The adventures of President Donald Gump

[dieter 3,325]

7 minutes ago, leave it to deever said:

JFK was hardly a warmonger.

In fact during October 2013 he saved the world from extinction as he found a way out of the impossible Russian aggression and the Cuba crisis without pressing the button.

You mean 1963. I was there! 

That's all ok but I don't understand why we keep focusing on Russian aggression. Do you recall USA aggression in Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Greece, not to mention Guatamala and the other southern American countries etc.

The Cuban aggression happened in Kennedy's time.

There's also a book published in the US about a plan to drop a nuclear device in Massachusetts, Russia would be blamed and off they'd go, those weapons of mass destruction which the USA has stock-piled to the far horizon. Also, keep in mind the USA is still the only country to use nuclear weapons... 

 

[leave it to deever 17,593]

36 minutes ago, dieter said:

You mean 1963. I was there! 

That's all ok but I don't understand why we keep focusing on Russian aggression. Do you recall USA aggression in Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Greece, not to mention Guatamala and the other southern American countries etc.

The Cuban aggression happened in Kennedy's time.

There's also a book published in the US about a plan to drop a nuclear device in Massachusetts, Russia would be blamed and off they'd go, those weapons of mass destruction which the USA has stock-piled to the far horizon. Also, keep in mind the USA is still the only country to use nuclear weapons... 

 

Yep I meant 1963 but you missed the point.

You generalised in stating all Us presidents were warmongers.....JFK was a man of peace.

No retraction on your part.

 

[dieter 3,325]

28 minutes ago, leave it to deever said:

Yep I meant 1963 but you missed the point.

You generalised in stating all Us presidents were warmongers.....JFK was a man of peace.

No retraction on your part.

 

No,  leave it, no retraction just this for your impartial consideration. Chomsky, The Guardian:

''In retrospect

The two most crucial questions about the missile crisis are how it began, and how it ended. It began with Kennedy's terrorist attack against Cuba, with a threat of invasion in October 1962. It ended with the president's rejection of Russian offers that would seem fair to a rational person, but were unthinkable because they would undermine the fundamental principle that the US has the unilateral right to deploy nuclear missiles anywhere, aimed at China or Russia or anyone else, and right on their borders; and the accompanying principle that Cuba had no right to have missiles for defense against what appeared to be an imminent US invasion. To establish these principles firmly, it was entirely proper to face a high risk of war of unimaginable destruction, and to reject simple, and admittedly fair, ways to end the threat.

Garthoff observes that "in the United States, there was almost universal approbation for President Kennedy's handling of the crisis." Dobbs writes that "the relentlessly upbeat tone was established by the court historian, Arthur M Schlesinger Jr, who wrote that Kennedy had 'dazzled the world' through a 'combination of toughness and restraint, of will, nerve and wisdom, so brilliantly controlled, so matchlessly calibrated'." Rather more soberly, Stern partially agrees, noting that Kennedy repeatedly rejected the militant advice of his advisers and associates who called for military force and dismissal of peaceful options.

The events of October 1962 are widely hailed as Kennedy's finest hour. Graham Allison joins many others in presenting them as "a guide for how to defuse conflicts, manage great-power relationships, and make sound decisions about foreign policy in general". In a very narrow sense, that judgment seems reasonable. The ExComm tapes reveal that the president stood apart from others, sometimes almost all others, in rejecting premature violence.

There is, however, a further question: how should JFK's relative moderation in management of the crisis be evaluated against the background of the broader considerations just reviewed? But that question does not arise in a disciplined intellectual and moral culture, which accepts without question the basic principle that the US effectively owns the world by right, and is, by definition, a force for good despite occasional errors and misunderstandings, so that it is plainly entirely proper for the US to deploy massive offensive force all over the world, while it is an outrage for others (allies and clients apart) to make even the slightest gesture in that direction, or even to think of deterring the threatened use of violence by the benign global hegemon.

That doctrine is the primary official charge against Iran today: it might pose a deterrent to US and Israeli force. It was a consideration during the missile crisis as well. In internal discussion, the Kennedy brothers expressed their fears that Cuban missiles might deter a US invasion of Venezuela then under consideration. So "the Bay of Pigs was really right," JFK concluded.

