The Trump Doctrine Defined: ‘We’re America, B*tch’

a reply to: Xtrozero

Well first you are incorrect...

Ok. Can you elaborate?

Second I guess you do not see the hypocrisy in that Trump is to blame for every failure or even possible future failures while also considered having zero impact in anything positive.

Sure. But what does that have to do with what I have said?

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Gothmog

The same can be said of your opinion. It's meaningless compared to what the US really needs.

See how that works?

Ahh , the old I know you are , what am I debacle
Takes me back to grammar school and the playground
Thanks for the memories.

But , do you have an intellectual rebuttal ?

Exactly the point I tried to make.

We can both spit meaningless, childish rhetoric that holds no value.

Your post holds no value because it states that my opinion is invalid because of your personal assumptions about what the US needs and even throws in a "whatabout Obama" for good measure.

Glad you caught that. Though, I suspect the overall point is about to go over your head.

Yet , still no intellectual rebuttal.
Just , I dont agree

Elucidate , elaborate....

Elucidate

make (something) clear; explain.

Elaborate

develop or present (a theory, policy, or system) in detail.

Defs by Google

Dont reply if it is just going to be more tripe , please.

I fail to see what your point is. You posted childish nonsense and I responded in kind, just to see if you would catch it.

Apparently you didn't and I was correct. It went over your head.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: introvert

sticking your fingers in your ears isn't a valid argument.

True. Good thing I did not do that.

Give me real examples, not platitudes.

Why? You wont even acknowledge that it was Trumps tax plan.

It's not. I believe it was written by Brady.

originally posted by: introvert

Ok. Can you elaborate?

If Hillary was President would have all those areas that you said Trump had no influenced in played out the same way?

originally posted by: seeker1963

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: seeker1963

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: amazing




Ended the war on coal and caused a new mine for coal mining to open that will mine clean coal and he also put the miners back to work. Coal is a dying industry. We don't even need it any more.

The problem is coal is not dead, but Obama wanted to put it in a early grave. The gas vehicle will go the way of the horse some time in the near future, but if we forced it today into an early grave it would not be good, as example.

But there is really no need for coal. If there is a market for it then a mine can remain operational but Obama's regulations where more about pollution and again...if a coal company has to pollute to operate then it should close. I enjoy fishing, boating, swimming in rivers etc.

Take a look at the toxic by products of green energy as promoted by Obama and what was found when Solyndra went belly up after stealing tax payer funding.

Green energy at this point in time is anything but green for those who are honest enough to look at the toxic by products produced in the process of going green.

First look up Solyndra.. it was part of a bigger program for all kinds of innovative things and it was a loan and they paid it all back. No tax payer money lost.

If they were so innovative how did they go bankrupt?

Also, I tried finding how much they paid back and all I found was garbage from sites like Thinkprogess saying they were projecting that Solyndra was going to pay x amount of dollars back.

Nothing solid, just BS trying to protect Obama from being castrated for making a huge mistake.....

You got me there. It IS hard to find good information. Quick search came up with that in 2011 the program had actually collected $810 Million In interest alone, and it was basically breaking even at that point.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: introvert

Ok. Can you elaborate?

If Hillary was President would have all those areas that you said Trump had no influenced in played out the same way?

Yes. What sort of argument is that?

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: seeker1963

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: seeker1963

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: amazing




Ended the war on coal and caused a new mine for coal mining to open that will mine clean coal and he also put the miners back to work. Coal is a dying industry. We don't even need it any more.

The problem is coal is not dead, but Obama wanted to put it in a early grave. The gas vehicle will go the way of the horse some time in the near future, but if we forced it today into an early grave it would not be good, as example.

But there is really no need for coal. If there is a market for it then a mine can remain operational but Obama's regulations where more about pollution and again...if a coal company has to pollute to operate then it should close. I enjoy fishing, boating, swimming in rivers etc.

Take a look at the toxic by products of green energy as promoted by Obama and what was found when Solyndra went belly up after stealing tax payer funding.

Green energy at this point in time is anything but green for those who are honest enough to look at the toxic by products produced in the process of going green.

First look up Solyndra.. it was part of a bigger program for all kinds of innovative things and it was a loan and they paid it all back. No tax payer money lost.

If they were so innovative how did they go bankrupt?

Also, I tried finding how much they paid back and all I found was garbage from sites like Thinkprogess saying they were projecting that Solyndra was going to pay x amount of dollars back.

Nothing solid, just BS trying to protect Obama from being castrated for making a huge mistake.....

You got me there. It IS hard to find good information. Quick search came up with that in 2011 the program had actually collected $810 Million In interest alone, and it was basically breaking even at that point.

I think you missed a good opportunity to turn that question back around.

If Trump was so awesome, why did he go bankrupt many times?

