Bogie56

The Appointments - Trump's Swamp

1,386 posts in this topic

32 minutes ago, mr6666 said:
 

POTUS considered Bolton *Insufficiently pro-Taliban

*Insufficiently pro-North Korea

*Insufficiently pro-Russia

*Insufficiently pro-Iranian

 

Trump wanted to play “Let’s Make A Deal” with those who hate America the most.

This is silly.  Bolton was fired because he disagreed with what Trump wanted to do, not because he was "insufficiently" something.  Perhaps insufficiently willing to bend to the will of the master.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, TheCid said:

This is silly.  Bolton was fired because he disagreed with what Trump wanted to do, not because he was "insufficiently" something.  Perhaps insufficiently willing to bend to the will of the master.

Isn't that the same thing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Bogie56 said:

Isn't that the same thing?

No.  Moanin' Joe's tweet implied that Bolton was insufficiently pro-NK, Russia, Taliban, Iran. He has always had a position totally opposed to these people.  He was insufficiently willing to keep his mouth shut.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TheCid said:

No.  Moanin' Joe's tweet implied that Bolton was insufficiently pro-NK, Russia, Taliban, Iran. He has always had a position totally opposed to these people.  He was insufficiently willing to keep his mouth shut.

To me you're the one confused here;   Yes,  Bolton has always taken a hard-line stance against these 4.   Trump wanted to play-nice,  give concessions,   trust their leaders bogus promises,  make deals that anyone with a brain knows they wouldn't keep etc...

Thus the main reason Bolton was fired was because he wasn't sufficiently pro-these-4.

PS:  Of course Moanin' Joe is making the differences between Bolton and Trump larger than they are, as a way to punk Trump.     Joe likely supports Trump's less hard-line (almost Obama like),  approach.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

To me you're the one confused here;   Yes,  Bolton has always taken a hard-line stance against these 4.   Trump wanted to play-nice,  give concessions,   trust their leaders bogus promises,  make deals that anyone with a brain knows they wouldn't keep etc...

Thus the main reason Bolton was fired was because he wasn't sufficiently pro-these-4.

PS:  Of course Moanin' Joe is making the differences between Bolton and Trump larger than they are, as a way to punk Trump.     Joe likely supports Trump's less hard-line (almost Obama like),  approach.

 

 

Trump is really "pro-Iran" to you? :huh: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Gershwin fan said:

Trump is really "pro-Iran" to you? :huh: 

Trump is willing to be "pro-Iran" if he believes it would make it look like he got a "win".

Trump's primary mission as President is to look like a winner.   This is especially true now that an election is pending.

E.g.  Trump ended the nuclear agreement just because it was negotiated by the Obama admin and thus  Trump couldn't get a "win" there.    Trump would have signed a revised agreement that was weaker than the existing one,  and then marketed it as a great-deal and himself as a "winner" for getting such a deal.

The above is why Trump flops back and forth as well as creating crisis or making existing one appear worst then they are;   So he can appear to fix them and make us great yet again!

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

Trump is willing to be "pro-Iran" if he believes it would make it look like he got a "win".

Trump's primary mission as President is to look like a winner.   This is especially true now that an election is pending.

E.g.  Trump ended the nuclear agreement just because it was negotiated by the Obama admin and thus  Trump couldn't get a "win" there.    Trump would have signed a revised agreement that was weaker than the existing one,  and then marketed it as a great-deal and himself as a "winner" for getting such a deal.

The above is why Trump flops back and forth as well as creating crisis or making existing one appear worst then they are;   So he can appear to fix them and make us great yet again!

 

I absolutely agree with you here but the tweet (or twit more accurately) says "pro-Iran" and that's pretty much the opposite of Trump's policies here for the past time in office.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Gershwin fan said:

I absolutely agree with you here but the tweet (or twit more accurately) says "pro-Iran" and that's pretty much the opposite of Trump's policies here for the past time in office.

Once upon a time it was 'little rocket man' but now they are 'in love' - presto! change-o!

Meanwhile the rockets keep flying.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

To me you're the one confused here;   Yes,  Bolton has always taken a hard-line stance against these 4.   Trump wanted to play-nice,  give concessions,   trust their leaders bogus promises,  make deals that anyone with a brain knows they wouldn't keep etc...

Thus the main reason Bolton was fired was because he wasn't sufficiently pro-these-4.

PS:  Of course Moanin' Joe is making the differences between Bolton and Trump larger than they are, as a way to punk Trump.     Joe likely supports Trump's less hard-line (almost Obama like),  approach.

 

 

"Thus the main reason Bolton was fired was because he wasn't sufficiently pro-these-4."

I still disagree with Moanin' Joe (and I guess you).  Bolton was not insufficiently pro since he never was or would be pro and Trump hired him anyway.  It's semantics, but I think Moanin' Joe should be more articulate considering what he is paid to blather.

To me being pro means you are in favor of something.  Being willing to compromise your position in negotiations such as this does not make you pro-Russia, NK, Iran or Taliban.  Conversely being unwilling to compromise does not make you "insufficiently pro" something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, TheCid said:

"Thus the main reason Bolton was fired was because he wasn't sufficiently pro-these-4."

I still disagree with Moanin' Joe (and I guess you).  Bolton was not insufficiently pro since he never was or would be pro and Trump hired him anyway.  It's semantics, but I think Moanin' Joe should be more articulate considering what he is paid to blather.

To me being pro means you are in favor of something.  Being willing to compromise your position in negotiations such as this does not make you pro-Russia, NK, Iran or Taliban.  Conversely being unwilling to compromise does not make you "insufficiently pro" something.

Like I said Joe used 'pro' as a way to punk Trump.  It wasn't a reflection of Bolton and his stance toward these 4.

I'm surprised Joe didn't use the term agent or stooge instead of 'pro'.     (to imply Trump is a Russian agent which MSNBC loves doing).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

New Members:

Register Here

Learn more about the new message boards:

FAQ

Having problems?

Contact Us