Donald Trump

[Pokes28]

Lets be honest though. There is not chance of a peace agreement in the Middle East. How many decades has it been tried? I'm not saying that it isn't worth continuing effort, but the odds of anybody actually finding a common ground that will be accepted by all sides is at about 0.000001%. The closest it has ever come in my lifetime was when Bill Clinton was in office and he pandered to Arafat (his most constant guest at the White House for his 8 years), twisted the arms of Israel and literally offered up every single thing that the Palestinians said they wanted including the tear down of the Gaza settlements and they still walked away. Since that time, Israel continues to grow out into the land they took in 1967 during the six day war. Interestingly, none of the nations that Israel took land from in 1967 (Egypt, Jordan, and Syria) had any desire to give up that land to form a Palestine nation. It was only in the 70s that those three nations all gave up their claims to the land that was taken by Israel. I won't go into my beliefs of the fighting or the land beyond what I've stated.

I have always found it interesting that for a people that have not had their own lands for 500 years (the Ottomans took it in 1517) gets treated as a country and Israel that was lawfully granted lands, albeit not the current controlled lands, is the prime target of the UN and has been since Israel and the UN were founded. I'm sorry, without land, you aren't a country.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Lets be honest though. There is not chance of a peace agreement in the Middle East. How many decades has it been tried? I'm not saying that it isn't worth continuing effort, but the odds of anybody actually finding a common ground that will be accepted by all sides is at about 0.000001%. The closest it has ever come in my lifetime was when Bill Clinton was in office and he pandered to Arafat (his most constant guest at the White House for his 8 years), twisted the arms of Israel and literally offered up every single thing that the Palestinians said they wanted including the tear down of the Gaza settlements and they still walked away. Since that time, Israel continues to grow out into the land they took in 1967 during the six day war. Interestingly, none of the nations that Israel took land from in 1967 (Egypt, Jordan, and Syria) had any desire to give up that land to form a Palestine nation. It was only in the 70s that those three nations all gave up their claims to the land that was taken by Israel. I won't go into my beliefs of the fighting or the land beyond what I've stated.

I have always found it interesting that for a people that have not had their own lands for 500 years (the Ottomans took it in 1517) gets treated as a country and Israel that was lawfully granted lands, albeit not the current controlled lands, is the prime target of the UN and has been since Israel and the UN were founded. I'm sorry, without land, you aren't a country.

America's disposition towards Isreal doesn't solely impact on the Palestinian issue though, does it?

 

[Pokes28]

See that Obama has expelled 35 Russian diplomats, going to be a fun start for Trump.

So much for adhering to the tradition of not making new messes between the election and the inauguration. January 20 can't get here fast enough for me. I viewed Trump as the lesser of two really bad choices, but either one would have been far better for the US than the disaster that has held residence the last 8 years. Very rarely do I have a hard time finding positives about people. I thought Ford was a good man, but was in over his head and he knowingly made his bed with the Nixon pardon. Carter was a good man, but simply didn't understand the world. Reagan understood the world and was perhaps the greatest orator President of my lifetime. HW Bush was a good man, but made the big mistake in not finishing the job in Iraq and that cost him the 2nd term. Clinton was fantastic as policy and knowing the game of politics. W Bush understood the value of having quality people around him better than any President. He also came across as a common man versus an elitist which has a great appeal to most of the country. I really struggle to find much positive about Obama. Since the election he continues to show that he is all hubris and no humility. Very frustrating.

 

[Pokes28]

America's disposition towards Isreal doesn't solely impact on the Palestinian issue though, does it?

Of course not. There are way too many moving parts for that.

