Donald Trump discuss

[Sucumbio]

The recent turn of events has been pretty delicious to watch the alt-right and neo-nazis like the Daily Stormer jump ship and go ballistic at the first sign of things not going their way. Several months of "winning" and "God emperor" Trump and now they are ready to roast the guy at the stake for being a traitor. And of course they all blame Kushner :rolls eyes:

I figured once he actually got in, his tune would change. Haha as I'm writing this reply the ad banner is throwing up a "Should America Build The Wall?" graphic from commonsense.co

Speaking of which...

SHOULD WE BUILD THE WALL!?!?!?

(no.)

 

[MyNameisHobby]

I never really support presidential candidates. I support their decisions.

For example, Trump has made many good decisions in his presidency in my opinion. The strike on Syria was a message that the U.S. wasn't gonna **** around anymore and will take military action against the disruption of peace in this world. Same with North Korea. Trump has built trust with China despite his remarks about the Communist nation, and now they're tougher on North Korea. Meanwhile, the U.S., Japan, and South Korea are poised to defend the South from a Northern invasion, and China hasn't said anything about it. They're still being tough on North Korea. NK-China relations are on the verge of collapse if the DPRK keeps up with it's nuclear threats, and China seems to be fully on our side now.

However, I do have criticisms for President Trump. For example, the Muslim ban. I do think a ban in necessary, but all the countries Trump banned have no confirmed terrorist activity. However, the ban keeps getting blocked, so we don't have any worries. Not to mention his administration is EXTREMELY CORRUPT. Many people leave or are fired from the administration due to the instability of the administration and countless scandals with other countries.

Trump isn't the problem, however, as it is the people. We have the opposition never applauding the opposite side for anything because they're so hellbent on getting Trump out of office. Meanwhile, people on Trump's side are calling Liberals 'fascists' because they support immigration and immigrants "kill our nation". Not to mention the media constantly spews propaganda into it's mindless viewers making them clueless of everything and never even reports real news(Like, anything NOT related to politics). If we don't do something about the corruption of the administration and the aggressive American political community, America may actually break out into a second Civil War.

 

[bboss]

For example, the Muslim ban. I do think a ban in necessary, but all the countries Trump banned have no confirmed terrorist activity. However, the ban keeps getting blocked, so we don't have any worries.

Actually, the seven countries banned include Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen.

Iran: Iran has been described as the world's "foremost state sponsor of terrorism". Iran planned terrorist attacks against the U.S.
Iraq: Iraq set a record for the most terrorist-related deaths in 2014. In 2016 there were the Karrada bombings, which killed 308 people.
Libya: According to GOV.UK, terrorists are "very likely" to carry out attacks in Libya. There has been much Islamic terrorism in Libya.
Somalia: As I'm sure you're aware, there was a major conflict in Mogadishu in 1993, in which Randy Shutgart and Gary Gordon were killed.
Sudan: (From Wikipedia) "Terrorism in Sudan has occurred since the recent war."
Syria: From 2011-2017 there have been numerous terrorist attacks in Syria. Not to mention the ongoing civil war.
Yemen: The 2014 Hostage Rescue Operations in Yemen. The American journalist Luke Somers succumbed to his wounds midflight in a V-22 Osprey after being rescued.

What I'm trying to say is that all of the countries that Donald Trump has banned have experienced numerous horrific terrorist attacks. There are more countries that are not on the list that have experienced major terrorist attacks.

 

[MyNameisHobby]

Maybe against other nations, but not against the U.S. If no terrorist organizations are attacking us, we should not worry about them.... for now.

 

[bboss]

Maybe against other nations, but not against the U.S.

The American journalist Luke Somers succumbed to his wounds midflight in a V-22 Osprey after being rescued.

American assets worldwide are being attacked by terrorists. That's why there is a war on terrorism. And yes, we should worry about them, even if they aren't attacking us; it is the general duty of the civilized world to combat terrorism.

 

[Venus of the Desert Bloom]

Should North Korea choose to attack South Korea or Japan via a non-nuclear option (and using the logic of not attacking unless we are directly attack), than Trump's America shouldn't pursue any sort of retaliatory action against North Korea. Unless one of the bases are attacked.

Makes perfect sense. So does the Daily Stormer and it's "North Korea is best Korea".

 

[bboss]

Should North Korea choose to attack South Korea or Japan via a non-nuclear option

Finally someone with sense. I hear everyone on the news bawling about how the world's going to end because of "tense relations" between the U.S. and NK, but realistically NK is actually in a very tough spot. Here's why:

- Conventional warfare with the South would result in millions of casualties and a minority win for North Korea.
- North Korea borders China, which has extremely precise and powerful artillery units capable of striking targets far within NK borders.
- China supposedly has two hundred and sixty five stockpiled nuclear weapons.
- Everybody hates NK except for Russia and some smaller states.

 

[Venus of the Desert Bloom]

North Korea would never use nuclear weapons on the south. They want to reunify. Nuking it would set them back from reunification.

Japan though is an entirely other ballgame. I know the government here has been preparing for such an event. Some cities on the Sea of Japan side have been conducting emergency drills in case of a missile; nuclear or otherwise. My city which is directly north of Tokyo in the middle of Japan hasn't been doing that but we are getting fliers in our mail via government detailing what to do, where to go, and other information is a missile is launched.

