Completely unrelated to Trump, but this one tickled my sense of humour:

1 hour ago, Choke said:

QFT

I'm not good on these things. I imagined you were saying Quite Furkin True but had to google it and found a similar meaning. 

With regard to Obama gags, one of the better ones came from The Onion satirical newspaper, which ran the following headline during his first presidential campaign: BLACK GUY ASKS NATION FOR CHANGE  

19 hours ago, Grapeviney said:

With regard to Obama gags, one of the better ones came from The Onion satirical newspaper, which ran the following headline during his first presidential campaign: BLACK GUY ASKS NATION FOR CHANGE  

Grapeviney - I don't like the avatar all I can see is navy blue and 1 and think of SOS.

I am trying to contact Doctor Strangelove, anybody know his number? We needs to advise the President pronto! 

the donald doesn't look so kremlin-centric all of a sudden 

17 hours ago, daisycutter said:

the donald doesn't look so kremlin-centric all of a sudden 

Fake news. He is still a Kremlin plant.

I feel a bit of sympathy for the Trumpster on this one.

After campaigning so doggedly on non-interventionism, especially in Syria, he's forced into a situation where he has to respond to a heinous chemical weapons attack.

Chemical weapons attacks cannot be left to stand, he had to respond, and he did. Not being privy to military briefings, I have no idea what the other options were, but surely a severe response was warranted here.

Ironically as someone who dislikes Trump immensely, I find myself supporting him more on this than his voter base who loved him for saying he'd stay out.

This is surely one political backflip that is justified. I can only assume that Russia didn't think he would, and that he'd stick to his campaign promises of staying out of Syria. They didn't want the 'warmonger' Clinton, they want to be able to support Assad without interference, and Trump gave them their best shot at that. Fortunately it looks like he won't play their tune, and realises that a simple non-interventionist policy can't work.

I just hope all this crap doesn't start another massive war. It's close to a proxy war now, I don't think it would take much for it to become direct, and that'd be a disaster for everyone.

I have no idea how you make a dictator back down by political pressure alone (ie without military intervention). But here's hoping someone has an idea.

If I am a poor soul trapped in a Syrian town I wonder how much difference there is to me if I die from a barrel bomb, a bunker buster or a phosphorous bomb or perhaps as a child I die when I am drawn to the yellow colour of an unexploded cluster bomb. Perhaps I have been injured by a cluster bomb and I go to a local hospital that then gets bombed by Russian or Syrian airstrikes and I die. it seems the West can live with this but if I died from being gassed that is overstepping the mark apparently, either way I am dead. What is the big difference? 

11 hours ago, Earl Hood said:

If I am a poor soul trapped in a Syrian town I wonder how much difference there is to me if I die from a barrel bomb, a bunker buster or a phosphorous bomb or perhaps as a child I die when I am drawn to the yellow colour of an unexploded cluster bomb. Perhaps I have been injured by a cluster bomb and I go to a local hospital that then gets bombed by Russian or Syrian airstrikes and I die. it seems the West can live with this but if I died from being gassed that is overstepping the mark apparently, either way I am dead. What is the big difference? 

 

Conventional weapons are designed to kill.

Chemical weapons are designed to inflict suffering and to kill.

 

Conventional weapons can be targeted at an air base or military installation.

Chemical weapons are indiscriminate.

 

 

Those are the two main differences I can think of. I take your point though, both are designed to kill and we are seemingly ok with one and not with the other. I suspect part of it is the historical burden 'gas' carries after WWII.

I guess I see chemical weapons are more a 'weapon of terror' than conventional artillery, and thus their use is worthy of reprisals.

 

 

 

lol

 

On 05/04/2017 at 11:21 AM, hardtack said:

Completely unrelated to Trump, but this one tickled my sense of humour:

I wonder if the people there would rather have Cecil Rhodes back in charge.

This is just too funny...

 

 

 

Didn't want to start a whole new thread on this, but saw this article today and wanted to at least see if anyone else had the same reaction:

http://www.theage.com.au/world/white-house-plans-accidentally-revealed-in-steve-bannon-photo-20170504-gvygcn.html

 

Steve Bannon poses for a photo in front of his whiteboard. Whiteboard has to-do list of stuff he wants to do.

How the hell is this news?

White house strategist has strategies, news at 11.

WTF Fairfax?

Now I'm clearly not a Bannon fan, in fact I think he's pretty destructive, but is this seriously the kind of stuff we need to be reading about? 

7 hours ago, Choke said:

Didn't want to start a whole new thread on this, but saw this article today and wanted to at least see if anyone else had the same reaction:

http://www.theage.com.au/world/white-house-plans-accidentally-revealed-in-steve-bannon-photo-20170504-gvygcn.html

 

Steve Bannon poses for a photo in front of his whiteboard. Whiteboard has to-do list of stuff he wants to do.

How the hell is this news?

White house strategist has strategies, news at 11.

WTF Fairfax?

