Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread III

Professor Moriarty

amandstu wrote: »

I also was wondering if American isolationism is the/an underlying motive for these "policies" ,but that is pie in the sky and the logic of these clumsy interventions built around the ego of a single nasty individual (what would we call that I wonder?) leads to a messier involvement with that damned outside world.

Fortress America ,twinned with Jerusalem and Saudi now?

Well, they are the only two countries (AFAIK) who welcomed The Donald's withdrawal. So he has isolated himself on Iran, NAFTA, TTIP, TPP, Paris Accord - to mention just a few. Behind all of this is the sizeable minority of Americans who are gun-toting, bible-bashing, closet racists who just want to drive their four litre monster trucks and drink beer. They have neither the capacity or interest in understanding climate change or global politics. The Donald and MAGA resonate perfectly with them and their simplistic understanding of how the world should be.

jooksavage

blackwave wrote: »

Further to the whole Russian oligarch paying a Cohen company money. It appears that AT&T also paid Cohen's company $200k for insights into the Trump administration ahead of their proposed merger with Time Warner. The drug manufacturer Novartis also paid Cohen's company cash as well and following these payments Trump met with their incoming CEO earlier this year.

The way the things are going given the amount of dodgy payments linked to Cohen I would be extremely surprised if he doesn't flip as he is in so deep now.

Source below but plenty of other websites are running with this too.

https://www.ft.com/content/00fb6f36-5317-11e8-b3ee-41e0209208ec

This is actually huge but as usual, this story is competing for coverage. The AT&T and Novartis payments will have very serious implications for all involved (especially considering the latter were making monthly payments of $99,980, presumably so they could get around a corporate reporting requirment).

The payments though from Columbus Nova could be the biggest issue here. While they've vigorously denied a connection to Russia, the firm is a subsidiary of Renova Group, owned by oligarch Viktor Vekselberg (who, incidentally is subject to heavy sanctions). Last year they kicked in $285,000 to Trump's inauguration. They've since made a few hefty payments to Cohen's LLC... At this stage, anyone claiming that "the Russian allegations are spurious" are in flat-out ignoramus mode.

The most interesting thing is, this could be the tip of the iceberg - all of this is coming out an executive summary by Michael Avenatti - I can only assume none of this is news to Mueller. The most crucial part of all of this isn't where the money came from - it's where it ultimately ended up. I'd be surprised if Mueller doesn't already know that too.

kilns

The fact that one of the most unstable and unpredictable of world leaders is in control of the worlds largest nuclear weapons Arsenal is much scarier than Iran’s potential in developing nuclear weapons.

Iran have personally insulted him today that could be even enough to push him to use a bomb is his that sensitive

Professor Moriarty

kilns wrote: »

The fact that one of the most unstable and unpredictable of world leaders is in control of the worlds largest nuclear weapons Arsenal is much scarier than Iran’s potential in developing nuclear weapons.

Iran have personally insulted him today that could be even enough to push him to use a bomb is his that sensitive

In the past three months, North Korea called The Donald a dolt, a dotard and mentally deranged. They also said this, which I kind of like:

“...he cannot deodorize the nasty smell from his dirty body woven with frauds, sexual abuses and all other crimes...”

listermint

markodaly wrote: »

As an aside, I do not think there will be any war with Iran. Trumps base is more about isolationism than foreign military adventures. People are forgetting that. After it, it is his base that will have to go out a fight. So unless Iran does some kind of Perl Harbour attack, there will be no war there.

People are seeing the pull out of the deal as a first step to war, its not, its just another step towards isolationism.

And even if it did come to war, the US military would destroy Iran's military capability in as little as 4 weeks, with minimal casualties if it wanted to.

Ah another poster who would have called Hillary a warmongerer and a neocon....


This stuff is like readybrek eat it up.

ArthurDayne

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

“...he cannot deodorize the nasty smell from his dirty body woven with frauds, sexual abuses and all other crimes...”

Probably an indicator of how boring and uneventful my life is, but I found this hilarious.

jooksavage

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

Does anyone here who is well-informed think it was a good deal in the first place?

Is Trump emboldened by the change in North Korea?

Mattis, no fan of Iran himself, though he hasn't broken publicly Trump, is understood to have been against breaking the agreement. He's on the record saying that "The verification, what is in there, is actually pretty robust as far as our intrusive ability to get in".

As far as how this relates to or impacts NK, Trump has demonstrated that the US can't be trusted to honor agreements. From here on, no country can expect any agreement with the US to outlive the term of the sitting president. This will have catastrophic consequences.

weisses

markodaly wrote: »

And even if it did come to war, the US military would destroy Iran's military capability in as little as 4 weeks, with minimal casualties if it wanted to.

Define "minimal casualities"

And where do you base the 4 weeks campaign figure on ?

Leroy42

markodaly wrote: »

And even if it did come to war, the US military would destroy Iran's military capability in as little as 4 weeks, with minimal casualties if it wanted to.

This is the same US that is still in Iraq nearly 20 years?

