GT40s.com Paddock Politics Thread

[Doug S.]

Not so sure Trump was whining...
He was asked a couple of times by reporters - (paraphrased as I just heard it a few minutes ago on NPR)
"So how do you like the job so far, is it harder or easier than you expected?"

Trump responded that it is a tough job and tougher than he had expected..

----
So by that, I don't categorize it so much as whining as I do believe he was simply answering the questions in a rather candid manor..

Agreed, Randy...I was surprised to hear him admit it, but it struck me as sort of a "...by the way, now that I've been here for a while it occurs to me..." sort of comment.

Cheers!

Doug

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

Kim Jung Un had NO military experience whatsoever before Daddy made him a four-star general. This snot-nosed twerp had never accomplished anything in his life that would even come close to military leadership. He hadn't even so much as led a Cub Scout troop, coached a sports team, or commanded a military platoon.
So he is made the "Beloved Leader" Of North Korea.
Terrific!

Oh nuts! I'm sorry... I just remembered we did the same thing.


We took an arrogant phony community organizer, who had never worn a uniform, never ran so much as an ice-cream stand, and made him Commander-in-Chief. A guy, who had never had a real job, worked on a budget, or led anything more than an ACORN demonstration, and we made him "Beloved Leader" of the United States - Twice! So if you think North Koreans are stupid...

I'm sorry I brought this up....n

 

[Larry L.]

...So if you think North Koreans are stupid...

Actually, Al, the N. Koreans had no say at all about Lil' Kim being 'appointed' their leader...whereas we freely elected Obama. So, there's really no question as to which country's population pegs the stupid meter in your example.

OTOH, Trump at least has created and led a multi-billon dollar company, HAS had to create/stick to budgets, and knows far more world leaders than Obama ever did before becoming POTUS. And since becoming POTUS, Trump has demonstrated HE actually listens to his military brass as well...and allows his commanders on the battlefield to make strategic decisions (dropping the M.O.A.B. in Af'stan being one example).

So, on the surface anyway, 'twould appear we made the better of the two presidential choices available to us on 11/8/16.

 

[Keith]

I'm confused. I thought it was Hilary most likely to start WWIII? At least that was what everyone was saying before the elections...

 

[Randy V]

So one question that needs to be asked is:

How's your investment portfolio doing these days?

 

[Keith]

Well that's a simple answer for me personally Randy, hang on, I'll just reach under the mattress and check..:shy:

 

[Pat]

Regardless of your answer, Larry...I still don't think the initial "strike" ought to be a unilateral U.S. action UNLESS we declare war, I think other countries ought to be involved, too, and most preferably some of them in the region of North Korea. If we do that, even then I would hope we could deal with North Korea without nuking 'em...and so do those living in the surrounding countries, I would bet.

Doug

No need Doug, technically, we're (on behalf of the UN) still at war with the DPRK.
The Korean War continues in the form of a “Semi-War-State” due to the absence of a “Peace Treaty” and is solely dependent upon a fragile “Armistice Agreement” which was signed in July 27, 1953. So in the absence of a formal peace treaty, this is the 67th year the DPRK and the US are STILL legally at war.

Mr. Trump could pull an "Obama" and take out Mr. Kim in a manner similar to to what he and Mrs. Clinton did with the late Mr. Qaddafi. But then look at how that turned out...

 

[Jeff Young]

So one question that needs to be asked is:

How's your investment portfolio doing these days?

That's funny, you didn't want to ask that question when the competent young black President took the stock market from what, 7000? to 19000, but when the crazy old white guy President Pussy Grabber rides the coattails of the Obama economy all of a sudden it's time to thank the new President? Really?

I saw a stunning stastic the other day. 75% of Republicans thought the economy was in the crapper in December of 2016. In February of 2017, 75% of Republicans thought the economy was awesome. The only thing that changed? Lord Dampnut becomes Il Duce.

Sheesh!

 

[Jeff Young]

No need Doug, technically, we're (on behalf of the UN) still at war with the DPRK.
The Korean War continues in the form of a “Semi-War-State” due to the absence of a “Peace Treaty” and is solely dependent upon a fragile “Armistice Agreement” which was signed in July 27, 1953. So in the absence of a formal peace treaty, this is the 67th year the DPRK and the US are STILL legally at war.

Mr. Trump could pull an "Obama" and take out Mr. Kim in a manner similar to to what he and Mrs. Clinton did with the late Mr. Qaddafi. But then look at how that turned out...

Technically incorrect. The US never declared war on North Korea. It participated in a joint police action pursuant to a UN resolution.

 

[Jeff Young]

So, I have to ask.

The President's chief of staff just went on a Sunday news talk show and stated that revamping our libel laws, reducing the 1st Amendment protection for free speech, and making it easier to sue journalists was "on the table."

