Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 16   Go Down

Author Topic: Re: Trump II  (Read 14151 times)

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5022
Re: Trump II
« Reply #140 on: June 26, 2017, 12:12:41 pm »

Trump has been president for almost 6 months.  Shouldn't the vetting review already be done?

Or has the Trump administration done nothing?

The courts blocking the executive orders did not, in any way, affect the government's plan to review the vetting process.....if they ever had a plan that is.

I personally do not agree with the ban nor do I think it will do any good.  It is a waste of time. 

Regardless, I think the President should have the right to limit immigration as spelled out in the law, even if I do not agree with it.  This is a prime example of a case that should go in front of the SCOTUS, especially since so many have made this into something it is not, if not for anything more then clarity. 

Logged
"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5022
Re: Trump II
« Reply #141 on: June 26, 2017, 12:14:57 pm »

While it's estimated that 13 million people would lose insurance under the GOP plan. I don't believe America will ever have the level of affordable and accessible healthcare enjoyed by Australia, Japan, and most other advanced countries.

That is correct.  People in the USA eat poorly and don't exercise nearly as much.  Until we stop actively trying to kill ourselves, our healthcare is always going to be pretty damn expensive.

Logged
"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5022
Re: Trump II
« Reply #142 on: June 26, 2017, 05:46:42 pm »


So, as a recent GOP representative said:

And all those babies (49%) whose births are subsidized by Medicaid, let's just quit allowing all those poor people to have babies because it's costing the rest of us too much money?

And how about the the kids with disabilities? According to the Kaiser Family Foundation more than 10 million children and adults who qualify for Medicaid based on disability include individuals with physical impairments and conditions such as cerebral palsy, epilepsy, HIV/AIDS, and multiple sclerosis; spinal cord and traumatic brain injuries; severe mental health conditions, such as depression and schizophrenia; intellectual and developmental disabilities, including Down Syndrome and autism; and other functional limitations. So, sick or disabled through no fault of their own, do these kids not deserve care?

So, yeah, America doesn't eat healthy and doesn't exercise enough...so let's just let the sick and fat people die?

Do you realize how heartless that sounds? We don't eat right and exercise so what, we don't deserve healthcare?

First off, nothing of what you said refutes anything that I said.  Actually it supports it. 

Now, if you are born with a disability or a chronic illness, or if you are exposed to a substance of no fault of your own that causes an illness, I think you should be entitled to affordable healthcare.  I think as a society, this should be standard. 

If you're leading a healthy lifestyle, you should get affordable healthcare, and more then likely will since you are less expensive to insure. 

However, if you eat in excess, drink too much, don't exercise, or smoke, or any combination of those, you brought it on yourself.  Don't expect me to have enough sympathy to be willing to allow my tax dollars to go towards your medical bills.  I would certainly give money to a direct family member in this case, but my sympathies pretty much end there. 

Anyway, you deserve to pay a higher cost for insurance since you are directly causing yourself to be more expensive to be kept alive.  Money talks and bull shit walks.  Meaning you can preach to people until you are blue in the face to lead a healthy lifestyle; most won't care until you start dipping into their wallet. 

In most cases, allowing society to pay for your bad choices is not going to force you to fix them.  You will continue to be a sloth.  This is the case in all actions; people follow the path of least possible resistance.  If someone can continue to lead a bad lifestyle while not needing to spend the money to fix the results of their actions, they will continue to do so. 

However, if we start to require those whom are unhealthy due to their own actions to pay a higher premium, maybe people will start to get the hint.  Or maybe they will just start eating better and exercising so they don't have to pay as much in healthcare. Either way, it is a win. 

Furthermore, if people want to have children why can't they have them when they are ready?  Also, why can't people practice safe sex?  Neither are difficult to do. 
« Last Edit: June 26, 2017, 09:27:39 pm by JoeKitchen »
Logged
"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5022
Re: Trump II
« Reply #143 on: June 26, 2017, 07:44:41 pm »

Some of the healthcare costs are because Americans expect the best and not have to pay for it because insurance covers it.  The reasons it's cheaper in Europe and other places is that healthcare is rationed.  For example, you can get an MRI in the US the same or next day.  In other countries you have to wait months.  My wife who broke her leg and had surgery had 7 or 8 X-rays of the leg after surgery prescribed by the surgeon.  It cost around $475 for each x-ray including the radiologist's reviews.  Of course it only cost us 10% of that out-of-pocket.  So who cared?  If we had to pay that much, I would have at least asked the surgeon if it was necessary to have an xray every time.  Also, the surgeon ordered these Xrays for each visit to protect himself from malpractice lawsuits in case something went wrong.  So huge and unnecessary amounts are being spent for little practical purpose. 

What will happen with Obamacare, national health care, or Trumpcare, or whatever is that once everyone has insurance whether private or national, costs will become so high that rationing  will be imposed.  Also, more cost limits for doctor payment will be imposed lowering the quality of the doctors.  In any case, healthcare in the US is a runaway train.

Absolutely. 

Also, Americans expect everything that is related to health to be covered, for instance basic physicals.  If you have your car get a tune up, you don't expect your car insurance to cover it.  It should be the same thing with medical insurance. 

Something else, prescription plans.  Most people expect the worse and insist on covering for that and nearly any other prescriptions they would need. 

When I first bought insurance in the free market, I opted for only having my insurance cover prescriptions that totaled over a $1000 in one calendar year.  Now I could have gotten full prescription coverage for $40 more per month, but the one time I got sick per year, I only needed to pay at most $15 for the prescription. 
« Last Edit: June 26, 2017, 08:22:57 pm by JoeKitchen »
Logged
"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5022
Re: Trump II
« Reply #144 on: June 27, 2017, 05:24:57 am »

Hum, I'll bet the Trumpster won't be happy that overrated Alec Baldwin will be back on the overrated Saturday Night Live Fall season :~)

'SNL': Alec Baldwin will return as Donald Trump in season 43



I have to say Alec Baldwin does a really really bad Trump impersonation.  There are much better comedians out there that pull it off flawlessly, like Frank Caliendo.  The only reason he got this, was because of who he is. 

But seriously, he just comes of as an angry old man trying too hard to make fun of somebody with that bit. 

Now Melissa McCarthy's act, that's pure magic. 
Logged
"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent

Littlefield

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 39
Re: Trump II
« Reply #145 on: June 28, 2017, 06:07:28 pm »

Van Jones said that "the Russia thing is just a big nothing burger." and is on camera saying it.  LOL

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2017/06/28/cnns-van-jones-russian-collusion-story-is-a-big-nothing-burger-n2347957



 
Logged

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5022
Re: Trump II
« Reply #146 on: June 30, 2017, 11:57:28 pm »

Sorry, can't go along with this. He called Mexicans rapists, used "Pocohontas" to demean someone, called HC a "nasty woman", can't remember other instances right now. I understand why you want dignity and respect for the office, but that ship sailed a long time ago. Trump brought this on himself by his own undignified behaviour, no one else to blame but himself. Anyway, I thought you liked it when people are politically incorrect and "tell it like it is".

Yes Trump has no dignity or crass, which was clearly demonstrated by his insults on Mika this week.  Mexicans are not rapist, or criminals, in any more number then us Americans.  He should apologize for this; I doubt that will happen.  With this said, I am quiet amazed by the media's surprise of his lack of any class at this point.  It is pretty obvious he has no class; why are we still talking about it?  Let's get on with our lives and read about what is really important. 

To be honest, though, I would be greatly pleased if his whole branch was impeached and Paul Ryan took over.  I would very much appreciate a dean's list economist, especially a conservative one, as president.  I was hoping this would happen at the GOP convention. 

With this said, Warren brought this on herself.  She has yet to apologize for misrepresenting her ethnicity for personal gain.  Now you could take that the same route as Jeff and claim this can not be proven while at the same time completely ignoring the universally accepted premise that it is quite the feat to prove a negative. 

