This kind of thing is just like how in his first term everybody talked about how he was going to start wars with half the nations in the world. And then when he ended up being an anti-war President, there was just ... crickets. Rarely even an acknowledgement that the prediction was completely wrong. Certainly no embarrassment over the falsehood of it.

It never ceases to amaze me the degree to which, with someone like Trump, we can't just limit ourselves to the incredibly large number of horribly bad things about him. But also feel the need to invent things he hasn't done and assume he'll do those also.

But he wasn't anti-war. The bombings and special forces raids were constant. He just kept most of it confidential.

I know you like to be contrarian and act like you are the smartest guy in the room, but if you can't see their goal is to tear it all down then you haven't been paying attention the last 30 days.

Thig is it isn't even Trump. He is their useful idiot and will just keep signing EOs while taking laps around Daytona on the taxpayers dime.

How may anti war presidents openly advocate for ethnic cleansing so they can build ocean front condos?

And the DoD joins the growing list of departments telling everyone to ignore Elon's email.

I do think this is wishful thinking but wouldn't be too surprised if it happens. I can see Musk being dismissed, more negative town halls, and opinion polls continue to fall, but it'll have to be more. IMO way too early for Trump and GOP Congress to "implode" two months in.

Remind me on Sun, Mar 23.

Political guru predicts Trump White House will COLLAPSE within 30 days | Daily Mail Online

Maybe I’m an idiot, but what does collapsing even mean?

Good question. Maybe I should have highlighted below also.


I would interpret that as meaning Trump and GOP Congress will come to a head. The GOP, under pressure from polls, their voters, and/or special interest etc. will effectively pushback on Trump's initiatives.

Has Carville been right about anything in politics in 30 years?

This story got better. The victim is a mistress he has staying with him when he's in DC while his wife and kids are in Florida. She had fresh and older bruises on her and police listened on a call he made to her while she was being interviewed where he told her to lie about the bruises.

"Has Carville been right about anything in politics in 30 years?"

No.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

Adding to the crazy story, his wife is an Iraqi refugee and his mistress was a co-founder for Iranians for Trump. That's a lot.

He's also a foreign arms dealer but he won't disclose what countries he sells to. He owns that company with his wife

Compared to the predictions made and to other modern presidents, he absolutely was anti-war.


I'm not doing either of those things. There are people on these forums that I'm quite sure are smarter than me.

I pointed out the history of his first term for a reason. The same type of conjecture was used there, and was hilariously wrong. When these manner of unjustified rhetoric is used and the president isn't Trump, the forum blows up in laughing at the absurdity (often justifiably). But when the shoe's on the other foot, there's an incredible level of blindness that it is happening.

I agree with Brian. I despise Trump, but he has not been a war mongering president at all. Now the long term effects of him damaging relations with so many countries may ultimately lead to more wars but thats a different argument.

T-19

Still 3 weeks to play out, but budget deadline is coming up again.

My guess is another punt with a short-term continuing resolution, hard to see how GOP can figure it all out in 3 weeks.

Just a moment...

Comparing his first term to his second is like comparing apples to hand grenades.

The first term he was totally unprepared and didn't think he had any chance of winning. He was basically a disorganized mess of lies and bluster. This term he, and when I say he I really mean the people n his orbit, came in prepared with a plan (that they lied about while campaigning BTW) and executed it with shocking speed and zero pushback from lawmakers. If you can't see the stark difference between the two you aren't paying attention.



He is literally calling for an ethnic cleansing in Gaza so he can develop beachfront property there.

Literally not at all what I did.


No? He's called for the people in Gaza to live elsewhere. Not to kill them all. Is that still horrible and indefensible? IMO yes. But it is not what you are making it out to be.

He's also literally trying (badly ofc) to end the war between Russia and Ukraine. You're not even getting the basic facts right on what he is doing right now. Which proves my point.

Forcing a large group of people to move due to their ethnicity falls under the ethnic cleansing umbrella.

Not under the way I hear the term used or under any definition I've ever seen, but I'm not going to do a long deep dive on the term.

So let's just stipulate that I'm 'wrong' about the usage here.

He wasn't as aggressive as some people predicted isn't the same as he was personally anti-war.

dola

I think the President of Mexico has an interesting strategy regarding Trump's declaration that the cartels are terrorist organizations. If they are, then US arms manufacturers are guilty of arming them.

bro you literally referenced his first term....

I did. I didn't do what you stated, which is comparing it to his second. I compared his first term to the claims people made about it.

You literally took comments people made about Trump and this current term and claimed people didn’t same thing in his first term. I fail to see how that isn’t drawing a comparison.

I think the issue is really in those claims. A lot of people predicted a lot of things about a Trump presidency, but I don't recall starting wars with half the nations of the world being one of them. There was concern that he wanted to use nukes too often (which he didn't), and concern that he was going to be isolationist in a way that would make things worse (which he did). But I don't remember anyone calling him a warmonger.

If you are arguing what constitutes an ethnic cleansing you have likely crossed the line or gotten way to close to it.

It was one of the most commonly-voiced assessments made of him in his first term on this forum.

