Trump Is Giving This Country Its Identity Back

[Fan_in_Kettering]

“Liberals, it has been said, are generous with other peoples' money, except when it comes to questions of national survival when they prefer to be generous with other peoples' freedom and security.”

- William F. Buckley

[GMDino]

Quote:Willam F. Buckley wrote something about Donald Trump when he was talking about running for President — in 2000. Buckley, in an essay he wrote for  Cigar Aficionado and said the following about Trump:

Quote:Look for the narcissist. The most obvious target in today’s lineup is, of course, Donald Trump. When he looks at a glass, he is mesmerized by its reflection. If Donald Trump were shaped a little differently, he would compete for Miss America. But whatever the depths of self-enchantment, the demagogue has to say something. So what does Trump say? That he is a successful businessman and that that is what America needs in the Oval Office. There is some plausibility in this, though not much. The greatest deeds of American Presidents — midwifing the new republic; freeing the slaves; harnessing the energies and vision needed to win the Cold War — had little to do with a bottom line.

[Dill]

(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?

  Good leaders adapt positions when need-be.

[Dill]

(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.

So long as he keeps building the wall, working up Muslim bans, and bombing someone, they will be happy. He is "keeping his word."

Hannity and Rush dedicate their programs now to spinning out the positive in Trump about faces. They are really about the art of the deal--you give a little to get a little.  Trump is not trading jobs to China for cooperation in Korea; he has sent them a message that he means business, etc.
 

[Belsnickel]

(04-18-2017, 04:17 PM)Fan_in_Kettering Wrote: “Liberals, it has been said, are generous with other peoples' money, except when it comes to questions of national survival when they prefer to be generous with other peoples' freedom and security.”

- William F. Buckley

I do often wonder how much good the money spent on, say, the missile attack in Syria could have done domestically. Can't feed, house, or heal our own people but we need to get involved in internal issues in another country.

[ballsofsteel]

(04-18-2017, 04:17 PM)Fan_in_Kettering Wrote: “Liberals, it has been said, are generous with other peoples' money, except when it comes to questions of national survival when they prefer to be generous with other peoples' freedom and security.”

- William F. Buckley

"Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers"

- George Carlin

[GMDino]

Quote:There’s a good chance Donald Trump doesn’t know who the leader of North Korea is


North Korean leader Kim Jong-un walks at the front of his father Kim Jong-il's funeral cortege in 2011. (AP Photo/Korean Central News Agency via Korea News Service)


North Korea’s leader Kim Jong-un assumed control of the country following his father’s death in 2011 and has quickly set about shoring up power, pushing ahead with North Korea’s nuclear program, and reportedly executing hundreds of people.

Global observers with even the vaguest interest in the rogue peninsular understand these types of basic details about North Korea. US president Donald Trump, however, may not. Asked by Fox & Friends co-host Ainsley Earhardt on April 17 whether he has ruled out a military strike on Pyongyang, Trump repeatedly referred to North Korea’s leader as “this gentleman”—and implied he was dealing with the same “gentleman” that former presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama had grappled with:

Quote:“You know, they’ve been talking with this gentleman for a long time. You read Clinton’s book, he said, ‘Oh, we made such a great peace deal,’ and it was a joke. You look at different things over the years with President Obama. Everybody has been outplayed, they’ve all been outplayed by this gentleman. And we’ll see what happens. But I just don’t telegraph my moves.”

Unfortunately for Trump, the “gentleman” Clinton was talking to during his presidency was in fact Kim Jong-il—the now-deceased father of Kim Jong-un.

This is not the first time Trump has appeared publicly confused while talking about geopolitics or North Korea. Last week, he revealed that it took Chinese president Xi Jinping just 10 minutes to convince him that solving problems with North Korea is “not so easy.” Meanwhile, last summer Trump seemed to admit that he didn’t know Russian proxies were fighting in Eastern Ukraine, saying Vladimir Putin is “not going into Ukraine, OK, just so you understand. He’s not going to go into Ukraine, all right?” When it was pointed out that Putin was in fact already there, Trump gave a rambling response, beginning with, “OK—well, he’s there in a certain way.”

Regarding Kim Jong-un’s recent display of military bravado, Trump, as is his custom, refused to tell Fox whether he’d order a strike on North Korea, saying: “I’m not like other administrations where they say, ‘We’re going to do this in four weeks.’ It doesn’t work that way. We’ll see what happens. I hope things work out well. I hope there’s going to be peace.”

https://qz.com/962274/donald-trump-just-revealed-that-he-probably-doesnt-know-who-north-koreas-leader-kim-jong-un-is-in-a-fox-news-interview/

[Matt_Crimson]

(04-18-2017, 05:29 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I do often wonder how much good the money spent on, say, the missile attack in Syria could have done domestically. Can't feed, house, or heal our own people but we need to get involved in internal issues in another country.

I find it funny that Trump shoots off 59 Tomahawk missiles and now all of a sudden everyone cares about how much Tomahawk missiles cost even though the US has been using Tomahawk missiles for years and apparently has approximately 4000 in it's arsenal. But lets just sit here and act like Trump just ordered 59 Tomahawks hot off the press and shot them at Syria.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-18-2017, 08:52 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: I find it funny that Trump shoots off 59 Tomahawk missiles and now all of a sudden everyone cares about how much Tomahawk missiles cost even though the US has been using Tomahawk missiles for years and apparently has approximately 4000 in it's arsenal. But lets just sit here and act like Trump just ordered 59 Tomahawks hot off the press and shot them at Syria.

Did you just suggest people didn't care about Defense spending until 2017?

I refer you to my previous statement in my avatar.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-18-2017, 08:47 PM)GMDino Wrote: https://qz.com/962274/donald-trump-just-revealed-that-he-probably-doesnt-know-who-north-koreas-leader-kim-jong-un-is-in-a-fox-news-interview/

Trump doesn't telegraph his moves. He uses a telephone.

[Bengalzona]

Quote:Look for the narcissist. The most obvious target in today’s lineup is, of course, Donald Trump. When he looks at a glass, he is mesmerized by its reflection. If Donald Trump were shaped a little differently, he would compete for Miss America. But whatever the depths of self-enchantment, the demagogue has to say something. So what does Trump say? That he is a successful businessman and that that is what America needs in the Oval Office. There is some plausibility in this, though not much. The greatest deeds of American Presidents — midwifing the new republic; freeing the slaves; harnessing the energies and vision needed to win the Cold War — had little to do with a bottom line.

Wow. I've never been a William F. Buckley fan, but that last sentence is spot on.

[Dill]

(04-18-2017, 09:17 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Trump doesn't telegraph his moves. He uses a telephone.

LOL he tweets them.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-18-2017, 10:08 PM)Dill Wrote: LOL he tweets them.

Before the missile strike, He had one of His guys call the Russians who in turn warned the Syrians.

[Matt_Crimson]

(04-18-2017, 09:14 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Did you just suggest people didn't care about Defense spending until 2017?

I refer you to my previous statement in my avatar.

If everyone cared so much about defense spending, why is everyone talking about how much Tomahawks cost like it's a new topic with new information?


People aren't just objecting what Trump did. They're talking about the price of Tomahawks. The point being, people aren't acting like this is a defense soending issue. They're treating it as an issue raised by Trump.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-18-2017, 10:57 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: If everyone cared so much about defense spending, why is everyone talking about how much Tomahawks cost like it's a new topic with new information?


People aren't just objecting what Trump did. They're talking about the price of Tomahawks. The point being, people aren't acting like this is a defense soending issue. They're treating it as an issue raised by Trump.

Because they fired Tomahawk missiles which are a part of Defense spending.

Do you expect people to talk about the price of Volkswagens, for example? Or the price of anything else which wasn't used during the attack? Why would people talk about the price of anything, but Tomahawk missiles?

[Vas Deferens]

(04-19-2017, 12:17 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Because they fired Tomahawk missiles which are a part of Defense spending.

Do you expect people to talk about the price of Volkswagens, for example? Or the price of anything else which wasn't used during the attack? Why would people talk about the price of anything, but Tomahawk missiles?

Because Dwight was warning us of Obama in 61.

