User Controls
Donald Trump apprecation thread
-
2018-06-28 at 7:04 PM UTCHeard that nigga was HIGH END.
-
2018-06-28 at 7:06 PM UTCNot true. The illegal refugee problem was created by the globalists. The Panama Papers clearly showed how individuals like George Soros with his group funded the migration through stolen Syrian oil sold in the black market and used the money to form and push the crisis. Purpose...to destroy Europe and get their operatives in every nation and establish Sharia Law in any neighborhood they can to cause disunity...why Hungry, Italy, Spain and many others countries are now fighting back trying to restore borders and order. One mistake the globalists made...they never expected Trump to win after backing Clinton financially so hard and losing power. Criminals are basically running the show and God help us when Trump leaves.
-
2018-06-28 at 7:10 PM UTCIf you're talking about the multi-billion dollar oil trade that ISIS was running, and the US ignored until Russia started dismantling it, the primary trader was Turkey, rumoured to have been managed by Erdogan's son (his daughter was said to have run the Turkish field hospitals for rebels), who sold it on to China and Israel.
-
2018-06-28 at 7:18 PM UTCWhat's your point...the crisis was caused by globalists and ISIS who are extreme terrorists controlling even moderate Muslims. Migrants came to Europe to disrupt NATO and force the nations to feed, house and change laws with no assimilation whatsoever causing financial problems. Why there's so much violence and even London is falling. This was never a humanitarian mission...it was designed to attack the West and force criminals in the political environment.
-
2018-06-28 at 7:20 PM UTC
even at a time when the legitimate government has largely destroyed ISIS and reduced the rebels to a single major stronghold, US involvement is deepening, not subsiding. last I checked they had built 8 permanent bases on Syrian land with three more under construction.
A great man knows when to change his mind/strategy, only a fool sticks to a losing strategy.
for all his rhetoric on ending foreign wars and stifling foreign interference in the US (specifically the Gulf states), they've only been increasing…
Remember the 2 atom bombs that were dropped on Japan...remember what the result was?...you gotta break eggs to make and omelet. -
2018-06-28 at 7:49 PM UTC
Originally posted by joerell What's your point…the crisis was caused by globalists and ISIS who are extreme terrorists controlling even moderate Muslims. Migrants came to Europe to disrupt NATO and force the nations to feed, house and change laws with no assimilation whatsoever causing financial problems. Why there's so much violence and even London is falling. This was never a humanitarian mission…it was designed to attack the West and force criminals in the political environment.
This has nothing to do with anything.
You can't just blame 'the globalists' for everything. First thing to keep in mind - the majority of Syrian refugees were internally displaced; the bulk of the migrants claiming to be Syrian refugees when entering Europe are North Africans, some as economic migrants and some trying to escape collapsed Libya. There are moral dilemmas when it comes to who should be treated as a refugee and who should be treated as a migrant, compounded by logistic issues due to their sheer volume.
My original point stands - the best way to keep migrants in their home countries is not to destroy them, and in Libya's case that's a direct result of the US/UK's foreign policy (Hillary Clinton to a huge degree).
Originally posted by Jiggaboo_Johnson A great man knows when to change his mind/strategy, only a fool sticks to a losing strategy.
Everything the US has done in Syria has been a losing strategy since Russia and Hezbullah started fighting the US-supported moderate terrorists. It's come to the point where they'll need to start using US (or likely PMC) troops to do the heavy lifting if they intend to create a partition, which is exactly what Trump wanted to avoid. That and the indirect attacks on Russian forces are extremely reckless and could easily lead to a wider war.
Originally posted by Jiggaboo_Johnson Remember the 2 atom bombs that were dropped on Japan…remember what the result was?
gratuitous and unnecessary. -
2018-06-28 at 7:54 PM UTCgratuitous and unnecessary.
It ended the war, a war which could have continued for years and cost millions more lives. Probably good that you are not a military strategist. -
2018-06-28 at 7:55 PM UTCnigger
-
2018-06-28 at 7:56 PM UTCThe war was already over at that point; if anything it only forced unconditional surrender as opposed to the regular kind.
-
2018-06-28 at 7:58 PM UTC
Originally posted by aldra The war was already over at that point; if anything it only forced unconditional surrender as opposed to the regular kind.
"About a week after V-J Day, I was one of a small group of scientists and engineers interrogating an intelligent, well-informed Japanese Army officer in Yokohama. We asked him what, in his opinion, would have been the next major move if the war had continued. He replied: "You would probably have tried to invade our homeland with a landing operation on Kyushu about November 1. I think the attack would have been made on such and such beaches."
"Could you have repelled this landing?" we asked, and he answered: "It would have been a very desperate fight, but I do not think we could have stopped you."
"What would have happened then?" we asked.
He replied: "We would have kept on fighting until all Japanese were killed, but we would not have been defeated," by which he meant that they would not have been disgraced by surrender."
You should probably learn something about the Japanese honor system back then too...kamikaze pilots is a clue and good place to start. -
2018-06-28 at 8:03 PM UTCThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2018-06-28 at 8:06 PM UTC
Originally posted by Number13 To be fair you forget that they didn't surrender after the first bomb, they would have fought to the bitter end.
Exactly and as I said, it would have resulted in many more deaths than caused by the bombs. It was simply a point that again, you have to break eggs to make omelet (unless you use that liquid eggbeaters shit) -
2018-06-28 at 11:19 PM UTC
-
2018-06-28 at 11:41 PM UTC
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-06-29 at 12:10 AM UTC
-
2018-06-29 at 12:24 AM UTC@Aldra.
"This has nothing to do with anything.
You can't just blame 'the globalists' for everything. First thing to keep in mind - the majority of Syrian refugees were internally displaced; the bulk of the migrants claiming to be Syrian refugees when entering Europe are North Africans, some as economic migrants and some trying to escape collapsed Libya. There are moral dilemmas when it comes to who should be treated as a refugee and who should be treated as a migrant, compounded by logistic issues due to their sheer volume.
My original point stands - the best way to keep migrants in their home countries is not to destroy them, and in Libya's case that's a direct result of the US/UK's foreign policy (Hillary Clinton to a huge degree)."
You're wrong and I don't blame just the globalists who financed it. I also blame socialists, the corrupt UN, useless NATO forces, mindless activists and even common people who let this happen. Just like Hitler and the Nazis in WW2...people prefer remaining silent in fear and not getting involved following worthless leaders. It's a societal illness now and people being forced to accept leftist BS. The migrants legal or not should have been left in the ME and not transfered to Europe with no borders or documentation. Most have no interest to assimilate or be governed by Western laws. They should have been deported right away and like Trump suggested sent to Muslim camps where rich Arab states would take care of them. Why both Syria and Iran have to be eliminated along with Russian support and leaving now is not an option. If they do Isreal will fall also where the whole region will be controlled by radical Iran and destroy Europe even more. The right has to win and restore law. This all started with past presidents giving in to radicals and pampering them. In all fairness instead of giving Americans advice you should worry more about your own nation instead to clean up the bigger mess there. -
2018-06-29 at 3:39 AM UTCI would apprecation nude photos of his wife
-
2018-06-29 at 4:17 AM UTC
-
2018-06-29 at 5:22 AM UTCAccording to this actuarial life table from the SSA, there's only a 14% chance Ginsberg makes it to the end of Trump's 2nd term. 38% for Breyer.
https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html
Even if Trump fails domestically with building the border wall, which I doubt given what can be done with a stacked SCOTUS, these nominations cannot be overlooked in regards to stifling the left long after Trump is dead and gone. This is why it was so important that we pull out a win in 2016. Demographically itโs going to be nearly impossible to turn this ship around, right now the main concern should be buying time and laying the financial and legal groundwork for resistance once the left inevitably takes power once again and goes full gulag. -
2018-06-29 at 7:45 AM UTC
Originally posted by Jiggaboo_Johnson "About a week after V-J Day, I was one of a small group of scientists and engineers interrogating an intelligent, well-informed Japanese Army officer in Yokohama. We asked him what, in his opinion, would have been the next major move if the war had continued. He replied: "You would probably have tried to invade our homeland with a landing operation on Kyushu about November 1. I think the attack would have been made on such and such beaches."
"Could you have repelled this landing?" we asked, and he answered: "It would have been a very desperate fight, but I do not think we could have stopped you."
"What would have happened then?" we asked.
He replied: "We would have kept on fighting until all Japanese were killed, but we would not have been defeated," by which he meant that they would not have been disgraced by surrender."
You should probably learn something about the Japanese honor system back then too…kamikaze pilots is a clue and good place to start.
They no longer had any real capacity to fight. They had no allies left and even the Kwantung had been crushed - it's unlikely they could've even secured their own borders at that point.
Originally posted by PrettyHateMachine which side has won?
wut
Originally posted by joerell You're wrong and I don't blame just the globalists who financed it. I also blame socialists, the corrupt UN, useless NATO forces, mindless activists and even common people who let this happen. Just like Hitler and the Nazis in WW2…people prefer remaining silent in fear and not getting involved following worthless leaders. It's a societal illness now and people being forced to accept leftist BS. The migrants legal or not should have been left in the ME and not transfered to Europe with no borders or documentation. Most have no interest to assimilate or be governed by Western laws. They should have been deported right away and like Trump suggested sent to Muslim camps where rich Arab states would take care of them. Why both Syria and Iran have to be eliminated along with Russian support and leaving now is not an option. If they do Isreal will fall also where the whole region will be controlled by radical Iran and destroy Europe even more. The right has to win and restore law. This all started with past presidents giving in to radicals and pampering them. In all fairness instead of giving Americans advice you should worry more about your own nation instead to clean up the bigger mess there.
This is just ideological nonsense that doesn't explain or refute anything. It's literally just an unfocused shotgun blast of 'the left is bad'. You really need to read wider news sources than popular US conservative ones.
How do you think Iran is 'destroying Europe'?
Why do you think Syria and Iran 'have to be eliminated'?
Do you understand the difference, and the conflict between Sunni and Shia Islam? That Iran has been the primary recipient of Sunni Islamic terrorism, to a far greater degree than anywhere in the west?
'This all started with past presidents giving in to radicals and pampering them' - do you understand that at least as far back as the Soviets in Afghanistan, the US has been supporting Sunni terrorists and using them as a foreign policy tool? They use Saudi Arabia to set up Wahabbi-Salafi mosques explicitly to radicalise local muslims. The majority of the Syrian conflict has been a result of the US and KSA importing Islamic extremists into the country. Less than 20% of the anti-government rebels in the country are even Syrian nationals.
'In all fairness instead of giving Americans advice you should worry more about your own nation instead to clean up the bigger mess there.'
My country is a US vassal state, and the US' aggressive and reckless foreign policy is currently the world's primary geopolitical problem.
