The Never-President Trump

[Iwans Big Toe 312]

7 minutes ago, Herman said:

Of course we are but that has little to do with Biden or his family cashing in. Get a grip and turn off Fox News. 

I have never watched Fox news. You should turn off BBC news.

 

 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,565]

1 hour ago, Iwans Big Toe said:

 

Yes there are. The Biden's, they've brought us to the brink of WW3 for financial gain

 

Putting aside questions over whether we're really that close to a nuclear war anyway, how have the Bidens brought us to the brink of world war 3?

[Iwans Big Toe 312]

27 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Putting aside questions over whether we're really that close to a nuclear war anyway, how have the Bidens brought us to the brink of world war 3?

Victor Shokin, withholding aid and Burisma.

 

 

 

 

Edited February 1 by Iwans Big Toe

[Iwans Big Toe 312]

 

 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,565]

53 minutes ago, Iwans Big Toe said:

Victor Shokin, withholding aid and Burisma.

 

 

 

 

And this is the entire reason we're supposedly on the brink of WW3? You don't believe there's anything else to it than the current president's son? A bit reductionist don't you think?

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

Ukraine is Biden's money pit. Always follow the money.

[horsefly 4,310]

9 hours ago, Herman said:

Yes dear, Sleepy Joe and his ex-addict son have engineered Putin's invasion, Hamas's atrocity and Israel's response because they fancy a few extra bucks.

Will you listen to yourself once in a while. You see massive conspiracies while ignoring the obvious.

I took Sonyc's advice and treated IBT like the pathetic troll that he is by not bothering to feed him anymore. It was very good advice.

In the meantime you might like to read this opinion from a former federal appellate judge J Michael Luttig, a staunch conservative, who has written to the Supreme Court to argue Trump should be legally disbarred from standing for office: 

“Trump incited, and therefore engaged in, an armed insurrection against the constitution’s express and foundational mandates that require the peaceful transfer of executive power to a newly-elected president,” Mr Luttig told the justices in a friend-of-the-court brief filed on Monday.

“In doing so, Mr Trump disqualified himself under section 3 (of the constitution),” he added.

Section 3 of the 14th amendment of the constitution prohibits anyone who “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” from holding public office." https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/conservative-judge-urges-supreme-court-to-toss-trump-from-ballot/ar-BB1hyINM

[horsefly 4,310]

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/donald-trump-is-seen-as-a-laughing-fool-by-world-leaders-claims-former-security-advisor/ar-BB1hyJvS?ocid=msedgntp&pc=LCTS&cvid=98ec7a97dcba4630aa2163641105bcf3&ei=18

This isn't the first time Bolton has been critical of Trump.

In May 2023, he made similar comments about Trump's friendliness with other leaders.

“I have been in those rooms with him when he met with those leaders, I believe they think he’s a laughing fool. And the idea that somehow his presence in office would have deterred Putin is flatly wrong,” he said on CNN before naming the Russian, Chinese and North Korean leaders.

[If wed kept Howie.. 208]

11 hours ago, Iwans Big Toe said:

I wouldn't worry about summer, it's the autumn you should concern yourself with. I don't think it will end the way you hope. All of these law suits will just end up convincing the common man that Trump is a victim. 

The best thing the Dems could do is throw Clinton under the bus. I think that's the only way they will win.

 

 

its not a law suit

[Yellow Fever 3,810]

 

28 minutes ago, If wed kept Howie.. said:

11 hours ago, Iwans Big Toe said:

I wouldn't worry about summer, it's the autumn you should concern yourself with. I don't think it will end the way you hope. All of these law suits will just end up convincing the common man that Trump is a victim. 

The best thing the Dems could do is throw Clinton under the bus. I think that's the only way they will win.

 

 

its not a law suit

I'm struggling to see what Clinton is to do with this autumn? That's 2 George Bush's, 2 Barack Obama's and 1 Trump plus Biden presidencies ago.

Perhaps its just a senior moment common to Trump these days as well ?

[A Load of Squit 5,198]

Trump goes to court, Trump loses, the world laughs, rinse and repeat.

 

[Iwans Big Toe 312]

13 hours ago, horsefly said:

I took Sonyc's advice and treated IBT like the pathetic troll that he is by not bothering to feed him anymore. It was very good advice.

In the meantime you might like to read this opinion from a former federal appellate judge J Michael Luttig, a staunch conservative, who has written to the Supreme Court to argue Trump should be legally disbarred from standing for office: 

“Trump incited, and therefore engaged in, an armed insurrection against the constitution’s express and foundational mandates that require the peaceful transfer of executive power to a newly-elected president,” Mr Luttig told the justices in a friend-of-the-court brief filed on Monday.

“In doing so, Mr Trump disqualified himself under section 3 (of the constitution),” he added.

Section 3 of the 14th amendment of the constitution prohibits anyone who “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” from holding public office." https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/conservative-judge-urges-supreme-court-to-toss-trump-from-ballot/ar-BB1hyINM

Yes good idea, stick to insults and your echo chamber. After all that's how you win an argument by shutting down discourse. Much like how you win an election, by preventing your opposition from running.

Honestly, I've always found that when you stand up to bullies they run away. And away you ran.

 

 

[Iwans Big Toe 312]

13 hours ago, horsefly said:

I took Sonyc's advice and treated IBT like the pathetic troll that he is by not bothering to feed him anymore. It was very good advice.

In the meantime you might like to read this opinion from a former federal appellate judge J Michael Luttig, a staunch conservative, who has written to the Supreme Court to argue Trump should be legally disbarred from standing for office: 

“Trump incited, and therefore engaged in, an armed insurrection against the constitution’s express and foundational mandates that require the peaceful transfer of executive power to a newly-elected president,” Mr Luttig told the justices in a friend-of-the-court brief filed on Monday.

“In doing so, Mr Trump disqualified himself under section 3 (of the constitution),” he added.

Section 3 of the 14th amendment of the constitution prohibits anyone who “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” from holding public office." https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/conservative-judge-urges-supreme-court-to-toss-trump-from-ballot/ar-BB1hyINM

Interesting how during this so called armed insurrection the only person that was shot was an unarmed woman. Care to explain?

 

 

Edited February 1 by Iwans Big Toe

[Iwans Big Toe 312]

20 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

And this is the entire reason we're supposedly on the brink of WW3? You don't believe there's anything else to it than the current president's son? A bit reductionist don't you think?

I agree there is much more to it than just the president's son, in the same way that you can't just blame WW2 on the Treaty of Versailles or the Weimar Republic or the Great Depression. It is certainly much more nuanced than that and a combination of factors, not least of all, arms dealers are reliant on war to engorge their personal wealth.

 However, I can't help but wonder if Biden hadn't massively overreached his power to prevent the investigation into his son would Putin have felt the need to invade Ukraine while he was president?

 

Edited February 1 by Iwans Big Toe

[littleyellowbirdie 2,565]

11 hours ago, Iwans Big Toe said:

I agree there is much more to it than just the president's son, in the same way that you can't just blame WW2 on the Treaty of Versailles or the Weimar Republic or the Great Depression. It is certainly much more nuanced than that and a combination of factors, not least of all arms dealers are reliant on war to engorge their personal wealth.

 However, I can't help but wonder if Biden hadn't massively overreached his power to prevent the investigation into his son would Putin have felt the need to invade Ukraine?

 

I don't really see how an energy deal with Biden's son in Ukraine even impacts on Putin to be honest. Russia is supremely self-sufficient as far as energy is concerned.

The die was cast in 2014 after the initial annexation of Crimea. Crimea is entirely dependent on Ukraine for water, plus there was no land corridor, making the 2014 status quo a no go for someone as paranoid as Putin; the attempt to take more was inevitable.

Kruschev should never have given Crimea to Ukraine in the first place. However, he did; Putin had no right to take it by force, especially given the nuclear disarmament commitments made to Ukraine.

I think it was you yourself who pointed out Russia already had NATO neighbours, so really the whole business about this all being about the EU and NATO is so much tripe.  What it was always about was Russia obtaining the ability to project military power across the Black Sea, an ability it didn't have without either control of Crimea or a biddable Ukraine.

