President 'The Donald' Trump and Surprising Consequences - Mod warning in OP

Sam Russell

Do people realise that mega bomb was 10 k tonnes of TNT dropped on Afghanistan. The atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima was 15 k tonnes equivalent, and look at the destruction that caused. Does it have implications for Pyongyang?

Donald Trump did ask 'Why can we not use nuclear weapons?' when he started getting security briefings while still a candidate. If you have to ask .......

Itssoeasy

I see that China air will stop flights from Beijing to pyonyang from Monday. I wonder what they know.

I've been thinking that Donald trump and Kim Jung un are of the same make up just in different countries and generations.

I mean both have never had to actually work and both have a type of cult of personality built around them. And neither like to be told no.

Gbear

Sam Russell wrote: »

Do people realise that mega bomb was 10 k tonnes of TNT dropped on Afghanistan. The atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima was 15 k tonnes equivalent, and look at the destruction that caused. Does it have implications for Pyongyang?

Donald Trump did ask 'Why can we not use nuclear weapons?' when he started getting security briefings while still a candidate. If you have to ask .......

Not 10kT just 10T.

Hande hoche!

Sam Russell wrote: »

Do people realise that mega bomb was 10 k tonnes of TNT dropped on Afghanistan. The atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima was 15 k tonnes equivalent, and look at the destruction that caused. Does it have implications for Pyongyang?

Donald Trump did ask 'Why can we not use nuclear weapons?' when he started getting security briefings while still a candidate. If you have to ask .......

Yeah but the MOAB is effectively chucked out the back of a Hercules plane. Very limited use against a nation state with anything approaching a modern air defence system or air force.

Sam Russell

Gbear wrote: »

Not 10kT just 10T.

You are right, but still a big bomb. They talk in pounds or thousands of pounds and I got the zeros mixed up.

Mr.Micro

Sam Russell wrote: »

Do people realise that mega bomb was 10 k tonnes of TNT dropped on Afghanistan. The atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima was 15 k tonnes equivalent, and look at the destruction that caused. Does it have implications for Pyongyang?

Donald Trump did ask 'Why can we not use nuclear weapons?' when he started getting security briefings while still a candidate. If you have to ask .......

Indeed what an idiot.
It's ok to bomb another country thousands of miles from the American way of life. Disgusting. A one mile kill range I do believe. The poor and needy everywhere, including the USA, and they spend on these destructive bombs and achieving what, apart from a big cheque to the supplier for another.

MadYaker

He's done a total 180 on China. He changes his mind on major issues more often than he changes his socks. I find that worrying.

wonderfullife

MadYaker wrote: »

He's done a total 180 on China. He changes his mind on major issues more often than he changes his socks. I find that worrying.

The 180 on every subject is very simple to explain - $$$.

His "position" on China softened as soon as the Chinese granted the Trump Org the trademarks they were seeking for nearly a decade.

Trump doesn't hold a "position" on any matter. A position implies he cares one way or the other about healthcare, foreign policy etc.

He doesn't give one iota and "policy flip-flops" will always have their root in money. Even the NATO reversal comes after some of the NATO dignitaries stayed in Trump Hotels.

BoatMad

Leroy42 wrote: »

Given the the GOP controls each branch there is no reason for Trump not to be able to achieve everything he wants (within the limits of the constitution!)

The assumption that the GOP and Trump see eye to eye is decidedly incorrect. GOP does not see Trump as a republican, They see him as a maverick

He will have trouble with any of his programmes including his budget, healthcare, the wall, etc

Igotadose

And in case we were wondering whether there'd be a daily dose of Trump/Russia despite the bombings - of course there is. Now, GCHQ is corroborating Trump team/Russia discussions in 2015 - that is, before the campaign officially started. Woot.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/apr/13/british-spies-first-to-spot-trump-team-links-russia

Quote: "One source suggested the official investigation was making progress. “They now have specific concrete and corroborative evidence of collusion,” the source said."

demfad

https://www.google.ie/amp/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/39597055
Mike Pompeo calls Wilileaks a hostile intelligence agent. He was quoting them during the campaign so this is a significant development.

Kitsunegari

Looks like he's managed to get China to assert more pressure on North Korea. Flights to Pyongyang have been cancelled due to 'low sales' and China is now purchasing US coal instead of North Korean coal.

Mr.Micro

Igotadose wrote: »

And in case we were wondering whether there'd be a daily dose of Trump/Russia despite the bombings - of course there is. Now, GCHQ is corroborating Trump team/Russia discussions in 2015 - that is, before the campaign officially started. Woot.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/apr/13/british-spies-first-to-spot-trump-team-links-russia

Quote: "One source suggested the official investigation was making progress. “They now have specific concrete and corroborative evidence of collusion,†the source said."

Which might explain some of the ratching up of tension between the US and NK? Deflection and distraction, like the Afghanistan super bomb.

Water John

If China is helping. Wonder what he traded? Will we hear no more denigrating China. I think that would be a fair bargain.

