Donald Trump

[Marc]

20 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

I will assume from the multiple "!"s  that your are not entirely serious.

More exclamation marks , more serious !!!!!!!!!!!  Seriously my man .

Cannot be serious ( they shouted when he was on the escalator ) , cannot win a primary , cannot win a State , cannot get the nomination , cannot win the POTUS , cannot govern with his " fellow Republicans " , cannot build a wall, cannot cannot cannot cannot but he keeps doing and doing and doing and doing .

This is an actual Revolution , " We The People " , act 2 . 

Remember the pledge , also his own party continues to run end arounds , yet Mr. President keeps cutting them down to size .

 

 

 

[Marc]

10 hours ago, Peter said:

Marc wrote” A bloodless revolution. Its already started Sir! end quote

Definition of revolution from the www: a forcible overthrow of a government or social order in favor of a new system. synonyms: rebellion · revolt · insurrection · mutiny · uprising · riot · rioting · insurgence · seizure of power · coup (d'état).

It may be correctly called a meaningful election, Marc, but not a revolution. And your exuberance and hoopla don’t make it a revolution. Who wants a revolution when there is a reasonably fair, voluntary, non-violent voting contest? The good guys won. A revolution by our Founding Fathers could result in a free land that guarantees individual rights, but a revolution without that historical and philosophical background could result in a dictator.

Britain has had Brexit and France could elect a populist, female candidate, though not exactly a version of President Trump. But what does commonwealth Canada have? A government voted in, but you also have a Queen Mum. Marc, don’t disappoint your Mum.        

Peter 

An uprising sounds perfect , an uprising by the people who were totally sick of the status quo , Trump took power . It was a vote of course but look at what his Democratic and Republican opponents tried to pull every step of the way , and still are trying to pull .

Way closer to an actual Revolution than a " meaningful election " , yet history will absolve me on this point . 

On these boards here though lately , its a case of " has not done so and so yet " , while still not even giving historic props for what the man has done . I keep reading this line of reasoning here by lots of these good Objectivist folks . 

Peter , Peter the Pumpkin eater let me query you this . How many books have come out with the title of " meaningful election " and how many have come out with " Revolution " in the title ? 

This has not been fair , in all seriousness . Every fair attempt by Trump has been countered with something unfair , by his party and the Dems too.

Not sure if OL was around back in the time of Our Founding Fathers , or not but if so , I am very confident that most here would have been writing at that time the same type of "what have you done for me lately " , comments .

Where the US was headed pre Trump , along the lines of Obama. Bush , Clinton et al was on the course to a dictator that you were writing about in your comment . Trump has stopped this course , and new parties will be forming . The Dems are done , this is a new day . The Repubs are done . This is a Revolution , you just don't see it yet .

As for Trudeau , Pierre and our current PM , and The Queen and The Mum . All the same thing , just a different name .

I do love the name Marco Polo , though !!!!!!!!!

[BaalChatzaf]

1 hour ago, Marc said:

More exclamation marks , more serious !!!!!!!!!!!  Seriously my man .

Cannot be serious ( they shouted when he was on the escalator ) , cannot win a primary , cannot win a State , cannot get the nomination , cannot win the POTUS , cannot govern with his " fellow Republicans " , cannot build a wall, cannot cannot cannot cannot but he keeps doing and doing and doing and doing .

This is an actual Revolution , " We The People " , act 2 . 

Remember the pledge , also his own party continues to run end arounds , yet Mr. President keeps cutting them down to size .

 

 

 

In the political whirlwind  3.5 years is a long time and the public is quite fickle.  

[Marc]

Very true indeed , kind Sir ! 

Very true ! 

[Peter]

Trump is saying he will cut the business tax rate to 15 percent before the year is out and he may visit Israel in May, according to the Times of Israel.

But what would happen if we go to war with North Korea? Right now the north has about a thousand short range missiles that could reach South Korea, Japan and perhaps as far away as U.S. forces in Guam. They are not reliable missiles but you know they will shoot everything they have.

If we don’t use nukes we may need to dedicate our entire economy and military to war on the Korean Peninsula leaving Iran to dominate the middle east. A conventional war could cost a hundred thousand American lives. A nuclear war could do the same with the limited number of nukes the North has, but also bring China and Russia into the war.

What if either side miscalculates or simply collides with the other side’s forces? That would mean war. Some think Kim Jong-un is unstable and others think President Trump is unstable, like a latter day Teddy Roosevelt.

I have two predictions if we go to war. There will be no real tax cut and we will use nukes to turn the north into a parking lot, perhaps with a surprise attack. Or an ‘incident” might trigger war as occurred in the Gulf of Tonkin before the start of U.S. involvement in Vietnam. Then we will nuke the north.   

Peter

Craig Snyder wrote in the Philadelphia Enquirer: The Trump administration’s approach to the deadly serious problem of North Korea is the worst of all possible formulations. It is Teddy Roosevelt, turned upside down – “Speak loudly, and pretend to carry a big stick.”

 . . . . But the means being discussed, such as putting North Korea back on the list of state sponsors of terrorism (“sticks and stones may break my bones…”), banning the North Korean airline from flying places it will never fly anyway, and banning the import of North Korean seafood (seriously?), are almost comically insufficient to the problem. Then there’s the “armada,” 3,500 miles away, but, maybe, on the way. These things, and other non-military options which might be considered, all pale by comparison to both the carrots and sticks that have already been used by prior presidents.

. . . . Even limited preemptive military action won’t work. How could merely wounding and cornering a fierce animal not lead to a rage-ful last gasp of dreadful retaliation?

There is a good reason none of these are viable options. It’s because, from the North Korean point of view, only achieving that most fearsome military capability can provide reasonable assurance of this regime’s long-term existence. The North Korean leader wants there to be a parade for him, like the one we recently saw for his elders, on the 105th anniversary of his birth, and he must have nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them against the United States to maximize the chance of that happening. Under any scenario in which his, and his regime’s, survival is in doubt, he can be counted on to take with him as many of his enemies as he has any means to do.

 . . . . So here is the truly horrible truth about North Korea. There are only two choices. The first is that we acknowledge and accept, as we have done with Russian and Chinese ICBM capabilities for decades, and then try to deter and contain, and to defend against, a North Korea able to strike us with nuclear weapons. end quote 

[BaalChatzaf]

3 hours ago, Peter said:

Trump is saying he will cut the business tax rate to 15 percent before the year is out and he may visit Israel in May, according to the Times of Israel.

But what would happen if we go to war with North Korea? Right now the north has about a thousand short range missiles that could reach South Korea, Japan and perhaps as far away as U.S. forces in Guam. They are not reliable missiles but you know they will shoot everything they have.

If we don’t use nukes we may need to dedicate our entire economy and military to war on the Korean Peninsula leaving Iran to dominate the middle east. A conventional war could cost a hundred thousand American lives. A nuclear war could do the same with the limited number of nukes the North has, but also bring China and Russia into the war.

What if either side miscalculates or simply collides with the other side’s forces? That would mean war. Some think Kim Jong-un is unstable and others think President Trump is unstable, like a latter day Teddy Roosevelt.

I have two predictions if we go to war. There will be no real tax cut and we will use nukes to turn the north into a parking lot, perhaps with a surprise attack. Or an ‘incident” might trigger war as occurred in the Gulf of Tonkin before the start of U.S. involvement in Vietnam. Then we will nuke the north.   

Peter

Craig Snyder wrote in the Philadelphia Enquirer: The Trump administration’s approach to the deadly serious problem of North Korea is the worst of all possible formulations. It is Teddy Roosevelt, turned upside down – “Speak loudly, and pretend to carry a big stick.”

 . . . . But the means being discussed, such as putting North Korea back on the list of state sponsors of terrorism (“sticks and stones may break my bones…”), banning the North Korean airline from flying places it will never fly anyway, and banning the import of North Korean seafood (seriously?), are almost comically insufficient to the problem. Then there’s the “armada,” 3,500 miles away, but, maybe, on the way. These things, and other non-military options which might be considered, all pale by comparison to both the carrots and sticks that have already been used by prior presidents.

. . . . Even limited preemptive military action won’t work. How could merely wounding and cornering a fierce animal not lead to a rage-ful last gasp of dreadful retaliation?

There is a good reason none of these are viable options. It’s because, from the North Korean point of view, only achieving that most fearsome military capability can provide reasonable assurance of this regime’s long-term existence. The North Korean leader wants there to be a parade for him, like the one we recently saw for his elders, on the 105th anniversary of his birth, and he must have nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them against the United States to maximize the chance of that happening. Under any scenario in which his, and his regime’s, survival is in doubt, he can be counted on to take with him as many of his enemies as he has any means to do.

 . . . . So here is the truly horrible truth about North Korea. There are only two choices. The first is that we acknowledge and accept, as we have done with Russian and Chinese ICBM capabilities for decades, and then try to deter and contain, and to defend against, a North Korea able to strike us with nuclear weapons. end quote 

It sucks to live near N. Korea...

If we want to repress Krazy Kim we are going to have to nuke N. Korea.  But that might start a war with China.  That does not sound so good.  Kim is not rational.  He will not adjust himself to mutually assured destruction like the now defunct Soviet Union did.  

 

What do you recommend?  

Perhaps we can sneak in a commando squad to assassinate the Kims and their buddies.  

[Brant Gaede]

4 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

It sucks to live near N. Korea...

If we want to repress Krazy Kim we are going to have to nuke N. Korea.  But that might start a war with China.  That does not sound so good.  Kim is not rational.  He will not adjust himself to mutually assured destruction like the now defunct Soviet Union did. 

What do you recommend?  

Perhaps we can sneak in a commando squad to assassinate the Kims and their buddies.  

The military rules NK. It doesn't matter what Kim's role is; he ain't his daddy.

Maybe MOABs instead of nukes, but maybe nothing but let NK dangle as we trade on its actual status with China.

China is ruled by communists in name only, but the rulers are ruthless in their holding onto power. So Trump the businessman can trade with them. It's not Korea that makes the Chinese (military) go nutso--it's Taiwan.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

7 hours ago, Peter said:

Trump is saying he will cut the business tax rate to 15 percent before the year is out and he may visit Israel in May, according to the Times of Israel.

But what would happen if we go to war with North Korea? Right now the north has about a thousand short range missiles that could reach South Korea, Japan and perhaps as far away as U.S. forces in Guam. They are not reliable missiles but you know they will shoot everything they have.

If we don’t use nukes we may need to dedicate our entire economy and military to war on the Korean Peninsula leaving Iran to dominate the middle east. A conventional war could cost a hundred thousand American lives. A nuclear war could do the same with the limited number of nukes the North has, but also bring China and Russia into the war.

What if either side miscalculates or simply collides with the other side’s forces? That would mean war. Some think Kim Jong-un is unstable and others think President Trump is unstable, like a latter day Teddy Roosevelt.

I have two predictions if we go to war. There will be no real tax cut and we will use nukes to turn the north into a parking lot, perhaps with a surprise attack. Or an ‘incident” might trigger war as occurred in the Gulf of Tonkin before the start of U.S. involvement in Vietnam. Then we will nuke the north.   

Peter

Craig Snyder wrote in the Philadelphia Enquirer: The Trump administration’s approach to the deadly serious problem of North Korea is the worst of all possible formulations. It is Teddy Roosevelt, turned upside down – “Speak loudly, and pretend to carry a big stick.”

 . . . . But the means being discussed, such as putting North Korea back on the list of state sponsors of terrorism (“sticks and stones may break my bones…”), banning the North Korean airline from flying places it will never fly anyway, and banning the import of North Korean seafood (seriously?), are almost comically insufficient to the problem. Then there’s the “armada,” 3,500 miles away, but, maybe, on the way. These things, and other non-military options which might be considered, all pale by comparison to both the carrots and sticks that have already been used by prior presidents.

. . . . Even limited preemptive military action won’t work. How could merely wounding and cornering a fierce animal not lead to a rage-ful last gasp of dreadful retaliation?

There is a good reason none of these are viable options. It’s because, from the North Korean point of view, only achieving that most fearsome military capability can provide reasonable assurance of this regime’s long-term existence. The North Korean leader wants there to be a parade for him, like the one we recently saw for his elders, on the 105th anniversary of his birth, and he must have nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them against the United States to maximize the chance of that happening. Under any scenario in which his, and his regime’s, survival is in doubt, he can be counted on to take with him as many of his enemies as he has any means to do.

 . . . . So here is the truly horrible truth about North Korea. There are only two choices. The first is that we acknowledge and accept, as we have done with Russian and Chinese ICBM capabilities for decades, and then try to deter and contain, and to defend against, a North Korea able to strike us with nuclear weapons. end quote 

NK nukes are a joke.

If that is so how would you rewrite this article of yours?

--Brant

11,000 reloadable artillery tubes aimed at Seoul are not a joke

[Peter]

22 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

It sucks to live near N. Korea...

If we want to repress Krazy Kim we are going to have to nuke N. Korea.  But that might start a war with China.  That does not sound so good.  Kim is not rational.  He will not adjust himself to mutually assured destruction like the now defunct Soviet Union did.  

 

What do you recommend?  

Perhaps we can sneak in a commando squad to assassinate the Kims and their buddies.  

I hope we won’t be watching a new TV show called M.A.S.H. Part Two in a few years.

