Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
cobran20

How long will Trump last?

42 posts in this topic

This could be interesting!

Mike Flynn Offers to Testify in Exchange for Immunity

Quote

WASHINGTON—Mike Flynn, President Donald Trump’s former national security adviser, has told the Federal Bureau of Investigation and congressional officials investigating the Trump campaign’s potential ties to Russia that he is willing to be interviewed in exchange for a grant of immunity from prosecution, according to officials with knowledge of the matter....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't it hilarious. I guess the only question is "if he actually has anything fun to say how far does it go". Seems unlikely he'd want immunity if he is the only guy involved. (and I can't wait to see Armstrong's reaction if there is something to it all).

“When you are given immunity, that means you have probably committed a crime.”

— Former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, in an interview with NBC News on September 25, 2016.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/09/25/gen_flynn_hillary_clinton_shouldnt_be_too_big_to_jail.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Mr Medved said:

You got the title wrong. It should be "remain". Lift your game cobran! :)

I fully acknowledge that I dropped the ball on that one! :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quote

 

Los Angeles: The diversion of an armada of American warships from port visits in Australia to the waters off North Korea is designed to give US President Donald Trump a "full range of options" against dictator Kim Jong-un's regime.

Mr Trump's national security adviser, General H.R. McMaster, and US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, signalled on Sunday that the US was preparing to respond to North Korea's aggressive ramp up of its nuclear and ballistic missile programs.

 http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/world/donald-trump-considering-full-range-of-options-to-remove-north-korean-threat-20170409-gvhdi4.html

 

 

Is Trump just chest beating or is he considering another Korean war? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/04/2017 at 9:53 AM, zaph said:

 

Is Trump just chest beating or is he considering another Korean war? 

I think it depends which show he's most recently watched on Fox

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, staringclown said:

I think it depends which show he's most recently watched on Fox

4077th?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Comey testimony will be a dud. There is nothing which can't be dismissed as being "taken out of context" in a court. 

I'm starting to get annoyed by a media which is constantly allowing trump to set the days agenda to whatever he wants it to be through twitter. FFS the word covfefe or whatever is endlessly analysed and commented on in social media. Who gives a sh*t? It takes his actual decisions off the front page. He must be giggling away in the white house. 

The whole deal is good for selling papers so the media love it and will keep reporting/analysing this sh*te forever. And falling into his trap. Willingly. The line between entertainment and news is irrevocably blurred. In the mean time the prick getting away with murder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Starting to get interesting now...:o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that

  • Trump Jr & Kushner are so used to being rich and getting away with anything in america that they didn't even consider it was really retardedly illegal not to make at least an attempt to make it look legit.
  • Manafort is so used to working eastern politics he got caught up in what the children of the boss were saying
  • Veselnitskaya was so used to working with phrasing covering the real topic for arguable deniability

that what happened was:

  • -go between- "hey come and see this sh*t that the russians who love your dad found (I am dumb or covering my arse for later)
  • Trump "wheeeeee excellent"
  • Kushner "wheeeeeee excellent"
  • Manafort "another day another dollar"
  • Veselnitskaya "So there is info you can kill clinton with but we need to sort out the adoption thing" (meaning the rich russian embargo thing) "where's my quid pro quo"
  • Kushner "f*cking children? I'm out, qatar won't f*ck itself up"
  • Trump "I made the meeting if we all bail I look like a tool in these two guys eyes but f*cking children?"
  • Manafort "another day another dollar"
  • Veselnitskaya "ohhhhh okay I have no idea how to make this report"

and I don't think Trump (either one) has figured out yet what the implications are. Kushner at least refiled papers a few days back but, given he still has clearances it wasn't to keep them (I'd have lost all mine for a few of things he has pulled off now and I am no one), it was to have a decent media "He already declared that".

Having worked at companies that have had levels of different skill sets all thinking they can work independently (I worked for Telecom NZ when the CEO jumped up and said "we deliberately make pricing hard to compare") I might be biased but it seems like a fairly normal f*ck up. Just slightly higher liability for the f*ck up, can't go bankrupt or get fired for being a sh*t president after all.

Still his support in his base isn't dropping so I want him to stay. As Armstrong says only when everyone gives up does the change come. If we want the racists, bigots, misogynists and all the other f*cking small minded tools to be ignored when they are training the next generation we need Trump to become as big a laughing stock as crack became.