It seems to me that the general consensus here is that Japan tries to stay out of the conflict and that an attack would be due to the consequences of increase American aggression.

 

[bboss]

North Korea would never use nuclear weapons on the south. They want to reunify. Nuking it would set them back from reunification.

Exactly.

It seems to me that the general consensus here is that Japan tries to stay out of the conflict and that an attack would be due to the consequences of increase American aggression.

Japan does not have to worry about nuclear attacks from North Korea quite yet. The operative combat radius of NK's missiles is 35 miles, so they don't nearly have ICBMs. What Japan does need to worry about is warships that can be launched from a number of North Korean port cities, Unggi, Chongjin, Kimchaek, Hongwon, Wonsan, etc. that can just sail across to Japan and bombard Japanese port cities. Not to mention North Korea can launch airstrikes from one of their many airbases, which would likely require mid-flight refuelling, which is an expensive and precarious operation.

Needless to say, Japan and North Korea will not be having a war in the near future, and if they do, it will be a largely naval and aerial war, with no nuclear weapons involved, and most likely nearly no territory gained or lost.

 

[MyNameisHobby]

Should North Korea choose to attack South Korea or Japan via a non-nuclear option (and using the logic of not attacking unless we are directly attack), than Trump's America shouldn't pursue any sort of retaliatory action against North Korea.

If that were to happen, we should be very cautious. We don't know yet if China will respond for or against North Korea, and China is a huge threat to the United States in a war. Both China and America would be shattered if they went to war with each other. Not to mention the world depends on China. We lose China, we lose the very computer I'm using to type this message.

My city which is directly north of Tokyo in the middle of Japan hasn't been doing that but we are getting fliers in our mail via government detailing what to do, where to go, and other information is a missile is launched.

Even if North Korea did use nuclear bombs against Japan, Japan would easily mow down North Korea. Hell, ANY COUNTRY can mow North Korea if they really wanted to.

If any nuclear bombs ever reach your area, God bless you. Nuclear bombs are serious. Same goes to any South Koreans. But I doubt nuclear weapons will ever be used against Seoul considering what you said.

 

[bboss]

We don't know yet if China will respond for or against North Korea

most likely against.

China is a huge threat to the United States in a war

If north Korea acted first China and America would be allies.

Hell, ANY COUNTRY can mow North Korea if they really wanted to.

lol.

North Korea has over seven million soldiers. More than one in four North Koreans are soldiers.

Japan?

300,000

The odds of Japan winning against North Korea are about 14-23% rn.

Japan would not "mow" North Korea. Japan would be "mowed".

North Korea has the strongest army in the word, followed by SK, then Vietnam. Japan isn't even in the top 10.

Hell, ANY COUNTRY can mow North Korea if they really wanted to.

Not Greenland.

 

[MyNameisHobby]

most likely against.



lol.

North Korea has over seven million soldiers. More than one in four North Koreans are soldiers.

Japan?

300,000

The odds of Japan winning against North Korea are about 14-23% rn.

Japan would not "mow" North Korea. Japan would be "mowed".

North Korea has the strongest army in the word, followed by SK, then Vietnam. Japan isn't even in the top 10.

Dude, HAVE YOU SEEN THEIR WEAPONS?! They're like, from World War II. And their airforce is equivalent to the Soviet Union's in the 80s, lol. They're like, stuck in a time machine.[/QUOTE]

Not Greenland.

Greenland isn't even a country. It's a territory of Denmark lol.

 

[bboss]

Dude, HAVE YOU SEEN THEIR WEAPONS?! They're like, from World War II. And their airforce is equivalent to the Soviet Union's in the 80s, lol. They're like, stuck in a time machine.

[/QUOTE]

Dude, like, even if that was true, they would still be a formidable fighting force.
As for their airforce, Kim Jong-Un has been trying to modernize it for a long time now.
Their weapons are not from World War II. Their weapons are modern weapons.

 

[Venus of the Desert Bloom]

Japan would be toast if NK chose to invade since Japan is basically dependent on foreign military aid. Not to mention that China and South Korea tends to have a negative view of it. The Us military bases stationed here serve a deterrent to any NK aggression. But yet I read opinion pieces about those bases being closed to bring th military closer to the States. Or making Japan pay more than before (they roughly pay 75% of what it costs for the bases and military). Yet, it's in america's interest to keep those bases and to maintain them.

Dude, HAVE YOU SEEN THEIR WEAPONS?! They're like, from World War II. And their airforce is equivalent to the Soviet Union's in the 80s, lol. They're like, stuck in a time machine.

Please explain to my then why Afghanistan and Iraq were basically never won. Or Vietnam for that matter. The enemy had significantly less modernized technology yet all three wars proved to be very costly for America. North Korea may be a global laughing stock but we have never seen what the country can actually do when it comes to war. They have one of the worlds largest standing military which can be bolstered with civilian conscripts. Malnourished, yes, but still capable fighting units - especially since the military factions gets a larger portion of the BK foodstuffs.

