Trump - The good, the bad and the ugly

[Supine]

But Trump is now on the American oligarchs and New World Order side, so, he will do the bidding of Saudi Arabia, British monarch, and the corrupt Western oligarchs.

Is it just the British monarch? Aren't there any other monarchies that secretly control the US government?

-- Updated May 11th, 2017, 2:48 pm to add the following --

King Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands looks a bit sus to me.

I mentioned Saudi Arabia and you asked that question. Does not surprise. You aren't familiar with the fact Saudi Arabia is run by an absolute monarchy. Similar to when many Americans are shocked to find out the City of Milwaukee had a long history of socialist voters and some socialist mayors.

Churches and Hindu and Buddhist temples are banned in Saudi Arabia (Syria has Churches and monasteries and Assad protects them from radical Muslim groups). And non-Muslims are banned from obtaining citizenship in Saudi Arabia, they can only get work visas. But Saudi Arabia carries the restitution even further in their City of Mecca, for which it is against the law for any non-Muslim to step foot in. And political parties and democracy are outlawed in Saudi Arabia.

So, there is at least one other monarchy on earth that controls the US Presidency, and most US politicians,. That would be the monarchy of Saudi Arabia: to whom President Obama bowed before.

You see... they still crucify people in Saudi Arabia. They usually behead people in public as a court ordered death sentence.

Published on Oct 22, 2015

A young Saudi protester is set to be beheaded and crucified for his role in 2012 pro-democracy protests. Ali Mohammed al-Nimr was arrested at the age of 17 and convicted of encouraging protests during the Arab Spring. He faces execution any day. Earlier this month, in response to mounting international pressure to release al-Nimr, the Saudi Embassy in London said, "the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia rejects any form of interference in its internal affairs and any impingement on its sovereignty or the independence and impartiality of its judiciary."

I believe the United States Government with her British Crown partner got Saudi Arabia placed on the "UN Commission for Women's Rights" or something like that.

Bush, Obama, and now Trump will be owned by the Saudi monarchy.

[Spectrum]

Spectrum:

Trump has his strengths and weaknesses but to me what is of the highest priority [criticalness to humanity] is the need to stop of the infiltration and infection of the very malignant viruses of the evil ideology of Islam [part not whole] within the White House and government.

In the past you've made some quite persuasive seeming arguments about the ease with which Islam can be used by some people to (in their minds) justify murder, loot, rape and despotism. But then you post things like this post, which suggest you're actually quite barkng. Which is a pity.

"barking" ??
It is a fact the White House was infected with Islamism during Obama's time.
Trump [with good, bad, and ugly traits] disinfected and got rid of the Islamism pests.
That is a good thing given that I placed purging the Islamism-infection on my highest priority for humanity sake.
Frankly I do not think Trump [egoistic, narcissistic, thin skin, etc.] is that good at all, but do we have a better choice?
Like someone said, the building is on fire and the only open door to escape is Trump's door, so we don't have a better choice, especially in my case re the Islamism infection.

I believe it was Obama's [having a Muslim father and kin] soft spot for Islam, kow-towing to the Saudi King and displaying subservience to Islam...

You're presumably aware of the history of Aramco? The longstanding relationship between the US and Saudi Arabia, dating back to FDR, is about business. Nothing to do with religion. Was FDR influenced by his Muslim father?

I understand the oil factor is critical to the US and many other countries but no US President has kow-tow[ed] to a Saudi King [who descended from Arab barbarians and nomads not too long ago] with the intention of dominating the World with Islam.

Barack Obama criticised for 'bowing' to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... rabia.html

[Dolphin42]

Spectrum:

It is a fact the White House was infected with Islamism during Obama's time.

It is a fact that Paris is the capital of France and 2 + 2 = 4. The above is an opinion. In order to defend that opinion first define what it means to you to be "infected" in the context of a religion, then define your use of the word "Islamism" and then name the people in the Obama White House who were Islamists and the actions and words of theirs that support the use of the words "infection" and "fact" in the same sentence.

-- Updated May 12th, 2017, 9:22 am to add the following --

Spectrum:

I understand the oil factor is critical to the US and many other countries but no US President has kow-tow[ed] to a Saudi King [who descended from Arab barbarians and nomads not too long ago] with the intention of dominating the World with Islam.