The principles still contribute to the constant risk of nuclear war. There has been no shortage of severe dangers since the missile crisis. Ten years later, during the 1973 Israel-Arab war, Henry Kissinger called a high-level nuclear alert (Defcon 3) to warn the Russians to keep hands off while he was secretly authorizing Israel to violate the ceasefire imposed by the US and Russia. When Reagan came into office a few years later, the US launched operations probing Russian defenses and simulating air and naval attacks, while placing Pershing missiles in Germany with a five-minute flight time to Russian targets, providing what the CIA called a "super-sudden first strike" capability.

Naturally, this caused great alarm in Russia, which, unlike the US, has repeatedly been invaded and virtually destroyed. That led to a major war scare in 1983. There have been hundreds of cases when human intervention aborted a first strike minutes before launch, after automated systems gave false alarms. We don't have Russian records, but there's no doubt that their systems are far more accident-prone.

Meanwhile, India and Pakistan have come close to nuclear war several times, and the sources of the conflict remain. Both have refused to sign the non-proliferation treaty, along with Israel, and have received US support for development of their nuclear weapons programs – until today, in the case of India, now a US ally. War threats in the Middle East, which might become reality very soon, once again escalate the dangers.

In 1962, war was avoided by Khrushchev's willingness to accept Kennedy's hegemonic demands. But we can hardly count on such sanity forever. It's a near miracle that nuclear war has so far been avoided. There is more reason than ever to attend to the warning of Bertrand Russell and Albert Einstein, almost 60 years ago, that we must face a choice that is "stark and dreadful and inescapable":

Shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce war?

Topics

[What 18,810]

6 hours ago, dieter said:

What, sweetie, has hating what the USA stands for got to do with hating Westerners?

I too hated what the USA stood for, until Trump came along.

Bush invaded Iraq based on nothing, Obama nurtured and fostered ISIS,  Hillary destroyed Libya which laid out the red carpet for the islamic invasion into Europe.  Gaddafi himself warned the US that Libya was a 'firewall' that would protect such an invasion. So what did the Obama admin do? They killed him and tore the country apart  knowing full well the havoc it would cause.  "We came, we saw he died." Chilling.

Trump has bought Kim Jong Un to the table, he wants peace with Russia, he has Saudi Arabia and other gulf states talking tough on terror for the first time and he wants to tear up the horrfiic Iranian nuclear deal.

As I said in an earlier post a few days ago - they want Trump gone badly as he is making all his predecessors look like the war obsessed criminals they were and are.  They would rather stir up a war with Russia than see Trump succeed as president (which he is doing regardless, in the face of a horrific media and deep state onslaught).

He is a hero.

 

Edited March 21, 2018 by Petraccattack

[KLV 1,768]

22 minutes ago, Petraccattack said:

I too hated what the USA stood for, until Trump came along.

Bush invaded Iraq based on nothing, Obama nurtured and fostered ISIS,  Hillary destroyed Libya which laid out the red carpet for the islamic invasion into Europe.  Gaddafi himself warned the US that Libya was a 'firewall' that would protect such an invasion. So what did the Obama admin do? They killed him and tore the country apart  knowing full well the havoc it would cause.  "We came, we saw he died." Chilling.

Trump has bought Kim Jong Un to the table, he wants peace with Russia, he has Saudi Arabia and other gulf states talking tough on terror for the first time and he wants to tear up the horrfiic Iranian nuclear deal.

As I said in an earlier post a few days ago - they want Trump gone badly as he is making all his predecessors look like the war obsessed criminals they were and are.  They would rather stir up a war with Russia than see Trump succeed as president (which he is doing regardless, in the face of a horrific media and deep state onslaught).

He is a hero.

 

Are you for real?

[What 18,810]

7 minutes ago, demondame said:

Are you for real?

 

Umm yes?  Obviously.

Edited March 21, 2018 by Petraccattack

[dworship 3,343]

17 minutes ago, demondame said:

Are you for real?

A better question may be; are you a troll?

I do wonder if Gump owns a fiddle though. Empires and all that.

