Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Donald Trump, the road that might not lead to the White House!

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think it's fair to say that the vast majority of the readers of this thread are somewhat familiar with the fact that there might be a few problems with the US electoral system, and I also suspect that more than a few might be a bit confused at the fact that you are trying to patronise others after posting slews of superficial surface level crap.

Now you're presuming. I think you can speak of your own knowledge level, but after that, your authority on what others know or don't know, begins to fall off appreciably.

How many members does U75 have.

In any event, Clinton got more votes than did The Donald.:)
 
Oh no, not the think tanks!
Actually that's the DC equivalent of piles of gloriously burning books.

Staffers at State only ever read the PowerPoint Executive Summary slide anyway or worse NYT and WaPo editorials. Bit like Classical era chaps and bird signs.

"We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors … and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do." About Karl Rove and these Trump guys think Bush's brain bug was a cuck.

I love the smell of hubris in the morning.
 
I seem to remember saying uncharitable things about Karl Rove on here before, but then again I seem to remember he's a scumbag.
 

Calling folk Nazis is one thing but comparisons to Vichy France are rather crueler.


Bliddy good article, crisp informative, sobering, frightening even, but spot on as regarding the very possible future.
Have to add, like many, I thought that congress would put a brake on the Buffoons more dubious adventures, that illusion was neatly despached by the article.
Aye whey, back to digging the bunker:thumbs:
 
The European NATO forces job was to throw themselves a superior attacking tank army until the Septics could reinforce. Not far off a suicide mission. I recall it being said we'd probably have had to nuke the Soviets if they came through the Fulda Gap so also a bit redundant. Such a war would not have pleased the Germans and a escalatory spiral was likely.

As long as I can remember NATO's been a talking point in the US. Americans have deep isolationist instincts. Even the neocon thing was described as "isolationism turned outward". The Founders were very critical of binding alliances. For some NATO was a free ride for ungrateful Europeans much as Trump sees it. The above scenario when war gamed often involved them losing their coastal cites to ICBMs. It's an understandable position.

It's after the fairly peaceful end of the USSR NATO was really at a bit of loose end. But it expanded Eastward and now is rubbing up against Russia's borders as it was understood by Moscow it would not. It's now a big clumsy alliance of mostly militarily weak states who might well not live up to treaty commitments if asked to tangle with Russia.

Now Putin's Russia is much weaker but probably more dangerous. NATO (thanks to massive US defence spending) now has the conventional advantage. The Russians have a new very crazy doctrine of rapid escalation to tactical nukes just like the outnumbered Pakistanis. Unlike Pindi who hold their nukes disassembled the Russians have their strategic city killing nukes on a hair trigger as do the Americans. Add onto this a fast evolving doctrine of cross-domain coercion that blurs the lines of conventional warfare and emphasises Information Operations you have a very risky package.

Clinton's Russia policy may have been a wrongheaded continuation of arrogant mistakes but into this stumbles Trump eagerly set on renegotiating every alliance and trade deal (because he's the best) while undermining US deterrence with a rather adventurous Russia. What could go wrong?

Good enough summanation, but who insisted on NATO advancing Eastwards? IIRC the agreement post 89, was that NATO would gradually 'wind down' (peace dividend et al)
Couldn't be the blessed EU gobbling up more members while expecting NATO to defend its stupidity?
 
I am cursed. I confidently predicted the Trump was a joke and would not be allowed to to win right at the start of this rthread. I also voted for the second time in my last year- and for the second time,I didnt back the winner obviously. Given this statistical trend, I now make the following predictions for 2017:

* Her Majesty will live to 150
*Cliff will be proven innocent of everything ever
*There will be no bloody Socialist revolution in the UK

1'Her Maj will pop her clogs in the next two years along with the majority of Londoners following a thermonuclear exchange because the Buffoon launched after a threat from Putin to release the 'pissygate tapes'
2' Cliff will finally go at the same time.
3' The revolution was cancelled in order to let people tidy up the mess from (*1)
 
Great documentary on Ch4 tonight, called 'Trump from immigrant to president' - about the history of the Trump family. Worth checking out on 4od if its uploaded.
 
The Donald will soon learn that for a president to be powerful, he needs allies. He just keeps making enemies, even among Repubs.

Depends on critical mass, will his friends 'trump' his enemies'? If he can steamroller over those trying to keep him in check, what happens then?
He's already dismissed many from various arms of govt, who will he replace them with? he is busy intimidating the fourth estate.
Christ onnna crutch, few months ago thought those making comparisons with Hitler's rise to power needed to increase their medication! Now? Not so sure.
 
Great documentary on Ch4 tonight, called 'Trump from immigrant to president' - about the history of the Trump family. Worth checking out on 4od if its uploaded.
Save people the bother, bunch of bastards from the beginning.
Though the picture of the Buffoon in his uniform, esp that friggin 12' hackle, jeez
 
Good enough summanation, but who insisted on NATO advancing Eastwards? IIRC the agreement post 89, was that NATO would gradually 'wind down' (peace dividend et al)
Couldn't be the blessed EU gobbling up more members while expecting NATO to defend its stupidity?
I'd blame mainly the eager Brits and the US policy community behind them for that. There was certainly hubris in Brussels but EU and NATO expansion were rather obviously twin projects. The Yin and Yang of Russian containment. NATO membership of former Warsaw Pact countries like Poland precedes joining the EU by half a decade. One should not put the cart before the rather obvious war horse. The Russians certainly didn't.

The rather influential German elite in the EU just wanted unification (a forgotten very bold project) and then young EU8 labour not Lebensraum. Core EU energy dependance on Russia and German passivity always worried the Anglo powers. It's the US and UK that also pushed for Turkey's accession now dead in the water. We currently have a strategically essential Turkey barely even fitting into despot friendly NATO. Finally all rather destabilising and leading to the UK's own sulky abandoning of the field in Europe while diligently blaming almost everybody else.
 
The loose hacker collective Anonymous has declared war on Donald Trump from a Twitter account used by the group – and is threatening to expose supposed Russian Links.

A popular account linked to the group said, ‘You have financial and personal ties with Russian mobsters, child traffickers, and money launderers.’

‘This isn’t the 80s any longer, information doesn’t vanish, it is all out there. You are going to regret the next 4 years.’

- from Yahoo News
 
On Lawfare President Trump Can Legally End the One China Policy and Station U.S. Troops in Taiwan
...
In any event, it is clear that the President has broad authority under U.S. law to withdraw from even binding international legal commitments. He certainly would have no problem withdrawing from binding ones like the Three U.S.-China Communiques. I don’t think the Taiwan Relations Act requires him to do so, but it certainly suggests Congress does not want to stop the President from supporting Taiwan.

U.S.-China policy has always depended on the interests of the two countries in maintaining strong relations and cooperation despite sensitive questions like Taiwan. The legal framework for this relationship is surprisingly thin, however, and any new U.S. president is always empowered to completely change it should he choose to. A shift along the lines outlined by Trump or Bolton may be unwise, and it could even lead to a shooting war, but it is one of the many important powers President-elect Trump will assume on January 20. China should be prepared.
TrumpChina.jpg
 
Gerald Levin to Donald Trump, on Rep. John Lewis: Have You No Sense of Decency?

I write not to contest your imminent inauguration, rather to offer a plea for decency and respect, for your assumption of leadership based on moral values and spiritual principles. Nor am I joining the chorus of incessant video pundits clamoring for you to pivot from voter-resonating slogans to Presidential policy stratagems. Yes, I am a lifelong progressive Democrat, no I am not mourning Secretary Clinton’s misguided campaign. What moves me to address you is the turning point, the line you crossed by demeaning John Lewis instead of honorably responding to him by saying you intend to be worthy of his support and that you appreciate the historical role he played in Selma with Dr. King, as we, as a unified nation, pause, to honor the slain Civil Rights leader.

Gerald Levin to Donald Trump: 'Have You No Sense of Decency?'
 
Last edited:

This is the John Lewis guy that was publicly calling Trump a Russian agent as justification for boycotting his inauguration and now everyone's gone into meltdown because Trump answered him back ? It's like he kicked Jesus out of the crib or something . The guys a professional, career politician who was happily dishing dirty digs out himself and got one in response .
Which other professional politicians and party hacks are we not allowed to criticise for their words and actions today because of worthy stuff they did decades ago ?

Peter Hain ? Martin McGuinness ? John Hume ? Mugabe ? Jacob Zuma ? Daniel Ortega ?

This manufactured " quelle horreur :eek::eek: " outrage is wearing a bit thin .
 
Last edited:
The Donald appears to have learned fuck all throughout his campaign.
Oh I don't know he seems to be able to get away with just about anything. He's proceeding to push the envelope of transgression and seems to be enjoying himself greatly. Well except when compulsively watching SNL.
 
The Donald appears to have learned fuck all throughout his campaign.

i have to disagree, his whole campaign imho was based on his awareness that enough people will be attracted to shamelessness, thuggery, and nationalism. he's succeeded at the biggest deal you can pull off (which i think was his motivation all along). what needs attention is his cabinet picks, which look atrocious.
then again he actually lost, so.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom