It's a policy again you can agree with it or not but it's not nothing.
It may be a policy and one which it is difficult not to support. However, like everything else Trump has touched, it hasn't produced the results that he touted at its outset. Fail.
When i said Trump was stupid i mean that in terms of compared to really evil creeps like Hitler was. Sure Trump can do something he's been playing the i'm an succelfull bussinessman lie all his life so this is a slight tweak to that.
However it is nothing compared to Hitler and the scary thing was he had it all planned, that's why i say trump is stupid compared to Hitler i get why poeple compare the two but there really not in the same league, thankfully i must add.
He may be out of the White House but I don't think we've seen or heard the last from him. Only after he is truly gone can we truly understand the level of Trump's pre-conceived notions of everything he's done while in office and after. I surely hope you are right that Trump is stupid in comparison to Hitler. But sadly I think they may have more in common than any of us actually thinks.
Did he? Sure you have that maga mobs that for example stormed the capital but in total numbers that's not really much, it just looks like it because it's an large country. In numbers about 54% of biden voters said they did so because ''it's not Trump'' (source:
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2020/11/20/voters-reflections-on-the-campaign/) and now i say maga what was that again? oh yeah a smartly designed slogan which worked perfectly the first time around, but second time not so much. Not so strange because if we make promises you don't keep, people are not going to trust you again.
For example his foreign policy was a welcome break from either funding terrorist fractions to overthrow a unwanted government or hoping you can achieve ''regime change by bombing campaigns (Syria and Libya for example.) He managed to communicate with North Korea and managed to get Isreal recognised by more countries in the middle East etc. also his economic policy was'nt that bad before covid.
I already commented on this one. He does have the numbers. Namely 74 million voters in the 2020 election. End of discussion.
But the point is also refering to the 54% who voted Biden because it was not Trump is that neither Biden or Trump is candidate people where looking for, Biden has not without reason the Nickname ''sleepy Joe'' and Trump well we have a whole topic going in debt about what wrong with him.
Still that a person like trump got elected in the first place in 2016 is one a testament of the Democrats arrogance and two a clear sign to american are ready to embrace real change, just the politics are not. That why they spend 4 years bashing and impeaching Trump instead of improving their own party the the extent that you now have Democrats, republicans and the little fractions within their parties, democrats failed to condem the far left, repulicans fail to condem the far right, both groups are heavily armed and increasing in power, what could possibly go wrong?
(few examples capital storming burning cities this summer etc.)
I think Trump winning has less to do with people being ready for change and Democrat's arrogance. I think it has more to do with a level of stupidity that has become prevalent in this country that I believe finds its souce in compacency, which itself is brought on by a highly successful economy that has created vast amounts of wealth in this country. That wealth is what has led to complacency and therefore, mass stupidity. In order for there to be real change from the status quo, namely draining the swamp we call Washington, the person claiming to bring that change must be capable of making it happen. I for one am all in favor of a change to the status quo in Washington. But I won't vote for someone based on a desire for change unless I have confidence that that candidate has the capacity to effect the necessary change. I spent my career in the real estate industry in NYC. I have known of Trump and his projects for decades and have dealt with his firm and family on a few occassions. And that experience and his history told me all I needed to know about his lack of knowledge and expertise. It really doesn't take a whole lot of math to figure out that based on what he inherited from his billionaire father shows exactly how spectacularly bad at real estate he truly is. Facts.
When the false narrative worked at least on you then, there where no
new weapons of mass destruction found, there was loads of Sarin gas for example, which Obama subsectuanly left there so Isis had something to throw at the kurds etc.
The thing with the Iraq war is, back in the 90'' we said Saddam is all talk leave him alone and don't feed attention. Then the us was forced to intervene when Saddam invaded Kuwait. Clinton later bombed Iraq too, so while i agree the Iraq war was started under the wrong reasons or with at the very least flimsy evidence, i don feel there was a ground to take action, whether a full blown invasion was the best one is a other question. (and yeah sure us and other western countries involvement is not all good-samatrian it;s about the oil surely)
But partly we can sure agree to disagree, i agree with you that the war based oin flimsy evidence was wrong, i don't agree that the war was pointless in general, because bombing what Clinton did only archieves so much
It wasn't a false narrative. There are TWO narratives. First of all, we already knew of his past weapons programs. That was a given. And we knew he was developing chemical weapons like sarin. Yet we didn't invade his country over it when it was being developed. The second narrative of NEW weapons of mass destruction is the more relevant point. There weren't any. End result. There was no reason for us to invade the country. Big fail.
I think Oprah for example would have made a good change, but Hillary was herself damaged, for example because of that interview where she histeruasly laughed about killing Kadaffi. and off course the way Trump plays politics with nicknames and such, the democrats simply really had no answer to that in 2016.. but the real problem is that there is a growing group that does not want democrats or repulicans, but no other party has the budget or resources to compete with either democrats or republicans.
Really? Oprah? Another TV personality? C'mon. And I agree Hillary was "damaged". But because of all the points I made earlier on about Trump, it was a no brainer for me to vote against Trump and cast my ballot for Hillary. Obviously a majority of Americans agreed with me. Unfortunately we have the Electoral College to deal with. Hillary was entirely unlikeable. I couldn't stand her. But given the choice between those two, no brainer. This isn't an issue of funding. She was the better option and we have four years now behind us that proves that point.
Yeah that's what many republicans said during the Trump toddlers ''I WON' tatrum, however when it came to vote no state actually ignored the vote to push for a other outcome.
But yeah legally it does have some loopholes. The same thing as that the us presidential race is sponsored by all kinds of interest.. How would we respond to that here? Keir starmer presidental campaign sponsered by British gas, Or boris Johnson brought to you by Transport for London...