You'd have to define what, in real tangible terms, you mean by "kow-tow" in this context and how this alleged kow-tow-ing was significantly greater under the Obama administration than under previous presidents who have also shown diplomatic courtesies to a regime that they all know is a prolific human rights abuser but which they also feel that they have to keep on-side for the sake of realpolitik, security, oil and other business interests. It may be worthwhile arguing the extent to which they're right or wrong about this. But to claim that they're secretly mad murderous Islamists is ... not rational.

A video of Obama bowing isn't going to do it! Try typing "presidents who bowed to foreign leaders" into Google image. I like the one of that famous Islamist George W Bush bowing to the Saudi monarch.

Obama wasn't exactly the first politician who's had to be nice to dictators, is he?

-- Updated May 12th, 2017, 10:17 am to add the following --



How about kissing and holding hands? Is that better or worse than bowing? There's also one of George bowing to the Pope. Was the Bush Junior White House infected with fanatical Catholicism?

[Spectrum]

Spectrum:

It is a fact the White House was infected with Islamism during Obama's time.

It is a fact that Paris is the capital of France and 2 + 2 = 4. The above is an opinion. In order to defend that opinion first define what it means to you to be "infected" in the context of a religion, then define your use of the word "Islamism" and then name the people in the Obama White House who were Islamists and the actions and words of theirs that support the use of the words "infection" and "fact" in the same sentence.

I have read of many reports on this point.
I believe Obama is ignorant of the Islamist's ulterior motives but he associated with them on a basis of trying to be friendly to avoid whatever negative perceptions on his part.

Here is a sample I googled out of the many;

This president didn’t once meet with his director of Defense Intelligence (DIA), Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, NOT ONCE, but he or his minions met with CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic relations, a terror-tied organization, in the White House 312 times according to one report and met with Congress 325 times. Obama has met with race hustler Al Sharpton over a 100 times and he meets with domestic hate group leaders of Black Lives Matter periodically.

A year-long investigation by theInvestigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) has found that scores of known radical Islamists made hundreds of visits to the Obama White House, meeting with top administration officials.

A horde of White House officials and agencies met with CAIR hundreds of times. There is an open door policy.

“There is hundreds of examples of departments and agencies that meet with CAIR on a range of issues,” The Daily Caller reported.

CAIR is “the group with the worst record of deception and the deepest ties to terrorists,” said Steven Emerson, the director of the Investigative Project on Terrorism, which tracks the public activities of Islamist lobbying groups.
...

http://www.independentsentinel.com/obam ... 312-times/

You'd have to define what, in real tangible terms, you mean by "kow-tow" in this context and how this alleged kow-tow-ing was significantly greater under the Obama administration than under previous presidents who have also shown diplomatic courtesies to a regime that they all know is a prolific human rights abuser but which they also feel that they have to keep on-side for the sake of realpolitik, security, oil and other business interests. It may be worthwhile arguing the extent to which they're right or wrong about this. But to claim that they're secretly mad murderous Islamists is ... not rational.

A video of Obama bowing isn't going to do it! Try typing "presidents who bowed to foreign leaders" into Google image. I like the one of that famous Islamist George W Bush bowing to the Saudi monarch.

"Bowing" to another is an obvious sign of subservience [as expected in the Quran] and especially to another leader with Islamic elements is a really a bad sign and very negative.
What is critical is also the after effects with infiltration of Islamists into the White House upon the loads of subservient attitudes and signals by the leaders.

Kissing another as Bush was silly but do not denote subservience, perhaps showing they are political buddies.

[Dolphin42]

"Bowing" to another is an obvious sign of subservience [as expected in the Quran] and especially to another leader with Islamic elements is a really a bad sign and very negative.

So when he bowed to the Japanese leader was that also a sign of subservience of was it him observing a local custom out of respect? How about when Bush bowed to the British queen? Or the Pope? Or when Reagan bowed to the Saudi King?

Do you think that presidents should be instructed not to observe any local customs in case paranoid people back home read too much into it?

-- Updated May 12th, 2017, 12:25 pm to add the following --

As I said earlier, I think a productive and rational discussion could probably be had about the rights and wrongs of political leaders engaging with people with whom they don't share many values. But that is different from asserting that the reason why they engage with them is that they do share values and that they are, in some way, subservient to them.

