The Official Former President Trump thread

[Savage Henry]

Just as this whole story couldn't get any weirder, Rolling Stone has just published a story by someone called Bob Dreyfuss, a long time member of the Lyndon LaRouche Organisation. It's a hatchet job on Sebastian Gorka, an odious right winger who advises Trumpy boy. Only trouble is, it quotes extensively from people who deny they even spoke to the journalist. Not that they were misquoted, but that they didn't even speak.

Far be it from me to go down loonball conspiracy theories, but its almost as if this was intended to detract from the criticism of the talking cheetoh. Link below.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/sebastian-gorka-the-west-wings-phony-foreign-policy-guru-w496912

[mjw]

Sebastian Gorka, an odious right winger who advises Trumpy boy.

That's one horrible creepy c**t.

[welshbairn]

This is better on Gorka.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/mitchprothero/how-a-trump-adviser-failed-upwards-from-hungary-to-the?utm_term=.dtKeERmAG#.cllZjwgrK

[Granny Danger]

When was it agreed that the U.S. could dictate which countries can have nuclear weapons and which ones can't?

[trainspotter]

13 hours ago, dirty dingus said:

                                                                                                  The big bubbling man baby is just jealous of the fantastic leaders golf prowess

http://www.golf.com/golf-plus/behind-kim-jong-ils-famous-round-golf

38 under par, he's got every right to be jealous.

[Adolfo Rios]

[Paco]

When was it agreed that the U.S. could dictate which countries can have nuclear weapons and which ones can't?

Do you think North Korea gaining nuclear weapons is a good thing, or a bad thing?

[welshbairn]

Just now, Paco said:

 

Do you think North Korea gaining nuclear weapons is a good thing, or a bad thing?

 

It's good for the North Korean leadership. makes a US attack less likely. 

[Mr. Brightside]

 

Do you think North Korea gaining nuclear weapons is a good thing, or a bad thing?

Do you think that 1) America should have nuclear weapons given their history and 2) that they should dictate who does/doesn't have nuclear weapons?

[Suspect Device]

I believe that we should get rid of all weapons and just hand round the MDMA and weed.

Maaaan.

[Paco]

It's good for the North Korean leadership. makes a US attack less likely. 

I don't think it was ever likely anyway (we've went sixty years with nothing, after all) but of course you are right.

Do you think that 1) America should have nuclear weapons given their history and 2) that they should dictate who does/doesn't have nuclear weapons?

1) no, ideally nobody should have nuclear weapons, but that's a hypothetical. In reality it is essential for the Western world that the USA has nuclear weapons.

2) no, and they don't. You think the US want Russia and China to have nuclear arms?

[welshbairn]

10 minutes ago, Paco said:

I don't think it was ever likely anyway (we've went sixty years with nothing, after all) but of course you are right.
 

 

The North Koreans have plenty conventional and bio/chem weapons to make a preemptive strike by the US prohibitively costly, at least to the South Koreans. I think they've wasted their money, but they've had the capacity to destroy most of Seoul, a city of 12 million, for most of the last 60 years and haven't done so, because they would be annihilated in return. I don't think having nuclear capability changes that calculation. Certainly not enough to make a US attack a good idea.

Edited August 11, 2017 by welshbairn

[Mr. Brightside]

1) no, ideally nobody should have nuclear weapons, but that's a hypothetical. In reality it is essential for the Western world that the USA has nuclear weapons.

2) no, and they don't. You think the US want Russia and China to have nuclear arms?

1) it really isn't, especially with a maniac in charge.

2) Team America wouldn't have any control over Russia or China, hence why they go around effectively bullying smaller countries like Iran and North Korea. Is it any surprise that these countries then turn round and ask why they shouldn't also arm themselves and who exactly put the US in charge?

[topcat(The most tip top)]

When was it agreed that the U.S. could dictate which countries can have nuclear weapons and which ones can't?

The idea than the proliferation of nuclear weapons is a bad thing is hardly peculiar to the US

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferation_of_Nuclear_Weapons

[Granny Danger]

1 hour ago, Paco said:

 

Do you think North Korea gaining nuclear weapons is a good thing, or a bad thing?

 

I think your missing the point of my post.

BTW the answer is bad thing; if you had asked that question about any other country the answer would be the same.  If you had asked about having rather than gaining the again the answer would have been the same.

8 minutes ago, topcat(The most tip top) said:

 

The idea than the proliferation of nuclear weapons is a bad thing is hardly peculiar to the US

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferation_of_Nuclear_Weapons

 

No it's not new.  What would be new would be the U.S. and others, but the U.S. In particular, making any sort of critical comment about Israel's nuclear capability.

 

[Paco]

The North Koreans have plenty conventional and bio/chem weapons to make a preemptive strike by the US prohibitively costly, at least to the South Koreans. I think they've wasted their money, but they've had the capacity to destroy most of Seoul, a city of 12 million, for most of the last 60 years and haven't done so, because they would be annihilated in return. I don't think having nuclear capability changes that calculation. Certainly not enough to make a US attack a good idea.

