Trump says US is in a bubble

Here's Trump's original model:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFvT_qEZJf8[/youtube]
 
I think it's great that Trump is telling it like it is.

Hopefully it will awaken thousands more Americans before its too late?
 
SilverDJ said:
Ok, it's Trump, but I think it's kinda a big deal he said it:
http://news.yahoo.com/trump-says-u-economy-bubble-doesnt-want-inherit-160728780--business.html
Click to expand...


I dislike Americans but I like how Trump is stirring the pot over there.

7513_aus_us.jpg
 
Court Jester said:
SilverDJ said:
Ok, it's Trump, but I think it's kinda a big deal he said it:
http://news.yahoo.com/trump-says-u-economy-bubble-doesnt-want-inherit-160728780--business.html
Click to expand...


I dislike Americans but I like how Trump is stirring the pot over there.

http://forums.silverstackers.com/uploads/7513_aus_us.jpg
Click to expand...


Do you dislike American people or the policies of their country not made by the average Joe American?

To be honest I've never met an American that wasn't nice as pie (apple)? If you ever travel there they will go well out of their way to help you out and make you feel welcome.

Every country has their fair share of dickheads, America included. But I've met plenty of Dickheads in Australia (and while travelling OS that made me feel embarrassed to be Australian). If you want an example of Australian dickheads giving our country a bad name, take a weeks holiday in Bali sometime and watch the antics of your fellow countrymen. I wonder if the Indo's all think we're dickheads?

Sweeping statements such as this don't help any cause. None less so than your own.
 
Court Jester, they all change once their in office. But I like Trump more then the others.

ParanoidAndroid, I think CJ's main beef is what the US does to other countries - wars, military, sanctions, ect, and Americans are for these wars.
 
Skyrocket said:
Court Jester, they all change once their in office. But I like Trump more then the others.

ParanoidAndroid, I think CJ's main beef is what the US does to other countries - wars, military, sanctions, ect, and Americans are for these wars.
Click to expand...


pretty much how they try to police and control the world.--- you can say this is the government not the people but the elected government and policies they implement are there voted by the people of the country.---



government of the people, by the people, for the people and all -- so I blame the people for Americas Foreign policy as much as I do the government.
 
SilverDJ said:
Ok, it's Trump, but I think it's kinda a big deal he said it
Click to expand...

That intro makes it feel like you expect people here not to give him credit.
Can't blame you though, the msm here only say negative things about Trump, if they bring him up at all.

Trump's been talking about currency manipulation and has had a negative opinion of the fed for ages.


To Court Jester:
"pretty much how they try to police and control the world"

Trump isn't in favour of that at least.
Let's not forget he was fine with Putin taking on ISIS and said he'd rather leave Assad in power than swap him for the "rebels".
ISIS is the only target in his sights, but that goes for everyone running anyway.

In 2011, he said this in a speech:
"while we're spending billions of dollars being policemen of the world, China's spending billions of dollars a day buying the world"

I'm pretty sure he sees China as the real long-term challenge, and not in terms of warfare but who is on top economically.
That's one of the reasons he always brings up his anger about their currency manipulation.

Even though he does say he wants to build up the US military, he would do so because it's cheaper to be strong and therefore deter wars than to be on a playing field where people can start challenges.
 
The hawks will love him. He is almost as dangerous as Hilary in terms of waging wars.
 
JulieW said:
He is almost as dangerous as Hilary in terms of waging wars.
Click to expand...

Why do you believe that?
Just because the media paint him as some loose cannon does not make it so.
Do you buy into the idea that the media is the hero taking down a bad guy? That's what they'd like people to think.


He was against the war in iraq.
He called it a mess in 2003 and in 2004 he said:
"What was the purpose of the whole thing? Hundreds and hundreds of young people killed. And what about the people coming back with no arms and no legs? Not to mention the other side. All those Iraqi kids who've been blown to pieces. And it turns out that all of the reasons for the war were blatantly wrong. All this for nothing!".


He wants to get along with Russia and Putin has acknowledged that already. Putin said that of course they would welcome it.

The american media always paints the russians as bad guys. Plenty of movies make them look like shady people, even somewhat recent movies like Kick Ass.
This would be something historic, in much the same way that his counter-event to the fox debate has been historic.
 
jnkmbx said:
JulieW said:
He is almost as dangerous as Hilary in terms of waging wars.
Click to expand...

Why do you believe that?
Just because the media paint him as some loose cannon does not make it so.
Do you buy into the idea that the media is the hero taking down a bad guy? That's what they'd like people to think.


He was against the war in iraq.
He called it a mess in 2003 and in 2004 he said:
"What was the purpose of the whole thing? Hundreds and hundreds of young people killed. And what about the people coming back with no arms and no legs? Not to mention the other side. All those Iraqi kids who've been blown to pieces. And it turns out that all of the reasons for the war were blatantly wrong. All this for nothing!".


He wants to get along with Russia and Putin has acknowledged that already. Putin said that of course they would welcome it.

The american media always paints the russians as bad guys. Plenty of movies make them look like shady people, even somewhat recent movies like Kick Ass.
This would be something historic, in much the same way that his counter-event to the fox debate has been historic.
Click to expand...
Trump didn't oppose the war until a year after it had begun, not exactly a visionary.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...d-to-silence-his-iraq-war-opposition-in-2003/
 
col0016 said:
jnkmbx said:
JulieW said:
He is almost as dangerous as Hilary in terms of waging wars.
Click to expand...

Why do you believe that?
Just because the media paint him as some loose cannon does not make it so.
Do you buy into the idea that the media is the hero taking down a bad guy? That's what they'd like people to think.