So which of the Trumpsters here supports this anti-American nonsense?

The Whiner in Chief then refused to be a leader and show up at the White House press dinner -- something only Richard Nixon failed to do in the last 50 years. Hell of a track record. Instead, President Trump hosted a competing rally where he lambasted the press, and effectively the 1st Amendment. All of this just days after stating that our Constitution's system of checks and balances was "archaic" and made things "difficult" for him.

What...the...hell....

 

[Jeff Young]

Frustrated with the checks/balances/rules we have had in place for decades if not centuries, Lord Dampnut today calls for a government shutdown. First President in history to do so.

What...the..hell...

 

[Jeff Young]

Conservative Commentator and pretty smart guy Charles Krauthammer:

"Great Negotiator" Lord Dampnut got "rolled" on budget negotiation.

Access Denied

 

[Pat]

Technically incorrect. The US never declared war on North Korea. It participated in a joint police action pursuant to a UN resolution.

Who said we declared war??? Look up the word "war" in the dictionary.
There certainly was (is) a state of armed conflict between different nations or states on the Korean peninsula meeting the definition. But I guess that depends on which side you're on. The North Koreans call the 1950-1953 event "Choguk haebang chǒnjaeng". The Chinese refer to the event as " Kàngměiyuáncháo zhànzhēng". I would invite you to look up their definitions (hint: they have the word "War" in them). Without a formal peace treaty and only an armistice, the situation is "technically" unchanged.
We obviously haven't "technically" ended the Korean War as we did in Vietnam or for that matter the Saddam regime in Iraq. Needless to say we're still at war with other parties in the region.
From murders of U.S. and ROK personnel, maritime seizures/sinkings and the shelling of ROK territory, the armed conflict in Korea certainly continues without much "technicality" about it. The armistice has only served to limit it.
The unpleasant antics of the Kim family have been well rewarded in the past by multiple U.S. administrations with aid deals and other largess complements of the U.S. taxpayer and other government creditors in an effort to limit their bad behavior. They now have nukes and will soon have the ability to hit the U.S. mainland with them. We can pay them off again and ignore the history of such actions or we can conduct covert warfare which I believe we're doing. I don't think the DPRK missile failures are attributable only to poor workmanship'. In the meantime, we can hope that he eventually succumbs to his lifestyle (as we did with Stalin) and quietly facilitate a covert resistance movement that may take years to come to fruition. It's pretty clear, he's not winning the hearts and minds of the Korean people with his charm and charisma but he maintains his power base when we cave in to his antics with bribes. That said, it certainly has paid off for the Iranians.

 

[Jeff Young]

While I generally agree with you, YOU said in your original post that we were still "legally" at war with North Korea. The only way the US is "legally" at war with anyone is via a declaration of war, which never occurred.

I do agree that the armed conflict/police action in Korea was halted via an armistice and has remained tense, and occasionally "hot," ever since. Just clearing up a technicality that we are not actually still "legally" a war with North Korea.

 

[Doug S.]

I do agree that the armed conflict/police action in Korea was halted via an armistice and has remained tense, and occasionally "hot," ever since. Just clearing up a technicality that we are not actually still "legally" a war with North Korea.

IMHO, Jeff, "legally " is the only way the US should engage in armed conflict with any sovereign nation...it is such a drastic action that (again, IMHO) no American soldier should be asked to risk his life without a congressional Declaration of War!!!

Having said that, though...the question arises...if Trump were to engage in an armed conflict without a Declaration of War...would that then be an "illegal" act?

It's a thought!

Cheers!

Doug

 

[Jeff Young]

Long debate over that. Constitutional crisis type - President commands the military, only Congress can declare war.

Resolved in part via the War Powers Act, which gave the President the ability to commit US troops for up to 90 days without a declaration of war. Which the Executive(s) have since ignored as well. Well, except for Obama who asked for authorization to use force in Syria and was denied.

Veek, don't agree with much of your lengthy edit. I still support humanitarian aid to North Korea. Any food that gets through is a good thing.

And all that right wing saber rattling about the Iran nuke deal? Trump's Depart of State just certified Iran is in full compliance for the 2nd straight year.

And Iran is no North Korea. Large expanding middle class there. I suspect Iran will contine to slowly moderate - and of couse we are as responsible as anyone for the Islamic regime there, having supported a despotic, murderous dictatorship ofr many years prior to 1979

 

[Pat]

Veek, don't agree with much of your lengthy edit. I still support humanitarian aid to North Korea. Any food that gets through is a good thing.

And all that right wing saber rattling about the Iran nuke deal? Trump's Depart of State just certified Iran is in full compliance for the 2nd straight year.

