As ridiculous as every moment of Trump's presidency has become, nothing is quite as ridiculous to me as the fact that he could still easily end up as the 'best' modern President to ever represent my far-left interests, through a combination of incompetence, inaction, anger and spite. Or he could destroy the country and/or planet. Everything's on the table.

Do we really think Trump cares about passing any legislature or really governing. It is just a big ego trip. It will get interesting if he gets Sessions and Bannon thrown out. They might have some interesting dirt on Trump but not that it will matter.

Dumbass better start paying attention:North Korea 2nd ICBM test puts much of US in range: experts

Range of at least 10,400 kilometers (about 6,500 miles). That means it could have reached Los Angeles, Denver or Chicago.��

I don't think he cares much about what passes, but he's clearly desperate to sign major legislation and claim a victory. I think he would have been fine with an ACA repeal, a replace plan, or universal care. What it is doesn't matter, but he wants that big signing ceremony so badly he can taste it.

Priebus didn't seem that effective and I do think Trump deserves to make changes as he sees fit. But its not what you do but how you do it, classless.

Re: open warfare with GOP, hopefully we'll see more Rep-Dem working better together.

Trump will play the war-with-NK trump (heh) card sometime to be looked on more favorably in the history books.

Yeah I don't think he cares much about passing legislation. He clearly had no idea what was in the bill yesterday but was eager to sign it. The message put out by the White House yesterday was that the Chief of Staff is apparently a felon for leaking a public document and the Chief Strategist performs fellatio on himself. Not much effort to explain the bill or push the public to support it.

I think he cares way more about political rallies and what cable news is saying about him than any of the governing stuff.

For all the talk on the left about Trump destroying the country, he's really just out of his element and surrounded by incompetent nutjobs. I don't think much gets done.

I expect the Dems to sit back and let the Trumpers and "old guard" Republicans conduct civil war on each other.
Yes I would not be surprised if Trump is advised to use the N. Korea card to look more presendtial. The one issue if North Korea invades and takes over Seoul and bombs Alaska the history books will not view Trump well.

Yeah, there is no good military option with NK. A million dead in SK, a refugee crisis in NK, a cold war(at best) with China....

And that's a best case scenario.

Actually, assassination comes to mind.

Obviously need to point it back to China.

Pretty sure it's highly optimistic to suggest the whole thing comes crashing down in that scenario. There's always another Kim. They probably have a batch of chubby faces clones in the freezer ready to go right now.

I don't care how covert the mission is, if Trump were to take out Kim Jong Un he wouldn't make it a week before bragging about it or someone in his administration leaking it.

I hear this a lot, but really? Is this really on people's minds? Ok, I get that he's a bad guy, and that we take out the bad guy and that's good for us and the world but, do we really want to be the country that starts legitimizing world leader assassination as a means of avoiding war? 'Cause, I'm not so sure that the rest of the world is going to look at it from the same perspective, and I'm not so sure that it doesn't start to destabilize regimes everywhere. Imagine how giddy Putin would be if he could start doing this.

A war with NK would really destabilize the globe. South Korea and Japan are big economies that are important to the world. China would deal with an unprecedented refugee crisis.

Putting pressure on China is probably the way to go. They have the ability to make North Korea stop.

Yeah, that's what we said since at least the GWB days. Hasn't happened and realistically we don't have enough leverage to make it happen.

I didn't mean a public assassination that is broadcast everywhere, I'm not talking legitimizing assassination. Mum's the word, send Arya over there :)

Are there implications or likely unintended consequences, sure. But yes, there are some people that are clear and present danger and should be taken out after other options have been exhausted and/or time has run out.

I had to reread the last ten posts or so several times before I was certain which world leader was being discussed. :confused:

They seemed to avoid military conflicts which is the ultimate goal.

Avoiding military conflicts is not the ultimate goal IMO. We differ here.

On the DL or not, it's going to be the US that ends up taking the blame. No need to even try and prove or disprove it.

But we would still be stuck with Pence...

Pence is a pussy. The people of Indiana could deal with pence.

The real problem is McConnell.
Ryan too.

What is the goal?