Personally, I think a president having a conversation with people with whom he has serious differences is probably more useful than simply talking to an echo chamber. Whether we like it or not, the CAIR exists and is headquartered in Washington. Don't you think leaders should talk to them? Better jaw-jaw than war-war, if at all possible? If I were the president, I would certainly talk to them. It would be very interesting.

-- Updated May 12th, 2017, 11:19 pm to add the following --

Supine:

I mentioned Saudi Arabia and you asked that question. Does not surprise. You aren't familiar with the fact Saudi Arabia is run by an absolute monarchy.

Saudi Arabia is a monarchy? Geez. Don't spoil my illusions. I thought it was a western style democracy with freedom and justice for all. No wonder my wife had such a hard time getting driving lessons when we were there.

[Spectrum]

"Bowing" to another is an obvious sign of subservience [as expected in the Quran] and especially to another leader with Islamic elements is a really a bad sign and very negative.

So when he bowed to the Japanese leader was that also a sign of subservience of was it him observing a local custom out of respect? How about when Bush bowed to the British queen? Or the Pope? Or when Reagan bowed to the Saudi King?

Do you think that presidents should be instructed not to observe any local customs in case paranoid people back home read too much into it?

-- Updated May 12th, 2017, 12:25 pm to add the following --

As I said earlier, I think a productive and rational discussion could probably be had about the rights and wrongs of political leaders engaging with people with whom they don't share many values. But that is different from asserting that the reason why they engage with them is that they do share values and that they are, in some way, subservient to them.

Personally, I think a president having a conversation with people with whom he has serious differences is probably more useful than simply talking to an echo chamber. Whether we like it or not, the CAIR exists and is headquartered in Washington. Don't you think leaders should talk to them? Better jaw-jaw than war-war, if at all possible? If I were the president, I would certainly talk to them. It would be very interesting.

I have not seen any picture of Reagan bowing to a Saudi King. If that is the case, I do not think it should be done given the fact that the Quran is the ultimate authority and the King is the protector of the Quran and Islam.
In the Quran, non-Muslims are condemned with contempt in more than 55% of the verses in varying degrees and are expected to be subservient to Islam. It would be stupid to reinforce that by bowing to the Saudi King or any Islamist leaders.

As for Nixon bowing to Emperor Hirohito, note there is mutual bowing;


There should be no bowing to any King or Quran especially if the Quran is involved.

Trump will be visiting the Middle East and I hope he will not be that stupid to bow to the Saudi King and other Muslims leaders.

I agree there should be talk even between enemies but not allowing them one foot or their trojan -horses into the door.

[Burning ghost]

Please try and stick to what is being asked in the OP.

If you like Trump, what don't you like about him and his actions. If you don't like him, what do you like about his actions.

From my perspective now (I generally see him in a negative light) I think he has at least really made people start to ask questions about things and not so readily accept what they hear. He has displayed some quite unpolitical statements and this has to some degree shook up people and makes us, or me at least, be on my guard more about how he distracts sections of the media and public from the real news.

There are similar items put to use in the UK right now. The conservatives brag about highest rate of employment in the UK for decades. The quality of employment has probably not been in a worse situation for years (people working are queuing at 'food banks'). Governments vying for popularity tend to prop themselves up against statistics that cover the real life meaning.

[Spectrum]

Please try and stick to what is being asked in the OP.

If you like Trump, what don't you like about him and his actions. If you don't like him, what do you like about his actions.

From my perspective now (I generally see him in a negative light) ...

Your seeing him in negative light is likely because you have been brainwashed by the media who picked on whatever topic related to Trump from the negative angle. Trump has to take the blame on this as well due to his ego and personality.

I do not have any liking for Trump in general.
For me, one of the most critical issues at present is the evils and violence committed by SOME evil prone Muslims and Islam plays a part albeit a significant part.
For my purpose Trump fit my expectations but I do wish there is someone else who is more political savvy. Thus for me it is not the specific person but any one who is not a Islam apologist and who will put some lid on the infiltration by Islamic extremism.

I have no qualms if Trump is impeached and Mike Pence takes over with the same political views on Islam and Islamic extremists.

[Burning ghost]

And I am the one brainwashed? Well you have your opinions and they are likely valid to some degree or another in regards to misrepresentations of what PC is and how it has come back to bite itself in the ass. Don't really see what that has to do with Trump though other than him being a shining beacon of how easily people can be manipulated by appearance more than substance (I guess we kind of already knew that too though!)

