History according to Trump!

[QP!]

We all know about the potentially upcoming WW2, thanks to Trump. And how the airports were bombed in the civil war.

Now Trump shares with us his deep thoughts on Gettysburg battle, in the transcript below.

yes Trump really said that and in his demented little mind it all made sense.

Damocles head exploded as he screamed WHATABOUTBIDEN!

 

[QP!]

But at least he can always fall back on this...

 

[Nordberg]

It does not matter to Trumpys. You have to wonder if they are a match for his history knowledge. Or they do not care that a guy that ignorant is in charge if he hates the same people they do.

 

[Scott]

It does not matter to Trumpys. You have to wonder if they are a match for his history knowledge. Or they do not care that a guy that ignorant is in charge if he hates the same people they do.

I was against Trump ever since he said certain things regarding Mexicans. But Trump didn't get into any major wars during his term. I suspect he wouldn't have even started giving weapons to Ukraine if he hadn't been pressured by all the phony Russiagate business. So if I were American, I wouldn't vote for Trump, but I also wouldn't vote for Biden either. I'd probably vote for RFK Jr.

 

[IBDaMann]

I was against Trump ever since he said certain things regarding Mexicans. But Trump didn't get into any major wars during his term. I suspect he wouldn't have even started giving weapons to Ukraine if he hadn't been pressured by all the phony Russiagate business. So if I were American, I wouldn't vote for Trump, but I also wouldn't vote for Biden. I'd probably vote for RFK Jr.

What observations about Mexicans,. in your opinion, are not allowed to be stated?

 

[IBDaMann]

Now Trump shares with us his deep thoughts on Gettysburg battle, in the transcript below.

So what you are ineffectively trying to say is that, to the best of your knowledge, you are unaware of any reason, considering only official Presidential duties, that Donald Trump wasn't the best President ever in US history.

Well, now that you put it that way, I suppose that if one were to not get sidetracked by irrelevant, juvenile "look what Trump said" discussions, e.g. tweets, campaign ads, personal affairs, etc., and were to stick to his track record of official duties, I can see why you would assign Trump to the top slot.

Fair enough.

 

[QP!]

I was against Trump ever since he said certain things regarding Mexicans. But Trump didn't get into any major wars during his term. I suspect he wouldn't have even started giving weapons to Ukraine if he hadn't been pressured by all the phony Russiagate business. So if I were American, I wouldn't vote for Trump, but I also wouldn't vote for Biden. I'd probably vote for RFK Jr.

Not helping Ukraine and letting Russia roll over them does not keep America safe and out of wars.

 

[Jarod]

We all know about the potentially upcoming WW2, thanks to Trump. And how the airports were bombed in the civil war.

Now Trump shares with us his deep thoughts on Gettysburg battle, in the transcript below.

yes Trump really said that and in his demented little mind it all made sense.

Damocles head exploded as he screamed WHATABOUTBIDEN!

What about the part where the revolutionary war generals took the airports and held them through the night...

 

[Scott]

I was against Trump ever since he said certain things regarding Mexicans. But Trump didn't get into any major wars during his term. I suspect he wouldn't have even started giving weapons to Ukraine if he hadn't been pressured by all the phony Russiagate business. So if I were American, I wouldn't vote for Trump, but I also wouldn't vote for Biden either. I'd probably vote for RFK Jr.

What observations about Mexicans,. in your opinion, are not allowed to be stated?

I never said they weren't allowed to be stated. I said that it's what permanently turned me off from thinking of Trump as someone I would support. Anyway, as to the lines that I won't forget:

**
The U.S. has become a dumping ground for everybody else’s problems.

Thank you. It’s true, and these are the best and the finest. When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.
**

Source:
Here’s Donald Trump’s Presidential Announcement Speech | Time

John Oliver actually riffed on those lines from Trump quite well in a video he did, starting at around the 14:40 mark:

 

[Scott]

I was against Trump ever since he said certain things regarding Mexicans. But Trump didn't get into any major wars during his term. I suspect he wouldn't have even started giving weapons to Ukraine if he hadn't been pressured by all the phony Russiagate business. So if I were American, I wouldn't vote for Trump, but I also wouldn't vote for Biden either. I'd probably vote for RFK Jr.