They are a wild card and saying that Japan would "mow" them down is ridiculous. Especially since Japan barely has a military.

Talking about NK, my phone woke me up at 5 this morning about a missile launch from NK. It's nice to know that I roughly have 10 mins after the alert to get out **** together before a missile arrives in Japanese airspace lol.

 

[bboss]

wild card

Wild card? I think it's safe to say that NK is easily the most powerful military currently. The U.S. has a seventh of their manpower and isn't really focusing on much on military stuff rn as much as NK is.

 

[Venus of the Desert Bloom]

Wild card? I think it's safe to say that NK is easily the most powerful military currently. The U.S. has a seventh of their manpower and isn't really focusing on much on military stuff rn as much as NK is.

Wild card as in we won't know what kinds of things that military is capable of and what sort of startegy they employ.

 

[MyNameisHobby]

Please explain to my then why Afghanistan and Iraq were basically never won. Or Vietnam for that matter.

Going back to what bboss said about Japan being steamrolled, on second thought, maybe they would. But that's all North Korea has to do to get America to steamroll them. North Korea is poor as hell. Despite the fact that North Korea spends 15.8% on it's military, they only spend 10 billion USD on it. How much does America spend on it's military every year? 664 million USD. And that's only a fraction of their budget. America can afford tech that's infinitely better than North Korea's, while as I said, North Korea is stuck in a time machine. North Korea was damn lucky they even acquired the materials needed to MAKE nuclear weapons because China is, like, it's only friend.

Then again, if North Korea does use those nuclear weapons against Japan or even South Korea, it would be a very serious crisis possibly worse than 9/11(I ****ing went there). However, if it does happen, America would absolutely crush North Korea in a war, and only one nuclear attack would come from North Korea because of that.

 

[Venus of the Desert Bloom]

I would say that NK sending a nuclear device and successfully striking Tokyo would be indefinitely worse than 9/11.

NK gains nothing from nuking SK. However, they can strike Seoul from within their country with artillary that would deal devastating damage to the city in the opening days of the attack.

But when push comes to shove - NK can't hold out against an unified front and will eventually lose power and ground.

 

[Sucumbio]

This was compiled from the Global Firepower Military Rankings, and is only the top 25 of a list of 127 and taking into account over 50 various factors. Note that Nuclear stockpiles are NOT figured in. Why? Because if anyone is dumb enough to actually detonate a nuke on someone, this whole argument is moot.

But as you can see, as far as conventional warfare goes, the US is still #1 (of course). NK is 25th, lol. They may have a lotta boots on the ground, just shy of 1st place right behind Vietnam, but it's no good vs an adversary such as the United States, who can bomb anyone into oblivion without ever setting foot on their soil. Indeed a US "war" isn't even really traditional war anymore. It focuses on precision; in destabilizing infrastructure by obliterating roads, railways, power stations, etc.The difficulty with NK is hitting them hard and fast enough and so totally that they can't retaliate with anything formidable enough to devastate the surrounding countries.

 

[bboss]

Wild card as in we won't know what kinds of things that military is capable of and what sort of startegy they employ.

You always have to think of the worst possibility when it comes to dictatorship's military.

North Korea was damn lucky they even acquired the materials needed to MAKE nuclear weapons because China is, like, it's only friend.

It's extremely surprising North Korea ever got nuclear weapons. If you did what NK did, shutting its door to the outside world, and then expect to be able to perform extremely complex scientific experiments with no help from nations that could help with nuclear development like the U.S. or Israel, no wonder so many tests have been failing.

However, if it does happen, America would absolutely crush North Korea in a war, and only one nuclear attack would come from North Korea because of that.

Likely, twelve nuclear missiles would be fired: one at Seoul, Daegu, Gwangju, Ulsan, Busan, Incheon, Suwon, and probably one at Tokyo, Osaka, Kumamoto, and Kagoshima. This would literally cripple the two countries' economies for the next few years.

And then the U.S. would retaliate and there would no longer be a north korea.

I would say that NK sending a nuclear device and successfully striking Tokyo would be indefinitely worse than 9/11.

of course. The thermonuclear weapons developed nowadays are said to be ten times more powerful than the bombs dropped on HIroshima and Nagasaki; i believe in Hiroshima alone over 80,000 people were killed; also, there are a lot more people per square mile in these countries than there were in 1945.

But as you can see, as far as conventional warfare goes, the US is still #1 (of course). NK is 25th, lol.

These statistics actually seem to be rather flawed. According to Wikipedia, the United States has less than 2,000,000 active personnel.

This list seems to be pretty bogus and rather ignorant of the fact that manpower does matter.

It's good that it's up-to-date, however. China just finished building its first domestically built aircraft carrier last week.

Anyone who knows anything about the military, like me, knows this list is complete crap. For example, the list is lacking APCs, number of airbases, % of gdp spent on military, # of overseas bases, # of conscriptable men and women aged 18-49, etc., etc.

Another indication that this list is flawed is that it says that "active reserve personnel" is listed in the total manpower; however, North Korea and South Korea are placed under Vietnam, while in reality, their total manpower is above Vietnam.

