Donald Trump: Sociopath?

Forum Sponsor
mmmnaked said:
Carter operation Cyclone.. I mistakenly said 'project' so maybe it doesnt come up as readily.

Basically it was the start of the CIA funding the mujahideen. So yeah, thank the Democrats for that.
Click to expand...
I dunno why you'd stop going back in time with Carter. The US was supporting armed insurrection around the world for decades before him. There is plenty of blame to go around, but that doesn't make it all equivalent.

The army invaded with Bush. And it happened at a point in time when US could have extricated itself from the mess (which was inevitable either way). The last chance to exit that situation was used instead to send boots on the ground. Bush II scaled it up even more. Under Clinton and Obama, military involvement and general meddling in the region was scaled back. There's no comparison. The west is in this mess because of the lying war hawks, nobody else.
 
fastar1 said:
I dunno why you'd stop going back in time with Carter. The US was supporting armed insurrection around the world for decades before him. There is plenty of blame to go around, but that doesn't make it all equivalent.

The army invaded with Bush. And it happened at a point in time when US could have extricated itself from the mess (which was inevitable either way). The last chance to exit that situation was used instead to send boots on the ground. Bush II scaled it up even more. Under Clinton and Obama, military involvement and general meddling in the region was scaled back. There's no comparison. The west is in this mess because of the lying war hawks, nobody else.
Click to expand...
Because any time someone mentions the last 8 years of US military action in the Middle East, the lefties invariably blame Bush. So why stop at Bush? Is there a 16 year cutoff or something?

Democrats started the trend of funding mujahideen, these people are what we call terrorists today. Bush meanwhile had to deal with the single greatest terror attack on US soil.
 
RockerGuy said:
He doesn't have a teleprompt telling him what to say. At least we're knowing what's going on in his mind. That's what the people are starting to love.
Click to expand...
This 'no teleprompter' nonsense is just flax from the right to distract from the gawdawful things they say. It would maybe make sense if they were electing a dictator, but government takes 100 of thousands of people to run properly, and they need to connect with 100s of millions of people as much as is possible. A teleprompter might just have a place in that process!

Even though he becomes president, I highly doubt he can do whatever he wants. I'm sure he has to go through process before he can press a nuke button
Click to expand...
Then why are you judging him as one single, solitary entity, yet at the same time you admit he is only one small piece of the puzzle. Judge his fit in whole friggen puzzle. If you don't like the puzzle (the system), inserting a different piece won't fix it!
 
fastar1 said:
Under Clinton and Obama, military involvement and general meddling in the region was scaled back. There's no comparison. The west is in this mess because of the lying war hawks, nobody else.
Click to expand...

By what metric? Obama spent more on the middle East military effort than Bush. I'm fairly sure he involved the US in even more fronts.
 
mmmnaked said:
Because any time someone mentions the last 8 years of US military action in the Middle East, the lefties invariably blame Bush. So why stop at Bush? Is there a 16 year cutoff or something?

Democrats started the trend of funding mujahideen, these people are what we call terrorists today. Bush meanwhile had to deal with the single greatest terror attack on US soil.
Click to expand...
What was mentioned wasn't the last 8 years but the last 26. I am countering the claim that each subsequent Pres was worse than the previous one. It's preposterous. The Dems have done everything possible to extricate themselves from the situation (which boils down to fostering energy independence). The Repubs have just continued sabre rattling and thumping their chests.

Delboy said:
It's just been getting progressively worse since 1988. George Bush, slick Willy, George W. Bush and then Obama. They are really scraping the bottom of the barrel. I can't believe out of 300 million people they can't find anyone better.
Click to expand...
 
fastar1 said:
. The Dems have done everything possible to extricate themselves from the situation .
Click to expand...

ROFL you don't seriously believe the ********* you're spewing omg...

Obama had 8 years to get out, he ended up involving the US in several other conflicts and spent MORE on the war effort than war-mongering Bush. Wake up and smell the coffee... Partisanship really is hilarious.
 
fastar1 said:
I dunno why you'd stop going back in time with Carter. The US was supporting armed insurrection around the world for decades before him. There is plenty of blame to go around, but that doesn't make it all equivalent.

The army invaded with Bush. And it happened at a point in time when US could have extricated itself from the mess (which was inevitable either way). The last chance to exit that situation was used instead to send boots on the ground. Bush II scaled it up even more. Under Clinton and Obama, military involvement and general meddling in the region was scaled back. There's no comparison. The west is in this mess because of the lying war hawks, nobody else.
Click to expand...

overt vs. covert; only difference

I guess we're (the west) less evil if we arm them all to the teeth and let them destroy each other? and don't even get me started on Obama's drone policy. Could you imagine the response should Iran decide to fly drones against those who "threaten their national security"
 
So when I call you a name in here, people are just going to love me because I am unscripted? or are people going to have a perception of me that I am uneducated, disrespectful and can't control my emotions and in turn not want to deal with me or respect me and think I am a joke?