Christy42

Water John wrote: »

If China is helping. Wonder what he traded? Will we hear no more denigrating China. I think that would be a fair bargain.

That could well be due to Kim. China wants to keep the status quo and that dude testing weapons like no tomorrow is not helping with that.

Granted Trump did drop all of his currency manipulation talk at the same time so it could be that either (though this may also be because he is attempting to become a currency manipulator).

aloyisious

With the various news reports on what NK is saying, I'm hoping China has assets in situ which will allow it to change leadership there, along with a bit of "real politik" info to those it believes are level-headed on the facts of survival. I think the NK leadership is swallowing it's own propaganda, with it's talk about meeting "total war with total war".

Re Don's situation at home, Fox is covering the "reveal your taxes, Don" protests with it's stories of violence & arrests at the protests to distract from the fact that the protests took place. There's "speculation" on how Don is managing the changing senior staff situation in the W/H; is he allowing the situations to happen to keep them on their "career toes" or just having t0 react as the rows happen?

demfad

aloyisious wrote: »

With the various news reports on what NK is saying, I'm hoping China has assets in situ which will allow it to change leadership there, along with a bit of "real politik" info to those it believes are level-headed on the facts of survival. I think the NK leadership is swallowing it's own propaganda, with it's talk about meeting "total war with total war".

Re Don's situation at home, Fox is covering the "reveal your taxes, Don" protests with it's stories of violence & arrests at the protests to distract from the fact that the protests took place. There's "speculation" on how Don is managing the changing senior staff situation in the W/H; is he allowing the situations to happen to keep them on their "career toes" or just having t0 react as the rows happen?

The 'violence' in Berkeley was orchestrated by Nazis ana Alt-right and planned more than a month in advance. This was or copied a Russian active measures known as provokatsia'
The organisers of the riot used twitter to advertise the 'clash' a month out. Rioters wee toldjow to get past security with weapons and how to dress up as 'antifa' protestors.

All the substantiation for these assertions are in this link.
https://twitter.com/rvawonk/status/853420420686643200 (I can provide images from twitter when I get to a PC)
RT covered this immediately and extensively. Fox News also focused on it as reported above. The alt-right (Russian?) bot-net army were retweeting the identical images from the planned riot and identical tweets in their thousands.
Objective clearly to distract from the Tax marches. More sinister motive of creating wider social unrest is a fear.

Leroy42

I think one aspect of the whole thing, both the Berkerly riot and the Trump Russia affair, that people in the US are completely missing is that despite the vast amounts of money spent on the FBI and CIA, it is clear that they have no ability to stay in front of any of these events.

I mean, even letting Flynn get as far as he did was a massive screw up. Surely of any person in the US that should be under surveillance by the authorities, is the person likely to be the POTUS (as in a candidate). If for example (and I am not saying this is the case) Flynn was a spy then he got his hands on some very secret info and its a bit late after he's seen it.

Of the extreme example, a POTUS who is compromised that give all the state secrets over to an enemy state.

I mean, look at this tweets posted above. It was clear what was being planned yet the police etc will come out and say they were caught off guard by the scale etc.

Kitsunegari

Leroy42 wrote: »

I think one aspect of the whole thing, both the Berkerly riot and the Trump Russia affair, that people in the US are completely missing is that despite the vast amounts of money spent on the FBI and CIA, it is clear that they have no ability to stay in front of any of these events.

I mean, even letting Flynn get as far as he did was a massive screw up. Surely of any person in the US that should be under surveillance by the authorities, is the person likely to be the POTUS (as in a candidate). If for example (and I am not saying this is the case) Flynn was a spy then he got his hands on some very secret info and its a bit late after he's seen it.

Of the extreme example, a POTUS who is compromised that give all the state secrets over to an enemy state.

I mean, look at this tweets posted above. It was clear what was being planned yet the police etc will come out and say they were caught off guard by the scale etc.

People shouldn't be under surveillance because they're running to become the president or part of the administration. Giving the CIA more power to openly spy on US politics would be a major step in the wrong direction.

Leroy42

Kitsunegari wrote: »

People shouldn't be under surveillance because they're running to become the president or part of the administration. Giving the CIA more power to openly spy on US politics would be a major step in the wrong direction.

Why not? You don't think that a person looking to get their hands on the nuclear codes should be vetted but that some nondescript visitor should have to fill on background checks etc?

From the moment you get the party nomination you should be open to surveillance.

Really Interested

Leroy42 wrote: »

Why not? You don't think that a person looking to get their hands on the nuclear codes should be vetted but that some nondescript visitor should have to fill on background checks etc?

From the moment you get the party nomination you should be open to surveillance.

Even the president or a person running for the office is protected by the Constitution. Background checks are fine but in a Constitutional Democracy, it is not open to put a person under surveillance without judicial oversight.

It is up to the people to vote in a nutter who has no clue what he is doing who may be in big league with another state, but that is democracy, it is only open to put him under surveillance, if a court appraised of the evidence so allows it.

