Jump to content
270soft Forum
LokiLoki22

Is there an adult in the room?

Recommended Posts

46 minutes ago, Patine said:

No, not by my logic. The vast majority of warmongers in history have not been in any way, shape, or form Fascists, or have been tied to the ideology at all.

Was talking to Wiw, lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a second Korean war was alway going to happen no matter who won in 2016 it will happen soon its only a matter of time the faster we get it on the better. I am antiwar but in the case of north Korea its a threat that need to be put down as soon as possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not surprised that people are falling into fatalistic despair! After all, we warned them it would happen!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/4/2018 at 12:57 PM, Patine said:

@JDrakeify @willpaddyg @daons @LegolasRedbard @Prussian1871 @wolves @SirLagsalott @michaelsdiamonds @victorraiders @Patine @Falcon @jnewt @President Garrett Walker @Reagan04 @Conservative Elector 2 @SeanFKennedy @vcczar @jvikings1 @harveyrayson2 @lizarraba @TheMiddlePolitical @CalebsParadox @MrPrez @msc123123 @NYrepublican  @RI Democrat @servo75  @Presidentinsertname  @ThePotatoWalrus @Sunnymentoaddict @TheLiberalKitten @Quebecois @avatarmushi @Sami @WVProgressive @Kingthero

So, Jeff Sessions, backed fully by Trump, has declared Federal prosecutors are full free to indict people on marijuana charges, with Federal backing, in States that have formally legalized the use of the drug. Who, now, among the right-wing, Republican, Constitution-loving people here will now condemn and stand against Trump and Sessions for trampling States' Rights, a big part of said political ideology's beliefs, and which of you will humbly overlook and continue blindly supporting Trump and his administration? How will the convictions lay out here?

First, I object to the characterization that I blindly support Trump. This may come as a surprise, but I'm one of those old fashioned independents who likes to make decisions on a policy-by-policy basis using logic, as opposed to the Democrats in the Senate who won't go to the bathroom without asking Chuck Shumer's permission first. I am not inside Trump's head nor in Sessions' and I despise it when people assume that just because I, or anyone else supports someone we have to agree with everything they do, as if it's up to me to explain it.  I probably agree with about 90% of what Trump does. This is part of that 10%. I don't like his kid-glove treatment of the DACA issue, I heavily criticized him for signing the latest spending bill, and I am vehemently against $1T in infrastructure spending.  Jeff Sessions has been in my opinion a colossal disappointment as an AG. He has been absolutely feckless regarding the Clinton investigation and not putting his foot down on the Mueller witch-hunt recused himself for no reason at all, and yet is all too eager to put people in jail for possessing a plant. I will say that Trump (unfortunately) never put himself up as a states-rights champion except for a few specific issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/4/2018 at 7:43 AM, NYrepublican said:

I got an email from Moveon about this

https://petitions.moveon.org/sign/delete-realdonaldtrump

This must be why the Founding Fathers inserted "misuse of Twitter" next to the "high crimes and misdemeanors" Geez do these people have LIVES??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the previous few decades we have had Presidents who tried to deal with North Korea. Republican and Democrat. It hasn't worked. When will people realize that we elected the leader of the free world, not a BFF.  What you call a "tantrum" is talking tough with our enemies. They have had a family of insane dictators in NK for the past 68 years. Meanwhile the past four Presidents have tried ass-kissing, placating, deal-making, "pretty-pleasing", "strategic patience" and bribing... so how has THAT gone?  Sorry hippies, you tried it your way. So I'm proud we have a President finally who realizes he's not the President of the World, it's not his job to "get along" with other countries at the expense of our own interests, and who is going to stare down the eyes of those thugs, stop apologizing for America and bowing to our adversaries, and finally put them in their place. Maybe if Clinton, or Bush, or Obama would have sent a stern message like that, then Trump wouldn't be in the position he's in now. The truth is, for the first time in almost 30 years, we DO have an adult in the room. What the hippie, tree-hugging left has to understand is that there are evil people in this world who want us dead, who can not be placated or bought off, and who only understand one language. So we have TWO CHOICES: We can take them out, or sit and wait for them to take us out. That's no decision at all.

