Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
The Presidency of Donald J. Trump: No smocking guns. The Presidency of Donald J. Trump: No smocking guns.

04-28-2017 , 11:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by weeeez
Someone explain to me simply why some countries cant have/arent allowed to have nuclear weapons?
I expect the answer not to be along the lines of:because nuclear proliferation is bad,said countries want to strike USA n1,only USA can tell who is allowed to do what.
What is the basis (I dont know how to formulate it,ethics?legal? idk) to forbid some countries (iran,NK etc...) to obtain nuclear weapon?
Military Industrial Complex.
04-28-2017 , 11:23 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by weeeez
Someone explain to me simply why some countries cant have/arent allowed to have nuclear weapons?
I expect the answer not to be along the lines of:because nuclear proliferation is bad,said countries want to strike USA n1,only USA can tell who is allowed to do what.
What is the basis (I dont know how to formulate it,ethics?legal? idk) to forbid some countries (iran,NK etc...) to obtain nuclear weapon?
Didn't this guy come in here like a month ago and ask this exact question?
04-28-2017 , 11:23 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clovis8
The right funds advertising, stacks the lower courts, has entire NGOs dedicated to placing SCOTUS nominees. They have an entire infrastructure. The left has nothing like this. Add to this the rights base comes out to the polls for SCOTUS while the lefts does not.
The right funds these things because they have money. It's not church plate collections funding this. The Koch Network has spent nearly a billion dollars in some years.
04-28-2017 , 11:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by weeeez
Someone explain to me simply why some countries cant have/arent allowed to have nuclear weapons?
I expect the answer not to be along the lines of:because nuclear proliferation is bad,said countries want to strike USA n1,only USA can tell who is allowed to do what.
What is the basis (I dont know how to formulate it,ethics?legal? idk) to forbid some countries (iran,NK etc...) to obtain nuclear weapon?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty...uclear_Weapons

Quote:
The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, commonly known as the Non-Proliferation Treaty or NPT, is an international treaty whose objective is to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology, to promote cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, and to further the goal of achieving nuclear disarmament and general and complete disarmament.[1]

Opened for signature in 1968, the treaty entered into force in 1970. As required by the text, after twenty-five years, NPT Parties met in May 1995 and agreed to extend the treaty indefinitely.[2] More countries have adhered to the NPT than any other arms limitation and disarmament agreement, a testament to the treaty's significance.[1] As of August 2016, 191 states have adhered to the treaty, though North Korea, which acceded in 1985 but never came into compliance, announced its withdrawal from the NPT in 2003, following detonation of nuclear devices in violation of core obligations.[3] Four UN member states have never accepted the NPT, three of which are thought to possess nuclear weapons: India, Israel, and Pakistan. In addition, South Sudan, founded in 2011, has not joined.

The treaty defines nuclear-weapon states as those that have built and tested a nuclear explosive device before 1 January 1967; these are the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, and China. Four other states are known or believed to possess nuclear weapons: India, Pakistan, and North Korea have openly tested and declared that they possess nuclear weapons, while Israel is deliberately ambiguous regarding its nuclear weapons status.

The NPT is often seen to be based on a central bargain:

the NPT non-nuclear-weapon states agree never to acquire nuclear weapons and the NPT nuclear-weapon states in exchange agree to share the benefits of peaceful nuclear technology and to pursue nuclear disarmament aimed at the ultimate elimination of their nuclear arsenals.[4]
04-28-2017 , 11:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shoe
When accounting for population growth it is more lol than it looks. If only Joe Biden would have been allowed to run by the DNC elites.

Another crazy scenario: The DNC elites tried to force Hilary upon us in 2008 but Obama ran anyway and as we all know it does not take much to defeat Hilary. If Obama had caved into DNC pressure not to run to let it be her turn then, then McCain would have won in 2008, which means Obama probably would have won in 2012 for the first time and just got re-elected, and no trump now.

The number one priority needs to be replacing the DNC leadership they are just terrible. In 2004 Wesley Clark could have beat GWB as well but when the country was scared of terrorists apparently electing a strong general was the wrong answer.
People need to stop with this narrative of Hillary being a terrible candidate. She left the Sec State office with like a 65% approval rating and massive name recognition, plus according to each and every poll taken when the Dem primaries started she was going to wipe the floor with every Rep candidate in the field. With those numbers it was foolish for anyone like Biden to go in against her and risk fracturing the Dem coalition.

