Trump

Also love how he was described as "pretty ordinary" by his classmates in Switzerland. Is this akin to bin Laden sitting in the clock tower seats at Highbury? OJ Simpson had tons of friends. What does it have to do with anything?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BonnieShels

Let's turn it around a bit. Should Israel be allowed to have WMD? And if so why should they have them over say Iran or Pakistan?

Do Israel's actions since 1947 not really give them impression of an unhinged nation? Is it because they are backed by the "big bully" that we have to accept it? I mean, whatever about Iran's populist and rhetorical threats, Israel actually has wiped a country off the map with its illegal and disgraceful settlement programme.

What about the USA? Should they have them considering the absolute destruction they have wrought on certain parts of the world from Nicaragua to Vietnam to Korea not to mention the entire Middle East?

And then Britain... I mean hardly a nation known for it's sensible foreign policy, never mind its mad domestic politics of the last 50 years.

---

No one should have nuclear weapons ideally. But it's a bit rich for the west to come along and dictate the what's what considering the mess that has been made by same. The Obama/Kerry deal was an attempt to normalise relations with Iran. The west needed another strong influencer in the region considering the ****heads in Saudi and the mess of post-Ba'ath Iraq and now Syria.

Then the great idiot comes along, shouts "MURICA FIRST" and then starts bossing around Iran and whoever else... come on. One or the other.

Nevermind that the NK rhetoric is only strengthened by having a nutter to argue back.

The sooner the better that the 2020 election comes or that clown is impeached, the better.

---

The great idiot you refer to (Donald Trump) is the best president America has seen since the days of George Washington. He puts America first - what country should he put first, given that he's the president of America?
And what makes him an idiot? Please tell me what he has done wrong during his nine months in office. Apart from a very distasteful video on the campaign trail he has done nothing wrong and an awful lot right.
Jobless figures are at their lowest since 1973 and the Dow Jones is at its highest mark ever. He's working on a tax reform bill which will put quite a bit of money in the pockets of the middle class and should set the US economy going again.
And his foreign policy has been lauded by many in America.
You wouldn't happen to be listening to the liberal media when getting your news on Trump? That would explain a lot.

You ask should Israel be allowed to have WMD's? Absolutely they should. And why should't Iran and Pakistan. As far as I know both India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons. Iran - no way. Because they sponsor terrorism of all kinds. God knows what they'd do with a nuclear missile. You will recall the Israeli / Arab war of 2006 (I believe that's the correct year). They were attacked by over 600 rockets fired from Lebanon over the course of a year and never retaliated. Only when one of those rockets landed in a town tid they respond and that's what led to the war. So do you really think those who control Lebanon (in truth most Lebanese people would prefer peace with their neighbor but are manipulated by the very terror groups that Iran sponsors) are seeking peace? Or are they just looking for any excuse to wager war with the Israelis? I think you know the answer. And let's be honest. If the Israelis did not have nuclear weapons they would not exist in the Middle East.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by backstothewall

Splitting hairs there Danny.

I mean you're right but Israel wouldn't be far behind!

---

Certainly, lump them high on the list as well. No problem with that at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KrisLetang

What about against his own people?

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/10...hristians.html

---

It's a rotten regime, as I've said - no doubt about it - but let's get real. Are oppression, persecution of dissidents and poverty/starvation (on account of negligence and the misguided or paranoid prioritisation of certain policies - mainly security-related - over humanitarian concerns) on the same moral pedestal as flattening entire countries or vapourising entire populations? Personally, I don't think so, but maybe your moral compass differs from mine.

What, in your opinion, has Kim done that equates to acts like Hiroshima and Nagasaki or what the US did to North Korea during the Korean War? The persecution of Christians? Systematic persecution is bad, certainly, but is it seriously equivalent to the wanton death and destruction the US has regularly brought upon populations around the globe?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KrisLetang

Also love how he was described as "pretty ordinary" by his classmates in Switzerland. Is this akin to bin Laden sitting in the clock tower seats at Highbury? OJ Simpson had tons of friends. What does it have to do with anything?

---

It wasn't the most crucial point I made, which is why I preceded it with, "For what it's worth...". It was additional or incidental info (based upon the words of Westerners who actually interacted with Kim) to challenge the cod psychoanalytical caricaturing from afar of Kim as some sort of erratic, unhinged and suicidal "loony-bin" who's intent on martyrdom, who doesn't know what he's doing or who's thoughts and actions are unpredictable.