And for those who will say, "I thought you were a non-interventionist..." No of course I don't want to unilaterally attack anyone who doesn't oppose an imminent threat, but if we let NK go for too much longer, that threat will be there and we have to be willing to stand up to that possibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, servo75 said:

First, I object to the characterization that I blindly support Trump. This may come as a surprise, but I'm one of those old fashioned independents who likes to make decisions on a policy-by-policy basis using logic, as opposed to the Democrats in the Senate who won't go to the bathroom without asking Chuck Shumer's permission first. I am not inside Trump's head nor in Sessions' and I despise it when people assume that just because I, or anyone else supports someone we have to agree with everything they do, as if it's up to me to explain it.  I probably agree with about 90% of what Trump does. This is part of that 10%. I don't like his kid-glove treatment of the DACA issue, I heavily criticized him for signing the latest spending bill, and I am vehemently against $1T in infrastructure spending.  Jeff Sessions has been in my opinion a colossal disappointment as an AG. He has been absolutely feckless regarding the Clinton investigation and not putting his foot down on the Mueller witch-hunt recused himself for no reason at all, and yet is all too eager to put people in jail for possessing a plant. I will say that Trump (unfortunately) never put himself up as a states-rights champion except for a few specific issues.

The post you were quoting was actually a question, not an accusation, and the bottom quarter, or so, of your response was a sufficient. I do admit it was worded in a somewhat "loaded" way (much like the questions by modern political commentators and pundits - be they "left-wing," "right-wing," or in between, when they interview just about any political figure, be they "left-wing," "right-wing," or in between, or many questions asked on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives or Senate by members of both parties), but my "loading" of them was more a rhetorical tactic to get the person reading them to think and consider It instead of spouting automatically-prepared and packaged answers, especially some on these forums who do think and answer almost sheepishly on party (note, you weren't, by the far, the only one tagged), but, at the end of the day, it was a question, not an accusation. I apologize if that wasn't quite clear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, servo75 said:

For the previous few decades we have had Presidents who tried to deal with North Korea. Republican and Democrat. It hasn't worked. When will people realize that we elected the leader of the free world, not a BFF.  What you call a "tantrum" is talking tough with our enemies. They have had a family of insane dictators in NK for the past 68 years. Meanwhile the past four Presidents have tried ass-kissing, placating, deal-making, "pretty-pleasing", "strategic patience" and bribing... so how has THAT gone?  Sorry hippies, you tried it your way. So I'm proud we have a President finally who realizes he's not the President of the World, it's not his job to "get along" with other countries at the expense of our own interests, and who is going to stare down the eyes of those thugs, stop apologizing for America and bowing to our adversaries, and finally put them in their place. Maybe if Clinton, or Bush, or Obama would have sent a stern message like that, then Trump wouldn't be in the position he's in now. The truth is, for the first time in almost 30 years, we DO have an adult in the room. What the hippie, tree-hugging left has to understand is that there are evil people in this world who want us dead, who can not be placated or bought off, and who only understand one language. So we have TWO CHOICES: We can take them out, or sit and wait for them to take us out. That's no decision at all.

And for those who will say, "I thought you were a non-interventionist..." No of course I don't want to unilaterally attack anyone who doesn't oppose an imminent threat, but if we let NK go for too much longer, that threat will be there and we have to be willing to stand up to that possibility.