Here, listen to John Oliver talk about proving a negative, at about 12:30. 

But Warren deserves to be called out on this!  I listen to Schumer seriously, but Warren is bat shit crazy and can not be taken seriously due to this and other things. 

Also, it has been well documented that HRC is a nasty woman; remember those "Bimbos" her husband had to deal with.  This is not to say Trump is a saint; he clearly is not, but HRC is not any better.  According to reports she lost it election night, started throwing objects at her staffers and cried inconsolably; not the qualities of a president.  There has been many more examples like this as well. 

It would be a different story if Angela Merkel, or perhaps Joe Biden, ran against Trump, but you Dems picked one horrible candidate.  Maybe next time you will pick a real representative instead of a self appointed emperor with such great "new cloths."   
« Last Edit: July 01, 2017, 12:21:28 am by JoeKitchen »
Logged
"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5022
Re: Trump II
« Reply #147 on: July 01, 2017, 12:13:58 am »

Wait, who are you talking about, Trump or Clinton? Sorry, you lost me there :~)

Both!

Really Jeff, for people like me, and you, this election was about our personal political constitution and what we feel government should be responsible for. 

Don't tell me you voted for Clinton for her personal qualities; you've admitted that you did not already. 
« Last Edit: July 01, 2017, 12:18:58 am by JoeKitchen »
Logged
"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5022
Re: Trump II
« Reply #148 on: July 01, 2017, 12:38:05 am »

I voted for Clinton so I didn't have to cast a vote for Trump.

I honestly think Clinton would have been a better president even with a GOP House and Senate. Clearly she would not have been the disaster that Trump has been.

Exactly!  But don't tell me you voted for her because you liked it. 

For me, a stanch fiscal conservative and capitalist first, my vote was for the same reason as your vote.  If Anthony Kennedy retired this term, I would be more than happy to concede the next election to you. 
« Last Edit: July 01, 2017, 12:41:27 am by JoeKitchen »
Logged
"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5022
Re: Trump II
« Reply #149 on: July 02, 2017, 06:27:46 pm »

Yeah.   All us deplorables are racists too.

You know, it's funny. 

I got in an argument with my brother, who is extremely liberal, because he was saying I was being mildly racist in supporting charter schools. 

The funny thing, in polling, the majority of blacks and minorities in major cities support charter schools.  So, regardless of the fact that I was supporting what most of my fellow Philadelphians, who happen to be black, support, I was still being racist. 

This whole argument has run it's corse, and is becoming nothing more then another empty tactic on the Dems part to separate and concur. 

It would be nice if we all were Americans that happened to disagree on the role of government instead of the Anglo-Saxon vote, and the Irish vote, and the Black vote, and the Hispanic vote, and the Eastern European vote, and the right vote, and the poor vote, and the ...
« Last Edit: July 02, 2017, 06:43:38 pm by JoeKitchen »
Logged
"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5022
Re: Trump II
« Reply #150 on: July 03, 2017, 10:27:48 am »

Obama was dealt a virtually unplayable hand. It's nothing short of amazing that he was able to remain in the game at all.

Consistent myopic blaming of Obama for all of America's ills does nothing to advance the conversation.

Schewe's mention of McConnell's obstructionist tactics is particularly germane.  It will, I predict, be ignored.

Come on now.  Leadership stems from the top.  Obama and Bill Clinton had virtually the same amount of obstructionism, but Clinton still got shit done.  Obama dug his heels in the sand and whined.  Sure, he tried to work with John Boehner but kept on moving the goal posts in his direction after agreements were already made. 

On top of that, we can not compliment Obama on any economic issues merely because he did something; any sitting President would have done something.  Instead we need to look at the results of his actions, an anemic recovery, stagnate wage growth and family income (slightly negative if you take into account inflation), an unemployment rate that only came down due to people dropping out of the workforce, high paying full time jobs being replaced by low paying part time one, etc., etc., etc. 