 

[Uncle Wally One Ball]

So much for adhering to the tradition of not making new messes between the election and the inauguration. January 20 can't get here fast enough for me. I viewed Trump as the lesser of two really bad choices, but either one would have been far better for the US than the disaster that has held residence the last 8 years. Very rarely do I have a hard time finding positives about people. I thought Ford was a good man, but was in over his head and he knowingly made his bed with the Nixon pardon. Carter was a good man, but simply didn't understand the world. Reagan understood the world and was perhaps the greatest orator President of my lifetime. HW Bush was a good man, but made the big mistake in not finishing the job in Iraq and that cost him the 2nd term. Clinton was fantastic as policy and knowing the game of politics. W Bush understood the value of having quality people around him better than any President. He also came across as a common man versus an elitist which has a great appeal to most of the country. I really struggle to find much positive about Obama. Since the election he continues to show that he is all hubris and no humility. Very frustrating.

What tradition? And in any event, this Russian meddling is dangerous and I would say unprecedented. It would be remiss of any govt not to hold them account for it, and to not do anything would be worse. Surely the overriding principle here is to look after US interests and represent the country and the state, not an administration or a party or individual. If any major issue was considered and framed in terms of worrying about a transition, then nothing would happen. There are wider concerns surely.
And I really cant get your view on either Bushes. The first Bush could have 'finished the job', whatever that means. What does that mean even? The second Bush clearly saw an opportunity to make a global mark for himself with Iraq and as soon as he was elected everyone knew it would only be a matter of time before he engineered some kind of drama there as an excuse for a war. The Bush's are oil people, of Texas.
As for Dubya surrounding himself with quality people, well. Rumsfeld? Cheney? Do me a favour, these are some of the most sinister people to ever hold office. And if anyone had to have quality people around him, it was that fuckwit. Shame he didnt actually do it.
I think you just dont like Obama. Thats OK, plenty of Americans dont. Personally I think he is a class act, a bit of restrained sense and dignity and a considered man, in a world full of the opposite of that.

 

[purplenose]

So much for adhering to the tradition of not making new messes between the election and the inauguration. January 20 can't get here fast enough for me. I viewed Trump as the lesser of two really bad choices, but either one would have been far better for the US than the disaster that has held residence the last 8 years. Very rarely do I have a hard time finding positives about people. I thought Ford was a good man, but was in over his head and he knowingly made his bed with the Nixon pardon. Carter was a good man, but simply didn't understand the world. Reagan understood the world and was perhaps the greatest orator President of my lifetime. HW Bush was a good man, but made the big mistake in not finishing the job in Iraq and that cost him the 2nd term. Clinton was fantastic as policy and knowing the game of politics. W Bush understood the value of having quality people around him better than any President. He also came across as a common man versus an elitist which has a great appeal to most of the country. I really struggle to find much positive about Obama. Since the election he continues to show that he is all hubris and no humility. Very frustrating.

Unfortunately Bush version one could not finish the job off as much as it needed doing because the most useless organisation on earth only gave him a mandate to kick Saddam out of Kuwait.

Agree about Obama dangerous man soon to be consigned to history, but be afraid because his Mrs is bound to try and follow in his footsteps....and if Trump makes a balls of his term, it could be soon. What a farce that would turn out to be. Mind you that said.....I would gladly give her one.

 

[Vic]

I have always found it interesting that for a people that have not had their own lands for 500 years (the Ottomans took it in 1517) gets treated as a country and Israel that was lawfully granted lands, albeit not the current controlled lands, is the prime target of the UN and has been since Israel and the UN were founded. I'm sorry, without land, you aren't a country.

There's so much incoherent about that paragraph it's hard to know where to start. Perhaps with a reminder that the "lawfully granted" lands came after a terrorist campaign (largely against British interests).

 

[Len Rum]

So much for adhering to the tradition of not making new messes between the election and the inauguration. January 20 can't get here fast enough for me. I viewed Trump as the lesser of two really bad choices, but either one would have been far better for the US than the disaster that has held residence the last 8 years. Very rarely do I have a hard time finding positives about people. I thought Ford was a good man, but was in over his head and he knowingly made his bed with the Nixon pardon. Carter was a good man, but simply didn't understand the world. Reagan understood the world and was perhaps the greatest orator President of my lifetime. HW Bush was a good man, but made the big mistake in not finishing the job in Iraq and that cost him the 2nd term. Clinton was fantastic as policy and knowing the game of politics. W Bush understood the value of having quality people around him better than any President. He also came across as a common man versus an elitist which has a great appeal to most of the country. I really struggle to find much positive about Obama. Since the election he continues to show that he is all hubris and no humility. Very frustrating.