Not helping Ukraine and letting Russia roll over them does not keep America safe and out of wars.

You can't deny that Trump got into no new wars while President. As to Ukraine, Trump initially followed Obama's policy of not arming the radicalized Ukrainian government in order to avoid a war with Russia, which as we all know has now happened. I think that -that- would have been much more help to Ukraine then what he was apparently pressured to do, that is, start sending weapons to Ukraine. After Russia started its military intervention, the smartest thing the U.S. could have done would have been to support the peace negotiations that almost beared fruit around a month after said intervention started, in around March 2022. That would have seen Russia leave all territory that Ukraine controlled prior to its intervention, and also leave the Donbas region, in exchange for Ukraine giving the Donbas region more independence and promising not to join NATO. That deal's no longer on the table. I still believe that Ukraine's option is to enter negotiations now, but I suspect the best deal they could get at this point would be to keep the territory it still controls and once again promise not to join NATO.

 

[Cypress]

You can't deny that Trump got into no new wars while President.

What foreign nation is America's military fighting a war against?

Yep, that's right ... none.

Trump bombed Iraq and Syria and got US Special Forces killed in Africa. Do those type of actions only count as "war" when a Democrat is president?

 

[Scott]

You can't deny that Trump got into no new wars while President.

What foreign nation is America's military fighting a war against?

I made no mention of America's military doing the fighting. The U.S. is content to have Ukrainians do the fighting, "to the last Ukrainian" if need be. What the U.S. is doing is spending billions of dollars in arming and training Ukrainians to do their dirty work. I've seen no effort to try to resolve the conflict diplomatically, either before or after Russia's military intervention. It's more or less the same with Israel, only there the U.S. government is actually beginning to realizing that murdering thousands of innocent Palestinians doesn't look so good.

Trump bombed Iraq and Syria and got US Special Forces killed in Africa. Do those type of actions only count as "war" when a Democrat is president?

The U.S. was already in Iraq and Syria when he became President. From what I heard, he also didn't have these wars escalate. I hadn't heard of these Special Forces deaths in Africa, but based on the fact that I hadn't heard of it, I'm guessing it wasn't a war so much as a "Special Op". I imagine it was a dumb idea to do whatever it was they were doing there, but atleast it was a small operation.

 

[QP!]

You can't deny that Trump got into no new wars while President. As to Ukraine, Trump initially followed Obama's policy of not arming the radicalized Ukrainian government in order to avoid a war with Russia, which as we all know has now happened. I think that -that- would have been much more help to Ukraine then what he was apparently pressured to do, that is, start sending weapons to Ukraine. After Russia started its military intervention, the smartest thing the U.S. could have done would have been to support the peace negotiations that almost beared fruit around a month after said intervention started, in around March 2022. That would have seen Russia leave all territory that Ukraine controlled prior to its intervention, and also leave the Donbas region, in exchange for Ukraine giving the Donbas region more independence and promising not to join NATO. That deal's no longer on the table. I still believe that Ukraine's option is to enter negotiations now, but I suspect the best deal they could get at this point would be to keep the territory it still controls and once again promise not to join NATO.

Firstly see the post 2 above this one.


Next Trump was squeezing Ukraine from both ends. Rudy was there, working hand in glove from the back end, with the prior key Russian oligarch trying to get Ukraine to re-establish the prior Putin power structure he pushed out, that allowed Russia to rape Ukraine of its wealth sending it Russia. And Trump was hitting them from the front end, demanding Ukraine smear Biden, while supporting Rudy's efforts. Trump was making it clear to Ukraine that in their continued battles against Russia, any US support would only come if he, Trump, got what he wanted.

So of course Putin is not going to invade while Trump is doing his bidding, that could avert a war and see Ukraine surrender.

it was a similar play book to what Trump did to Qatar to force them to give Jarad $2B to save his family fortune going bankrupt. Jarad had scoured the US banks who ALL turned him down to refinance his real estate mess in NYC. International banks all said 'no thanks' too. Jared then went to Saudi, who said 'go get it from Qatar'. Qatar looked at it and said 'no thanks'. Then MBS, of Saudi, said 'hold my beer', and he started to threaten Qatar with invasion, and Donald Trump immediate signaled the US might support Saudi invading, despite Qatar being a US ally. Qatar then found $2B to loan to Jarad and not one more mention of Saudi invading or the US not supporting Qatar came up again.

