Gormwood wrote:If engaging voters requires hailing Trump and following his agenda lock step then are those voters worth engaging?
Not even remotely the point or true.
Advertisement
by Fahran » Mon Jan 06, 2020 11:04 am
Valrifell wrote:Fahran wrote:He was almost right about chemicals in the water turning the freakin' frogs gay. Except they're transgender frogs.
Fun fact: the whole study which that is a reference to was made by a quack who was quickly fired after it was revealed his conclusions didn't make sense.
He also threatened people over email.
by San Lumen » Mon Jan 06, 2020 11:08 am
by Vassenor » Mon Jan 06, 2020 12:45 pm
Valrifell wrote:Juristonia wrote:He's a 73 year old man and the president. Next to the fact that the only person making him do anything is himself, and the fact that he's been behaving like this for decades, the reason behind it is irrelevant. It's not normal behaviour.
He's also got remarkably thin skin and a short temper, he doesn't like being called out. He very transparently wishes for adoration and cheers, not to snicker and jeer at the media. Sure, others around him might, but the Donald himself? Definitely not.
by The East Marches II » Mon Jan 06, 2020 12:54 pm
Vassenor wrote:Valrifell wrote:
He's also got remarkably thin skin and a short temper, he doesn't like being called out. He very transparently wishes for adoration and cheers, not to snicker and jeer at the media. Sure, others around him might, but the Donald himself? Definitely not.
Like Soleimani literally got whacked for dragging Trump on Twitter. That's the reason Trump went with that option when presented with the various means of dealing with the issue.
by Zurkerx » Mon Jan 06, 2020 12:58 pm
by Farnhamia » Mon Jan 06, 2020 1:26 pm
Zurkerx wrote:43 percent approve of Trump strike on Soleimani
This compares to 38% that disapprove and 19% unsure. Of course, there's a split along party lines on whether they agree with the strike or not.
43% also believe Trump didn't plan carefully enough before ordering the airstrike compared to 35% that think he did. 57% believe this will lead to a military conflict more likely with Iran down the road.
Then we have a poll on what people thought of the IG Report on the FBI: Majority (61%) say the IG report revealed pattern of misjudgment by FBI
This compares to 39% who say this absolves the FBI. This shouldn't come as a surprise as the report did find mishandling, neglect, misjudgments, and violations.
by Bear Stearns » Mon Jan 06, 2020 1:28 pm
Gormwood wrote:Fahran wrote:I don't think you're too familiar with the internal politics of the GOP. Beyond that, calling the voters sheep is still a lazy cop-out that absolves candidates who lost to Trump of all responsibility for not engaging voters.
If engaging voters requires hailing Trump and following his agenda lock step then are those voters worth engaging?
by Fahran » Mon Jan 06, 2020 1:28 pm
Farnhamia wrote:Honestly, I think this is Trump's "stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and not lose one vote" moment. I wonder what triggered it, though. I doubt Trump cares about the one civilian contractor killed recently, except as a source of a bloody shirt to wave.
by Farnhamia » Mon Jan 06, 2020 1:50 pm
Fahran wrote:Farnhamia wrote:Honestly, I think this is Trump's "stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and not lose one vote" moment. I wonder what triggered it, though. I doubt Trump cares about the one civilian contractor killed recently, except as a source of a bloody shirt to wave.
Allegedly, he came to the decision after watching footage of the attack on the American embassy in Baghdad.
by Fahran » Mon Jan 06, 2020 1:56 pm
by Gormwood » Mon Jan 06, 2020 2:27 pm
by Nobel Hobos 2 » Mon Jan 06, 2020 2:37 pm
Fahran wrote:Farnhamia wrote:No doubt that, too. Trump does not analyze and plan, he reacts. It's always the most recent incident or the last person who whispered in his ear.
To be fair, killing the guy behind the attack was an acceptable and cathartic if somewhat reckless response to repeated provocation. And it might give us an opportunity to withdraw from Iraq permanently under the shadow of a diplomatic excuse and let Iraqis address Iraqi problems and Iranian meddling on their own.
by Fahran » Mon Jan 06, 2020 2:41 pm
Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:If it's Trump's intention to withdraw entirely from Iraq, he'd better not just do it. With the assassination he seems to have found a way to provoke the Iraqis into ordering the US out.
Who'd have thought, Iraq standing up for Iran?
Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:Mind you it's not done yet, and the Iraqi parliament wasn't very forceful in their demand. What's needed now is to "accidentally" bomb an Iraqi target.
by The East Marches II » Mon Jan 06, 2020 2:41 pm
Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:Fahran wrote:To be fair, killing the guy behind the attack was an acceptable and cathartic if somewhat reckless response to repeated provocation. And it might give us an opportunity to withdraw from Iraq permanently under the shadow of a diplomatic excuse and let Iraqis address Iraqi problems and Iranian meddling on their own.
If it's Trump's intention to withdraw entirely from Iraq, he'd better not just do it. With the assassination he seems to have found a way to provoke the Iraqis into ordering the US out.
Who'd have thought, Iraq standing up for Iran?
Mind you it's not done yet, and the Iraqi parliament wasn't very forceful in their demand. What's needed now is to "accidentally" bomb an Iraqi target.
(Or the threatened "cultural sites" ie Shia monuments)
by Nobel Hobos 2 » Mon Jan 06, 2020 2:50 pm
The East Marches II wrote:Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:
If it's Trump's intention to withdraw entirely from Iraq, he'd better not just do it. With the assassination he seems to have found a way to provoke the Iraqis into ordering the US out.
Who'd have thought, Iraq standing up for Iran?
Mind you it's not done yet, and the Iraqi parliament wasn't very forceful in their demand. What's needed now is to "accidentally" bomb an Iraqi target.
(Or the threatened "cultural sites" ie Shia monuments)
Anybody who wasn't a Bush era Neocon stateside saw this coming. It's the Dawa party in charge. Literally funded by Iran. And Bush decided that's a good idea to turn the country over too. I'm not surprised when push comes to shove, the thing people who warned them about came to pass.
by Telconi » Mon Jan 06, 2020 2:52 pm
Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:Fahran wrote:To be fair, killing the guy behind the attack was an acceptable and cathartic if somewhat reckless response to repeated provocation. And it might give us an opportunity to withdraw from Iraq permanently under the shadow of a diplomatic excuse and let Iraqis address Iraqi problems and Iranian meddling on their own.
If it's Trump's intention to withdraw entirely from Iraq, he'd better not just do it. With the assassination he seems to have found a way to provoke the Iraqis into ordering the US out.
Who'd have thought, Iraq standing up for Iran?
Mind you it's not done yet, and the Iraqi parliament wasn't very forceful in their demand. What's needed now is to "accidentally" bomb an Iraqi target.
(Or the threatened "cultural sites" ie Shia monuments)
by Telconi » Mon Jan 06, 2020 2:53 pm
Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:The East Marches II wrote:
Anybody who wasn't a Bush era Neocon stateside saw this coming. It's the Dawa party in charge. Literally funded by Iran. And Bush decided that's a good idea to turn the country over too. I'm not surprised when push comes to shove, the thing people who warned them about came to pass.
You agree that Iraq giving the US a good reason to withdraw, and the US doing it, would play well in the US ..?
To withdraw completely the US would need to close its embassy and give up the green zone.
by Tobleste » Mon Jan 06, 2020 2:55 pm
by The East Marches II » Mon Jan 06, 2020 2:55 pm
Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:The East Marches II wrote:
Anybody who wasn't a Bush era Neocon stateside saw this coming. It's the Dawa party in charge. Literally funded by Iran. And Bush decided that's a good idea to turn the country over too. I'm not surprised when push comes to shove, the thing people who warned them about came to pass.
You agree that Iraq giving the US a good reason to withdraw, and the US doing it, would play well in the US ..?
To withdraw completely the US would need to close its embassy and give up the green zone.
by Bear Stearns » Mon Jan 06, 2020 2:56 pm
by San Lumen » Mon Jan 06, 2020 2:57 pm
by Fahran » Mon Jan 06, 2020 2:57 pm
Tobleste wrote:But why did trump engage them while the others didn't? The answer to that question involves saying worse things about Republican voters than sheep.
by The East Marches II » Mon Jan 06, 2020 2:58 pm
by Bear Stearns » Mon Jan 06, 2020 3:00 pm
Tobleste wrote:Fahran wrote:I don't think you're too familiar with the internal politics of the GOP. Beyond that, calling the voters sheep is still a lazy cop-out that absolves candidates who lost to Trump of all responsibility for not engaging voters.
But why did trump engage them while the others didn't? The answer to that question involves saying worse things about Republican voters than sheep.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Aadhiris, Ancientania, Eahland, Ethel mermania, Herador, Hidrandia, Kreushia, Likhinia, Omphalos, Plan Neonie, Talibanada, The Vooperian Union, Tungstan, Wisteria and Surrounding Territories, Yahoo [Bot]
Advertisement