HawkShack.com

President Donald Trump gave a nonsensical answer to a question about his nonsensical comments during his July 4 speech in which he claimed Revolutionary War soldiers “took over airports.”

“Our Army manned the air, it rammed the ramparts, it took over airports, it did everything it had to do,” Trump said in his remarks at the Lincoln Memorial on Thursday. “And at Fort McHenry, under the rockets’ red glare, had nothing but victory. When dawn came, the star-spangled banner waved defiant.”

"When you’re standing in front of millions and millions of people on television, and I don’t know what the final count was, but that went all the way back to the Washington Monument,” he told reporters on the White House lawn. “And I guess the rain knocked out the teleprompter, but I knew the speech very well, so I was able to do it without a teleprompter.”

It remains unclear why, if the president knew his prepared speech “very well,” he said there were airports during the Revolutionary War.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-bl ... hACc4Zwffw

Trump also apparently doesn't know what a rampart is or the fact that we were on the defensive at Ft. McHenry. But to be fair, Huff Post has it wrong, too. The battle Trump was trying so awkwardly to describe occurred during the War of 1812, not the Revolutionary War.

I'd love to hear Idahawk's defense of Trump's head-up-arse remarks. Fake news from the MSM I suppose. It'd be funny as hell if he wasn't the POTUS and if it wasn't so typical of him.

RiverDog wrote:President Donald Trump gave a nonsensical answer to a question about his nonsensical comments during his July 4 speech in which he claimed Revolutionary War soldiers “took over airports.”

“Our Army manned the air, it rammed the ramparts, it took over airports, it did everything it had to do,” Trump said in his remarks at the Lincoln Memorial on Thursday. “And at Fort McHenry, under the rockets’ red glare, had nothing but victory. When dawn came, the star-spangled banner waved defiant.”

"When you’re standing in front of millions and millions of people on television, and I don’t know what the final count was, but that went all the way back to the Washington Monument,” he told reporters on the White House lawn. “And I guess the rain knocked out the teleprompter, but I knew the speech very well, so I was able to do it without a teleprompter.”

It remains unclear why, if the president knew his prepared speech “very well,” he said there were airports during the Revolutionary War.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-bl ... hACc4Zwffw

Trump also apparently doesn't know what a rampart is or the fact that we were on the defensive at Ft. McHenry. But to be fair, Huff Post has it wrong, too. The battle Trump was trying so awkwardly to describe occurred during the War of 1812, not the Revolutionary War.

I'd love to hear Idahawk's defense of Trump's head-up-arse remarks. Fake news from the MSM I suppose. It'd be funny as hell if he wasn't the POTUS and if it wasn't so typical of him.

Glad to see you cast the first stone there mr. perfect. What an offensive thing for Trump to do. I'd tell you to grow up but it wouldn't be heeded.

Almost as quick as you'd be on a misstep by AOC huh?

RiverDog wrote:President Donald Trump gave a nonsensical answer to a question about his nonsensical comments during his July 4 speech in which he claimed Revolutionary War soldiers “took over airports.”

“Our Army manned the air, it rammed the ramparts, it took over airports, it did everything it had to do,” Trump said in his remarks at the Lincoln Memorial on Thursday. “And at Fort McHenry, under the rockets’ red glare, had nothing but victory. When dawn came, the star-spangled banner waved defiant.”

"When you’re standing in front of millions and millions of people on television, and I don’t know what the final count was, but that went all the way back to the Washington Monument,” he told reporters on the White House lawn. “And I guess the rain knocked out the teleprompter, but I knew the speech very well, so I was able to do it without a teleprompter.”

It remains unclear why, if the president knew his prepared speech “very well,” he said there were airports during the Revolutionary War.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-bl ... hACc4Zwffw

Trump also apparently doesn't know what a rampart is or the fact that we were on the defensive at Ft. McHenry. But to be fair, Huff Post has it wrong, too. The battle Trump was trying so awkwardly to describe occurred during the War of 1812, not the Revolutionary War.

I'd love to hear Idahawk's defense of Trump's head-up-arse remarks. Fake news from the MSM I suppose. It'd be funny as hell if he wasn't the POTUS and if it wasn't so typical of him.

idhawkman wrote:Glad to see you cast the first stone there mr. perfect. What an offensive thing for Trump to do. I'd tell you to grow up but it wouldn't be heeded.

I don't think it would be necessary for me to grow up in order to equal DJT's intelligence as I'm pretty sure that most grade schoolers could tell you that there weren't any airports in 1812.

But seriously, I was looking forward to hearing your excuse for Trump's latest example of his buffoonery rather than your attack the messenger response.

Trump has made so many stupid remarks even Idhawk has run out of excuses to defend him. Not even sure why he bothers. Idhawk supports Trump because he has no other alternative to vote for that supports what he thinks is best for the nation other than this salesman, reality TV star figure that became president because he was rich, bored, and had the charisma to pull it off. Trump literally has nothing to lose at the moment. Once he leaves office all his haters breathe a sigh of relief that the crazy man is gone and Trump goes back to buying Viagra, banging hot chicks, and probably leverages his run as president into a book deal and more money. He's in a win-win-win situation. Only snag might be one of these cases sticking to him which I doubt happens. Trump is likely well insulated from any financial crime through all his lawyers and accountants. Hopefully he'll get beat in 2020, but these Dems are looking pretty pathetic at the moment.

c_hawkbob wrote:Almost as quick as you'd be on a misstep by AOC huh?