It is interesting to watch the bizarre culture of the US do its thing from afar. Politically the US is a mess when it comes to elections. No policies and nothing of substance proposed to the people. All the poor American public get to vote on is rhetoric and who has the largest financial backing. I was not surprised to see someone with a business background and no political experience made president.

Thanks for sharing.

[Dolphin42]

Spectrum:

I have not seen any picture of Reagan bowing to a Saudi King.

No I can't find one either. The picture which claims to be Reagan bowing is actually Bush bowing. Although he appears to be accepting some kind of Medal. Is that acceptable?

If that is the case, I do not think it should be done given the fact that the Quran is the ultimate authority and the King is the protector of the Quran and Islam.

The British Queen is the protector of the faith too. In this case, the faith is the Church of England. Do you have a view about bowing to her? How about if it's mutual? (Remember, she is 91 and probably has a bad back.)

In the Quran, non-Muslims are condemned with contempt in more than 55% of the verses in varying degrees and are expected to be subservient to Islam. It would be stupid to reinforce that by bowing to the Saudi King or any Islamist leaders.

Does bowing really reinforce that? Wouldn't it be a good idea to get a grip?

As for Nixon bowing to Emperor Hirohito, note there is mutual bowing;

I was talking about Obama bowing:



Maybe all that this shows is that Obama likes bowing and/or is a bit of a wuss who doesn't have the backbone to spit in their eyes instead?

Trump will be visiting the Middle East and I hope he will not be that stupid to bow to the Saudi King and other Muslims leaders.

As I said earlier, I think we all know Trump well enough now to know that one of his central motivations in the actions he takes is wanting to be perceived as having beaten (whatever that might mean) his closest competitor - the person who most recently did the job that he now does - Obama. It seems obvious to me that that is why he gave the order to bomb the airfield in Syria. Two alleged gas attacks by Assad allowing (in Trump's mind) a handy direct before-and-after comparison. Obama the weak. Trump the strong.

So yes, I'd bet dollars to donuts that he most certainly will not bow. And, since, as I said, we all know him now, we know that him not bowing will have absolutely nothing to do with Islam and everything to do with beating Obama in the Reality TV show which is the US presidency.

Anyway, do you still stand by your silly ideas about the importance of how low people bow in assessing whether they're secretly radical Islamists who wish to impose Sharia on the US? Do you still insist that the Obama White House was infested with radical Islamists?

---

Burning Ghost:

Please try and stick to what is being asked in the OP.

If you like Trump, what don't you like about him and his actions. If you don't like him, what do you like about his actions.

I've said quite a few things that I like about his words and actions. (With a president, it's all words really isn't it?) The most recent one was that I think the transparency of his dishonesty is a good thing. I trust him to be Trump.

[DannyC]

My major issue with Trump is simply the lack of serious qualifications and attitude that he displays. One of the worst things a president can have is disrespect for the presidency, and his behaviour isn't fitting of a president.

[Dolphin42]

OK Danny, it sounds like you're not keen on Trump. So, in the spirit of this topic: What do you like about his actions?

[DannyC]

I like the fact that he may intentionally be running his own presidency into the ground. In all seriousness, I like how he over promised massive upheavals in the U.S and won't be able to capitalise and deliver on them.

[Dolphin42]

I like the answer. It's similar to the answer I gave myself. But it's kind of a cop-out really, isn't it. It's basically saying that his best quality is his ability to render himself ineffective. It's saying you don't like him by other means. It's a bit like being in a job interview and the interviewer asks you that classic question: "What is your biggest fault?" and you say something like "being so good at my job that it makes other people jealous".

[Burning ghost]

It is interesting how someone perceived as controversial can actually help shake up the system. I think whether you like him or not his presence has made quite a few apathetic people sit up and possibly engage in politics in the future more in order to either prevent him from achieving his goals, or for those for him its given them a voice they didn't think they had.

Either way I hope the bonus is that people in the US are more ready to engage in political discussions and have come to understand that talking and debating (engaging with each other) is a good place to start.

I am happy that in the UK there is actually a party leader who is expressing his views irrespective of "winning" the election. Populist politics may very well be starting a steady decline in the UK, I hope the US follows and digs itself out of the horrible mess its been in for decades where policies are secondary to personalities. It is no wonder many became apathetic over there!