US Politics Thread |OT| SAD TRUMP

[benjipwns]

I heard it on Alex Jones so it must be true.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/851890355037511681

[Nola]

On another note:

Embattled Fox News personality Bill O’Reilly is taking a break.

O’Reilly announced on air Tuesday that he will be taking nearly two weeks off from hosting the “O’Reilly Factor” amid an ongoing controversy over sexual harassment allegations.

“Around this time of year, I grab some vacation because it’s spring and Easter time,” O’Reilly told viewers towards the end of Tuesday’s show. “Last fall I booked a trip that should be terrific. Not going to tell you where it is but...I’ll have a full report when I return.”

O’Reilly’s sudden announcement of time off comes after a New York Times story revealed Fox or O’Reilly had paid out $13 million to settle harassment cases against him.

In the past week, more than 70 advertisers have jumped ship from the show.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/bill-o-reilly-announces-two-week-break-fox-news-show-article-1.3045256

I'm thinking this may not end up being temporary 'vacation'.....Tucker Carlson about to become Dancing with the Stars greatest post-show success story.

[benjipwns]

lol lets see the lieberal supreme court try to overturn the highest court in the universe:

A bill filed by three Republican lawmakers looks to ban gay marriage in North Carolina.

The “Uphold Historical Marriage Act” says the U.S. Supreme Court over stepped its “constitutional bounds” when in 2015 it struck down what was known as Amendment One.

...

Rep. Larry Pittman (R-Cabarrus), Rep. Michael Speciale (R-Beaufort) and Rep. Carl Ford (R-Cabarrus) are the primary sponsors of House Bill 780.

The bill says the Supreme Court not only overstepped their power in North Carolina but also overstepped the “the decree of Almighty God that ‘a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become 22 one flesh. (Genesis 2:24, ESV)'”

Ames Simmons is the director of Transgender Police with Equality North Carolina.

He says he thinks the bill is only meant to be symbolic.

“There’s no way in modern society that a law (like) this would pass,” said Simmons.

[Nola]

Also just one more rant on the Kansas election, WTF is wrong with the DNC?

I thought Perez was angling to be a different kind of party leader? That Ellison wanted a 50 state strategy that embraced aspects of Bernie-ism?

Now I read the DNC completely abstained from funneling any resources or money to Thompson's campaign until the waning days because they took a defeatist attitude up to the end. And even then only robo-calls and shit.

I know not wanting to walk into an easy attack that the rural candidate is Pelosi's puppet or whatever, but that doesn't even seem to be the logic here. Thompson was openly touting Bernie-esque messaging and alliances and then ultimately, they very much did step in late in the game. But only barely dipping their toes in despite all the signs pointing to a full on onslaught could tip the scales and produce a historic upset.

....Leave it to the Democratic party to find a way to make the dumbest decisions at every step.

[brawndolicious]

Even if they won that seat it wouldn't change anything in the House until after the 2018 elections. The GOP is going to spend the next 19 months afraid to do anything because of how close this election turned out and so their voters will be even more apathetic in 2018 than the Kansas conservatives were today. With the ideal scenario being that this leads to large gains for Democrats (maybe including todays Kansas seat).

If they campaigned aggressively in the Kansas election but still lost by a slightly lower margin, it would have made the left-leaning voters feel let down and like there's no point in voting when you're in a red state. None of this is science of course but the logic makes sense.

[benjipwns]

Even if they won that seat it wouldn't change anything in the House until after the 2018 elections. The GOP is going to spend the next 19 months afraid to do anything because of how close this election turned out  ...
If they campaigned aggressively in the Kansas election but still lost by a slightly lower margin, it would have made the left-leaning voters feel let down and like there's no point in voting when you're in a red state. None of this is science of course but the logic makes sense.

So it wouldn't have flipped the House so whatever, but the GOP will be afraid to death and their voters depressed because it was so close (!!!) but if it was even closer Democratic voters would feel let down so it was actually a net positive because in the future a wave election might kick out the new incumbent.

