The Trump Presidency 2.0
- Thread starter Box
- Start date
Blizzard
Member
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2012
- Messages
- 4,253
Non-concur. I'm not a fan of the last administration in any way, shape, or form, but this was all Putin. Evidence? Georgia and Crimea,
Jaknight
Member
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2018
- Messages
- 793
I think Putin saw the perfect moment to strike—the West was still reeling from COVID, the chaos of the 2020 election, and everything felt unstable. Meanwhile, Ukraine was already cozying up to her new boyfriend, and before she could get a NATO ring on it, he decided it was the right time for a “special operation.”
Topkick
Verified Military
Cool, we'll have to disagree on this one. I don't trust Putin but going back to the 2014 coup in Ukraine, it's not all on Putin.
Kraut783
SOF Support
Agree....he took Crimea and nobody complained...
Ukraine was about to kick Russia out of Crimea, which they had a presence since 1783. They kinda had an argument to keep it.
I'm willing to bet Georgia, Ossetia, Chechnya, etc. were all instigated by the USAiD and the CIA. Ironically, under Clinton's rain. Hillary Clinton has had a hard on for Putin for years.
TLDR20
Verified SOF
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2009
- Messages
- 6,672
The leaked call with Victoria Nuland hand picking the replacement Ukrainian leadership. When Yanukovych was still the duly elected President. McCain having dinner with opposition leaders.
That's only the visible parts. USAiD had been involved in the country for years at that point.
Ukraine crisis: Leaked phone call embarrasses US
https://www.cato.org/commentary/americas-ukraine-hypocrisy
Topkick
Verified Military
Putin has made it very clear that it's a primary reason he invaded. He believes the removal of a pro Russian leader was orchestrated by and a puppet was installed by the US (Biden/ Obama) and believes the US was meddling in his affairs. He's right. Whether we agree that it was the right thing for the US to do can be debated.
There must be some pretty massive “mutual assured destruction” stuff in the Epstein files for the Rs to hold onto that stuff as strongly as the Ds did.
If what is said is true, the NY FBI office was holding the majority of files, they were hiding them and possibly destroying files. It's plausible.
Kash Patel was told to have then at the AG office this morning. So we'll see.
I thought this admin is transparent and promised to release the files along with JFK and RFK.
Promises to:
Tighten down on illegal immigration? Check.
Deport illegals? Check.
Dismantle USAID? Check.
Trim gov. fat and waste? Check.
Pursue peace in the Ukraine? Check.
Release Epstein, JFK, and RFK files? (crickets)
To be fair, Biden had his/ her chance to do the same and did not. JFK and RFK? Every president since the 60's.
Who, or what, is everyone protecting and why?
That's exactly what I'm wondering. Those assassinations, and MLK, happened before I was born. Numerous regimes from both parties have held the power to release the info, but chose not to.
I'm thinking that maybe it's because of the organizations involved, not the people. After 50 plus years, surely most of the people who had a direct part or dead, or close to it, right? So maybe it's not about the names of the people, it's the names of the organizations. So who was it? The Mob? The Russians? The CIA? The Israelis? f'in aliens? IDK and IDC, release the info and let the pieces fall where they may.
Topkick
Verified Military
This isn't going to help Republicans. They talked big shit to get these jobs and need to follow through. Otherwise, plenty of ammo for the democrats in the next election.
I'm beginning to get the sense that they were like "Yeah! Release all of the thingzzzz!" while they were campaigning, and then got into office and saw what was in the files and were like "aw, fuck."
Topkick
Verified Military
Or just used them as campaign tactics. Trump already knew these thingzzz.
The maidan revolution was a CIA-led coup/regime change. The fact that people talk about Ukraine and can’t spell “Maidan” let alone know about it is crazy.
Great post Rack.
Regime change? You sure about that? Doesn't sound like our company.
Warm regards,
Kermit Roosevelt Jr. and Frank Wisner
We can categorically deny any involvement in local elections. We support peaceful and lawful transitions of local governments. In no way have we benefited from these lawful elections.
Signed,
British Petroleum and the United Fruit Company
Blizzard
Member
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2012
- Messages
- 4,253
Here's another of my issues/concerns...
Trump is issuing a shit ton of executive orders. That's OK for expediency *provided* it's followed up with actual legislation.
Rule by EO needs to end; it's been going on with too many presidents for WAY too long. Republicans control Congress. There's no reason this needs to continue. They have 2+ years. Legislation must follow.
Trump is issuing a shit ton of executive orders. That's OK for expediency *provided* it's followed up with actual legislation.
Rule by EO needs to end; it's been going on with too many presidents for WAY too long. Republicans control Congress. There's no reason this needs to continue. They have 2+ years. Legislation must follow.
First off, agree. EO's are not what the constitution prescribes for law, and over he last 20 years, presidents have used WAY too many EO's as opposed to engaging in our checks and balances. Trump is inviting legal challenges (tens at this point, probably hundreds soon) to EO's. Trump is focusing on 80/20 issues with these EO's, and I have a feeling the SC just can't wait to weigh in on some of them, they just need the case presented.
Drop the EO, inflame your opponent, opponent sues, goes before the legislature, legislation follows. He won't win all of them, but the majority he'll get into legislation because, again, 80/20 issues. Lower courts have infinitesimally small legal authority to stop the federal government- unless you're the 9th district or have an NY zip code. Many times, these judges don't even have the basic legal standing (you need a person harmed by the ruling to even file, 9 times out of 10 they don't even have that, they just say "this could hurt people".) That's not legal standing, and you don't even need the conspiracy theory of who funded the judges and who appointed them- it's just the law.
Justice Roberts is getting very tired of federal judges in Dem districts bringing these cases; this has always been the plan for two reasons- one, highlight which districts are actively flouting the constitution and their authority by defying the lawful orders of the executive and 2, force a legal battle where the SC rules and codifies legislation. The Supreme Court just ruled in Trump's favor on a lower court ordering the president to pay out $2B in USAID funding. #4dchess.
I haven't gotten to use this in a while, but if you're upset at the ridiculous amount of power taken from the legislative branch and housed in the executive... Thanks, Obama. A phone and a pen, indeed.
BL, get back to checks and balances. Make legislation not EO's that only last as long as "your side" is in power.
Similar threads
