Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Hugh Mungus

Best Trump achievements IYO

98 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

DieChecker

Best Achievements? Our own personal choices, right?

1. Getting three Conservatives onto the SCOTUS.

2. Super low unemployment, and good stock market.

3. No new endless war.

4. Tax cut to everyone.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OpenMindedSceptic

No wars.

Dealt with North Korea swiftly and we heard little more from them.

The economy did well.

He highlighted lots of problems with the media.

The 5G issue was dealt with quickly.

He highlighted all the issues from people who claim to be from the "more caring" left just how nasty and repulsive they really can be.

Equally he was also a great caricature.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cookie Monster
10 hours ago, OpenMindedSceptic said:

No wars.

Dealt with North Korea swiftly and we heard little more from them.

The economy did well.

He highlighted lots of problems with the media.

The 5G issue was dealt with quickly.

He highlighted all the issues from people who claim to be from the "more caring" left just how nasty and repulsive they really can be.

Equally he was also a great caricature.

Overall I rate him as one of the more decent Presidents there have been.

Personality wise deeply flawed (albeit funny and entertaining), politicly very competent with his policy decisions.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
White Crane Feather

I didn’t like the man, but I always call

it how I see it. His push to get the other countries to pay their share of police action around the world was a bold move and something they needed to be done. I have lost friends in these wars and seen others mentally ruined. We shouldn’t have to take all the burden to stop crazy dictators. The rest of the world needed to step up and get their hands out of our pockets. He actually did a good job in most of the areas he said he was going to tackle. However, is inability to get along  ultimately divided the country. That is just poor leadership but it wasn’t all his fault. It started with Obama shoving legislating through that half the country didn’t want.

Pros

Good economics 

Was tough on China and North Korea 

No new wars. (Many had said he was going to start a lot of war, ahhah but he simply isn’t a war hawk like the clintons or others)

Gor others to step up for works policing 

 

 

Cons

Divided the nation further with his antics. The racism thing is weird becaue you can’t tell the truth in this country without being  called a racist. Racism is a card the left pills on everyone to degrade their political rivals. Trumps comments about what comes out of Mexico is true. It has nothing to do with race. It just so happens that gangs and drugs do come across the border. That’s not because of their race, it’s because that country is practically lawless. Still he did not have the leadership to bring people together. 

He fired the specialized pandemic team. Covid could have been squashed before it got going. I’m not sure how much of a benefit they response team could have mad he should have left them in place.

 

The guy was moral despot. I’m not sure I believe in his innocence reguarding some of the charges he was acused of.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
godnodog

For those here stating that he didn´t started a war, he didn't started one with Iran out of sheer luck, or you guys don't know about the killing of that iranian general (regardless of his "alleged" involvement with terrorist attacks) and the iranian retaliation on a US military base. Cooler heads prevailed and I seriously doubt Trump was one of those heads.

  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spartan max2
13 minutes ago, godnodog said:

For those here stating that he didn´t started a war, he didn't started one with Iran out of sheer luck, or you guys don't know about the killing of that iranian general (regardless of his "alleged" involvement with terrorist attacks) and the iranian retaliation on a US military base. Cooler heads prevailed and I seriously doubt Trump was one of those heads.

I guess it would be a endless debate but I'd argue a show of strength deters war more than anything.

The retaliation on the U.S base was just for show as it didn't hurt anyone. (Unless I am misremembering )

I don't believe we were actually close to war in that situation.

Edited by spartan max2
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr.United_Nations
8 hours ago, spartan max2 said:

I guess it would be a endless debate but I'd argue a show of strength deters war more than anything.

The retaliation on the U.S base was just for show as it didn't hurt anyone. (Unless I am misremembering )

I don't believe we were actually close to war in that situation.

Unfortunately there was a number of soldiers who did require treatment and the images show lots of damage, if the soldiers remained where they were they would of been seriously injured or even death. Thanks to the Iraqis and intelligence they all survived. Then you have the airline shot down by Iran, so it nearly did 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
12 hours ago, spartan max2 said:

I guess it would be a endless debate but I'd argue a show of strength deters war more than anything.

