Azalin Posted May 21, 2017 Share Posted May 21, 2017 The previous three presidents had a shaky relationship with Netanyahu. I remember Bill Clinton famously saying after meeting him after his first election win, "Who's the f##kin Superpower here." The Trump Netanyahu relationship will be interesting to watch. I remember Netanyahu having a pretty solid ally with GW, and I don't recall much about his relationship with Clinton. My point wasn't so much about if our leaders get/got along with Israel, it was about Obama's open and well-reported support (including both cash and campaign operatives) for Netanyahu's opponent in the last election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted May 21, 2017 Share Posted May 21, 2017 On a bit of a separate note, if it's illegal for a foreign power to attempt to influence our election, how does it square with the Obama administration actively engaged in aiding the campaign against Netantahu? 44 also interfered in the last French election (per wikileaks) and the USIC has interfered with dozens of other elections throughout the later half of the 20th century... There's a reason why "terrorism" doesn't have a unified definition between agencies of the federal government: if they defined it properly, or honestly, the USIC would be subjecting themselves to prosecution for promoting "terrorism" themselves in many, many cases. It's just like with the mass surveillance issue we've debated on here for the past few years... Americans do not care if we spy on other nations (allies or foes) or interfere with their elections (allies or foes again)... but we have a big problem when the same treatment is given back to us. The previous three presidents had a shaky relationship with Netanyahu. I remember Bill Clinton famously saying after meeting him after his first election win, "Who's the f##kin Superpower here." The Trump Netanyahu relationship will be interesting to watch. Based on the most recent $100b arms sale to ISIS... I mean the out house of Saud... I'd say their relationship is going to be just fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Brown Posted May 21, 2017 Share Posted May 21, 2017 I remember Netanyahu having a pretty solid ally with GW, and I don't recall much about his relationship with Clinton. My point wasn't so much about if our leaders get/got along with Israel, it was about Obama's open and well-reported support (including both cash and campaign operatives) for Netanyahu's opponent in the last election. Netanyahu has a history of slyly cozening up to Republican politicians and what infuriated Clinton was attending an event with Jerry Falwell (a Clinton enemy at the time). Clinton kept his contempt more private than Obama. As far as Bush, it was more complicated as Netanyahu wasn't PM at the time. Bush supported Sharon and Netanyahu was his political enemy who didn't believe Israel should withdraw troops out of Gaza in 2004 as part of Bush's "road map to peace." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted May 21, 2017 Share Posted May 21, 2017 I'll make it simple for you Doc. It's just racism. Southerners hate Jews and Blacks hate Jews. [/paintedwiththebroadbrushstrokelikethesimplemindedprogsdoallthetime] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted May 21, 2017 Share Posted May 21, 2017 .......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted May 24, 2017 Share Posted May 24, 2017 Oh, I saw Trump winning. If we're being honest it was more a matter of Clinton losing, but same result. Anyway, please don't presume to know where my politics lie. As a Trump supporter, I'm assuming you'd be tired of people assuming your position on issues. In a pig's ass. "If we're being honest"? Hindsight? You are lying in the worst way: to yourself. Yeah, you saw Trump winning. No Friggin' way that's true, and that is proven by your handy, built-in "Clinton Losing" excuse. I suppose you also saw Brexit coming. Please. I responded to what you said, directly. There was no presumption. I simply took what you said, and responded directly to it. What you are currently dealing with, and you are not alone, is a deficiency of what you can conceive. This deficiency is directly due to your refusal to follow the fundamentals of being an intellectual, in the actual definition of the term. There are plenty of people who have gone to college, and plenty who still work there, but most of them gave up being actual intellectuals a long time ago, if they ever were at all. It is this lack of doing the work, actually doing what is required to earn the term, "intellectual", that is the cause of all of this strife. It's no different than hitting a baseball. It starts with your feet, then moves on from that simple thing to more complex competencies. Your trouble, as evidenced by your prior post, is you don't care to make sure your "feet are right" before you move on. Hence, you will forever keep swinging and missing. You're thinking about curveballs...when your feet tell me you can't hit anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted May 24, 2017 Share Posted May 24, 2017 (edited) Yeah but this particular idiot would even stretch those rules. If you were to design limited executive powers with Trump in mind, then you have to build in a time and place for romper room. It's time for adults to step in. This is getting beyond ridiculous. Yeah, and as an adult, its time for me to step in on you. Look at the actual facts, clown: all Trump has done is roll back and/or limit the powers of the executive branch by example, in word and deed. Do you even know what the CRA is? Do you know how many times Trump has let Congress use its CRA power compared to other presidents? Hint: so far its 15 times(perhaps 17 depending on nuance)....to 1, all time. That's right, Trump has allowed Congress to override the executive branch 15 times...to it happening 1 time since the CRA law was created, 20 years ago. How the F is that not limiting executive power, on it's F'ing face? An EO, that says that each department cannot create a new reg without killing two others? What is that too difficult for you to comprehend? That literally means that the executive branch, by acting on anything, self-reduces its power. You clearly don't know your history. How about we start with Jefferson demanding that Aaron Burr be prosecuted, and threatening to impeach the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS, if he wasn't? How about Lincoln throwing the Mayor of Baltimore in jail with no habeas corpus? How about Teddy Roosevelt's entire presidency? Go read 1(one) F'ing book on that guy. How about learning anything about Woodrow Wilson? How about FDR's decision to intern the Japanese Americans? How about Eisenhower's decision to deport 5 million immigrants after WW2? How about LBJ's entire Viet Nam plan. Need I mention Nixon? Reagan is Trump is Reagan, but Trump has the chance to be even better. Every day that goes by confirms this. Your ignorance of executive power exercised by other presidents is only outdone by your refusal to consider what Trump is doing...in the context of what Obama did. Get. A. Grip. Your butthurt over Trump winning, making me right, and you wrong, again, isn't an agenda item for THIS country. Edited May 24, 2017 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted May 24, 2017 Share Posted May 24, 2017 (edited) What in the fng world are you blabbing about, and how does it relate to my comment? Edited May 24, 2017 by GG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlimShady'sSpaceForce Posted May 24, 2017 Share Posted May 24, 2017 Donald Trump never wanted to win the election. What he wanted was to get the popular vote and lose the Electoral College. All this stuff about why he fired Comey is baffling. Which Alternate Truth do we or should we believe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted May 24, 2017 Share Posted May 24, 2017 What in the fng world are you blabbing about, and how does it relate to my comment?after meeting you a few times its always funny to picture you responding in person similarly to the way you type. I know I goof off here mostly because my disinterest but its always enlightening if not entertaining that so many of you are so knowledgeable on things which I have no clue. I also picture Jim every time he says something, fwiw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts