President Trump & the USA

[Sharpe's Fox]

1 minute ago, Phube said:

 

Eh? What did he mean? He never indiscriminately used chemical weapons? Therefore Hitler was better because he discriminated? 

Are you dense? He obviously meant he never dropped them in a bomb or shell like in the First World War. I think you're clever enough to realise that. You're like the warden from Shawshank you're being so obtuse.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

35 minutes ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

Everyone knew what the bloke meant but obviously were going to make something out of it. I'm no fan of "Spicey" but what's the point in jumping down people's throat for no reason?

 

Well it's clear he's never heard of Ken Livingstone.

 

 

[Nick]

9 hours ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

Are you dense? He obviously meant he never dropped them in a bomb or shell like in the First World War. I think you're clever enough to realise that. You're like the warden from Shawshank you're being so obtuse.

Nah, I think he said it - forgot about Jews and gas then backtracked and looked stupid throughout. If you were gonna say that even Hitler didn't do this when actually he obviously did then why say that in the first place? What you'd actually say is we haven't seen evil like this since Hitler.... Still I'm sure it'll 'Passover' soon .... see what I did there? ?

[Facecloth]

28 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said:

Nah, I think he said it - forgot about Jews and gas then backtracked and looked stupid throughout. If you were gonna say that even Hitler didn't do this when actually he obviously did then why say that in the first place? What you'd actually say is we haven't seen evil like this since Hitler.... Still I'm sure it'll 'Passover' soon .... see what I did there? ?

It's almost irrelevant why he said it. Whether it was mistake, whether he actually thinks that it's true, it doesn't matter. The fact is he said it, and he meant to be the one that gives clear, concise information to the press, mop up any misunderstandings etc. In a way Trump can make mistakes, this guy is the one who's supposed to smooth it over, not make it worse or create news stories because of his own cock ups. I mean we're barely three months in and this guy is already famous for being shite at his job and is the butt of many jokes. He should be going in front of the press prepared to the smallest detail, I mean that's his one job. You'd think his position would be untenable but he'll probably stay.

[Nick]

6 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

It's almost irrelevant why he said it. Whether it was mistake, whether he actually thinks that it's true, it doesn't matter. The fact is he said it, and he meant to be the one that gives clear, concise information to the press, mop up any misunderstandings etc. In a way Trump can make mistakes, this guy is the one who's supposed to smooth it over, not make it worse or create news stories because of his own cock ups. I mean we're barely three months in and this guy is already famous for being shite at his job and is the butt of many jokes. He should be going in front of the press prepared to the smallest detail, I mean that's his one job. You'd think his position would be untenable but he'll probably stay.

His positions been untenable since 3 days in - mind you, so's Trump's but there seems that there's nothing one can't ride out anymore in American politics!

[leicsmac]

So one of the latest criticisms is that conservatives are 'no longer welcome in academia' and a serious amount of university professors are in fact Red boogeymen looking to brainwash students into left-wing cause.

 

My question in light of this development is this: why would the professors involved in this conspiracy go to the trouble of studying and working for near-on a decade to get tenure in order to do this when they could spend much less time and effort establishing a TV and radio network and reach much more people with the same message?

[DJ Barry Hammond]

 

Making further headlines today through a further bombastic show of milatary strength I see. 

 

Must admit, the larger potential scenario of all this is scaring me a little.

[Foxxed]

The US Syrian bombing is damn interesting: it seems to mark a change in US policy direction.

 

I read some theories that this was a smoke screen to distract people from the Russian collusion story and firm up support for Trump.

 

They said that because the US apparently warned Assad and Putin before the bombing and it wasn't thorough enough.

 

It's true that this does make Trump look better: he's punishing a supposed dodgy ally, reacting to chemical warfare against civilians and bombing military facilities.

 

But it seems like those who criticise Trump are so frantic about the fallout of the story - the fading away of the Russian collusion story - that they will willingly ignore anything positive.

 

I think this because of something odd that happened about four days before the bombing: the removal of Steve Bannon from the US Security council.

 

Bannon is a man who's called Trump 'a blunt instrument', worries Trump 'doesn't get it', believes in a war of the civilisations and religions, supports the French fascists and has become successful through a media outlet run on lies that appeal to and promote fears.

 

The fact he's been removed from the security council makes me wonder if others in the white house are trying to jam a wedge between Trump and Bannon and Trump and Russia.

 

It could all be a smokescreen, and it definitely has given Trump more positive press, but I can't say that bombing an airbase to punish Assad and Putin for using chemical weapons is in any way a bad thing.