He was against the war in iraq.
He called it a mess in 2003 and in 2004 he said:
"What was the purpose of the whole thing? Hundreds and hundreds of young people killed. And what about the people coming back with no arms and no legs? Not to mention the other side. All those Iraqi kids who've been blown to pieces. And it turns out that all of the reasons for the war were blatantly wrong. All this for nothing!".


He wants to get along with Russia and Putin has acknowledged that already. Putin said that of course they would welcome it.

The american media always paints the russians as bad guys. Plenty of movies make them look like shady people, even somewhat recent movies like Kick Ass.
This would be something historic, in much the same way that his counter-event to the fox debate has been historic.
Click to expand...
Trump didn't oppose the war until a year after it had begun, not exactly a visionary.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...d-to-silence-his-iraq-war-opposition-in-2003/
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say he was a visionary either (that's obviously one of his election tactics), but he did give hints of being against the war in 2003.
The point I'm making to JulieW is that his sentiment was against it way before he ran for president.
Other people will defend the war forever, whether they publicised their stance before or after the war.
 
jnkmbx said:
col0016 said:
jnkmbx said:
Why do you believe that?
Just because the media paint him as some loose cannon does not make it so.
Do you buy into the idea that the media is the hero taking down a bad guy? That's what they'd like people to think.


He was against the war in iraq.
He called it a mess in 2003 and in 2004 he said:
"What was the purpose of the whole thing? Hundreds and hundreds of young people killed. And what about the people coming back with no arms and no legs? Not to mention the other side. All those Iraqi kids who've been blown to pieces. And it turns out that all of the reasons for the war were blatantly wrong. All this for nothing!".


He wants to get along with Russia and Putin has acknowledged that already. Putin said that of course they would welcome it.

The american media always paints the russians as bad guys. Plenty of movies make them look like shady people, even somewhat recent movies like Kick Ass.
This would be something historic, in much the same way that his counter-event to the fox debate has been historic.
Click to expand...
Trump didn't oppose the war until a year after it had begun, not exactly a visionary.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...d-to-silence-his-iraq-war-opposition-in-2003/
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say he was a visionary either (that's obviously one of his election tactics), but he did give hints of being against the war in 2003.
The point I'm making to JulieW is that his sentiment was against it way before he ran for president.
Other people will defend the war forever, whether they publicised their stance before or after the war.
Click to expand...
Hasn't he said he would use nukes on ISIS etc?
 
col0016 said:
jnkmbx said:
col0016 said:
Trump didn't oppose the war until a year after it had begun, not exactly a visionary.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...d-to-silence-his-iraq-war-opposition-in-2003/
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say he was a visionary either (that's obviously one of his election tactics), but he did give hints of being against the war in 2003.
The point I'm making to JulieW is that his sentiment was against it way before he ran for president.
Other people will defend the war forever, whether they publicised their stance before or after the war.
Click to expand...
Hasn't he said he would use nukes on ISIS etc?
Click to expand...

He said he'd bomb the hell out of ISIS, but that doesn't mean nukes.
Because:
-He said he'd bomb the sh*t of out of the oil fields under their control (a source of their income) "i'd blow up the pipes, i'd blow up the refineries"
-Contract companies like Exxon to go in there and rebuild it under Americas control
-Cover costs using the income stream generated from the oil

You can't do all the above if it's a radioactive wasteland.
btw. I predict that he will also pay veterans a share of the profits of the oil money.
He's said it many times in different ways, but that's the message he has been giving out.
"we should have given big chunks [of oil money] to the people who lost their arms, their legs, their families and their sons and daughters,"


Also, consider this quote:
"We can't continue to be the policemen of the world. We owe $19 trillion, we have a country that's going to hell, we have an infrastructure that's falling apart, our roads, our bridges, our schools, our airports, and we have to start investing money in our country."


He doesn't agree to being the "policemen of the world" and has said so in more than one occasion.

btw. Found a clip talking about why he wants to build up the military.
"coz you don't have to fight. Nobody wants to mess with you."

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Um1LlMXMKlM[/youtube]
 
My personal opinion is that these situations are a no win for America or whoever the world thinks is one of the top powers. If you find out country x is harming a minority group and you don't do anything the minority group can become radicalized and attack the top power for not helping mom/dad/sister/brother... If the top power jumps in then civilians will get hurt or someone will think mom/dad/sister/brother was innocent and shouldn't have been targeted by the top power and thus can become radicalized. So the top power is screwed either way. Best case scenario is to live in a great country that isn't viewed as a top power so no one cares if you mind your own business.

Also, the American people have yet to vote 100% for a president. So every time at least 30% of the people wanted the other person, so we may not all be jerks. Again just my opinion.
 
Caneorange said:
My personal opinion is that these situations are a no win for America or whoever the world thinks is one of the top powers. If you find out country x is harming a minority group and you don't do anything the minority group can become radicalized and attack the top power for not helping mom/dad/sister/brother... If the top power jumps in then civilians will get hurt or someone will think mom/dad/sister/brother was innocent and shouldn't have been targeted by the top power and thus can become radicalized. So the top power is screwed either way. Best case scenario is to live in a great country that isn't viewed as a top power so no one cares if you mind your own business.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately I do find that this sort of thinking is applied, especially to western countries, mainly by SJWs and the like.

imo, if a country has internal issues then it's up to them to sort it out.
It has to grow up and learn to fight its own battles. Stepping in and helping them out only breeds dependency.

In a doco, you watch animals getting eaten. Interfering will only delay the inevitable:
That the strongest and smartest will survive.
 
jnkmbx said:
In a doco, you watch animals getting eaten. Interfering will only delay the inevitable:
That the strongest and smartest will survive.
Click to expand...

btw. Thought I'd mention that it isn't a very pleasant thing to think about, but the world is pretty harsh guys.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top