Why do you think Trump's economic message resonated so well.  (Not saying I feel his agenda will completely work ,especially in regards to coal and fossil fuels, but Obama's poor economic performance certainly helped.)  There were more then a few emails released (by now, who cares from where) that showed many Dems spoke to the President about his abysmal economic performance and how it would effect the election even though these same Dems were touting how well the economy was publicly. 

I saw a great article on CNBC a couple of days ago.  Turns out nearly directly after Seattle's minimum wage went from $11 to $13 per hour, the average family income of low wage workers went down about $125 per month due to a decease in hours and layoffs.  Turn's out raises in minimum wage really does hurt low income workers. 

Seattle Wage Study

Of course the author can not say for sure, since there is no control group, as is the case in all economic studies, but the correlation is pretty high.  It's policies like these, that Obama supported, that stagnated the economy. 
« Last Edit: July 03, 2017, 11:29:30 am by JoeKitchen »
Logged
"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5022
Re: Trump II
« Reply #151 on: July 03, 2017, 11:15:12 am »

Joe mentioned the economic issues above.  But Obama really created a lot of problems on the international scene as well.  When he pulled out of Iraq in 2011, he created a vacuum for ISIS.  He lost all respect when he erased the red line he drew in Syria.  That created a massive problem there and the refugee problems in Europe.  His reducing American naval forces in the Pacific in addition to the red line debacle gave the Chinese the green light to militarize the islands and for North Korea to double down on nuclear tests and missile research. 

Trump has done a lot to reverse that image of America in the few months he's been president.  The calculations out of Peking, Moscow, Tehran etc. have taken a turn.  The leaders there know they won't have a free hand any longer.  Our allies in Israel, Saudi Arabia, Japan and other Pacific nations feel America has their back again.  Europeans might have their doubts because of NATO and Paris Accord.  But Trump has actually added troops and missiles there annoying the Russians even more.  His missiles in Syria hasn't made them feel warm either.

The whole Benghazi debacle I attribute to Obama too; I never thought it was Hillary's fault.  More then likely Obama's fecklessness kept HRC, and the rest of the administration, from sending in reinforcements.  This is why I believe HRC left as secretary of State soon afterwards.  Of course, since she wanted to run for president herself, she needed Obama's support and just could not throw him under the bus. 

With that being said, I really wish we would decrease our roll military world wide.  It's bankrupting us, and I could care less what happens across either ocean so long as Americans are not targeted. 
Logged
"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5022
Re: Trump II
« Reply #152 on: July 06, 2017, 01:37:30 pm »

Yeah, despite all our bloviating about the risks of other nations having nuclear weapons, we are still the only country that used them.... twice.

But we can be trusted with nuclear weapons but no one else can be trusted. After all, they may use them.  :o

I take issue with the USA being judged for using nuclear weapons in Japan, especially with 70+ years of hindsight. 

Most historians agree that doing so shortened the war by two years.  Additionally, in just the initial planned invasion of the mainland at Kyushu, it was estimated that 50K USA solders would have died plus several times that of Japanese solders and civilians.  Beyond that initial invasion, there would have been many more casualties, of both solders and civilians, in the effort to take over Japan and destroy their spirit. 

(I say destroy their spirit because they would have never surrendered since their religion prevented them from doing so.) 

It would have been a long drawn out horrible battle if Hirohito had not decided to surrender, and the nuclear bombs are the only reason he did. 

In comparison to the millions of people that would have died in a conquest, 80K and 45K people died in the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, respectfully.  That adds up to 125K, which is the same amount of civilians that died in the bombing of Tokyo using conventual bombs.  No one talks about this though. 

Now one could argue that Japan was a beaten country by that point and we over estimated how many would have actually died in an invasion.  With this same logic, one could also say Japan would have given up after our troops made it to the mainland, and our use of nuclear bombs was morally wrong.  This logic does not hold though.   

On the ground in Japan, most of the citizens still felt they were winning the war and would have continued to fight regardless of an invasion.  On top of that, after conquering the island in the first two years, it could have take an additional 10 years of occupation to stamp out the last remnants of warriors in hiding and kill the spirit. 