[What 18,810]

On 2/23/2018 at 10:07 PM, Jara said:

 

 

His response to crazies shooting children: arm the teachers and re-open the madhouses of the old days. Can you imagine what kind of weirdo could come up with such inappropriate ideas?

 

 

The Maryland school shooter today was killed by an ARMED SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICER at the school.

The shooter was the only fatality.   No students were killed.

I am sure this will be ignored by all the anti Trumpers though, and you wont hear a peep about it on CNN.

Edited March 21, 2018 by Petraccattack

[KLV 1,768]

16 minutes ago, dworship said:

A better question may be; are you a troll?

I do wonder if Gump owns a fiddle though. Empires and all that.

No not all, just an innocent Demonland life member who has wandered over, because it was at the top of the list of those unread.

Don’t worry, I won’t come back, I’ll leave you to it

 

[Bluey's Dad 3,419]

7 minutes ago, Petraccattack said:

 

The Maryland school shooter today was killed by an ARMED SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICER at the school.

The shooter was the only fatality.   No students were killed.

I am sure this will be ignored by all the anti Trumpers though, and you wont hear a peep about it on CNN.

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/03/20/us/maryland-school-shooting-resource-officer-response-trnd/index.html

 

This is why people don't take you seriously. That's CNN covering the incident. It's not being ignored by 'the liberal media' or whatever.

Also, the gunman was a student. So one student was killed - you should keep this in mind.

My god, how much cool-aid did you drink? 

 

Only last week a trained, armed teacher accidentally injured 3 students when he lets his gun go off:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-15/three-injured-as-teacher-accidentally-discharges-gun-in-class/9550762

 

Amerca's gun laws are [censored]. Trump isn't helping here at all. From memory (cbf with sources atm, too late at night), he's said:

- We need to arm teachers
- We should take away people's guns and ignore due process (I'm astounded the '2nd amendment people' still support him after this).
- Ridiculed a Republican Senator for being in the pocket in the NRA
- Was a massive recipient of NRA funding during his Presidential campaign

He's inconsistent and not helpful at all.

[Bluey's Dad 3,419]

1 minute ago, demondame said:

No not all, just an innocent Demonland life member who has wandered over, because it was at the top of the list of those unread.

Don’t worry, I won’t come back, I’ll leave you to it

 

Yeah this is not a good place if you value your sanity. I try to stay away but relapse constantly.

[dworship 3,343]

15 minutes ago, Petraccattack said:

 

The Maryland school shooter today was killed by an ARMED SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICER at the school.

The shooter was the only fatality.   No students were killed.

I am sure this will be ignored by all the anti Trumpers though, and you wont hear a peep about it on CNN.

Conversely, did you hear the one about the teacher who accidentally discharged a firearm in a classroom will teaching firearm safety ....' I'm just sayin'

[dworship 3,343]

6 minutes ago, demondame said:

No not all, just an innocent Demonland life member who has wandered over, because it was at the top of the list of those unread.

Don’t worry, I won’t come back, I’ll leave you to it

 

Sorry, I think you misunderstood, I think you should have asked the question instead of the one you did... my bad

[Bluey's Dad 3,419]

2 minutes ago, dworship said:

Conversely, did you hear the one about the teacher who accidentally discharged a firearm in a classroom will teaching firearm safety ....' I'm just sayin'

He has no idea. Literally said you wouldn't see this story on cnn, and I provided a link demonstrating that you can in fact find it on cnn. He said no students were killed. Gunman was a student.

 

He is living in a fantasy land.

[dworship 3,343]

4 minutes ago, Choke said:

He has no idea. Literally said you wouldn't see this story on cnn, and I provided a link demonstrating that you can in fact find it on cnn. He said no students were killed. Gunman was a student.

 

He is living in a fantasy land.

Hence my troll comment

[What 18,810]

3 hours ago, Choke said:

 

. He said no students were killed. Gunman was a student.

 

 

LOL,  counting the perpetrator as a student/victim just to try and make it look like I was wrong.   Incredible mental gymnastics.   