Of course, the $ "GDP spent" statistic is flawed. Not everyone has many billions of GDP to spend like United States does. As MyNameisHobby stated, North Korea spends "15%" of their GDP on the military, yet this is only $10,000,000,000.

Also, I live in Canada. I have extensively studied the Canadian military. I know that Canada takes U.S. designs (such as the M16) and just randomly names it the Diemaco C8 and pretends it's a completely new rifle. I also know that the active personal statistic here is actually 68,000. Not 140,000. Not even close. That's double the actual amount. Get a better chart.

Want to know what countries to actually worry about? Russia and China. Russia actually has the guts to invade people. Look what they did in the Ukraine. What might have been another minor war turned out to be simply an invasion by the Russians that noone did anything about.

Also, one last note: the missile that Venus of the Desert Bloom mentioned actually had an operational radius of 1200 mi. It crashed into the Sea of Japan not sixty miles from the Russian coast.

Stop worrying about NK. Worry about China and Russia. NK will not use nuclear weapons unless attacked first.

 

[MyNameisHobby]

Want to know what countries to actually worry about? Russia and China. Russia actually has the guts to invade people. Look what they did in the Ukraine. What might have been another minor war turned out to be simply an invasion by the Russians that noone did anything about.

We absolutely need to worry about Russia. Putin is a psychopath and needs to be stopped.

China it easy to control believe it or not. America may disagree on some notes with China, but as long as we aren't disrespectful to China's legacy, views, and reputation, I don't see a war with China happening, Plus, despite what Trump has said about China, China has been very cooperative with Trump. It's obvious they don't want a war. We've seen it after they tensed their relations with North Korea. They are authoritarian, but at the same time, they're on the right side of this world.

However, all America has to do is keep it's promise to take care of North Korea 'by itself', and we could very well strain Chinese relations.

Russia on the other hand, I think the reason why we aren't doing anything about Russia is because, well, Putin gives zero ****s about anything. He invaded Ukraine and absolutely did not care. Wouldn't be surprised if Ukraine is gone by the War in Donbass. Since the United States and NATO is a huge threat to Russia, I'm almost certain that Putin would pull a nuclear weapon out on NATO.

So, the reason why we should stay out of Russia for now is because a war between NATO and Russia=nuclear war.

 

[Venus of the Desert Bloom]

Yeah, China and Russia are also causes for worry. As for North Korea, that goes without saying that being attacked first will cause a counter attack. However, I feel that if someone pressures them just enough and continues to be a threat, they are liable to lash out. I am willing to place my bets that those on the receiving line of that lash out will be it's neighbors and attacking China, Russia, or even South Korea isn't the best idea. Should NK should ever feel that it should attack, Japan will be its first target. Seeing as how I made this place my home, I have reason to worry about North Korea.

 

[bboss]

China it easy to control believe it or not.

How so?

but as long as we aren't disrespectful to China's legacy, views, and reputation, I don't see a war with China happening

For sure not. I'm just talking about their imperialistic views and Russia's expansionist behaviour.

Should NK should ever feel that it should attack, Japan will be its first target. Seeing as how I made this place my home, I have reason to worry about North Korea.

Of course, and even more now that North Korean missiles can probably cross over the Sea of Japan and actually hit Japan.

 

[MyNameisHobby]

How so?

We haven't fell into an official conflict with China ever since the communist takeover in '49. As a matter of fact, despite a few skirmishes, we've kept stable relations with China. China isn't really being controlled by any country. Anything they do is completely on them. Not to mention like I said Trump was actually able to convince Xi Jinping to tense up against North Korea. China sees NK as a threat now, and they're trying to peacefully resolve it.

However, the only thing so far that would make America get into armed conflict with China or at the very least get us close is if America does in fact do something about NK, which is what we are planning to do very soon if they aren't taken care of.

The reason why America has maintained stable relations with China is because China and America both know how catastrophic a war between us would be for not only us, but for the world. China and America are two of the most economically developed countries in the world. And if we were to go to war, it would cause mass destruction across not just China and America, but all of Asia and North America possibly. We both possess nuclear weapons, and because China sees America as big of a threat as we do to them, they're possibly going to use them.

Not to mention that China, despite their fears, are not afraid to go to war with America.

 

[Erimir]

How is this thread titled "Donald Trump: discuss" and nobody is talking about:

• the Trump administration knowing that Flynn was under FBI investigation before naming him National Security Advisor
• Flynn taking $500k from Turkey and then getting an attack on ISIS delayed (that fits with Turkey's preferences)
• Trump pressuring Comey to stop the probe into Michael Flynn
• Trump firing Comey
• The next day, meeting with Russian officials at Putin's request and revealing intelligence of the highest classification that was shared by Israel and which Israel hadn't given us permission to share with Russia - and of course, Russia is friends with Iran, who is not Israel's friend (jeopardizing our intelligence relationship with Israel)
• Meeting those Russians in the Oval Office, but not allowing any US media in, but letting Russian state-owned media in to take pictures
• Trump pretending that he fired Comey because he was unfair to Clinton, but later admitting he was thinking about the Russia probe when he fired him, and Rosenstein's letter about Comey's behavior during the Clinton email investigation was irrelevant
• Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein appointing a special prosecutor to investigate the Russia scandal

Seems like these have been a horrible ten days for Trump.