This is backed up by the fact that it took so long for Japan to formally surrender after saying they would.  The reason for this was because a large group of citizens, backed by a small military force, tried to stage a coup and continue the fight.  Whether or not the Japanese government could actually rely on the population to support a surrender was up in the air at first. 

War is hell; no way around it.  But these weapons were not used in a war of conquest, but to finish an aggressive advisory that invaded countries and committed atrocities worse then the Nazis, much worse. 

This is much different then NK, who is using nuclear weapons as a way to get the USA to back out from supporting SK so they can, once again, invade and try to conquer the South. 

PS., on an existentialist level, the use of nuclear bombs I consider to be immoral.  It is just those that argue against our use of them on Japan do so by implying that there were other options that would have resulted in a lower lost of life.  This is just not true and what annoys me about this topic. 
« Last Edit: July 06, 2017, 02:06:59 pm by JoeKitchen »
Logged
"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5022
Re: Trump II
« Reply #153 on: July 06, 2017, 01:59:34 pm »

what a nice position for perpetrators - so let us wait 70 years and then judge Assad too, with a hindsight ...

Thank you so much for taking into consideration that we, the Allies, were only stopping an enemy that invaded many other countries beforehand and executed, in the most extreme and horrific fashion, men, women and children (even infants) ... in comparison to a dictator that gasses his own people. 

Yep, the USA stopping the war is virtually the same as Assad gassing his people. 

Sounds like you are really looking at both situations in their entirety. 

What did Jeff call creating simple answers for complex problems?  Anti-Intellectualism
« Last Edit: July 06, 2017, 02:04:13 pm by JoeKitchen »
Logged
"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5022
Re: Trump II
« Reply #154 on: July 06, 2017, 02:12:08 pm »

you nuked civilians ... it does not matter whether they were your people or not... and then you spend 70 years inventing reasons why Unites Fruit of Marines was moved by some noble intentions  ;D

I am not familiar with Unites Fruit of Marines, so I can not comment on it, nor will I. 

However, acting like we could some how have ended the war without killing civilians is a fools errand.  Furthermore, your ignorance of the fact that an invasion would have resulted in two million civilian deaths shows that you either can not look at this logically or are selling something. 

Like I said, using nuclear weapons I consider existentially wrong.  However, I have the advantage of 70+ years of knowledge vs. 0 years at the time.  Furthermore, many more civilians would have died in any other means that we could have used to end the war. 
« Last Edit: July 06, 2017, 02:16:46 pm by JoeKitchen »
Logged
"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5022
Re: Trump II
« Reply #155 on: July 06, 2017, 03:54:40 pm »

The point is that if it is/was acceptable for the US to use nuclear weapons, then it stands to reason that it is acceptable for other countries to have the same capability.

It is the position that we can have nukes but other countries can't that I find indefensible.

Especially when it is pretty difficult to prevent a nation from developing or purchasing them.

I agree with this, and believe the idea that we can control what happens in other countries is our biggest flaw in international affairs.  It has gotten us into more problems and created more enemies then what it is worth. 

However I don't think it will end well if NK gets the bomb. 

If we end getting another feckless president, the North might very well test him/her with a small scale attack on the South.  If we do nothing, the North will invade the South.  (I believe the North truly wants to control all of Korea, not just the northern part and our alliance is the only thing holding them back.) 

Unfortunately for the South, their military is more then capable of beating the North.  I say unfortunate for them because as soon as the North realizes this, there is a good chance the North will nuke Seoul. 
« Last Edit: July 06, 2017, 04:15:27 pm by JoeKitchen »
Logged
"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5022
Re: Trump II
« Reply #156 on: July 07, 2017, 09:24:44 am »

Why in the world Kim will decide to attack first w/o US provocation with conventional forces ?

You need to brush up on your history my friend.  It is commonly accepted, through out most of the world, that the North invaded the South and started the Korean War. 

Not to mention the North has engaged in single missile attacks on Southern locations, killing South Koreans, albeit in small numbers, and also has kidnapped its fair share of South Koreans too, without provocation I might add. 