Unbelievable Jeff.
( alright you don't like Obama but your comparative glowing assessment of other presidents is just ludicrous).

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Unbelievable Jeff.
( alright you don't like Obama but your comparative glowing assessment of other presidents is just ludicrous).

You mean Dubya isn't one of the lads?

 

[Vic]

This is not a normal transition from one rIght wing Democrat to a more right wing Republican, with similar policies, or vice versa. This is a transition to unknown territory, worrying appointments, and a declared aim of undoing what little good Obama has achieved with an obstructive Congress. He owes the Republicans nothing. The smooth transition for the sake of unity and the good of the Union is hardly worth the effort, seeing what Trump will do for either.

 

[cibaman]

When Carter lost to Reagan he allowed the cameras in to film his last week in office. Fascinating stuff. All kinds of frenzied activity taking place to tie up loose ends. Carter was desparate to conclude a deal with Iran to resolve the hostage crisis and was devastated when it became clear that the agreement wouldnt be finalised until after Reagan had taken over.

 

[Uncle Wally One Ball]

When Carter lost to Reagan he allowed the cameras in to film his last week in office. Fascinating stuff. All kinds of frenzied activity taking place to tie up loose ends. Carter was desparate to conclude a deal with Iran to resolve the hostage crisis and was devastated when it became clear that the agreement wouldnt be finalised until after Reagan had taken over.

Devastated to find out that his legs had been done by Reagan, who's team had been in touch with Iran to secretly negotiate so that he could continue to lambast Carter on the issue in the campaign. Not cricket. It is akin to Trump knowingly getting hold of information illegally obtained by Russia. Nixon did it too, but that was worse again imo. Before the election in 1968 he actively interfered with the Paris peace talks aimed at ending the Vietnam War, intending to prolong it and sabotage those peace talks. This allowed him to continue to run on a pledge to end the war, all the while he was really extending it. And then when he won, he expanded the war. Its all a murky game.

 

[Pokes28]

There's so much incoherent about that paragraph it's hard to know where to start. Perhaps with a reminder that the "lawfully granted" lands came after a terrorist campaign (largely against British interests).

What does that matter? The British used military force to take over the land from the Ottomans and then in 1948 gave it to help begin current Israel. The why of it isn't important. Today, the UN says that military invasion isn't a legal way to take over land, but that was not the case back then.

 

[Pokes28]

This is not a normal transition from one rIght wing Democrat to a more right wing Republican, with similar policies, or vice versa. This is a transition to unknown territory, worrying appointments, and a declared aim of undoing what little good Obama has achieved with an obstructive Congress. He owes the Republicans nothing. The smooth transition for the sake of unity and the good of the Union is hardly worth the effort, seeing what Trump will do for either.

So just because it is Donald Trump, you think he's justified in binding the country and undermining allies?

 

[Pokes28]

Unbelievable Jeff.
( alright you don't like Obama but your comparative glowing assessment of other presidents is just ludicrous).

Who is Jeff? As I said, I really try to be a positive guy, I didn't like Bill Clinton, but most of that dislike started when he was Governor of Arkansas and just extended to when he became President, but I acknowledge that he was by far the best reader of political tea leaves in my lifetime . I don't hide that I"m a conservative libertarian. Which is about as far away from the current administration as it can be and not in line with either of the major party candidates. I am not a single party voter as I don't align with the GOP, but sometimes I feel I have to vote the lesser of two evils. I have been asked a few times how/why I have my political leanings. I grew up in a town of 300 people. I didn't know it at the time, but we were poor, living way below the poverty line. My mother (single mother of two) still is a very proud woman that refused to go on government assistance as long as she could put food on the table and a roof over our heads. She pushed me to work hard and to make my own place in this world. Now she's lower middle class having done the same and I'm probably middle/middle and slowly climbing. So between the area I lived, which didn't have much in the way of government support, and a role model of self reliance, that is the likely source of my world views. Most of my friends and my wife were raised similarly and while they don't think exactly the same way I do, it is pretty close.

