https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-winner-golf-tournament-florida-b2267889.html Trump wins a golf tournament despite missing the first day. He gave himself a 5 point lead on the second day as he'd played the course earlier in the week and had a strong day. Kim Jong-Un vibes.
The fantastic US sports journalist Rick Reilly has written a very good (and very readable) 'biography' of Trump through the lens of golf called "The Commander in Cheat". It's all there: games with the pros; 'winning' various records; the 'world class' courses...
F me. Trump's a nob. But guys, take a look at the way you are obsessing on him. If he walked into a room with you lot gathered together in it, and him on his own, you'd be fawning all over him in minutes. I guarantee it. Seen this obsessive behaviour before in girls who want men to think they don't fancy them. If you were criticising him for real world issues, that would be a different matter. But when you have to rely on the most spurrious and partisan BS, whether his or his detractors, your obsession is clear. You are just desperate to talk about him.
DePape attack on Pelosi video released: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-64428041 As well as details of his motivation: Yet there are still conspiracy theorists on twitter saying it is all a pedophile love tryst or something. Unbelievable.
Absolutely. Including the sickos that attempt to make political capital out of it, including Pelosi’s own wife.
So not MAGA then? Not a single MAGA or QAnoon reference? If he were of that persuasion it would have been writ large because that is their nature, if experience, rather than Democrat fever dreams, were to be relied upon. A lone lunatic enraged by the effects of Democrat rule over the state of California and the San Francisco, possibly, in his fevered lunatic mind, personified by the ulitmate, uncaring, elitest politician, Nancy Pelosi. It is no excuse for his actions, but righteous justification for the anger he feels against her and her ilk. You guys express EXACTLY the same anger with Boris, but thankfully are not prone to lunatic attacks. I take it no one is saying that being horrified by what the Democrats have done with San Francisco is a strictly right wing thing. Back in the day, it would have been a cause celeb for the left, but now they seem to accuse anyone who is concerned about such things as right wing extremists. The (right wing's) reaction to this event was not engendered by the horrific event that took place, but by the Democrats, including Pelosi's own wife, attempting to make political capital out of it, by saying that an illegal immigrant who was a clear product of Democrat miss-governance, was a MAGA conspiracist. Being upset with the Democrats, as I said on this subject from the start, is far from being an exclusive pass-time of Trump supporters. Dissaffected lone lunatic attacks speaker's husband. And all the speculation regarding it could have been cleared up months ago. Before the election even. But, horrific as this attack was, there would have been no political gain for the Democrats from that.
And there are people who make stuff up about their fellow forum members. What kind of loser would do something like that?
“Raised doubts about the information given on the attack”, seems to be the primary accusation with regard to these people. Given that there were conflicting police reports on what happened when the door was opened, and an MSNBC reporter was scolded for publicly reporting exactly what can now be seen in the released video (because report the truth is against MSNBC’s policy, I s**t you not) it would seem that their concerns about contrary evidence were justified. That list of people, and the reasons given for them being conspiracy loons, suggests that the problem is with them asking questions about inconsistent information, rather than them making things up. They were also reacting to (still) un-evidenced and speculative accusations that De Pappe was MAGA, and not a disaffected loon who is not enjoying the effects of Democrat policy. Which does appear to have been a made up story to gain political capital out of this viscious assault. None of them say it was a good thing, or that they are glad it happened, and I can’t speak for all, but every right wing commentator I heard condemned the attack. I am sure that if they hadn’t, that list would have mentioned it. Barring the claims of male prostitution and it being a setup, their questions, in the face of conflicting police evidence and hyper politicisation, seem natural enough to be asked. Who is saying that there were no doubts about what happened? Who is saying they wouldn’t be asking them if the tables were turned? That video is of a man breaking and entering the house of the second most powerful person in America. Where is the security? Where are the alarms? Where is the secret service? There may be a good reason for their absence, but there are also good reasons for asking such questions. The unpleasant speculation that followed is merely the reverse reaction to the politicisation brought about by Democrat politicking of the unpleasant occurrence. “It’s murderous MAGA” (when there is no evidence); “it’s a male prostitute and things got out of hand” (also with no evidence). Your list is predominantly made up of people asking reasonable questions that could have been answered within days of the assault. It is padded out with people doing exactly the same thing as the Democrats did. A list of people making up s**t about it is not complete without Biden, Pelosi N, Harris, CNN, MSNBC, etc..