[FatalT]

lol lets see the lieberal supreme court try to overturn the highest court in the universe:

A bill filed by three Republican lawmakers looks to ban gay marriage in North Carolina.

The “Uphold Historical Marriage Act” says the U.S. Supreme Court over stepped its “constitutional bounds” when in 2015 it struck down what was known as Amendment One.

...

Rep. Larry Pittman (R-Cabarrus), Rep. Michael Speciale (R-Beaufort) and Rep. Carl Ford (R-Cabarrus) are the primary sponsors of House Bill 780.

The bill says the Supreme Court not only overstepped their power in North Carolina but also overstepped the “the decree of Almighty God that ‘a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become 22 one flesh. (Genesis 2:24, ESV)'”

Ames Simmons is the director of Transgender Police with Equality North Carolina.

He says he thinks the bill is only meant to be symbolic.

“There’s no way in modern society that a law (like) this would pass,” said Simmons.

Yeeahhhh my Facebook feed is blowing up that about from friends...joyous times of living right on the border between South and North Carolina.

[chronovore]

http://www.pulitzer.org/winners/david-fahrenthold

Reporter investigating Trump's false claims of charity and philanthropy wins a Pulitzer prize.

[Nola]

Even if they won that seat it wouldn't change anything in the House until after the 2018 elections. The GOP is going to spend the next 19 months afraid to do anything because of how close this election turned out and so their voters will be even more apathetic in 2018 than the Kansas conservatives were today. With the ideal scenario being that this leads to large gains for Democrats (maybe including todays Kansas seat).

If they campaigned aggressively in the Kansas election but still lost by a slightly lower margin, it would have made the left-leaning voters feel let down and like there's no point in voting when you're in a red state. None of this is science of course but the logic makes sense.

That seems like a stretch and pretty assumptive TBH. And that would mean by this logic that after substantial investments in Georgia by the party, Georgia ending in a narrow defeat could be a death blow to this energized Democratic trend.


Reading on this it seems Perez and Co. just straight up poisoned their own well by taking a defeatist attitude that worked counter to the pulse of the supporters of the party with Kansas, then remained behind the curve and entrenched in their assumptions until near the end. Which is exactly the underlying criticism people were throwing at the previous DNC crew. And for that matter Hillary.

Just from a numbers perspective, it makes little sense to funnel so much into Georgia's special election vs this one. If scarcity of funds as Perez argued was the rationale, then his own logic defeats himself when you look at the similar odds and the huge disparity in funds and support.

[benjipwns]

https://newrepublic.com/article/141945/dont-believe-hype-jon-ossoff

But many in the national media, and some on the political left, think this race has even bigger implications. New York magazine recently labeled Ossoff the “Trump-Hate Weather Vane,” with writer Olivia Nuzzi calling Ossoff’s campaign “an experiment of sorts, a Trump-backlash trial balloon that might ... tell us just how much the president has reshaped the electoral map. It may also tell us that Democrats will have to do a whole lot more than just ride the wave of Trump hate to have a real chance of puncturing House Republicans’ red wall in 2018.” The New York Times similarly called the race “an early test of Democrats’ ability to capitalize on Mr. Trump’s polarizing presence,” reporting that “the contest is viewed as a major test of whether a wave of left-wing activism since Mr. Trump’s inauguration will produce change at the ballot box.” CNBC and Vox wrote much the same, and David Nir—political director for the liberal blog Daily Kos, a primary driver of Ossoff’s national fundraising—told CNN the race “very well could be a test case for the future of Democratic targeting.” “It’s a bellwether for what the Democratic Party is going to be about,” Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez told the network, which described him as “almost giddy about the prospects for the race.”

Atlanta Journal-Constitution political reporter Greg Bluestein told me Ossoff “could be the case study for how a moderate Democrat runs in a red district.”


There’s certainly some irony in the fact that this supposed beacon of the Trump resistance is actually running as a pragmatic centrist, stressing that “cutting wasteful spending is not a partisan issue” and “both parties in Washington waste too much of your money.” As Nuzzi reported in her New York profile, he is “a radically boring person to talk or listen to, especially compared with the fiery rhetoric of Trump or Bernie Sanders.” But Bluestein said, “I think other candidates in districts like this one will probably model his rhetoric.”

[benjipwns]

oooh, the next article
https://newrepublic.com/article/141865/deification-hillary-clinton

Bordo’s revisionism is evident in her fixation on Bernie Sanders. According to Bordo, Sanders unfairly maligned Clinton for her “establishment” tendencies. Bordo does not acknowledge, however, that Clinton campaigned as a pragmatic realist and consciously sought the support of conservative defectors from the GOP, while Sanders ran as a more idealistic democratic socialist. This conflicts with Bordo’s portrayal of the candidate as a true leftist.

So do Clinton’s policies. Bordo insists that Clinton supported universal health care in 2016, which is only partly accurate. Clinton supported Medicaid expansion and the public option, but these policies aren’t as expansive as Sanders’s commitment to Medicare for All. On the federal minimum wage, welfare, and foreign policy, she sat to Sanders’s right. She supported a $12 minimum wage, with the small proviso that cities should be able to raise it higher if they choose. And she had a long-standing record of support for American military intervention abroad—a tough sell to young voters jaded by endless war. These are facts Bordo chooses to ignore.

But Bordo’s book is useful in one sense. It crystallizes an emerging tendency in liberal discourse: the notion that critics of Hillary Clinton are either trolls or naive children. Bordo makes much of “Bernie Bros”—loud, male Sanders supporters who, she says, harassed Clinton supporters at rallies and abused female reporters on Twitter. The examples she cites are certainly rude (one allegedly called a Clinton supporter a “lying shitbag”) but this is a thin argument weakened further by her revisionism. She slams Sanders himself for his “uncharacteristically mild” response to the tweets. “He never criticized the misogyny in their attacks on Clinton,” she writes. This is flatly inaccurate: Sanders called them “disgusting” and told the press, “Look, anybody who is supporting me that is doing the sexist things is—we don’t want them. I don’t want them.”

To Bordo, rude Twitter users prove Sanders’s inadequate commitment to the left. Bordo never asks if her one-sided framing is evidence that she lives in a bubble, and what a telling oversight. Female Sanders supporters would have told her that Clinton backers are also guilty of online harassment—and that the label “Bernie Bro” has been deployed to erase the very existence of left-wing women, drowning out valid critiques of Clinton’s platform. It’s red-baiting by another name.

[Trent Dole]

Can we shoot Hillary and all her apologists into the fucking sun yet? You ran the worst campaign possible and lost to the worst person possible and now the entire planet is fucked.

[Nola]

spoiler (click to show/hide)

critics of Hillary Clinton are either trolls or naive children.

[close]

Zero fucking lies detected.

I have to say, if I were a trollish alt-righter I would probably point out that for a group that espouses the need to "check their privilege" and shame people for not having acceptable levels of empathy, open-mindedness, and sensitivity at all times on certain issues, Hillary apologists love to use party politics to show everyone what not adhering to those standards looks like. lol.

...Just sayin.

[FatalT]

Clinton should NOT have been pushed by the DNC as the primary candidate after the decade+ of dirt the GOP dug up on her and Bill. It was a disaster and a terrible decision to even THINK of having her run as President.

[FatalT]

The DNC doesn't push candidates.

The DNC is mostly a fundraising and money-handling organization that for the last few years was such a central and powerful part of the Democratic Party that it was run part-time by an obscure House rep from Florida. They also kind of coordinate the debates and primaries to an extent.

FatalT, you're a great poster, but posts like that just prove my point.

