Jump to content




  •  
Earl Hood

The adventures of President Donald Gump

Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, nutbean said:

I never understood this from day one - he is going to Mara a lago every second weekend. He would go with a whole retinue of staff - surely the hotel is billing the government for that ? how on earth does that work ? Trump Administration paying Trump the businessman for accommodation ???

As Randy Newman sang, 'Ain't that America...'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
25 minutes ago, nutbean said:

I never understood this from day one - he is going to Mara a lago every second weekend. He would go with a whole retinue of staff - surely the hotel is billing the government for that ? how on earth does that work ? Trump Administration paying Trump the businessman for accommodation ???

That is 100% correct.

He stays at the resort in his capacity as POTUS. The government pays for his room and the rooms for all his entourage/security.

They pay the owner of Mar-a-lago, who is Trump.

He literally profits from staying at his own resort. He did this in his first weekend as POTUS. It's outrageous, but the GOP and his sycophantic follows don't seem to care. Again, if a Democrat did this they would call for a revolution.

 

 

A few hours ago his National Security Adviser resigned. You know, the guy who replaced the last guy who was fired for lying to the VP. Oh and Trump tweeted last week that his National Security Adviser wasn't going anywhere (because a week before that, Trump fired his Secretary of State so questions were asked).

But Trump assures us that he "has the best people". What a joke.

 

Edit: Forgot to mention John Dowd has also retired. Dowd was the head of Trump's legal defence regarding the Mueller investigation. 

Edited by Choke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Choke said:

That is 100% correct.

He stays at the resort in his capacity as POTUS. The government pays for his room and the rooms for all his entourage/security.

They pay the owner of Mar-a-lago, who is Trump.

He literally profits from staying at his own resort. He did this in his first weekend as POTUS. It's outrageous, but the GOP and his sycophantic follows don't seem to care. Again, if a Democrat did this they would call for a revolution.

 

 

A few hours ago his National Security Adviser resigned. You know, the guy who replaced the last guy who was fired for lying to the VP. Oh and Trump tweeted last week that his National Security Adviser wasn't going anywhere (because a week before that, Trump fired his Secretary of State so questions were asked).

But Trump assures us that he "has the best people". What a joke.

 

Edit: Forgot to mention John Dowd has also retired. Dowd was the head of Trump's legal defence regarding the Mueller investigation. 

He's just a swell dude, our Donald. Upholder of democracy for the underprivileged, the great swamp drainer, the man with the vision to make America great again. Wow. And he has such a beautiful and intelligent daughter. You ask him, he'll tell you. In fact, he'll tell ya, if she wasn't his daughter he'd be dating her.

True dinks, that's what he's said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No visits here for a few days now. Isn't it funny how we forget about all our little political arguments when the real stuff gets going? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 21/03/2018 at 10:16 PM, dworship said:

A better question may be; are you a troll?

I do wonder if Gump owns a fiddle though. Empires and all that.

I like that you call someone a troll for stating the obvious.

Doesn’t fit with your group think, but can’t argue any point, best call him a troll.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 22/03/2018 at 8:50 AM, nutbean said:

or conversely, you could figure which students are good and give them guns to kill the bad students. Why stop at arming teachers and good students  - They could arm the  janitors and the administration staff at schools too. They could have a good old shoot out at the OK corral. 

Hey - here's a thought  - why not try and get the guns off everyone so no one was shooting anyone ? That is way too difficult to comprehend. Yes solving the gun problem by arming more people with guns...sensible.....

How do you take the guns off everyone?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The best show to come out of the USA ever...............

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, willmoy said:

The best show to come out of the USA ever...............

The best show that could possibly come out of the USA is called 'No Show'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally my favourite shows out of the are ‘Schitts Creek’ and ‘Shameless’. The latter revolves around an alcoholic who’s in a perpetual stupor. No not Hillary but William H. Macy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dieter said:

The best show that could possibly come out of the USA is called 'No Show'.

I've told all my friends to go to confession every week, before they go to the pub, in case they don't get a chance again....bom bom...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
On 13/04/2018 at 9:29 PM, Wrecker45 said:

How do you take the guns off everyone?

 

That old chestnut of a response. 

Why bother having laws at all - a law will never stop everyone.

Because you can't stop it completely  lets do nothing at all.....

 

So here is the answer to your question. You legislate as we did in Australia. Our laws targeted a certain type of weapon. Did it rid it Australia of all of these weapons ? Nope but every one these weapons that is out of circulation is a good thing.

I would have zero problem if all guns were made illegal in the hands of the public but I understand that there is a necessity for farmers and  i have a personal distaste for hunting but that is what it is. However does anyone really have a need for a AR15 ?

