The Issue is Not Trump. It is Us

[David_TheMan]

There's absolutely zero factual reason to believe Trump would be competitive against Obama.

Obama is finishing his presidency with his highest approval ratings since he was elected:

Obama's approval rating stands at 60%, his best mark since June of his first year in office. Compared with other outgoing presidents, Obama lands near the top of the list, outranked only by Bill Clinton's 66% in January 2001 and Ronald Reagan's 64% in January 1989. About two-thirds (65%) say Obama's presidency was a success, including about half (49%) who say that was due to Obama's personal strengths rather than circumstances outside his control.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/18/politics/obama-approval-rating-cnn-orc-poll/

compare this to Trump before a day in office:

Two polls out on Tuesday — one by CNN and ORC and another by The Washington Post and ABC News — found that just 40 percent of Americans approved of Mr. Trump’s performance heading into the inauguration on Friday. NBC News and The Wall Street Journal put his approval rating at 44 percent, calling it the lowest rating ever for an incoming president.

Trump had the fortune of running against one of the most flawed and damaged Presidential candidates ever. He would have no chance running against anyone else.

Approval rating doesn't say who will vote for you though.
Trump won places Obama previously won, something about Clinton (essentially a continuation of the Obama/Bush/Clinton agenda) says those people were rejecting a continuation of the status quo.

 

[Gentility]

Approval rating doesn't say who will vote for you though.
Trump won places Obama previously won, something about Clinton (essentially a continuation of the Obama/Bush/Clinton agenda) says those people were rejecting a continuation of the status quo.

No, it says they rejected the idea of putting Hillary Clinton in the White House.

 

[thatrapsfan]

No it isn't actually and this has been documented a year ago
AFRICOM’s Secret Empire: US Military Turns Africa Into ‘Laboratory’ Of Modern Warfare

Mint Press. RT. etc lol

Trumpian style of taking a few nuggets of fact and stretching it to a very large flimsy narrative.


U.S. primary interest in Africa revolves around AQ affiliates. Any of the significant U.S. military presence in Africa has been in countries battling against AQ, particularly in the Sahel.

This shoddy map is perfect example of how misleading RT type outlets are. All those arrows suggest U.S. military outposts in each country. Lets take Zambia, for example, which is marked on this map. Where is the U.S. military base in Zambia? Or Namibia? Botswana? Go ahead and google each country and you wont find anything about a base. The article stretches facts to suggest U.S. military training is equivalent to a base or physical presence.

Anyone suggesting joint training exercises between the Zambian military and American military trainers are the prelude of an invasion needs get their head-checked or is a propagandist.

The U.S. isnt even the most significant foreign power in Africa. Its undoubtedly China and China's commercial and physical presence in Africa far exceeds anything the U.S. is involved in.

 

[thatrapsfan]

Approval rating doesn't say who will vote for you though.
Trump won places Obama previously won, something about Clinton (essentially a continuation of the Obama/Bush/Clinton agenda) says those people were rejecting a continuation of the status quo.

If you are claiming Obama and Clinton are considered the same person by the electorate, you have to explain why Clinton is extremely unpopular in the same polls.

 

[BillBanneker]

He got elected because he ran against Hillary Clinton. If the candidate was Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden or (without the 22nd Amendment) Barack Obama, he would've lost.

Seriously

Dude got less votes overall than romney and a significant portion of eligible voters went AWOL this past election.

 

[David_TheMan]

No, it says they rejected the idea of putting Hillary Clinton in the White House.

If that is the way you read it, so be it, we'll just agree to disagree.

Mint Press. RT. etc lol

Trumpian style of taking a few nuggets of fact and stretching it to a very large flimsy narrative.


U.S. primary interest in Africa revolves around AQ affiliates. Any of the significant U.S. military presence in Africa has been in countries battling against AQ, particularly in the Sahel.

This shoddy map is perfect example of how misleading RT type outlets are. All those arrows suggest U.S. military outposts in each country. Lets take Zambia, for example, which is marked on this map. Where is the U.S. military base in Zambia? Or Namibia? Botswana? Go ahead and google each country and you wont find anything about a base. The article stretches facts to suggest U.S. military training is equivalent to a base or physical presence.

Anyone suggesting joint training exercises between the Zambian military and American military trainers are the prelude of an invasion needs get their head-checked or is a propagandist.

The U.S. isnt even the most significant foreign power in Africa. Its undoubtedly China and China's commercial and physical presence in Africa far exceeds anything the U.S. is involved in.