Do people really think that a House rep from Florida and her subordinates were picking the party's presidential nominee? Do they think Tom Perez picks the 2020 nominee?

They have a hand in the pie at the very least so they do hold some say over what goes on. Why else would the DNC be cleared out after every election? So who is at fault here then? Millennial shits who use slacktivism on Facebook about BERNIE BERNIE FEEL THE BERN but then don't actually go out and vote when it comes to polling day because they're too busy playing on their phones, taking selfies for Instagram, and using SnapChat's dog filter?

[benjipwns]

I don't know man. Who's at fault for Kery 04, or Gore 00, or GHWB 92?

Bob Shrum and James Baker.

I wouldn't put 2016 past being their fault either.

[brawndolicious]

Even if they won that seat it wouldn't change anything in the House until after the 2018 elections. The GOP is going to spend the next 19 months afraid to do anything because of how close this election turned out  ...
If they campaigned aggressively in the Kansas election but still lost by a slightly lower margin, it would have made the left-leaning voters feel let down and like there's no point in voting when you're in a red state. None of this is science of course but the logic makes sense.

So it wouldn't have flipped the House so whatever, but the GOP will be afraid to death and their voters depressed because it was so close (!!!) but if it was even closer Democratic voters would feel let down so it was actually a net positive because in the future a wave election might kick out the new incumbent.

c

Even if they won that seat it wouldn't change anything in the House until after the 2018 elections. The GOP is going to spend the next 19 months afraid to do anything because of how close this election turned out and so their voters will be even more apathetic in 2018 than the Kansas conservatives were today. With the ideal scenario being that this leads to large gains for Democrats (maybe including todays Kansas seat).

If they campaigned aggressively in the Kansas election but still lost by a slightly lower margin, it would have made the left-leaning voters feel let down and like there's no point in voting when you're in a red state. None of this is science of course but the logic makes sense.

That seems like a stretch and pretty assumptive TBH. And that would mean by this logic that after substantial investments in Georgia by the party, Georgia ending in a narrow defeat could be a death blow to this energized Democratic trend.


Reading on this it seems Perez and Co. just straight up poisoned their own well by taking a defeatist attitude that worked counter to the pulse of the supporters of the party with Kansas, then remained behind the curve and entrenched in their assumptions until near the end. Which is exactly the underlying criticism people were throwing at the previous DNC crew. And for that matter Hillary.

Just from a numbers perspective, it makes little sense to funnel so much into Georgia's special election vs this one. If scarcity of funds as Perez argued was the rationale, then his own logic defeats himself when you look at the similar odds and the huge disparity in funds and support.

It seems when you get people really hyped and riled up about politics but don't deliver immediate solutions, then you end up turning them into defeatists. Which is why I'm suggesting patience and large actions rather than focusing so much on small elections. I dono anything about the Georgia race and how much DNC support it's getting tho.

[benjipwns]

According to the New Republic article, Ossoff has received almost $9 million, 95% of it from donors outside of Georgia.

Apparently the high spender in the last Senate race only did $11 million.

He's also running against like twenty other candidates and isn't expected by people quoted to actually win the run-off against any of the likely Republican second place finishers. (edit: looking at polls he basically is tied with them all, of course, a poll came out earlier Tuesday for the Kansas race that showed the D up 1 and everyone lost their shit that this was the year we turn Texas and Utah blue again)

Montana's seat looks like a way better one, there's a Libertarian polling at 10% in the race.

[TakingBackSunday]

Can we stop talking about Clinton pls

[curly]

Even if they won that seat it wouldn't change anything in the House until after the 2018 elections. The GOP is going to spend the next 19 months afraid to do anything because of how close this election turned out and so their voters will be even more apathetic in 2018 than the Kansas conservatives were today. With the ideal scenario being that this leads to large gains for Democrats (maybe including todays Kansas seat).