And of course, all self-inflicted. Nobody forced him to hire Flynn (in fact, Obama warned him not to), behave suspiciously about Russia, fire Comey, blab intelligence to Russian officials, etc.

How's he going to handle a diplomatic or military or economic crisis?

 

[bboss]

• the Trump administration knowing that Flynn was under FBI investigation before naming him National Security Advisor

• Flynn taking $500k from Turkey and then getting an attack on ISIS delayed (that fits with Turkey's preferences)

• Trump pressuring Comey to stop the probe into Michael Flynn

• Trump firing Comey

Can you prove that the Trump administration knew that Flynn was under FBI investigation?
I don't understand the second point, are you saying Turkey supports ISIS? Turkey is a NATO country.
Trump pressured Comey to stop probing? How come I never heard about this?

The next day, meeting with Russian officials at Putin's request and revealing intelligence of the highest classification that was shared by Israel and which Israel hadn't given us permission to share with Russia - and of course, Russia is friends with Iran, who is not Israel's friend (jeopardizing our intelligence relationship with Israel)

If "intelligence of the highest classification" is public knowledge, then yes, he did leak it.
Also, that comment about Iran. Iran under the Shah and Jordan are quietly on good term with the Jews and Israel. They are friends.

 

[Erimir]

Can you prove that the Trump administration knew that Flynn was under FBI investigation?

It's in the New York Times and as far as I know, McGahn has not denied it. Trump has said he didn't know, and Pence has reiterated he didn't know (even though he was the head of the Trump transition). If so, it would seem they're attempting to throw McGahn under the bus because the implication would be that he knew but didn't tell Pence or Trump.

I don't understand the second point, are you saying Turkey supports ISIS? Turkey is a NATO country.

For one, you have Google. The news has been all over these stories (hence my disbelief that nobody is discussing them but instead discussing the improbable scenario of war with China). The story is here, from McClatchy.

Turkey did not want the US to attack Raqqa in partnership with Syrian Kurdish forces, because Turkey does not like the idea of the US partnering with Kurds, due to the longstanding issue of Kurdish separatism in Turkey. (The violence outside the Turkish embassy a couple days ago was between Kurdish-American protesters and Erdogan's guards. Turkey has problems with Kurds.)

Trump pressured Comey to stop probing? How come I never heard about this?

Because you don't read or watch the news? Or any late night talk shows (they've all been talking about it)... Or use Twitter...

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/us/politics/james-comey-trump-flynn-russia-investigation.html
These stories are not hard to find. Jason Chaffetz, House Republican, has requested any such memos from the FBI. Largely due to this report, Republican Rod Rosenstein, Deputy Attorney General appointed by Trump, appointed a special prosecutor for the Russia investigation.

If "intelligence of the highest classification" is public knowledge, then yes, he did leak it.

I don't know what you're trying to say here.

He gave the Russians information that is not public knowledge. Not all the details have been publicly printed precisely because it is sensitive information that could jeopardize an intelligence agent within ISIS.

Also, that comment about Iran. Iran under the Shah and Jordan are quietly on good term with the Jews and Israel. They are friends.

The Shah has been gone for decades. What relevance does he have to the question of whether Israel would like their intelligence information to be potentially shared with the current Iranian government?

They give us information and do not expect it to be blabbed to just anybody. If they wanted the Russians to know about it, they would tell the Russians themselves. This affects the willingness of our allies to give us information, because they don't want Trump to just blab it to other countries.

 

[MyNameisHobby]

He gave the Russians information that is not public knowledge. Not all the details have been publicly printed precisely because it is sensitive information that could jeopardize an intelligence agent within ISIS.

It is said currently that Israel told Russia this classified information. Not Trump. We don't know for sure yet.

I do think it's Trump, however. Like you said, he let Russian state-owned media in. Keyword: State-owned. If it is state-owned, the government of Russia likely TOLD THE MEDIA to go and take pictures of classified information and send it to the government. Maybe even sneak some out of Trump.

It makes sense.

 

[Erimir]

It is said currently that Israel told Russia this classified information. Not Trump. We don't know for sure yet.

Where did you read that? Certainly Republican members of the Senate believe that Trump revealed code word classified information.

And Trump admitted it on Twitter. I'm not sure why this is in question.

As President I wanted to share with Russia (at an openly scheduled W.H. meeting) which I have the absolute right to do, facts pertaining....

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 16, 2017

...to terrorism and airline flight safety. Humanitarian reasons, plus I want Russia to greatly step up their fight against ISIS & terrorism.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 16, 2017

 

[bboss]

t's in the New York Times and as far as I know, McGahn has not denied it. Trump has said he didn't know, and Pence has reiterated he didn't know (even though he was the head of the Trump transition). If so, it would seem they're attempting to throw McGahn under the bus because the implication would be that he knew but didn't tell Pence or Trump.

So he didn't know. He literally just said that. You're trusting the media over trusting the source, which is something MyNameisHobby just spoke about earlier.

Because you don't read or watch the news?

I "read and watch the news" every night. I watch NBC, CNN, FOX, and CBS. I don't inherently trust whatever I hear. I take it from the source, not from the media.

