Trump is "a clear and present danger"

Do you tend to overreact much? ;)
And it's nice to see the priority you give such unthinkable things...
"... we may not only see WW3 (as if this wasn't enough!) but also (shock, horror!) a suspension of the elections..." :D

Do you honestly think N.Korea will sign their own demise by ever launching nukes?
It remains to be seen just how bullish they try to be in negotiations with their new toys as some sort of leverage, but there is as yet little evidence of recklessness... otherwise the world would have surely/hopefully been stronger in their efforts to prevent them ever reaching this stage.

Interesting times for that region for sure, but let's not get ahead of ourselves! :)
If WW3 does break out prior to the election, feel free to tell me: "I told you so!" :p
With the amount of paranoia the world is suffering from, unpredictability is the greatest factor and the North Korean leadership seems to be just that... unpredictable.
South Korea knows all to well the capacity of the North and has to deal with it's own paranoia.
I do however agree with Joe, a pre-emptive strike against North Korea would have to be utterly comprehensive and decisive and it is how China reacts to such a strike that will determine whether WW3 starts or not.

But my point is really about how "responsibility" will no doubt be taken away from North Korean leadership and people will blame every one else other than the person/people provoking such a pre-emptive strike.
Is it possible that North Korea maybe planning to take advantage of USA leadership confusion during this election year?
 
Last edited:
With the amount of paranoia the world is suffering from, unpredictability is the greatest factor and the North Korean leadership seems to be just that... unpredictable.
South Korea knows all to well the capacity of the North and has to deal with it's own paranoia.
I do however agree with Joe, a pre-emptive strike against North Korea would have to be utterly comprehensive and decisive and it is how China reacts to such a strike that will determine whether WW3 starts or not.

But my point is really about how "responsibility" will no doubt be taken away from North Korean leadership and people will blame every one else other than the person/people provoking such a pre-emptive strike.
Is it possible that North Korea maybe planning to take advantage of USA leadership confusion during this election year?
I have to think China would be informed of any Western preemptive strike. China will be increasingly pressured by Western powers to bring North Korea under control. The US will increase its military presence beginning with the THAAD Missile defense systems. That's not what China wants. The pressure on China will continue to mount.

As for US election, who knows what goes through the head of a mad man? The US election is irrelevant to this issue. Obama isn't Baby Bush. Obama will not stop being Obama or stop being being POTUS until his term expires. This isn't 2000.
 
It's an interesting phenomenon among Trump supporters. He will say something like "I love war" (or something equally damaging) and they will immediately spring to his defense, saying "no, he didn't really mean what he said."
Today's apologia from Trump supporters: he really doesn't like Putin that much, no matter what he says!
==============================
Trump in hot water over Putin embrace

The nominee's overtures to the Russian leader are alarming his fellow Republicans

By Kristen East
09/09/16 09:59 AM EDT

Donald Trump’s extraordinary embrace of Russian President Vladimir Putin has put his campaign on the defensive for a second straight day, coming after the Republican nominee praised the Kremlin strongman and appeared in an interview on a TV network backed by Moscow.

Trump's warm words for Putin have raised the hackles of fellow Republicans and put his allies in the awkward position of claiming their party's standard-bearer is not really praising the Russian leader. It has particularly alarmed the GOP's hawkish national security wing, which hews almost universally to its longstanding view of Russia as an implacable foe of the United States.

Trump inflamed the situation Thursday evening by criticizing U.S. foreign policy during an interview broadcast on RT America, a television network owned by the Russian government that often toes the Kremlin's line. He even dismissed U.S. officials' concern that Russia may be seeking to disrupt the Nov. 8 election as "pretty unlikely," though he went on to say that any such interference would be "inappropriate." (Trump's campaign manager said the interview was meant as a "favor" to host Larry King, whose show is syndicated and broadcast on RT.)

. . .

But that doesn’t mean that Trump likes Putin all that much, his campaign says.

“They are not praising him,” Trump’s campaign manager Kellyanne Conway told “CBS This Morning” on Friday. “He is not praising him so much as saying that we will work with people, anybody who wants to help, help stop the advance of ISIS — [such people] will be welcome in a Trump-Pence administration to do so.”

. . .

She also dismissed Republican lawmakers’ criticism of Trump’s compliments of Putin as overblown, stating, “They’re misreading the quote then.”
====================
 
Sexy Susan Sarandon has made the long journey from supporting Bernie Sanders to Trump, mostly because she thinks HRC to be a hawk/danger who may start ww3.

If she can make that journey, so can you!

(A journey of a thousand miles begins with but a single step.)
I made the same journey.
It wasn't difficult.

Yet who is the narcissist sociopath in the room? Who is the misogynistic racist that wants to bomb terrorists families? Who wants to increase military spending to the tune of $150 billion. All those weapons just going to sit in the shed? I suppose his blatant bigotry and racism don't bother you because hey it's not me he's targeting.
 
