PR rep can get a response from him on this one...

Obama vacations costing taxpayers over 70.5 Million

(12-17-2015, 10:03 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/white-house/article50172810.html

These people are vacationing machines.   They are living it up on our dime.   Just ridiculous.   No president should going except camp David or anther already secure location.  

Quote:There was the weekend trip for President Barack Obama and his daughters to New York, including a Broadway show and a private museum tour.


The ski trip to Aspen, Colorado, for first lady Michelle Obama in February.

And lots and lots of golf in Florida, Southern California and Martha’s Vineyard, Mass.

Now as the Obama family departs Friday on its annual holiday vacation to Hawaii, new estimates put the price tag of the Obamas’ 2015 trips that are all or largely personal at $11.6 million for travel costs alone, according to the conservative group Judicial Watch, based on federal government records. That brings the overall cost of personal or largely personal travel to at least $70.5 million since Obama took office in 2009, according to the group’s analysis.


The costs of Air Force One and other government planes as well as helicopters, limos and other unique parts of presidential travel often raise questions about the need.

“My gosh, we can’t afford it,” said Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, which is pushing for less personal travel and for security changes.

But others call it a necessary part of security and convenience for a commander-in-chief.

“In this environment, I don’t think anyone on either side of the aisle is advocating for them to do less,” said Dave Carney, a White House political director for President George H.W. Bush and a critic of what he called posh Obama vacations. “No one wants to say we need less security and then something happens.”


The White House disputes the travel numbers, saying that some of the trips the group cites include work activities.

Obama’s trip to California in June, for example, included a speech to U.S. Conference of Mayors in San Francisco as well as golf in Palm Springs. Michelle Obama’s trip to the United Kingdom and Italy with her mother and daughters that same month included promotion of a girls’ education initiative; participation in the presidential delegation to the World’s Fair and a visit to U.S. military service members.

“The president recognizes that he is president of the United States 24 hours a day, seven days a week, wherever he happens to be,” said White House spokesman Eric Schultz. “We believe the American people would not begrudge their president for taking some downtime with his family around the holidays.”
He’s taken 23 vacations spanning all or part of 177 days, according to Mark Knoller, a CBS News White House correspondent who maintains an authoritative record of presidential activities.

By comparison, President George W. Bush at this point in his tenure had made 68 visits to his Texas ranch spanning all or part of 441 days, and 10 visits to his family’s home in Kennebunkport, Maine, spanning all or part of 39 days, according to Knoller.

Criticism of presidential vacations go back all the way to John Adams, who frequently traveled from the capital to his Massachusetts home, said Brendan J. Doherty, a political science professor at the U.S. Naval Academy.

In the modern era, traveling staff and ever-present telecommnications allow presidents to work even from vacation if they choose.

“Presidents are always on the job,” Doherty said. “They are never truly off the clock.”

IN THEIR EIGHT-YEAR TERMS, GEORGE W. BUSH TOOK 533 DAYS OF VACATION, BILL CLINTON TOOK 174 DAYS AND RONALD REAGAN TOOK 349 DAYS.

President Dwight Eisenhower did interrupt a vacation in Newport, Rhode Island, to dispatch federal troops to Arkansas after nine black students were stopped from entering Central High School in Little Rock.

“I could have spoken from Rhode Island, where I have been staying recently, but I felt that, in speaking from the house of Lincoln, of Jackson and of Wilson, my words would more clearly convey both the sadness I feel in the action I was compelled today to take and the firmness with which I intend to pursue this course,” Eisenhower said in a Sept. 24, 1957, speech from the White House.

George W. Bush was criticized for delaying the end of his monthlong vacation for three days after Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast in 2005. He later said that observing the damage in Air Force One as he flew back to Washington was a “huge mistake” because it made him seem “detached and uncaring.”

Obama has seen so many crises – the BP oil spill, the beheading of an American journalist, riots in Ferguson, Missouri, an attempt to blow up an airliner – interrupt his vacations that media had began to question a vacation curse.

PRESIDENTS DON’T GET VACATIONS, THEY JUST GET A CHANGE OF SCENERY.
Nancy Reagan on her husband’s frequent trips to his ranch in Santa Barbara, California

The 2015 cost estimates from Judicial Watch primarily include the price for travel for 11 trips to New York City, Aspen, Chicago, Los Angeles, Palm Springs, Martha’s Vineyard and Palm City, Florida. It includes last year’s annual trip to Hawaii.

Some trips include the entire family, while other just include individual members. Many of the trips of the first lady and daughters, though, are unknown.

In response to series of recent Judicial Watch public records requests, the Air Force revealed that it costs $206,337 per hour to fly and operate the president’s plane, Air Force One. The cost has grown considerably in recent years. In 2012, the Air Force estimated it cost $179,750 per hour, according to a Congressional Research Service report.

Other costs are not generally made public, including the cost of housing Secret Service and White House staff, transporting limousines, helicopters and other equipment, rental cars, office space, food, even security upgrades such as adding bulletproof glass and adding phone lines.

The first family picks up the tab for housing when they are on vacation. Published reports indicate that the Obamas spend $25,000 per week for their private vacation home in Hawaii and $50,000 a week for their private vacation home, the Blue Heron Farm, on Martha’s Vineyard.