It'd leak before the mission was planned (probably on Twitter) and Un would launch whatever nukes he has.

"Of course I ordered it. Wouldn't you? I mean come on, spoiled chubby rich kid with soft hands who demands loyalty to him, not his country? And then he's grandstanding on the world stage while his people suffer? Terrible....and sad! Who wouldnt want that guy taken out?!"

Hmmmm....

We can't even get good intelligence out of NK, how in the hell are we going to assassinate the leader without any traces and in a way that mimics a natural death?

It does seem to be in play for the entire notion of "deficits don't matter" to be the piece that exits the picture as the Administration drifts away from GOP orthodoxy into more pure self-interested kleptocratic populism.

The pending debates over tax reform and possibly infrastructure suddenly take on an entirely different hue if they decide that running up a few more trillion in debt is on the table.

Protect United States?

You would avoid military conflict at any cost?

Valid question.

Didn't think about this but you may be right. Trump knows about debt in his business and not scared about it (just go into bankruptcy, litigate etc.)

I would hope the GOP push back. I'm ready to cut programs to reduce the deficit.

I would be ready for a massive retaliatory strike, but there's no way I'd start anything. If there is a war in Korea, the Norks will have to start it.

War in this case may be a NK nuclear first strike against the US. You would allow this and then do a retaliatory strike?

Because I do believe the NK kid is crazy, I'm all for taking him out (not sure the best way) before he starts threatening us with ICBMs.

I am a little surprised at the seemingly little that Trump has done so far.

NK would not first strike the US, because that would be the end of NK. NK isn't as crazy as they seem, and they are taking advantage of their situation - they know that none of the major powers wants to commit to a war in that region, so they continue to get away with whatever they want... to a point. The real danger IMO is another nation escalating it beyond the stalemate, unintentionally or intentionally to trigger all out war.

This, by posturing like this it props the regime up to the citizens and cements his control. He would be flat out stupid to strike first and knows it.

Are there non-crazy people ready to step in and take control after this assassination? Creating a power vacuum has had disastrous consequences in the past and, if anything, only increases the chances that NK would strike first.

I am curious are you a veteran?

People have been talking about assasinating these Kim's over there ever since I lived there back in the 90s till now. It would have happened if it was possible. Trying to get to him would require China or Russia doing it on our behalf.

I think that if NK gets nukes, they're going to ramp up the criminal activities that they are already supposedly doing (hacking, producing counterfeit money etc...). The Kims know that by getting nukes capable of hitting the US, it's going to raise the bar in terms of what they can get away with.

No I am not. Are you?

I do think you have valid points. See my premise below on clear and present danger and other options/time has run out.

Yes. 1989 to 2003.

It's not over yet:

Senate Republicans to make another attempt at Obamacare repeal - POLITICO

And you agree "avoiding military conflict is the ultimate goal"?

Unfortunately, seeing how Trump has been, he'll keep pushing until he gets some sort of "win". It would be great if he could spend some of his energy and give negotiating with democrats a try.

I'm not quibbling with your general point, but in my opinion, it would be easier to do the assassination than get good intelligence.

We should study the products that Kim likes and then attempt to do a combination product interaction death ala Batman 1.

Not at any cost. But my goal would be to avoid a military conflict. A war with North Korea does not benefit us in any way.

Can we seriously shut down Twitter for the good of America. Maybe we'll get lucky and Trump will OD in the middle of a Twitter rant one day.

No but also see lots of conservatives all to willing to send their fellow citizen soldiers over to fight any and all conflicts long before diplomatic options have been exhausted. I believe need to exhaust all options before we start airdroping marines into a LZ.

It might be easier to kill him, but to do so without any suspicions of U.S. involvement seems unlikely in the extreme.

I don't disagree on first sentence. I just read too much into the "ultimate goal" statement.

I contend there are times when war is needed to protect US.

What is your perspective on NK, are we close to exhausting all options or do you believe there is still a long ways to go?

On a scale of 1-10 where 10 is take military action, I'd say we are 8.5 to 9.

