POL Politiek
Discussies en diepgaande gesprekken over de politiek in de breedste zin van het woord kun je hier voeren.
heel zwak iddquote:Op maandag 23 juli 2018 17:13 schreef Ulx het volgende:
[..]
Samengevat:
"Omdat Obama niet juist reageerde moet men Trump niets kwalijk nemen."
Zwak argument.
Mag ik je vandaag weer eens irriteren?
Wel weer een perfecte afleidings strategie met die revoked security clearance. The base needs to be informed with nothingburgers want stel je voor ...
04-08-11, 02-02-12, 20-06-14, 13-08-15
Trump is zelf een paard op het bord. Een actor, useful idiot door de krachten achter hem: De Mercers bijv. en Russische interests. De NRA, olielobby's.quote:Op dinsdag 24 juli 2018 00:49 schreef Boze_Appel het volgende:
[..]
Word je niet moe van jelelf. Er is geen schaak, hij is gewoon stupide.
beter een knipoog dan een blauw oog
Waar heeft hij het nou weer over?twitter:realDonaldTrump twitterde op dinsdag 24-07-2018 om 13:09:12 Countries that have treated us unfairly on trade for years are all coming to Washington to negotiate. This should have taken place many years ago but,as the saying goes, better late than never! reageer retweet
Countries that have treated us unfairly on trade for years are all coming to Washington to negotiate. This should have taken place many years ago but,as the saying goes, better late than never!
I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me.
twitter:realDonaldTrump twitterde op dinsdag 24-07-2018 om 13:29:50 Tariffs are the greatest! Either a country which has treated the United States unfairly on Trade negotiates a fair deal, or it gets hit with Tariffs. It’s as simple as that - and everybody’s talking! Remember, we are the “piggy bank” that’s being robbed. All will be Great! reageer retweet
I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me.
Juncker is morgen in Washingtonquote:Op dinsdag 24 juli 2018 13:27 schreef Ulx het volgende:
Waar heeft hij het nou weer over?twitter:realDonaldTrump twitterde op dinsdag 24-07-2018 om 13:09:12 Countries that have treated us unfairly on trade for years are all coming to Washington to negotiate. This should have taken place many years ago but,as the saying goes, better late than never! reageer retweet
Lekker zuipen, lekker dansen en daarna lekker neuken.
Dit komt op mij echt over als iemand die vooral zichzelf probeert te overtuigen.quote:twitter:realDonaldTrump twitterde op dinsdag 24-07-2018 om 13:29:50 Tariffs are the greatest! Either a country which has treated the United States unfairly on Trade negotiates a fair deal, or it gets hit with Tariffs. It’s as simple as that - and everybody’s talking! Remember, we are the “piggy bank” that’s being robbed. All will be Great! reageer retweet
"The north remembers, Lord Davos. The north remembers, and the mummer’s farce is almost done.”
Ik denk eerder dat Fox News network zijn platte muil aanstuurt.quote:
[..]
Trump is zelf een paard op het bord. Een actor, useful idiot door de krachten achter hem: De Mercers bijv. en Russische interests. De NRA, olielobby's.
Mag ik je vandaag weer eens irriteren?
casino gelul van iemand die er een paar bankroet heeft laten gaan.quote:
[..]
Dit komt op mij echt over als iemand die vooral zichzelf probeert te overtuigen.
Mag ik je vandaag weer eens irriteren?
Ik wacht dan zijn verklaring wel af. De tweets van Trump slaan toch nergens op.quote:
I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me.
Zou hij beseffen dat er jarenlang is onderhandeld over TTIP, maar dat hij er een streep doorheen heeft gezet?quote:Waar heeft hij het nou weer over?twitter:realDonaldTrump twitterde op dinsdag 24-07-2018 om 13:09:12 Countries that have treated us unfairly on trade for years are all coming to Washington to negotiate. This should have taken place many years ago but,as the saying goes, better late than never! reageer retweet
Op maandag 3 februari 2014 08:10 schreef Enchanter het volgende:[/b]
In discussie gaan met Koos Vogels :') , een grotere mongool is er niet :r
In discussie gaan met Koos Vogels :') , een grotere mongool is er niet :r
Ik kan hier als conservatief erg om lachen.quote:
Op
Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves.