The retaliation on the U.S base was just for show as it didn't hurt anyone. (Unless I am misremembering )

I don't believe we were actually close to war in that situation.

That was the initial press release Trump gave.

A few months later the press was told about 30 US personnel suffered traumatic brain injuries in Iran's strike. The initial press release was a lie to excuse the lack of a US response until things quietened down.

If the US had kept to its red lines, you'd be at war with Iran.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DarkHunter
9 hours ago, Mr.United_Nations said:

Unfortunately there was a number of soldiers who did require treatment and the images show lots of damage, if the soldiers remained where they were they would of been seriously injured or even death. Thanks to the Iraqis and intelligence they all survived. Then you have the airline shot down by Iran, so it nearly did 

There was barely any damage from the attack, a shed holding tools was destroyed, a helicopter was damaged beyond repair, and a few tents blown away.  There was some craters produced but those are superficial and can be repaired in an hour or so.  

As for soldiers the media was trying to play it up a bit by saying how 110 soldiers had traumatic brain injuries from the attack.  Which was true but the traumatic brain injuries were concussions, which are extremely common when around high explosives going off, most of which were mild.  If I remember correctly only like 5 or 7 soldiers were sent to hospitals in Europe cause there werent any military hospitals in the region to handle concussions while the rest never left the base and were fine within a few days to a week.

Edited by DarkHunter
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr.United_Nations
57 minutes ago, DarkHunter said:

There was barely any damage from the attack, a shed holding tools was destroyed, a helicopter was damaged beyond repair, and a few tents blown away.  There was some craters produced but those are superficial and can be repaired in an hour or so.  

As for soldiers the media was trying to play it up a bit by saying how 110 soldiers had traumatic brain injuries from the attack.  Which was true but the traumatic brain injuries were concussions, which are extremely common when around high explosives going off, most of which were mild.  If I remember correctly only like 5 or 7 soldiers were sent to hospitals in Europe cause there werent any military hospitals in the region to handle concussions while the rest never left the base and were fine within a few days to a week.

Don't know where you get sources from but you wrong on a few things.

Tents?? 5 structures were badly damaged. And before I go, do you know anything about the Iranian missiles or any knowledge of Iranian missiles?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DarkHunter
38 minutes ago, Mr.United_Nations said:

Don't know where you get sources from but you wrong on a few things.

Tents?? 5 structures were badly damaged. And before I go, do you know anything about the Iranian missiles or any knowledge of Iranian missiles?

 

I forgot about the 5 structures as I was remembering the initial statements immediately after the attack.  Of those 5 structures, of which calling 2 of them structures is debatable they had nothing valuable inside of them at the time of the attack.

As for Iranian missiles I'm willing to bet i know more then you do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
On 1/21/2021 at 3:17 PM, godnodog said:

For those here stating that he didn´t started a war, he didn't started one with Iran out of sheer luck, or you guys don't know about the killing of that iranian general (regardless of his "alleged" involvement with terrorist attacks) and the iranian retaliation on a US military base. Cooler heads prevailed and I seriously doubt Trump was one of those heads.

You mean the Iranian general who was in Iraq to support, and motivate, terrorists attacking Americans and our allies performing peacekeeping activities in Iraq?

If he had been in Iran, you'd have an excellent point, but he was in Iraq.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
On 1/21/2021 at 3:17 PM, godnodog said:

For those here stating that he didn´t started a war, he didn't started one with Iran out of sheer luck, or you guys don't know about the killing of that iranian general (regardless of his "alleged" involvement with terrorist attacks) and the iranian retaliation on a US military base. Cooler heads prevailed and I seriously doubt Trump was one of those heads.

Might as well say Trump almost started a war with Russia by sending missiles against Syria after they used chemical weapons on their own people.  

Or, when he used the "Mother of all  Bombs" on the Taliban holdouts in Afghanistan. 

IMHO, those were mainly political statements, not acts of war.

Doubtless we'll see Biden do something similar several times in the next couple years.

Edited by DieChecker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Skulduggery

When he first became president, I'd heard he kicked out all the lobbyists, so if true, I can say that's a good thing more than likely. I'm divided about DPRK but I believe it may have a long lasting impact if things don't go too downhill. It is like when Gandalf chastises one of the Hobbits about saying that Gollum should just die. He's all like, “That Gollum is a piece of **** but I think he may be useful in the long run.” Paraphrased, not verbatim.

 

Other than that, I think his biggest interest was in taking money to allow other Republicans to have their way and let the big oil companies have their way. And the white supremacists supported him and he brought them out of the woodwork. Come to think of it, maybe that's a good thing. At least they tried to have a revolution, thus identifying themselves in the process.

Edited by Skulduggery

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Skulduggery

That's not to say I think Trump was an ok president. The border camps and incitement and recognizing Jerusalem as the Israeli capital are horrifying to me personally. The ICE raids affected a lot of people. To me, it was Nazi tactics.

Edited by Skulduggery

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
White Crane Feather
On 1/21/2021 at 3:17 PM, godnodog said:

For those here stating that he didn´t started a war, he didn't started one with Iran out of sheer luck, or you guys don't know about the killing of that iranian general (regardless of his "alleged" involvement with terrorist attacks) and the iranian retaliation on a US military base. Cooler heads prevailed and I seriously doubt Trump was one of those heads.

Nobody is going to go to war wirh us willingly. Killing that murderer was necessary as he would have killed more Americans. Iran was never going to do anything that would get our juices flowing, and the boldness of taking that guy out reminded them of that. A dmenstration of willingness to drop bombs is a deturent to war sometimes. Iran would loose imense military infrastructure within hours of a war with the US, and they have a lot of enemies. Two birds in one stone if you ask me. Even so trump isn’t comeing up with military targets all on his own. He has highly skilled and experience. Generals giving him advice. I still don’t like the man, but he did not have military ambitions abroad. That was clear from the start. 

Edited by White Crane Feather

Share this post


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

You mean the Iranian general who was in Iraq to support, and motivate, terrorists attacking Americans and our allies performing peacekeeping activities in Iraq?

If he had been in Iran, you'd have an excellent point, but he was in Iraq.

 

No, he means the Iranian general who was there to support official parts of the Iraqi military in their counter-isis efforts, by invitation of the Iraqi government.

He had as much legal grounding to be there as any of your troops.

And those groups you're referring to hadn't mounted a serious attack on coalition forces for years. Until you broke your agreement with Iran and started placing sanctions on them based in belief over evidence.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
7 hours ago, Setton said:

No, he means the Iranian general who was there to support official parts of the Iraqi military in their counter-isis efforts, by invitation of the Iraqi government.

I read he wasnt there to work with the Iraqi government, but to deliver a response to easing tensions with the Saudi government. He, specifically, was not invited. He was acting as a diplomat. Had zero to do with Isis, that I know of.

However, I suspect he would get involved given the opportunity. He was the head if the QUD forces, which has the mission of supporting, and fighting, insurgents. 

Quote

He had as much legal grounding to be there as any of your troops.

So? He wanted to kill our guys. What should we do for him? Send his mom flowers?

Quote

And those groups you're referring to hadn't mounted a serious attack on coalition forces for years. Until you broke your agreement with Iran and started placing sanctions on them based in belief over evidence.

OK, so if say, you located a head of the IRA that bombed some UK targets, you'd be, "Thats OK, that was years ago, no hard feelings"??

He was listed as a primary target years ago. Under Obama actually in 2015.

The arguement he was an immediate future danger to US military lives was pretty solid. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck

This..

tenor.gif

Hell, Linda Evangelista famously said she wouldn't get out of bed for less than $10,000; and, the ramps she used to walk on had absolutely zero gradient.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
6 hours ago, DieChecker said:

I read he wasnt there to work with the Iraqi government, but to deliver a response to easing tensions with the Saudi government. He, specifically, was not invited. He was acting as a diplomat. Had zero to do with Isis, that I know of.

Then you are very poorly informed on the subject.

Quote

 So? He wanted to kill our guys. What should we do for him? Send his mom flowers?