Which one you think?

I never knew that being as ******* was so popular



RockerGuy said:
He doesn't have a teleprompt telling him what to say. At least we're knowing what's going on in his mind. That's what the people are starting to love.

Even though he becomes president, I highly doubt he can do whatever he wants. I'm sure he has to go through process before he can press a nuke button
Click to expand...
 
ZX600 said:
I never knew that being as ******* was so popular
Click to expand...

You must be living in a cave then. America has become a weird and disrespectful place. Just watch TV or browse Twitter for 5 minutes
 
Funny how this always goes into a left vs right debate, specially here. The question is not right vs left, it is about Donald Trump.

Is he a sociopath?

He does a pretty good job of checking the boxes. But in the end, I still do not think he actually wants the job. The narcissist in him will not let him quit but he is torn about not wanting the job at all, all about his ego. My guess is a lot of what he does and says is a subconscious (maybe very conscious) attempt to sandbag himself. My guess is he will continue to try and lose or at some point quit saying that the whole thing is rigged, making himself the victim. No idea how that all unfolds for the GOP, does the VP guy become lead, do they hand it to Cruz, do they have another quick convention and Ryan or Romney step up????

The Dems need to be careful, if he quits close to the election day there is no way the GOP can win. If he quits tomorrow they have a chance to recover and I do not think Clinton can beat Ryan. She is just not likeable. Poke him too much now and he may just drop out, trick for them is to let him keep up the crazy and poke him hard with a month to go.

As for Clinton's emails, unless she sent the emails to herself they still exist on the destination email servers unless all those people were using her server or also deleted all of them from their accounts on other servers (every recipient). Should not be too hard for them to come out if they are all as evil as everyone speculates.
 
mmmnaked said:
START READING, pal

http://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudget/fy2017/FY17_Green_Book.pdf

Obama outspent Bush on the war effort. $860B vs $810B.

You're just a partisan hack who can't see the truth even when its in plain text.
Click to expand...
Real helpful there tiger. But your metric is a joke. Simple logic will tell you that Obama would have had to scale back spending FASTER than Bush poured it on in order to end up spending less. This, in a war theatre that grew broader and more violent since 9-11. The mere fact that he scaled it back at all as opposed to pouring it on like Bush tells us exactly what we need to know. Are those figures even inflation-adjusted?

"Bush had to deal with the single greatest terror attack on US soil". I bet Obama dreams we lived in as simple times now! The obvious solution at the time was to not use this as an excuse, along with many lies, to invade several countries. What's the obvious solution now, please?

BTW there's no need to qualify 9-11 so much. It was the single greatest attack the US has ever experienced, anywhere, in wartime or peacetime. All under the careful guardian watch of Bush. But hey, at least he's not Obama!

Lastly, your insults only serve to discredit your own arguments as motivated by partinsanship and emotion rather that rationality.
 
fastar1 said:
Real helpful there tiger. But your metric is a joke. Simple logic will tell you that Obama would have had to scale back spending FASTER than Bush poured it on in order to end up spending less. This, in a war theatre that grew broader and more violent since 9-11. The mere fact that he scaled it back at all as opposed to pouring it on like Bush tells us exactly what we need to know. Are those figures even inflation-adjusted?
.
Click to expand...

Dude are you insane? Money is a joke metric?? How did Obama scale anything back if he spent MORE money on the war effort? What you just said makes no sense. That's what you consider scaling back? Some weird liberal logic.

I suppose 'scaling back' also involved meandering into Libya and Syria, right?
 
mmmnaked said:
Obama had 8 years to get out...
Click to expand...

Even if the military spending narrative plays out for mmmnaked, I'd like to know how he expected Obama to completely extricate the US from the quagmire the GWB administration left behind.

Many on the right complain that part of the problem is that Obama didn't commit more troops to places like Iraq instead of winding operations down to minimal levels there.

You can't have it all ways: You can't complain about him staying there, complain about him not staying there and complain about levels of military spending.

GWB set the current state of events in motion; every president -- possibly for generations -- will be sending men and women there to die because of that.
 
Blackfin said:
Even if the military spending narrative plays out for mmmnaked, I'd like to know how he expected Obama to completely extricate the US from the quagmire the GWB administration left behind.

Many on the right complain that part of the problem is that Obama didn't commit more troops to places like Iraq instead of winding operations down to minimal levels there.

You can't have it all ways: You can't complain about him staying there, complain about him not staying there and complain about levels of military spending.

GWB set the current state of events in motion; every president -- possibly for generations -- will be sending men and women there to die because of that.
Click to expand...

I'm not complaining about Obama staying in the game. I'm simply pointing out that he outspent Bush on the effort. This idea that he's a peace loving saint is flawed. The dude hammered the Middle East just as much as Bush did. The numbers don't lie. I'm not advocating for either side, just stating facts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom