New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Is Trump a Manchurian Candidate

Arkady

President
I'm usually not one to buy into paranoid political theories, but Trump's behavior with regard to Putin has been so bizarre, I think it's legitimate to look into why. Trump has praised the autocrat repeatedly, he's called into question America's commitment to protect our European allies from Russian aggression, and he's now even toying with the idea of blocking people from Germany and France from entering the US.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/trump-putin-yes-it-s-really-a-thing

If a Democratic candidate had ever had this kind of open man-crush on a Soviet leader, and had ever received this level of Russian support, it would have been treated as nothing short of a communist conspiracy to put their man in the White House.
 
If a Democratic candidate had ever had this kind of open man-crush on a Soviet leader, and had ever received this level of Russian support, it would have been treated as nothing short of a communist conspiracy to put their man in the White House.
LOL. You just described FDR's entire post-war strategy to give away most of eastern Europe to Stalin and condemn them to five decades of Soviet oppression. All due to his own communist sympathies, and the man-crush he had on uncle Joe.
 

connieb

Senator
I'm usually not one to buy into paranoid political theories, but Trump's behavior with regard to Putin has been so bizarre, I think it's legitimate to look into why. Trump has praised the autocrat repeatedly, he's called into question America's commitment to protect our European allies from Russian aggression, and he's now even toying with the idea of blocking people from Germany and France from entering the US.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/trump-putin-yes-it-s-really-a-thing

If a Democratic candidate had ever had this kind of open man-crush on a Soviet leader, and had ever received this level of Russian support, it would have been treated as nothing short of a communist conspiracy to put their man in the White House.

What would Obama say.....

Oh yeah......
 

Arkady

President
LOL. You just described FDR's entire post-war strategy to give away most of eastern Europe to Stalin and condemn them to five decades of Soviet oppression. All due to his own communist sympathies, and the man-crush he had on uncle Joe.
What makes you think that?
 

Arkady

President
How is that relevant?
You said FDR's post-war strategy was to give away most of Eastern Europe to Stalin and condemn them to five decades under Soviet oppression. I asked you what made you think that was his post-war strategy. You answered "the fact it happened." Yet the fact it happened isn't really evidence that it was FDR's strategy, because FDR was not alive in the post-war period.
 

RickWA

Snagglesooth
You said FDR's post-war strategy was to give away most of Eastern Europe to Stalin and condemn them to five decades under Soviet oppression. I asked you what made you think that was his post-war strategy. You answered "the fact it happened." Yet the fact it happened isn't really evidence that it was FDR's strategy, because FDR was not alive in the post-war period.
Your posting has not only become more servile, but increasingly sloppy. Your logic above is non-existent. One can foment a policy (of action or inaction) which cedes influence without living to see its ultimate fruition.

The DNC deserves a better return on its investment.
 
Your posting has not only become more servile, but increasingly sloppy. Your logic above is non-existent. One can foment a policy (of action or inaction) which cedes influence without living to see its ultimate fruition.

The DNC deserves a better return on its investment.
Precisely, as in FDR's shameless, puppy-dog roll over to his man-crush Stalin at Yalta, which was, of course, the historical event that seems to have eluded our "smart" friend.
 
You said FDR's post-war strategy was to give away most of Eastern Europe to Stalin and condemn them to five decades under Soviet oppression. I asked you what made you think that was his post-war strategy. You answered "the fact it happened." Yet the fact it happened isn't really evidence that it was FDR's strategy, because FDR was not alive in the post-war period.
I was going to click "disagree", but "funny" seemed more apt for such a monumental logical fail.
 

Jen

Senator
I'm usually not one to buy into paranoid political theories, but Trump's behavior with regard to Putin has been so bizarre, I think it's legitimate to look into why. Trump has praised the autocrat repeatedly, he's called into question America's commitment to protect our European allies from Russian aggression, and he's now even toying with the idea of blocking people from Germany and France from entering the US.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/trump-putin-yes-it-s-really-a-thing

If a Democratic candidate had ever had this kind of open man-crush on a Soviet leader, and had ever received this level of Russian support, it would have been treated as nothing short of a communist conspiracy to put their man in the White House.
You are buying into a paranoid (and bizarre) political theory.
When we have a leader who is a weakling in every way, it's no "man crush" to mention that next to an evil world leader, our limp-wristed petulant baby looks pretty sad.
 

Arkady

President
Your posting has not only become more servile, but increasingly sloppy. Your logic above is non-existent. One can foment a policy (of action or inaction) which cedes influence without living to see its ultimate fruition.
Try to think clearly, dummy. I'm not claiming that it's impossible to foment a policy without living to see its fruition. I asked a question about what made him think FDR had that strategy. The only evidence he had was that Eastern Europe fell to the Russians. Obviously, that's not evidence that it was the strategy of a person in power before it happened. Yes, of course, it could conceivably be the delayed result of a strategy of FDR -- or Hoover, Coolidge, Harding, or what have you. But without any evidence for it, other than the fact it ended up happening, it would be pretty silly to make that assumption. If FDR had actually been in power when it happened, that would have been slightly stronger evidence, but still weak.[/QUOTE]
 

RickWA

Snagglesooth
Nice attempt at damage control, Arkady...but you already posed FDR's death as determinative proof that this wasn't his strategy. Now, in typical fashion, you seek to change the argument.

Lol! So insecure...
 

Arkady

President
You are buying into a paranoid (and bizarre) political theory.
When we have a leader who is a weakling in every way, it's no "man crush" to mention that next to an evil world leader, our limp-wristed petulant baby looks pretty sad.
What's bizarre and paranoid is to make a comparison between a fairly successful leader like Obama, whose ideals harmonize well with America's values, and Putin, a guy who has led his nation into being an international pariah and den of corruption, whose totalitarian impulses are at odds with everything we stand for, and to somehow think that comparison reflects better on Putin. That's the insanity of Trump and his addle-patted groupies.
 

Arkady

President
Nice attempt at damage control, Arkady...but you already posed FDR's death as determinative proof that this wasn't his strategy.
I didn't. You misunderstood. Try rereading. I haven't edited the post, so, if you put your puny brain to work on the problem diligently enough, you should be able to spot your error.
 

RickWA

Snagglesooth
I didn't. You misunderstood. Try rereading. I haven't edited the post, so, if you put your puny brain to work on the problem diligently enough, you should be able to spot your error.
Sorry...but piling on additional gratuitous insults, while mildly humorous, won't bail you out of this sticky wicket. ;)
 
Top