I mean he did repeatedly say he was going to nuke N. Korea and Iran. People saying that were only reacting to his language.

No candidate from any major party is anti-war. That will likely never change as long as the defense industry and foreign countries own so many politicians. Brian is partially right that Trump was the anti-war candidate this cycle. But others are partially right that Trump isn't anti-war.

Trump got to be the anti-war candidate because the previous administration were much bigger warmongerers. It's the same for Obama who ran partially as anti-war but wasn't. He was able to run that way because Bush and McCain were much bigger warmongerers.

I'm reticent to get into this topic because everyone who does gets called a baby killer by one person and a nazi by others here at the same time, but strictly on whether Trump is a "warmongering President" I think boots on the ground are the only metric I think matters. I don't like defending him at all and his rhetoric is pretty terrible everywhere, but unless he actually does send the US military to Gaza his actions have been much more isolationist than neocon/warmongering IMO.

We're apparently headed toward an eventual sale of Fox News. Rupert Murdoch tried somewhat recently to cut his 3 liberal kids out of the will and give everything to Lachlan, the one kid that shares his views. That was shot down by a judge. So now the 4 are set to inherit Fox on Rupert's death and the belief is that Lachlan will be forced out and the assets split up and sold.

like I said earlier.

So Elon is going to buy it.

Those siblings could save the country by keeping it and just gradually tilting it more moderate

Feds refusing to indict. Another reason for DC statehood.

US rep. investigated for alleged DC assault; police probe handling – NBC4 Washington


What if you call them "humanitarian corridors"?

For my friends, everything, for my enemies, the law.

But do Shiv and Kendall really want to do that? I mean, Kendall wanted the company at one point, but they would still have to put up with Roman.

People will just go somewhere else to get their fix and a newer, likely even more extreme, alternative would pop up.

These people are far too gone to ever come back. The damage has already been done

Humans are creatures of habit, most will still tune in, especially if things change gradually.

The problem is James is the only one of the 3 that has any interest in politics or media. The other 2 children are non-political and have no interest in following in their dads footsteps.

If Elon purchased he would likely run it into the ground fairly quickly. He has no idea what he's doing and any part of his companies that he turns his attention to does worse.

The tariff war looks one step closer. I can easily believe it'll happen with Mexico but don't see how Trump can justify the 10% on that sweet, sweet Canadian oil.

I'm rooting for Canada to hold firm (but not sure if she can) as I'd think the bad press from self-inflicted, increased oil prices will pressure Trump to cut it short (and declare victory).

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/02/24/trum...o-forward.html

Exactly. And they need their habit of hatred, fear, and xenophobia fed and if FOX goes woke, like they did when they called Arizona, people will leave and go somewhere else they can get their fix.

Perhaps they can wear brown shirts.

Trump brought up the Keystone XL pipeline yesterday, indicating he wants it built. That's a pretty clear 'bargaining chip' that Canada _could_ use to get another 30 days or whatever of relief from the tariffs. But it's also a massive wedge issue politically which will help to sew division amongst Canadians, so a win-win for Trump regardless.


Ultimately we all see where this is going. A never-ending series of demands until the ask is finally too high. All the while the looming threat of the tariffs weakens our economy. The goal here is not to win some minor trade concessions, enhance border security, get a new pipeline, or rectify whatever other petty injustice Trump invents next week. The goal is literal annexation of Canada, not as a "51st state" but as a vassal or territory from which he can plunder our resources and ignore (or perhaps effectively enslave) our people.


I'm not sure what I think the best course of action is. It's easy to say that we need to just rip the band-aid off, accept the tariffs and start moving forward to separate our economy from the US. This also has the benefit of Americans actually feeling the price impacts and placing some pressure to stop this madness from within. But I can also see value in trying to delay the inevitable, buying time to adjust our trade relationships and economy, while also hoping that something external to this situation forces Trump to turn away from this attack. I don't think it's likely, but a lot is in flux right now both within the US and abroad so who knows.

Not sure best approach either.

I think I would play defense and work towards de-coupling for the next 2 years and see what happens to Congress then. If the Dems can win back at least the House or Senate, we'll have a lot more sanity. Unfortunately, considering how discombobulated the Dems seem right now ... who the frak knows.

@Fidatelo and the other FOFC Canucks,

If you are ever in the Atlanta area, let us know. I'm sure a group of us here will buy you some nice southern cooking. No politics discussed; we'll stick to hockey & curling.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/winds...iner-1.7467020

Yes, they want to make us suffer economically so much that we come begging to be taken over. But one member of congress even said this on an interview, they don't want us to have votes, they want us to be a territory that is conquered. This is basically Russia invading the Ukraine. I can't believe that so many people are okay with this.

Clearly I don't know much about Trusts and I am a fan of the result here but I do find it interesting a guy who is alive can't amend what is effectively his will, even a very powerful billionaire one. Rupert Murdoch's family feud over future of News Corp and Fox plays out in Nevada court - ABC News

Well at least the article clears up how this strange situation got in such a mess.

Irrevocable trust was a mistake from the jump.