Iedereen lacht om Trumpsupporters ja.quote:
[..]
Ik kan hier als conservatief erg om lachen.
ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
Een echte conservatief heeft bij Trump ook niet veel te zoeken denk ik.quote:Op dinsdag 24 juli 2018 14:07 schreef xpompompomx het volgende:
[..]
Iedereen lacht om Trumpsupporters ja.
Geen idee maar gezien zijn laatste uitlatingen denk ik dat hij TTIP wel prima vind maar omdat het een "Obama dingetje" is moet het natuurlijk helemaal overnieuw en moet 1 van de T's voor Trump staan.quote:
[..]
Zou hij beseffen dat er jarenlang is onderhandeld over TTIP, maar dat hij er een streep doorheen heeft gezet?
Het is soms wel een moderne Romeinse keizer qua onvoorspelbaarheid. Denk dat mensen die wat met hem van doen hebben zich soms voelen zoals een legaat deed als hij bij Nero moest langskomen.
Jahaaa.. Mijn mening verandert vaak. Niet dat ik niet weet wat ik zeg. Maar ik houd mij liever niet vast aan oude denkbeelden als nieuwe beter zijn...
Long read:
To Beat Trump, Get a Grip
Democrats won’t win in 2020 by calling him a ‘traitor’ and doubling down on identity politics.
By Ted Van Dyk the wall street journal
Democrats are determined to remove President Trump from office in 2020—or before, if that becomes possible. If precedent holds, he can be unseated in 2020 by a candidate perceived as his opposite: experienced, serious, knowledgeable about policy. If Democrats attempt to rush the process, amid current charges that Mr. Trump is a “traitor” and Russian agent and that his Supreme Court nominee is an extremist, they will further energize their take-it-to-the-streets wing but alienate all but partisan Northeast and Pacific Coast voters.
The present political and media rage over Mr. Trump’s alleged sellout to Vladimir Putin is an overreach. Any damage done at their recent summit pales compared with the effects, for instance, of the earlier Yalta Summit at which Stalin got a dying President Franklin D. Roosevelt to cede him Eastern Europe, or the Khrushchev-Kennedy Vienna Summit, which led to the Cuban Missile Crisis, Berlin Crisis and a huge buildup of U.S. ICBM forces and budget. Mr. Trump stumbled in Helsinki, but stumbles do not amount to treason.
Democrats and some media are now calling for Mr. Trump’s impeachment, presuming that a post-November Democratic House majority would bring such a vote. But it is a risky strategy that would polarize Americans deeply. The case against him would have to be airtight and based on indisputable fact. Otherwise Mr. Trump would be strengthened rather than harmed.
Democrats should take a fresh look at why and how Mr. Trump won the 2016 election. The party’s national leadership claims it was because of support from white supremacists, religious nuts, nativists, misogynists and Latino-haters. This is a failure to recognize what actually happened. President Trump was the consequence—not the cause—of a nationwide loss of confidence in all of the American establishment: political, media, cultural, business, financial. Sen. Bernie Sanders played on similar sentiments on the Democratic side and, had he known his potential sooner, could have won his party’s nomination.
Most voters knew before the election that Mr. Trump was a crude, freewheeling, womanizing egotist, a man who very well might finance his ventures with money from sketchy sources. They discounted all those negative factors because he was so obviously different from the establishment candidates in whom they had lost trust. Think about it: In one campaign, Mr. Trump polished off the Bushes, the Clintons, and even Ted Cruz. Voters did not love Mr. Trump; they rejected the other guys.
So where does that leave Democrats? A writer at the Washington Post recently put together a list of the top Democratic presidential contenders for 2020. Ranked first, not surprisingly, was Mr. Sanders, given his strong 2016 showing. Also near the top was former Vice President Joe Biden, who relates well to middle-American voters. But most of the rest of the contenders take an angry, accusatory line toward Mr. Trump. Leading the pack were Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris, from Massachusetts and California, respectively, where bashing the president earns cheers from the party faithful.
Shrill attacks and identity politics got a strong start during Bill Clinton’s two presidential terms. Under fire on multiple fronts, the Clinton White House took an aggressive posture toward critics, asserting that it was just “fighting back.” Democrats repeated that pattern in President Obama’s 2012 campaign. They labeled Mitt Romney, a temperate former governor of Massachusetts, as antiwoman, antigay, antiblack, anti-Latino, anti-immigrant and a tool of big finance. That theme worked so well that Democrats repeated it in congressional races two years later. Now the beat goes on, only stronger, against Mr. Trump.