If the goal of military action is to stop him from a mass casualty attack, military action makes that possibility much more likely. Maybe he wipes out Seoul and Tokyo rather than Los Angeles, but if the US starts the war the repercussions from mass casualty strikes on our allies are going to cause us serious harm.

Nobody I've read in or formally in command thinks we can attack NK without hundreds of thousands or millions dead for our Pacific allies. How do we benefit by being seen as the instigator in such a scenario?

It's a really tricky thing. Diplomacy is obviously the best. As mentioned, a war would bring enormous casualties to South Korea and Japan. It would destabilize the region which is not great with China lurking. And not to mention the catastrophe it would be for our economy considering all those countries are such important trade partners.

You hope that there are people in government who have plans in place or working behind the scenes to make sure war doesn't break out. But it sure seems like the WH is a mess and Trump's idea of dealing with this is tweeting at China.

The ultimate goal is to protect the US.

Yes, I've read the same thing about massive casualties in SK.

We benefit by not having those number of massive casualties in the US in the short term future.

Umm, why?

They brought this disastrous mess into fruition in the first place, with an unconscionable bill that should have never seen the light of day.

Repeal.
Period.

Anything else is more socialist bullshit.

There are close to 30,000 US service personnel in South Korea. They would be among the casualties.

Because there are tens of millions of Americans dependent on it. And there are millions through no fault of their own (e.g. kids) that were just born in a poorer, less able etc. family.

I would have preferred a single payer option augmented by private insurance for those that wanted/could afford it.

I'm actually believe some baseline healthcare is the right of all Americans so am good with some socialist bullshit including free public education, social security etc.

However, I do think entitlements need to be reduced somehow and pro-growth tax policies to help grow the economy more (although I thought Obama did a good job considering where he started from).

That is true and I'm willing to bet the troops there would vote for "protecting US" vs "ultimate goal is avoiding military conflict" if it come down to one or the other to stop NK.

I'm actually in favor of removing US troops from SK or at least re-positioning them close by so they can respond when needed. Why are US troops still on the front line of the DMZ when SK is perfectly capable of training and beefing up their military?

It's a huge strategic advantage to have bases throughout the world.

Scaramucci’s fed-up wife filed for divorce while nine months pregnant | Page Six

I guess I can understand the divorce filing. If your husband couldn't be bothered to attend the birth of your premature child and just left a text instead, I'd be out too.

I would say it is at 6.5 and having been in a government I tell agency at one point stationed there that is at least something. There are many options we are choosing not do to the impact it would have on us or allies that would force China's, or South Korea's hand .
Among those things are banning all US companies AND citizens from conducting any business with China or South Korean business unless they stop money, oil and trade from going to South Korea.
Stationing nuclear bombers in the Asian theater and also a missile defense shield for Japan, SK and all of the western US.
Either increasing or reducing troops in SK.
There are other things that can be done.

Yes I believe this is true overall. I also think South Korea needs and can pull there own weight on the peninsula with us moving troops out some distance.
The casualty rate with a full conventional war not to even include nukes would be easily in the millions when you calculate civilians and military together on both sides.

Quite a few US civilians working for the military in South Korea as well. It's extremely short sighted to think they're not the first target for Un if we attack.

If we went public with a policy of, deaths for you, but not for us, we'd quickly lose all our allies. Sacrificing our allies will cause significant problems for us.

Weird, it's like a group only becomes allies with another group out of their own interests.

I seriously doubt we would go public with this and certainly not without some sort of obfuscation ...

oh wait, I guess with Trump its more likely

Thomas Jefferson wrote the Senate filibuster rule. Harry Reid & Obama killed it yesterday. Rule was in effect for over 200 years.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 22, 2013

Then that's where we differ.
That's an imaginary "right" you've invented.

"Free shit" is never "free", and there's limits to how much of it can be handed out ... but we have a lack of people with enough common sense to realize that these days.

So you would do away with free public education and social security?

I'm pretty sure that if we start a war and Seoul gets leveled that people will put two and two together.

It really is remarkable that you can find a tweet that contradicts everything he says.