My father only became "not anti lesbian" when one of his drinking buddies offered to f*ck his lesbian daughter to fix her. A truly spectacular flame out will mean the republicans do more for the world than the democrats have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Running the Whitehouse like a family business. You could cut the sense of entitlement with a knife.

There was a classic but of logic in an interview last week. If Putin had hacked you, he's so good that you wouldn't know you'd been hacked. Therefore the fact that we know we were hacked probably means it wasn't Putin... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quote

 

Washington: President Trump has decided to remove Anthony Scaramucci from his position as communications director, three people close to the decision said Monday, relieving him just days after Scaramucci unloaded a crude verbal tirade against other senior members of the president's senior staff.

Scaramucci's abrupt removal came just 10 days after the wealthy New York financier was brought on to the West Wing staff, a move that convulsed an already chaotic White House and led to the departures of Sean Spicer, the former press secretary, and Reince Priebus, the president's first chief of staff.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/world/trump-removes-anthony-scaramucci-as-communications-director-just-days-after-hiring-him-20170731-gxmnb0.html

 

Long service leave at 3 months service?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/04/2017 at 9:53 AM, zaph said:

 

Is Trump just chest beating or is he considering another Korean war? 

I'm not sure whether Trump is using his rhetoric to try and convince Kim Jong Un that he is the crazier of the two of them or Trump is just plain crazy. Either way, relying on sanity to prevail on the NK side is high stakes.

At some point if Trump is bluffing to get China to act or NK to back down and negotiate and the bluff is called it's going to be humiliating for him. He doesn't take humiliation well. Obama humiliated him publicly at a dinner over his birther claims and he hasn't been able to let it go since. 

He hasn't, and possibly won't ever draw the line that will need be crossed by NK to take action. If he ever does set a hard line and crab walks back from it and someone laughs at him I doubt he'll worry about the consequences to others compared to the dent to his ego.

If he is indeed mad he might launch a preemptive attack if the hard line is crossed. This would bring China into direct conflict with the US. Utter disaster would follow. 

Equally mad would be if he was hoping to provoke NK into attacking first. China might stay out of direct conflict but will tool up NK.

If he doesn't set a line and just amps up the threats NK and China will see that his words are hollow. Still a humiliating situation for him but given his ability to claim success from failure possibly a slightly less dangerous one. At this point I see this as the more likely scenario. I could be wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, staringclown said:

I'm not sure whether Trump is using his rhetoric to try and convince Kim Jong Un that he is the crazier of the two of them or Trump is just plain crazy. Either way, relying on sanity to prevail on the NK side is high stakes.

At some point if Trump is bluffing to get China to act or NK to back down and negotiate and the bluff is called it's going to be humiliating for him. He doesn't take humiliation well. Obama humiliated him publicly at a dinner over his birther claims and he hasn't been able to let it go since. 

He hasn't, and possibly won't ever draw the line that will need be crossed by NK to take action. If he ever does set a hard line and crab walks back from it and someone laughs at him I doubt he'll worry about the consequences to others compared to the dent to his ego.

If he is indeed mad he might launch a preemptive attack if the hard line is crossed. This would bring China into direct conflict with the US. Utter disaster would follow. 

Equally mad would be if he was hoping to provoke NK into attacking first. China might stay out of direct conflict but will tool up NK.

If he doesn't set a line and just amps up the threats NK and China will see that his words are hollow. Still a humiliating situation for him but given his ability to claim success from failure possibly a slightly less dangerous one. At this point I see this as the more likely scenario. I could be wrong.

They should have attacked & removed the Kim dynasty before they developed nuclear warheads. No previous US president did much. It may well end up having to be Trump who has to do the dirty work, under much worse circumstances. The longer that dynasty is allowed to fester. the worse it will be as their nuclear missile technology can only improve, and that means even Australia could be a target.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not sure you understand the concept of artillery. I know it isn't as sexy as ICBM's (which are functionally too expensive to be useful for such a state) but you might want to take your belief system through the artillery capability and see if it changes.

Australia is not a N Korean target and won't be in any foreseeable future in my opinion, no need to worry or vote against gay marriage on that score.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As Tor points out, the likelihood of mass deaths has stayed the hand of previous administrations. There are no good options. China is happy with the buffer that NK provides. A preemptive strike by th US could see direct conflict.

Even with nukes, NK couldn't defeat the US. If they ever used them they'd end up a crater. The world has been living with detente for decades. It is worsened when another country joins the club for sure but is it so bad that potentially millions should die to prevent it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, staringclown said:

As Tor points out, the likelihood of mass deaths has stayed the hand of previous administrations. There are no good options. China is happy with the buffer that NK provides. A preemptive strike by th US could see direct conflict.

