US Politics Thread 2016-2020

[Mr Quatro]

Originally Posted by vienna

One thought occurred to me: is Kelly laying the groundwork for a transition to a new President? By any measure, Kelly is one person any President would want to have on his staff ...

... so, Kelly can right the ship, the Special Counsel and the Congress can oust Trump and a smooth, sane, transition can occur. Far fetched?


<O>

I think you are a prophet and didn't know it ...

VP Mike Pence in 2020 for POTUS or earlier ...

[vienna]

Originally Posted by Mr Quatro

I think you are a prophet and didn't know it ...

Oh dear, please don't tell me I now have to don robe and sandals and hie myself to a mountain top and assume a lotus position; that really would be hard on these old knees and joints...


Stephen Colbert on the 'Mooch' getting canned:







<O>

[vienna]

There are times when "Russia-gate" seems eerily similar to Watergate. When Trump viciously went after Sessions publicly, I began to wonder if Trump was intending to use Session as sort of his "Spiro Agnew" much in the same way Nixon threw his Vice-President under the wheels of the bus as a deflection and distraction from Nixon's own Watergate mess. Now it seems anther sort of parallel has emerged; during the final stages of Watergate, the military leadership and the Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, became so concerned about Nixon's grasp on reality (and sanity), an agreement was reached by the Chiefs and Kissinger that if the military were to receive a direct order for military action from Nixon, they would have to first clear the action with Kissinger, who would have the final say on a go/no-go. Now, some 40 years later, it seems some similar concerns have prompted Secretary of Defense Mattis and White House Chief-Of-Staff Kelly to form a pact to keep Trump under personal watch lest Trump do something untoward:

Mattis And Kelly Made A Secret Pact To Babysit Trump --

http://taskandpurpose.com/john-kelly...trump-babysit/

You know you’re living in unusual times when the sanest person in the executive branch of the U.S. government is nicknamed “Chaos.”

That’s the primary takeaway from an Associated Press curtain-raiser on retired Marine Gen. John Kelly’s ascension to the rank of White House chief of staff. While the executive role traditionally considered gatekeeper to the commander-in-chief and the constitutional authority he wields, the AP hints at a different dynamic in the Oval Office:

“Orders rapidly emerging from the White House” is a delightful euphemism for the president’s tendency to rule by decree tweet, a habit that has roiled a Department of Defense scrambling to interpret whether Trump’s unpredictable digital broadsides are, say, a signal of imminent attack on North Korea or something slightly more innocuous. Republican lawmakers who spoke to the AP are praying that Kelly, a retired four-star general known for his disciplinarian streak, will “forcefully clean the place up.”

What does it say for the state of leadership of this nation when the Chief Executive must be 'baby-sat' and gives reasons he is not to be trusted with major decisions?...




<O>

[Platapus]

Right now, my fear is that Trump will try to divert attention from his administration by starting something with North Korea.

Unfortunately it is an old but very effective trick.

[eddie]

I sure hope cool heads will prevail in a situation like that.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Platapus

Right now, my fear is that Trump will try to divert attention from his administration by starting something with North Korea.

Unfortunately it is an old but very effective trick.

What really is unfortunate is that anything done or not done on NK may prove to be the worst option one could have chosen. War strike, appeasement, assassination attempt, doing nothing - there are no good options left, ever yone of them is as dangerous as any of the others. All options still possible are extremely risky and dangerous.

I think best thing one can do is to roll a die. That way chances are fair at least, and fate cannot be complained about.

This is what happens if one lets small problems mature into big ones, and allows big ones to grow into critical ones. Already LaoTse warned against that. Problems must be solved while they are still small and innocent.

We see what they are doing, and we do nothign and let it happen. We see they are swinging a nuclear weapon at our head, and we do nothing. We hear them threatening and cursing us, and we do not take it serious. We must have lost our brains. Or our cochones.

Simple truth is we betray ourselves with our military tehcnology. We may have the means to fight and win wars, but we are too shy and too softy now to use them even when we would not use them to impose our will on others, but to deny the other imposing his will on us. We put ourselves at shame.

Read this. LINK

That is so true that it hurts. We may have technology advanatge. But that means nothing. We lack the will to do what is necessary to win. In the past decades, relatively primitive warbands of often badly organised, technically inferior farmer's armies formed by untrained, simple men, defeated technically and training-wise hopelessly superior armies from the west, and kicked them back. Their onyl advantage was the ability and willingness to suffer whatever was needed to defeat their enemy. And thats what they did. They suffered, and the held out, and won. On the one or two occaisons were the West scored a military win, he allowed politics to turn it into an even worse, strategic defeat afterwards.