 

Edited by nutbean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thoughts on Syrian strikes? A slap on the wrist in the scheme of this war but anything other than a slap may have been catastrophic.

It breaks with his narrative about US interests in the Middle East and has hurt his support among right commentators.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, nutbean said:

That old chestnut of a response. 

Why bother having laws at all - a law will never stop everyone.

Because you can't stop it completely  lets do nothing at all.....

 

So here is the answer to your question. You legislate as we did in Australia. Our laws targeted a certain type of weapon. Did it rid it Australia of all of these weapons ? Nope but every one these weapons that is out of circulation is a good thing.

I would have zero problem if all guns were made illegal in the hands of the public but I understand that there is a necessity for farmers and  i have a personal distaste for hunting but that is what it is. However does anyone really have a need for a AR15 ?

 

I'm not familiar enough with guns to know what an AR15 is but I'm guessing I would agree that there is no genuine need for it.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 4/16/2018 at 7:57 AM, wisedog said:

Thoughts on Syrian strikes? A slap on the wrist in the scheme of this war but anything other than a slap may have been catastrophic.

It breaks with his narrative about US interests in the Middle East and has hurt his support among right commentators.

It ought to occur to you that the USa which lied to the world before invading Vietnam, Iraq in 1991 and Iraq in 2004 ought to be the last ones to do moralistic 'slapping'. Also, you need to know that none of the allegations about Assad's use of chemical weapons have been authenticated by an independent source. The allegations have always come from so-called rebels or bogus dudes like 'The White Helmets'. Most of the so-called rebels are financed, armed - with chemical weapons - by Saudi Arabia with most of the weapons origination in either the USA or the so-called Nato countries. The White Helmets also were established by an ex SAS officer and they are financed by Britain and the USA.

I urge you - if you are at all interested, and you, like me and everybody else ought to be - I urge to start your investigation with an article by a USA PUlitzer Prize winning journalist called Seymour Hersh. Hersh was the man who exposed the My Lai crimes.

There is an article - available on the internet - published by the London Review of Books in about 2014 about the 2013 chemical weapon attack.https://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n08/seymour-m-hersh/the-red-line-and-the-rat-line There is also an article published by Hersh in Der Welt  late last year about last year's April so-called attack https://www.welt.de › Politik › Ausland.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/.../ron_paul_seymour_hersh_report...

Then you may wish to watch a BBC interview with the ex British Ambassador to Syria earlier this month - his surname is Peter Ford https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3j_Z1f84Ps8

Then perhaps, check out Eva Bartlett and Vanessa Beeley, both independent journalists who are actually based in Syria. No other Western Journalist is. And this becomes important when you consider that most of the charges against Assad emanate from so-called rebels who are paid by the USA and Britain and Nato, purpose to overthrow Assad.

Which brings me back to my first question: after the warmongering history of the USA and the number of times they've been caught out lying, why would you believe anything that comes from that source. Think about it....

Edited by dieter
spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/17/2018 at 8:58 PM, dieter said:

It ought to occur to you that the USa which lied to the world before invading Vietnam, Iraq in 1991 and Iraq in 2004 ought to be the last ones to do moralistic 'slapping'. Also, you need to know that none of the allegations about Assad's use of chemical weapons have been authenticated by an independent source. The allegations have always come from so-called rebels or bogus dudes like 'The White Helmets'. Most of the so-called rebels are financed, armed - with chemical weapons - by Saudi Arabia with most of the weapons origination in either the USA or the so-called Nato countries. The White Helmets also were established by an ex SAS officer and they are financed by Britain and the USA.

I urge you - if you are at all interested, and you, like me and everybody else ought to be - I urge to start your investigation with an article by a USA PUlitzer Prize winning journalist called Seymour Hersh. Hersh was the man who exposed the My Lai crimes.

There is an article - available on the internet - published by the London Review of Books in about 2014 about the 2013 chemical weapon attack.https://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n08/seymour-m-hersh/the-red-line-and-the-rat-line There is also an article published by Hersh in Der Welt  late last year about last year's April so-called attack https://www.welt.de › Politik › Ausland.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/.../ron_paul_seymour_hersh_report...

Then you may wish to watch a BBC interview with the ex British Ambassador to Syria earlier this month - his surname is Peter Ford https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3j_Z1f84Ps8

Then perhaps, check out Eva Bartlett and Vanessa Beeley, both independent journalists who are actually based in Syria. No other Western Journalist is. And this becomes important when you consider that most of the charges against Assad emanate from so-called rebels who are paid by the USA and Britain and Nato, purpose to overthrow Assad.

Which brings me back to my first question: after the warmongering history of the USA and the number of times they've been caught out lying, why would you believe anything that comes from that source. Think about it....

