President Trump: Making America Great Again...

[Jeff Lebowski]

He is not under any moral obligation, and nobody has said or insinuated that he is. Nobody is demanding that Shaka lay out all of his political beliefs so we can scrutinize them or so that he can justify his participation on the board or in political threads. So let's stop painting this as if it were that. But when someone has displayed a history of looking the other way when Trump does something controversial or, worse, finding a way to spin something controversial into something he actually supports ("i'm all for blowing up all the drug dealers"), that person can't be upset when people assume he's a hard-core Trumper.

In other words, if he doesn't care if people assume he's in the bag for Trump, then this is a moot point. But if he wants people to believe that he isn't a Trumper, that burden is on him. That's all anyone is saying. He doesn't owe anyone any explanations, just like nobody owes him the assumption that he's not in the bag for MAGA.

With this response, I am not sure how you could have illustrated my point more perfectly.

[Donuthole]

With this response, I am not sure how you could have illustrated my point more perfectly.

Sounds like we agree, then.

[falafel]

Simple, succinct opinions may be what grates on you. Lawyers often prefer long, drawn-out answers because they provide material to dissect and discredit. Short answers make that much more difficult.

No, lawyers love succinct, concise opinions. The thing lawyers dislike it vagueness, and I think that is what some dislike about the "Bad Trump" opinion.

[Northwestcoug]

I am loving this peace-time president who won't start any more wars under bullshit pretenses like so many before him:

President Trump has decided that the United States is engaged in a formal “armed conflict” with drug cartels his team has labeled terrorist organizations and that suspected smugglers for such groups are “unlawful combatants,” the administration said in a confidential notice to Congress this week.

The notice was sent to several congressional committees and obtained by The New York Times. It adds new detail to the administration’s thinly articulated legal rationale for why three U.S. military strikes the president ordered on boats in the Caribbean Sea last month, killing all 17 people aboard them, should be seen as lawful rather than murder.

Mr. Trump’s move to formally deem his campaign against drug cartels as an active armed conflict means he is cementing his claim to extraordinary wartime powers, legal specialists said. In an armed conflict, as defined by international law, a country can lawfully kill enemy fighters even when they pose no threat, detain them indefinitely without trials and prosecute them in military courts.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/02/u...rtels-war.html

I am confident the Nobel committee will see the error of their ways and call the WH now.

[frank ryan]

That is not at all what I am describing. Shaka's opinion on a matter was implicitly discredited because he is allegedly too pro-trump. Now people are asking him to prove that he is truly anti-trump in certain instances by "clarifying" those cases in more detail. The underlying assumption here is that he is under some kind of moral obligation to perform that anti-trump clarification or his overall opinions are invalid. I am sorry, that is BS.

JL, you are really rigid when it comes to assuming the worst about my sincerity.

I think I'm starting to get the overall message.

[Jeff Lebowski]

No, lawyers love succinct, concise opinions. The thing lawyers dislike it vagueness, and I think that is what some dislike about the "Bad Trump" opinion.

Good lord. You aren't upset that his anti-trump statements aren't sufficiently detailed. You are upset that he has so many pro-trump opinions.

You guys are killing me.

[Shaka]

("i'm all for blowing up all the drug dealers"), that person can't be upset when people assume he's a hard-core Trumper.

In other words, if he doesn't care if people assume he's in the bag for Trump, then this is a moot point. But if he wants people to believe that he isn't a Trumper, that burden is on him. That's all anyone is saying. He doesn't owe anyone any explanations, just like nobody owes him the assumption that he's not in the bag for MAGA.

Or maybe I just hate the drug trade. This is a common view that predates Trump by decades. I consider the war on drugs to be critically important. I'm 100% for taking that war to them. If the drug runners don't stop, by all means, blow them up. I'm tired of the fentanyl overdoses, the crime, and the violence that come with the drug trade. If you want to equate that opinion, one I've held since high school, with being a Trumper, that's on you. It would be more accurate to give Nancy Reagan the credit. In this case I'm happy Trump has the balls to take the fight to them. I wish he'd go further.

I've stated many times on this very board that, despite Ukraine's pecadillos, I support them in their fight with Russia. I would support them by not only giving them everything they could want/need, but rallying NATO and others to enter the fray and kick Russia's ass once and for all. There's a time for diplomacy, and there's a time to kick ass. We are well beyond the time of diplomacy. The longer we wait, the more dangerous Putin becomes. My views on Ukraine are a major break with Trump. However, some of you have selective amnesia.

[falafel]

Fwiw, I wasn't sure if "Bad Trump" was sarcastic or not. Seemed like sometimes it was and sometimes it wasn't. But I do struggle with reading comprehension, so take that fwiw.

I do like smr's advice to grow thicker skin. Miss him... Along with that, I recognize I need to offer more grace to others.