So the idea that Trump would not lead the US to wars is only supported by how strong the countries stand against his various shakedowns. Yes, i agree if Trump could keep finding weak and vulnerable countries to shake down, and they all paid up, then no wars are likely. But if any of them stand up, then Trump would allow his proxies, HIS MUSCLE (Russia, Saudi, China, etc) to all invade whoever stood up to him to send a message to the next country he approached to shakedown.

Trump is not pro any war, and as long as every country accepts they just need to pay up, then he would never push one. Agreed.

 

[evince]

I was against Trump ever since he said certain things regarding Mexicans. But Trump didn't get into any major wars during his term. I suspect he wouldn't have even started giving weapons to Ukraine if he hadn't been pressured by all the phony Russiagate business. So if I were American, I wouldn't vote for Trump, but I also wouldn't vote for Biden either. I'd probably vote for RFK Jr.

How anti fact and Russian of you


The entire western world knows what you and Putin are doing ass sack



You saying you believe lies over facts just proves your evil intentions


You won’t win


You and Putin are LOSERS


The world knows it

 

[evince]

I made no mention of America's military doing the fighting. The U.S. is content to have Ukrainians do the fighting, "to the last Ukrainian" if need be. What the U.S. is doing is spending billions of dollars in arming and training Ukrainians to do their dirty work. I've seen no effort to try to resolve the conflict diplomatically, either before or after Russia's military intervention. It's more or less the same with Israel, only there the U.S. government is actually beginning to realizing that murdering thousands of innocent Palestinians doesn't look so good.




The U.S. was already in Iraq and Syria when he became President. From what I heard, he also didn't have these wars escalate. I hadn't heard of these Special Forces deaths in Africa, but based on the fact that I hadn't heard of it, I'm guessing it wasn't a war so much as a "Special Op". I imagine it was a dumb idea to do whatever it was they were doing there, but atleast it was a small operation.

You have an addiction to Putin sperm

 

[Cypress]

I made no mention of America's military doing the fighting. The U.S. is content to have Ukrainians do the fighting, "to the last Ukrainian" if need be. What the U.S. is doing is spending billions of dollars in arming and training Ukrainians to do their dirty work. I've seen no effort to try to resolve the conflict diplomatically, either before or after Russia's military intervention. It's more or less the same with Israel, only there the U.S. government is actually beginning to realizing that murdering thousands of innocent Palestinians doesn't look so good.




The U.S. was already in Iraq and Syria when he became President. From what I heard, he also didn't have these wars escalate. I hadn't heard of these Special Forces deaths in Africa, but based on the fact that I hadn't heard of it, I'm guessing it wasn't a war so much as a "Special Op". I imagine it was a dumb idea to do whatever it was they were doing there, but atleast it was a small operation.

This is what you said:

You can't deny that Trump got into no new wars while President.

America isn't at war with anyone.

Providing military aid to foreign nations in conflict is not America being at "war".


In your hyperpartisan thought process, you didn't mention that Trump provided military aid to Saudi Arabia for their war in Yemen.

The most obvious thing that comes out of your hyperpartisan posts is that you will twist the definition of America being at "war" when a Democrat is president

 

[IBDaMann]

I never said they weren't allowed to be stated.

Yes, you stated that in your opinion, the observations that Trump made should never be made, and you turned against him. I think you specified that it is totally unacceptable for anyone to mention that many rapists and violent criminals cross the border from Mexico into the US because you have a requirement that all Mexicans and other illegal immigrants that cross into the US from Mexico be portrayed as angels that are better than the citizens that are already here. Trump violated your rule and now you are "against him" 100%, right?

You also specified that you were completely offended by Trump pointing out that Mexico's best are remaining in Mexico, and are not trying to get themselves smuggled into the United States. I believe you expressed extreme offense that Trump mentioned that Mexico was not sending their best, and for that, you can never support Trump, right?

I said that it's what permanently turned me off from thinking of Trump as someone I would support.

I'll take that as a "Yes" to all of the above.

Are there any other observations about Mexico and Mexicans that, in your opinion, just should never be made?

Anyway, as to the lines that I won't forget: ** The U.S. has become a dumping ground for everybody else’s problems.