As someone who has studied WORLD history and politics, not just U.S., quite extensively, it is apparent to me that Trump is trying the dangerous tactic of basing his foreign policy stance on a combination of international business (his only real experience) and Tom Clancy, Robert Ludlum, and other such author's novels and similar genre's movies' fictitious Presidents ways of handling things, which are not at all responsible or realistic in a real world environment. He's also behaving as though everything he says and does (or tries to do), domestically or internationally will have no real consequences of note or meaning, and that, above all else, is what REALLY scares me about him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Patine said:

As someone who has studied WORLD history and politics, not just U.S., quite extensively, it is apparent to me that Trump is trying the dangerous tactic of basing his foreign policy stance on a combination of international business (his only real experience) and Tom Clancy, Robert Ludlum, and other such author's novels and similar genre's movies' fictitious Presidents ways of handling things, which are not at all responsible or realistic in a real world environment. He's also behaving as though everything he says and does (or tries to do), domestically or internationally will have no real consequences of note or meaning, and that, above all else, is what REALLY scares me about him.

No Trump doesn't have foreign policy experience but I think he (mostly) has surrounded himself with very capable people. I believe Trump DOES think they will have real consequences and we want consequences - i.e. North Korea realizing they can't win, and backing down. POTUS after POTUS from both parties tried the "nice guy" "Presidential" route, and what has it gotten us? All they've done is gotten bolder because they were laughing at us, thinking we were weak, accepting our aid packages and then stiffing us by continuing to build up anyway. Here's the cold fact: If we continue to play nice-nice with them then they WILL very shortly end up with an ICBM capable of reaching the United States. Then it will be too late, and at the very least, the Korean Peninsula and China will de-stabalize and we'll have another Iran on our hands. We can't afford that any longer, so I muse what any of Trump's critics would have us do.  Would Kim Jung Un be talking with South Korea at the Olympics if not for Trump's actions? No one can say. But we've tried it the "Presidential" way and it hasn't worked. Let's think this through a moment... if Kim tries to hit us with a nuke based on a tweet from our President, there would be nothing we can do to prevent that. I like having a tough talker in the White House and I think all the fears about Trump taking us to World War III have been completely unfounded so far. I'm old enough to remember Reagan getting heat for talking tough with the USSR. And I was one of the ones criticizing him for it. But the results of that speak for themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, servo75 said:

No Trump doesn't have foreign policy experience but I think he (mostly) has surrounded himself with very capable people. I believe Trump DOES think they will have real consequences and we want consequences - i.e. North Korea realizing they can't win, and backing down. POTUS after POTUS from both parties tried the "nice guy" "Presidential" route, and what has it gotten us? All they've done is gotten bolder because they were laughing at us, thinking we were weak, accepting our aid packages and then stiffing us by continuing to build up anyway. Here's the cold fact: If we continue to play nice-nice with them then they WILL very shortly end up with an ICBM capable of reaching the United States. Then it will be too late, and at the very least, the Korean Peninsula and China will de-stabalize and we'll have another Iran on our hands. We can't afford that any longer, so I muse what any of Trump's critics would have us do.  Would Kim Jung Un be talking with South Korea at the Olympics if not for Trump's actions? No one can say. But we've tried it the "Presidential" way and it hasn't worked. Let's think this through a moment... if Kim tries to hit us with a nuke based on a tweet from our President, there would be nothing we can do to prevent that. I like having a tough talker in the White House and I think all the fears about Trump taking us to World War III have been completely unfounded so far. I'm old enough to remember Reagan getting heat for talking tough with the USSR. And I was one of the ones criticizing him for it. But the results of that speak for themselves.