Maybe actually work with the Iraqi authorities to find a legal solution?

Rather than carrying out illegal assassinations.

The only difference between you and him is you got the strike in first.

Quote

OK, so if say, you located a head of the IRA that bombed some UK targets, you'd be, "Thats OK, that was years ago, no hard feelings"??

Or we'd go through the appropriate legal avenues.

Have you heard of Sinn Fein?

Quote

He was listed as a primary target years ago. Under Obama actually in 2015.

Yep, years ago. Back when he was actually targeting you.

Quote

The arguement he was an immediate future danger to US military lives was pretty solid. 

Again, poorly informed.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
godnodog
21 hours ago, White Crane Feather said:

Nobody is going to go to war wirh us willingly. Killing that murderer was necessary as he would have killed more Americans. Iran was never going to do anything that would get our juices flowing, and the boldness of taking that guy out reminded them of that. A dmenstration of willingness to drop bombs is a deturent to war sometimes. Iran would loose imense military infrastructure within hours of a war with the US, and they have a lot of enemies. Two birds in one stone if you ask me. Even so trump isn’t comeing up with military targets all on his own. He has highly skilled and experience. Generals giving him advice. I still don’t like the man, but he did not have military ambitions abroad. That was clear from the start. 

I am not saying the Trump did the wrong thing, I´m just pointing that he didnt started a war by mere luck, despite the fact that Iran retaliated.


 WW1 started with a murder.  

 

The "right" choice isn't always the "best" choice.

Edited by godnodog
grammar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
White Crane Feather
2 hours ago, godnodog said:
23 hours ago, White Crane Feather said:

start. 

I am not saying the Trump did the wrong thing, I´m just pointing that he didnt started a war by mere luck, despite

Agreed. Being arm chair Presidents is probably not the best analysis position. Without all the real facts it’s hard to say if trump would have made or not made the same decisions as others have given the same circumstances.

Edited by White Crane Feather
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
On 24/01/2021 at 10:10 PM, White Crane Feather said:

 Iran would loose imense military infrastructure within hours of a war with the US, and they have a lot of enemies.

As would you and as do you.

You know the US lost when it simulated a war with Iran, right?

Edited by Setton
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
godnodog
19 minutes ago, Setton said:

As would you and as do you.

You know the US lost when it simulated a war with Iran, right?

even the marine general was p***ed at the games, as he wasnt allowed to use unconventional attacks. how dare they lololololol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DarkHunter
52 minutes ago, Setton said:

As would you and as do you.

You know the US lost when it simulated a war with Iran, right?

That is just flat out inaccurate.  America didnt lose but what the war game did show was an American fleet being sunk until the war game was restarted but there is a lot more to the story.

The main problem is the marine general simulating the Iranians flat out cheated cause he was throwing a fit over the war game being simulated and purposefully wanted to ruin it.  Some of the tactics he employed during this simulation included but not limited to were to have small craft often carrying multiple antiship missiles that frequently weighed more then the craft itself, had all of those small craft regardless of type going at speed boat speeds as in he had dhows going near 80 to 100 knots, he frequently had hundreds of small strike craft appear out of no where near American ships and fire all their antiship missiles in one salvo, had messages delivered by dirt bikes to avoid the message interception but the dirt bikes frequently delivered messages instantaneously.

There was a reason why he was requested to stand down or be removed from the war game.

As for why he was trying to ruin the war game, he was basically throwing a fit.  The issue was he was involved in a previous war game that was highly scripted and designed to show off new military hardware.  He hated it as he wasnt allowed to deviate off the script and he hated the new military hardware as he opposed high tech weapons and wanted the military to stick to traditional weapon systems and tactics.  He finally relented and went along with it under the agreement that in the next war game he could fight it anyway he wanted.  The next war game was the one you mentioned America being defeated it and he found out it was also to be highly scripted and once again showing off new weapon systems.

The media heard about it and decided Iran defeats America in simulated war was a better story then angry general tries to ruin war game.  The general also wrote a very biased and one sided book on the event where he just rips into high tech weapons.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.