There are some basic misapprehensions here. Most voters see abortion and gay rights as accepted issues and wonder why Democrats present them as threatened. They do not see racism as on the rise or the country as moving back toward Jim Crow. On the contrary, they see several decades in which the barriers to equal opportunity, legal or otherwise, have been steadily dismantled. They do worry about the problems of big-city neighborhoods: violence, drug use, broken families, unemployment, daunting dropout and incarceration rates. But they see little evidence that “white privilege” is the cause. They like immigrants and refugees but generally believe everyone should take a legal path to citizenship.
National security and the economy are the two principal issues in any presidential campaign. The Trump record in both those realms should be critiqued by Democrats. They should, in turn, offer credible alternative policies. If they do, and their presidential candidate seems reasonable, Democrats can reclaim the White House in 2020 not through a constitutional crisis but through a free election and with a popular mandate.
My own guess: By 2020, Mr. Trump will have fatigued the public. Voters will be turned off by him, just as they were in turn by the Johnson, Nixon and Carter presidencies. They will want to see another face on their TV sets. The danger is that Democrats by then may have fatigued the public even more.
Mr. Van Dyk was active in Democratic national policy and politics for 40 years. He is author of “Heroes, Hacks and Fools” (University of Washington Press, 2007).
https://www.wsj.com/articles/to-beat-trump-get-a-grip-1532386992
To Beat Trump, Get a Grip
Democrats won’t win in 2020 by calling him a ‘traitor’ and doubling down on identity politics.
By Ted Van Dyk the wall street journal
Democrats are determined to remove President Trump from office in 2020—or before, if that becomes possible. If precedent holds, he can be unseated in 2020 by a candidate perceived as his opposite: experienced, serious, knowledgeable about policy. If Democrats attempt to rush the process, amid current charges that Mr. Trump is a “traitor” and Russian agent and that his Supreme Court nominee is an extremist, they will further energize their take-it-to-the-streets wing but alienate all but partisan Northeast and Pacific Coast voters.
The present political and media rage over Mr. Trump’s alleged sellout to Vladimir Putin is an overreach. Any damage done at their recent summit pales compared with the effects, for instance, of the earlier Yalta Summit at which Stalin got a dying President Franklin D. Roosevelt to cede him Eastern Europe, or the Khrushchev-Kennedy Vienna Summit, which led to the Cuban Missile Crisis, Berlin Crisis and a huge buildup of U.S. ICBM forces and budget. Mr. Trump stumbled in Helsinki, but stumbles do not amount to treason.
Democrats and some media are now calling for Mr. Trump’s impeachment, presuming that a post-November Democratic House majority would bring such a vote. But it is a risky strategy that would polarize Americans deeply. The case against him would have to be airtight and based on indisputable fact. Otherwise Mr. Trump would be strengthened rather than harmed.
Democrats should take a fresh look at why and how Mr. Trump won the 2016 election. The party’s national leadership claims it was because of support from white supremacists, religious nuts, nativists, misogynists and Latino-haters. This is a failure to recognize what actually happened. President Trump was the consequence—not the cause—of a nationwide loss of confidence in all of the American establishment: political, media, cultural, business, financial. Sen. Bernie Sanders played on similar sentiments on the Democratic side and, had he known his potential sooner, could have won his party’s nomination.
Most voters knew before the election that Mr. Trump was a crude, freewheeling, womanizing egotist, a man who very well might finance his ventures with money from sketchy sources. They discounted all those negative factors because he was so obviously different from the establishment candidates in whom they had lost trust. Think about it: In one campaign, Mr. Trump polished off the Bushes, the Clintons, and even Ted Cruz. Voters did not love Mr. Trump; they rejected the other guys.
So where does that leave Democrats? A writer at the Washington Post recently put together a list of the top Democratic presidential contenders for 2020. Ranked first, not surprisingly, was Mr. Sanders, given his strong 2016 showing. Also near the top was former Vice President Joe Biden, who relates well to middle-American voters. But most of the rest of the contenders take an angry, accusatory line toward Mr. Trump. Leading the pack were Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris, from Massachusetts and California, respectively, where bashing the president earns cheers from the party faithful.