His actions are completely predictable and rational and they are indicative of a man intent of self-preservation. There is a pattern: when the US threatens him, he feels intimidated and reacts with counter-threats and missile tests; when the US engages with his country in non-threatening dialogue, things have historically been much more constructive and fruitful. The latter is evidently the way to move this situation forward.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

The real world is what we call it. ;)



That's certainly debatable. The US is the only nation to drop not one but two nuclear bombs on civilian populations. In my opinion, the intentional killing of thousands of innocent men, women and children in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were two of the most irresponsible and immoral single criminal acts any country has ever committed throughout the entirety of human history. Would you actually disagree with that? What has North Korea done that even comes anywhere near that level of heinous and reprehensible irresponsibility?



Close buddies of the US, Saudi Arabia, are actually said to be the world's largest state sponsor of non-state terror: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b00705db4da8aa

And Iran didn't "vow to wipe Israel off the map", as explained in my last post. What Ahmadinejad said was closer to the following: "This regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history." That has an entirely different meaning.

Meanwhile, hasn't Trump pretty much threatened to wipe North Korea off the map in recent weeks? On that basis, why are the irresponsible and terror-sponsoring US (who also happen to be the world's largest administrator of state terrorism, by their own definition) allowed nuclear weaponry in your world but not other irresponsible or rogue states that similarly rely on terror to enforce their power and interests? Why not apply your principle evenly across the board and condemn/deprive them all instead of overlooking/defending US irresponsibility and singling the US out for special entitlements?



North Korea have fired a total of six test missiles ever. The US, on the other hand, have conducted a whopping 1,054 nuclear tests and have dropped two nuclear missiles on civilian populations. Who did you say was on steroids again? :confused:

What qualifies you to make a judgment that Kim "may just be as crazy as he appears"? Most serious observers acknowledge that he's acting quite rationally, given the precarious circumstances in which he finds himself. For what it's worth, he was also described in pretty ordinary terms by his classmates when he attended school in Switzerland.



Again, what qualifies you to engage in this sort of cod long-distance psychoanalysis? Why would he "just want to end it all"? Is he suicidal or something? Have you evidence for this?

Media Lens did a good write-up on this sort of uninformed cartoon-villainisation of Kim when Paul Mason engaged in similar nonsense recently. They wrote:

But the really remarkable thing about Mason's article is the extent to which he demonised North Korean leader Kim Jong-un:

'People like Kim want to be remembered for a thousand years. And, as the current outbreak of swastikas on the walls of western cities show, if it's a phoneix-like [sic] rebirth you are after, you don't have to wait a thousand years.

'"I triggered a nuclear war with the USA and reduced South Korea to a toxic wasteland" would be, for Kim, an epitaph worth dying for. Even better if he could add, "and I destroyed the multilateral global order for ever".'

This is another classic GPN [Grand Propaganda Narrative]: while identity, location and appearance may change, there is always a fantastically insane 'Bad Guy' at large in the world who simply must be confronted by the West's heroic arms industries and tax-funded militaries, their budgets grown fat on fear-fuelled 'socialism for the rich'.

We were so shocked by Mason's comment that we contacted John Feffer, the director of Foreign Policy in Focus at the Institute for Policy Studies, and author of several books on Korean politics:

'Would be interested in your thoughts on this piece claiming Kim Jong-un would be willing to die to kill 50 million South Koreans.'

Feffer was kind enough to reply immediately:

'no indication that Kim believes such a thing -- narcissists usually prefer self-preservation at all costs.' (Feffer to Media Lens, February 14, 2017)

Korea specialists Markus Bell at the University of Sheffield and Marco Milani at the University of Southern California, commented earlier this month:

'a nuclear attack from Pyongyang appears highly unlikely. The government is fully aware that it would incur an overwhelmingly destructive military response from the US and South Korea'.

We also wrote to Mason:

'What's your evidence for the claim Kim Jong-un would be willing to die, if it meant he could kill 50 million South Koreans?'

As ever, Mason ignored us.

So, as Korea specialists Feffer, Bell and Milani suggest, Kim's conduct appears to indicate the exact opposite of what you claim; his conduct would suggest that he feels insecure or threatened and is desperately trying to preserve his position by developing a nuclear defence, which is something that he likely feels will ensure the US never directly attacks his country again.

And of course Kim should be taken seriously. That's why it's vital to stop threatening him and instead sit down and talk.



It's the exact opposite actually. The hard-line approach of threats and non-dialogue has gotten us where we are today; on the brink of a nuclear war. Progress has been made when there has been dialogue and attempted accord, just like with China decades earlier. When the US has failed to live up to its commitments, that's when Pyongyang has decided to do its own thing. The documented history that I outlined in my post above demonstrates that.



Maybe the US should stop threatening him then and sit down and talk. You don't think North Koreans might be frightened of the US considering the US killed hundreds of thousands of North Koreans with 600,000 tonnes of bombs from the air during the Korean War? The US has a formidable pedigree for this sort of genocidal, apocalyptic conduct; North Korea, on the other hand, has no track record of such.