If they campaigned aggressively in the Kansas election but still lost by a slightly lower margin, it would have made the left-leaning voters feel let down and like there's no point in voting when you're in a red state. None of this is science of course but the logic makes sense.

Is this the 11th dimensional chess Democrats are famous for (for every special election we lose, we'll win two in the 2018 midterms)

[I'm a Puppy!]

Can we stop talking about Clinton pls

damn it benji!! 

[Phoenix Dark]

Clinton is the female Jesse Jackson. Gotta wait for your Obama to show up 

[Joe Molotov]

“So what happens is, I said, we just launched 59 missiles heading to Iraq—”

“Heading towards Syria?” Bartiromo corrects him.

“Yes, heading toward Syria.”

[FStop7]

Reid and Pelosi were total assholes when they were in power.  Not at all mindful of what the consequences would be when the tide eventually shifted the other way.  Reid's the one who set the precedent with the nuclear option. 

[benjipwns]

The more I read up on it, it really seems that a lot of the shit Obama had to put up with at the hands of Senate Republicans had its start in shit Harry Reid did to fuck with Bush. Pro forma sessions, general lower court filibusters, and especially the Miguel Estrada filibuster being the main culprits.

Maybe McConnell would have pioneered all the same shit though.

Reid also held cloture votes on damn near everything, even when there was no threat of a filibuster, because it allows the leadership to control the schedule more completely by blocking amendments and limiting debate time.

[benjipwns]

Even if they won that seat it wouldn't change anything in the House until after the 2018 elections. The GOP is going to spend the next 19 months afraid to do anything because of how close this election turned out and so their voters will be even more apathetic in 2018 than the Kansas conservatives were today. With the ideal scenario being that this leads to large gains for Democrats (maybe including todays Kansas seat).

If they campaigned aggressively in the Kansas election but still lost by a slightly lower margin, it would have made the left-leaning voters feel let down and like there's no point in voting when you're in a red state. None of this is science of course but the logic makes sense.

Is this the 11th dimensional chess Democrats are famous for (for every special election we lose, we'll win two in the 2018 midterms)

The Republicans can't defend all 435 House seats and 34 Senate seats at once!

Especially once the people see Trump's approval ratings!

[Steve Contra]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/12/us/politics/paul-manafort-donald-trump.html?action=Click&contentCollection=BreakingNews&contentID=65150396&pgtype=Homepage&_r=0

[Nola]

The more I read up on it, it really seems that a lot of the shit Obama had to put up with at the hands of Senate Republicans had its start in shit Harry Reid did to fuck with Bush. Pro forma sessions, general lower court filibusters, and especially the Miguel Estrada filibuster being the main culprits.

Maybe McConnell would have pioneered all the same shit though.

So is there some handy links or sources you have?

I have been interested in reading up on the history of the shifting norms in congressional governing. In particular when it comes to the minority party and the Senate. Basically to get a grasp of where things started going down this path that seems to just encourage escalation and retaliation every time the majority/minority shifts.

I have my own piecemeal thoughts and such but looking through a few more comprehensive sources would be interesting.

[chronovore]

…hypocritical, except we had plenty of reasons for not shooting missiles at Syria previously. Analysis, according to Obama's public statement, is that it'd be a boots-on-the-ground scenario.

Besides, I'd really like to have Trump get his own house in order before we start messing with other sovereign nations, especially those in a civil war.

Additionally: https://extranewsfeed.com/the-situation-in-syria-is-not-complicated-heres-what-you-need-to-know-3f007290b49f

[Nola]

Even if they won that seat it wouldn't change anything in the House until after the 2018 elections. The GOP is going to spend the next 19 months afraid to do anything because of how close this election turned out and so their voters will be even more apathetic in 2018 than the Kansas conservatives were today. With the ideal scenario being that this leads to large gains for Democrats (maybe including todays Kansas seat).