Now I'm clearly not a Bannon fan, in fact I think he's pretty destructive, but is this seriously the kind of stuff we need to be reading about? 

With the Fairfax journo's on strike I suspect The Age editors are grabbing anything that comes in from a half respected source. I liked the list it looks like it was compiled by Bastards Incorporated!

I have a whiteboard in my office thats content changes depending on who i expect to be visiting my office.

I'd be surprised if that wasn't just for show.

Trump just fired Comey (head of the FBI).

Apparently for his mishandling of the Clinton email issue - which was pretty stupid with the announcement of the reopening of the case a few days before the election, and subsequent 'nothing to see here'.

One wonders how this will effect the ongoing Trump campaign/Russia investigation.

Normally the announcement of a President sacking an FBI Director would be absolutely stunning news but because it's Trump pulling the strings, I don't think anyone is actually surprised.

At first glance it looks to be a straight-out brazen move to get rid of someone who may be a real threat to his presidency (re the FBI investigation led by Comey into the possible Russian connection to the Trump campaign & the election etc etc) 

Or, at the very least, the sacking of Comey comes at an odd time ... it was only a few short months ago that Trump was singing his praises (Comey)

Politically it's a clever move in terms of buying time if the motive is to disrupt the investigation but those who might have thought that there was nothing in the Russia investigation might now be having 2nd thoughts.  Trump could have inadvertently upped-the-ante against himself.

Nixon managed to delay proceedings with regards to the Watergate investigation for close on 2 years and this new saga is following a similar path (if indeed, the allegations turn out to be true)

From the Washington Post ...

Tuesday night firing of Comey: ‘Nixonian’ or uniquely Trumpian?

Edited May 10, 20177 yr by Macca

On 10/05/2017 at 11:05 AM, Choke said:

Trump just fired Comey (head of the FBI).

Apparently for his mishandling of the Clinton email issue - which was pretty stupid with the announcement of the reopening of the case a few days before the election, and subsequent 'nothing to see here'.

One wonders how this will effect the ongoing Trump campaign/Russia investigation.

Did the Russians break into the ballot boxes and vote for Trump do you think?

4 minutes ago, Biffen said:

Did the Russians break into the ballot boxes and vote for Trump do you think?

That's not what this is about Biff  - you know that. 

It is obviously about whether there was any collusion between the Trump team & the Russians re the election process and whether there was any cover up. 

Time will tell (or maybe time won't tell )

For what it's worth I reckon Trump would have won anyway ... albeit by a narrower margin.  

I'm not sure many flocked away from Hillary at the last moment ... they'd for the most part already made up their minds. 

I also reckon that it's going to be difficult to prove whether there was a link or collusion between the Trump team and the Russians ... maybe a 20 - 30% chance. 

 

2 hours ago, Macca said:

That's not what this is about Biff  - you know that. 

It is obviously about whether there was any collusion between the Trump team & the Russians re the election process and whether there was any cover up. 

Time will tell (or maybe time won't tell )

Too bad,too late,who cares.

I'm sure the Clinton foundation and Hilary will be happy to let any Russian scandal slip by as long as they can keep their 400 million.

Just now, Biffen said:

Too bad,too late,who cares.

I'm sure the Clinton foundation and Hilary will be happy to let any Russian scandal slip by as long as they can keep their 400 million.

Well I don't care about Hillary or the democrats ... you'll need to direct those sorts of comments to the left wingers here.  I understand that your preferred candidate won but that stuff doesn't interest me at all once the dust settles.

It's about the here and now so the winner (Trump) now gets scrutinised much like a footy coach does.  Whoever talks about the also-rans in that sense?

This is all about Trump and his team and the investigation ... and that investigation is a very real thing.  It isn't going away despite Comey now being out of the picture.  Unless of course the right-wing news outlets have decided to ignore the story.  Oh hang on ...

The left wing news outlets are often just as bad so for once you really are conversing with someone who is actually impartial. 

You're a free thinker Biff, you should join me.  I can't see someone like you being all-in with Trump ... that makes no sense.

11 minutes ago, Macca said:

Well I don't care about Hillary or the democrats ... you'll need to direct those sorts of comments to the left wingers here.  I understand that your preferred candidate won but that stuff doesn't interest me at all once the dust settles.

It's about the here and now so the winner (Trump) now gets scrutinised much like a footy coach does.  Whoever talks about the also-rans in that sense?

This is all about Trump and his team and the investigation ... and that investigation is a very real thing.  It isn't going away despite Comey now being out of the picture.  Unless of course the right-wing news outlets have decided to ignore the story.  Oh hang on ...

The left wing news outlets are often just as bad so for once you really are conversing with someone who is actually impartial. 

You're a free thinker Biff, you should join me.  I can't see someone like you being all-in with Trump ... that makes no sense.

I'm not all in with the Donald but I do like a maverick.

Any impartial observer can note that Russians cannot vote in the States and the rest is wind.

The media have got nothing.