I don't know what you're trying to say here.

He gave the Russians information that is not public knowledge. Not all the details have been publicly printed precisely because it is sensitive information that could jeopardize an intelligence agent within ISIS.

Actually, the information he shared with the "horrible" Russians was simply about laptop bombs in airliners. That is common knowledge and has been since a terrorist attempted an attack on an airliner, but simply blew himself up and killed no one else. lol.

It is said currently that Israel told Russia this classified information. Not Trump. We don't know for sure yet.

Exactly.

And Trump admitted it on Twitter. I'm not sure why this is in question.

???

He just stated he has the "absolute right to do".

There is nothing about "classified information" in the tweets. Try again.

In my opinion, we should share terrorist information, classified or not, to all countries fighting terrorism. I think we're forgetting who the real enemies are: the terrorists, not Russia.

 

[Erimir]

So he didn't know. He literally just said that.

"He" is not the Trump administration. If you meant Donald Trump himself, you can use just his name. McGahn is a member of the Trump administration, and the report is that he was told that Flynn was under investigation.

Additionally, Rep. Elijah Cummings sent a letter to Donald Trump in November informing him that Flynn was suspected of working for the Turks, with sources.

You can choose to believe that neither Pence nor Trump knew about it (although I find this implausible), but you're then saying that Don McGahn, Trump's campaign counsel and then his White House counsel, did not inform Mike Pence (who was Trump's transition chairman) nor Trump himself.

Which sure, but then be clear you're saying that Don McGahn is in deep ****, instead of pretending that this means everyone in the "Trump administration" is off the hook.

You're trusting the media over trusting the source, which is something MyNameisHobby just spoke about earlier.

1. Trump has shown himself to be untrustworthy by his constant lying and habit of contradicting himself, often within days. Such as when he said he fired Comey because of Rosenstein's memo, and the next day said that he was going to fire Comey anyway.
2. Like I said, you're saying that Don McGahn was informed of Flynn's compromising associations and didn't tell anybody, not that everything is hunky-dory. Given that Sally Yates later told Trump that Flynn was vulnerable to Russian blackmail due to his lies to Pence and Trump did nothing to Flynn for weeks until the news reported on Yates's warning... You're telling me that it's far more plausible that nobody was warned, or McGahn just kept it to himself, despite the fact that we already know that Trump kept Flynn around despite being told he had ethical issues and compromising associations.

"Trump said it, I believe it and the news media are not trustworthy" is a pretty damn weak argument.

I "read and watch the news" every night. I watch NBC, CNN, FOX, and CBS. I don't inherently trust whatever I hear. I take it from the source, not from the media.

Do you "take it from the source" when the source is a Democrat? When it was Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton? Maybe you can point me to where you applied this standard to someone not on your team.

But that's irrelevant. You asked: "How come I never heard about this?"

That has nothing to do with whether you believe it. You said you hadn't heard about it. It's been plastered all over the news (except for perhaps FOX), so if you're really watching it, you would've heard about it. You could still choose not to believe it, but that's a different question.

Actually, the information he shared with the "horrible" Russians was simply about laptop bombs in airliners. That is common knowledge and has been since a terrorist attempted an attack on an airliner, but simply blew himself up and killed no one else. lol.

"lol" In other words you mean that you didn't read the story.

The reports were that he revealed which city in ISIS territory they learned this in (which could aid in identifying who the intelligence agent is) and more specific details than "a laptop plot". That information is not public knowledge.

Also could you specify what terrorist attack you're referring to? I don't remember hearing about an attempted bombing using a laptop. I remember the shoe bomber and the underwear bomber, neither of whom blew anyone up.

Exactly.

BY WHO? Who said that Israel themselves told Russia this information? There is no source for this claim.

He just stated he has the "absolute right to do".

There is nothing about "classified information" in the tweets. Try again.

Let's pretend we don't know what Trump is responding to. Like we can't tell he's responding to the WaPo article.

So what is he talking about having the "absolute right to do", exactly? How do you make sense of that statement?

Is he saying the president has the right to share non-classified information with the Russians? Really? You think that's what he meant? That makes no sense. There's no reason to say that. *I* have the right to share non-classified information with Lavrov and Kislyak. Everybody does.

The President, on the other hand, has the right to declassify information and authorize individuals to receive classified information. It's pretty hard to read him as talking about anything else. And that means he's talking about sharing classified information.

Try again, this time with better arguments and less condescension.

In my opinion, we should share terrorist information, classified or not, to all countries fighting terrorism. I think we're forgetting who the real enemies are: the terrorists, not Russia.

Terrorists being our enemies does not make Russia our friend.

And this is irrelevant to the issue of betraying Israel's trust by sharing the intelligence without their consent. If it were intelligence from a US source, that would be a different issue.

 

[bboss]

"He" is not the Trump administration. If you meant Donald Trump himself, you can use just his name. McGahn is a member of the Trump administration, and the report is that he was told that Flynn was under investigation.

Until we have proof that Trump and Pence knew about it and asked to stop it obviously I'm not going to believe it.

Additionally, Rep. Elijah Cummings sent a letter to Donald Trump in November informing him that Flynn was suspected of working for the Turks, with sources.

Nothing about being investigated here.

1. Trump has shown himself to be untrustworthy by his constant lying and habit of contradicting himself, often within days.

Everybody lies. Barack Obama lied. So did George W. Bush. So did Bill Clinton. So did Ronald Reagan, and so did every single president who has ever held office. People lie. Try to come up with a better point.

"Trump said it, I believe it and the news media are not trustworthy" is a pretty damn weak argument.

Not in this day and age.

Do you "take it from the source" when the source is a Democrat? When it was Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton? Maybe you can point me to where you applied this standard to someone not on your team.

A source is still a source, no matter what political party they support.

The reports were that he revealed which city in ISIS territory they learned this in (which could aid in identifying who the intelligence agent is) and more specific details than "a laptop plot". That information is not public knowledge.

In the intelligence community there are things that are not classified that aren't common knowledge.

BY WHO? Who said that Israel themselves told Russia this information? There is no source for this claim.

As MyNameisHobby stated, we don't know yet, so you should probably stop accusing the president of your own country of doing something until you have proof.

Terrorists being our enemies does not make Russia our friend.

It makes them our ally, which means we still need to cooperate with them. Sharing non-classified intelligence with allies is fine.

So what is he talking about having the "absolute right to do", exactly? How do you make sense of that statement?

You tell me, you're the one accusing the President of "leaking classified information" to the Russians.

 

[Erimir]

Everybody lies. Barack Obama lied. So did George W. Bush. So did Bill Clinton. So did Ronald Reagan, and so did every single president who has ever held office. People lie.

People do not all lie at the same rate. Trump lies more than any other politician I've ever seen.

Your response to "Trump is dishonest" is basically to deny that there's any difference in how often people lie. It's essentially to deny that the word "dishonest" means anything at all.

Try to come up with a better point.

It's obvious that you are not interested in honest discussion if this is what you consider a good point.

Not in this day and age.

This is a non-response.

A source is still a source, no matter what political party they support.

So that's a "no, I can't point to an example where I applied this standard to people not on my team", then?

In the intelligence community there are things that are not classified that aren't common knowledge.

You're the one who spoke about public knowledge. Moving the goal posts around. Again, you're not interested in honest discussion.

You also realize that sometimes common knowledge is classified as well, no? Just because a newspaper has published something does not mean that the information is unclassified.

And I take it you have no intention of explaining what terrorist attack using a laptop you were referring to.

As MyNameisHobby stated, we don't know yet, so you should probably stop accusing the president of your own country of doing something until you have proof.

This is nonsensical. Just because MyNameisHobby said that "it is said" that Israel gave this information to Russia means nothing. I have been able to link to reputable sources to back up the claims about Trump.

You're quoting some random schmoe on Smashboards who gave no link and didn't even give a source. It's just pulled from his ass.

Again, you're not interested in honest discussion.

It makes them our ally, which means we still need to cooperate with them.

No, it does not make them our ally. This is the type of reasoning that led the US to ally with Saddam Hussein against Iran, and with Osama bin Laden against the USSR. That worked out great, didn't it?

Sharing non-classified intelligence with allies is fine.

You are saying that it was non-classified without any proof.

You tell me, you're the one accusing the President of "leaking classified information" to the Russians.

Right, so you're going with "pretend I can't understand basic implications of statements". Trump specifically points out that he has the right to share non-classified information, which nobody has ever questioned. Why? Who knows? Trump just says irrelevant nonsense! But also it proves he did nothing wrong. That seems to be your position. Not interested in honest discussion.

-You've previously posted that Clinton had a brain tumor. What was your source for that? Where is the proof for that? Hillary Clinton certainly did not say that she had a brain tumor in her health disclosures. Why do you think she was lying?
-You said that Clinton's behavior was illegal, despite the director of the FBI saying no reasonable prosecutor would press charges (which doesn't even get to the question of getting a conviction). The crime in question requires a certain intent on the part of the person, it is not enough to say that there was classified information in a handful of emails. But you say with certainty that she committed a crime. What is your source for her intent?

Please, try harder to pretend that you are just an unbiased observer or just applying reasonable rules of thumb by believing Trump rather than the media. You are just a Trump shill who promotes laughable conspiracy theories about Clinton and refuses to believe that Trump has ever done anything wrong even when he admits it in writing. I'm not going to bother replying to you anymore.

 

[bboss]

Trump lies more than any other politician I've ever seen.

I can say anyone lies more than anyone I've ever seen without proof too. Apparently you're not interested in "honest discussion".

This is a non-response.

It is a response to a question that "the media is the holy grail and trump is a filthy liar", which has yet to be proven. Apparently you're not interested in "honest discussion".

And I take it you have no intention of explaining what terrorist attack using a laptop you were referring to.

lol ever heard of google

It's obvious that you are not interested in honest discussion

you're not interested in honest discussion.

Again, you're not interested in honest discussion.

I could say the exact same thing about you with no proof whatsoever, which is what you did.

No, it does not make them our ally. This is the type of reasoning that led the US to ally with Saddam Hussein against Iran, and with Osama bin Laden against the USSR. That worked out great, didn't it?

The US never allied with Saddam Hussein. The United States doesn't ally with terrorists. They kill terrorists. Your logic is shot.

-You've previously posted that Clinton had a brain tumor. What was your source for that? Where is the proof for that? Hillary Clinton certainly did not say that she had a brain tumor in her health disclosures. Why do you think she was lying?

NEWS FLASH! I don't have to post a source for something to be true! Clinton did have a brain tumor. She also collapsed in the arms of her bodyguards shortly before the election. I don't know if the two incidents were related, so I'm not going to speculate without proof.

Hillary Clinton certainly did not say that she had a brain tumor in her health disclosures. Why do you think she was lying?

this.

This is so inherently flawed I'm dying rn. "Hillary Clinton did not say she had a brain tumor."

"Why was she lying?"

Generally it's hard to lie if you don't say anything.

-You said that Clinton's behavior was illegal

It was. That's why there was an investigation in the first place. That's why Trump promised to have another investigation started if he got elected.

Please, try harder to pretend that you are just an unbiased observer

I'm not unbiased. I am completely biased. As are you.

believing Trump rather than the media

I don't believe Trump over the media, I believe SOURCES over both of them.

I'm not going to bother replying to you anymore.

I've seen this so many times. If you are going to leave a thread, generally don't state that you will, as it will look like you can't win the argument. I'm not saying that's what happened here but it does look pretty stupid. I learned that from experience.

Also, nothing personal against you, you seem to be a very intelligent person who does his research. I enjoy debating people because I like to hear other viewpoints.

You are just a Trump shill who promotes laughable conspiracy theories about Clinton and refuses to believe that Trump has ever done anything wrong

this

If "laughable conspiracy theories" are facts then yes.

Trump has done many things wrong. He said some rather inflammatory things about women. He (supposedly) cheated on his wife. But that doesn't mean he's an inherently bad man.

 

[Sucumbio]

Uh, yeah. The US under President Ronald Reagan did in fact support Iraq.

Carry on, folks.

 

[MyNameisHobby]

He said some rather inflammatory things about women. He (supposedly) cheated on his wife. But that doesn't mean he's an inherently bad man.

If by "bad man" you mean "bad president", then yes.

However, "bad man" is definitely a way which is POSSIBLE to describe Trump. He boasted about groping women, openly made fun of a disabled reporter during a rally, encourages rash behavior on protesters during his rallies, ignores his wife, and I can go on.

 

[bboss]

encourages rash behavior on protesters during his rallies, ignores his wife

In what way? how did Trump encourage violence?

 

[lady_sky skipper]

In what way? how did Trump encourage violence?

He said "I'd like to hit him in the face." during a rally when the security guards were dragging a protester away.

 

[Mario & Sonic Guy]

I recently read an article that's highly troubling...

https://weather.com/science/environment/news/paris-climate-deal-accord

If only everyone (especially Trump) can understand that climate change is real. And it should also be noted that certain volcanoes can cause climate change as well, so you're basically making things worse when you combine volcanic activity with humanity's carbon emissions.

 

[bboss]

If only everyone (especially Trump) can understand that climate change is real. And it should also be noted that certain volcanoes can cause climate change as well, so you're basically making things worse when you combine volcanic activity with humanity's carbon emissions.

Climate change is very real. It has been happening since the beginning of time. What most people do not know is that manmade emissions actually have little to no effect on the temperature of the earth.

For example:

From 1885 to 2015 the earth increased from 288 K to 288.8 K. If we keep going this way, with the tempurature increasing steadily for two thousand years, with the earth never getting any colder for two thousand years (which, just saying, is rather unlikely), then the temperature of the earth will go up 5 degrees Celsius.

WHO CARES?!

If we are looking at the facts, there has actually been no global warming for the last 21 years. (Trend -0.00C / century, r2= 0.000)

Some years are just warmer or colder than other. For example, 1998 was a very hot year, hotter than both 2014 and 2015. 2004 was a very, very cold year.

Also, the term "global warming" is quite a misnomer. Not everywhere is getting warmer, that's why it is referred to as "climate change". For example, Greenland has been having record low temperatures from 1947 onward. This means that in Greenland things have been getting colder, not warmer, for the past few decades.

Now let's talk about the ice caps. The North Pole's ice is shrinking. That's a fact. The South Pole's ice is growing. That's a fact.

Now let's talk about sea level. During the last thousand years, according to the Holocene Sea Level chart, the sea level has not gone up, but it has not receded, either. Indeed, it has remained extremely stable. (from 1880 to 2000 the sea level rose twenty centimetres.)

Also, the misconception that human-caused carbon emissions cause natural disasters is false. The United States has entered a record low periode of hurricanes from 1941-present. (see Hurricanes in USA 1851-2005 chart).

humanity's carbon emissions

???

I'm sure you're aware that trees need carbon to grow... so as far as I'm concerned, carbon's just great.

I'd encourage everyone to view a video called Nobel Laureate Smashes the Global Warming Hoax. In it a scientist points out all the flaws in the global warming theory.

I think Trump knows enough about climate change to understand that we don't have to spend billions of dollars to tame an untameable Earth. The climate is going to fluctuate naturally, folks. Get over it.