I guess the scary thing about North Korea at this point is the President doesn't seem to really care outside of it being an opportunity to tweet. Tillerson seems to hate his job now that he realizes it require more than enriching his Exxon buds. Haley is really the only one I have any confidence in and her power is limited.

And if the hope is the President has some smart people beside him in a crisis. Take a look at what he's working with. A reality star from over a decade ago, a literal nazi sympathizer, a guy who talks about other staff members sucking their own cocks, and Corey Lewandowski.

You also thought Ebola was about to be airborne.

I'm between the two points of view here. I'm in favor of universal healthcare, but I don't really think most people who talk about it as a 'right' understand what rights are. The entire concept of having a right to have some kind of service or product provided to you would have confused the heck out of those who wrote about the foundation of most of the rights we enjoy today. Rights are about the liberty to perform an action, participate in society in a certain way, etc. Voting, free assembly, speech, bearing arms, protection from any police state tendencies, self-determination, etc., they all point that way.

Or see Rand Paul here:

Health Care: Sanders vs Paul - YouTube


Very few advocates of single-payer/universal health care seem willing to grapple directly with this idea. Calling something like health care a right is an absurdity.

I'll spend some time to review & meditate that thread and on the context of my position.

In the meantime, care to contribute to this topic?

What do you think about having a "right" to an attorney?

Someone I read labeled the photo, Reservoir Derps.

I've already contributed to this topic and I think your position is just as ridiculous here as it was in the Ebola topic, although there at least you weren't so casually discussing how we could trade South Korean lives for American safety.

Okay, I do formally disagree with your characterization of "casual" (have to protect myself from snippets in other future, non-related threads).

But thank you for your participation in this.

Rights aren't rights until they are. You can get caught up in semantics, but there are two definitions of "rights", one is legal entitlements, and the other is what is moral or just. Universal healthcare definitely meets one of those, and in other developed nations it meets both.

No more worries about NK:

PHEW!

Trump said he was going to eliminate ISIS in the first month of his presidency.

People excited about a war with North Korea should remember that Trump would be the guy leading it. That's far scarier than Ebola.

just got to grab un by the pussy.

I'm sorry I missed the universal healthcare debate.

Isn't the first right in the Declaration of Independence the right to "life"? Does that right only mean that once you are conceived, you have the right to be born? Or does it only mean that you have the right to not be killed by an illegal act that the government was formed to protect?

The more broad interpretation would seem to protect people's right to not die by allowing them access to healthcare. And if you are going to force people to carry fetuses to viability, don't you also have a responsibility to cover the cost of the care of the mother through birthing the child?

I understand that healthcare is a lot more complex than this, but I would like some interpretations of what the right to "life" really means.

It's never really been interpreted in courts one way or the other because the Declaration of Independence has never really been interpreted as creating its own legal restraints or imposing its own legal duties on the U.S. government once that government was formed. It just sets forth a legal justification for secession and independence.

We got this

No, I recognize that from a Constitutional "constructionist" perspective, there is not necessary a legal basis that it springs from. Though one could argue about "promot(ing) the general welfare".

But you would think that with so much emphasis on the "Founders" intent, that these particular words from the Founders would carry some added weight. But it doesn't seem to.

Figure out John Locke's intent with Life, Liberty, and Property/Estate and you'll understand what Jefferson meant.

Mooch is out.

Well that went well. Have to wonder if Bannon holds a little more sway than Mooch counted on before he made those comments. But who the hell knows with this WH anymore.

Sounds like Kelly immediately nixed him. A friend on FB just bemoaned the fact that he didn't even make it to the next season of SNL.

Scaramucci boasted about reporting directly to Trump and not John Kelly. It was Kelly’s decision to remove him.

:lol:



:lol: :lol: :lol:

Wonder if he'll say he resigned to spend more time with his family.

10 days. I wonder if he still has time to restore all of those old anti-Trump tweets.

What do you think Bannon is up to?

Some stars shine so bright that they burn out way too fast.

There's a country song in this. The poor guy lost his company, his wife, his tweets, and now his job.

Does Steve get to reclaim his spot as the one true Mooch?

Exclusive: Senate too divided to keep up healthcare push - Senator Hatch | Reuters