So in a way, Russia's waning influence in Ukraine was the trigger, but more down to its negative effect on Russia's offensive abilities than the likelihood of any threat to it.

Incidentally, on the subject of energy, nearly 30 Russian communes are freezing due to central heating failures due to qualified maintenance people all being on the front line or among Russia's war dead. How's that for a military industrial complex eating up everything else?  There are starting to be anti-Kremlin protests in the remote regions affected.

https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-cold-heating/32770198.html

Overall though, as far as WW3 is concerned, don't worry about it. The people with the power have too much to lose to go down that road. Doesn't rule out more conventional warfare of course, but living on a remote resource poor island on the edge of Europe is probably as good as it gets on that score.

 

 

Edited February 2 by littleyellowbirdie

[Well b back 3,250]

Honestly, I've always found that when you stand up to bullies they run away. And away you ran.
 

If only that was true Trump would have f***** off a while ago

[A Load of Squit 5,198]

10 hours ago, Iwans Big Toe said:

Interesting how during this so called armed insurrection the only person that was shot was an unarmed woman. Care to explain?

 

 

Yes, you're in a cult.

[Worthy Nigelton 1,058]

On 01/02/2024 at 03:16, Rock The Boat said:

Ukraine is Biden's money pit. Always follow the money.

Yep. Look at who financed nearly all of Trump's investments for the last two decades or so...

[Iwans Big Toe 312]

14 hours ago, A Load of Squit said:

Yes, you're in a cult.

Well done. Stick to your insults, rather than answering the question. It just confirms how weak your argument is. Maybe if you could answer one of my questions every now and again, as I do yours, I might have a little more respect for you and your opinions.

 

23 hours ago, Well b back said:

Honestly, I've always found that when you stand up to bullies they run away. And away you ran.
 

If only that was true Trump would have f***** off a while ago

Yes I'm not saying Trump isn't a bully, although he is standing up and fighting rather than running away when challenged unlike @horsefly and his cohorts.

Edited February 2 by Iwans Big Toe

[Iwans Big Toe 312]

On 01/02/2024 at 21:46, littleyellowbirdie said:

I don't really see how an energy deal with Biden's son in Ukraine even impacts on Putin to be honest. Russia is supremely self-sufficient as far as energy is concerned.

The die was cast in 2014 after the initial annexation of Crimea. Crimea is entirely dependent on Ukraine for water, plus there was no land corridor, making the 2014 status quo a no go for someone as paranoid as Putin; the attempt to take more was inevitable.

Kruschev should never have given Crimea to Ukraine in the first place. However, he did; Putin had no right to take it by force, especially given the nuclear disarmament commitments made to Ukraine.

I think it was you yourself who pointed out Russia already had NATO neighbours, so really the whole business about this all being about the EU and NATO is so much tripe.  What it was always about was Russia obtaining the ability to project military power across the Black Sea, an ability it didn't have without either control of Crimea or a biddable Ukraine.

So in a way, Russia's waning influence in Ukraine was the trigger, but more down to its negative effect on Russia's offensive abilities than the likelihood of any threat to it.

Incidentally, on the subject of energy, nearly 30 Russian communes are freezing due to central heating failures due to qualified maintenance people all being on the front line or among Russia's war dead. How's that for a military industrial complex eating up everything else?  There are starting to be anti-Kremlin protests in the remote regions affected.

https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-cold-heating/32770198.html

Overall though, as far as WW3 is concerned, don't worry about it. The people with the power have too much to lose to go down that road. Doesn't rule out more conventional warfare of course, but living on a remote resource poor island on the edge of Europe is probably as good as it gets on that score.

 

 

The Crimea has always been a contentious piece of land, possibly even more so than Northern Ireland. I am by no means an expert on the history of the Crimea. However 20th and early 21st Century History I am far more well read on, which is why I call out certain people on their hypocrisy.

Putin believes, as I am also inclined to as the evidence supports it, that NATO agreed with Yeltsin not to expand into eastern Europe, this is they issue with him invading Crimea.