Why, in your opinion, is this perfectly accurate observation so totally unacceptable?

When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best.

You're just repeating yourself. You're not making much sense. Could you explain a little as to what's wrong with this observation?

They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.[/B]

Completely accurate ... but unacceptable, you say?

 

[Scott]

You can't deny that Trump got into no new wars while President. As to Ukraine, Trump initially followed Obama's policy of not arming the radicalized Ukrainian government in order to avoid a war with Russia, which as we all know has now happened. I think that -that- would have been much more help to Ukraine then what he was apparently pressured to do, that is, start sending weapons to Ukraine. After Russia started its military intervention, the smartest thing the U.S. could have done would have been to support the peace negotiations that almost beared fruit around a month after said intervention started, in around March 2022. That would have seen Russia leave all territory that Ukraine controlled prior to its intervention, and also leave the Donbas region, in exchange for Ukraine giving the Donbas region more independence and promising not to join NATO. That deal's no longer on the table. I still believe that Ukraine's option is to enter negotiations now, but I suspect the best deal they could get at this point would be to keep the territory it still controls and once again promise not to join NATO.

Firstly see the post 2 above this one.

If you're referring to Cypress' post#11, I've seen and responded to it in post#12.

Next Trump was squeezing Ukraine from both ends. Rudy was there, working hand in glove from the back end, with the prior key Russian oligarch trying to get Ukraine to re-establish the prior Putin power structure he pushed out, that allowed Russia to rape Ukraine of its wealth sending it Russia. And Trump was hitting them from the front end, demanding Ukraine smear Biden, while supporting Rudy's efforts. Trump was making it clear to Ukraine that in their continued battles against Russia, any US support would only come if he, Trump, got what he wanted.

So of course Putin is not going to invade while Trump is doing his bidding, that could avert a war and see Ukraine surrender.

You make a lot of claims above, but don't provide evidence for any of them. I've read that Rudy Giuliani has visited Ukraine at least twice, the first time being in 2003. If you'd like to provide evidence for your claims of what Giuliani did in Ukraine, by all means do so.

it was a similar play book to what Trump did to Qatar to force them to give Jarad $2B to save his family fortune going bankrupt. Jarad had scoured the US banks who ALL turned him down to refinance his real estate mess in NYC. International banks all said 'no thanks' too. Jared then went to Saudi, who said 'go get it from Qatar'. Qatar looked at it and said 'no thanks'. Then MBS, of Saudi, said 'hold my beer', and he started to threaten Qatar with invasion, and Donald Trump immediate signaled the US might support Saudi invading, despite Qatar being a US ally. Qatar then found $2B to loan to Jarad and not one more mention of Saudi invading or the US not supporting Qatar came up again.

I've seen no evidence for any of this, but I can certainly believe it's possible it happened .

So the idea that Trump would not lead the US to wars is only supported by how strong the countries stand against his various shakedowns.

Assuming you're right on one or more of your accusations of Trump's dealings, are you suggesting that Trump is the only President who's helped orchestrate shakedowns? If so, I recommend taking a look at the following Wikipedia article, which talks about former retired U.S. Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler's book of the same name:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket

Yes, i agree if Trump could keep finding weak and vulnerable countries to shake down, and they all paid up, then no wars are likely. But if any of them stand up, then Trump would allow his proxies, HIS MUSCLE (Russia, Saudi, China, etc) to all invade whoever stood up to him to send a message to the next country he approached to shakedown.

Trump is not pro any war, and as long as every country accepts they just need to pay up, then he would never push one. Agreed.

This actually sounds fairly plausible, but again, it's one thing to make claims, another to provide evidence for them.

 

[Scott]

I made no mention of America's military doing the fighting. The U.S. is content to have Ukrainians do the fighting, "to the last Ukrainian" if need be. What the U.S. is doing is spending billions of dollars in arming and training Ukrainians to do their dirty work. I've seen no effort to try to resolve the conflict diplomatically, either before or after Russia's military intervention. It's more or less the same with Israel, only there the U.S. government is actually beginning to realizing that murdering thousands of innocent Palestinians doesn't look so good.