Then of course the perfect storm broke, with the emails and the health scares and the right wing smear machine its thing, but even after all of that she was leading comfortably right up until just 10 days before the election when the GOP stooge Comey released his 'letter' about the new investigation. Of all the things Obama did, appointing a moron like that as head of the FBI will go down as his biggest blunder yet.

You'd think they'd have learned with Hoover. NEVER appoint an enemy to be director of the FBI. They're too independent and they can hurt you too many ways.
04-28-2017 , 11:34 AM
Oh good, more pointless executive orders from the hypocrite in chief. Tell us how hard the job is Donny, hit the links time!
04-28-2017 , 11:34 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shoe
When accounting for population growth it is more lol than it looks. If only Joe Biden would have been allowed to run by the DNC elites.

Another crazy scenario: The DNC elites tried to force Hilary upon us in 2008 but Obama ran anyway and as we all know it does not take much to defeat Hilary. If Obama had caved into DNC pressure not to run to let it be her turn then, then McCain would have won in 2008, which means Obama probably would have won in 2012 for the first time and just got re-elected, and no trump now.

The number one priority needs to be replacing the DNC leadership they are just terrible. In 2004 Wesley Clark could have beat GWB as well but when the country was scared of terrorists apparently electing a strong general was the wrong answer.
They definitely need to get the lizard people out of DNC leadership.
04-28-2017 , 11:38 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dinopoker
You'd think they'd have learned with Hoover. NEVER appoint an enemy to be director of the FBI. They're too independent and they can hurt you too many ways.
I sure hope Dems have learned the lesson on bipartisanship. It means nothing to anyone and you get stabbed in the back. The GOP is screwing over their own supporters and it's idiotic to think they won't do it to you.
04-28-2017 , 11:41 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dlk9s
Not only is Trump stupid enough to think being President would be easier than what he did before, but he even stupider to actually say that out loud in an interview.
To be fair to Trump, he got his information about the Presidency from Fox News so he probably really did think that if all he did was only play golf on the weekends and talk tough instead of bowing to foreign leaders he'd be far, far, ahead of his predecessor.
04-28-2017 , 12:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dinopoker
People need to stop with this narrative of Hillary being a terrible candidate. She left the Sec State office with like a 65% approval rating and massive name recognition, plus according to each and every poll taken when the Dem primaries started she was going to wipe the floor with every Rep candidate in the field. With those numbers it was foolish for anyone like Biden to go in against her and risk fracturing the Dem coalition.

Then of course the perfect storm broke, with the emails and the health scares and the right wing smear machine its thing, but even after all of that she was leading comfortably right up until just 10 days before the election when the GOP stooge Comey released his 'letter' about the new investigation. Of all the things Obama did, appointing a moron like that as head of the FBI will go down as his biggest blunder yet.

You'd think they'd have learned with Hoover. NEVER appoint an enemy to be director of the FBI. They're too independent and they can hurt you too many ways.
IMO Hillary's foreign policy is the worst thing about her so I'm not a fan of her as SoS, but she's much much much more competent at that job than she is at campaigning for office.
04-28-2017 , 12:14 PM
Clovis is right.

The Right takes the SCOTUS far more seriously than the Left does. Look at the Bernie Bros that didn't vote and the Jill Stein voters.

Don't want to vote Hilary? Fine. But vote the SCOTUS. But like Clovis mentioned, the Left didn't take it seriously.
04-28-2017 , 12:20 PM
Dunno about anyone else, but I'm kinda disappointed with our drama king so far today. It's Friday, Day 99 and he's running out of time to blow things up. Bore-ing!
04-28-2017 , 12:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RV Life
Clovis is right.

The Right takes the SCOTUS far more seriously than the Left does. Look at the Bernie Bros that didn't vote and the Jill Stein voters.

Don't want to vote Hilary? Fine. But vote the SCOTUS. But like Clovis mentioned, the Left didn't take it seriously.
Sad. If you have to blame 1% of voters it's sad.
That's calling out a speck in someone else's eye when there's a log in yours.
04-28-2017 , 12:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RV Life
Clovis is right.

