quash wrote:The missile test is far more significant, yet you seem way more focused on the flyovers.
What the fuck, dude?
The only reason anyone's still talking about the flyovers is your insistence that they "don't count" as "real" aggression from Russia (btw, if the missile test really IS "significant", why is this the only time you've bothered to so much as mention it?) Moreover, if they're really not that big a deal, why did the article I linked quote the ship's captain as expressing concern about it? Did the Soros Mafia get to him, too?
Though the whole point is that Trump bragged throughout the campaign that this sort of nonsense wouldn't happen under him because of all the RESPECT he would be getting from Putin and everyone else; so, when does that start?
Oh, and has the
faint possibility ever crossed that special little mind of yours that these sorts of incidents
might be getting a wider range of coverage these days because our current President was likely assisted by Russia during the campaign, refuses to release
any information that might clarify the nature of his and his advisors' relationship with the country (we can totally just take his word for it, right?), and has taken a
highly conciliatory stance towards said country despite the
many redoubtable characteristics of its present leadership (not to mention the whole "yeah, when does the RESPECT you wouldn't shut up about start" thing)? Maybe, just
maybe there
isn't a vast everyone-else conspiracy to "get" Trump, but perhaps it might make some sort of
sense to focus on Russia's actions a
little more than usual at the moment, considering the situation we find ourselves in?
And he isn't unapologetically sucking up to anyone, much less Putin. Sanctions are still in place and nothing has changed in Syria yet.
I thought you voted for him
because you were hoping he would suck up to Putin, y'know, the whole "WW3 imminent" thing.
So does this mean you're somehow disappointed?
While we're at it, this prompts another query. For quite some time now, including at the latest press conference (and oh what a display of dignified buck-stops-here leadership THAT was
) Team Trump has singled out Putin, above all others, as the sort of person who could very well react to some manner/degree of "provocation" (exactly what that manner/degree might be seems to change daily, but never mind) with nuclear force; Trump doesn't even talk about Iran's Ayatollahs or Kim Jong Fucking Un this way, and moreover seems comfortable taking a
far more aggressive stance towards the latter, at least in terms of the rhetoric he uses. So, if Trump and company really do believe that Putin is, to put it bluntly, the most unhinged and dangerous individual on the planet (and that's ignoring his horrendous human rights record, unending power grabs, and shameless corruption...which is
precisely what Team Trump has consistently done), is
total capitulation really the best, let alone
only, possible response we can offer? Is this
really the message we want to send to a trigger-happy megalomaniac? By the way, once more, whatever happened to all that RESPECT that Sissy Obama lost and Trump was going to get back? Is this how he plans to do it? Is this what his supporters voted for?
If you want your questions answered, make them clear and concise. If they're not worth asking again, they aren't worth answering.
One post ago you weren't asking for them to be repeated, you were asking for them to be somehow condensed into a single question, which you know is a bullshit request.
But you know what? Here they are yet again, not for your benefit, heaven knows, but for anyone who might still believe that you have anything of value whatsoever to contribute:
1) Why should
any measure of legitimacy be granted to an individual, let alone an entire party, whose
entire economic platform is based upon a
proven and
highly destructive falsehood, namely "shower the rich with even more riches and the government coffers will overflow, and shared wealth will
trickle down to everyone else?" While we're at it, why would such a staunchly capitalist cadre even
propose such a thing, since the very
concept of "shared wealth", very much including the existence of a middle class, flies
directly in the face of what capitalism is supposed to be about?
2) Why should anyone, of
any political affiliation, NOT be
outraged at the current administration's casual and constant evocation of "alternative facts" and conspiracy theories to justify itself in the face of
overwhelming evidence to the contrary? How is such a modus operandi even a
little bit acceptable?
...and the one I'm
personally most eager to hear from you - or any Trumpski - on:
3) When Trump stated, on national television, that he'd sent investigators to Hawaii to "unearth the truth" about Obama's birth, and moreover asserted that "they cannot believe what they're finding", how was this NOT both a
stunningly brazen on-the-record lie and open-faced
slander of a sitting President? Moreover, if the media is truly so devoted to bringing down Trump, why, when equipped with such a widely-covered, open-and-shut case of malicious mendacity on his part, did
absolutely every one of them immediately acquiesce and stop asking about it altogether (on the off-chance they ever bothered to ask in the first place, mind you) when he declared "we don't talk about it anymore" without any further explanation?
"Clear and concise" enough for you? Not likely, and never will be, I'm sure, but we all already knew that.
EDIT: Y'know what? I'm feeling
especially insidious today, so I'll intrude on your
valuable time even
more and toss in a fourth riddle for you: How is anyone supposed to consider Trump's pick to replace Scalia on the Supreme Court,
whoever it is, as even
remotely legitimate, considering that the open seat was
stolen in broad daylight by his party in Congress? And before you answer, ask yourself yet
another question (feel free to lie down first and catch your breath); if the
exact same thing happened except that the party affiliations were switched around, would your answer be the same?
Because he knows it'll divert airtime from other things.
So when does he plan to quit trolling people who prefer their leaders say things which are true and maybe actually say things that are true and maybe even act upon them? And when do his followers plan to actually press him on this in some fashion?