Even with nukes, NK couldn't defeat the US. If they ever used them they'd end up a crater. The world has been living with detente for decades. It is worsened when another country joins the club for sure but is it so bad that potentially millions should die to prevent it?

Detente only works with rational leadership. Kim has everything to lose and does not particularly care who gets killed, including his own people. Seoul will get hit with Kim's massive artillery, but that always was the case. Now they have a nuclear device to deal with as well from Kim when he is backed against a wall.

Australia is not a target yet due to NK's technology not advanced far enough. But it would be if the missile range was there. As an ally of the US, we would be a target.

I think many here need to re-learn their history of what happens when you negotiate with a despot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rationality is a subjective term. The main aim of the regime is to keep themselves in power. They see the US as a threat to this aim. Obviously it's not a good thing but from their point of view the development of nukes is rational. It's the same reason that the USSR developed their nukes. 

Australia is a target now if China or Russia go up against the US.

Pakistan has nukes and a military intelligence organisation (ISI) that supports Al-qaeda. This is not rational from our point of view either. But no one is threatening war with Pakistan.

If we're judging rationality based upon language then the two camps aren't that dissimilar.

Trump vs Kim Jong-un: who said what?

The Germans had a much greater military capability than NK. I don't think the situations are the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, staringclown said:

Rationality is a subjective term. The main aim of the regime is to keep themselves in power. They see the US as a threat to this aim. Obviously it's not a good thing but from their point of view the development of nukes is rational. It's the same reason that the USSR developed their nukes. 

Australia is a target now if China or Russia go up against the US.

Pakistan has nukes and a military intelligence organisation (ISI) that supports Al-qaeda. This is not rational from our point of view either. But no one is threatening war with Pakistan.

If we're judging rationality based upon language then the two camps aren't that dissimilar.

Trump vs Kim Jong-un: who said what?

The Germans had a much greater military capability than NK. I don't think the situations are the same.

So you're going to keep waiting until NK has a nuclear power on par with China and Russia? Absolutely 'brilliant' approach! :wacko:

China would not go to war with the US over the NK. They have too much to lose financially.

Probably the same with Russia, though the stupid US Congress is trying their hardest to provoke one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, cobran20 said:

So you're going to keep waiting until NK has a nuclear power on par with China and Russia? Absolutely 'brilliant' approach! :wacko:

China would not go to war with the US over the NK. They have too much to lose financially.

Probably the same with Russia, though the stupid US Congress is trying their hardest to provoke one.

No. At no point did I suggest that we throw up our hands and let NK develop a massive arsenal of nukes. 

Given that NK have 4 they are going to need to spend a lot of cash to equal China (270) let alone Russia (7000). This will be particularly difficult if they continue and more sanctions are applied. China has agreed to denuclearising the peninsula. They supported the recent UN sanctions. More may be needed. 

Where is the money coming from for NK to rival China or Russia?

How can you be so sure that China wouldn't intervene if the US launch a preemptive strike? They don't want a US ally abutting their border. They also don't want millions of NK refugees flooding into China. 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nukes are expensive. 10 or 20 gives you negotiating power. More than a few hundred will bankrupt the country through upkeep and sanctions (China and Russia don't like the idea of an armed to the teeth N Korea either).

I guess on the bright side if we do have armegeddon I might get to try out all the bayonet training I have been doing the past couple of years :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, staringclown said:

No. At no point did I suggest that we throw up our hands and let NK develop a massive arsenal of nukes. 

Given that NK have 4 they are going to need to spend a lot of cash to equal China (270) let alone Russia (7000). This will be particularly difficult if they continue and more sanctions are applied. China has agreed to denuclearising the peninsula. They supported the recent UN sanctions. More may be needed. 

Where is the money coming from for NK to rival China or Russia?

How can you be so sure that China wouldn't intervene if the US launch a preemptive strike? They don't want a US ally abutting their border. They also don't want millions of NK refugees flooding into China. 

 

 

 

 

China has already stated that they will take a neutral stand if there is was. Both Russia and China approved the latest UN sanctions, meaning they're cutting lose their unruly child.

Kim cannot lose or be seen as weak as otherwise he is likely to be deposed. He does not care about his people. So he would have no problem starting a nuclear war if it means saving his neck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0