THE PRESIDENCY IS THE TOUGHEST JOB IN THE WORLD. WE DON’T THINK (JUDICIAL WATCH) SHOULD BEGRUDGE THE PRESIDENT A VACATION. HE OUGHT TO HAVE THAT. THERE’S GOING TO BE SOME EXPENSE WE ALL HAVE TO BEAR AND DO SO WITHOUT COMPLAINT.
Dale Eisman, a spokesman for Common Cause, a government watchdog group

In 2013, the Hawaii Reporter estimated that a 17-day vacation on the islands for the president and his family cost more than $4 million.

Judicial Watch sued the Secret Service last month for failing to respond to 19 public records requests for security-related expenses related to presidential travel.

John Wonderlich, policy director of the nonprofit Sunlight Foundation, which pushes for openness in government, agrees the administration should release the costs of presidential travel. But he said criticizing Obama for taking the trips is just “a way of creating resentment about the president” when it’s difficult to argue that Obama should cut down on his security or vacation time. “It’s a hard case to make,” he said.

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/white-house/article50172810.html#storylink=cpy

..

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-18-2017, 11:56 AM)hollodero Wrote: I'm generally with you, but I saw you writing that some time now and I'm not so sure about that. The same resolution? Banning chemical weapons is within the same resolution as not attacking souvereign countries?

Noncompliance with UN Resolution 2118, including the use of chemical weapons, should be directed to the UN General Assembly and Security Council. Use of military force secondary to noncompliance would require a separate vote on a resolution specifically for military intervention.

[*bfine32*]

(04-18-2017, 01:00 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I'm still waiting for people that were with him on bashing Obama for golfing so much to start bashing him for golfing much more than Obama.

Why are you waiting on this?  My advice would be to move forward.

[BmorePat87]

I was legitimately curious how Trump supporters would react to his reversal on campaign positions. They seem to be 100% on board.

[Belsnickel]

(04-18-2017, 03:17 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I was legitimately curious how Trump supporters would react to his reversal on campaign positions. They seem to be 100% on board.

Eh, not so much. There are plenty of people unhappy with the way things are going. But I wouldn't say they are the majority.

[GMDino]

(04-18-2017, 03:17 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I was legitimately curious how Trump supporters would react to his reversal on campaign positions. They seem to be 100% on board.

(04-18-2017, 03:20 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Eh, not so much. There are plenty of people unhappy with the way things are going. But I wouldn't say they are the majority.

The ones I know personally fall into three categories:

1) They completely deny that he is "flip flopping".  They insist he is just growing and evolving his opinion. They also deny that he really meant anything he said before he was elected.

2) This group hate 90% of the things he has "done" or proposed and admit they do not like what he is doing but refuse to admit they might have made a poor choice because....(fill in the blank with any Clinton conspiracy) and/or they want to "give him a chance" since they voted for someone with no experience handling the job.

3) They ignore it all.  Say he is making America great again and give him credit for every good thing that happens and blames the "libruls" and "rhinos" for any bad thing.  This group also want Clinton in jail, beleive the wall is being started already and that Trump is smarter than everyone.  Except them, of course.

[GMDino]

I wonder if our "identity" is one of passing the buck when we mess up?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/18/world/asia/aircraft-carrier-north-korea-carl-vinson.html?_r=1

Quote:As worries deepened last week about whether North Korea would conduct a missile test, the White House declared that ordering an American aircraft carrier into the Sea of Japan would send a powerful deterrent signal and give President Trump more options in responding to the North’s provocative behavior.


The problem was, the carrier, the Carl Vinson, and the four other warships in its strike force were at that very moment sailing in the opposite direction, to take part in joint exercises with the Australian Navy in the Indian Ocean, 3,500 miles southwest of the Korean Peninsula.



White House officials said on Tuesday they were relying on guidance from the Defense Department. Officials there described a glitch-ridden sequence of events, from a premature announcement of the deployment by the military’s Pacific Command to an erroneous explanation by Defense Secretary Jim Mattis — all of which perpetuated the false narrative that an American armada was racing toward the waters off North Korea.



By the time the White House was asked about the Carl Vinson on April 11, its imminent arrival had been emblazoned on front pages across East Asia, fanning fears that Mr. Trump was considering a pre-emptive military strike on North Korea. It was portrayed as further evidence of the president’s muscular style two days after he ordered a missile strike on Syria while he and President Xi Jinping of China were finishing dessert during a meeting in Florida.

The saga of the wayward carrier might never have come to light, had the Navy not posted a photograph on Monday of the Carl Vinson sailing through the Sunda Strait, which separates the Indonesian islands of Java and Sumatra. The picture was taken on Saturday, four days after the White House press secretary, Sean Spicer, described its mission in the Sea of Japan.


The Carl Vinson is now on a northerly course for the Korean Peninsula and is expected to arrive in the region sometime next week, Defense Department officials said. The White House declined to comment on the misunderstanding, referring all questions to the Pentagon. “Sean discussed it once when asked, and it was all about process,” said a spokesman, Michael Short.



Privately, however, other officials expressed bewilderment that the Pentagon did not correct its timeline, particularly given the tensions surging in the region and the fact that Mr. Spicer, as well as the national security adviser, Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster, were publicly answering questions about it.