The Donald Trump Score Card

Sending troops into domestic situations to do policing is a serious matter, especially when done at the behest of an authoritarian demagogue with dictatorial aspirations. It involves treating Americans exercising their civil liberties as potential enemies. The generals are wise. You and Trump are foolish.

 

I completely agree with your statement.

 

DOJ court papers show they have evidence to prove Flynn was working to commit the crime of kidnaping on American soil … for the Turkish government. Trump appointed him as national security advisor. Go figure.

 

Yeah but the timing.

It's not till faced with that choice in June 2020 that all of a sudden they are all like orange man bad

Riots have gone on for two weeks, probably will fizzle out, he knows he probably won't have to send the army in anyway

They look like whiners, Trump looks like the one to make the tough calls without having to do anything

Trump wins again

 

In case you misunderstood me the first time

Epstein, soooooo don't care

 

So, in other words

Bat virus is old news, so is George Floyd, we are back onto NFL players on $20 million contracts not buying poor black people houses or sending black kids to college but pretending we are all in this together

Trump gets a lot of press because of it, Biden doesn't, dumbass media keeps falling for it

 

You just post any bullshyt that enters your head...

 

Bringing troops home is always a good idea

Obama won on that platform. Too bad his base is too dense to remember

 

It may protect the small, unpopulous areas, but at the expense of the large, populous ones. Democracy caught on after the Founding Fathers, and the electoral college helps to insure that minorities rule--i.e., that candidates who command the support of a majority of the American voters lose, and those who may fall millions of votes short of the other candidate win (e.g., the Donald). Hillary beat the Donald by a 2.1% margin, or 2,864,974 votes. Not only Trump but G.W. Bush was elected President with fewer popular votes than his opponent, as was also the case in two other elections: 1876 and 1888. On thirteen other occasions, a candidate with less than a majority of the popular vote became President--most recently, Truman, JFK, Nixon and Clinton (twice). In an era of intense political polarization, this has the potential of de-legitimizing the presidency. The real problem isn't the electoral college per se, but the "winner take all" system for choosing electors. Nothing in the Constitution requires this. It's a consequence of the Founders leaving it to the states to work out these procedural details of our national elections. As a result, voters like me in solidly "red" or "blue" states who don't belong to the majority party are effectively disenfranchised, and a dozen or so "battleground" states end up determining the outcome of the elections. Only two states do not use this system. The practical effect of this is to perpetuate the two party system, since it is difficult for third parties to get onto the ballots in enough states to win an election--both major parties having a vested interest in restricting ballot access for third parties. Fourteen states have joined a National Popular Vote Interstate Compact pledging to give their Electoral College votes to whichever candidate who wins the most popular votes in each of the states. Good idea.

 

No sense me wasting my breath on a FOREIGN TROLL. Prehistoric dolts like you are the problem. Any time anyone here presents FACTS - you ignore them and spew shit. Just a FOREIGN TROLL. Not one thing more.

I won't respond to VG any further - and honestly can't understand why anyone would. Let him talk to the wall.

 

I blocked him and got him unblocked just out of curiosity to read what kind of monstrous bullshit was everyone else answering to. It was a poor choice. I'm blocking the troll again. He never even was the fun, creative kind of troll

 

I think that was about bringing them back from the battlefields of the Middle East, not from Europe. They ended up in Europe to counter the Soviet threat and as part of NATO. Previous administrations, both Republican and Democrat, perceived a strategic national interest in keeping them there to check Soviet expansionism. It was Trump, catering to the neo-isolationist yokels in his base, who has departed from that consensus--a change that is also fully in keeping with the interests and wishes of his buddy, Vlad.

 

Lolz, what, where did you come from? That was random

You been lurking for 10 years, waiting for someone else to say something about VG?

 

Only in your mind. Good thing you can't vote here.

 

The Soviet Union is sooo 20th century though. Where've you been, Rip Van Winkle? No need to occupy troops in places around the world that aren't of any international threat any longer. All this time I thought liberals were in favor of reducing military spending. Apparently not.

 

Ah, yes. They've thrown off the pretense of being Commie and are now just a dictatorship under KGB/FSB officer Putin, who seems to be determined to rebuild the Soviet empire under a different name. His actions in Ukraine belie the assertion that Russia has given up its expansionist designs. The rise of Euro-nationalism throughout Europe and the United States has a familiar odor to students of Soviet gamesmanship, as do the machinations of the "useful idiots" who serve the Russian propaganda network. I don't know what "liberals" are in favor of, but I'm not in favor of trusting the Russians.

 

Your lust for occupying foreign lands must be your inner neo-con shining through.

 

I hardly think the U.S. is "occupying" western Europe. Germany doesn't seem eager for us to leave. The "neo-cons" wanted to bring the "blessings" of U.S. democracy to the Middle East, where it wasn't wanted.

 

pot/kettle

lefties don't have rabies, but aussies do.

Yeah, he has won idiot of the day, week, month, and year again.

 

Junior high flashback