Just assume that he means whatever he decided after he thought through the issues deeply. If you can't figure out the context then, I don't know what to tell you.

SMR.

[Copelius]

President Trump has decided that the United States is engaged in a formal “armed conflict” with drug cartels his team has labeled terrorist organizations and that suspected smugglers for such groups are “unlawful combatants,” the administration said in a not very confidential notice to Congress this week.

The notice was sent to several congressional committees and obtained by The New York Times. It adds new detail to the administration’s thinly articulated legal rationale for why three U.S. military strikes the president ordered on boats in the Caribbean Sea last month, killing all 17 people aboard them, should be seen as lawful rather than murder.

Mr. Trump’s move to formally deem his campaign against drug cartels as an active armed conflict means he is cementing his claim to extraordinary wartime powers, legal specialists said. In an armed conflict, as defined by international law, a country can lawfully kill enemy fighters even when they pose no threat, detain them indefinitely without trials and prosecute them in military courts.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/02/u...rtels-war.html

I am confident the Nobel committee will see the error of their ways and call the WH now.

FIFY NYT

[falafel]

Good lord. You aren't upset that his anti-trump statements aren't sufficiently detailed. You are upset that he has so many pro-trump opinions.

You guys are killing me.

I am actually upset that he doesn't back up his positions, and then acts butt hurt when people press him on those opinions.

There are precious few true conservatives on this board who will stand up and discuss the conservative or even Trump/MAGA side. I would love to hear someone not named Stephen Miller explain why they support Trump policies. Or Conservative policies.

Shaka doesn't have to participate in political discussions. But he likes to dart in and out without really saying anything. I find that frustrating.

I do feel badly about killing you though.

[The_Tick]

As someone who didn't like Biden, and doesn't really care for Trump....the people on here that are critical of Trump gave Biden and his ilk a pass for pretty much everything that they did/didn't do the last 4 years. I mean the cognitive decline discussion of Biden on here lasted for like 6 months, and the Biden supporters on here discounted it 100%, until the Debate. Then they came around. The Trump folks on here couldn't believe that y'all didn't see it. It is the same way with the Trump stuff. You are apoplectic to the fact that the MAGA folks on here can't see it.

Opposite sides of the same coin. The only difference is the Biden folks do it with an air of moral superiority, where the Trump folks do it with a middle finger. But we are all the same.

[The_Tick]

And to be fair....I read the politics section on CUF to see how people of opposing views see things. It helps keep me informed. You guys are my family.

[Northwestcoug]

Or maybe I just hate the drug trade. This is a common view that predates Trump by decades. I consider the war on drugs to be critically important. I'm 100% for taking that war to them. If the drug runners don't stop, by all means, blow them up. I'm tired of the fentanyl overdoses, the crime, and the violence that come with the drug trade. If you want to equate that opinion, one I've held since high school, with being a Trumper, that's on you. It would be more accurate to give Nancy Reagan the credit. In this case I'm happy Trump has the balls to take the fight to them. I wish he'd go further.

I think there are many on the right who agree with you. But I do not understand this at all. After the what ?hundreds of billions ?trillions fought and the decades of failed policies with so much collateral damage, how is this time going to be any different? I mean if fentanyl is the main culprit here, the least Trump could do is kill the right nationals. At least cocaine helps you get through the day!

I'm not necessarily looking for a response. But if there's a clearer vision to fight a drug war that stays within respected constitutional guardrails and actually does decrease drug use, I would love to hear the particulars.

[falafel]

I've stated many times on this very board that, despite Ukraine's pecadillos, I support them in their fight with Russia. I would support them by not only giving them everything they could want/need, but rallying NATO and others to enter the fray and kick Russia's ass once and for all. There's a time for diplomacy, and there's a time to kick ass. We are well beyond the time of diplomacy. The longer we wait, the more dangerous Putin becomes. My views on Ukraine are a major break with Trump. However, some of you have selective amnesia.

Thank you for this opinion, I enjoyed reading it. I hope I don't anger JL by saying this, but these are the kind of reasoned opinions that help me understand others' viewpoints and broaden my perspective. I mean this with zero sarcasm.

I find that I do often have selective amnesia. At least, I thought I did...

[falafel]

As someone who didn't like Biden, and doesn't really care for Trump....the people on here that are critical of Trump gave Biden and his ilk a pass for pretty much everything that they did/didn't do the last 4 years. I mean the cognitive decline discussion of Biden on here lasted for like 6 months, and the Biden supporters on here discounted it 100%, until the Debate. Then they came around. The Trump folks on here couldn't believe that y'all didn't see it. It is the same way with the Trump stuff. You are apoplectic to the fact that the MAGA folks on here can't see it.

Opposite sides of the same coin. The only difference is the Biden folks do it with an air of moral superiority, where the Trump folks do it with a middle finger. But we are all the same.