The U.S. was already in Iraq and Syria when he became President. From what I heard, he also didn't have these wars escalate. I hadn't heard of these Special Forces deaths in Africa, but based on the fact that I hadn't heard of it, I'm guessing it wasn't a war so much as a "Special Op". I imagine it was a dumb idea to do whatever it was they were doing there, but atleast it was a small operation.

This is what you said:

You can't deny that Trump got into no new wars while President.

Indeed.

America isn't at war with anyone.

Providing military aid to foreign nations in conflict is not America being at "war".

Economic aid as well, not to mention training of Ukrainian troops:
DOD Official Says Training for Ukrainians Is Ongoing | defense.gov

The benefit of this new style of warfare is that few if any American troops are in the ground in Ukraine. Ukrainians, ofcourse, have had a massive amount of deaths. From Wikipedia:
**
Casualties in the Russo-Ukrainian War included six deaths during the 2014 annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation, 14,200–14,400 military and civilian deaths during the War in Donbas, and up to 500,000 estimated casualties during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.
**

Source:
Casualties of the Russo-Ukrainian War | Wikipedia

In your hyperpartisan thought process, you didn't mention that Trump provided military aid to Saudi Arabia for their war in Yemen.[/quote]

I didn't know, but I do know that the U.S. supported that war, so it stands to reason. I -do- know that Trump provided a bit of military aid to Ukraine too. I think it was a mistake, but there's evidence that he wouldn't have done it if he hadn't been pressured to do it by what could be that of as deep state operatives. I think Aaron Mate wrote a good article on this 2 years ago, which can be seen here:
Siding with Ukraine's far-right, US sabotaged Zelensky's mandate for peace | Aaron Mate

The most obvious thing that comes out of your hyperpartisan posts is that you will twist the definition of America being at "war" when a Democrat is president

Prior to Trump, I thought that Republicans on the whole were more interested in war, especially if it meant increased arms sales. Some clearly still are. As to the why, I think in general, it's to line the pockets of the military industrial complex, as well as their political lackeys.

 

[Scott]

I never said they weren't allowed to be stated.

Yes, you stated that in your opinion, the observations that Trump made should never be made, and you turned against him.

Should never be stated and should never be -allowed- to be stated are different things. But yes, I certainly turned against him at that point.

I think you specified that it is totally unacceptable for anyone to mention that many rapists and violent criminals cross the border from Mexico into the US because you have a requirement that all Mexicans and other illegal immigrants that cross into the US from Mexico be portrayed as angels that are better than the citizens that are already here. Trump violated your rule and now you are "against him" 100%, right?

Oh boy. There's a good article from CBS that deals with this nonsense. Quoting from it:
**
"When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best," he said. "They're sending people that have lots of problems...they're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."

Asked why he used the term "rapists" to characterize Mexican immigrants, Trump pointed to recent reports that as many as 80 percent of the female immigrants crossing the U.S.-Mexico border are sexually assaulted during the trip.

CNN's Don Lemon then pointed out that those reports document immigrants being raped during their journey across the border - not the immigrants raping people after they get here.

Trump replied, "Well, somebody's doing the raping, Don. I mean, you know, somebody's doing it.
**

This type of racist tripe is par for the course for Trump though. A good instagram post on the subject:
https://www.instagram.com/p/CGrd7iRjrmZ/

You also specified that you were completely offended by Trump pointing out that Mexico's best are remaining in Mexico, and are not trying to get themselves smuggled into the United States.

Nope, never said I was offended by Trump's ridiculous comment that Mexico was "not sending their best". As if Mexico was sending anyone. Many -mexicans- haven chosen to go to the U.S. over the years, either legally or illegally.

I believe you expressed extreme offense that Trump mentioned that Mexico was not sending their best, and for that, you can never support Trump, right?

I can't imagine even supporting him as a Presidential candidate. That being said, as I've said elsewhere, he didn't start any new wars on his watch, so that at least was a plus.

Anyway, as to the lines that I won't forget:

**
The U.S. has become a dumping ground for everybody else’s problems. [snip]

Why, in your opinion, is this perfectly accurate observation so totally unacceptable?

It's not "perfectly accurate", not even close. The U.S. created many of the policies that made so many immigrants flee their countries of birth. Some articles on this:

How US Foreign Policy Helped Create the Immigration Crisis | The Nation


Fleeing a hell the US helped create: why Central Americans journey north | The Guardian