Fact - an armed officer saved lives.  Thats all that matters here.  President Trump was right once again.     Arm the teachers, save lives.  It's not that hard to comprehend.  

Edited March 21, 2018 by Petraccattack

[nutbean 8,838]

6 hours ago, Petraccattack said:

 

Fact - an armed officer saved lives.  Thats all that matters here.  President Trump was right once again.     Arm the teachers, save lives.  It's not that hard to comprehend.  

or conversely, you could figure which students are good and give them guns to kill the bad students. Why stop at arming teachers and good students  - They could arm the  janitors and the administration staff at schools too. They could have a good old shoot out at the OK corral. 

Hey - here's a thought  - why not try and get the guns off everyone so no one was shooting anyone ? That is way too difficult to comprehend. Yes solving the gun problem by arming more people with guns...sensible.....

[Bluey's Dad 3,419]

6 hours ago, Petraccattack said:

LOL,  counting the perpetrator as a student/victim just to try and make it look like I was wrong.   Incredible mental gymnastics.   

Fact - an armed officer saved lives.  Thats all that matters here.  President Trump was right once again.     Arm the teachers, save lives.  It's not that hard to comprehend.  

A student died. You were wrong. Your callousness doesn't negate that fact.

CNN covered the story. You were wrong. Your ignorance doesn't negate that fact.

In this case, the armed teacher killed the gunman and saved lives. This has happened before, and in other cases armed security guards have had no effect.

I posted a story about a teacher with a gun who accidentally fired it in a classroom and injured 3 students. But you haven't responded to that. I assume you'd say "well that's the price you pay for security", which is interesting given you live in Australia where school shootings do not occur. For whatever reason (cultural, legal, whatever) we do not have this issue. We did not solve it with guns in schools, what makes you think America can?

Arming teachers is moronic. This guy explains it much better than I can. It's a very long twitter thread but well worth the read.

 

I suspect the accusation that you're a troll is correct.

[nutbean 8,838]

11 minutes ago, Choke said:

A student died. You were wrong. Your callousness doesn't negate that fact.

CNN covered the story. You were wrong. Your ignorance doesn't negate that fact.

In this case, the armed teacher killed the gunman and saved lives. This has happened before, and in other cases armed security guards have had no effect.

I posted a story about a teacher with a gun who accidentally fired it in a classroom and injured 3 students. But you haven't responded to that. I assume you'd say "well that's the price you pay for security", which is interesting given you live in Australia where school shootings do not occur. For whatever reason (cultural, legal, whatever) we do not have this issue. We did not solve it with guns in schools, what makes you think America can?

Arming teachers is moronic. This guy explains it much better than I can. It's a very long twitter thread but well worth the read.

 

I suspect the accusation that you're a troll is correct.

 Good read - all points made were well considered. All but one point is "operational" and valid. There is one point that should be listed above all. Before considering any operational solutions why not address the core issue as the first priority. Address the problem -  Sensible gun legislation.

[hardtack 10,871]

10 hours ago, Petraccattack said:

LOL,  counting the perpetrator as a student/victim just to try and make it look like I was wrong.   Incredible mental gymnastics.   

Fact - an armed officer saved lives.  Thats all that matters here.  President Trump was right once again.     Arm the teachers, save lives.  It's not that hard to comprehend.  

You have to be joking?? 

Firstly, the article states that it was unknown whether the gunman (student) shot himself or the armed officer shot him as both weapons were fired simultaneously.

Secondly, by arming teachers you are placing them in the position of being the first target any shooter will be trying to take out of the equation.  Teachers are not trained for face to face combat and therefore there is a good chance they will be unable to carry out their newly acquired responsibility.

Thirdly, if a teacher does manage to avoid being the first shot and then is seen by armed officers holding and firing a weapon, are the officers going to enquire whether the shooter is in fact a teacher or are they going to do what they are supposed to do and take the gunman down?

Arming teachers will NOT save lives... in fact it will likely only add to the toll.

[Bluey's Dad 3,419]

Summons Issued for Trump in Emoluments Case

Trump has been a naughty boy by not disclosing his assets:

They argue that Trump’s refusal to divest from his sprawling business empire — in particular, the Trump International Hotel in downtown D.C. — has meant that foreign governments have directly paid the Trump Organization for hotel bookings and events.

 

Article says he has 3 weeks to respond as he's been included as a personal defendant.

Also for anyone thinking he can just pardon himself - these are cases heard by State courts, the President cannot pardon himself (or be pardoned by another President) for State level crimes, only Federal ones. I believe this is one the reasons Robert Mueller has disclosed to the New York Attorney General his findings so far, so that New York can charge him with State-level money laundering (or whatever the charge ends up being) if he tries to pardon himself Federally. This assumes the Mueller investigation leads to charges against Trump himself, which it may not. I posted a list of those Mueller has indicted so far previously in this thread.

 

 

Remember, Americans made Carter give up his Peanut farm, but somehow it's ok that Trump still owns a massive multi-national conglomerate and owes massive debts to the banks he now has power to legislate over. Seems fair.

[dieter 3,325]

19 hours ago, Petraccattack said:

he wants peace with Russia, he has Saudi Arabia and other gulf states talking tough on terror for the first time and he wants to tear up the horrfiic Iranian nuclear deal.

What part of Fantasyland to you live in, bro? The Saudis have been arming ISIS and commit atrocities on a daily basis in Yemen. Mainstream media doesn't tell you this , it looks the other way. 

[Bluey's Dad 3,419]

I thought only Islamic Fundamentalists blew themselves up?

Austin Bombing Suspect a Homeschooled Christian Conservative

 

This has been a crazy week.

[dieter 3,325]

16 hours ago, dieter said:

What part of Fantasyland to you live in, bro? The Saudis have been arming ISIS and commit atrocities on a daily basis in Yemen. Mainstream media doesn't tell you this , it looks the other way. 

Gary Leupp, American journalis, publihed today in Counter Punch:

Donald Trump seems unconcerned with such matters. Following the May 2017 sword dance in Riyadh he has cozied up with the Saudi king and crown prince Mohammed bin Salman, who just visited Washington. The pair celebrated the $ 200 billion arms deal last year and more sales to come. Trump noted that the Saudis are “a very wealthy nation, and they’re going to give the United States some of that wealth.”

The prince’s visit drew out Codepink and other protestors targeting Saudi repression and the vicious Saudi assault on Yemen, which has killed at least 10,000 civilians an is currently experiencing what the UN terms the world’s worst humanitarian catastrophe. The U.S. abets this assault with military intelligence and refueling. It justifies the Saudi effort to crush the Houthis and restore the former (unelected) president as a necessary move to counter Iranian influence in the region. Even though there is little evidence for Iranian support for the Houthis. The evidence is rather that the Saudi leaders fear and hate Shiism, and tend to depict any Shiites (in Lebanon, Syria, Yemen etc.) as Iranian pawns.

[nutbean 8,838]

18 hours ago, Choke said:

Summons Issued for Trump in Emoluments Case

Trump has been a naughty boy by not disclosing his assets:

They argue that Trump’s refusal to divest from his sprawling business empire — in particular, the Trump International Hotel in downtown D.C. — has meant that foreign governments have directly paid the Trump Organization for hotel bookings and events.

 

Article says he has 3 weeks to respond as he's been included as a personal defendant.

Also for anyone thinking he can just pardon himself - these are cases heard by State courts, the President cannot pardon himself (or be pardoned by another President) for State level crimes, only Federal ones. I believe this is one the reasons Robert Mueller has disclosed to the New York Attorney General his findings so far, so that New York can charge him with State-level money laundering (or whatever the charge ends up being) if he tries to pardon himself Federally. This assumes the Mueller investigation leads to charges against Trump himself, which it may not. I posted a list of those Mueller has indicted so far previously in this thread.

 

 

Remember, Americans made Carter give up his Peanut farm, but somehow it's ok that Trump still owns a massive multi-national conglomerate and owes massive debts to the banks he now has power to legislate over. Seems fair.

I never understood this from day one - he is going to Mara a lago every second weekend. He would go with a whole retinue of staff - surely the hotel is billing the government for that ? how on earth does that work ? Trump Administration paying Trump the businessman for accommodation ???