1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Dangers of a Trump Presidency--Part 7

Discussion in 'Politically Incorrect' started by Prancer, Jul 28, 2017.

  1. ballettmaus

    ballettmaus Well-Known Member

    7,483
    9,350
    Well... ;)
     
    snoopy likes this.
  2. Prancer

    Prancer Strong and stable Staff Member

    45,663
    22,693
    When did Iran make that threat? I had never heard that, and Google isn't being helpful.
     
  3. rfisher

    rfisher Will you rise like a phoenix or be a burnt chicken

    51,159
    34,087
    There's also the fact it becomes harder to keep track of nuclear materials. A greater danger comes from small localized bombs. Russia alone has quite of lot of radioactive materials that weren't accounted for at the collapse of the USSR. The greater the proliferation of nuclear materials, the greater the likelihood that militias, arms dealers etc., will acquire them. And, they don't need a long distance delivery system. And it's weapon grade radioactive materials that's the issue, albeit allowing nuclear power reactors opens the door for unauthorized use of the materials. While denying smaller countries the use of weapon grade materials, we also deny them nuclear powered electric power. The former is considered more important than the later.
     
    falling_dance and BlueRidge like this.
  4. snoopy

    snoopy Team St. Petersburg

    10,126
    7,223
    skatesindreams likes this.
  5. Prancer

    Prancer Strong and stable Staff Member

    45,663
    22,693
    "Iran will "raze" Israeli cities to the ground if the Jewish state launches an attack against it,"

    Um, yes, I would say there is a bit of a difference there.
     
  6. ballettmaus

    ballettmaus Well-Known Member

    7,483
    9,350
    What I find interesting is that when Iran makes the threat to "raze" Israel then some like to assume they mean "nuke" because Iran = bad. But when Trump, who has asked why we can't use nuclear weapons if we have them, threatens to completely destroy North Korea, which nuclear weapons would accomplish rather easily, then there seems to be a different conclusion of what he means. I, at least, have not seen the same associations made.
     
  7. snoopy

    snoopy Team St. Petersburg

    10,126
    7,223
    The right assumes the worst from Iran and the left assumes the worst from Trump. There was quite a bit of freaking when Trump said he was going to destroy NK.
     
    DORISPULASKI likes this.
  8. BlueRidge

    BlueRidge AYS's snark-sponge

    50,456
    21,645
    yes an email I got from a leftwing group was titled Trump threatens genocide against North Korea.

    I suppose technically that is the meaning of "totally destroy"? But in any case, they left out a bit of the context...
     
    NeilJLeonard likes this.
  9. Vash01

    Vash01 Fan of Yuzuru, Medvedeva, T&M, Shibs, P&C

    41,088
    25,376
    Trump's approval rating has reached 40 percent, thanks to the natural disasters. It's not like he did something extraordinary there, but the systems that were already in place worked.
     
  10. caseyedwards

    caseyedwards Well-Known Member

    9,586
    1,727
    I think it also reflects something from the campaign that when he wasn't really the story his approval went up. A whole week Hurricanes were the only story.
     
  11. Lorac

    Lorac Well-Known Member

    3,845
    1,677
    The war of words between Trump and Kim continues unabated as Kim declares in a TV statement that 'deranged Trump shows need for nuclear program':

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-41356836

    The statement was in English - and I gotta admit his speech writers have a better understanding of the English language than Trump's as 'mentally deranged [US] dotard' totally describes Trump in a nutshell:

    Regardless this is getting more scary by the day!!
     
  12. Louis

    Louis Well-Known Member

    12,686
    7,461
    Trump has accomplished a whole lot of nothing and has done damage to relatively few people. Even most of the hateful executive orders haven't really impacted many people yet; some never will. As someone who fears the extreme religious right, I'm glad we have Trump v. a far-right politician who knows how to get things done. Sure, I'd have rather had Clinton. But if we're left with a Republican, I'm still glad it's Trump and not Cruz or Rubio or Pence.

    It seems to me that Trump is a figurehead, and now we have the generals running the show in the background. That's A-OK with me. They'll keep the country stable and operational. Trump can continue to run his mouth. Things will change very little, and will certainly change less than with a skilled Republican president in control of the three branches of government.

    So, in that sense, I don't disapprove of Trump, even if I don't approve of him either.
     
  13. Vash01

    Vash01 Fan of Yuzuru, Medvedeva, T&M, Shibs, P&C

    41,088
    25,376
    The only problem with your argument is that none of the other three you mentioned would have escalated the word war with N. Korea, and the POTUS has access to the nuclear code. While the other three are vile, they are not insane. I still consider Trump a bigger threat to the existence of the world than the alternatives. I don't believe the generals are running the show. Trump can fire them any time he feels they have more power than him, and his fascination for Putin is still a big problem.
     
  14. Fiero425

    Fiero425 Well-Known Member

    1,142
    922
    Louis said:
    Trump has accomplished a whole lot of nothing and has done damage to relatively few people. Even most of the hateful executive orders haven't really impacted many people yet; some never will. As someone who fears the extreme religious right, I'm glad we have Trump v. a far-right politician who knows how to get things done. Sure, I'd have rather had Clinton. But if we're left with a Republican, I'm still glad it's Trump and not Cruz or Rubio or Pence.

    It seems to me that Trump is a figurehead, and now we have the generals running the show in the background. That's A-OK with me. They'll keep the country stable and operational. Trump can continue to run his mouth. Things will change very little, and will certainly change less than with a skilled Republican president in control of the three branches of government.

    Both make good arguments and I have to agree with your hypothesis; Trump less dangerous in some ways because he truly hasn't changed anything, while Pence. Cruz, or Rubio could have turned the country upside down with their overzealous conservatism! :rolleyes: :40beers: :lynch: :mitchell:
     
  15. skatesindreams

    skatesindreams Well-Known Member

    25,710
    20,007
    Is a "quasi-military"/shadow, executive branch; a desirable "precedent" for our country?
    If it has been done once, due to Trump; it can be "arranged" again.

    In the name of "protecting" the country from such a "leader"; the long-term consequences may not be what we wish.
     
    Last edited: Sep 22, 2017
    ballettmaus and Vash01 like this.
  16. skatesindreams

    skatesindreams Well-Known Member

    25,710
    20,007
    Last edited: Sep 22, 2017
    Buzz likes this.
  17. BittyBug

    BittyBug And the band played on

    19,222
    12,909
    I agree with your overall assessment that we are fortunate that Trump has not been more effective, but I dispute your assertion that he has not done any damage. The country's withdrawal from the Paris climate accord, rollback of environmental regulations, placement of chemical lobbyists in EPA positions and move to allow expanded commercial use of public lands are all damaging to our environment. And Trump's budget cuts to the EPA will reduce enforcement of those regulations that remain. That affects all of us, and not only U.S. citizens but the world at large.

    Domestically, the appointment of highly conservative judges will inevitably diminish rights for people against corporations and minorities against everyone else and thanks to lifetime appointments, this will be the gift that keeps on giving.

    So no, I don't agree that Trump has done damage to relatively few people. He has been a catastrophic president thus far, and we're only 9 months in.
     
  18. skatesindreams

    skatesindreams Well-Known Member

    25,710
    20,007
    I believe that the damage which he has already done to the reputation and standing of the US, will take many years to repair.
     
  19. ballettmaus

    ballettmaus Well-Known Member

    7,483
    9,350
    Have you read North Korea's response to Trump's latest remarks? I don't even want to think about the damage that testing a nuclear bomb would do to the Pacific Ocean, nor do I want to think about what it means if someone like Kim feels insulted. :yikes:
    Cruz, Rubio or Pence would not be pleasant (Pence is plenty dangerous in his own right) but I don't think I'd be thinking that we might not even need to worry about health care because we all might end up in WW III some time soon if either of them were President.

    That aside, Trump has done a whole lot of damage. Just ask Heather Heyer mother!
     
    Last edited: Sep 23, 2017
    NeilJLeonard, DORISPULASKI and Vash01 like this.
  20. MacMadame

    MacMadame Cat Lady-in-Training

    25,295
    15,325
    I am completely not okay with this. The last thing we need is a military junta who is really running things behind the scenes. Trump's UN speech was not him mouthing off with off-the-cuff remarks. It was prepared for him and shows how those military people are thinking. Very scary.
     
  21. MacMadame

    MacMadame Cat Lady-in-Training

    25,295
    15,325
    Heather Heyer?
     
  22. BlueRidge

    BlueRidge AYS's snark-sponge

    50,456
    21,645
    His speech was written by Stephen Miller. I don't think it was dictated by the generals.
     
    once_upon likes this.
  23. skatesindreams

    skatesindreams Well-Known Member

    25,710
    20,007
    Whoever is responsible, neither the speech; or its' delivery, impressed, IMO.
     
  24. Susan1

    Susan1 Well-Known Member

    3,796
    3,083
    O.k. - I can't find where the explanation of "dotard" was, but I was thinking it was some kind of combination of doddering and "retard"? On That 70's Show, they called people botards. I don't know what the "bo" part stood for. Nobody I knew back then used that expression. And we also didn't say "burn!" so maybe they were Wisconsin things. :)
     
  25. skatingguy

    skatingguy Well-Known Member

    2,178
    2,411
    do·tard
    ˈdōdərd/
    noun
    1. an old person, especially one who has become weak or senile.
    Though I've heard a couple native Korean speakers on television today say that the real translation is old lunatic or old fool, or something to that effect.
     
  26. BittyBug

    BittyBug And the band played on

    19,222
    12,909
    LA Times reports that Trump was advised by McMaster and Kelly not to personally attack Kim and that the derisive comments Trump made at the U.N. were not in the draft speech they reviewed.

    http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-fg-trump-northkorea-20170922-story.html
     
  27. skatingguy

    skatingguy Well-Known Member

    2,178
    2,411
    NeilJLeonard and BittyBug like this.
  28. skatingguy

    skatingguy Well-Known Member

    2,178
    2,411
    Wrong thread.
     
  29. ballettmaus

    ballettmaus Well-Known Member

    7,483
    9,350
    Yes. Thanks. I googled it but, apparently, Google gave me the wrong name.
     
  30. caseyedwards

    caseyedwards Well-Known Member

    9,586
    1,727
    So why don't they both resign and lobby congress for impeachment or lobby internally for use of 25th amendment to remove trump?
     
    Susan1 likes this.