I'm glad you enjoy the edits. I enjoy doing them. They make me fell warm like a pee in the pants on a chilly Autumn afternoon. Thanks for pointing them out.

As for food aid for DPRK, how much of the aid would go to the starving populace versus the party insiders? Mr. Kim does not strike me as being a starving member of the proletariat. In fact I think the greatest threat to his regime may be his cholesterol count unless one of his supporters decides to help him along with some warfarin therapy as was rumored to be the actual demise of Mr. Stalin.
The North Korean government has never accepted the international norms in the provision of aid, impeding normal assessment, monitoring, and evaluation functions of relief organizations. In 1995, when the famine was on the world stage and assistance ramping up, the government cut commercial grain imports – in essence using humanitarian aid as a form of balance of payments support, freeing up resources to finance the importation of advanced military weaponry. North Korean defectors have indicated assumptions that lie behind funding food aid have hindered economic reform in their homeland, not helped it. That said, I suspect the aid flow through the regime of Mr. Kim would exceed that of any administration by the Clinton Global Initiative.
http://en.nknet.org/writings/report...r-survey-international-food-aid-distribution/

As for the world's largest state sponsor of terror, of course they are compliant with the so called "Nuke Deal". There are no meaningful restrictions to violate. They can build and test ballistic missiles and little issues like Iran's possession of excess nuclear-related material, a "formal violation" of the deal, was praised by the Obama administration for "acknowledging" it exceeded that threshold. Gosh, that must deserve another midnight shipment of cash. Besides, many of the Iranian nuclear developments are "self reported" and unlikely to result in violations. One of the side deals with the IAEA relaxed key restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program in a decade, rather than the original 15 years agreed upon, and also gave the country the right to collect its own soil samples, instead of IAEA inspectors, at the Parchin military base. So they get the bomb in 2026, then President Chelsea Clinton can make a new nuke deal right? She can't help but being a better candidate than her mother.
Iran will certainly have the bomb by then and possibly a delivery system to hit the U.S. In order to keep pace, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the UAE will need to acquire nukes as well. A few well placed bucks to Mr. Kim or any number of Pakistanis and voila, they're in the club. What could possibly go wrong?

As an aside, just how dismal must Mrs Clinton have been to lose to the likes of Donald Trump? Oh wait, it was the Russians, the FBI, the deplorable electorate, her staff, Anthony Weiner's laptop, Obama not working hard enough, and so on, and on, and on...

 

[Nick]

As an aside, just how dismal must Mrs Clinton have been to lose to the likes of Donald Trump? Oh wait, it was the Russians, the FBI, the deplorable electorate, her staff, Anthony Weiner's laptop, Obama not working hard enough, and so on, and on, and on...

Whereas as everyone knows Trump only won because of his vast military experience, ability to evade capture, his strong stance against misogyny in any form, his brilliant business mind especially when it comes to the use of chapter 11 after running up mountains of debt using other people's money.

Oh and of course because he is white

 

[Jeff Young]

American hubris in deciding who should and who shouldn't have a nuke is pretty amazing isn't it? I bet the majority of the world thinks President Trump shouldn't. Maybe they should sanction us! lol

The reality is Iran was going to build a bomb. We had two ways to stop them. Military action, and negotiation. Military action against Iran would involve invaiding/attacking a regional power with 80 million people and a sophisticated military. Doing so would enrage the Islamic world (well other than Saudi).

But beyond that, uninformed Americans like to ignore the fact that Iran is slowly moderating via its large, growing middle class. Eventually, I'm convinced, the mullahs will lose power (and they are really only in power anyway because of our support of the Shah). Most informed foreign policy observers agree.

Iran is not North Korea, or Afghanistan, or even Pakistan. They are a large, sophisticated country in many respects, who are seeking a place at the world's table. They are extremely unlikely to use a nuke against anyone, other than Israel if Israel was going to use one first.

And Ms. Clinton? Yes, terrible campaign! Dick stomped Drumpf in three debates. Overqualified for the job. Respected around the world. Ran a great convention with a large "bounce" afterwards. Won the popular vote by 3 million votes. Derailed by an unprecedented move by Comey in the last week of the election and Russian electioneering.

If ANY of the info we have now about connections between the Drumpf campaign and Putin had come out about Hillary, the Old Man White Brigade would be frothing at the mouth with calls of treason. Since Drumpf did it, it's ok, and Putin is just a "strong leader."

Good grief.

 

[Pat]

ng.

If ANY of the info we have now about connections between the Drumpf campaign and Putin had come out about Hillary, the Old Man White Brigade would be frothing at the mouth with calls of treason. Since Drumpf did it, it's ok, and Putin is just a "strong leader."

Good grief.

Were any of the Wikileaks revelations untrue?