The nominee's overtures to the Russian leader are alarming his fellow Republicans - -
- -
Trump inflamed the situation Thursday evening by criticizing U.S. foreign policy during an interview broadcast on RT America, a television network owned by the Russian government that often toes the Kremlin's line. -
Again: careful. RT America, less admirably than Al Jazeera but still with significance, has proven a welcome resource in the American newsscape.

Criticism of America's foreign policy - legitimate criticism, founded in competent analysis - on some of the programs presented by RT America, is something one should expect and welcome from a legitimate Presidential candidate. The alternative is what - interviews on Fox? The kind of cogent and hard-hitting stuff we get from Meet The Press these days? The station that carries Charlie Rose is dissing an interview with Larry King, because it's on RT America?

OK, not fair to twin Politico's crap with CBS's crap. Too much, anyway. But there is a kind of conglomerate identity here, and if Trump comes out looking like its enemy, that will get him lots of votes he might otherwise not get.

Here is RT America's cable and satellite lineup:
There's a lot to disparage there, but compared with - say - Wolf Blitzer, Joe Scarborough, Sean Hannity, there's also a lot to like. Some of those guys actually have a sense of humor. Some of them are well informed. There are even occasional flashes of both circumstances obtaining, simultaneously.

Associating criticism of Trump with the reflexive dismissal of such news and information resources by the current miserable major news media in America is not safe. Not if you want criticism of Trump to carry an aura of respectability and sound judgment, and look like something other than a hive mind defensive reflex by the folks who just expanded Joe Scarborough's offerings and canceled Larry Wilmore's show.
 
Last edited:
Trump and Clinton have different styles.
Trump shows up. Donates food, clothing, blankets, toys and school supplies to a church helping in flooding relief.
Actually, his style is to show up, claim he is going to donate to a good cause, then conveniently forget. He has promised over $8.5 million to charity over the past ten years, but few of those donations ever got made. He promised $1 million to a veteran's family organization earlier this year, then welshed on it, and only handed over the money months later after a reporter realized he had never actually donated it. He then revoked the reporter's press credentials with his campaign.

(In fact, sometimes he claims that the money is going to a charity, but actually goes to a political bribe. What a guy.)
 
Last edited:
Maybe one day they will probably work out how much the Trump campaign has cost the USA regards international trade and opportunity..
 
Sexy Susan Sarandon has made the long journey from supporting Bernie Sanders to Trump, mostly because she thinks HRC to be a hawk/danger who may start ww3.
Here's the latest from your "candidate of peace:"

“By the way, when Iran, when they circle our beautiful destroyers with their little boats, and they make gestures at our people that they shouldn’t be allowed to make, they will be shot out of the water.”

So when the Trump war starts, will you eat your words, or deny you said them?
 
I caucused for Kucinich
I caucused for Ron Paul
(both anti war)
I caucused for Sanders.

worth repeating:
"Mrs. Clinton’s track record portends a much worse future than anything Mr. Trump might catalyze as commander in chief.
I believe in a way she is more dangerous. ... apparently. … She did not learn from Iraq, and she is an interventionist, and she has done horrible things — and very callously...I don’t know what his policy is. I do know what her policies are, I do know who she is taking money from. I do know that she is not transparent"
 
If you ignore everything that both candidates say and do, that might make sense.
say?
or do?

HRC said:
"We came, we saw, he died (giggle)"

"... she is an interventionist, and she has done horrible things — and very callously. ..."

Did that cover both say and do enough for you?
 
sculptor said:
"Mrs. Clinton’s track record portends a much worse future than anything Mr. Trump might catalyze as commander in chief.
I believe in a way she is more dangerous. ... apparently. … She did not learn from Iraq, and she is an interventionist, and she has done horrible things — and very callously...I don’t know what his policy is. I do know what her policies are, I do know who she is taking money from. I do know that she is not transparent"
Your isolated evaluation of Clinton is overblown via HillaryHate agitprop, but essentially reality based. Your comparison of her with Trump is nonsensical.

The possibilities lurking in your ignorance of Trump are far worse than your casual dismissal allows, and far worse than anything in Clinton's long time and consistent track record.

1)You don't know what Trump's policy is because he doesn't have one. He's reactionary, without guiding principles. That in itself creates an increased risk of serious war - one side's failure to predict correctly an opponent's reactions to provocation has been, historically on the planet and in all the current theaters, one of the commonest factors in the starting of war.

2) Trump is far less knowledgable about weapons and military forces and the like (especially nuclear) than Clinton - or indeed many ordinary Americans. This normally (with all weapons, and all military forces) leads to overestimation of their effectiveness against enemies and underestimation of the effects of their cost and use on everybody and everything else. Trump of course may be as exceptionally humble, wise, and far-seeing as it would take for him to allow for his ignorance and its inherent bias - wanna bet?

