Date: August 13th, 2017 3:54 PM Author: Fantasy-prone chest-beating filthpig
you're kind of a weirdo, dude. It's very womanly to "disavow" someone because you disagree with them on one thing despite agreeing on almost everything else
Date: August 13th, 2017 4:02 PM Author: Rose menage
Wahabbi Islam spreading worldwide is the #1 biggest problem in the world. Thousands of oil funded mosques popping up throughout the west, especially in Europe, spreading extreme Islamic fanaticism. Trump is supporting that despite running on a platform against it.
I'm still supporting him on specific issues, but I can't fully endorse someone supporting the Saudis.
Date: August 13th, 2017 4:08 PM Author: Rose menage
We are propping the Saudis up. It's not just about selling them arms, it's the entire support system which they use to fuck us with their radical ideology. 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers came from Saudi.
Date: August 13th, 2017 4:12 PM Author: aphrodisiac abusive roommate
For some POTUSes (GWB, Bush Sr., even Obama) it is because they actually liked the KSA for whatever reason. For Trump, I don't think he is making any special efforts to prop them up and purely sees them as a cash rich country that can buy shit from us (which, it is and it can).
Date: August 13th, 2017 4:09 PM Author: Fantasy-prone chest-beating filthpig
yeah, I thought it was just a way to make some cash from shit we didn't need anymore. The whole running the government like a business thing was a big part of Trump's schtick
Date: August 13th, 2017 4:10 PM Author: aphrodisiac abusive roommate
I agree with your first paragraph, strongly in fact.
On the second paragraph, note that this is not a philosophical issue but an economic one. Russia hates Islamism and the KSA's role in spreading it more than pretty much any country on the planet. Yet, when it comes to weapons deals it still sells to the KSA. The reason for that is that denying yourself $100 billion won't mean the KSA can't get weapons or that it will cease supporting radical Islam. It just means your people won't get the benefit of that cash.
Date: August 13th, 2017 4:16 PM Author: aphrodisiac abusive roommate
Saudi Arabia is ultimately a massive trading partner. They supply a huge portion of our oil. So the question becomes what we should do about them. Are we pushing for regime change? And regime change to what? Not democracy, since the population is overwhelmingly Islamic radicals. So a secular dictator that the people hate? That would require a massive US occupation force at outrageous cost. I guess we could exterminate much of the population and accept the geopolitical and financial costs of that, and basically embroil ourselves in a war with the Islamic world (which, wouldn't take kindly to us essentially cleansing the birthplace of Islam from a government we deem "too Islamic").
The point is that there are no good answers. If you're not going to truly treat them as the enemy (and we're not), then we have to take everything on case by case basis.
Date: August 13th, 2017 4:17 PM Author: Rose menage
In a perfect world I would kick all recently immigrated Muslims out of the U.S., put huge restrictions on those remaining, end all Wahhabi mosques and seize their funding, completely end chain immigration, and withdraw from the middle east and let them kill each other.
I agree with you that there are plenty of real world considerations getting in the way of this, though.
Date: August 13th, 2017 4:22 PM Author: aphrodisiac abusive roommate
And those real world considerations are even more considerable than what I wrote above. Look at what happened when Trump tried to ban immigration from a list of countries drafted up by Obama. This is about 1000x more problematic than that.
Date: August 13th, 2017 4:27 PM Author: Rose menage
I thought you liked Trump and saw Islam as a problem. Do you think Wahhabist ideology is compatible with western society? If so, why? What would you like to happen in a perfect world?
Also, how does withdrawing from the middle east make me a nazi?
Date: August 13th, 2017 3:59 PM Author: Mildly autistic scourge upon the earth
President Trump has told close associates that he believes Steve Bannon is behind damaging leaks about White House colleagues, putting the chief strategist's job in fresh jeopardy, sources close to the president tell Axios' Jonathan Swan:
Trump is fed up with what he sees as self-promotion by Bannon.
Key West Wing colleagues believe Bannon is an instigator of leaks targeting National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster. The stories have been driven by Breitbart News, where Bannon was executive chairman before joining Trump's presidential campaign as chief executive in August. On Thursday, Trump backed McMaster as "our friend."