The one thing this election has shown is that most Americans have no Idea about their own constitution, unless its about bathrooms or abortions.

Kitsunegari

Leroy42 wrote: »

Why not? You don't think that a person looking to get their hands on the nuclear codes should be vetted but that some nondescript visitor should have to fill on background checks etc?

From the moment you get the party nomination you should be open to surveillance.

Strawman argument. You said you wanted any candidate and their team put under surveillance now you're suggesting that I'm saying they shouldn't be vetted at all. There are ways to vet people without tapping their phones.

Giving the intelligence community more power would be a terrible decision and another step towards a police state. Congress is tied up with political scandals related to security leaks and now you want to give them more power to abuse.

Leroy42

No its not a strawman, its a comparison.

The usual checks didn't stop Flynn getting in, so shouldn't they be rechecked.

I'm not suggesting a free-for-all. A candidate would know they were under surveillence. They are given a security detail, and the parties carry out all sorts of checks (or are supposed to).

I'f I go for a job I can be asked about criminal record. Why, if I am going for the top job in any country, should it not be normal to get a full breakdown of that person. And in that I include tax returns.

If you want to put yourself up as the No.1 citizen of a state, surely you should be prepared to show that you live by the ideals of that state. And if you haven't always in the past, be prepared to explain yourself or make amends.

It only becomes political if it is controlled by politics. If it is open and used on both/every then no one person is at a disadvantage.

What possible reason could anybdy have with withholding information from the public?

Really Interested

Leroy42 wrote: »

No its not a strawman, its a comparison.

The usual checks didn't stop Flynn getting in, so shouldn't they be rechecked.

I'm not suggesting a free-for-all. A candidate would know they were under surveillence. They are given a security detail, and the parties carry out all sorts of checks (or are supposed to).

I'f I go for a job I can be asked about criminal record. Why, if I am going for the top job in any country, should it not be normal to get a full breakdown of that person. And in that I include tax returns.

If you want to put yourself up as the No.1 citizen of a state, surely you should be prepared to show that you live by the ideals of that state. And if you haven't always in the past, be prepared to explain yourself or make amends.

It only becomes political if it is controlled by politics. If it is open and used on both/every then no one person is at a disadvantage.

What possible reason could anybdy have with withholding information from the public?

There is a difference between background test and survailance.

Survailance is the state listening into all calls, taking copies of hard drive, looking at private post, putting mics and cameras in your bedroom and bathroom, sending people into your home to search it, listening into private conversations with your children friends etc.

PopePalpatine

Leroy42 wrote: »

Why not? You don't think that a person looking to get their hands on the nuclear codes should be vetted but that some nondescript visitor should have to fill on background checks etc?

From the moment you get the party nomination you should be open to surveillance.

I assume you just mean the Democrat & Republican parties, but you just opened Pandora's box here - could you honestly assume this surveillance wouldn't be stretched to the Greens & Libertarians, and perhaps even the likes of communists (assuming that their political views haven't already got them on a watchlist) and fundamentalist Christian parties who are jealous of Da'esh and Saudi Arabia?

donaghs

I've been reading I recent days about civilians in Syria being starved and besieged by Rebels, fired on constantly by snipers. It only made the news though after more than 100 civilians who expected to be evacuated peacefully were instead blown to pieces by a Rebel suicide bomber.

According to the BBC, the van which detonated had been distributing food and was being swarmed by children: https://www.google.ie/amp/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/39609288

Is it time for Trump to launch the cruise missiles again?

Really Interested

donaghs wrote: »

I've been reading I recent days about civilians in Syria being starved and besieged by Rebels, fired on constantly by snipers. It only made the news though after more than 100 civilians who expected to be evacuated peacefully were instead blown to pieces by a Rebel suicide bomber.

According to the BBC, the van which detonated had been distributing food and was being swarmed by children: https://www.google.ie/amp/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/39609288

Is it time for Trump to launch the cruise missiles again?

Against who? The last round was to attack Assad, the rebels are anti the Goverenment so is the US to take the side of ISIS?

El_Duderino 09

donaghs wrote:

Is it time for Trump to launch the cruise missiles again?

Launching missiles against Syria wasn't part of the Syria strategy. It was part of the Russia, China, NK strategy. The same with the MOAB in Afghanistan.

At this stage I'd bet he'll trade Assad leader of Syria for support/non-interference in NK. In any case, getting rid of Assad and solving Syria isn't a serious goal.

aloyisious

Amusing watching Fox news host, in light of the protests, asking four guests what their thoughts are on Don and his declining to release his tax returns in line with previous presidents examples. All advising he should, with one pointing out that they'll get out eventually and it'd be better that he did it before he left office.

Not much interest on the (reported/ly) failed NK missile launch this morning.

Harika

Really Interested wrote: »

Against who? The last round was to attack Assad, the rebels are anti the Goverenment so is the US to take the side of ISIS?

By attacking Assad, USA were supporting ISIS, sounds weird but welcome to the puzzle of Syria