The Right takes the SCOTUS far more seriously than the Left does. Look at the Bernie Bros that didn't vote and the Jill Stein voters.

Don't want to vote Hilary? Fine. But vote the SCOTUS. But like Clovis mentioned, the Left didn't take it seriously.
On the list of thing that motivates people to vote, SCOTUS is pretty low. If all the other reasons not to vote Trump didn't work, reminding them about SCOTUS picks wasn't going to have any effect.

SCOTUS only worked for Trump because it gave cover to people to vote for him. These people were always going to vote Trump, but SCOTUS allowed them to pretend that they hated Trump but had no other choice because SCOTUS.
04-28-2017 , 12:36 PM
Trump certainly didn't win the nomination because people cared about the Supreme Court. Authoritarianism, racism, white supremacy, xenophobia, anti-intellectualism ....
04-28-2017 , 12:41 PM
Getting back to Trump, holy s*** is he stupid.
04-28-2017 , 12:42 PM
Stein voters are like a 1% loony fringe group that's never voting Dem. Scapegoating them really isn't productive.
04-28-2017 , 12:44 PM
https://twitter.com/CNN/status/857994068244279296

Another gem from that Reuters interview. The man is seriously, seriously damaged. This was yesterday!

Quote:
(CNN) President Donald Trump had a special handout for three Reuters journalists who conducted a wide-ranging interview with him on Thursday connected to his first 100 days in office.

While discussing a topic regarding Chinese President Xi Jinping, Trump produced three maps illustrating the latest data from his electoral college wins in the 2016 election, according to Jeff Mason, the White House correspondent for Reuters and president of the White House Correspondents' Association.

"We were talking ... about President Xi and that relationship and then he sort of interrupted himself and handed out this map of the electoral college and said that these were the latest figures of the areas in the country that he had won in 2016," said Mason, showing the map to the cameras on CNN's "New Day" Friday morning.

"There were three of us in the interview ... and he had a copy for each of us," added Mason. "It was just clear that the election ... remains very much on his mind."

As CNN's Chris Cillizza has reported, this is a far from an isolated incident with Trump. Indeed, Cilizza has reported that "almost daily," Trump "finds a way to shoehorn the fact that he won when no one else said he could into conversations."

Earlier this month, when he was asked by The New York Times why he thought Democrats had opposed Neil Gorsuch's nomination to the Supreme Court, Trump answered, "Well, I think that some of it had to do with the election. They thought they were going to win. You know, winning the Electoral College is, for a Republican, is close to impossible, and I won it quite easily. And I think they are still recovering from that, but they are recovering now."
04-28-2017 , 12:53 PM
He's even still concerned with Schwarzenegger and rating for The Apprentice. It's ridiculous. It's beyond Idiocracy.
04-28-2017 , 01:36 PM
Naaaaah.
04-28-2017 , 01:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisV
lol at "I thought it would be easier" about the job of POTUS. Jesus titty****ing Christ.
It's been obvious for a long time that Trump didn't expect the job of President to be all that difficult. He assumed that it was mostly a matter of building a staff and then offering his infallible snap judgments on big picture questions.

This is why I strongly disagreed with people who argued that Trump never actually wanted to win.
04-28-2017 , 01:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shuffle
I think Trump's base is finally turning on him thanks to his "I'm a nationalist and a globalist" remark. They are foaming at the mouth right now and the realization that they are stupid, gullible fools is starting to dawn on them.
I'm afraid that you have a very advanced case of the wants.
04-28-2017 , 01:42 PM
Ya, Trump slappies are mad at (((Jared))) and Ivanka for betraying His Orangeness. They're certainly not having any second thoughts about Trump.
04-28-2017 , 01:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thug Bubbles
Actual quote from a right-wing message board I peak at from time to time:



It's flat out depressing how determined Trump voters are in finding ways to ignore his faults.
Democrats were determined for years to overlook the faults of Obama and Pelosi and others. Partisans will be partisan.
04-28-2017 , 01:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by microbet
The right funds these things because they have money. It's not church plate collections funding this. The Koch Network has spent nearly a billion dollars in some years.
I don't see your point.

      
m