Good Behavior Trump Debate Thread

For discussion of liberty, freedom, government and politics.
Post Reply
freedomforall
Gnolaum ∞
Posts: 16479
Location: WEST OF THE NEW JERUSALEM

Re: Good Behavior Trump Debate Thread

Post by freedomforall »

eddie wrote: August 6th, 2017, 6:48 pm
freedomforall wrote: August 6th, 2017, 5:55 pm eddie, we were on a roll.
Just call us butta!

FFA, we rock and roll! Having said that, I am reminded of a Led Zeppelin song, " Stairway To Heaven."
How about posting it?

The song goes along with this thread, all the hating and double standards concerning good behavior,

" And it makes me wonder."

Silver
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5247

Re: Good Behavior Trump Debate Thread

Post by Silver »

http://news.antiwar.com/2017/08/06/us-a ... -in-raqqa/

US Airstrikes Kill at Least 43 Civilians in Syria’s Raqqa
Strikes Damaged Electricity Generator at the Hospital
Jason Ditz Posted on August 6, 2017

New reports out of the ISIS capital city of Raqqa say US airstrikes hit a number of residential districts in the city over the course of Saturday, killing at least 43 civilians and wounding an unknown, but substantial number of others.

There was no obvious specific target for the strikes, though the US has been generally targeting ISIS forces within the city to try to back the Kurdish-led invasion. The casualties in this case, however, appear to be overwhelmingly civilians.

Dina Asa’ad, a Raqqa-based Red Crescent official, was also quoted saying that US coalition airstrikes had targeted the National Hospital in Raqqa just days ago, saying the bombs damaged the electricity generator and forced the closure of damaged wards.

Though the Syrian government had broadly been fine with the Kurdish YPG invading ISIS territory, they have complained to the UN Security Council about the US airstrikes, saying they are excessively targeting civilians and basic infrastructure

Silver
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5247

Re: Good Behavior Trump Debate Thread

Post by Silver »

I was just thinking about this juvenile piece of twittering sent out by the Teenager In Chief almost 2 weeks ago. Does Trump not have Sessions' phone number? Of couldn't the president ask one of his staff to get Sessions on the phone and ask him the question directly? And get an answer...directly? Normal people would do it that way instead of tweeting something ridiculous like this for all the world to see. Just more evidence of what an immature, overgrown teenager sits at the head of this country. I hope we'll be forgiven for choosing evil.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump ... le/2629721

"Why didn't A.G. Sessions replace Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe, a Comey friend who was in charge of Clinton investigation but got big dollars ($700,000) for his wife's political run from Hillary Clinton and her representatives. Drain the Swamp!" Trump tweeted.

Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
Why didn't A.G. Sessions replace Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe, a Comey friend who was in charge of Clinton investigation but got....
8:48 AM - Jul 26, 2017

Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
...big dollars ($700,000) for his wife's political run from Hillary Clinton and her representatives. Drain the Swamp!
8:52 AM - Jul 26, 2017

Silver
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5247

Re: Good Behavior Trump Debate Thread

Post by Silver »

hypocritical Trump.png
hypocritical Trump.png (72.99 KiB) Viewed 1379 times

Silver
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5247

Re: Good Behavior Trump Debate Thread

Post by Silver »

clown.jpg
clown.jpg (29.45 KiB) Viewed 1378 times

Silver
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5247

Re: Good Behavior Trump Debate Thread

Post by Silver »

Awful silence before lying...so war can be justified...so more of our youth can be sacrificed while killing more brown people.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/the-m ... le/2624509

The most painful 18-second news conference response you'll see all week
by Becket Adams | May 30, 2017, 8:46 PM

If you look closely, you can pinpoint the moment Tuesday afternoon when Acting Assistant Secretary of State Stuart Jones prayed silently for the earth to open up and swallow him whole.

It's really that bad.

Jones joined reporters Tuesday for a routine press briefing. He was asked a relatively simple question: Why does the White House criticize Iranian elections but never elections in Saudi Arabia?

Amazingly enough, Jones clearly was not prepared for it.

What followed next was a solid 18 seconds of silence as Jones raced through his mind thinking of a half-decent answer to a basic question about an apparent double standard.


The answer Jones landed on eventually was underwhelming, to put it mildly.

"I think what we say is that, uh, at this meeting, we were able to make significant progress with Saudi and GCC partners and, uh, both make a strong statement against extremism and also, um, and also putting in, putting in place certain measures through this GCC mechanism where we can combat extremism."

"Clearly one source of extremism – one source – one terrorism threat is coming from Iran. And that's coming from a part of the Iranian apparatus that is not at all responsive to its electorate," he added.

The most amazing thing about all of this is that Jones is a long-time State Department professional. He's not some flunky who was given a plum job thanks to some obscure White House connection. State Department business is Jones' bread and butter.

That he was so utterly unprepared to defend Washington's apparent Saudi/Iran double standard is astounding. It suggests the State Department has not put in the time grappling with this issue. It also suggests few, if any, have bothered to ask the question.

freedomforall
Gnolaum ∞
Posts: 16479
Location: WEST OF THE NEW JERUSALEM

Re: Good Behavior Trump Debate Thread

Post by freedomforall »

Perhaps if more people were to quit badmouthing Trump and offer prayers in his behalf, he would do much better while in office. Honorable faith is much better than spewing venom. Any good person calling themselves a Christian would do right by using prayer instead of a fiery tongue. Miracles do happen, but not without faith and sincerity of heart in/while imploring God for help for and in behalf of another. Does God hear prayer?

Silver
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5247

Re: Good Behavior Trump Debate Thread

Post by Silver »

What do Gadiantons do? First and foremost, they do their master's bidding, with among the first objectives. Trump, the good puppet, is going along with the CFR/MIC staff in his administration.

http://news.antiwar.com/2017/08/06/us-t ... -cold-war/

US Troops Train in Eastern Europe as Officials Eye New Cold War
Officials: Troops Need to Adapt to New Environment
Jason Ditz Posted on August 6, 2017

After a protracted Cold War, the US had to revise a lot of its military concepts for open-ended occupations in desert countries like Iraq. Now, with officials eagerly ratcheting up tensions with Russia, officials are looking at a new round of training in Eastern Europe to get back to that Cold War mindset.

US forces are moving into Eastern Europe in growing numbers, as officials try to get them experience in coordinating with the assorted eastern NATO member nations, and scrambling to redo the camouflage, replacing the sand-themed colors with more traditional Cold War green.

Russia, for its part, is increasing its own military exercises in the same area, on the Russian side of the border, but as Russia never outright redesigned their military and training away from fighting on their own soil, they have less to do.

The prospect of a war in Eastern Europe, however, has everyone on high alert, and the fact that both sides see one another’s military exercises as potential cover for a sneak attack seems to be lost on those planning the exercises, as they keep positioning them provocatively close to the frontier.

Silver
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5247

Re: Good Behavior Trump Debate Thread

Post by Silver »

Video discussing Trump's excuse for staying in Afghanistan. To steal mineral resources. That's what Trumpsters voted for, eh? Stealing wealth and protecting poppies.

15 minutes to watch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8lcrsz ... e=youtu.be

User avatar
iWriteStuff
blithering blabbermouth
Posts: 5523
Location: Sinope
Contact:

Re: Good Behavior Trump Debate Thread

Post by iWriteStuff »

I don't think there's any doubt that Hillary would have also gotten us into a war. I think what is surprising is the degree of willingness now evident in Mr. Trump to do the same. Didn't he promise not to engage us in foreign wars? Didn't he say he'd go to Congress for approval before he sent in the war machine? And yet he seems almost eager to unleash the dogs of war and send us all into danger.... and for what?
Silver wrote: August 7th, 2017, 12:52 pm What do Gadiantons do? First and foremost, they do their master's bidding, with among the first objectives. Trump, the good puppet, is going along with the CFR/MIC staff in his administration.

http://news.antiwar.com/2017/08/06/us-t ... -cold-war/

US Troops Train in Eastern Europe as Officials Eye New Cold War
Officials: Troops Need to Adapt to New Environment
Jason Ditz Posted on August 6, 2017

After a protracted Cold War, the US had to revise a lot of its military concepts for open-ended occupations in desert countries like Iraq. Now, with officials eagerly ratcheting up tensions with Russia, officials are looking at a new round of training in Eastern Europe to get back to that Cold War mindset.

US forces are moving into Eastern Europe in growing numbers, as officials try to get them experience in coordinating with the assorted eastern NATO member nations, and scrambling to redo the camouflage, replacing the sand-themed colors with more traditional Cold War green.

Russia, for its part, is increasing its own military exercises in the same area, on the Russian side of the border, but as Russia never outright redesigned their military and training away from fighting on their own soil, they have less to do.

The prospect of a war in Eastern Europe, however, has everyone on high alert, and the fact that both sides see one another’s military exercises as potential cover for a sneak attack seems to be lost on those planning the exercises, as they keep positioning them provocatively close to the frontier.

Silver
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5247

Re: Good Behavior Trump Debate Thread

Post by Silver »

Gadiantons create contention. Trump, the puppet, is doing his part to raise tensions. Instead of bringing all our troops home as he should, he and the CFR/MIC in his administration are making the world a more dangerous place.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-08-0 ... ooting-war

Now, A Trade War; Next A Shooting War?

Aug 8, 2017 10:38 AM
5

Authored by James Rickards via The Daily Reckoning,

A popular thesis since the 1930s is that a natural progression exists from currency wars to trade wars to shooting wars. Both history and analysis support this thesis.

Currency wars do not exist all the time; they arise under certain conditions and persist until there is either systemic reform or systemic collapse. The conditions that give rise to currency wars are too much debt and too little growth.

In those circumstances, countries try to steal growth from trading partners by cheapening their currencies to promote exports and create export-related jobs.

The problem with currency wars is that they are zero-sum or negative-sum games. It is true that countries can obtain short-term relief by cheapening their currencies, but sooner than later, their trading partners also cheapen their currencies to regain the export advantage.

This process of tit-for-tat devaluations feeds on itself with the pendulum of short-term trade advantage swinging back and forth and no one getting any further ahead.

After a few years, the futility of currency wars becomes apparent, and countries resort to trade wars. This consists of punitive tariffs, export subsidies and nontariff barriers to trade.

The dynamic is the same as in a currency war. The first country to impose tariffs gets a short-term advantage, but retaliation is not long in coming and the initial advantage is eliminated as trading partners impose tariffs in response.

Trade wars produce the same result as currency wars. Despite the illusion of short-term advantage, in the long-run everyone is worse off. The original condition of too much debt and too little growth never goes away.

Finally, tensions rise, rival blocs are formed and a shooting war begins. The shooting wars often have a not-so-hidden economic grievance or rationale behind them.

The sequence in the early 20th century began with a currency war that started in Weimar Germany with a hyperinflation (1921–23) and then extended through a French devaluation (1925), a U.K. devaluation (1931), a U.S. devaluation (1933) and another French/U.K. devaluation (1936).

Meanwhile, a global trade war emerged after the Smoot-Hawley tariffs (1930) and comparable tariffs of trading partners of the U.S.

Finally, a shooting war progressed with the Japanese invasion of Manchuria (1931), the Japanese invasion of Beijing and China (1937), the German invasion of Poland (1939) and the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor (1941).

Eventually, the world was engulfed in the flames of World War II, and the international monetary system came to a complete collapse until the Bretton Woods Conference in 1944.

Is this pattern repeating itself today?

Sadly, the answer appears to be yes.

The new currency war began in January 2010 with efforts of the Obama administration to promote U.S. growth with a weak dollar. By August 2011, the U.S. dollar reached an all-time low on the Fed’s broad real index.

Other nations retaliated, and the period of the “cheap dollar” was followed by the “cheap euro” and “cheap yuan” after 2012.

Once again, currency wars proved to be a dead end.

Now the trade wars have begun. On Thursday, July 27, the U.S. Congress passed one of the toughest economic sanctions bills ever and sent it to President Trump for signature. Trump signed it, although not enthusiastically.

But Trump’s views don’t really matter. The bill was passed by veto-proof majorities in the House and Senate, so even if Trump vetoed the bill, Congress would have overrode him and the sanctions would become the law of the land.

This new law provides that U.S. companies may not participate in Russian efforts to explore for oil and gas in the Arctic. But it goes further and says that even foreign companies that do business with Russia in Arctic exploration will be banned from U.S. markets and U.S. contracts.

These new sanctions pose an existential threat to Russia because depends heavily on oil and gas revenue to propel its economy. Russia tries to control new discoveries in order to maintain its quasi-monopoly position as the premier energy provider to Europe. Russia needs Western technology to meet the challenges of Arctic exploration.

In effect, this law handicaps Russia’s efforts financially and technologically and weakens its grip on global energy markets.

Russia has already vowed to retaliate.

Yet Russian retaliation will not consist of reciprocal sanctions on the U.S. Russia has said it will strike “asymmetrically.” This means Russia will use the means it is best at, including cyberattacks.

If you wake up one day soon and the power grid is down and banks and stock exchanges are closed, you can thank President Putin and the U.S. Congress for starting a financial and cyberwar that neither side could control.

Meanwhile, the long-expected trade war with China has begun at last. This is a trade war that President Trump threatened the entire time while he was on the campaign trail. Yet after Trump was sworn in as president he did nothing about Chinese trade and currency practices. Trump did not declare China a “currency manipulator” and did not impose tariffs on Chinese steel and aluminum being dumped on U.S. and world markets.

The reason Trump did not act swiftly was because he wanted China’s help facing North Korea’s nuclear weapons and missile programs. If China would put pressure on North Korea, Trump would go easy on China.

But China did not hold up their end. China has done nothing to change North Korea’s behavior and will not do so in the future. Now Trump has no reason to hold back. The White House has already begun to unleash its formidable arsenal of trade weapons against China.

The Trump administration has made clear its intentions to impose tariffs on cheap Chinese steel and aluminum and to punish China for theft of U.S. intellectual property. After that, more action will be taken to punish Chinese banks that help North Korea finance its weapons programs.

The U.S. can block acquisitions of U.S. firms by Chinese companies through review by a group called the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, or CFIUS. That committee has already blocked several Chinese deals and has many more stuck in the review pipeline.

By November, the U.S. will label China a currency manipulator, which will start another review process, leading to still further sanctions. Like Russia, China will not take any of this lying down but will retaliate with its own sanctions, tariffs and bans on U.S. investment in China. Get ready for an all-out financial war between the U.S. and China.

This trade and currency war will shake markets and be a major headwind for world growth.

Germany is also in the crosshairs because of its huge trade surplus. Trump has already torn up the TPP trade agreement and has put Canada, Mexico and South Korea on notice that their trade deals need to be renegotiated.

None of these trading partners will stand still for this U.S. assault on bilateral trading relations. Retaliation can be expected. A full-scale trade war is now upon us.

Next comes the shooting war with North Korea, which will inevitably draw in Russia, China, South Korea and Japan. This will be tantamount to World War III.

As Mark Twain reputedly remarked, “History does not repeat, but it does rhyme.”

Today looks like a replay of the 1930s. Let’s hope things do not go as far as they did then. Markets are not priced for the worst outcomes based on the lessons of history.

As the progression of currency wars, trade wars and shooting wars plays out, get ready for some major market moves to the downside as the reality of this sequence begins to sink in.

Silver
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5247

Re: Good Behavior Trump Debate Thread

Post by Silver »

See? He's not good for America or for liberty.

https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/env ... ans-little

Monday, 07 August 2017
Trump's Notice on U.S. Exit From UN “Climate” Deal Means Little
Written by Alex Newman

Climate realists, hold the champagne! The Trump administration notified the United Nations that the United States government eventually intends to withdraw from the controversial global body's “climate change” regime, better known as the UN “Paris Agreement.” But there is much more to the story than most of the establishment media has reported, and Americans hoping Trump would crush the UN's brazenly unconstitutional scheming are not out of the woods yet.

Serious concerns remain among climate realists and opponents of the UN's pseudo-treaty, including the fact that the Trump administration indicated in its official correspondence a desire to eventually rejoin the climate pact. The notice committed to continuing U.S. government engagement with the UN on “climate,” too.

Also troubling to the president's supporters has been the decision not to withdraw from the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Leaving the UNFCCC climate regime would dramatically speed up the process of withdrawing from the illegal and unconstitutional Paris scheme negotiated by Obama. Already, federal law prohibits sending it any money. But by withdrawing, Trump could fulfill his campaign pledges and neutralize the threat of the UN's climate antics.