I have faith that you won't be like may of our "friends" who post on here that will take my statements out of context by just focusing on 1 sentence. I am not justifying the invasion of the Crimea or the Ukraine, but if NATO had held some semblance of the Iron Curtain in place rather than encouraging every former soviet nation to join them, it is likely we would not be on the brink of world war.

As for not worrying about a world war, on a personal level I am not. I am far too old and decrepit for conscription. I have a lot of family members that are not though and it is for them that I am concerned.

 

 

 

 

[Herman 9,802]

I see we're still at the "it was NATO's fault for forcing newly independent countries to join its gang" argument. Marvellous.

[Thirsty Lizard 3,169]

Isn't it amazing what happens when you get a competent grown up politician to run the economy rather than a bloated, orange, lying narcissist. 

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/02/02/trump-and-his-allies-adjust-their-messaging-on-the-economy-as-it-steadily-improves-00139447

[A Load of Squit 5,198]

12 hours ago, Iwans Big Toe said:

Well done. Stick to your insults, rather than answering the question. It just confirms how weak your argument is. Maybe if you could answer one of my questions every now and again, as I do yours, I might have a little more respect for you and your opinions.

 

 

That's what someone who is in a cult would say.

[Iwans Big Toe 312]

11 hours ago, A Load of Squit said:

That's what someone who is in a cult would say.

And this is also what someone who is in a cult would say. Cults are all about misdirection.

Wokism is a cult my friend. You can not challenge it or you are ostracised.

Me I don't care, as I've said plenty of times, I'm not a particular fan of Trump. I'm much less of a fan of woke ideologies that dress themselves up in "tolerance" but will not tolerate anyone that disagrees with them. If that makes me a cultist for sticking to my beliefs I will own it. It's far better than being a hypocrite like yourself and all of those that like your posts.

 

 

Edited February 3 by Iwans Big Toe

[Iwans Big Toe 312]

16 hours ago, Herman said:

I see we're still at the "it was NATO's fault for forcing newly independent countries to join its gang" argument. Marvellous.

No, it's the "If someone makes an agreement they should stick to it" argument. I think you would probably make a good used car salesman, wait is that actually what you do for a living, con people? I can see that.

 

 

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

15 hours ago, Thirsty Lizard said:

Isn't it amazing what happens when you get a competent grown up politician to run the economy rather than a bloated, orange, lying narcissist. 

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/02/02/trump-and-his-allies-adjust-their-messaging-on-the-economy-as-it-steadily-improves-00139447

All done by printing money. So easy

[sonyc 5,539]

10 hours ago, Iwans Big Toe said:

I'm much less of a fan of woke ideologies that dress themselves up in "tolerance" but will not tolerate anyone that disagrees with them.

Yet, you were the poster that made a post about people who must be 5ft 1 tall. And you also referenced me. Not once ever had I (not will ever in the future) make such posts about you. Now what is my problem for you? It was that I stated I disliked Trump as the narcissist I believed he is. I couldn't care less about wokeness....it's not something I ever think about others, certainly I don't use the term to label people. 

People love labelling. And you may need to think again whether your own posts are not hypocrisy. That is, you don't like different opinions. People's different opinions make up the world. Hardly any of them are ever the enemy you seem to want to find.

Most people on this forum if you met them would be friendly and understanding. When they post they need to try and express themselves. In writing it is often difficult to express nuances or be misunderstood. Look at how emails in business can sometimes be read with all kinds of responses.

If you're looking for enemies you'll always find them. But they'll be in your head mainly. People project all kinds of things on others before accepting themselves fully. And my projection from you as referenced was that I was an inadequate "short" person. Probably best you don't spend any time responding to such an inadequate person as it's obviously beneath you. 

[Iwans Big Toe 312]

On 04/02/2024 at 09:45, sonyc said:

Yet, you were the poster that made a post about people who must be 5ft 1 tall. And you also referenced me. Not once ever had I (not will ever in the future) make such posts about you. Now what is my problem for you? It was that I stated I disliked Trump as the narcissist I believed he is. I couldn't care less about wokeness....it's not something I ever think about others, certainly I don't use the term to label people. 