Do you see mistakes by AOC or lies about what people "told" her which are now proving to be false? But hey, don't let me stop you from comparing a claim of making people drink out of a toilet bowl with trying to inspire people around patriotism. Nope, gotta be equal there, right?

Aseahawkfan wrote:Trump has made so many stupid remarks even Idhawk has run out of excuses to defend him. Not even sure why he bothers. Idhawk supports Trump because he has no other alternative to vote for that supports what he thinks is best for the nation other than this salesman, reality TV star figure that became president because he was rich, bored, and had the charisma to pull it off. Trump literally has nothing to lose at the moment. Once he leaves office all his haters breathe a sigh of relief that the crazy man is gone and Trump goes back to buying Viagra, banging hot chicks, and probably leverages his run as president into a book deal and more money. He's in a win-win-win situation. Only snag might be one of these cases sticking to him which I doubt happens. Trump is likely well insulated from any financial crime through all his lawyers and accountants. Hopefully he'll get beat in 2020, but these Dems are looking pretty pathetic at the moment.

Love the way you start out this post saying there's no one else to vote for and then end up agreeing with me. Made me chuckle.

idhawkman wrote:Love the way you start out this post saying there's no one else to vote for and then end up agreeing with me. Made me chuckle.

More than the others I see why you're doing it. I don't hate Trump like the rest do. I'm tired of the way he does politics. He likes starting fights and working the media up. I think he does it for ratings. I think he literally looks at the ratings, twitter hits, and general impressions he gets when he starts crap. He does it all on purpose because he loves stirring the pot and being the center of the party. I don't like that kind of politics.

But my other option is a Democratic Party and leftist media selling me people like Ocasio-Cortez and her other compatriots who have a vision for this nation that reeks of hate the rich, sell us on racial inequality fixable by taxing and socialism, female empowerment by denigrating the male, the LGBT movement that has gone off the rails with what that group and their supporters are pushing, and so much stuff being driven down our throats that is just bad for the nation. It's like a continuation of the 60s movements that is always looking for some new victim to celebrate and turn into the next liberal social movement.

Where is the discipline? Where is the sense of duty or personal responsibility? Where is the no to stupid behavior that completely contradicts biology or known science? How am I supposed to support unreasonable trash like that?

There's even a "body positivity" movement that can't help but go too far. It started out with plus sized models that were basically bigger, thicker girls modeling which is good to see to selling us obesity is ok with extremely overweight women with awful eating habits as ok. It's one thing to show and celebrate different body types other than the wafer thin models, but selling us on obese people being ok is selling people on complete unhealthiness that costs lives and health being sold as healthy and normal. It's liberalism gone too far infesting the Democratic Party.

idhawkman wrote:Love the way you start out this post saying there's no one else to vote for and then end up agreeing with me. Made me chuckle.

Aseahawkfan wrote:
More than the others I see why you're doing it. I don't hate Trump like the rest do. I'm tired of the way he does politics. He likes starting fights and working the media up. I think he does it for ratings. I think he literally looks at the ratings, twitter hits, and general impressions he gets when he starts crap. He does it all on purpose because he loves stirring the pot and being the center of the party. I don't like that kind of politics.

It has absolutely nothing to do with ratings. Have you read his book or studied what Reagan did to Gorbachev? If you understand those situations then you know why he picks the scab off of wounds before trying to fix them.

But my other option is a Democratic Party and leftist media selling me people like Ocasio-Cortez and her other compatriots who have a vision for this nation that reeks of hate the rich, sell us on racial inequality fixable by taxing and socialism, female empowerment by denigrating the male, the LGBT movement that has gone off the rails with what that group and their supporters are pushing, and so much stuff being driven down our throats that is just bad for the nation. It's like a continuation of the 60s movements that is always looking for some new victim to celebrate and turn into the next liberal social movement.

Where is the discipline? Where is the sense of duty or personal responsibility? Where is the no to stupid behavior that completely contradicts biology or known science? How am I supposed to support unreasonable trash like that?

There's even a "body positivity" movement that can't help but go too far. It started out with plus sized models that were basically bigger, thicker girls modeling which is good to see to selling us obesity is ok with extremely overweight women with awful eating habits as ok. It's one thing to show and celebrate different body types other than the wafer thin models, but selling us on obese people being ok is selling people on complete unhealthiness that costs lives and health being sold as healthy and normal. It's liberalism gone too far infesting the Democratic Party.

The fall of every great nation in history started with the rotting of the moral core of that nation.

idhawkman wrote:The fall of every great nation in history started with the rotting of the moral core of that nation.

If that's the case, then we're in deep trouble with Trump's extra marital banging of pornstars then paying them 6 figure hush money and his shady associations with sex trafficking, unless you want to argue that kind of behavior is "moral." And here I thought that Bill Clinton was sleazy.

Edit: Here's some breaking news that has dotted line connections to our Chief Pornstar Banger and a couple members of his cabinet:

Federal prosecutors in Manhattan charged Mr. Epstein on Monday with sex trafficking, dealing an implicit rebuke to that plea agreement, which was overseen by Alexander Acosta, then the United States attorney in Miami and now President Trump’s labor secretary.

Attorney General William P. Barr said on Monday during a trip to South Carolina that he had recused himself from the case because Mr. Barr’s former law firm, Kirkland & Ellis, had represented Mr. Epstein.

In 2002, Mr. Trump described Mr. Epstein as “a terrific guy,” telling New York Magazine, “It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side.”

As he unsealed an indictment charging Mr. Epstein with sex trafficking on Monday, the United States attorney in Manhattan, Geoffrey S. Berman, made an appeal to other women who may have been abused by him to come forward.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/je ... spartanntp

Aseahawkfan wrote:Trump has made so many stupid remarks even Idhawk has run out of excuses to defend him. Not even sure why he bothers. Idhawk supports Trump because he has no other alternative to vote for that supports what he thinks is best for the nation other than this salesman, reality TV star figure that became president because he was rich, bored, and had the charisma to pull it off. Trump literally has nothing to lose at the moment. Once he leaves office all his haters breathe a sigh of relief that the crazy man is gone and Trump goes back to buying Viagra, banging hot chicks, and probably leverages his run as president into a book deal and more money. He's in a win-win-win situation. Only snag might be one of these cases sticking to him which I doubt happens. Trump is likely well insulated from any financial crime through all his lawyers and accountants. Hopefully he'll get beat in 2020, but these Dems are looking pretty pathetic at the moment.

I agree with you about Trump. He does not consider POTUS as a job. It's obvious that he's lazy, that he doesn't do any preparation for speeches and meetings and just "wings it". He thinks he can trust his instincts on any and all matters, a megalomaniac that never admits to mistakes or understands where he was wrong or where he made a misjudgment. He always has an excuse, or people like Idahawk make excuses for him. It's a mystery to me how that man could have been such a successful businessman other than the fact that his silver spoon put him in a position to succeed.

You're right about the Dems, too. Biden can beat the pants off Trump, but he keeps sticking his foot in his mouth, a habit he's had during his entire career. There's a chance that the party has gone so far to the left that he might not win the nomination.

Aseahawkfan wrote: I don't hate Trump like the rest do.

I don't hate him, either. I'm not worried about him carrying the nuclear football or causing the nation irreversible harm. Unlike others, I don't want to see him go to jail after he leaves office as all that would accomplish would be to further widen the divide between right and left. I have enough policy differences to vote against him, but the major reason I don't like him is his blatant dishonesty and that he's a very poor leader that's not qualified for the position. He's a spoiled rich kid.

RiverDog wrote:
If that's the case, then we're in deep trouble with Trump's extra marital banging of pornstars then paying them 6 figure hush money and his shady associations with sex trafficking, unless you want to argue that kind of behavior is "moral." And here I thought that Bill Clinton was sleazy.

Edit: Here's some breaking news that has dotted line connections to our Chief Pornstar Banger and a couple members of his cabinet:

Federal prosecutors in Manhattan charged Mr. Epstein on Monday with sex trafficking, dealing an implicit rebuke to that plea agreement, which was overseen by Alexander Acosta, then the United States attorney in Miami and now President Trump’s labor secretary.

Attorney General William P. Barr said on Monday during a trip to South Carolina that he had recused himself from the case because Mr. Barr’s former law firm, Kirkland & Ellis, had represented Mr. Epstein.

In 2002, Mr. Trump described Mr. Epstein as “a terrific guy,” telling New York Magazine, “It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side.”

As he unsealed an indictment charging Mr. Epstein with sex trafficking on Monday, the United States attorney in Manhattan, Geoffrey S. Berman, made an appeal to other women who may have been abused by him to come forward.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/je ... spartanntp

You left out the part where Trump banned Epstein for life from Mara Largo. I know that didn't fit your narrative but it is the truth. On the other hand, Bill Clinton has flown with Epstein's airplane and manifests show that everytime Clinton rode on the airline that there were under age girls on the flight. Manifests show 26 times but Clinton is only claiming to have flown 4 times.

I had a neighbor who was an older widow lady named Peg when I lived in Virginia. In the 9 years that I knew Peg, she never smiled, never had a nice or good word to say. Her face always had a frown on it and the corners of her mouth always sagged in an unhappy face. I always thought about Peg and wondered how bad it would be to go through life that way. I think she was mad at the world and just an unhappy soul. Unfortunately, I think you are another Peg River. I re-watched the president's 4th of July speech yesterday and could not be more proud of our nation, the history, the heroics of some of the forefathers, etc. I had the hair on the back of my neck standing on end at times. But if you listened to the same speech and watched the same air show and came away with one 3 letter word mistake by Trump, you are definitely a Peg.

Edited: By the way, Trump has never had a personal relationship with Epstein and Acosta is saying that Epstein would have gotten off from the charges back in the early 2000's where he cut him the "sweetheart" deal. In other words, Acosta's office at least got some charges on the guy and sent him to jail instead of him walking away scott free. You're going to look silly if Acosta comes out and explains this whole thing, but don't worry, you'll be in good company along with your best buds like Pelosi and Warren who are also jumping on this bandwagon before looking at what is really on the wagon.

idhawkman wrote:You left out the part where Trump banned Epstein for life from Mara Largo. I know that didn't fit your narrative but it is the truth.

I didn't "leave out" anything. I quoted directly from the headline article my news feed. If you have other information, feel free to post it, but please reference your sources.

I didn't "leave out" anything. I quoted directly from the headline article on my news feed from this morning. If you have other information, feel free to post it, but please reference your sources.

idhawkman wrote:On the other hand, Bill Clinton has flown with Epstein's airplane and manifests show that everytime Clinton rode on the airline that there were under age girls on the flight. Manifests show 26 times but Clinton is only claiming to have flown 4 times.

But no one in here ever claimed Bill Clinton to be as pure as the wind driven snow as you have about DJT. IMO Bill Clinton is the 2nd sleaziest POTUS in the history of our nation.

idhawkman wrote:Edited: By the way, Trump has never had a personal relationship with Epstein and Acosta is saying that Epstein would have gotten off from the charges back in the early 2000's where he cut him the "sweetheart" deal. In other words, Acosta's office at least got some charges on the guy and sent him to jail instead of him walking away scott free. You're going to look silly if Acosta comes out and explains this whole thing, but don't worry, you'll be in good company along with your best buds like Pelosi and Warren who are also jumping on this bandwagon before looking at what is really on the wagon.

So what do you call this:

In 2002, Mr. Trump described Mr. Epstein as “a terrific guy,” telling New York Magazine, “It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side.”

Are you telling me that's fake news? Or was Trump just describing some random stranger?

Here, Idahawk, I did some of your homework for you. Here's the best I can come up with regarding Trump's supposed banning of Epstein from his Mar-a-Largo estate, and please note the source:

Trump banned Epstein from his Mar-a-Lago estate “because Epstein sexually assaulted an underage girl at the club,” according to court documents filed by Bradley Edwards, the lawyer who has represented several Epstein accusers. That claim has not been confirmed by Trump or Mar-a-Lago.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/christ ... implicated

There are multiple stories of Trump attending dinners at both his residence as well as Epstein's, at least one ride on Epstein's plane, and a relationship going back decades. If you doubt any of this, just let me know and I'll gladly post some links.

RiverDog wrote:So what do you call this:

In 2002, Mr. Trump described Mr. Epstein as “a terrific guy,” telling New York Magazine, “It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side.”

Are you telling me that's fake news? Or was Trump just describing some random stranger?

Do you really not understand the words "it is even said..."?

RiverDog wrote:Here, Idahawk, I did some of your homework for you. Here's the best I can come up with regarding Trump's supposed banning of Epstein from his Mar-a-Largo estate, and please note the source:

Trump banned Epstein from his Mar-a-Lago estate “because Epstein sexually assaulted an underage girl at the club,” according to court documents filed by Bradley Edwards, the lawyer who has represented several Epstein accusers. That claim has not been confirmed by Trump or Mar-a-Lago.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/christ ... implicated

There are multiple stories of Trump attending dinners at both his residence as well as Epstein's, at least one ride on Epstein's plane, and a relationship going back decades. If you doubt any of this, just let me know and I'll gladly post some links.

It was easy to find wasn't it? Banned him for sexually assaulting an underage girl. Doesn't sound like Trump puts up with that kind of stuff, does it? Liking beautiful women and sexually assaulting them is two totally different things in my opinion but I'm not sure about yours according to your posts. You seem to want to lump the two together.

Also note, that just because Epstein sexually abused underage girls doesn't mean he did it in the company of Trump but when it was brought to Trump's attention, he did something about it and banned him from the club for life.

ONe other thing to point out. When Trump talks about him being a good guy, he is a Philanthropist. He donated lots of money to Africa to fight Aids and has given lots of money to other programs in Africa. So don't just jump to the conclusion that Trump was talking about him being great because of the girls he was trafficking. Trump commented that he liked his social life and young beautiful women but who knows what prompted that comment. Was it because Trump saw him at an event and he was surrounded by early 20 year olds? You don't know and the article is not specific that Trump was speaking about knowing the girls he was around were underage. No doubt that Epstein also was doing that with teenagers underage but you can't just jump to that's the case that Trump was commenting about. Now if you are being PEG, then you would of course jump to illogical conclusions however wrong they are.

I'm going to start a new thread on Epstein as it is getting real interesting.

idhawkman wrote:It has absolutely nothing to do with ratings. Have you read his book or studied what Reagan did to Gorbachev? If you understand those situations then you know why he picks the scab off of wounds before trying to fix them.

BS, man. I watched Reagan. He did nothing like Trump. Calling people names and coming back at every critic with some Twitter post is nothing you can associate with Reagan. Reagan would have never acted like some angry High School Student using his social media to yell back at the bullies.

The fall of every great nation in history started with the rotting of the moral core of that nation.

Morality is so variable that I don't buy the argument. Rather I would say every great nation falls once the people take for granted their nation and no longer put forth the effort and work to make it great.

Rome as an example wasn't very moral by most standards. They made near constant war. They enslaved tons of people. When they colonized an area, they would send soldiers without women and just have them buy or take local women to breed with to take over the area and build the colony. They were a very war-like empire.

What made Rome fall was the loss of their drive and competitive nature. They grew so rich and powerful that they let their people grow soft, weak, and whiny. Some hungrier groups showed up at their doorstep while they thought their wealth and power made them unassailable and took them out.

The point being is not that the most moral nation wins, but the nation with the most competitive drive and hunger achieves great things. If your people lose their drive to build your nation ever greater, then your nation will fall to some hungrier people looking to make their mark on the world. And Idhawkman. where do you see a hungrier group looking to take power in the world? I see them in the east embracing the battle for economic power, the only real power struggle profitable to humans.

RiverDog wrote:I agree with you about Trump. He does not consider POTUS as a job. It's obvious that he's lazy, that he doesn't do any preparation for speeches and meetings and just "wings it". He thinks he can trust his instincts on any and all matters, a megalomaniac that never admits to mistakes or understands where he was wrong or where he made a misjudgment. He always has an excuse, or people like Idahawk make excuses for him. It's a mystery to me how that man could have been such a successful businessman other than the fact that his silver spoon put him in a position to succeed.

One thing I never call Trump is lazy. He may wing it, but he's not lazy. He just does things his way. That guy is always making deals, rarely sleeps, and is always looking to push his advantage. He just doesn't see his advantage as sitting down reading a briefing he can pay someone to summarize or reading a history book that he doesn't think applies now. He's very much watching TV, checking polls and his ratings, talking to people about what they think, and considering how he will work his next crowd. Trump would work most people half his age into the ground. I don't see many politicians that can compete with 70 plus year old Trump's manic energy.

Trump's a lot of things, lazy is not one of them.

I don't hate him, either. I'm not worried about him carrying the nuclear football or causing the nation irreversible harm. Unlike others, I don't want to see him go to jail after he leaves office as all that would accomplish would be to further widen the divide between right and left. I have enough policy differences to vote against him, but the major reason I don't like him is his blatant dishonesty and that he's a very poor leader that's not qualified for the position. He's a spoiled rich kid.

I just hate the constant fighting. Most politicians learn to say a lot while actually saying nothing. We've been lied to so often that I don't even expect truth from a politician, though I understand the need for the illusion of truth which Trump doesn't do well.

I'll wait until he's out of office to see what he did compared to other administrations. So far the economy is rolling strong and besides a cyclical downturn, I don't see an end to it in sight. Low taxes, lots of demand, and if he gets a trade deal done with China it would take some real surprises to derail the economy.

Aseahawkfan wrote:BS, man. I watched Reagan. He did nothing like Trump. Calling people names and coming back at every critic with some Twitter post is nothing you can associate with Reagan. Reagan would have never acted like some angry High School Student using his social media to yell back at the bullies.

then you have no idea what Reagan did to Gorbachev at Reykjavik and what paved the way for the wall coming down.

Morality is so variable that I don't buy the argument. Rather I would say every great nation falls once the people take for granted their nation and no longer put forth the effort and work to make it great.

Rome as an example wasn't very moral by most standards. They made near constant war. They enslaved tons of people. When they colonized an area, they would send soldiers without women and just have them buy or take local women to breed with to take over the area and build the colony. They were a very war-like empire.

What made Rome fall was the loss of their drive and competitive nature. They grew so rich and powerful that they let their people grow soft, weak, and whiny. Some hungrier groups showed up at their doorstep while they thought their wealth and power made them unassailable and took them out.

Thank you for making my point. I don't know why you disagreed with it when you gave the prime example of how a once great nation started its decay with morality (e.g. enslaving, taking the women, colonizing, etc.)

The point being is not that the most moral nation wins, but the nation with the most competitive drive and hunger achieves great things. If your people lose their drive to build your nation ever greater, then your nation will fall to some hungrier people looking to make their mark on the world. And Idhawkman. where do you see a hungrier group looking to take power in the world? I see them in the east embracing the battle for economic power, the only real power struggle profitable to humans.

I see it in the middle east also.

idhawkman wrote:then you have no idea what Reagan did to Gorbachev at Reykjavik and what paved the way for the wall coming down.

I was alive during that period. Reagan did not do anything like Trump to Gorbachev. Why do you make this trash up? Reagan was way more polished a speaker than Trump. Leaps and bounds. There's a reason why he won by the largest margin in recent history.

Thank you for making my point. I don't know why you disagreed with it when you gave the prime example of how a once great nation started its decay with morality (e.g. enslaving, taking the women, colonizing, etc.)

You missed the point if you think that. I thought you were more well read when it came to Roman history. Rome built their empire enslaving people, making war, and crushing folks. It was when they stopped that they fell. They were at their strongest when they were making war on others, taking crap from no one, and bringing the absolute hammer down on their enemies while colonizing and enslaving neighboring groups and kingdoms. They were building Rome up and making it the most powerful empire in the Western World. Their people believed in Rome and that being Roman meant something. Once your people no longer believe in their nation or that being a part of the nation means anything, bad stuff follows.