On top of all that, the Trump administration is playing along with the UN-backed fraud that the terms of the Paris deal, which was never ratified by the U.S. Senate as required for treaties under the U.S. Constitution, are somehow binding on the United States. Under the Paris accord, governments and dictators that signed up are supposedly not allowed to give notice of withdrawal for three years. Setting aside the fact that the deal was never ratified, making it legally meaningless, under the illegal terms of the agreement, the U.S. government cannot exit until after the 2020 election.

Global-warming theorists and the establishment have been celebrating it all.

In short, those hoping that Trump's June announcement of his intent to leave the Paris scheme meant the end of the UN's “climate hoax,” as Trump often referred to the scam, may still be sorely disappointed. While most Americans reject the increasingly discredited man-made global-warming theory in polls, the establishment's anti-liberty agenda masquerading as a battle to stop “climate change” may continue to march on for years into the future.

In the letter sent to the UN chief by U.S. Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley, the lack of seriousness was clear. “This is to inform the Secretary-General, in connection with the Paris Agreement, adopted at Paris on December 12, 2015 (the Agreement), that the United States intends to exercise its right to withdraw from the Agreement,” Haley wrote to UN boss Antonio Guterres, the former leader of the Socialist International alliance of socialist and oftentimes murderous communist parties.

“Unless the United States identifies suitable terms for reengagement, the United States will submit to the Secretary-General, in accordance with Article 28, paragraph 1 of the Agreement, formal written notification of its withdrawal as soon as it is eligible to do so,” she added, clearly indicating that the letter was all-but totally meaningless except for the purpose of generating media headlines. And in the meantime, the U.S. government will continue participating in the dictators club's “climate” charade, Haley indicated.

While much of the media missed the subtleties, the UN and its leadership did not. “The Secretary General welcomes any effort to reengage in the Paris Agreement by the United States,” explained Guterres' spokesman Stéphane Dujarric, reiterating the UN's fraudulent claim that the U.S. government cannot withdraw from the illegal and unratified scheme until after the 2020 election.

Citing a previous statement by his boss, Dujarric said a U.S. withdrawal from the “climate” pact would be “a major disappointment for global efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and promote global security.” “It is crucial that the United States remains a leader on climate and sustainable development,” he added. “Climate change is impacting now. [Guterres] looks forward to engaging with the American government and all other actors in the United States and around the world to build the sustainable future for our children and future generations.”

It was not immediately clear whether Trump understood the machinations of his subordinates or the fact that the U.S. government has still not even legally started the withdrawal process, much less actually withdrawn. Many of his staunchest supporters have suggested that globalists and swamp creatures may be misleading him and sabotaging his “America First” agenda. But either way, it is clear that the administration could easily kill U.S. participation in the unratified UN climate schemes — and that despite the rhetoric, it has chosen not to do so thus far.

In a statement put out on August 4 by the U.S. State Department, which remains under the firm control of globalist-minded establishment “swamp” bureaucrats, it became even more clear that the “climate hoax” is alive and well. For instance, the media note, citing Trump's speech, said the Trump administration was open to re-joining the Paris Agreement “if the United States can identify terms that are more favorable to it, its businesses, its workers, its people, and its taxpayers.”

“The United States supports a balanced approach to climate policy that lowers emissions while promoting economic growth and ensuring energy security,” the note said, a sharp contrast from Trump's past rhetoric blasting the climate “hoax” and vowing to “cancel” the UN scheme. “We will continue to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions through innovation and technology breakthroughs, and work with other countries to help them access and use fossil fuels more cleanly and efficiently and deploy renewable and other clean energy sources, given the importance of energy access and security in many nationally determined contributions.”

In that final sentence, the State Department continued playing along with the fraudulent notion that CO2 emissions are somehow “dirty” or “polluting.” In reality, CO2 is known to all legitimate scientists as the “gas of life,” as it is exhaled by all people and essential to plant life. Human emissions of CO2, meanwhile, make up a fraction of one percent of all the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. And atmospheric CO2 levels are currently so low that farmers pump CO2 into their greenhouses to stimulate plant growth.

Unfortunately for climate realists and Trump supporters, the Trump EPA has still not reversed the Obama EPA's ludicrous finding that CO2 is “pollution.”

freedomforall
Gnolaum ∞
Posts: 16479
Location: WEST OF THE NEW JERUSALEM

Re: Good Behavior Trump Debate Thread

Post by freedomforall »

?
Last edited by freedomforall on August 17th, 2017, 10:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Silver
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5247

Re: Good Behavior Trump Debate Thread

Post by Silver »

Specific, actionable information.

http://original.antiwar.com/paul/2017/0 ... t-serious/

Attack Venezuela? Trump Can’t be Serious!
by Ron Paul Posted on August 15, 2017

There is something unsettling about how President Trump has surrounded himself with generals. From his defense secretary to his national security advisor to his White House chief of staff, Trump looks to senior military officers to fill key positions that have been customarily filled by civilians. He’s surrounded by generals and threatens war at the drop of a hat.

President Trump began last week by threatening “fire and fury” on North Korea. He continued through the week claiming, falsely, that Iran is violating the terms of the nuclear deal. He finally ended the week by threatening a US military attack on Venezuela.

He told reporters on Friday that, “We have many options for Venezuela including a possible military option if necessary. …We have troops all over the world in places that are very, very far away. Venezuela is not very far away and the people are suffering, and they are dying.”

Venezuela’s defense minister called Trump’s threat “an act of craziness.”