Wow that old nugget of attempting to attack the messenger instead of making a solid rebutal to the charge based on sound logic.
Don't get so caught up in thinking Trump is the boogey man, that you lose focus and objectivity regarding US acts in the real world.
US has been aiding AQ affiliates in the ME and ISIS, what makes you think the US which has a habit of bringing AQ whereever it goes is acting to stop wahabbist and not say moving in Africa to try to block China and Russian investment, like they tried to do late last year in blocking Japanese and RUssian negotiations?

As for the map, read the article, they inform you that the locations were obtained from US due to FOIA requestions.
THat said keep the blinders on and keep ignoring why the US is even there in the first place building up outposts

Here are some more links documenting US military build up in AFrica.
Tomgram: Nick Turse, The U.S. Military Pivots to Africa and That Continent Goes Down the Drain | TomDispatch
Tomgram: Nick Turse, Washington's America-First Commandos in Africa | TomDispatch
Tomgram: Nick Turse, AFRICOM's Gigantic "Small Footprint" | TomDispatch

If you are claiming Obama and Clinton are considered the same person by the electorate, you have to explain why Clinton is extremely unpopular in the same polls.

Yet her unfavorabilty was always less than Trump who beat her in the election clearly.

 

[Prince Akeem]

No it isn't actually and this has been documented a year ago
AFRICOM’s Secret Empire: US Military Turns Africa Into ‘Laboratory’ Of Modern Warfare

I wonder why DR Congo is untouched.

 

[David_TheMan]

I wonder why DR Congo is untouched.

already have presence under UN most likely, so need need for a US base?

 

[thatrapsfan]

If that is the way you read it, so be it, we'll just agree to disagree.



Wow that old nugget of attempting to attack the messenger instead of making a solid rebutal to the charge based on sound logic.
Don't get so caught up in thinking Trump is the boogey man, that you lose focus and objectivity regarding US acts in the real world.
US has been aiding AQ affiliates in the ME and ISIS, what makes you think the US which has a habit of bringing AQ whereever it goes is acting to stop wahabbist and not say moving in Africa to try to block China and Russian investment, like they tried to do late last year in blocking Japanese and RUssian negotiations?

As for the map, read the article, they inform you that the locations were obtained from US due to FOIA requestions.
THat said keep the blinders on and keep ignoring why the US is even there in the first place building up outposts

Here are some more links documenting US military build up in AFrica.
Tomgram: Nick Turse, The U.S. Military Pivots to Africa and That Continent Goes Down the Drain | TomDispatch
Tomgram: Nick Turse, Washington's America-First Commandos in Africa | TomDispatch
Tomgram: Nick Turse, AFRICOM's Gigantic "Small Footprint" | TomDispatch


Yet her unfavorabilty was always less than Trump who beat her in the election clearly.

So you claim I attacked the messenger and dont really address the points I raised in my post, the irony lol.

A huge number of the "outposts" marked do not exist. Outside of the Sahel and Djibouti, none of the "outposts" marked in the article exist. Its sophistry to claim U.S. military training is the same thing as an outpost.


In fact its ironic that you refer to a Trump bogeyman to try to dismiss my points. Its because the sources you use are obsessed with an omnipresent American boogeyman behind every single development in the world, that they would attempt to claim AFRICOM is equivalent to an invasion.

The U.S. is not the only great power in the world and Africa is actually a living example to the limits of American power. Its undoubtedly behind China in terms of influence and there's nothing behind AFRICOM's operations that suggest it has the ambition or scope to reverse that.

I also think the idea the U.S. armed or supported ISIS is silly and symptomatic of analysis that can only understand the world through American actions.

 

[Berniewood Hogan]

Most people did not vote for Trump.
Most people do not think Trump is competent.
Most people do not respect Trump.

 

[David_TheMan]

So you claim I attacked the messenger and dont really address the points I raised in my post, the irony lol.

A huge number of the "outposts" marked do not exist. Outside of the Sahel and Djibouti, none of the "outposts" marked in the article exist. Its sophistry to claim U.S. military training is the same thing as an outpost.


In fact its ironic that you refer to a Trump bogeyman to try to dismiss my points. Its because the sources you use are obsessed with an omnipresent American boogeyman behind every single development in the world, that they would attempt to claim AFRICOM is equivalent to an invasion.

The U.S. is not the only great power in the world and Africa is actually a living example to the limits of American power. Its undoubtedly behind China in terms of influence and there's nothing behind AFRICOM's operations that suggest it has the ambition or scope to reverse that.

I also think the idea the U.S. armed or supported ISIS is silly and symptomatic of analysis that can only understand the world through American actions.

Yes you literally attacked the message by trying to refute a report by claiming it was russian propaganda, than actually addressing what the report said.