This was answered in his phonecall to the police. They usually have Capitol police guards at the house, but since Nancy was away the police decided they didn't need to be there.
Yes. It’s an answer. But given what happened, why is it considered to be a good one? Is that a bad question for someone either politically opposed or aligned with the Democrats to ask? Why were Democrat leaning reporters being reprimanded for asking the same questions? It wasn’t only republicans asking the questions in that list. They were just the ones made an example of to discourage the rest of you from thinking for yourselves. Could Pelosi have been better protected? Yes, obviously. Why wasn’t he? Shut up MAGA.
Thought this was a better place for it: PMC WAGNER recruiting video aimed at US personnel: https://twitter.com/TreasChest/status/1620177677331177474
So , apart from those who have me blocked , no one can prove me wrong . Wokie wokes I'm talking to you . Prove me wrong. Filling in a form for a foreign sojourn is not a hardship............I'm guessing.........shhhhh......not a word.....no comeback.....too busy on their latest holiday
An absolutely vapid and puerile comment even by your desperate standards. No consideration of the fact that Ukraine has been invaded by an imperial power and none of its options are good, let alone righteous.
An absolutely war-mongeringly gammon comment even by your neo tory standards. No consideration that Russia could have been stopped (not least by Europe listening to Trump’s warnings) from invading in the first place. But now old Putin has actually seen the price of his energy and grain go up to fund the war. It didn’t have to happen mate. If you don’t sympathise with that opinion you need to look yourself in the mirror. If you think there are no huge corporations (that is where your sympathies obviously lie, based on your EU, US and Ukraine War arguments) making billions out of this then you need to educate yourself. If you think this would have happened under Trump, who would rather trade than war, then you need to get real. THIS. WAR. DID. NOT. HAVE. TO. HAPPEN.
So sketch it out for us then. Trump wins in 2020 and what happens next? How is it avoided? Presumably some carve up of Ukraine is the answer…
I have no idea. I'm not Trump and I don't have access to US military power, CIA intelligence or the US trade block. The key is that Trump didn't want it to happen and had nothing to benefit from it, and even warned European leaders how they were weakening their position in a way that would invite and facilitate Russian aggression. If parts of Ukraine were carved up, resulting in some sort of affiliation with NATO, what is the problem? To avoid this war, and apparently the risk of nuclear armageddon, I am not sure the price wouldn't have been cheep. How many people, military and civilian, have died so far? How many more? How much damage has been done to infrastructure? World economy? Perhaps the war could have been avoided by guarantees of no NATO proliferation in the area, with no territories handed over, bolstered by trade deals with anti-conflict stipulations. This war has no benefit for a Trump administration. It is being fought between two of the most corrupt, authoritarian and politically far leaning countries in Europe. There are, however, a small number of people making billions from it, whilst the cost of living for ordinary people is rocketing. What would you say was Biden's most effective initiative to stop the war from happening? And how did it fail?
What would you say was Biden's most effective initiative to stop the war from happening? And how did it fail? With Trump it is easy. He warned Europe that it will become beholden to Putin if they rely on his energy sources. And now the war has pushed his prices up. He failed because they didn't like someone pointing out reality to them, they laughed, there is a war.
Well of course anyone taking an isolationist approach wants nothing to do with it and likely doesn't want it to happen either. The trouble is Trump's comments, while spot on in some instances, were also child-like in the sense that most of Europe has spent a couple of generations (if not four) under the protective umbrella of the US from a defence perspective and couldn't become self-sustaining overnight. How did he expect countries like Germany and Italy to respond? And while foreign policy is reserved to the President in the American system of government, it's also fair to say Trump had very limited support in Congress for his positions on Russia, NATO and Ukraine. He was weaker because he wasn't speaking on behalf of most of the US, he was speaking on behalf of his tribe alone. And frankly that weakness emboldened Putin. He could pretty sit with his feet up for a couple of years while Trump pulled at some of the frayed edges of NATO and publicly attacked allies. I don't accept Ukraine being split up was ever a legitimate option. It was and still is an option, of course. But what signal does that send to Russia? What do you suppose happens next? The only way this war could have been avoided was to go back to the 90s and come up with a better policy approach to the post-USSR Russia. Trump was too late in the game to change that and Biden had no hope. Russia's position has been fixed since the early Putin years and won't change now. I don't think it was preventable. We know Russia, despite it's rhetoric, fears a direct confrontation with NATO forces defending a territory as it would almost certainly lose and be expelled (assuming nukes aren't in play). But sending in NATO forces was never an option.
The only time Putin could have been stopped in his mission to effectively annex Ukraine (much as he has Byeloruss) was 2014.
I can't take you seriously. You are just as much a flat earther as the rest of them on here. I don't believe for a second that you do not think the war could have been avoided. From carving up Ukraine to trade and military agreements. And what is your isolationist waffle about? How absurd. What on earth is "isolationist" about wanting to trade with the rest of the world, rather than fight them? Clearly, once the witless idiot you favoured in the US elections, Biden, was in charge, that war was inevitable. It is no indicator, however, that the war was unavoidable. It just became something that everyone in charge was keen to do. Why? Biden stated it clearly. Regime change. And now it seems clear the Americans took out the gas pipelines too. Was that to help win the war? Was that to help defend Europe? Very silly indeed. I don't think you believe what you ard saying. Not for a moment. Whatever else you may be, you are not an idiot. So you must be a flat earther.
‘Once Biden was in charge, war was inevitable’, yet it was Russia that invaded. How exactly did Biden arrange for Russia to invade or make it impossible for it not to? Truth is during Trump’s time, his foreign policy was always to say two contradictory things. So while he warned about Russian gas, he encouraged Putin in every other way, smart guy, and through his hostility to Ukraine as a proxy for Biden.
Whilst war is undeniably horrible and should best efforts should be made to avoid it there has to be limits, carving up a country for no better reason than some other country wants it to sets a dangerous precedent. What if Putin then decides he wants the rest of Ukraine? What if he decides he wants Poland, Hungary and Romania after that? Where do you draw the line? Should we have just had let Hitler have as much of Europe as he wanted to prevent a world war and the subsequent millions of deaths?
Utter rubbish. So how exactly did Trump arrange for Russia to invade or make it impossible not to? The contrary absurdity of you is so flat earth. At least "two contradictory" things in Trump's case equated to something that could stop the war without forcing a conflict. He acted tough, but made it clear that Russia (whom, for good or bad, Putin represents) had a place in the world. But Biden couldn't allow that. What did Biden reveal from the start? Regime change and destruction of Nord Stream, with a little enrichment for the Military Industrial Complex, and impovorishing of the regular people of the world. He couldn't acheive those things without having a war to justify them, even if it risked armageddon. It is straight out of the US foreign policy hand book that was used during all but in the Trump era, in the last decades. Same pattern as Iraq and Libya, and any other power the US didn't like. And you lot just suck it up.
That's ironic. Who was in charge then? Have a word with them, would you? It was Bidens experience then that led him to say that Russia wouldn't mess with him, because they knew he was tough, and new that he understood their malarky. As it turns out, and your post reminds us, Putin thinks Biden, and Obama before him, are weak. Trump comes in, nothing. But Biden either side of him sees escalation in Russian aggression.