3) Trump is a bully, all his life. The problems with bullies extend farther than the ease with which the malign can manipulate them (cough/Putin/cough), and include the fact that bullies frame all social relations as exercises in dominance and submission. That includes political ones. That can lead to disaster. We have already seen the American flag fly over Abu Ghraib, and alligators chowing on the floating bodies of the residents of New Orleans. We don't need to see anything like that on the Mexican border, right? Which brings us to

4) The Wall is either a vainglorious fantasy or a provocation more serious than any of Clinton's. Take your pick.

The standing joke in my crowd is that Trump will in fact get the Mexicans to build his wall for him - by getting elected. Expand that around the planet, and the threat of violence posed by Trump becomes more clear. Right?

sculptor said:
HRC said:
"We came, we saw, he died (giggle)"
There was no giggle. There was an explanatory and exonerating context in the interview, which your sources have carefully suckered you into replacing with bizarre and incoherent and lurid delusions of mania.

When are you going to quit taking hits off those crackpipe sources? Where's bottom in the wingnut fumarole?
 
Last edited:
Some questions for sculptor :

When Trump states something like this:
“By the way, when Iran, when they circle our beautiful destroyers with their little boats, and they make gestures at our people that they shouldn’t be allowed to make, they will be shot out of the water.”
Can you fathom at the hypocrisy and arrogance which says that being non-politically correct is not available to anyone else but Trump?
That he doesn't believe that Iran has just as much right to honest expression as he does?

As we approach the anniversary of the attacks of 9/11 can you see how Trump exemplifies all the reasons why those terrorists may have decided to launch their attacks on the USA?
Do you see how a Trump administration would undoubtedly inspire further attacks on the "false pride" that Trump would generate.

"Hold a gun at someones head and you create a terrorist" ~anon

If you can't then everything you have complained about USA foreign policy over the years here at sciforums is pure BS! IMO.

I ask myself:

Is Trump just a mere vehicle for exposing to the world including the USA, the very reasons why the USA has to spend so much on defending it's "illusion" of freedom?

Opinion:
Perhaps if the USA can take advantage of the Trump demonstration "of all things that are wrong" in the USA, he may turn out to be a rather educational blessing.
 
Last edited:
say? or do?
Say AND do.
HRC said: "We came, we saw, he died (giggle)"
Trump:
"I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters."
"And, by the way, with Iran, when they circle our beautiful destroyers with their little boats, and they make gestures at our people, that they shouldn't be allowed to make, they will be shot out of the water."
"I'd like to punch him in the face" - about a protester
"I'll beat the crap out of you" - to a protester
"I’m good at war. I’ve had a lot of wars of my own. I’m really good at war. I love war, in a certain way, but only when we win." - speaking about the Iraq war
"So if you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of 'em, would you? Seriously. Okay? Just knock the hell — I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees. I promise. I promise."

Trump stands accused of rape, and is going to trial for fraud. He has declared bankruptcy four times, and has lied to the IRS to cover up an illegal bribe to the AG of Florida.

Did that cover both say and do enough for you? Or would you like some more?
 
What about Trump's plans to "take the oil"? He doesn't appear to have thought about it very much (probably because he doesn't think about anything very much).
When an interviewer tried to point out the flaws in this idea, he was ignored. One really big flaw (actually, yuge!) is the cost of "taking" the oil because you can't dig up an oilfield and carry it away, nope, you have to have boots on the ground for a long time, including enough boots to defend the oil workers who are taking said oil.

So we have another example of a Trump foreign policy which isn't just a breach of international law, it's unworkable and so costly it would help bankrupt the US! What a guy huh? What an idiot.

How can anyone support this cretin? What kind of idiot do you need to be to believe the man has any plans about anything, except making himself richer?
 
Last edited:
What about Trump's plans to "take the oil"? He doesn't appear to have thought about it very much (probably because he doesn't think about anything very much).
When an interviewer tried to point out the flaws in this idea, he was ignored. One really big flaw (actually, yuge!) is the cost of "taking" the oil because you can't dig up an oilfield and carry it away, nope, you have to have boots on the ground for a long time, including enough boots to defend the oil workers who are taking said oil.

So we have another example of a Trump foreign policy which isn't just a breach of international law, it's unworkable and so costly it would help bankrupt the US! What a guy huh? What an idiot.

How can anyone support this cretin? What kind of idiot do you need to be to believe the man has any plans about anything, except making himself richer?
When you listen to the guy, he sounds more like Putin than an American POTUS.
 