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Gothmog

The same can be said of your opinion. It's meaningless compared to what the US really needs.

See how that works?

Ahh , the old I know you are , what am I debacle
Takes me back to grammar school and the playground
Thanks for the memories.

But , do you have an intellectual rebuttal ?

Exactly the point I tried to make.

We can both spit meaningless, childish rhetoric that holds no value.

Your post holds no value because it states that my opinion is invalid because of your personal assumptions about what the US needs and even throws in a "whatabout Obama" for good measure.

Glad you caught that. Though, I suspect the overall point is about to go over your head.

Yet , still no intellectual rebuttal.
Just , I dont agree

Elucidate , elaborate....

Elucidate

make (something) clear; explain.

Elaborate

develop or present (a theory, policy, or system) in detail.

Defs by Google

Dont reply if it is just going to be more tripe , please.

I fail to see what your point is. You posted childish nonsense and I responded in kind, just to see if you would catch it.

Apparently you didn't and I was correct. It went over your head.

Since you refuse to add quality , I will
Your quote from Teddy was inaccurately used
The "speak softly and carry a big stick" (btw it was speak not talk) was not for a global policy . It was a reference as to how the nefarious meat-packers of his time should handle their take-over . People falsely refer to that now as a global strategy . Never was meant to be.

Of Teddy Roosevelt :

"What moved him was simply a craving for facile and meaningless banzais, for the gaudy eminence and power of the leader of a band of lynchers, for the mean admiration of mean men."

H.L. Mencken on Roosevelt's admiration of the meat-packers.

Even Woodrow Wilson, once an admirer, came to regard TR as “the monumental fakir of history."

Woodrow Wilson would become President of the US

Courtesy of:
How Teddy Roosevelt Invented Spin

Yet , anyone that truly knows US History should know these facts
And , btw , Roosevelt is considered an early Liberal . For his admiration of a "mean group of people"
Sound familiar...?
So , there you go. An intellectual and factual response with substance.

Knock off the tit for tat please. You are not in the Pit and your opinions of one another are off topic.

Do not reply to this post.

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Gothmog

The same can be said of your opinion. It's meaningless compared to what the US really needs.

See how that works?

Ahh , the old I know you are , what am I debacle
Takes me back to grammar school and the playground
Thanks for the memories.

But , do you have an intellectual rebuttal ?

Exactly the point I tried to make.

We can both spit meaningless, childish rhetoric that holds no value.

Your post holds no value because it states that my opinion is invalid because of your personal assumptions about what the US needs and even throws in a "whatabout Obama" for good measure.

Glad you caught that. Though, I suspect the overall point is about to go over your head.

Yet , still no intellectual rebuttal.
Just , I dont agree

Elucidate , elaborate....

Elucidate

make (something) clear; explain.

Elaborate

develop or present (a theory, policy, or system) in detail.

Defs by Google

Dont reply if it is just going to be more tripe , please.

I fail to see what your point is. You posted childish nonsense and I responded in kind, just to see if you would catch it.

Apparently you didn't and I was correct. It went over your head.

Dang , still no rebuttal
I asked you not to reply if it was just going to be your normal tripe....
And , what did I get , your normal tripe.

Guess I brought out the best in you already.
Shame , I was hoping for better
Have a real intellectual debate for a change

We cannot have an "intellectual" debate if you do not offer an intelligent point to discuss.

Like I said, my approach went way over your head and you replied with more snarky drivel to cover-up your snarky drivel.

Oh well. Can't say it was not expected.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Gothmog

The same can be said of your opinion. It's meaningless compared to what the US really needs.

See how that works?

Ahh , the old I know you are , what am I debacle
Takes me back to grammar school and the playground
Thanks for the memories.

But , do you have an intellectual rebuttal ?

Exactly the point I tried to make.

We can both spit meaningless, childish rhetoric that holds no value.

Your post holds no value because it states that my opinion is invalid because of your personal assumptions about what the US needs and even throws in a "whatabout Obama" for good measure.

Glad you caught that. Though, I suspect the overall point is about to go over your head.

Yet , still no intellectual rebuttal.
Just , I dont agree

Elucidate , elaborate....

Elucidate

make (something) clear; explain.

Elaborate

develop or present (a theory, policy, or system) in detail.

Defs by Google

Dont reply if it is just going to be more tripe , please.

I fail to see what your point is. You posted childish nonsense and I responded in kind, just to see if you would catch it.

Apparently you didn't and I was correct. It went over your head.

Dang , still no rebuttal
I asked you not to reply if it was just going to be your normal tripe....
And , what did I get , your normal tripe.

Guess I brought out the best in you already.
Shame , I was hoping for better
Have a real intellectual debate for a change

We cannot have an "intellectual" debate if you do not offer an intelligent point to discuss.

Like I said, my approach went way over your head and you replied with more snarky drivel to cover-up your snarky drivel.

Oh well. Can't say it was not expected.

Read my last post. Since I refused to stoop to a certain folks level (and remembered a quote by George Carlin) , I edited it
Just for you...

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Gothmog

The same can be said of your opinion. It's meaningless compared to what the US really needs.

See how that works?

Ahh , the old I know you are , what am I debacle
Takes me back to grammar school and the playground
Thanks for the memories.

But , do you have an intellectual rebuttal ?

Exactly the point I tried to make.

We can both spit meaningless, childish rhetoric that holds no value.

Your post holds no value because it states that my opinion is invalid because of your personal assumptions about what the US needs and even throws in a "whatabout Obama" for good measure.

Glad you caught that. Though, I suspect the overall point is about to go over your head.

Yet , still no intellectual rebuttal.
Just , I dont agree

Elucidate , elaborate....

Elucidate

make (something) clear; explain.

Elaborate

develop or present (a theory, policy, or system) in detail.

Defs by Google

Dont reply if it is just going to be more tripe , please.

I fail to see what your point is. You posted childish nonsense and I responded in kind, just to see if you would catch it.

Apparently you didn't and I was correct. It went over your head.

Dang , still no rebuttal
I asked you not to reply if it was just going to be your normal tripe....
And , what did I get , your normal tripe.

Guess I brought out the best in you already.
Shame , I was hoping for better
Have a real intellectual debate for a change

We cannot have an "intellectual" debate if you do not offer an intelligent point to discuss.

Like I said, my approach went way over your head and you replied with more snarky drivel to cover-up your snarky drivel.

Oh well. Can't say it was not expected.

Read my last post. Since I refused to stoop to a certain folks level (and remembered a quote by George Carlin) , I edited it
Just for you...

I know you edited it. Pretty shady # right there.

You don't edit after someone has already responded to it, unless it's for grammar purposes.

By the way, it's not much of an "intellectual" response when you use logical fallacies like that.

But I doubt you can even find where it is.

originally posted by: theatreboy
a reply to: Iamonlyhuman


It is funny, I just heard NPR (yes, I listen to all sides before forming an opinion) admit that the last 25 years of a diplomatic approach has not worked. That reads Clinton, Bush, Obama failed. Trump Won.

And I like it:

We Are America, Btches!

MAGA

What has he won exactly?

In one week he has sh*t canned 100 years of alliances that has resulted in the USA being the most powerful nation on Earth, lied and insulted the closest friend (both geographically and politically) we have ever had in the world, sucked up to and accepted a bribe from the strongest foe still existing, and gave up house to the single most dangerous, murderous, regime on the planet, (a regime that has been, AND STILL IS in direct military war with us for over 60 years don't forget) and got absolutely nothing in return for it - nothing, zip, nada.

Congratulations: America now has its own Neville "peace in our time" Chamberlain.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: seeker1963

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: seeker1963

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: amazing




Ended the war on coal and caused a new mine for coal mining to open that will mine clean coal and he also put the miners back to work. Coal is a dying industry. We don't even need it any more.

The problem is coal is not dead, but Obama wanted to put it in a early grave. The gas vehicle will go the way of the horse some time in the near future, but if we forced it today into an early grave it would not be good, as example.

But there is really no need for coal. If there is a market for it then a mine can remain operational but Obama's regulations where more about pollution and again...if a coal company has to pollute to operate then it should close. I enjoy fishing, boating, swimming in rivers etc.

Take a look at the toxic by products of green energy as promoted by Obama and what was found when Solyndra went belly up after stealing tax payer funding.

Green energy at this point in time is anything but green for those who are honest enough to look at the toxic by products produced in the process of going green.

First look up Solyndra.. it was part of a bigger program for all kinds of innovative things and it was a loan and they paid it all back. No tax payer money lost.

If they were so innovative how did they go bankrupt?

Also, I tried finding how much they paid back and all I found was garbage from sites like Thinkprogess saying they were projecting that Solyndra was going to pay x amount of dollars back.

Nothing solid, just BS trying to protect Obama from being castrated for making a huge mistake.....

You got me there. It IS hard to find good information. Quick search came up with that in 2011 the program had actually collected $810 Million In interest alone, and it was basically breaking even at that point.

I think you missed a good opportunity to turn that question back around.

If Trump was so awesome, why did he go bankrupt many times?

I'm more interested in the specifics. Did Solyndra pay it all back. Did the program lose money?

a reply to: seeker1963

If they were so innovative how did they go bankrupt?

Also, I tried finding how much they paid back and all I found was garbage from sites like Thinkprogess saying they were projecting that Solyndra was going to pay x amount of dollars back.

Nothing solid, just BS trying to protect Obama from being castrated for making a huge mistake.....

I don't know specifically about how much Solyndra did or did not pay back. However the reason they got into difficulty was not because their technology was bad, it was because it was too little too late. Their technology improved the efficiency of solar cells which improved the cost per output equation by increasing the output. Unfortunately for them, the South Koreans (followed by the Germans) attacked the same equation by lowering the cost.

Specifically, Solyndra used copper indium gallium selenide (CIGS) thin film solar cells formed into a tube that performed better than the contemporary silicon panels. As Solyndra scaled up production the price of polysilicon fell through the floor (89% in the space of 18 months or so) and the silicon based technology took over.

Solyndra lost in the market place, but the technology is still valid and will show up sometime in other products, probably not market mainstream - the market for thin film PV is probably not your family home rooftop. That is how captialism works by the way. The legal controversy was about how they structured the bankruptcy process, and I can't comment on that since I don't know anything about bankruptcy processes. You'll have to ask the Donald about that.

As for the program, of which Solyndra was only ONE of MANY participants (including Fiskars and Tesla), Congress EXPECTED the program to lose money. It was an innovation kickstarter, intended to encourage research and development of RISKY technologies that could not find funding in the 'traditional' finance market. It was EXPECTED that some projects would succeed and some would fail. Solyndra and Fiskars failed. Tesla succeeded (and repaid its $465million loan 9 years early).

Never-the-less the program actually made a profit - DESPITE the failure of Solyndra and Fiskers and others - the program MADE A PROFIT

And for those of you who don't like the Solyndra deal just because you are all excited about Coal As The Future, remember this: the same program that invested in Solyndra also invested $3.4 billion for carbon capture and low emission coal RESEARCH GRANTS. Not factories. Not employment of 1000's of people. Not products. Research Grants. Just Research Grants. Grants are not paid back - and the program has never-the-less made money, and continues to receive interest payments to this day.

a reply to: amazing

I'm more interested in the specifics. Did Solyndra pay it all back.

No. Neither did Fiskars, and several other companies. Solyndra was not the only failure.

On the other hand, many investments were big winners. Tesla paid back its loan ($464 million) 9 years early.

Did the program lose money?

No. And it is STILL receiving interest payments which is all profit to this day.

More importantly, the program did what it was meant to do, soften the recession and kickstart the recovery.

For more detail see my post between yours and this one.

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: Lab4Us


Lol. Huge difference between “isolation” and stopping the free for all theivery being perpetrated against America by nations across the globe who claim they are America’s allies.

Yeah, see, that's not true. We give as much as America does. It's called "Trade".

I guess if you only watch Fox News and read right-wing websites then you're not getting the full picture.

There will never be “isolation” of America...soon as any ally country is threatened militarily, they come running to America to beg for help in defending their borders (even though they think they know best for America controlling its own borders).

America decided to become the "worlds police", expand it's military bases all over the world and then wonders why people come to it for help?

It boggles the mind, it really does.

Then they come running to America for handouts to rebuild their country they couldn't defend on their own. See history for the recurring examples.

More Fox News/right-wing propaganda nonsense that is easily disprovable for anyone with half a brain and a knowledge of the world outside their little bubble.

Sorry sport, no bubble here. 40 years in DoD, stationed around the world and experiencing it first hand...long before these days of keyboard warriors. And please review history if you don't think the US rebuilt a lot of the world after being drawn into WWI and WWII. Or don’t your puppet masters Soros, et. al., allow to look back farther than Obama’s terms?

BTW...”trade”, when one country tariffs US products at 10-20% while the other had no tariffs (US), is NOT equal trade. Unless that’s the new math kids are taught these days.

a reply to: Lab4Us

BTW...”trade”, when one country tariffs US products at 10-20% while the other had no tariffs (US), is NOT equal trade. Unless that’s the new math kids are taught these days.

Yeah... see that just isn't happening. Its a complete furphy.

a reply to: rnaa

Mericuh!

originally posted by: Lab4Us

And please review history if you don't think the US rebuilt a lot of the world after being drawn into WWI and WWII. Or don’t your puppet masters Soros, et. al., allow to look back farther than Obama’s terms?

BTW...”trade”, when one country tariffs US products at 10-20% while the other had no tariffs (US), is NOT equal trade. Unless that’s the new math kids are taught these days.

This only happens on Fox News and right-wing websites. In the "Real World" (aka: the one the rest of the world lives in), this is simply and demonstrably false.

Sorry sport, no bubble here. 40 years in DoD, stationed around the world and experiencing it first hand...long before these days of keyboard warriors.

I don't believe you, given how wrong you have been so far. I think you're just making up some "worldly DOD" connection in an attempt to legitimize your posts.