Yeah, agreed. MAD has held things together (just) in the Korean Peninsula and will continue to do so, regardless of NK acquiring 'this thing called nuclear'. The US haven't attacked for 60 years and weren't going to anytime soon anyway (at least not openly, I've little doubt there's been several attempts at 'regime change').

The concern for me at least lies in the inevitable revolution.

1) it really isn't, especially with a maniac in charge.

2) Team America wouldn't have any control over Russia or China, hence why they go around effectively bullying smaller countries like Iran and North Korea. Is it any surprise that these countries then turn round and ask why they shouldn't also arm themselves and who exactly put the US in charge?

1) it is, regardless of the current President the USA holds capitalism, freedom and the Western world together. Take away their nuclear weapons and Russia is the sole global superpower. Who will stop Putin marching into the Baltic and taking it 'back'? Germany? France? The UK? Brave call against a power that can immediately crush you. Probably best just leaving the Estonians to it, right?

2) You're mistaking me for a US imperialist, I deplore virtually all their actions but in North Korea several past Presidents could and should have done more to prevent this exact situation. Is it 'fair' that they 'decide' who gets nuclear weapons and who doesn't? No. Doesn't mean allowing countries who have promised to 'wipe Israel off the map' and expressed desire to invade and occupy a NATO member ally should be happily allowed.

North Korea breaks pretty much every international law every single day, and doesn't really care either. 'Leave them to it' is a common response in these situations and I mostly agree, but when it comes to nuclear weapons all reasonable steps should be taken to stop them falling into their hands - the UN has been leading on that too, it's not just the USA.

And all of this says nothing about the knock on effect to countries such as ours...

[AUFC90]

1 hour ago, Paco said:

 

Yeah, agreed. MAD has held things together (just) in the Korean Peninsula and will continue to do so, regardless of NK acquiring 'this thing called nuclear'. The US haven't attacked for 60 years and weren't going to anytime soon anyway (at least not openly, I've little doubt there's been several attempts at 'regime change').

The concern for me at least lies in the inevitable revolution.



1) it is, regardless of the current President the USA holds capitalism, freedom and the Western world together. Take away their nuclear weapons and Russia is the sole global superpower. Who will stop Putin marching into the Baltic and taking it 'back'? Germany? France? The UK? Brave call against a power that can immediately crush you. Probably best just leaving the Estonians to it, right?

2) You're mistaking me for a US imperialist, I deplore virtually all their actions but in North Korea several past Presidents could and should have done more to prevent this exact situation. Is it 'fair' that they 'decide' who gets nuclear weapons and who doesn't? No. Doesn't mean allowing countries who have promised to 'wipe Israel off the map' and expressed desire to invade and occupy a NATO member ally should be happily allowed.

North Korea breaks pretty much every international law every single day, and doesn't really care either. 'Leave them to it' is a common response in these situations and I mostly agree, but when it comes to nuclear weapons all reasonable steps should be taken to stop them falling into their hands - the UN has been leading on that too, it's not just the USA.

And all of this says nothing about the knock on effect to countries such as ours...

 

The Soviet Union was a superpower. Russia most certainly is not. I'd say China would give them a kicking and France and the UK together would probably give them a kicking as well.

As for who would stop Russia invading the Baltic countries.....my guess is absolutely no one. 

Edited August 11, 2017 by AUFC90

[Granny Danger]

For anyone who still is unsure about how real Trump's megalomania is and how it impacts on his mental stability I offer this extract from the BBC website:

In 1984 - at the height of the Cold War - Mr Trump even told a Washington Post interviewer he wanted to be put in charge of US-Russia nuclear arms negotiations.

"It would take an hour-and-a-half to learn everything there is to learn about missiles," Mr Trump said. "I think I know most of it anyway."

This from a guy with the most superficial knowledge of any policy matter.  The people of the United States should be apologising To the rest of the world for putting this cartoon figure in the White House.

 

[Zen Archer (Raconteur)]

2 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

For anyone who still is unsure about how real Trump's megalomania is and how it impacts on his mental stability I offer this extract from the BBC website:

In 1984 - at the height of the Cold War - Mr Trump even told a Washington Post interviewer he wanted to be put in charge of US-Russia nuclear arms negotiations.

"It would take an hour-and-a-half to learn everything there is to learn about missiles," Mr Trump said. "I think I know most of it anyway."

This from a guy with the most superficial knowledge of any policy matter.  The people of the United States should be apologising To the rest of the world for putting this cartoon figure in the White House.

 

He would be the subject of a sub rosa assassination before he would get to press the button.

[welshbairn]

He's gone from "Fire and Fury" to "Locked and Loaded". Someone predicted "Ripped and Ready" for his next one.