[Matt_Crimson]

(04-19-2017, 12:17 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Because they fired Tomahawk missiles which are a part of Defense spending.

Do you expect people to talk about the price of Volkswagens, for example? Or the price of anything else which wasn't used during the attack? Why would people talk about the price of anything, but Tomahawk missiles?

So then why not talk about defense spending as a whole? People are clearly trying to make this a "Trump issue" and not a "defense spending" one.


Again, the US has been firing Tomahawks for years. Why are we not talking about that? Why is it that as soon as Trump does it everyone jumps out of their seats like "Oh my gawd, look at how much it'll cost to replace those Trump missles"  yet there is barely any mention about what the US has already spent on its military before Trump got in office. We're talking about what Trump cost us instead of talking about what the US as a nation has been costing itself for years. Those 59 Tomahawks don't even compare to what's been spent before Trump got in office. Trump didnt just buy those missles and have them UPS Next Day Aired so that he could fire them at Syria. The money was already spent before he started his campaign to be president.


Do I believe people do have a concern about defense spending? Yes. Do I think people actually care to the point that it really matters? No. People care more about what Trump is spending on Syria than actually talking about what we've spent on military through the years and across the globe. "Defense spending" doesn't mean "How much it cost to fire Tomahawks at Syria". Like I've already said, pepole are acting like Trump just bought those cruise missles, but they were already there. The money was already spent.

[BmorePat87]

(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.

Meant specifically those on this board. 

[GMDino]

(04-19-2017, 06:35 AM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: So then why not talk about defense spending as a whole? People are clearly trying to make this a "Trump issue" and not a "defense spending" one.


Again, the US has been firing Tomahawks for years. Why are we not talking about that? Why is it that as soon as Trump does it everyone jumps out of their seats like "Oh my gawd, look at how much it'll cost to replace those Trump missles"  yet there is barely any mention about what the US has already spent on its military before Trump got in office. We're talking about what Trump cost us instead of talking about what the US as a nation has been costing itself for years. Those 59 Tomahawks don't even compare to what's been spent before Trump got in office. Trump didnt just buy those missles and have them UPS Next Day Aired so that he could fire them at Syria. The money was already spent before he started his campaign to be president.


Do I believe people do have a concern about defense spending? Yes. Do I think people actually care to the point that it really matters? No. People care more about what Trump is spending on Syria than actually talking about what we've spent on military through the years and across the globe. "Defense spending" doesn't mean "How much it cost to fire Tomahawks at Syria". Like I've already said, pepole are acting like Trump just bought those cruise missles, but they were already there. The money was already spent.

I'd say a lot of this comes from Trump's selling that he's a money maker.  He knows how to save money and get the best deals.

Add in his claims to not want to police the world his history of saying bombing Syria was bad he gets taken to task a lot more.

[BmorePat87]

(04-19-2017, 06:35 AM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: So then why not talk about defense spending as a whole? People are clearly trying to make this a "Trump issue" and not a "defense spending" one.


Again, the US has been firing Tomahawks for years. Why are we not talking about that? Why is it that as soon as Trump does it everyone jumps out of their seats like "Oh my gawd, look at how much it'll cost to replace those Trump missles"  yet there is barely any mention about what the US has already spent on its military before Trump got in office. We're talking about what Trump cost us instead of talking about what the US as a nation has been costing itself for years. Those 59 Tomahawks don't even compare to what's been spent before Trump got in office. Trump didnt just buy those missles and have them UPS Next Day Aired so that he could fire them at Syria. The money was already spent before he started his campaign to be president.


Do I believe people do have a concern about defense spending? Yes. Do I think people actually care to the point that it really matters? No. People care more about what Trump is spending on Syria than actually talking about what we've spent on military through the years and across the globe. "Defense spending" doesn't mean "How much it cost to fire Tomahawks at Syria". Like I've already said, pepole are acting like Trump just bought those cruise missles, but they were already there. The money was already spent.

The fact that you're not aware that people have been complaining about defense spending for years now is startling. Even within the context of Trump's administration, people have been complaining since he proposed a budget that cuts domestic spending and raises defense spending.