Edited 13 April 2017 by Foxxed

[Parafox]

7 minutes ago, Foxxed said:

The US Syrian bombing is damn interesting: it seems to mark a change in US policy direction.

 

I read some theories that this was a smoke screen to distract people from the Russian collusion story and firm up support for Trump.

 

They said that because the US apparently warned Assad and Putin before the bombing and it wasn't thorough enough.

 

It's true that this does make Trump look better: he's punishing a supposed dodgy ally, reacting to chemical warfare against civilians and bombing military facilities.

 

But it seems like those who criticise Trump are so frantic about the fallout of the story - the fading away of the Russian collusion story - that they will willingly ignore anything positive.

 

I think this because of something odd that happened about four days before the bombing: the removal of Steve Bannon from the US Security council.

 

Bannon is a man who's called Trump 'a blunt instrument', worries Trump 'doesn't get it', believes in a war of the civilisations and religions, supports the French fascists and has become successful through a media outlet run on lies that appeal to and promote fears.

 

The fact he's been removed from the security council makes me wonder if others in the white house are trying to jam a wedge between Trump and Bannon and Trump and Russia.

 

It could all be a smokescreen, and it definitely has given Trump more positive press, but I can't say that bombing an airbase in to punish Assad and Putin for using chemical weapons is in any way a bad thing.

This all depends on the reaction from Putin. He's already said he would react "appropriately and with force" if any further strikes were made against Syria.

[Foxxed]

Just now, Parafox said:

This all depends on the reaction from Putin. He's already said he would react "appropriately and with force" if any further strikes were made against Syria.

Even with no reaction, it shows Putin and Assad that Trump will punish them if they use chemical weapons - that seems a positive thing.

 

The conspiracy could be that they have no intention to anyway. And this gives Trump some free publicity. Something that Russia wants because Trump's policies somehow benefit Russia. But I see no evidence of that.

[Lionator]

Americans: Oh no people in the middle east hate us, let's bomb them, that'll sort it

 

5 years later

 

Americans: Oh no people in the middle east hate us even more, let's bomb them even harder, that'll sort it

 

And the cycle repeats and the number of people who sees the West as the enemy increases as their homelands get torn to smithereens through American interventions.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/13/world/asia/moab-mother-of-all-bombs-afghanistan.html?_r=0

[leicsmac]

Korea situation looking a little frosty thanks in part to Trumps sabre-rattling, though no more frosty than it did, say, in 2010.

[leicsmac]

Not really my choice of message that you could stick up at a hundred miles above the Earth, but...

 

http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/328787-group-knocks-trump-by-holding-first-protest-in-space

[Buce]

One for @leicsmac.

 

The March for Science:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/apr/15/why-scientists-are-fighting-back-we-have-had-enough-of-trump-war-on-facts

[Parafox]

21 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Korea situation looking a little frosty thanks in part to Trumps sabre-rattling, though no more frosty than it did, say, in 2010.

I don't think North Korea had nuclear weapons capability in 2010.

 

The evidence that they do now makes the whole situation much more threatening.

 

Both Trump and Kim are pretty volatile and neither will want to lose face by backing away.

[SpacedX]

With the USS Carl Vinson heading for the Korean peninsular and the arrival of Mike Pence today in Seoul, this missile test coinciding with the birthday of Kim Il Sung was to be a literal and metaphorical shot across the bough. Fortunately, it was a damp squib. 

 

Right now, I'm infinitely more concerned about US and Russian brinkmanship over Syria.

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, Buce said:

One for @leicsmac.

 

The March for Science:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/apr/15/why-scientists-are-fighting-back-we-have-had-enough-of-trump-war-on-facts

 

Good read.

 

As is mentioned in the article, the biggest problem isn't with the attitude of this administration towards one particular science issue per se (though of course, the environmental stuff is worrying), it is the large-scale attempt to make the scientific political and therefore personal, and so cast ambiguity on every scientific finding no matter how conclusive the evidence. That is deeply, deeply worrying in terms of the future of scientific advancement and (by extension) how humanity itself develops in the future.

 

1 hour ago, Parafox said:

I don't think North Korea had nuclear weapons capability in 2010.

 

The evidence that they do now makes the whole situation much more threatening.

 

Both Trump and Kim are pretty volatile and neither will want to lose face by backing away.

 

Well, they tested their first device in 2006 and second in 2009, so in terms of attacking capability, they could have been at the very beginning of capability at that time, though of course, it looks like they've come a decent way in the years since.