And for what it's worth, the US is regarded as the biggest threat to world peace by the largest segment of people here in the real world - and by considerable distance - so you've got it way off in terms of who you think is frightening the people of the world.

---

Strange how a guy who thinks so clearly when it comes to football, has such weird notions when it comes to world politics. You are questioning the dropping of two (atomic bombs actually, not nuclear) on Japan at the end of World War 2. Really Danny? You are going to question the soldiers who saved your and my parents' lives? Would you be here typing on your keyboard today, if not for the actions of the brave American and British soldiers. That's what I love about us Irish. We are experts on every war we never fought in (save for the brave men from Ireland did join the war effort to fight the Nazis, and God Bless them). Trump has threatened to wipe N. Korea off the map and rightly so. He's not the one firing the ICBM's is he? If the whole nation of Japan is so scared, does that not tell you something? And how bad does KJU have it. Up to a few weeks ago he was doing pretty nicely with all the commercial trade from China. He was doing nicely, while his people starve to death if they're not imprisoned.

But perhaps Danny the events of the past two days will help the light bulb to go off for you. The whole Russia collusion thing has proved that Donald Trump has conspired with the Russians to affect the US election last year, hasn't it? Yeah, you should be seeing the real truth now that Hillary's selling of 20 per cent of America's uranium to Russia has been revealed. Hillary sat on a board to approve the deal, a deal which she and her husband got $145 million from. And guess who else was on the board? Rob Rosenstein, the guy who called for the special council to investigate Trump and Bob Muller the chief investigator of that council. Can you say 'conflict of interest'? Mr Muller, who was head of the FBI once, has been labelled as one of the top prosecutors in America. A man with such knowledge of the law and ethics somehow missed the conflict of interest involving himself and his cohorts. When you have those type of people controlling a media who have been trying to take Trump down for 18 months now, you should see that you are being lied to all day long (by the media corporations in America and by extension Britain and Europe). Hopefully, Danny, you will see what is going on in the real world.

Give back the $152 million, Barack.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin

Give back the $152 million, Barack.

---

Almost spot on Charlie. It was 152 billion with a b. Like your style though

****, you're right. I can't believe I used an inaccurate figure there! What am I like?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnVpGoyKfKU

"One of the great memories of all time."

What the **** is he talking about?

Laughable...Embarrassment to the Country.

Donald Trump claims to have a world-class memory, but it certainly wasn't on display during his deposition for a lawsuit over Trump University.
"I don't remember," Trump told lawyers 35 times during his December testimony, which was released on Wednesday.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin

What the **** is he talking about?

---

Ha, I'm guessing that's rhetorical, but here's the context, just in case: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/23/u...sons-name.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by New York Times

The widow of one of four soldiers killed in Niger went on television on Monday to criticize President Trump for how he spoke to her during a condolence call last week, drawing a swift denial from Mr. Trump, who breathed new life into a bitter controversy that has transformed a tragedy into a political feud.

Myeshia Johnson, whose husband, Sgt. La David T. Johnson, was killed early this month in an attack that is under investigation by the United States military, said the president had blundered through the condolence call he made to her last week, only deepening her grief because he did not seem to know her husband’s name.

---

It's comical that Trump admits in the video above that his advisors put a chart with the soldier's name on it in front of him (Trump) during the call, presumably so that the klutz couldn't forget the name - a pretty straightforward one at that - and yet that is exactly what he did. Unbelievable.

Even if he had gotten the name right, it's an embarrassing admission to say that he had a chart in front of him. Genuinely astonishing to think he is so thick that he believes that lends credibility to what he's saying, ha. He doesn't grasp that it's the sort of "behind the scenes" stuff that he's not supposed to mention as it just reveals the superficial or cosmetic nature of the call. His PR advisors must be tearing their hair out. The guy has the brain of a 12-year-old; clueless, incompetent, tactless and totally lacking in decorum.

I find it hard to believe that a grieving widow would make something like that up. Meanwhile, Trump happens to be a compulsive bull-peddler, so I know whose story I believe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dannyinvincible

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnvpgoykfku

"one of the great memories of all time."

---

jesus!

Another left winger goes down as noted scribe Mark Halperin is given the boot by NBC/MSNBC....

Justice Department finally admits IRS targeted conservatives under Obama.(Is he a banana republic dictator?) I honestly do believe he was the most corrupt president in US history. Grant really was a nice man who was betrayed by his friends. The Nixon stuff with Watergate is totally overblown. 2020 is a long time away but Trump is going to coast to reelection.

This VA Governors race is, amazingly, getting tight. Almost impossible to imagine the Dems could lose. Would be an unmitigated disaster if they ever did. Even a close win would be bad in some ways. The party really is being decimated. Yeah, they will flip NJ but big deal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

Ha, I'm guessing that's rhetorical, but here's the context, just in case: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/23/u...sons-name.html



It's comical that Trump admits in the video above that his advisors put a chart with the soldier's name on it in front of him (Trump) during the call, presumably so that the klutz couldn't forget the name - a pretty straightforward one at that - and yet that is exactly what he did. Unbelievable.