If they campaigned aggressively in the Kansas election but still lost by a slightly lower margin, it would have made the left-leaning voters feel let down and like there's no point in voting when you're in a red state. None of this is science of course but the logic makes sense.

Is this the 11th dimensional chess Democrats are famous for (for every special election we lose, we'll win two in the 2018 midterms)

The Republicans can't defend all 435 House seats and 34 Senate seats at once!

Especially once the people see Trump's approval ratings!

Dems don't need a 20 point swing to take the House.

It's seriously in play given the numbers we're seeing in these deep red special election seats.

Just imagine if the DNC actually knew how to run a competent and proactive organization 

[benjipwns]

Even if they won that seat it wouldn't change anything in the House until after the 2018 elections. The GOP is going to spend the next 19 months afraid to do anything because of how close this election turned out and so their voters will be even more apathetic in 2018 than the Kansas conservatives were today. With the ideal scenario being that this leads to large gains for Democrats (maybe including todays Kansas seat).

If they campaigned aggressively in the Kansas election but still lost by a slightly lower margin, it would have made the left-leaning voters feel let down and like there's no point in voting when you're in a red state. None of this is science of course but the logic makes sense.

Is this the 11th dimensional chess Democrats are famous for (for every special election we lose, we'll win two in the 2018 midterms)

The Republicans can't defend all 435 House seats and 34 Senate seats at once!

Especially once the people see Trump's approval ratings!

Dems don't need a 20 point swing to take the House.

It's seriously in play given the numbers we're seeing in these deep red special election seats.

But think of the impact it will be if they lose every elected position in the country first though, that'll be a bullseye they can hit that will have the dominoes fall like a house of cards. Checkmate.

[Great Rumbler]

“You say you pay for me to do this? That’s bullcrap. I pay for myself. I paid enough taxes before I got here and continue to through my company to pay my own salary. This is a service. No one here pays me to go,” Oklahoma Congressman Markwayne Mullin was recorded telling the audience at a town hall in Jay, Okla.

This is my representative in the US House.

[benjipwns]

r.i.p. in peace free speech 

University officials will tell you that the restrictions were necessary to ensure public safety, but this will just be the most egregious of their self-serving lies. They will seek to validate this by invoking the February riot, which prevented Milo Yiannopoulos from speaking on campus, causing $100,000 damage and physical violence to bystanders in the process. Milo was not responsible for that riot; the Berkeley Administration and the UC police were. It was their responsibility to present a show of force that would have prevented the mayhem, and failing that to arrest the perpetrators and see to it that they received long jail sentences and were required to pay restitution for the damage they caused. But the UC can’t be bothered with actual concerns for public safety. In fact, the UC Police Department led by Captain Alex Yao, did nothing to stop or arrest the rioters, who as a result will not have to  think twice before rioting again, say at my event or at Ann Coulter’s which is scheduled to take place at the end of the month.

spoiler (click to show/hide)

i need mac to analyze that college republican dude's outfit

[close]

spoiler (click to show/hide)

this was an elaborate plot to get Coulter to come amirite

[close]

[Rufus]

Trump Says He May Freeze Subsidies to the Poor Until Democrats Repeal Obamacare
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/04/trump-i-may-sabotage-obamacare-until-democrats-repeal-it.html

uh...

[Phoenix Dark]

he's just not good at this stuff, is he.

[Rufus]

The best deal-maker there ever was.

[Great Rumbler]

"If you don't help me repeal Obamacare, I'll destroy it myself and then everyone will blame you for what I did."

[Rufus]

He said out loud.

[Brehvolution]

http://www.businessinsider.com/us-moab-mother-of-all-bombs-isis-afghanistan-2017-4

"Dropping a 21,000 lb bomb is not exactly a battle," journalist Jeremy Scahill said on Twitter about the bombing. "It's a mass killing machine."

[Let's Cyber]

That is an unsettling escalation, especially for what is likely part publicity stunt . MOABs were first tested in 2003 but were never used it in Iraq or Afghanistan by Bush or Obama.

