Trump Derangement Syndrome - Orange man bad. Read the OP! (ᴛʜɪs ᴛʜʀᴇᴀᴅ ɪs ʟɪᴋᴇ ᴋɪᴡɪ ғᴀʀᴍs ʀᴇᴠɪᴇᴡs ɴᴏᴡ) 🗿🗿🗿🗿

Tucker criticized Trump for the Salami hit and his boomer fans on facebook aren't happy.

Wyświetl załącznik 1082418Wyświetl załącznik 1082416Wyświetl załącznik 1082417Wyświetl załącznik 1082417
I feel like this is the Syrian air strikes all over again
 
What I hate about Trump is his utter obliviousness to his own behavior. He never admits he's wrong.
In this time in history, there is no reason to apologize because it will never be enough for some people. Look at Kevin Hart, to name just one example. It's not the fault of Trump that others have created this environment where apologizing invites more attacks.

He feels justified in slandering someone as being a liar just because they said something that hurt his feelings, even though it's true.
Most of the time those fucks are truly lying, but if you only listen to other TDS infected people, you think every situation is Trump lying and not the other people are lying or wrong. And 99% of the time it's Trump counterpunching, not hitting first. Find me a time when Trump attacked a person unprovoked.

He will throw anyone under the bus without a second thought if they are no longer useful to him.
One of my serious gripes with Trump is how he bad mouths former people who worked for him. But it doesn't bother me that much. Pay them more for the trouble. That's a good use of tax money in my book.

He is a pathological liar, because as long as the lie helps him, he thinks there is nothing wrong with it.
You don't know what he thinks, so stop pretending you do. He's a bullshitter and entertainer. Words are means to an end. He's a salesman. He talks stuff up, he exaggerates, he embellishes. Trump supporters understand this which is why we take him seriously, not literally. The left can only understand the literal, which is why they take him literally, not seriously. This inability to take anything not a face value is why the left ends up looking like fools when Trump tweets out a photo of him putting a medal on a dog. No one but the left thinks he wanted people to think he actually put a medal on a dog.

You are either with him, or you're against him.
In this day in age that's basically a true statement.

He pits people against each other for his own ends.
No he doesn't and you're an idiot for saying he does. Give me an example. It's the left saying to black people you're being oppressed by white people and their privilege. It's the left saying to women you're being oppressed by men and their toxic masculinity. It's the left saying to poor people you're being oppressed by rich people. How do you not see this?

I don't trust him, because he lacks insight and discipline to moderate his boorish behavior
Once again you're playing mind reader and proclaiming as fact he has no insight. By the way, some of us, myself included, like the boorish behavior. We're tired of playing nice.

I think Trump is astonished that he's getting shit for his shenanigans with Ukraine, because to him the idea that we are giving them $300m should at least entitle him to ask for a measilly little favor...
Once again there you go playing mind reader saying he's astonished. And for the record, I don't think he is. There's nothing the left won't attack him over. So for those of us on the right it's just business as usual. And you are wholly disingenuous, sniveling piece of shit because you know damn well Trump said "do us a favor," not "me." Us as in the country.

So it's a matter of degree. Obviously you disagree, but I think Obama had good self insight to his own egoism, and could keep in check when appropriate.
So are you saying hiding one's flaws is enough to convince you they don't exist? And Obama didn't hide his egotism for shit. I can't tell you how many stories I've read about him being concerned about his legacy. And how Trump's election was a rejection for him. And how he is anti Bernie because that would also be a rejection of him. The guy is the biggest narcissist to ever set foot in the Oval Office and you think he kept it in check? Are you blind?

I don't see the same issue you do with race relations, so in my perspective Obama did about a good job as anyone could as President.
Of course not because again, you seem to be blind. Tacit support of BLM. Taking the side of the people against the police. Telling black people they are victims of discrimination. The left wants to blame southern racists for Trump being elected. But they didn't vote for Obama anyways. Hillary lost because states that voted for Obama twice wanted nothing to do with his successor.

but perhaps he is the right guy for job after all
WHICH IS WHY WE VOTED FOR HIM AND STILL SUPPORT HIM. We're not looking for a pastor. Or a role model. Or a guidance counselor. We wanted an executive. All the pearl clutching nonsense you mentioned means nothing because it's irrelevant to whether he can do the job. I don't care about the wives. I don't care about the affairs. I do care about keeping the country out of more wars, confronting China and reducing unemployment.