Even if he had gotten the name right, it's an embarrassing admission to say that he had a chart in front of him. Genuinely astonishing to think he is so thick that he believes that lends credibility to what he's saying, ha. He doesn't grasp that it's the sort of "behind the scenes" stuff that he's not supposed to mention as it just reveals the superficial or cosmetic nature of the call. His PR advisors must be tearing their hair out. The guy has the brain of a 12-year-old; clueless, incompetent, tactless and totally lacking in decorum.

I find it hard to believe that a grieving widow would make something like that up. Meanwhile, Trump happens to be a compulsive bull-peddler, so I know whose story I believe.

---

So you're calling Donald Trump comical and a klutz?
Can you tell me, Danny, how many other American presidents have phoned the families of slain soldiers in recent times?
Answer: Maybe one, if that.
The reason you are hearing about the chart he had in front of him is because he has had to explain himself to the American public.
And why is President Trump explaining himself for something as intimate as a call to a grieving widow?
Eh, good question. Seems sort of strange doesn't it that a president of a country would have to go on TV (or twitter) to explain himself about such a call.
Have you heard Danny, of a president or prime minister of any other country, ever having to do that before (explain himself/herself that it)? Or do you know anyone who has ever heard of it?
I know I've never heard of it in my lifetime.
So in going along with this completely and utterly fabricated story you are asking us to believe that Donald Trump took time out of his day to call a grieving widow, taking the trouble to get her husband's name and background story beforehand, and then, once she gets on the phone, he belittles and berates her (and is rude, according to the claim)? Does the word logic enter your vocabulatory at all Danny?

I keep telling you, you need to take these types of stories with less than a grain of salt, because they are false, and perpetrated by a media which has been lying to the world for a long time now.
Was it you that said the BBC is lying day and night (I'm paraphrasing). Maybe it wasn't you, I can't remember?

I will add this Danny. I was a Republican leaning person in the lead up to last year's US presidential election. Now, however, I wouldn't give the Republicans the time of day.
Why? Because they are imposters - pretending to be the alternatives to the Democrats (who have cheated the American people for decades) - when in fact they have been in bed with them all along.
I have had an epiphany Danny over the last 18 months or so - maybe you can too?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KrisLetang

Justice Department finally admits IRS targeted conservatives under Obama.(Is he a banana republic dictator?) I honestly do believe he was the most corrupt president in US history. Grant really was a nice man who was betrayed by his friends. The Nixon stuff with Watergate is totally overblown. 2020 is a long time away but Trump is going to coast to reelection.

This VA Governors race is, amazingly, getting tight. Almost impossible to imagine the Dems could lose. Would be an unmitigated disaster if they ever did. Even a close win would be bad in some ways. The party really is being decimated. Yeah, they will flip NJ but big deal.

---

Finally someone who can think clearly on this subject.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

Ha, I'm guessing that's rhetorical, but here's the context, just in case: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/23/u...sons-name.html



It's comical that Trump admits in the video above that his advisors put a chart with the soldier's name on it in front of him (Trump) during the call, presumably so that the klutz couldn't forget the name - a pretty straightforward one at that - and yet that is exactly what he did. Unbelievable.

Even if he had gotten the name right, it's an embarrassing admission to say that he had a chart in front of him. Genuinely astonishing to think he is so thick that he believes that lends credibility to what he's saying, ha. He doesn't grasp that it's the sort of "behind the scenes" stuff that he's not supposed to mention as it just reveals the superficial or cosmetic nature of the call. His PR advisors must be tearing their hair out. The guy has the brain of a 12-year-old; clueless, incompetent, tactless and totally lacking in decorum.

I find it hard to believe that a grieving widow would make something like that up. Meanwhile, Trump happens to be a compulsive bull-peddler, so I know whose story I believe.

---

And one more thing.
Not only is President Trump the best thing to happen to America in a very long time, there is a new movement starting under Steve Bannon. He has vowed to take on all those Republcan politicans who are trying to undermine him.
They are part of the swamp he keeps referring to. Bannon has vowed to 'primary' each one of those senators, congressmen, and get them voted out in 2018 by people who will uphold Trump's values and put America first.

:D!!!

This JFK thing was a big tease. I can't wait until they finally get rid of the redacted stuff so we can find out it was Joe Dimaggio.

Newsweek goes full racist. I'm outraged.
http://www.newsweek.com/why-are-all-...merican-691691

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Real ale Madrid

We're going to need to see receipts or else that is unsubstantiated!

---

Unsubstantiated? You are seriously questioning the figure? It's been out there in political discourse in America for the last two years.