Just a curiousity.
Does anyone in here know:
Where, exactly, latitude and longitude, were our destroyers(shore patrol boats) (Nitze, et.al.)
when confronted by the Iranians?
I find it somewhat spurious to claim that they were "in international waters" without specifying exactly where they were.

Just a curiousity.
 
Last edited:
Just a curiousity.
Does anyone in here know:
Where, exactly, latitude and longitude, were our destroyers(shore patrol boats) (Nitze, et.al.)
when confronted by the Iranians?
I find it somewhat spurious to claim that they were "in international waters" without specifying exactly where they were.

Just a curiousity.
Well for starters, the US Navy doesn't operate shore patrol boats. I assume you are referring to fast attack boats, and there is a world of difference between a fast attack boat and a destroyer. Below is a link to an article explaining the event.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_U.S.–Iran_naval_incident
 
Yeh-not "shore patrol boats"------oops----make that----"coastal patrol boats"

Meanwhile, I'd like details on more recent encounters:
eg:
the uss Nitze(guided missile destroyer),
the uss Firebolt (Cyclone-class coastal patrol boat.),
the uss Tempest(Cyclone-class coastal patrol boat)
the uss Squall(Cyclone-class coastal patrol boat)
and the uss Stout (Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyer.)

I could not find longitude and latitude for any of these encounters.
......................
curious that
My son's car has a device that will give the coordinates with the push of a button.
I would assume even better systems on our ships and boats.
...........................
Within the past few years, we have had chinese boats and planes buzz our craft, russian planes buzz our craft, etc....
From personal experience, I know of several incidents when our pilots have pulled similar stunts(just for fun)
So, one rule in the military CYA(cover your ass) means fudge the details in your favor. "operating in international waters" lacks detail, and smacks of fudging.
So,(objectively) I wonder who challenged whom and how and where did the encounters take place?
 
How can anyone support this cretin? What kind of idiot do you need to be to believe the man has any plans about anything, except making himself richer?

A point I've been dwelling on as Hillary Clinton insults Trump supporters, partially walks it back, halfway stands her line, and columnists argue over ... well, that's the thing, I even encountered one critic applauding her backbone for not walking all the way back. Perhaps it sounds kind of silly, but once upon a time that sort of tactical consideration could make or break careers.

I actually think she should have stood absolutely firm with no walking back of proportions; I think she should have attacked while everyone was still reeling. I think she should have said:

Okay, look, you want to talk about this? Then let's talk about this. Half? Sure, why not? No, seriously, give me a reason why not, because there's more than one thing going on here. To the one, we have a thoroughly repugnant valence of support for Donald Trump. We've talked about the alt-right, and it's time to let you in on the next part: There's nothing "alt" about it; this is the right wing, and they pretend it's "alt" in order that the young'n's can feel hip. And we've seen a tremendous outpouring of hatred from people of all ages. What are we supposed to do about voter dissatisfaction stemming from black people or women having too many rights? What are we supposed to do about voter dissatisfaction that we're not sending our kids out to war for every last little thing around the world? I'm sorry, but if you're disappointed that we're only at war where we're at war, thinking we need to be doing this more, there's nothing I can do to help you.

So, I know, I know, let's pretend this is only a quarter of his support.

Okay, okay, how about an eighth?

Five percent?

Just a few bad seeds?

Yeah, whatever. Try to reconcile that with the noise.

But then I want you to turn around and look at the rest of Donald Trump's support. Because, you know, sure, they're not hatemongers or warmongers or whatever; they're just selfish and want something in particular and everything else that goes wrong? Badges for religious people? Racism? Religious supremacism? My God, after the Cold War and everything else, it's the Republicans who are ready to sell out to the Russians?

No, seriously, that last―wasn't that supposed to be us? Commie this, commie that, liberal, liberal, God save us, liberal? You know it was also supposed to be us arresting people for their clothes, by the way, not George W. Bush's people. Shall we pretend we don't remember this history?

But here's the thing: Make any bad seeds argument you want about Donald Trump's support, and the fact remains that he proposes evil. And tell us it's only a few if you want, but it's driving the campaign, and it turns out the good people who would never have anything to do with any of that are, well, just fine with supporting it.

So, you know, tell me that's not you. Tell me you don't actually support putting badges on people according to their religion. And then explain to me again why you're willing to vote for it, and why you would be willing to tolerate it should Mr. Trump win the presidency and try to bring that policy to bear.

Besides, when push comes to shove? Watch Republicans right now. Watch them scramble to find ethically less-discomfiting ways to express their support. They so badly want to be team players. Sure, that's not them; they don't hate like that. But they're just fine with empowering it. This is what we call a distinction without a difference. Their "not me" rhetoric is a vapid, pathetic excuse. Either you're okay with this, or you're not, and if you're willing to put Donald Trump in the White House, we have our answer.

Donald Trump's supporters have no excuse.
 
Back
Top