And you need to consider that some people think he is as bad as you think he is too. But still think the other side is worse. Trump never attacked high school kids going to a pro life rally. Or attacked a federal judge by bringing 30 year accusers out of the woodwork. Or made up a race hoax in Chicago. The people who attack Trump are so much worse. And there's only one of Trump. There's tens of millions of people cheering on those things I mentioned. I don't want you fuckers anywhere near the White House.
 
he's got the biggest hands. truly big hands. nobody has bigger hands than trump does.

- from a call sent to the wapo by an anonymous white house source known as "tronald dump"
These hands, and they're truly great hands, best pair of hands I've ever seen...
 
I feel like this is the Syrian air strikes all over again
Seems like it. I was feeling annoyed at first about taking out the guy and all the panicked and hyperbole coming out of people makes it sound like no one wants to listen to anyone outside their echo chamber. While Trump looks like he’ll continue wanting to avoid any new wars since it’d fuck the economy that looks like his #1 concern.
Though do look to have more Iranians and proxies taken out while everyone bickers.
 
Kek.

Havent read this thread in a day and it's plagued. Welp, we're all going to hell now. I was here back when it was infected. That's what almost one year does to you.
 
Ostatnio edytowane:
*kramers into thread* HI EVERYONE, I'm here to set the record STRAIGHT on how FUCKING STUPID donald rumpf is and he is a narcissist crazy person with an OUT OF CONTROL ego. You know, totally the opposite of our last and greatest president, Barack Obama, a man of class and not a petty thin-skinned bitch at ALL,
 
Funny thing about everyone screaming about how it's going to be WW3, is if you ask them how exactly it will lead to WW3. The logic always goes directly like this.

US attacks Iran
Russia launches nukes at US.
The End.

or
US attacks Iran (notice they never talk about the provocation, just the US jumping out of an alley and mugging Tehran)
Russia and China invade the US and the EU
OR
EU sues for peace and sits out the war
Mexico and Canada invade US for attacking Iran
US loses
The End

OR
US attacks Iran
????
WORLD WAR THREE

Which apparently is the US fighting Russia... somewhere. They never have a firm answer of where this mysterious fighting will take place, although a few will claim that the US and the Russian military will go no holds barred at each other in a WORLD WAR in Iran and Iraq.

I've started asking a few questions just to check something.
"What started World War One and how..." Beyond "Um, Marmaduke Ferd and Anne was shot" and "Hurrr...." I don't get any answer.
"What started World War Two? and when was it a World War?" is usually either "Germany attacked Britian!" or "The US nuked Hiroshima" or "The Germans attacked Pearl Harbor" and they can't fucking tell me when it was World War Two instead of "Slappy Eurofag Fight 2.0"

They don't know about shit, which means they don't understand that to get WW3, beyond a fucking global thermonuclear holocaust, everyone has to sign up and jump on the bandwagon OR get invaded/attacked to join in on the fabulous shit-show.

They don't get the fact that NATO would get pulled in, which means the vile Gobble Gobble People we preferred over the magical dancing Kurdish goat whisperers would be on our side, we'll be reminded which part of the EU still loves Uncle Sammy (HI, NORWAY! You're still our snowbunny baby! Love ya!), which means that if Russia wanted to pull this shit, they're looking straight in the cold dead eyes of the EU, which will have German and Swiss bankers, reknown for the humanitarian urges and human empathy, silently tallying if Russia's corpse is worth more to the EU than a living Russia is to Russia, while the US screams "WHAT'S THE FUCKING FREQUENCY KENNETH!" from their Polish bases and begins fighting a war they've trained for since 1946.

No, it won't go WW3.

It might go "NATO Coalition VS Caliphate Coalition", but not WW3.

As for the draft restarting?

LOL.

No.

We've gone beyond being able to trust unwilling conscripts with military gear. It's too dangerous, to both morale and to military members, to bring back conscription.

They'd have to have Congress raise the force levels first. Then exhaust the National Guard. Then the Reserves. Then the Inactive Reserves. All without being able to make up the numbers via the recruitment office.

Want to get Millenials to scratch at the recruiter's door like it's the Kavanaugh hearing?

Offer student loan forgiveness after 3 years or 1 combat tour.

So, yeah, no draft needed.
Actually, you make a good point there. I know that the world wars were world-wide in a sense because of all the various members (WW1 because of all the treaties, assuming the same for WW2 in a sense because ppl aren't the best at learning from history), but where's the point that it becomes an actual world war?