Once they stopped doing all of that, they fell. They lost their war focus. They turned into decadent and wealthy weak men rather than driven soldiers building a powerful empire and forcing everyone under their power.

Just like America is strongest when it is driven to compete and win. Not when a bunch of ninny's are whining about micro-aggressions and bullying. America built this nation not by morality, but by strength and drive. Their businesses do not dominate because they are moral, they dominate because they are driven. You ever read on business history or what we did to win? It had very little to do with "good" morality. We lose that competitive drive and we'll get our asses kicked. If these liberals are allowed to control things, they'll take away competition because little Bobby and Sue feel bad when they lose rather than teaching them to get up and put forth more effort to win. I worry more about that then I do morality.

Once a country loses its drive to succeed, its open to getting crushed.

I see it in the middle east also.

I don't. Middle East is filled with folk drunk on religion. China is a hungry nation embracing science, competition, and advancement even if they have to steal it with a desire for power and control. They are branching out with money and connections worldwide.

Aseahawkfan wrote:
I was alive during that period. Reagan did not do anything like Trump to Gorbachev. Why do you make this trash up? Reagan was way more polished a speaker than Trump. Leaps and bounds. There's a reason why he won by the largest margin in recent history.

Although I am happy you were alive during this period, you must not know what Reagan did to Gorbachev during the Reykjavik meeting. Reagan continuously insulted Gorbachev during that meeting and pushed him to the point where they left the meeting without any agreements at all. Most of the media chastised Reagan for not getting an agreement at the time and thought that Reagan was a bumbling fool and had no place in politics. Sound familiar? That meeting however, set the stage for the wall finally coming down. There's a few more things Reagan did to Gorbachev when he came to the U.S. for their Camp David meetings but those are stories for a different time.

You missed the point if you think that. I thought you were more well read when it came to Roman history. Rome built their empire enslaving people, making war, and crushing folks. It was when they stopped that they fell. They were at their strongest when they were making war on others, taking crap from no one, and bringing the absolute hammer down on their enemies while colonizing and enslaving neighboring groups and kingdoms. They were building Rome up and making it the most powerful empire in the Western World. Their people believed in Rome and that being Roman meant something. Once your people no longer believe in their nation or that being a part of the nation means anything, bad stuff follows.

Once they stopped doing all of that, they fell. They lost their war focus. They turned into decadent and wealthy weak men rather than driven soldiers building a powerful empire and forcing everyone under their power.

I'm a little disappointed in you since you don't see your own argument. HOW did Rome get to the point to start invading? Was Rome governed by "the Senate" or by Ceasar in the beginning? Who was it that started the conquering? Were the spoils of war always just taken or given back to the conquered? Do your research and you'll find that the moral decay is what started the fall of Rome. Addiitonally, research what happened to the returning soldiers once all the lands were conquered.

Just like America is strongest when it is driven to compete and win. Not when a bunch of ninny's are whining about micro-aggressions and bullying. America built this nation not by morality, but by strength and drive. Their businesses do not dominate because they are moral, they dominate because they are driven. You ever read on business history or what we did to win? It had very little to do with "good" morality. We lose that competitive drive and we'll get our asses kicked. If these liberals are allowed to control things, they'll take away competition because little Bobby and Sue feel bad when they lose rather than teaching them to get up and put forth more effort to win. I worry more about that then I do morality.

I'd argue that when laws were upheld equally, the drive was natural to follow. When the courts and whiny losers start to corrupt the rule of law, that's where you see people say, "why should I try?" Free giveaways by taking away from those who have is a morality issue.

Once a country loses its drive to succeed, its open to getting crushed.

Agree but again, that is usually preceeded by a decay in the public's morality.

I don't. Middle East is filled with folk drunk on religion. China is a hungry nation embracing science, competition, and advancement even if they have to steal it with a desire for power and control. They are branching out with money and connections worldwide.

So you don't see Iran embracing science when they are trying to obtain a Nuke? Competition? They are trying to crush it by cowering people into submission. Advancement by stealing, they do it by fear. The methods are different but the goals are the same.

Aseahawkfan wrote:One thing I never call Trump is lazy. He may wing it, but he's not lazy. He just does things his way. That guy is always making deals, rarely sleeps, and is always looking to push his advantage. He just doesn't see his advantage as sitting down reading a briefing he can pay someone to summarize or reading a history book that he doesn't think applies now. He's very much watching TV, checking polls and his ratings, talking to people about what they think, and considering how he will work his next crowd. Trump would work most people half his age into the ground. I don't see many politicians that can compete with 70 plus year old Trump's manic energy.

Trump's a lot of things, lazy is not one of them.

Obviously it's a subjective opinion, but he most certainly doesn't bother with reading his briefings and doesn't put a lot of effort into his work. To be fair, both Eisenhower and Reagan suffered from similar criticism, but no one got the impression that they "winged it" to the same degree that we've become accustomed to with Trump.

I don't hate him, either. I'm not worried about him carrying the nuclear football or causing the nation irreversible harm. Unlike others, I don't want to see him go to jail after he leaves office as all that would accomplish would be to further widen the divide between right and left. I have enough policy differences to vote against him, but the major reason I don't like him is his blatant dishonesty and that he's a very poor leader that's not qualified for the position. He's a spoiled rich kid.

Aseahawkfan wrote:I just hate the constant fighting. Most politicians learn to say a lot while actually saying nothing. We've been lied to so often that I don't even expect truth from a politician, though I understand the need for the illusion of truth which Trump doesn't do well.

I'll wait until he's out of office to see what he did compared to other administrations. So far the economy is rolling strong and besides a cyclical downturn, I don't see an end to it in sight. Low taxes, lots of demand, and if he gets a trade deal done with China it would take some real surprises to derail the economy.

I'm more of the opinion that at least in their ability to control the economy that the POTUS is relatively a small player. There was nothing that Jimmy Carter could have done to stave off the recession that we suffered in the late 70's-early 80's as the country came out of the Vietnam era, nor were Reagan's policies alone responsible when we rebounded. When Clinton supporters credit him with our economic boom of the 90's (which they fail to ignore the .com bust of 2000) and I challenge them to produce one thing he did to
initiate that boom, I draw blank stares. Trump is simply riding the wave that started years before he took office.

What I most don't like about Trump is his leadership qualities.

RiverDog wrote:Obviously it's a subjective opinion, but he most certainly doesn't bother with reading his briefings and doesn't put a lot of effort into his work. To be fair, both Eisenhower and Reagan suffered from similar criticism, but no one got the impression that they "winged it" to the same degree that we've become accustomed to with Trump.

I don't disagree that he wings it. It's his style to wing it. I just think he works a lot and enjoys it. Always had, probably will until he dies. Most people his age are hanging out in some house piddling around playing golf or knitting. This guy is running the most powerful nation in the world. You can't be lazy and win the presidency. Trump is a workaholic. That's why he's done so much in his life. I wish I had that kind of energy.

I'm more of the opinion that at least in their ability to control the economy that the POTUS is relatively a small player. There was nothing that Jimmy Carter could have done to stave off the recession that we suffered in the late 70's-early 80's as the country came out of the Vietnam era, nor were Reagan's policies alone responsible when we rebounded. When Clinton supporters credit him with our economic boom of the 90's (which they fail to ignore the .com bust of 2000) and I challenge them to produce one thing he did to
initiate that boom, I draw blank stares. Trump is simply riding the wave that started years before he took office.

Barring anything extremely stupid, economy does mostly run itself. Best thing the government does is know when to give the economy juice to keep expansion going and pull it back when it's overhearing. Otherwise best trait of capitalism is to let the people do their thing and watch them build the nation within the legal and moral boundaries society sets.

What I most don't like about Trump is his leadership qualities.

Trump would probably be a well-liked president if he could speak less like arrogant jackass, stop himself from going back after every single person that says anything slightly bad about him, and vilifying immigrants to stir up his anti-immigration base. But he is what he is and apparently it won him an election and the undying loyalty of Idhawkman and other such supporters.

Some of the stuff he says is the unvarnished truth people hate hearing, His talk about Saudi Arabia some are getting offended about is pretty much business as usual for the United States. We been overlooking Saudi Arabia's scumbag behavior for decades. People pretending any president has stood up to them shows a total lack of awareness on their part. The fact we found out about the killing of the journalist was a Turkish power play that the United States is mostly brushing over because Turkey is harder to deal with than Saudi Arabia. We need a stabilizing force in that region. People pretending Trump's being a jerk for not doing more about Saudi Arabia is fricking laughable. All his advisers in both parties likely told them just let this brush over like all the times in the past. We can't disrupt our alliance with Saudi Arabia.

Next election cycle should be interesting. I'm not seeing anyone I'd vote for yet. I just don't like what the Democrats stand for. I hate what they're doing to this country. I don't know if it is Yahoo news or CNN, but the pushing of a politician like Ocasio-Cortez to prominence as the vision for America is just infuriating. This lady does not love this country. I haven't heard of her speak well of America once. She's part of that new generation of young, immigrant, female politicians looking to grind every axe and blame every wrong on the big bad capitalist, imperialist white man led United States. I'm damn tired of that version of leftist philosophy. You can fix problems without turning a bunch of folks that mostly weren't involved in that pathetic narrative into the villains of the story.

I agree with about 80% of what you're saying, but I will take issue with one of my disagreements. Trump is anything but a workaholic. If he was a workaholic, he wouldn't be as uninformed as he is when he goes to give a speech or a news conference.

IMO that's part of what accounts for his volatile temper and his urge to retaliate. My dad was not a smart man, and I would quite frequently challenge him with a very reasoned argument that he couldn't articulate a response to. He'd get pissed and end the discussion promptly by saying "as long as you live under my roof, you'll do as I tell you!" I think a lot of Trump's behavioral problems and inability to be factually accurate are either due to his laziness or a lack of intellect.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Trump would probably be a well-liked president if he could speak less like arrogant jackass, stop himself from going back after every single person that says anything slightly bad about him, and vilifying immigrants to stir up his anti-immigration base. But he is what he is and apparently it won him an election and the undying loyalty of Idhawkman and other such supporters.

Mostly because he does fight. I'm so tired of the go along to get along republicans and am glad he finally speaks out no matter how trivial when BS is being spewed from the left. Quite frankly I think it has thrown the left so over the top that they are losing their base and their platform because of it. That's going to leave a void for some other party like the libertarian party to step into that void but at least the BS is being called to account.

RiverDog wrote:I agree with about 80% of what you're saying, but I will take issue with one of my disagreements. Trump is anything but a workaholic. If he was a workaholic, he wouldn't be as uninformed as he is when he goes to give a speech or a news conference.

IMO that's part of what accounts for his volatile temper and his urge to retaliate. My dad was not a smart man, and I would quite frequently challenge him with a very reasoned argument that he couldn't articulate a response to. He'd get pissed and end the discussion promptly by saying "as long as you live under my roof, you'll do as I tell you!" I think a lot of Trump's behavioral problems and inability to be factually accurate are either due to his laziness or a lack of intellect.

I don't know Trump personally. I don't see him as lazy or lacking intellect. I see him more as sure of himself and more interested in doing things his way. I think he gets most of his information from conversation and the visual medium with an occasional book that likely confirms his opinions. I don't think he reads extensively other than maybe internet articles, though he has probably read a book here and there. I also don't think this makes you dumb or lazy. Some people just don't like to read.

Like I said, you don't become what Trump has become being dumb and lazy no matter how many people try to spin it that way. You don't like him sure. I guarantee even people with the same amount of money couldn't accomplish what Trump has accomplished or vice versa. People have different talents they focus their intellect on. Trump's main talents are reading people, manipulating them, and selling to them. He learns enough to do just that. Trump came into office with particular opinions and ideas he believes to be true and he is going after them.

I don't think every opinion can be supported with facts, especially given those facts are generally highly skewed with little to no information as to the data model to acquire the information. The majority of information I see posted on here is from articles with a bias to begin with rather than raw data or extensive research. I almost always have to locate the studies they are derived from and see the how the data was collected and measured. You can skew a lot of information to support almost anything by collecting and measuring the data in a way that supports what you want to prove and then writing a convincing short form article telling people what they should think. Most people engage in the same confirmation bias as Trump, so I can't fault him for that.

All I know is you really dislike the guy and not much will change.

Aseahawkfan wrote:All I know is you really dislike the guy and not much will change.

At least you didn't say hate, but you're exactly right. There's not much I like about DJT the person, and that's unlikely to change.

As far as him being lazy and/or dumb, I understand that I don't know the man and it's hard to evaluate a person's intellect or work habits from a distance. But how on Earth could someone in a major speech cite taking over airports in the Revolutionary War? That's not the same as mis-spelling "potato" ala Dan Quayle or not knowing the capitol of some African country and saying "million" instead of "billion" like Reagan used to do. That's some serious head-up-arse, and I'm having a hard time explaining it any other way.

Trump's gaff in that speech was worse than John Belushi's "Bluto" in "Animal House" when he had the Germans bombing Pearl Harbor.

RiverDog wrote:At least you didn't say hate, but you're exactly right. There's not much I like about DJT the person, and that's unlikely to change.

As far as him being lazy and/or dumb, I understand that I don't know the man and it's hard to evaluate a person's intellect or work habits from a distance. But how on Earth could someone in a major speech cite taking over airports in the Revolutionary War? That's not the same as mis-spelling "potato" ala Dan Quayle or not knowing the capitol of some African country and saying "million" instead of "billion" like Reagan used to do. That's some serious head-up-arse, and I'm having a hard time explaining it any other way.

Trump's gaff in that speech was worse than John Belushi's "Bluto" in "Animal House" when he had the Germans bombing Pearl Harbor.

Are you sure he didn't do it just to trigger you? Well, it worked.

RiverDog wrote:At least you didn't say hate, but you're exactly right. There's not much I like about DJT the person, and that's unlikely to change.

As far as him being lazy and/or dumb, I understand that I don't know the man and it's hard to evaluate a person's intellect or work habits from a distance. But how on Earth could someone in a major speech cite taking over airports in the Revolutionary War? That's not the same as mis-spelling "potato" ala Dan Quayle or not knowing the capitol of some African country and saying "million" instead of "billion" like Reagan used to do. That's some serious head-up-arse, and I'm having a hard time explaining it any other way.

Trump's gaff in that speech was worse than John Belushi's "Bluto" in "Animal House" when he had the Germans bombing Pearl Harbor.

idhawkman wrote:Are you sure he didn't do it just to trigger you? Well, it worked.

Maybe. It's a better excuse than "it rained and the teleprompter went out. But hey, I don't need no stinking teleprompter. I knew the speech very well!"

RiverDog wrote:
Maybe. It's a better excuse than "it rained and the teleprompter went out. But hey, I don't need no stinking teleprompter. I knew the speech very well!"

Great response.