Donald Trump Appreciation Thread

[Sir Ralph]

.

Edited 10 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[Sir Ralph]

1 minute ago, Farmer Saint said:

Oh, stopping any genocide is a good thing. Choosing the genocides you decide to stop based on what you can exploit, is a bad thing.

Everything seems to be black and white to you...

So what is the bad thing about stopping this specific genocide then?

[Farmer Saint]

Just now, Sir Ralph said:

What is the bad thing about stopping this genocide then?

Potential exploitation of gas/oil/natural resources.

[Sir Ralph]

8 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Potential exploitation of gas/oil/natural resources.

This is speculative and very weak. Where is your evidence of this?

If you don’t have evidence of this, your reason for not stopping this genocide is speculative in the context of tens of thousands of lives that could be saved. 

Edited 10 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[Farmer Saint]

3 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

This is speculative and very weak. Where is your evidence of this? He is not saying he will invade and control the country

He didn't invade Ukraine but he exploited them in his quest for rare earth's. He didn't invade Gaza but he's sure as hell gonna profit from that. You don't have to invade and control a country to exploit it, you realise that?

Edited 10 hours ago by Farmer Saint

[Sir Ralph]

7 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

He didn't invade Ukraine but he exploited them in his quest for rare earth's. He didn't invade Gaza but he's sure as hell gonna profit for that. You don't have to invade and control a country to exploit it, you realise that?

I actually removed that comment as I agree with you in principle. However, there isn’t any evidence in relation to Nigeria. So what we agree is that he wouldn’t  need military action if he wanted ti exploit energy resources. So why then is he not using other means of control in Nigeria to gain control of energy resources as we know he doesn’t want to get involved in boots on the ground. Instead it’s more likely that he is threatening a military stance to stop radicalised militants killing people as force is the only think those nut jobs will listen to

Edited 10 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[Farmer Saint]

3 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

I actually removed that comment as I agree with you in principle. However, there isn’t any evidence in relation to Nigeria. So what we agree is that he wouldn’t  need military action if he wanted ti exploit energy resources. So why then is he not using other means of control in Nigeria to gain control of energy resources? Instead it’s more likely that he is threatening a military stance to stop radicalised militants killing people? 

Let's see shall we? If he cares about genocide we won't see a deal done with Nigeria, and he'll probably go into Sudan as well, agreed? 👍 

[Sir Ralph]

15 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Let's see shall we? If he cares about genocide we won't see a deal done with Nigeria, and he'll probably go into Sudan as well, agreed? 👍 

If you look at the key politicians in the US they are Christian (the US is a Christian country obviously) and a lot of the Republican voting base is also. I think a lot of the discussion about the Nigerian involvement is related to that. The issue of the killing of Nigerian Christians has been circulating as a key matter in conservative groups for a number of months. 
 

Honestly I don’t know as much about what is happening in the Sudan but I understand that this is a mix of issues. I’m not personally saying that it wouldn’t be great to stop some of the utterly awful things happening there but the reasons for Trump to have to intervene may be different. I don’t think he will. Sudan has lots of natural resources and is politically much less stable so if he did get involved somebody could allege the same reasons you have in relation to Nigeria. In fact intervention in Sudan maybe easier politically and in terms of grabbing resource, if that was the aim. Therefore I wouldn’t say a lack of intervention in Sudan would prove he is getting involved in Nigeria for economic reasons if that makes sense

 

i would like Trump to threaten military action on staple wood though if they don’t pull their fingers out😂

Edited 10 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[badgerx16]

41 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

This is speculative....

So is crediting Trump with something that hasn't heppened, and may wel not happen. He has plenty of previous for random changes of policy direction.

Edited 10 hours ago by badgerx16

[Sir Ralph]

1 minute ago, badgerx16 said:

So is crediting Trump with something that hasn't heppened, and may wel not happen.

It’s not speculative because he is starting to action it. If you read the article he’s putting political pressure so I’m crediting his work to date. Obviously if he doesn’t follow through then no.

The use of the word speculation is based on something with little or no information or evidence

Edited 10 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[badgerx16]

Just now, Sir Ralph said:

If you read the article he’s putting political pressure so I’m crediting his work to date. Obviously if he doesn’t follow through then no

Donnie has always got an ulterior, generally selfish, motive.

[Sir Ralph]

2 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Donnie has always got an ulterior, generally selfish, motive.

I don’t want to upset you but most politicians at senior levels do, even the ones you like. I can’t see what would be selfish about this though so when there is evidence I would be happy to agree with you. Until then it’s speculation 

Edited 9 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[badgerx16]

38 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

 Instead it’s more likely that he is threatening a military stance to stop radicalised militants killing people as force is the only think those nut jobs will listen to

Threatening force against Islamic insurgents who are looking for their path to Paradise. How much :blood and treasure' did it take to pacify ISIS, ( not that they ever went away compoletely )

[badgerx16]

3 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

I don’t want to upset you but most politicians at senior levels do, even the ones you like. I can’t see what would be selfish about this though so when there is evidence I would be happy to agree with you. Until then it’s speculation 

Donnie has his reasons;  everything he does enriches his bank balance or his ego.

[Sir Ralph]

2 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Threatening force against Islamic insurgents who are looking for their path to Paradise. How much :blood and treasure' did it take to pacify ISIS, ( not that they ever went away compoletely )

In my opinion, thats not a good enough reason for not intervening here and trying to destroy their structures to at least reduce their capacity to kill, rape and harm. It may not solve everything but it should make it much more difficult for them

[badgerx16]

Just now, Sir Ralph said:

In my opinion, thats not a good enough reason for not intervening here and trying to destroy their structures to at least reduce their capacity to kill, rape and harm. It may not solve everything but it should make it much more difficult for them

Oh, I agree. But this will not be an altruistic act, if it actually happens.

 

[Farmer Saint]

8 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

In my opinion, thats not a good enough reason for not intervening here and trying to destroy their structures to at least reduce their capacity to kill, rape and harm. It may not solve everything but it should make it much more difficult for them

If you believe someone who has never shown any reason to be believed in anything he has ever done.