Shrill attacks and identity politics got a strong start during Bill Clinton’s two presidential terms. Under fire on multiple fronts, the Clinton White House took an aggressive posture toward critics, asserting that it was just “fighting back.” Democrats repeated that pattern in President Obama’s 2012 campaign. They labeled Mitt Romney, a temperate former governor of Massachusetts, as antiwoman, antigay, antiblack, anti-Latino, anti-immigrant and a tool of big finance. That theme worked so well that Democrats repeated it in congressional races two years later. Now the beat goes on, only stronger, against Mr. Trump.
There are some basic misapprehensions here. Most voters see abortion and gay rights as accepted issues and wonder why Democrats present them as threatened. They do not see racism as on the rise or the country as moving back toward Jim Crow. On the contrary, they see several decades in which the barriers to equal opportunity, legal or otherwise, have been steadily dismantled. They do worry about the problems of big-city neighborhoods: violence, drug use, broken families, unemployment, daunting dropout and incarceration rates. But they see little evidence that “white privilege” is the cause. They like immigrants and refugees but generally believe everyone should take a legal path to citizenship.
National security and the economy are the two principal issues in any presidential campaign. The Trump record in both those realms should be critiqued by Democrats. They should, in turn, offer credible alternative policies. If they do, and their presidential candidate seems reasonable, Democrats can reclaim the White House in 2020 not through a constitutional crisis but through a free election and with a popular mandate.
My own guess: By 2020, Mr. Trump will have fatigued the public. Voters will be turned off by him, just as they were in turn by the Johnson, Nixon and Carter presidencies. They will want to see another face on their TV sets. The danger is that Democrats by then may have fatigued the public even more.
Mr. Van Dyk was active in Democratic national policy and politics for 40 years. He is author of “Heroes, Hacks and Fools” (University of Washington Press, 2007).
https://www.wsj.com/articles/to-beat-trump-get-a-grip-1532386992
Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves.
Alex Jones ondertussen bedreigt Mueller met de dood... de vriendelijke man
https://www.newsweek.com/(...)s-zuckerberg-1038500
https://www.newsweek.com/(...)s-zuckerberg-1038500
04-08-11, 02-02-12, 20-06-14, 13-08-15
De Amerikaanse bevolking is zo ernstig gedesinformeerd dat je daar niet zeker van kunt zijn. Tientallen jaren van disneyficering hebben hun werk gedaan. Het gaat er niet om hoe waarheidsgetrouw een boodschap is, het gaat erom in welke mate de ontvanger bereid is tot suspension of disbelief. Trump brengt geen feiten op tafel, hij creëert mythes.quote:
Dit komt op mij echt over als iemand die vooral zichzelf probeert te overtuigen.
Mocht hij ooit berecht, schuldig bevonden en afgezet worden, dan wordt het echt enorm lastig om de massa ervan te overtuigen dat daar gegronde redenen voor zijn geweest. Nog veel lastiger dan het proces dat tot zijn afzetting moet leiden.
He's simple, he's dumb, he's the pilot.
dat zal wellicht uitlopen op een verkapte burgeroorlog, volgzaam volkje hoorquote:
[..]
De Amerikaanse bevolking is zo ernstig gedesinformeerd dat je daar niet zeker van kunt zijn. Tientallen jaren van disneyficering hebben hun werk gedaan. Het gaat er niet om hoe waarheidsgetrouw een boodschap is, het gaat erom in welke mate de ontvanger bereid is tot suspension of disbelief. Trump brengt geen feiten op tafel, hij creëert mythes.
Mocht hij ooit berecht, schuldig bevonden en afgezet worden, dan wordt het echt enorm lastig om de massa ervan te overtuigen dat daar gegronde redenen voor zijn geweest. Nog veel lastiger dan het proces dat tot zijn afzetting moet leiden.
04-08-11, 02-02-12, 20-06-14, 13-08-15
Ik denk dat Mueller getraind is met een vuurwapen.quote:Op dinsdag 24 juli 2018 14:53 schreef Re het volgende:
Alex Jones ondertussen bedreigt Mueller met de dood... de vriendelijke man
https://www.newsweek.com/(...)s-zuckerberg-1038500
I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me.