You can't tell me that isn't dick waving on Trump's part.

[etiolate]

Biggest worry for me with Trump was that unpredictable nature of what he really thought. It's entirely possible he went from isolationist under Bannon to a more neocon approach suddenly.

[nudemacusers]

Not sure a compound bombing planned months ago is really something to get too worried about wrt to trumps world domination tour, especially since it probably stopped at the majcom level.

[Let's Cyber]

 

Pentagon officials say the generals have had the authority to use the massive bomb since last year, but President Donald Trump's comfort level with delegating new decision making on counterterrorism strikes surely played into their thinking.

A Pentagon official told The Daily Beast that Thursday’s strike had nothing to do with the Trump administration expanding its campaign against ISIS, but was the commanders call.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/04/13/u-s-pounds-isis-in-afghanistan-with-mother-of-all-bombs.html

[Atramental]

[Mandark]

A bit weird that people were ever describing Trump as an "isolationist" as he was talking about taking other countries' oil, increasing the military budget, etc.

[benjipwns]

Biggest worry for me with Trump was that unpredictable nature of what he really thought. It's entirely possible he went from isolationist under Bannon to a more neocon approach suddenly.

He simply became President of the United States:

[Trent Dole]

Drumpf Says He May Freeze Subsidies to the Poor Until Democrats Repeal Obamacare
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/04/trump-i-may-sabotage-obamacare-until-democrats-repeal-it.html

uh...

Considering that his party holds enough seats in the house and senate to pass pretty much anything they want blaming the opposing party for any legislation's success or failure is completely idiotic, so of course that's what Don's doing.

[chronovore]

That is an unsettling escalation, especially for what is likely part publicity stunt . MOABs were first tested in 2003 but were never used it in Iraq or Afghanistan by Bush or Obama.

You can't tell me that isn't dick waving on Trump's part.

I can just picture the meeting:

Trump: I want to show Turkmenistan that we mean business.

Joint Chiefs of Staff: Do you mean Afghanistan?

Trump: That's what I said. Afghanistan. Let's show them we can't be messed with. What's the BIGGEST bomb we have?

JCS: ...Do you mean nuclear?

Trump: That's not off the table, but what's the biggest NON-nuclear bomb we have?

JCS: That'd be the MOAB, the Mother of All Bombs.

Trump: That's perfect. PERFECT!

JCS: Well, it's a surface level bomb. The Taliban and any Al Qaeda camps work out of cave networks…

Trump: No, it's PERFECT. Just use the MOAB on them, and let's see what they think of that!f



Edit:

Not sure a compound bombing planned months ago is really something to get too worried about wrt to trumps world domination tour, especially since it probably stopped at the majcom level.

Oh. 

[TakingBackSunday]

This North Korea news has me seriously shook.

[nudemacusers]

i feel like I worry less than most of y'all and I live on a target. The news seems to vastly over exaggerate this stuff lately, feeding into the dislike/worry toward our administration. Reading the gaf threads about any military action post trump  makes it seems like ww3 is happening yesterday. The Syria thread was ridiculous' as is the isis one and so on. I'd just disengage from the 24hour cycle personally.

[Madrun Badrun]

This North Korea news has me seriously shook.

I was shook when they got the bomb and no one did anything. 

Honestly, I'd rather them being on a constant state of alert and feeling like they need to keep their bombs for defense.  My worst fear is when they get to a point where they feel like they can start selling nukes while still maintaining a deterrent. 

[zomgee]

i feel like I worry less than most of y'all and I live on a target. The news seems to vastly over exaggerate this stuff lately, feeding into the dislike/worry toward our administration. Reading the gaf threads about any military action post trump  makes it seems like ww3 is happening yesterday. The Syria thread was ridiculous' as is the isis one and so on. I'd just disengage from the 24hour cycle personally.

How do you get unfiltered Internet living in North Korea?

[Nola]

A bit weird that people were ever describing Trump as an "isolationist" as he was talking about taking other countries' oil, increasing the military budget, etc.

Trump was like a "pick your own adventure" candidate on like 85% of the topics he spoke about.

If you were a hawk, he had some quotes for you to get excited about. If you were a pseudo-libertarian, he had your back too.

..Now he just has a portfolio of quotes that pretty much make him look like a liar on any action he takes as president.. Not that it will matter to 90% of his supporters.

[Nola]

i feel like I worry less than most of y'all and I live on a target. The news seems to vastly over exaggerate this stuff lately, feeding into the dislike/worry toward our administration. Reading the gaf threads about any military action post trump  makes it seems like ww3 is happening yesterday. The Syria thread was ridiculous' as is the isis one and so on. I'd just disengage from the 24hour cycle personally.

I just keep in mind that for most people on GAF - given how many older posters that actually had intelligent things to say got culled out - this is their first time with a conservative president. So to an extent I can somewhat rationalize it. Even though it pisses me off because by catastrophizing everything, you just confuse, diminish the credibility, and numb people to the shit that does matter.

What honestly frustrates me to no end are the 45 year old mental troglodytes that I run into, see posts from, or overhear at least twice a week that are out there equivocating and misrepresenting things like the Susan Rice un-masking non-controversy with political leaking and still rolling with the Obama committed treason by 'tapping' Trump's phone nonsense. GAF still has some ways to go to catch up to the MAGA crowd.

[benjipwns]

i feel like I worry less than most of y'all and I live on a target. The news seems to vastly over exaggerate this stuff lately, feeding into the dislike/worry toward our administration. Reading the gaf threads about any military action post trump  makes it seems like ww3 is happening yesterday. The Syria thread was ridiculous' as is the isis one and so on. I'd just disengage from the 24hour cycle personally.

IT'S NOT?!? OMG THAT MEANS HE MUST BE PLANNING IT FOR TOMORROW!!!

This fucker needs to be stopped before somebody gets hurt.

Stay safe.

[Sausage]

That is an unsettling escalation, especially for what is likely part publicity stunt . MOABs were first tested in 2003 but were never used it in Iraq or Afghanistan by Bush or Obama.

You can't tell me that isn't dick waving on Trump's part.

I can just picture the meeting:

Trump: I want to show Turkmenistan that we mean business.

Joint Chiefs of Staff: Do you mean Afghanistan?

Trump: That's what I said. Afghanistan. Let's show them we can't be messed with. What's the BIGGEST bomb we have?

JCS: ...Do you mean nuclear?

Trump: That's not off the table, but what's the biggest NON-nuclear bomb we have?

JCS: That'd be the MOAB, the Mother of All Bombs.

Trump: That's perfect. PERFECT!

JCS: Well, it's a surface level bomb. The Taliban and any Al Qaeda camps work out of cave networks…

Trump: No, it's PERFECT. Just use the MOAB on them, and let's see what they think of that!f



Edit:

Not sure a compound bombing planned months ago is really something to get too worried about wrt to trumps world domination tour, especially since it probably stopped at the majcom level.

Oh. 

Like Trump even knows a country called Turkmenistan exists.

[benjipwns]

I'm sure he knows all the states he beat Hillary in by heart.

[Trent Dole]

I'm sure he knows all the states he beat Hillary in by heart.

all of them if you remove the people who voted illegally

[agrajag]

I don't know why you guys wouldn't be shook about North Korea. The people at the top are clearly desperate, crazy, have nothing to lose, depleted of resources, and they have nukes. I wouldn't poke that bee hive.

[helios]

I don't know why you guys wouldn't be shook about North Korea. The people at the top are clearly desperate, crazy, have nothing to lose, depleted of resources, and they have nukes. I wouldn't poke that bee hive.

Enough about the Trump Administration