They would invade because they want to control the entire peninsula, not just the North, that's why. 

If you don't agree, ask yourself why has the North refused to sign a pease treaty.  Are they just lazy?  Or maybe they want an excuse for an invasion when they do so, because they are technically still at war. 
« Last Edit: July 07, 2017, 09:43:34 am by JoeKitchen »
Logged
"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5022
Re: Trump II
« Reply #157 on: July 07, 2017, 09:42:12 am »

it will end well - US will just have to learn to live deterred by one more country  ;D ... just like USSR deterred USA with few nukes and few means to deliver.

Once again you are either ignoring the point I was making in order to back up some straw man argument or you did not take the time to try and understand the meaning of my post. 

My comment about it not ending well had nothing to do with attacks on USA territory.  The USA had the technology to shoot a falling piece of space debris, moving much faster then a ICBM, with a missile more then 10 years ago.  I am sure the technology has advanced significantly since then, although the military would never admit to it for obvious reasons.  Unless NK releases a plethora of missiles all at once, which I doubt they have, I don't think any will reach the USA before they are shot out of the sky. 

However, it would be a disaster for Seoul if NK decides to nuke the city in an invasion they suddenly realize they can not win.  And I would not put it past Kim to do so.   
« Last Edit: July 07, 2017, 09:46:58 am by JoeKitchen »
Logged
"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5022
Re: Trump II
« Reply #158 on: July 07, 2017, 09:55:15 am »

and you need to understand that calculus is different today that it was back then - there are no uncles or chairmans behind Kim's back ...

so ? it seems you lack the understanding of the difference between the war and such behavior ...

I want to have extra $1m ... am I going to rob the bank or so ?

I 'd not sign it myself - just like USSR/Russia still does not have a peace treaty w/ Japan ... because of the opposing parties pre-conditions on both sides ... tell us what is the other side offering to NK in the peace treaty as of today ?

USSR/Russia (with thousands of nukes) is technically still at war with Japan ... watch out  ;D

Calculus has remained the same since the 1950s in the areas that existed then.  However, it has advanced into other fields of study.   ;)

And what is the difference between war and such behavior as you put it.  Is killing of only a handful of SKs in a single missile strike acceptable because it was just a single missile? 

You seem to be missing the point the point though of these one off strikes.  The North was doing these to test the South's resolve and whether or not we would be there.  Fortunately we were, otherwise the North could have very well decided it was time to invade again. 

Your comment about wanting an extra million dollars is a red herring by the way, another type of argument that is a fallacy.  Your mental and moral capacity has nothing to do with Kim's.  In order to determine whether to not Kim would invade, we need to look at Kim's actions, not yours. 

Insofar as your comments about the USSR and Japan, technically they are not true either.  The USSR no longer exists, so therefore it can not be at war with Japan. 

Not to mention, it is pretty obvious that Putin is a rather shrewd leader that makes well thought out decisions, which I accept even if I don't agree with some of those decisions.  Kim I am not so sure about.  He seems either unstable or power hungry; neither are good qualities for a leader of a nuclear nation. 
Logged
"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5022
Re: Trump II
« Reply #159 on: July 07, 2017, 09:58:51 am »

did I say anything about attacking __USA territory__ in this text "just like USSR deterred USA with few nukes and few means to deliver." ? you have a wild imagination about the situation in the first half of 1950s with USA having technology to shoot down few medium range propeller driven bombers that USSR had (flying one way at best)

You said that it is something that the USA would have to learn to live with, implying that the North could very well decide to attack the USA and that would keep us at bay. 

However, you missed my point on "not ending well."  It had nothing to do with the USA, but with the people of South Korea.  You should be making comments on my point of it "not ending well" in regards to the South, instead of the USA. 

Also, in regards to defending against ICBMs, I said ten years ago, which would be 2007, not the 1950s. 

You can read about it here. 
« Last Edit: July 07, 2017, 03:19:09 pm by JoeKitchen »
Logged
"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 16   Go Up