And this:

Eight reasons why the latest Syria chemical weapons attack allegations are almost certainly complete nonsense

April 8, 2018

By Stephen Gowans

There is much ambiguity surrounding the alleged chemical weapons attack in Douma, said to have taken place late Saturday, but there are a few matters that are clear.

First, the reports are “unverified”, according to The Wall Street Journal [1] and British Foreign Office [2] and are unconfirmed, according to the US State Department [3]. What’s more, The New York Times noted that it “was not possible to independently verify the reports,” [4] while The Associated Press added that “the reports could not be independently verified.” [5]

Second, according to The Wall Street Journal, it isn’t “clear who carried out the attack” [6] assuming even that one was carried out.

washingtons-long-war-on-syria.jpg?w=200&Third, the “unverified photos and videos” [7] which form the body of (unverified) evidence, were produced by two groups which have an interest in fabricating atrocities to draw the United States more deeply into the Syrian conflict. Both groups, the White Helmets and Syrian American Medical Society, are funded by Western governments [8], which openly seek regime change in Syria and therefore have an interest in producing a humanitarian pretext to justify stepping up their intervention in the country. The Western government-funded White Helmets and Syrian American Medical Society are allied with anti-government jihadists and are active only “in opposition-controlled areas.” [9] They, too, are clearly interested parties.

Fourth, The New York Times indirectly revealed a possible motivation for the two groups to bring forward fabricated atrocity stories. “A new confirmed chemical attack in Syria,” the newspaper noted, “would pose a dilemma for President Trump, who … recently said he wants to get the United States out of Syria.” [10]

Trump’s recent musings about ending the US military occupation of nearly one-third of Syrian territory, including the country’s richest oil fields, was swiftly met by Pentagon opposition, led by US Defense Secretary Jim Mattis. The US president reluctantly accepted a continued occupation, so long as it ends in a matter of months rather than years.

Fabricating an atrocity would pressure Trump to maintain the US occupation indefinitely and possibly escalate US military intervention in Syria, much to the pleasure of Islamist insurgents, their White Helmet and Syrian American Medical Society allies, and US war planners.

If that is the intention, the maneuver appears to have met with success. Trump reacted on Twitter to the unverified (and unverifiable) reports, by dehumanizing Syrian president Bashar al-Assad as an “animal,” who the US president said was responsible for a “humanitarian disaster for no reason whatsoever.” That the US State Department acknowledged that the reports were unconfirmed failed to restrain the “shoot-from-the-hip” Trump.

Fifth, a chemical attack by the Syrian government would be manifestly self-defeating, and therefore would seem to be highly unlikely. The Syrian Arab Army is on the cusp of an all but inevitable victory in Eastern Ghouta. Why would it cancel its gains by handing the United States a pretext to continue its military intervention in Syria, in the aftermath of Trump signalling his intention to withdraw US troops?

Sixth, it is difficult to conceive of any military benefit to the Syrian Arab Army of deploying chemical weapons. The Syrian military has more lethal conventional ways of killing than using chemical agents, whose effects are unpredictable and typically small scale. In all the alleged chemical attack incidents in Syria, the claimed number of victims is always smaller than that which could easily be produced by air strikes and artillery. Why, then, would the Syrian government use relatively ineffective chemical weapons, creating a pretext for continued US intervention, when it could use more deadly conventional weapons, without a crossing a red line?

Seventh, much of the discourse about chemical weapons in Syria implicitly assumes the Syrian government has them, despite the country cooperating with the Organization for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons to eliminate them years ago.

Finally, allegations of chemical weapons use are routinely made against the Syrian government, and while, through repetition, have been transfigured into received truths, have all proved to be unverified. Jim Mattis acknowledged this at a February 2 news conference.

Q: Just make sure I heard you correctly, you’re saying you think it’s likely they have used it and you’re looking for the evidence? Is that what you said?

SEC. MATTIS: … We do not have evidence of it…we’re looking for evidence of it….

Q: So the likelihood was not what your — you’re not characterizing it as a likelihood? I thought I used — you used that word; I guess I misunderstood you.

SEC. MATTIS: Well, there’s certainly groups that say they’ve used it. And so they think there’s a likelihood, so we’re looking for the evidence.

Q: So there’s credible evidence out there that both sarin and chlorine —

SEC. MATTIS: No, I have not got the evidence, not specifically. I don’t have the evidence.

What I’m saying is that other — that groups on the ground, NGOs, fighters on the ground have said that sarin has been used. So we are looking for evidence. I don’t have evidence, credible or uncredible. [11]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but neither is it evidence of guilt. The complete lack of evidence, along with a political context that favors the production of spurious allegations, suggests that the latest chemical weapons claims are—like all that have preceded them—dubious at best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×