As for you claim the outposts don't exist, this was addressed in the article if you chose to read it, which states the locations marked are the locations actually stated by the US government itself.

I haven't used Trump as a bogeyman to dismiss you at all, I literally said don't let a irrational fear of trump cloud your vision of what is going on and documented as going on. Now you choose to ignore what you like that will always be on you.

As for the US not being the largest or only world power operating in china, never claimed it was, you literally are now throwing up a strawman argument. As a matter of fact I literally wrote that the US was acting to curb Chinese influence in the region.

If you think the fact that the US armed and supported ISIS is silly, you simply think reality is silly because this is again factually documented, especially in Syria, where the moderate rebels it used to "fight" Assad's government were al-queda aka Al Nusra and ISIS. Same when the US and western government were giving military aid in Libya to overthrow Gaddafi by arming wahabbist that turned out to be al-queda fighters from Iraq, aka ISIS

 

[thatrapsfan]

Yes you literally attacked the message by trying to refute a report by claiming it was russian propaganda, than actually addressing what the report said.

As for you claim the outposts don't exist, this was addressed in the article if you chose to read it, which states the locations marked are the locations actually stated by the US government itself.

I haven't used Trump as a bogeyman to dismiss you at all, I literally said don't let a irrational fear of trump cloud your vision of what is going on and documented as going on. Now you choose to ignore what you like that will always be on you.

As for the US not being the largest or only world power operating in china, never claimed it was, you literally are now throwing up a strawman argument. As a matter of fact I literally wrote that the US was acting to curb Chinese influence in the region.

If you think the fact that the US armed and supported ISIS is silly, you simply think reality is silly because this is again factually documented, especially in Syria, where the moderate rebels it used to "fight" Assad's government were al-queda aka Al Nusra and ISIS. Same when the US and western government were giving military aid in Libya to overthrow Gaddafi by arming wahabbist that turned out to be al-queda fighters from Iraq, aka ISIS

My argument is clear, yet you keep dancing around it.

The article exaggerated AFRICOM's scope. Many of the outposts marked do not exist. The U.S. is not the most influential foreign power in Africa. AFRICOM is not a prelude to this fact changing nor is it a prelude to an American invasion.

Can you address any of the above? Referring back to more links from the same source isn't really a counterargument.

 

[Maschine_Man]

I got a issue with John Pilger, a white man who called Obama, Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell "house slaves".

Some lines just shouldn't be crossed

would it have been better if he called them "mediocre negroes"?

 

[David_TheMan]

My argument is clear, yet you keep dancing around it.

The article exaggerated AFRICOM's scope. Many of the outposts marked do not exist. The U.S. is not the most influential foreign power in Africa. AFRICOM is not a prelude to this fact changing nor is it a prelude to an American invasion.

Can you address any of the above? Referring back to more links from the same source isn't really a counterargument.

My argument is clear and you have really done nothing to address it.
On top of it there is nothing you have presented to dance around.

My position is simple, US presence in Africa isn't exagerrated at all by the article, it falls in line with what the US government itself has admitted, you can not refute this it is simply a fact.
I never argued the US was the most influential foreign power operating in Africa, again this is a strawman presented by you because you actually can not address the point made, that the US admitted these areas exist and there could be more.

Your points have been addressed repeatedly, the question now is if you will read and comprehend what is written.

 

[Maschine_Man]

There's absolutely zero factual reason to believe Trump would be competitive against Obama.

Obama is finishing his presidency with his highest approval ratings since he was elected:

Obama's approval rating stands at 60%, his best mark since June of his first year in office. Compared with other outgoing presidents, Obama lands near the top of the list, outranked only by Bill Clinton's 66% in January 2001 and Ronald Reagan's 64% in January 1989. About two-thirds (65%) say Obama's presidency was a success, including about half (49%) who say that was due to Obama's personal strengths rather than circumstances outside his control.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/18/politics/obama-approval-rating-cnn-orc-poll/

compare this to Trump before a day in office:

Two polls out on Tuesday — one by CNN and ORC and another by The Washington Post and ABC News — found that just 40 percent of Americans approved of Mr. Trump’s performance heading into the inauguration on Friday. NBC News and The Wall Street Journal put his approval rating at 44 percent, calling it the lowest rating ever for an incoming president.

Trump had the fortune of running against one of the most flawed and damaged Presidential candidates ever. He would have no chance running against anyone else.

you guys still putting stock in polls, survey's and other shyt?

you should know(by now) that they really aren't worth shyt. You really think they polled 350 million ppl? who got polled?


no, they take a sample of the population which is most likely biased.