I wasn't aware of U.S. aid packages to North Korea previously. Considering it's a nation the U.S. has NEVER, since it's creation as a separate, sovereign state in 1948, had any diplomatic or consular exchange directly with AT ALL (I believe Sweden and China act as diplomatic intermediaries, officially, when needed), and the Department of Commerce forbids investment there by U.S. businesses and the Department of State warns STRONGS against U.S. citizens (though some still do), I can't be U.S. aid packages being a realistic occurrence. Maybe non-U.S. Western nations have done so, but that's outside U.S. governmental jurisdiction to regulate or decide. Also, I don't think many people in North Korea are laughing, other than maybe Kim himself (whose often photographed with a mirthful look on his face) and his inner circle of kronies. Most of the people of North Korea are poverty-stricken, paranoid, know next to nothing that's true of the outside world, and are under a police state of oppression and grim dystopianism that even Hitler and Stalin couldn't match in their own countries. An outright war, with all the death and destruction it would cause, would not be any war, in the end, with a morally triumphant and glorious message of stopping a "evil nation" and "defending one's homeland," - it would instead the inhumane, cold-blooded, sociopathic culling of millions sheep just to get to a small cabal of shepherds who were, indeed, the TRUE evil. While I agree the Kim's regime is untenable across the board in the long-term, there has to be better ways of ending it than a massive war and, certainly, than a nuclear strike.

Share this post


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

I wasn't aware of U.S. aid packages to North Korea previously. Considering it's a nation the U.S. has NEVER, since it's creation as a separate, sovereign state in 1948, had any diplomatic or consular exchange directly with AT ALL (I believe Sweden and China act as diplomatic intermediaries, officially, when needed), and the Department of Commerce forbids investment there by U.S. businesses and the Department of State warns STRONGS against U.S. citizens (though some still do), I can't be U.S. aid packages being a realistic occurrence. Maybe non-U.S. Western nations have done so, but that's outside U.S. governmental jurisdiction to regulate or decide. Also, I don't think many people in North Korea are laughing, other than maybe Kim himself (whose often photographed with a mirthful look on his face) and his inner circle of kronies. Most of the people of North Korea are poverty-stricken, paranoid, know next to nothing that's true of the outside world, and are under a police state of oppression and grim dystopianism that even Hitler and Stalin couldn't match in their own countries. An outright war, with all the death and destruction it would cause, would not be any war, in the end, with a morally triumphant and glorious message of stopping a "evil nation" and "defending one's homeland," - it would instead the inhumane, cold-blooded, sociopathic culling of millions sheep just to get to a small cabal of shepherds who were, indeed, the TRUE evil. While I agree the Kim's regime is untenable across the board in the long-term, there has to be better ways of ending it than a massive war and, certainly, than a nuclear strike.

I was referring to deals past administrations made with Korea https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/08/09/history-lesson-why-did-bill-clintons-north-korea-deal-fail/?utm_term=.b14f4dbf6099.

When I referred to "laughing at the USA" yes I was referring to the regimes, obviously the people of NK don't benefit./

Finally, obviously we want to avoid war, as that can't end well thanks to the corner we're painted in at this point. But if Kim continues this threat, ultimately there may be no choice. Again I'm referring back to the criticism of Trump's anti-Kim tweets. That's the only language people like Kim speak, and I thought that was the ONE thing we could be united on.

P.S. And then we have the pundits who among all this seem more alarmed about Trump's sanity than Kim's. It's hard to take them too seriously.

Edited by servo75

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a crazy idea! North Korea doesn't attack the US - I hear some of them said it's a deterrent against a US attack or invasion. In short, if the Dolard wants a war, he'll have to start it himself. The question is, would he want to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Wiw said:

Here's a crazy idea! North Korea doesn't attack the US - I hear some of them said it's a deterrent against a US attack or invasion. In short, if the Dolard wants a war, he'll have to start it himself. The question is, would he want to?

You know, funny thing is, that's exactly how the self-congratulatory North Korean proclamation of their nuclear capabilities sounded to me too - like a deterrent against U.S. (and probably South Korean and, with Abe's rearmament ambitions, even Japanese) pre-emptive aggression, and no statement or indication that Kim or his regime planned an unprovoked strike. Of course the statement was probably "mistranslated" by the Trump administration, who seem to be make a lot of mistakes about foreign intentions or how the rest of the world (or even a lot of things going on within the U.S. itself) actually work, but go on such mistakes as though they're utterly irrefutable facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am beginning to regret making this, but I will say that it is truly the gift that keeps giving.

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

×