Donald Trump Appreciation Thread

[JohnnyShearer2.0]

 

 

[badgerx16]

43 minutes ago, JohnnyShearer2.0 said:

 

 

Dog murdering psyco-bitch getting rinsed on CNN

 

[spyinthesky]

It's as though these members of Trump's inner circle have had some form of indoctrination cell injected into them by Donald's Frenemy, dear old Elon.
Absolutely no feeling of regret for the shooting, three times at close range, of a woman who appeared to be having a relatively civil conversation with the ICE team.
Presumably Kristi Noem is a card carrying member of Donald's religious cabal.
I wonder what Jesus would have made of her response.

[sadoldgit]

3 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

Dog murdering psyco-bitch getting rinsed on CNN

 

Interesting that she said that you don’t get to change the facts you don’t like. That is precisely what she does here.

As for working to keep the American people safe…really?

[egg]

Decent article on CNN about Trump's selective view on the sanctity of protests. I hadn't appreciated that he'd floated the idea of shooting protesters in the US. 

https://edition.cnn.com/2026/01/12/politics/protests-iran-trump-rescue

[badgerx16]

Surely opposition to a tyrannical Government is exactly what the Second Amendment allows for.

[badgerx16]

At last Nic finds an appropriate use for an emoji.

[sadoldgit]

57 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

At last Nic finds an appropriate use for an emoji.

It’s the law of averages and don’t forget that even a stopped clock is right twice a day!

Who knows, maybe Ralph will be along in a minute to tell us that Trump is a hypocrite for supporting free speech in Iran but suppressing it in his own country? Then again….

Edited yesterday at 09:40 by sadoldgit

[badgerx16]

Some people reckon Trump's actions in Venezuela are an attempt to impact oil imports to China. Venezuelan oil accounts for just under 4% of Chinese oil imports, hardly kneecapping Chinese industry.

[egg]

14 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

Some people reckon Trump's actions in Venezuela are an attempt to impact oil imports to China. Venezuelan oil accounts for just under 4% of Chinese oil imports, hardly kneecapping Chinese industry.

It is, in part, but the extent to which China actually needs the oil is just one factor. It's also about Chinese influence and where it's money to buy the oil goes. The US have explicitly said to China that they are to stay away from the America's. They also don't want China controlling the oil or the Venezuelan oil industry. They also don't want Venezuelan debt to China being offset by oil exports which breach the US unilateral sanctions. 

I'm surprised that some people think this is mostly about the US wanting Venezuelan oil for their own purposes. Sure, that's a factor, ditto imperialism and a wish to have a puppet state in it's border, but It's far more geopolitical than the US wanting to nick oil. 

[badgerx16]

8 minutes ago, egg said:

r, but It's far more geopolitical than the US wanting to nick oil. 

Indeed. What's the point of having 11 carrier strike groups if you can't use them to threaten blowing stuff up. 😉

Edited 11 hours ago by badgerx16

[badgerx16]

Trump ramping up the rhetoric over Greenland, saying if the US doesn't have the island then Russia or China will take it.

1) Greenland is already a member of NATO and therefore covered by Article 5.

2) The US already has treaties permitting the placement of as mch military as they want. Owning the island would make no difference.

3) How does he think China are going to sneak up and take it ?

4) Clearly his ambition is nothing whatsoever to do with the potential mineral wealth.

Edited 4 hours ago by badgerx16

[benjii]

The problem with having a corrupt, career criminal, midwit, who lies constantly and who can't read a speech without sounding demented as President is that even when you do have a good idea or a good strategy, people will assume your real motives are something else.

In the case of Greenland, the security concerns are reasonable. There are often Russian vessels within its waters for no good reason, and Denmark/Greenland don't do anything about it. Someone who knows, told me that an invasion force of about 800 people would be enough to take it over,  as it stands.

But rather than discuss sensibly how US security presence can be increased and have an adult conversation, the whole thing ends up sounding like a typical Trump gravy train.

[badgerx16]

27 minutes ago, benjii said:

The problem with having a corrupt, career criminal, midwit, who lies constantly and who can't read a speech without sounding demented as President is that even when you do have a good idea or a good strategy, people will assume your real motives are something else.

In the case of Greenland, the security concerns are reasonable. There are often Russian vessels within its waters for no good reason, and Denmark/Greenland don't do anything about it. Someone who knows, told me that an invasion force of about 800 people would be enough to take it over,  as it stands.

But rather than discuss sensibly how US security presence can be increased and have an adult conversation, the whole thing ends up sounding like a typical Trump gravy train.

And trigger Article 5.

[Sir Ralph]

20 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

And trigger Article 5.

You mean WW3. Better to have the deterrent in place now rather than play those games. NATO are now taking this seriously anyway https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/nato-discussing-next-steps-to-ensure-arctic-stays-safe-rutte-says-2026-01-12/

[sadoldgit]

57 minutes ago, benjii said:

The problem with having a corrupt, career criminal, midwit, who lies constantly and who can't read a speech without sounding demented as President is that even when you do have a good idea or a good strategy, people will assume your real motives are something else.

In the case of Greenland, the security concerns are reasonable. There are often Russian vessels within its waters for no good reason, and Denmark/Greenland don't do anything about it. Someone who knows, told me that an invasion force of about 800 people would be enough to take it over,  as it stands.

But rather than discuss sensibly how US security presence can be increased and have an adult conversation, the whole thing ends up sounding like a typical Trump gravy train.

The US have actively been reducing the presence in their base in Greenland for a while now. Not sure how that sits with Trump’s position. Perhaps he should be talking to them about increasing the US presence again rather than threatening them?

[badgerx16]

24 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

You mean WW3. Better to have the deterrent in place now rather than play those games. NATO are now taking this seriously anyway https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/nato-discussing-next-steps-to-ensure-arctic-stays-safe-rutte-says-2026-01-12/

Well yes. There is no logic behind thnking Russia is going to seize Greenland, and even less for China taking it.

Edited 3 hours ago by badgerx16

[badgerx16]

"Just because they had a boat that landed there 500 years ago doesn't mean the land is theirs". ( Trump on Denmark's claim over Greenland ).

 

Come on Donnie, just think about what you just said.

Edited 2 hours ago by badgerx16

[sadoldgit]

Trump isn’t strong on history. Nor are ICE apparently

https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/wireStory/oglala-sioux-tribe-tribal-members-arrested-minneapolis-ice-129186393.