Where are you getting 4 weeks from? Minimal casualties? The famed US military took how many years to locate one man (Bin Laden)?

The ability of the US military do actually achieve outcomes, as opposed to blowing up stuff, is greatly exaggerated.

Harika

markodaly wrote: »

And even if it did come to war, the US military would destroy Iran's military capability in as little as 4 weeks, with minimal casualties if it wanted to.

And then? Without boots on the ground it ends there, and are the Americans really willing to spoil american blood over Iran who in their terms is wanting to get atomic bombs and who is engaged in the middle east with their army?

In the meantime, China exports with (Comac C919) and Russia (Irkut MC-21, Illjuschin Il-96-400) competitive airplanes, so that no damage is identifiable, except for Airbus and Boing.
China will build them any refineries ready to rock’n’roll in two years. EU and US companies miss out here.
Trump targets Iran but is actually hitting his western partners and the overall credibility of the US.
As he says "The United states makes no longer empty threads. When I make promises I keep them" so what is after him? In the next election cycle someone might promise something different. He himself invalidates the word of the US president, what makes his promises empty.

jobbridge4life

markodaly wrote: »

As an aside, I do not think there will be any war with Iran. Trumps base is more about isolationism than foreign military adventures. People are forgetting that. After it, it is his base that will have to go out a fight. So unless Iran does some kind of Perl Harbour attack, there will be no war there.

A part of Trump's base is presently for isolationism, another part strongly supported the Iraq invasion. I have trouble believing that his isolationist base is going to have much sway as it hasn't to date stopped Trump's escalation of US military interventionism oversees, Syria, Yemen etc.

markodaly wrote: »

People are seeing the pull out of the deal as a first step to war, its not, its just another step towards isolationism.

Disagree, how can a return to the previous status quo, and in fact the addition of further interference in the form of expanded sanctions be seen as isolationism?

markodaly wrote: »

And even if it did come to war, the US military would destroy Iran's military capability in as little as 4 weeks, with minimal casualties if it wanted to.

Iraq.

robinph

The US could destroy Iran in 40 minutes if they wanted to and with zero US casualties. Kind of pointless argument though unless you really think they are going to let him actually fire nuclear missiles in retaliation for being called names.

We have to keep the belief that there are people in between the idiot in chief and the actual firing key who have a brain cell between them.

kilns

robinph wrote: »

The US could destroy Iran in 40 minutes if they wanted to and with zero US casualties. Kind of pointless argument though unless you really think they are going to let him actually fire nuclear missiles in retaliation for being called names.

We have to keep the belief that there are people in between the idiot in chief and the actual firing key who have a brain cell between them.

Problem is he is surrounding himself with guys who would encourage him to do it, like Bolton

Call me Al

Mumha wrote: »

Breaking News : The Hill are reporting that Stormy Daniels’s attorney Michael Avenatti said on Tuesday that President Trump’s personal lawyer Michael Cohen received $500,000 in the months after the 2016 election from a company run by a Russian oligarch with ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

https://twitter.com/MichaelAvenatti/status/993959992762994688

This would be explosive if true. Avenatti said that the funding may have been used to reimburse the $130,000 payment Cohen made to Daniels to stay quiet about her alleged affair with Trump.

And so now we understand the reason why Giuliani was so quick and perplexjngly eager to drop Trump in bigger trouble by admitting to paying Cohen the $130k for Stormy.
Because there really was a bigger scandal about to crest that wave. No matter how bad or illegal this was going to be it was the lesser of two evils.

kilns

kilns wrote: »

Problem is he is surrounding himself with guys who would encourage him to do it, like Bolton

What in the world. You believe these people are going to tell him to fire nukes? Yes or no?

The last few pages of this thread is just comical hysteria. I'm so glad I haven't gotten sucked into it.

amandstu

It is clear by now that Trump supporters are unpersuadable but has this neverending stream of revelations(some not so revelatory) galvanized the anti Trump electorate in such a way as to really pull the rug from out of him and his hangers on come the next elections?

Does this mean that people are more likely to come out and vote him and his supporters out rather than for his supporters to come out and vote for him (in the Mid terms if we ever get there)?

markodaly

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I agree with the first part of your post - it's a good point. However, Iran's size and military capability, allied to their faith and nationalism, means that unless the US were to nuke them (ironically), the US would be bogged down in a war much worse than Vietnam.

Not really. I do not think anyone is interested in occupying Iran. I remember all the same proclamations being made for Iraq and Yugoslavia. The latter at the time had the 4th best military in the world at the time.

The US made mince meat out of them in a matter of weeks.

PopePalpatine

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I'm sure they'd try that. But the grieving widows, children and mothers paint a powerful picture.

...which won't get shown on Fox, Sinclair outlets, Breitbart etc.

kilns

Deleted User wrote: »

kilns wrote: »

Problem is he is surrounding himself with guys who would encourage him to do it, like Bolton

What in the world. You believe these people are going to tell him to fire nukes? Yes or no?