We may think of ourselves as being so highly civilised that we endlessly shy away from fighting war the way it must be fought if you want to win it. We are so sensible, so concerned, so educated, so great. Its only a question of time until some barbarian tribe comes along, does not speak, but simply cuts off our heads, throws them on the trash mountain of history and takes what was ours. Without comment.

We better quickly learn again that those refusing to hold a sword still can be killed by one. I have no hope whatever, however, that we will learn that.

[MaDef]

LMAO, looks like you kids need to go change your shorts. Really? secret pacts to circumvent the president? what are you guys smoking over on that side of the ocean?

[Buddahaid]

Something better than what you are.....

[Sailor Steve]

Please stick to the topic and provide real counters to things you don't like. Mocking interjections don't help at all.

[vienna]

Originally Posted by Platapus

Right now, my fear is that Trump will try to divert attention from his administration by starting something with North Korea.

Unfortunately it is an old but very effective trick.

I have similar qualms. I ran into an acquaintance, who voted for Trump, a couple of days ago, and he reminded me of a casual bet we made a while back, just after the inauguration; he had been upset when Trump chose not to go after a criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton immediately after taking office as he had promised during the campaign. I commented Trump was probably holding that 'card' in reserve in the event the whole Russian mess blew up and he found himself up against it over the issue; I also speculated if Trump found his position even more dire, he would most likely fall back on what you aptly called "an old but very effective trick". My acquaintance thought I was wrong and insisted on a bet over the issue. When I saw him last, just after Trump started his "What about Hillary?" tweet-storm and berating of Sessions, he said to me "You called it." He wanted to pay off on the bet, but I really didn't want to capitalize on something that was so obvious, so I said I'd modify the bet to a double or nothing if Trump started some sort of military action if he really got pinned down so as to deflect and distract from his troubles...

I really hope I won't be placed in a position to collect on that bet...




<O>

[vienna]

Originally Posted by MaDef

LMAO, looks like you kids need to go change your shorts. Really? secret pacts to circumvent the president? what are you guys smoking over on that side of the ocean?

Actually, the pact concerning Nixon has been verified for a long time; as Nixon's Watergate woes got worse and worse, he began to drink heavily and many around him became concerned about his ability to function and govern responsibly; in books written by those who worked in the Nixon White House and were part of his administration, numerous references and depictions have been made regarding Nixon's state. One book even recounted how Nixon had become quite drunk on one occasion and had to cancel out of an appearance, leaving his staff to try to decide how best to excuse his absence; IIRC, one of the persons at the event sarcastically noted they could just be honest and say, 'Hey, the President is loaded'. It was around that time Kissinger and other senior civil and military leaders decided to mutually "double-check" and confirm any orders from Nixon...

Given Trump has amply and openly exhibited conduct and demeanor falling well within the realm of serious instability and a tendency to ill-considered or ill-conceived behavior and decision-making, the idea more adult and cooler heads would find the need to formulate ways to blunt any rash actions or decisions by Trump; doing nothing would be, in itself, irresponsible...

BTW, a couple of posters in previous entries have stated that a specific crime must be proven in order to impeach a President; actually, given the source of the term "high crimes and misdemeanors", the scope of what is impeachable is broad and does not necessarily require a specific criminal aspect:

http://law.justia.com/constitution/u...-offenses.html




<O>

[MaDef]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Please stick to the topic and provide real counters to things you don't like. Mocking interjections don't help at all.

Has nothing to do with whether I agree with the post or not and everything to do with it being speculation someone pulled out of thin air with no corroborating evidence, (even in the form of hearsay). That post was right up there with the Obama birth certificate theory, and deserves nothing more than a mocking response.

[Mr Quatro]

Originally Posted by Platapus

Right now, my fear is that Trump will try to divert attention from his administration by starting something with North Korea.

Unfortunately it is an old but very effective trick.

I thought that too till General Kelly came on board ... He would surely disapprove of any thing like that. He knows the real dangers of starting a war. I bet NK has sleeper cells right here in Los Angeles and they could cause more trouble than one missile, in fact NK needs a hundred missiles to scare the world surely they fear retaliation.

I say cut off all trade with China till the problem is solved ... who's your daddy now China?

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Mr Quatro

I bet NK has sleeper cells right here in Los Angeles and they could cause more trouble than one missile, in fact NK needs a hundred missiles to scare the world surely they fear retaliation.

What city's destruction is the bigger loss to the world'S economy and wealth: Pyongyang - or Los Angeles, New York or Dallas?

You cannot retaliate if your enemy has nothing worth to retaliate against. Kim has nothing to loose there. Thats his advantage. And he knows that. Thats why he is poushing for nuclear weapons. The US then could not afford anymore to use nukes. NK then could afford it very well.

[Jimbuna]

Kim should fear his personal health and wellbeing from within his own ranks if and when he appears weak to his peer group.

What goes round comes round.