I don't expect anybody on here to think like I do. But I find open discussion about our different views to be a beautiful thing. My grandmother (on my father's side) is pretty liberal. She and I talk for hours about these types of things. At the end of it, neither one changes the others view, but we both have more understanding of why the other person thinks the way they do. I don't think it as a waste of time, in fact, I find that most of the time, people want to get along and understanding our differences makes that much easier. That is truly my greatest issue with Obama. Sure he had GOP opposition that publicly did everything in their power to hamstring his administration. He should have taken a page from Reagan and made a public spectacle that he wanted to work to find common ground. I had an opportunity to talk with one of my senators a couple years ago. I'm no big wig, we just happened to be at the same place for different reasons and I took the opportunity and he had a few minutes to talk. He said that not one time were the GOP leaders invited to the White House other than when it was the 11th hour of something time sensitive. So there was no chance for either side to ever find any common ground. Forget the big ticket issues. There was no opportunity to try to negotiate ways to fix some smaller problems. The way it works is that the President has to be the one to initiate conversation and it just never happened.

 

[Vic]

....
I have always found it interesting that for a people that have not had their own lands for 500 years (the Ottomans took it in 1517) gets treated as a country and Israel that was lawfully granted lands, albeit not the current controlled lands, is the prime target of the UN and has been since Israel and the UN were founded. I'm sorry, without land, you aren't a country.

What does that matter? The British used military force to take over the land from the Ottomans and then in 1948 gave it to help begin current Israel. The why of it isn't important. Today, the UN says that military invasion isn't a legal way to take over land, but that was not the case back then.

So your stance is that people who had lived in occupied territory for over 500 years don't get a country, but modern settlers from "lawfully granted lands" (70 years ago) can take over unlawfully grabbed lands and the people thereby dispossessed can't have a country because they have no land.... I guess in Trumpworld that makes sense.

So just because it is Donald Trump, you think he's justified in binding the country and undermining allies?

Not just because it's Trump - after 8 years of Republicans trying to ensure Obama failed I see no reason for him to co-operate at all - but yes especially because it's Trump. How is it undermining allies to say they shouldn't break international law?

 

[Pokes28]

So your stance is that people who had lived in occupied territory for over 500 years don't get a country, but modern settlers from "lawfully granted lands" (70 years ago) can take over unlawfully grabbed lands and the people thereby dispossessed can't have a country because they have no land.... I guess in Trumpworld that makes sense.

A country isn't a homogeneous group of people. It is lines on a map. The Palestinians are no different in most regards than Indian tribes in the US (and yes, the preferred expression is Indian, not Native American). They have their "nation" and their leaders and the tribes only have the land that the tribe (not its membership) can purchase. They can become an Israeli citizen and run for office.

Not just because it's Trump - after 8 years of Republicans trying to ensure Obama failed I see no reason for him to co-operate at all - but yes especially because it's Trump. How is it undermining allies to say they shouldn't break international law?

OK. Gotcha. So if a more liberal person is elected in 4 years, you would have no problem with Trump doing similar things which would make it far more difficult for the incoming President to fulfill his/her campaign promises.

Do you mind what happened in North Carolina where the incumbent GOP governor along with the GOP congress signed a law after the election that restricts the governors power and pulls most of the real power back to congress where they have the majorities? I don't like it, but based on what you said, since they don't like the new guy, its ok.

Cooperation is a two way street. Obama had to be willing to give up something and actually talk to the GOP. He made it easy for the GOP to do the things they did. Both sides were wrong.