The last few pages of this thread is just comical hysteria. I'm so glad I haven't gotten sucked into it.

Do you even know who John Bolton is and what he is capable of?

UsedToWait

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

Does anyone here who is well-informed think it was a good deal in the first place?

Is Trump emboldened by the change in North Korea?

Not claiming to be well informed, but on the basis of what I've read, it was the most scrutinised nuclear programme bar none, up to and including web cams at sites in Iran etc..

According to Trump, it was the worst deal ever, so if his North Korea deal is anything less than full dismantling of all nuclear stocks and and end to all research, with full access for the IAEA, then it will, in effect, turn out to have been only the second-worst deal ever..

kilns

kilns wrote: »

Do you even know who John Bolton is and what he is capable of?

I'll take that as a yes, then. Enjoy.

amandstu

markodaly wrote: »

Not really. I do not think anyone is interested in occupying Iran. I remember all the same proclamations being made for Iraq and Yugoslavia. The latter at the time had the 4th best military in the world at the time.

The US made mince meat out of them in a matter of weeks.

Citation please. 4 th best miltary at the time of the US intervention (as part of a coalition I seem to remember) ?

jobbridge4life

Deleted User wrote: »

I'll take that as a yes, then. Enjoy.

To be clear Bolton has repeatedly, publically called for the bombing of Iran.

Leroy42

Deleted User wrote: »

What in the world. You believe these people are going to tell him to fire nukes? Yes or no?

The last few pages of this thread is just comical hysteria. I'm so glad I haven't gotten sucked into it.

I think Trump has shown a willingness to at least threaten to use nukes. Those around him, the likes of Bolton, based on their insistence to invade Iraq, would appear to be more favourable to war then not.

Would they persuade him to use nukes? No idea, but we can take from their history that they would be in favour of military action. Couple that with Trump seeming willingness to use nukes and it becomes irrelevant who persuades whom once the missile is in the air.

As for the last few pages being hysteria, I have to say I haven't seen it. I have seen POV on a number of areas but all based on some grounding.

Are you saying that the last few pages are all hysteria or just certain posts?

markodaly

weisses wrote: »

Define "minimal casualities"

And where do you base the 4 weeks campaign figure on ?

Look at Iraq and Yugoslavia. But I suppose this time will be different?

Remember, I say nothing about an occupation which is a different thing altogether, I am merely talking about destroying an army and airforce.

Professor Moriarty

markodaly wrote: »

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I agree with the first part of your post - it's a good point. However, Iran's size and military capability, allied to their faith and nationalism, means that unless the US were to nuke them (ironically), the US would be bogged down in a war much worse than Vietnam.

Not really. I do not think anyone is interested in occupying Iran. I remember all the same proclamations being made for Iraq and Yugoslavia. The latter at the time had the 4th best military in the world at the time.

The US made mince meat out of them in a matter of weeks.

Well, no. Yugoslavia never had the fourth best military in the world. Also, while the US technically attacked Yugoslavia, in reality it was Serbia.

Leroy42

But Yugoslavia was in the middle of a terrible civil war, for some the US attacks were welcomed.

Attacking Iran will be completely different. Would the US win, based on the size and capabilities of each military then the answer is an easy yes. But then that should have been the answer in Afghanistan and Iraq and Vietnam. None of which worked out.

As we can see from Iraq, the 'easy' bit is the invasion. It is the aftermath. Many thousands of American soldiers have died in Iraq even after Saddam was dethroned. So the US could destroy large parts of Iran quite quickly, although you can be assured that Iran has planned for this eventuality and will safeguard some assets.

But then the US will be faced with a massive wild west in the middle of the middle east. Free for the likes of ISIS to take over the oil fields. It will be Syria on steroids.

markodaly

Some on here want this to be a precursor to war as it confirms their own bias.

This is all about isolationism, not war. The average Trump voter couldn't give a damm about Iran and certainly do not want to be over there fighting. He promised that he would wthdraw from the deal and he did. He may want to do a new deal or spin it that way but a new war? Nope, not at all. Trump is not Bush or Clinton.

listermint

markodaly wrote: »

Some on here want this to be a precursor to way as it confirms their own bias.

This is all about isolationism, not war. The average Trump voter couldn't give a damm about Iran and certainly do not want to be over there fighting. He promised that he would wthdraw from the deal and he did. He may want to do a new deal or spin it that way but a new war? Nope, not at all. Trump is not Bush or Clinton.

Your right, he never did fire any missiles in the last 12 months. Not like that war mongerer Hillary who fired all those missiles in the last 2 years.


.. oh..


wait

amandstu

markodaly wrote: »

Some on here want this to be a precursor to war as it confirms their own bias.

This is all about isolationism, not war. The average Trump voter couldn't give a damm about Iran and certainly do not want to be over there fighting. He promised that he would wthdraw from the deal and he did. He may want to do a new deal or spin it that way but a new war? Nope, not at all. Trump is not Bush or Clinton.

If wishes were....we all know what he wishes for..

yes we all want war ,don't we?