Even more worrisome, when Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro tried to call President Trump for clarification he was refused. The White House stated that discussions with the Venezuelan president could only take place once democracy was restored in the country. Does that mean President Trump is moving toward declaring Maduro no longer the legitimate president of Venezuela? Is Trump taking a page from Obama’s failed regime change policy for Syria and declaring that “Maduro must go”?

The current unrest in Venezuela is related to the economic shortcomings of that country’s centrally-planned economy. The 20th century has shown us very clearly that state control over an economy leads to mismanagement, mal-investment, massive shortages, and finally economic collapse. That is why those of us who advocate free market economics constantly warn that US government intervention in our own economy is leading us toward a similar financial crisis.

But there is another factor in the unrest in Venezuela. For many years the United States government, through the CIA, the National Endowment for Democracy, and US government funded NGOs, have been trying to overthrow the Venezuelan government. They almost succeeded in 2002, when then-president Hugo Chavez was briefly driven from office. Washington has spent millions trying to manipulate Venezuela’s elections and overturn the results. US policy is to create unrest and then use that unrest as a pretext for US intervention.

Military officers play an important role in defending the United States. Their job is to fight and win wars. But the White House is becoming the war house and the president seems to see war as a first solution rather than a last resort. His threats of military action against a Venezuela that neither threatens nor could threaten the United States suggests a shocking lack of judgment.

Congress should take President Trump’s threats seriously. In the 1980s, when President Reagan was determined to overthrow the Nicaraguan government using a proxy army, Congress passed a series of amendments, named after their author, Rep. Edward Boland (D-MA), to prohibit the president from using funds it appropriated to do so. Congress should make it clear in a similar manner that absent a Venezuelan attack on the United States, President Trump would be committing a serious crime in ignoring the Constitution were he to follow through with his threats. Maybe they should call it the “We’re Not The World’s Policeman” act.

Reprinted from The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity.

Silver
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5247

Re: Good Behavior Trump Debate Thread

Post by Silver »

https://theintercept.com/2017/08/14/we- ... tack-them/

WE CAN STOP NORTH KOREA FROM ATTACKING US. ALL WE HAVE TO DO IS NOT ATTACK THEM.
Jon Schwarz
August 14 2017, 11:18 a.m.

NORTH KOREA IS not going to launch a first strike on America or its allies with nuclear weapons.

To understand this, you don’t need to know anything about the history of U.S.-North Korea relations, or the throw weight of intercontinental ballistic missiles, or even where North Korea is. All you need to know is human history. And history says that small, poor, weak countries tend not to start wars with gigantic, wealthy, powerful countries — especially when doing so will obviously result in their obliteration.

So what exactly is the “crisis” involving North Korea?

The answer is simple: We’re not worried that we can’t deter North Korea. We’re worried because a North Korea that can plausibly strike the U.S. with nuclear weapons will likely be able to deter us from doing whatever we want. For example, we might not be able to invade North Korea.

When they go on TV, U.S. officials pretend there’s some chance that North Korea’s dictator Kim Jong-un will wake up one day and persuade all the people who help him run their bleak kakistocracy that they should commit mass suicide. But backstage, in government memos and think tank reports, America’s foreign policy mandarins have explained the issue clearly, over and over again.

One lucid example can be found in “Rebuilding America’s Defenses,” a well-known paper by the Project for a New American Century. The U.S., it explained, “must counteract the effects of the proliferation of ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction that may soon allow lesser states to deter U.S. military action. … In the post-Cold War era, America and its allies, rather than the Soviet Union, have become the primary objects of deterrence and it is states like Iraq, Iran and North Korea who most wish to develop deterrent capabilities.”

And we’re not just talk: Iraq and Libya both surrendered their unconventional military capacity, and we then invaded them. North Korea’s rulers definitely noticed that and have clearly explained why they have no intention of following Saddam Hussein and Moammar Gadhafi into oblivion.

So take a look at these basic facts about the U.S. and North Korea, and ask yourself: Who exactly is plausibly going to attack whom?
NK Data.jpg
NK Data.jpg (179.92 KiB) Viewed 1153 times
Why North Korea Won’t Attack the U.S. Why North Korea Won’t Attack the U.S. The Intercept
None of this means, of course, that North Korea having nuclear weapons and long-range missiles is a good thing. It’s terrible. The Cold War was full of examples of nuclear war almost breaking out by accident at moments of high tension. But there’s nothing we can do to avoid that with North Korea except by talking to them and trying to reduce conflict whenever possible.

It’s also unsettling to imagine the fate of North Korea’s weapons when the regime finally dissolves. Moreover, it’s not impossible that people in North Korea’s chain of command would find it tempting to sell one of their warheads to terrorists. But that ship has sailed; any attempt to reduce the risk of those things to zero would have certain consequences far worse than the risk itself.

So let’s concentrate on the good news: We definitely have it in our power to prevent North Korea from using its nuclear weapons on us. All we have to do is not attack them first.

Silver
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5247

Re: Good Behavior Trump Debate Thread

Post by Silver »

People make policy. Gary Cohn? A Goldman Sachs guy? Really? Does it get any more obvious than this? Trumpsters, is this what you voted for?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... omists-say

Cohn Solidifies Lead in Race to Replace Yellen, Economists Say
By Steve Matthews and Catarina Saraiva
August 20, 2017, 11:01 PM CDT

White House economic adviser Gary Cohn is emerging as the clear front-runner for the nomination to succeed Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen, according to a National Association for Business Economics survey.

Just 17 percent of 176 economists polled from July 18 to Aug. 2 said Yellen would be picked for a second term. Two-thirds said she wouldn’t be renominated and 16 percent were unsure. Her four-year term ends in February.

Among the economists who expect someone else to get the nod and offered an opinion, 49 percent said Cohn was most likely, followed by 9 percent for former Fed Governor Kevin Warsh, 6 percent for Stanford University economist John Taylor and 4 percent for Glenn Hubbard, dean of Columbia University’s business school.


The results are similar to a July 27-28 survey of economists conducted by Bloomberg, where Cohn was the favorite for the top Fed position, followed by Yellen, Warsh, Hubbard and Taylor.

Both surveys were completed after a Wall Street Journal interview showed President Donald Trump considering both Cohn and Yellen for the job. In the story, published on July 25, Trump said he had gained “great respect” for Cohn and characterized Yellen as “a low-interest-rate person.”

User avatar
iWriteStuff
blithering blabbermouth
Posts: 5523
Location: Sinope
Contact:

Re: Good Behavior Trump Debate Thread

Post by iWriteStuff »

Maybe the tactic here is more about plumbing than swamps. First, the toilet gets extremely backed up. Then you call the plumber to clear out the clog, drain it, and make it clean again. The only problem with the metaphor (and this is a major problem) is the fact that the plumber we hired is still filling the toilet with crap rather than doing anything to drain it.

Just sayin'. :ymsick:
Silver wrote: August 21st, 2017, 6:36 am People make policy. Gary Cohn? A Goldman Sachs guy? Really? Does it get any more obvious than this? Trumpsters, is this what you voted for?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... omists-say

Cohn Solidifies Lead in Race to Replace Yellen, Economists Say
By Steve Matthews and Catarina Saraiva
August 20, 2017, 11:01 PM CDT

White House economic adviser Gary Cohn is emerging as the clear front-runner for the nomination to succeed Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen, according to a National Association for Business Economics survey.

Just 17 percent of 176 economists polled from July 18 to Aug. 2 said Yellen would be picked for a second term. Two-thirds said she wouldn’t be renominated and 16 percent were unsure. Her four-year term ends in February.

Among the economists who expect someone else to get the nod and offered an opinion, 49 percent said Cohn was most likely, followed by 9 percent for former Fed Governor Kevin Warsh, 6 percent for Stanford University economist John Taylor and 4 percent for Glenn Hubbard, dean of Columbia University’s business school.


The results are similar to a July 27-28 survey of economists conducted by Bloomberg, where Cohn was the favorite for the top Fed position, followed by Yellen, Warsh, Hubbard and Taylor.

Both surveys were completed after a Wall Street Journal interview showed President Donald Trump considering both Cohn and Yellen for the job. In the story, published on July 25, Trump said he had gained “great respect” for Cohn and characterized Yellen as “a low-interest-rate person.”

Silver
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5247

Re: Good Behavior Trump Debate Thread

Post by Silver »

iWriteStuff wrote: August 21st, 2017, 7:03 am Maybe the tactic here is more about plumbing than swamps. First, the toilet gets extremely backed up. Then you call the plumber to clear out the clog, drain it, and make it clean again. The only problem with the metaphor (and this is a major problem) is the fact that the plumber we hired is still filling the toilet with crap rather than doing anything to drain it.

Just sayin'. :ymsick:
Silver wrote: August 21st, 2017, 6:36 am People make policy. Gary Cohn? A Goldman Sachs guy? Really? Does it get any more obvious than this? Trumpsters, is this what you voted for?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... omists-say

Cohn Solidifies Lead in Race to Replace Yellen, Economists Say
By Steve Matthews and Catarina Saraiva
August 20, 2017, 11:01 PM CDT

White House economic adviser Gary Cohn is emerging as the clear front-runner for the nomination to succeed Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen, according to a National Association for Business Economics survey.

Just 17 percent of 176 economists polled from July 18 to Aug. 2 said Yellen would be picked for a second term. Two-thirds said she wouldn’t be renominated and 16 percent were unsure. Her four-year term ends in February.

Among the economists who expect someone else to get the nod and offered an opinion, 49 percent said Cohn was most likely, followed by 9 percent for former Fed Governor Kevin Warsh, 6 percent for Stanford University economist John Taylor and 4 percent for Glenn Hubbard, dean of Columbia University’s business school.


The results are similar to a July 27-28 survey of economists conducted by Bloomberg, where Cohn was the favorite for the top Fed position, followed by Yellen, Warsh, Hubbard and Taylor.

Both surveys were completed after a Wall Street Journal interview showed President Donald Trump considering both Cohn and Yellen for the job. In the story, published on July 25, Trump said he had gained “great respect” for Cohn and characterized Yellen as “a low-interest-rate person.”
Yeah, but the pro-Trump crowd are still drunk with the victory over "her." The "she-who-must-not-be-named." (Artwork by WilliamBanzai7)
medusa.jpg
medusa.jpg (197.83 KiB) Viewed 1113 times
Easily fooled and nearly impossible to wake. Sleep, my beauties. Sleep.
potion for sleepy Trumpsters.jpg
potion for sleepy Trumpsters.jpg (9.71 KiB) Viewed 1113 times
How fittingly ironic that the US is in Afghanistan protecting poppy fields from the Taliban and that on this very night the murderer Trump will likely commit more of our blood and treasure to that treasonous fiasco.
the feet of sleeping Trumpsters.jpg
the feet of sleeping Trumpsters.jpg (7.46 KiB) Viewed 1113 times

User avatar
iWriteStuff
blithering blabbermouth
Posts: 5523
Location: Sinope
Contact:

Re: Good Behavior Trump Debate Thread

Post by iWriteStuff »

Silver wrote: August 21st, 2017, 7:19 am How fittingly ironic that the US is in Afghanistan protecting poppy fields from the Taliban and that on this very night the murderer Trump will likely commit more of our blood and treasure to that treasonous fiasco.

the feet of sleeping Trumpsters.jpg
Yeah, but Hillary would have been a war president who started fights with Syria and North Korea while appointing numerous Goldman Sachs people to government jobs!

Oh, wait.... :-o :-s X(

Silver
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5247

Re: Good Behavior Trump Debate Thread

Post by Silver »

iWriteStuff wrote: August 21st, 2017, 7:21 am
Silver wrote: August 21st, 2017, 7:19 am How fittingly ironic that the US is in Afghanistan protecting poppy fields from the Taliban and that on this very night the murderer Trump will likely commit more of our blood and treasure to that treasonous fiasco.

the feet of sleeping Trumpsters.jpg
Yeah, but Hillary would have been a war president who started fights with Syria and North Korea while appointing numerous Goldman Sachs people to government jobs!

Oh, wait.... :-o :-s X(
Yep, the Trumpster position is completely indefensible now. They've even ejected their mini-god Steve Bannon, all the while ignoring that he is also a Goldman Sachs guy. The willfully blind always fall in a ditch. It would almost be comical if it didn't involve such a critical issue as liberty. Now it's just BIGLY heartbreaking that children of the covenant can't see the treason going on right in front of them.

Silver
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5247

Re: Good Behavior Trump Debate Thread

Post by Silver »

Ruh-roh, some bad comments coming in on Trump's eternal war plans...

Trump has broken his oath of office so many times already. Now is the time for his supporters with integrity to repudiate him.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/donald-tru ... icy-speech

MEET THE NEW BOSS, SAME AS THE OLD BOSS
Trump’s Base Goes Ballistic Over His ‘Unlimited War’
The president has escalated fights in six countries. Now his supporters are wondering what happened to ‘America First.’

LACHLAN MARKAY
SAM STEIN
08.21.17 11:02 PM ET

President Donald Trump acknowledged on Monday night that the new Afghanistan strategy he unveiled is a reversal of his long-held objection to the very idea of having a U.S. military presence in the country.

But in announcing a ramp up of U.S. forces with no defined timeline for their departure, Trump tailored and mangled and obscured the policy to such a degree so as to make it both difficult to understand and—he hopes—palatable to his base. At one point, he asserted that his strategy was to have no publicly-stated strategy at all.

“We will not talk about numbers of troops or our plans for further military activities,” Trump told a crowd of servicemen at Virginia’s Fort Myer on Monday.

President’s have made abrupt foreign policy reversals before, often breaking with campaign pledges when presented with a new set of geopolitical realities. Trump’s reversal stands out not just for the outright vehemence with which he previously argued that America needed to put an end to its 16-year-long war—Trump has called for total US withdrawal from Afghanistan and for handing the country over to an army of mercenaries—but also because of what it says about his foreign policy at large. In the seven months since taking office, Trump has expanded military operations in Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Somalia, Libya and, now, Afghanistan. And that’s in addition to an escalated nuclear standoff with North Korea.

And so, when pitching the notion that the time had come to enlarge America’s military presence, the president used a variety of different selling points to re-frame the context. This was, he stressed, an agenda based on counter-terrorism principles and devoting American blood and treasure purely to the country’s first-order military interests.

"We are not nation-building again,” he said. “We are killing terrorists.”

It was “America First” rhetoric plastered atop a military-oriented interventionist policy. And it was done, ostensibly, to ensure that Trump’s base, disillusioned with decades of Republican-led foreign policy adventurism, heard someone who remained skeptical.

Laura Ingraham ✔ @IngrahamAngle
Who's going to pay for it? What is our measure of success? We didn't win with 100K troops. How will we win with 4,000 more?
https://twitter.com/gopchairwoman/statu ... 9237574657
9:23 PM - Aug 21, 2017
1,190 1,190 Replies 1,234 1,234 Retweets 3,836 3,836 likes

“Why did we even have an election?” wondered Mike Cernovich, a popular far-right internet media personality generally supportive of Trump. He mockingly tweeted a photo of a flak jacket-clad Jared Kushner, the president’s senior adviser and son-in-law, during a trip to Afghanistan this year, with the caption “General Jared.” In another tweet, he wrote, “Congratulations to President McMaster!” a derisive reference to White House National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster, who pressed the president to boost troop levels in Afghanistan.

The pushback that came after Trump’s speech was apparent in the process leading up to it as well. Inside the White House, the draw-down and ramp-up camps battled over the president’s plan, in an internal debate that contributed to the departure last week of White House chief strategist Steve Bannon, the West Wing’s most vocal critic of escalation in Afghanistan.

Bannon returned to Breitbart News, the prominent right-wing website that has favorably covered Trump for years. And in the run-up to Trump’s speech on Monday evening, as details of the troop surge announcement trickled out, Breitbart’s coverage ranged from skeptical to hostile. “America First? With Steve Bannon Out, Globalists Push For More War Abroad” read one headline.

After Trump’s speech concluded, the lead story on Breitbart’s homepage braced readers for “UNLIMITED WAR.” (The site later took that headline down).

Bannon, Cernovich, and other elements of Trump’s less interventionist political base hoped for foreign policy more in tune with the president’s pre-White House rhetoric, when he dubbed the war in Afghanistan “a total disaster” and “a complete waste” and repeatedly called on President Barack Obama to withdraw U.S. forces completely. Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), one of the few elected Republicans to echo this hope, was critical of Trump even before he spoke.