Sources close to Trump say he was irritated about Bannon's extensive cooperation with a book by Bloomberg Businessweek's Josh Green, "Devil's Bargain," with a cover that gave Bannon equal billing with Trump.
Why it matters: POTUS has been frustrated with Bannon in the past, but he never had as easy a vehicle for getting rid of him. Kelly is expected to make West Wing changes, anyway. As one top aide said: "Kelly can do the dirty work."
I haven't seen anything, but I'm always worried Kushner will get to him during some random Tuesday night dinner when they are all sitting down with Ivanka, and perhaps another cuck of somesort. And perhaps Trump is irritated by a new MSM narrative, and then come Wednesday morning Trump decides Bannon is gone.
Date: August 13th, 2017 4:03 PM Author: aphrodisiac abusive roommate
You guys realize that this is what the party elites (and the MSM) want, right? They're putting Trump in an impossible position where no matter what he does, he pisses off a ton of people and "loses his followers." The "this is the last straw for Trump" bullshit has been going on since well before the election.
By the way, I strongly support Bannon and think it would be awful if he went and part of a shitty trend. I'm just sick of this "this time he has gone TOO FAR!" Whenever you guys think about abandoning Trump, ask yourself if Clinton or Kasich or Jeb Bush would have done better.
Date: August 13th, 2017 4:09 PM Author: Rose menage
I also don't agree that you can't attack Trump from the right. We don't need to be hoorah cheerleaders of the president just because he's a republican. To the extent he's a nationalist I support him, to the extent he's not I don't.
lol, good hypothetical. Personally, I could stand behind a 100% no-tolerance policy. Its the fucking White House for Christ sakes. They should be there for Trump, and only for Trump. That is why I loved Mooch. If they can't deal with that, then they should find another way to serve the country. But the constant infighting and leaking has not advanced Trump's agenda, and I recognize that "Trump's Agenda" was mostly Bannon.
With that said, if Bannon was only doing catty leaks against Kushner, I'd get over it.
Sure, but ultimately the Presidency is also symbol, and to advance any agenda a certain level of political legitimacy is required. Bannon cannot single handedly reverse decades of GOP decline into cuck-servitude, especially when the core contingent of cucks are in Congress.
Date: August 13th, 2017 4:26 PM Author: Exciting Partner Lodge
The story is that he was leaking against McMaster, who has overseen infinitely worse leaks (such as his transcripts with foreign leaders), so if that's the total extent, I'm also fine with it.
Date: August 13th, 2017 4:17 PM Author: aphrodisiac abusive roommate
Trump wouldn't really be the person who fires Bannon, even if he signs the order. The people who would actually fire him would be the HR McMaster and friends cucks.
Date: August 13th, 2017 4:20 PM Author: aphrodisiac abusive roommate
Ok, DESCRIBE the awesome things they would have done that Trump didn't do. None of them would have cracked down on illegal immigration, for example. None of them would have been pushing back against the shitlib agenda or calling radical Islamic terrorism what it is or even seriously trying to stop crazy refugees from the worst countries in the world from showing up. And with Clinton, guess what the SCOTUS would look like?
This post is garbage, but I can only imagine the weak, effiminate Jeb Bush lisping about "intolerance" and "hate" in response to the Challenger mow-down of Antifa yesterday.
Date: August 14th, 2017 10:25 AM Author: Exciting Partner Lodge
I'm completely speculating here, but this stuff happened before the violent brawl in NC.
I think the cuck reaction caused Trump to realize how much he needs Bannon. I bet Bannon is providing key advice to help Trump navigate through the cuck's treachery. As a result, I don't think he is going anywhere. Let's see what happens.
Immigration is one of my top 3 issues, but Bannon badly fucked up the first Travel Ban, which hurt our cause. He's a great campaign strategist, since scorch earth tactics are required to win presidential elections. But I honestly don't know what value he has added since Trump took office. He's a smart guy but doesn't understand the inner working of DC that well and doesn't have allies on the Hill.