People love labelling. And you may need to think again whether your own posts are not hypocrisy. That is, you don't like different opinions. People's different opinions make up the world. Hardly any of them are ever the enemy you seem to want to find.

Most people on this forum if you met them would be friendly and understanding. When they post they need to try and express themselves. In writing it is often difficult to express nuances or be misunderstood. Look at how emails in business can sometimes be read with all kinds of responses.

If you're looking for enemies you'll always find them. But they'll be in your head mainly. People project all kinds of things on others before accepting themselves fully. And my projection from you as referenced was that I was an inadequate "short" person. Probably best you don't spend any time responding to such an inadequate person as it's obviously beneath you. 

Honestly, thankyou for the advice, it is sound. However, I have never attacked anyone personally for disagreeing with me. The person I accused of being 5"1' and was suggesting that he has "little man syndrome" was because he had repeatedly attacked me personally. I was only responding in kind and I hope you don't support personal attacks on the internet. Like I said, I find that bullies run away when you fight back and he has. Apparently he will no longer respond to me so I was correct.

I agree that things can be misunderstood in writing. I am not looking for enemies, I have always said that, but I will stand up for myself and what I believe, I always have. I think that you are probably right that in person, people would not be as antagonistic as they are on a message board. What I have found on this message board is you will be taken out of context by a handful of people. They will just focus on one sentence and use that as a stick to beat you with. May be I am just as guilty of that as certain posters (I don't think so as I have tried to respond to your whole post and not just one sentence and also answer questions posed of me rather than avoiding them), but I just get wound up by people thinking I am a Trump supporter because I don't think "Orange Man Bad".

It might be that I'm not the one that needs to be more tolerant? That is for you to decide my friend.

 

 

Edited February 5 by Iwans Big Toe

[Iwans Big Toe 312]

Oh and if people are going to focus on just one sentence I post, it's curious how they focused on others but avoided this sentence - 

Interesting how during this so called armed insurrection the only person that was shot was an unarmed woman. Care to explain?

(I know, technically it's 2 sentences)

 

Edited February 6 by Iwans Big Toe

[sonyc 5,539]

On 21/01/2024 at 23:40, Iwans Big Toe said:

So if you are going to continue with the ad hominem attacks, I will respond. (including sonyc, TheGunnShow and of course A Load of Squit who is always living up to his name)

 

I would like to start by pointing out that I am not trying to win you over to my side. I couldn't care less because I have always known that is impossible. You are a brainwashed hypocrite that can't think for yourself. You are reliant on the mainstream media to inform you what is right. I truly feel sad for you that you have no independent thought of your own and you need to rely on the mainstream media to tell you what to think when it comes to politics. I know you can't understand nuanced thinking, because Orange Man Bad! You have proven this over and over again by not acknowledging or answering my questions. It does not prove your intellect by dodging questions. Calling someone who questions you a “moron” does not de facto make you intelligent

 

As I have previously stated (see my response to Daz), I am not a particular Trump supporter, I just disagree with your view point. I know you are so insecure in your viewpoint that you need to belittle anyone that disagrees with you and for that I pity you.

 

It is tragic that you can't get on with people who don't agree with you. What I find even more pathetic is that you are unable to answer questions that are posed to you because you know the answers won't fit with your “world view”. It's almost little man syndrome. So it begs the question, are you over 5”6'? Or does insulting people on the internet make you feel 6" tall?

 

Don't break your habit and now decide to answer one of my questions, because if you do I will want answers to previous questions. In stead I will just continue to imagine you as a 5"1' lonely man who is reliant on the internet to make them feel big and if you disagree I will know you are lying because you have finally decided to answer a question where it doesn't paint you in a negative light.

This was your post on the 21st January @Iwans Big Toe.

You have said many times that you are not a Trump supporter. I have read that and understood it. The above was your response and as you'll see I was explicitly named as someone engaging in an "ad hominen" attack and of lying. Etc.