"The mission in Afghanistan has lost its purpose and I think it is a terrible idea to send any more troops into that war,” Paul said in a statement.


In a rare bit of self-reflection, Trump explained that the reason he changed his tune on Afghanistan was precisely because of the weight of his office. “[A]ll my life I have heard decisions are much different when you sit behind the desk in the Oval Office,” he said. And he tried to couch the shift by repeatedly invoking the possibility of another attack homeland. Twice, Trump referenced the attacks from September 11, 2001. “A hasty withdrawal would create a vacuum that terrorists—including ISIS and Al Qaeda—would instantly fill,” he said.

But instead of placating his base, Trump ended up drawing plaudits from an unfamiliar crowd.

Sen. Marco Rubio, a GOP defense hawk and 2016 campaign rival, defended Trump’s apparent reversal. The president “has made a decision based on information now available to him in office & on advice of wide array of experts,” Rubio wrote on Twitter. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), one of the more pro-interventionist voices in the GOP and someone who has repeatedly butted heads with Trump in recent weeks, called the new policy “a big step in the right direction.” Trump, he added, “is now moving us well beyond the prior administration's failed strategy of merely postponing defeat.”
And then there was Marc Thiessen, one of the more prominent neoconservatives in media and a former speechwriter to George W. Bush, a man whose foreign policy record Trump has called an unmitigated disaster. Reacting to Trump’s pledge that U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan be hinged on “conditions on the ground, not arbitrary timetables” Thiessen wrote: “How many times did I write that?”

Silver
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5247

Re: Good Behavior Trump Debate Thread

Post by Silver »

Cold War
Korean War
VietNam War
War on Poverty
War on Drugs
War on Terror
Afghanistan War
Iraq War
Libya War
Syria War
War War War
Here a War
There a War
Everywhere a War War

We're good at making war, but not any good at winning. We're good at ignoring the inspired principles of the Constitution, but we're not good at recognizing when our candidate is at fault. We're good at choosing the wrong man for President, but we're not good at repenting when it is continually and consistently pointed out to us that we made the wrong choice.

One might think, correctly, that America is full of warmongers.

Doctrine & Covenants 121 :
37 ...but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.

38 Behold, ere he is aware, he is left unto himself, to kick against the pricks, to persecute the saints, and to fight against God.

39 We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.

40 Hence many are called, but few are chosen.

Silver
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5247

Re: Good Behavior Trump Debate Thread

Post by Silver »

Trump supporters need to get over their ridiculous thoughts of, "Well, at least she didn't win!" Yes, she did. She won alright. She won, but she's wearing the body suit of an old man who was always a Democrat and who has hung out with and done business with the worst of the NY/NJ society. His son-in-law, President Kushner, is the happy recipient of over $200M from George Soros. To think that Trump is anything less than a narcissistic authoritarian is sheer fantasy.
hillary_clinton_false dichotomy.jpg
hillary_clinton_false dichotomy.jpg (21.15 KiB) Viewed 1019 times
Bush = Obama = Hillary = Trump
obama same hillary same trump same.jpg
obama same hillary same trump same.jpg (111.32 KiB) Viewed 1019 times

User avatar
iWriteStuff
blithering blabbermouth
Posts: 5523
Location: Sinope
Contact:

Re: Good Behavior Trump Debate Thread

Post by iWriteStuff »

Silver wrote: August 22nd, 2017, 10:26 am Trump supporters need to get over their ridiculous thoughts of, "Well, at least she didn't win!" Yes, she did. She won alright. She won, but she's wearing the body suit of an old man who was always a Democrat and who has hung out with and done business with the worst of the NY/NJ society. His son-in-law, President Kushner, is the happy recipient of over $200M from George Soros. To think that Trump is anything less than a narcissistic authoritarian is sheer fantasy.
I keep wondering to myself, "Why does it matter who wins if nothing changes?" We just hit the accelerator on Afghanistan, we've already bombed Syria, we're constantly threatening NK, and even Venezuela (of all places!) has been a subject of military debate with the Commander in Chief. The irony is that the few times Hillary even pokes her head out to voice an opinion (like "I would bomb Syrian airfields"), the Trump administration does exactly what she recommended very soon after.

Tell me again how different it is when the very same policies are being pursued? :-s

Silver
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5247

Re: Good Behavior Trump Debate Thread

Post by Silver »

iWriteStuff wrote: August 22nd, 2017, 10:32 am
Silver wrote: August 22nd, 2017, 10:26 am Trump supporters need to get over their ridiculous thoughts of, "Well, at least she didn't win!" Yes, she did. She won alright. She won, but she's wearing the body suit of an old man who was always a Democrat and who has hung out with and done business with the worst of the NY/NJ society. His son-in-law, President Kushner, is the happy recipient of over $200M from George Soros. To think that Trump is anything less than a narcissistic authoritarian is sheer fantasy.
I keep wondering to myself, "Why does it matter who wins if nothing changes?" We just hit the accelerator on Afghanistan, we've already bombed Syria, we're constantly threatening NK, and even Venezuela (of all places!) has been a subject of military debate with the Commander in Chief. The irony is that the few times Hillary even pokes her head out to voice an opinion (like "I would bomb Syrian airfields"), the Trump administration does exactly what she recommended very soon after.

Tell me again how different it is when the very same policies are being pursued? :-s
It's not different, IWS, but Trump supporters get offended when challenged to change their way of thinking, and subsequently go off on dark paths trying to justify voting for the Marmalade.

Post Reply