Archive

Impressed by Trump administration

  • ptown_trojans_1
    Con_Alma;1852833 wrote:There are reports coming out that North Korea has test fired a ballistic missile.
    Not an ICBM, but could be a medium or intermediate range one. Def. a successful test. Probably, the musudan or the sub based missile.
    superman;1852840 wrote:Did they fire it at us? If not, then I don't care.
    Uhh, you should care, even if it was not at us. Even if it is fired at Japan or South Korea, that pulls us into a conflict due to treaty alliance and forces in the area.
  • superman
    ptown_trojans_1;1852873 wrote:Not an ICBM, but could be a medium or intermediate range one. Def. a successful test. Probably, the musudan or the sub based missile.


    Uhh, you should care, even if it was not at us. Even if it is fired at Japan or South Korea, that pulls us into a conflict due to treaty alliance and forces in the area.
    I care, I'm just not super excited about another pointless war like CA is.
  • Con_Alma
    superman;1852881 wrote:I care, I'm just not super excited about another pointless war like CA is.
    Super excited??? I don't know where you get that from. I would say I'm cautiously concerned. I'd rather there not be any war.

    Sounds like NK is open to talks with the US...with conditions.
  • Con_Alma
    ptown_trojans_1;1852873 wrote:Not an ICBM, but could be a medium or intermediate range one. Def. a successful test. Probably, the musudan or the sub based missile.


    ....
    I don't think they're near the ability to have an ICBM but this recent successful test is just another step in their efforts to work towards it.
  • ptown_trojans_1
    Con_Alma;1852884 wrote: Sounds like NK is open to talks with the US...with conditions.
    Of course they are. They have always been, but those conditions usually mean ending the Korean war on their terms, the withdraw of U.S. forces from South Korea, and accepting the North Korean nuclear program. All of those are non starters for the U.S. and have been for 20 years.
    Con_Alma;1852885 wrote:I don't think they're near the ability to have an ICBM but this recent successful test is just another step in their efforts to work towards it.
    Yeah, the breakthrough and scary part is they are now moving to solid fuel missiles for their short and medium range missiles. That means the launch time is much shorter and therefore it is harder to shoot them down in war time. It is also harder to find them as they are more mobile.
  • Con_Alma
    https://www.wsj.com/articles/north-korea-is-accelerating-plan-to-land-missiles-in-u-s-1494792608?mod=e2tw

    Pretty good chronological summary of NK progress in developing a long range missile and the acceleration we have recently seen.
  • Spock
    NK can keep bombing the ocean.
  • ptown_trojans_1
    Spock;1852954 wrote:NK can keep bombing the ocean.
    No man. That is how they test their missiles. A splash down in the ocean is a successful test of the range and operation of the missile. Splashdowns are bad, blowing up in midair is good.
    Just as a point of reference, we test our Trident and Minuteman missiles the same way, launching them from subs or Vanderberg, CA to splashdown in the south Pacific (middle of nowhere).
  • QuakerOats
    A few of the many, many wins thus far:


    https://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2017/04/29/the-10-best-things-about-trumps-first-100-days-in-office-n2320022





    Best
  • Dr Winston O'Boogie
    Best what? Best president? I'm sure reading the sources you read, you could come away with that opinion. To me, Trump's start is the worst one I've ever seen or can even imagine. It's very hard to believe this man is in charge. What gives you any confidence that he has the constitution to handle anything of great import? He has acted like a child, nothing more.
  • Spock
    Dr Winston O'Boogie;1854036 wrote:Best what? Best president? I'm sure reading the sources you read, you could come away with that opinion. To me, Trump's start is the worst one I've ever seen or can even imagine. It's very hard to believe this man is in charge. What gives you any confidence that he has the constitution to handle anything of great import? He has acted like a child, nothing more.
    Of course you think that listening to the media. On reality it's not that bad. The stock market is killing it, ILLEGAL immigration is down etc
    .
  • Dr Winston O'Boogie
    Spock;1854071 wrote:Of course you think that listening to the media. On reality it's not that bad. The stock market is killing it, ILLEGAL immigration is down etc
    .
    I think that reading his tweets. Saying illegal immigration is down because of him is like saying "Ever since I was elected at 5 o'clock this evening, the temperature has been going down. I'm defeating global warming."
  • QuakerOats
    Dr Winston O'Boogie;1854036 wrote:Best what? Best president? I'm sure reading the sources you read, you could come away with that opinion. To me, Trump's start is the worst one I've ever seen or can even imagine. It's very hard to believe this man is in charge. What gives you any confidence that he has the constitution to handle anything of great import? He has acted like a child, nothing more.