As for how is it undermining allies? Allowing that vote to happen without invoking the veto made any future negotiating position of Israel much tougher. As I said previously, I don't think there will be a deal in my lifetime (I'm 46) anyway, but for the few that actually have hope of a deal, this didn't help that process. This wasn't telling Israel they shouldn't do it, this was action against that ally.

 

[west didsblue]

Only one winner out of this shambles. Putin has got away with interfering with the US election. His biggest fan is taking over on 20 Jan and no one can do a thing about it. After 8 years in power and a solid economy, low unemployment and affordable health care for all, Obama will only be remembered for having the piss taken out of him by Putin and his ferret haired lapdog. Putin now has a licence to do whatever the fuck he wants.

 

[Vic]

OK. Gotcha. So if a more liberal person is elected in 4 years, you would have no problem with Trump doing similar things which would make it far more difficult for the incoming President to fulfill his/her campaign promises.

Do you mind what happened in North Carolina where the incumbent GOP governor along with the GOP congress signed a law after the election that restricts the governors power and pulls most of the real power back to congress where they have the majorities? I don't like it, but based on what you said, since they don't like the new guy, its ok.

You're citing Republican gerrymandering and anti-constitutional actions as reasons for Obama to play fair! I expect if Trump lost in 2020 the transition would be as bloody-minded as he could make it, whatever Obama does now.

Obama may have made any future negotiating position of Israel much tougher, but I doubt it as they aren't going to stop illegal settlements - which will make the Palestinian negotiating position much tougher.

I've got a right wing Republican relative who occasionally sends me the mad anti-Obama (and recently anti-Clinton) stuff. There's no meeting of minds - except everybody thinks Trump will make America either great again, or grate again.

 

[Uncle Wally One Ball]

Who is Jeff? As I said, I really try to be a positive guy, I didn't like Bill Clinton, but most of that dislike started when he was Governor of Arkansas and just extended to when he became President, but I acknowledge that he was by far the best reader of political tea leaves in my lifetime . I don't hide that I"m a conservative libertarian. Which is about as far away from the current administration as it can be and not in line with either of the major party candidates. I am not a single party voter as I don't align with the GOP, but sometimes I feel I have to vote the lesser of two evils. I have been asked a few times how/why I have my political leanings. I grew up in a town of 300 people. I didn't know it at the time, but we were poor, living way below the poverty line. My mother (single mother of two) still is a very proud woman that refused to go on government assistance as long as she could put food on the table and a roof over our heads. She pushed me to work hard and to make my own place in this world. Now she's lower middle class having done the same and I'm probably middle/middle and slowly climbing. So between the area I lived, which didn't have much in the way of government support, and a role model of self reliance, that is the likely source of my world views. Most of my friends and my wife were raised similarly and while they don't think exactly the same way I do, it is pretty close.

I don't expect anybody on here to think like I do. But I find open discussion about our different views to be a beautiful thing. My grandmother (on my father's side) is pretty liberal. She and I talk for hours about these types of things. At the end of it, neither one changes the others view, but we both have more understanding of why the other person thinks the way they do. I don't think it as a waste of time, in fact, I find that most of the time, people want to get along and understanding our differences makes that much easier. That is truly my greatest issue with Obama. Sure he had GOP opposition that publicly did everything in their power to hamstring his administration. He should have taken a page from Reagan and made a public spectacle that he wanted to work to find common ground. I had an opportunity to talk with one of my senators a couple years ago. I'm no big wig, we just happened to be at the same place for different reasons and I took the opportunity and he had a few minutes to talk. He said that not one time were the GOP leaders invited to the White House other than when it was the 11th hour of something time sensitive. So there was no chance for either side to ever find any common ground. Forget the big ticket issues. There was no opportunity to try to negotiate ways to fix some smaller problems. The way it works is that the President has to be the one to initiate conversation and it just never happened.

Anyone else get this about how Americans think?