 

Even given the current stewardship of the US and NK, I'm going to repeat what I've said on here a few times, based on what I've seen and heard during my time in SK; the status quo suits everyone with a voice, and while there's a lot of saber-rattling taking various forms, the interested parties know (often from a purely self-preservation related perspective) not to push things over the line.

I'd back good money on most of my SK friends being more worried about what emoticon to use in their next text message than this.

[foxes21]

Wonder if Trump will do anything about the Venezuela crisis, they really need help.

 

What's going on in Venezuela is a preview of what our world will become, unless we become more focused on sustainability. Their reliance on the oil industry has crippled them, despite having the largest oil reserves in the world.

Edited 16 April 2017 by foxes21

[Webbo]

4 minutes ago, foxes21 said:

Wonder if Trump will do anything about the Venezuela crisis, they really need help.

 

What's going on in Venezuela is a preview of what our world will become, unless we become more focused on sustainability. Their reliance on the oil industry has crippled them, despite having the largest oil reserves in the world.

It's socialism that's destroying Venezuela, nothing else. The oil price boom of a few years ago  papered over the cracks but their decline was inevitable.

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, Webbo said:

It's idiot authoritarianism and abuse of power that's destroying Venezuela, nothing else. The oil price boom of a few years ago  papered over the cracks but their decline was inevitable.

1

FYP.

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

FYP.

Same thing.

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Same thing.

Don't think socialist governments are inherently authoritarian - there are such things as social democracies, for instance. IMO authoritarianism runs the gamut - just depends on whether the person or people in charge want to abuse their power with respect to their own citizenry (left wing) or someone else's (right wing) - or sometimes mix it up by doing both.

[Thracian]

On 13/04/2017 at 22:49, Lionator said:

Americans: Oh no people in the middle east hate us, let's bomb them, that'll sort it

 

5 years later

 

Americans: Oh no people in the middle east hate us even more, let's bomb them even harder, that'll sort it

 

And the cycle repeats and the number of people who sees the West as the enemy increases as their homelands get torn to smithereens through American interventions.

When I suggested reacting to the Twin towers attrocity with acts of positive commemoration of the victims (like the setting up of youth clubs/theatres/communal orchards)   I don't remember anyone on here agreeing.

 

Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

 

At least the Americans aren't limp-wristed appeasers whose actions constantly make the problems worse from much of what i see.

And in the case of the wacky administration in North Korea something needs to be done for sure. Certainly as far as the threat to the US is concerned. 

 

This side of the Atlantic do we even have a proper, consistent, foreign policy on anything related to the Middle East and offshoot difficulties these days?

 

Haha, we promised action on immigration years back and have done sod all so far in terms of even official numbers let alone the reality.  . 

 

Eventually comes the need to jump down from the fence and decide what you're going to stand for.

 

Yet, so often, I hear people expressing a perfectly defensible view but then reflecting uncertainty and indecision when the view is tested.

 

To me it's not really about who's right or wrong it's about what you want to effect in the end.

 

Right or wrong could actually  be quite easy to agree in the main - though someone somewhere down the line would doubtless move the goalposts - but I doubt it ever will be in any case, and certainly not by some minds.  

Edited 17 April 2017 by Thracian

[Parafox]

54 minutes ago, Thracian said:

When I suggested reacting to the Twin towers attrocity with acts of positive commemoration of the victims (like the setting up of youth clubs/theatres/communal orchards)   I don't remember anyone on here agreeing.

 

Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

 

At least the Americans aren't limp-wristed appeasers whose actions constantly make the problems worse from much of what i see.

And in the case of the wacky administration in North Korea something needs to be done for sure. Certainly as far as the threat to the US is concerned. 

 

This side of the Atlantic do we even have a proper, consistent, foreign policy on anything related to the Middle East and offshoot difficulties these days?

 

Haha, we promised action on immigration years back and have done sod all so far in terms of even official numbers let alone the reality.  . 

 

Eventually comes the need to jump down from the fence and decide what you're going to stand for.

 

Yet, so often, I hear people expressing a perfectly defensible view but then reflecting uncertainty and indecision when the view is tested.

 

To me it's not really about who's right or wrong it's about what you want to effect in the end.

 

Right or wrong could actually  be quite easy to agree in the main - though someone somewhere down the line would doubtless move the goalposts - but I doubt it ever will be in any case, and certainly not by some minds.  

Why does every post you make contain a reference to "immigrants/immigration" no matter which thread you're on?