    "Best", as in best regards etc,as in sincerely, truly yours, etc...sorry for the confusion
  • gut
    Hearing so many Dems downplay the impeachment talk, I'm starting to wonder if this isn't exactly what they want and to maintain status quo. All about winning back seats, and obstructing the Trump and Republican agendas.

    Trump doesn't have a unified Republican party behind him. So for Dems to be given a pass for such obscene obstruction (hypocrisy much, anyone?), they just want to drive a bigger wedge between Republicans, Trump and the voters. I think it may not actually be in their interest (or goals), to remove Trump from the equation....because that would make Pence POTUS, a real conservative that Republicans and voters might unify behind....which would mean pushing a conservative agenda that Dems oppose at least as much as they do Trump.

    It may all make too much sense. Dems don't want Pence as POTUS - they want to run against Trump in 2018 and 2020.
  • QuakerOats
    Egyptian prez says Trump may be "capable of doing impossible".

    And all I heard from CNN yesterday morning was that Trump looked stern and had not smiled. SMH
  • QuakerOats
    gut;1854215 wrote:Hearing so many Dems downplay the impeachment talk, I'm starting to wonder if this isn't exactly what they want and to maintain status quo.

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/05/breaking-complete-panic-set-highest-levels-dnc-seth-rich-murder-investigation/
  • Con_Alma
    "Multiple" White House staffers have been identified as leaking classified information. Trey Yingst has reported they will be fired when the POTUS returns stateside.
  • gut
    Con_Alma;1854461 wrote:"Multiple" White House staffers have been identified as leaking classified information. Trey Yingst has reported they will be fired when the POTUS returns stateside.
    Fired?!? Isn't this a crime?
  • Belly35
    gut;1854473 wrote:Fired?!? Isn't this a crime?
    shooting them is a crime .... right DNC?
  • ppaw1999
    http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-proposes-dramatic-changes-to-federal-government-slashing-safety-net-programs-that-affect-up-to-a-fifth-of-americans/ar-BBBskGf?li=BBnb7Kz

    I am in favor of balancing the budgets. I know some hard decisions need to be made to obtain it. Don't know if some of these cuts are to deep?
  • gut
    ppaw1999;1854581 wrote: I am in favor of balancing the budgets. I know some hard decisions need to be made to obtain it. Don't know if some of these cuts are to deep?
    It will simply never happen with the tax cuts proposed.

    While I think it's good, if not necessary, to reign in the many numerous federal programs (although I favor budget freezes and increases slower than inflation, safety-net programs is a different issue)....you're never going to make much of a dent with defense and entitlement programs taking up nearly 80% of spending.

    Scary and sad to think that within a decade we could easily be shipping out over $700B in interest just at more normalized rates. And that's only on the non-intergovt debt (since the intergovt debt is really just a payment from Treasury offset with a receipt at SS or Medicare). $700B would pay for a lot of welfare programs.
  • like_that
    ppaw1999;1854581 wrote:http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-proposes-dramatic-changes-to-federal-government-slashing-safety-net-programs-that-affect-up-to-a-fifth-of-americans/ar-BBBskGf?li=BBnb7Kz

    I am in favor of balancing the budgets. I know some hard decisions need to be made to obtain it. Don't know if some of these cuts are to deep?
    Before this topic gets derailed by certain troll trash posters, I just want to say you have to be willing to make cuts to the DoD. Until then, it's hard to take any attempt at balancing the budget seriously. Also not a fan of the Government mandating maternity leave. I figured Ivanka would get into Donald's ear about that.
  • Dr Winston O'Boogie
    like_that;1854590 wrote:Before this topic gets derailed by certain troll trash posters, I just want to say you have to be willing to make cuts to the DoD. Until then, it's hard to take any attempt at balancing the budget seriously. Also not a fan of the Government mandating maternity leave. I figured Ivanka would get into Donald's ear about that.
    I agree with you, but no president or congress seems capable of taking on the military spending. We are somewhere between a third and half of all military spending in the world. There is no way anyone can make a convincing argument that we get our money's worth from that.
  • gut
    McConnell and Ryan have basically already said they don't give a fark about the POTUS budget.
  • O-Trap
    Dr Winston O'Boogie;1854594 wrote:I agree with you, but no president or congress seems capable of taking on the military spending. We are somewhere between a third and half of all military spending in the world. There is no way anyone can make a convincing argument that we get our money's worth from that.
    Agreed.

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/charlestiefer/2016/01/01/the-10-most-blatantly-wasteful-defense-items-in-the-recent-1-8-trillion-spending-bill/#10d1265d68cd

    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-defense-waste-idUSKBN13V08B