WW1 was called the Great War until WW2, but what made WW2 a world-wide war? Why wasn't it just referred to as "the US-Jap War" and "the Euro-Slavic War"?
 
Because basically every country on the planet got pulled into it in some fashion or another, even the "neutral" ones. The oligarchs running Russia are self-serving, to be sure, but they aren't fucking stupid. The gravy train ends real quick if some kind of regional conflict intensifies beyond just that, and they aren't going to let that happen. Massive yachts, personal planes, mansions, etc. >>> having to go into hiding lest SEALs come for you, or living in a fuckin bunker Metro: Exodus style.

I'm not some faggy political scientist but AFAIK most theories purport that at least in the conventional window of reality (MUH CLIMATE RESOURCE WARS), the world markets are too interdependent and linked at this point for a random major war between serious powers to kick off. Combined with the advent of nukes capable of obliterating an entire country within a couple hours simply making things too high-stakes, it's done a lot to make everyone play nice. Wes Watson from that prison talk show explains it pretty succinctly: "there's a no bare hands rule in prison, if you have some kind of beef among your people/race, then you MUST use a knife and kill them." This, while seemingly barbaric, actually makes a lot of sense because unless you're ready to shank a bitch over something and deal with the consequences then the rest of the petty shit can be dealt with civilly.

India/Pakistan is probably still the biggest serious flashpoint potential for a serious no-shit war, and even then I don't see Russia/China and the west to suddenly decide that's the hill they want to destroy civilization on.
 
WW1 was called the Great War until WW2, but what made WW2 a world-wide war? Why wasn't it just referred to as "the US-Jap War" and "the Euro-Slavic War"?

There were still a number of colonies involved in fighting all over the world before and during WW2. Countries where not a lot of fighting happened picked sides. Most importantly Americans eventually got around to fighting over both oceans at the same time, so it ties it up.

In this sense a third world war is quite nebulous. Significant overseas holdings aren't a thing today. You'd have to goad independent countries on five or six continents to fight one another at the same time. Most countries in the world today simply aren't even capable of enacting mass warfare anywhere near the scale of either world war, even if they took their time to mobilize. The world economy is much more interdependent than ever and simply disrupting that will cripple most countries just like that.

I'm not saying there won't be a third world war, but to make it happen a lot of changes need to happen first.
 
It seems like everyone is missing something pretty obvious about all this. Iran sent one of their most high profile/most important people into Iraq. The US embassy in Baghdad is attacked by pro Iranian militias, almost certainly with Suleimani's involvement. Later Suleimani, the brilliant General, got into a car with another high value target. It's a little unclear from the stories I've seen whether they were coming or going from the airport, but it doesn't really make much difference. What would Suleimani have to believe to be true to expect that this was viable plan? What would Iran have to believe to send him to do this?
 
There were still a number of colonies involved in fighting all over the world before and during WW2. Countries where not a lot of fighting happened picked sides. Most importantly Americans eventually got around to fighting over both oceans at the same time, so it ties it up.

In this sense a third world war is quite nebulous. Significant overseas holdings aren't a thing today. You'd have to goad independent countries on five or six continents to fight one another at the same time. Most countries in the world today simply aren't even capable of enacting mass warfare anywhere near the scale of either world war, even if they took their time to mobilize. The world economy is much more interdependent than ever and simply disrupting that will cripple most countries just like that.

I'm not saying there won't be a third world war, but to make it happen a lot of changes need to happen first.
Yeah the lack of colonies would make it a real gamble. I mean India was underbritish control during ww2 and you still had the I.N.A. fighting aginst them. What happens now when countries aren't under the direct yoke of a superpower? Who would end up picking what side would be hard to predict.

Like you said the world isn't really even set up for that kind of war anymore with political and budgetary considerations of the last 60 years the militaries of the world have relied more and more on force multiplying tactics and technology.

There are probably very few if any people with experience fighting an enemy on equal footing in a pitched battle.
 
So many people I know are now praying that WWIII happens and we lose outright to hostile dictatorships, or we win, but with losses too great to ever recover from. It's disturbing.

20200104_145934.jpg
 
I always thought that if you were in college you were exempt from the draft? If he was in college during Vietnam, then I would say the bone spur theory is debunked. Then again, I'm not certain. I always thought that was the case. My brother served in Vietnam but he wasn't drafted, he enlisted because he had no interest in going to college.
 
Wstecz
Top Na dole