Prior to North Korea creating nukes, (though they may be a joke to some at this stage of development, our carrier task force is considering the North’s nukes) it was assumed the North would begin with attempts at infiltration though and under the DMZ quickly followed with a massive artillery barrage as Brant said, then more infiltration and probes leading to an invasion. They have a military of just over a million and ten million reserves. They will take Seoul, unless we quickly nuked them.

What would I do if I were King? Watch for a call up of their reserves. Threaten China with a seizure of all their assets in America especially the bonds and treasury notes they hold. Then, I would recommend we not trade with anyone who trades with North Korea, and that means China especially . . . after we issue a no trade warning to them to be phased in, and starting with no new shipments or orders from us for their products. We have had embargoes with other countries in the past, and Cuba comes first to my mind. Remember Jimmy, Jimmy Carter not going to the Moscow Olympics? Trump would get a lot of flak too but he can handle it.

Peter      

[BaalChatzaf]

7 hours ago, Peter said:

I hope we won’t be watching a new TV show called M.A.S.H. Part Two in a few years.

Prior to North Korea creating nukes, (though they may be a joke to some at this stage of development, our carrier task force is considering the North’s nukes) it was assumed the North would begin with attempts at infiltration though and under the DMZ quickly followed with a massive artillery barrage as Brant said, then more infiltration and probes leading to an invasion. They have a military of just over a million and ten million reserves. They will take Seoul, unless we quickly nuked them.

What would I do if I were King? Watch for a call up of their reserves. Threaten China with a seizure of all their assets in America especially the bonds and treasury notes they hold. Then, I would recommend we not trade with anyone who trades with North Korea, and that means China especially . . . after we issue a no trade warning to them to be phased in, and starting with no new shipments or orders from us for their products. We have had embargoes with other countries in the past, and Cuba comes first to my mind. Remember Jimmy, Jimmy Carter not going to the Moscow Olympics? Trump would get a lot of flak too but he can handle it.

Peter      

You are an optimist.  

[Peter]

Ba’al thinks I am an optimist.

REAL Breaking News from Newsmax: Trump: ‘Major, major conflict with North Korea possible.”

Why is President Trump keeping this going? If it were true he would not be giving away our thinking on the national level. It may not be our intention to go to war, but it kinda, sorta, coulda accidentally happen and then where would his Presidency be?

Possible but FAKE news from CBS News, Scott Pellly: For the second time in history, nuclear weapons were used today. Both times they have been used by the United States, and both times were used against Asian people. 130 nukes were detonated in the kiloton range on the DMZ and approximately 75 were detonated at every bunker North Korea’s leader Kim Jun Un was known to hide in as well as every nuclear facility and every major depot or base where the North Koreans armies were camped.

Wait! This is just in. A North Korean missile has hit Seoul South Korea and another has struck allied command headquarters just south of the border. A third missile has been intercepted by a Japanese Destroyer as it flew toward Tokyo. The air blast has tipped the destroyer on its side and rescue operations are underway.

Dear god. We interrupt this broadcast to bring you an urgent message from President Trump.

My fellow Americans we are at war. I have sent an additional thousand nuclear armed missiles to obliterate North Korea. They should strike in the next few moments . . .  

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here's a thought I want to share about President Trump and my support for him.

There's an OL member who no longer posts here (Mike Renzulli), but we are Facebook friends--united in our support of Trump, of all things.  

His understanding of Objectivism leans toward the ortho view and the free-thinking about Rand that goes on here, presumably, makes him uncomfortable. So he simply doesn't show up. That's fine with me, though. What's good for him is good for me and good for OL.

We generally avoid discussing this and stick to Trump-related things. Most recently, he expressed doubts about the president's tax plan. As I understand it, his objection was that the tax plan was not ideological enough and so close to Reagan's, it could cause some of the same long-term consequences in giving even more power to Congress to do crony bargaining backstage ("hand out favors" is the way he put it). I wrote the following, he liked it and, apparently, his doubts ended.

I especially want to mention this, though, because of the critics who say I worship Donald Trump. Hell, one guy (one I like a lot) came out--in another place at another time--and said he refused to post on OL anymore because I worship Trump--and this because I consider him to be like a Randian hero from one angle.

Good Lord!

I ask you, the reader, isn't this the same kind of boneheaded thinking fanatics always do? Hate to the point of distorting what their own eyes see and read? I was surprised hearing it from this guy (who I prefer not to name as I believe this was a lapse).

Anyway, here's what I wrote about the tax plan doubt:

Quote

When you fix something, you are not responsible for what others do with it. Trump was never an ideal Objectivist-like or libertarian-like candidate. He was hired by the American people to fix the mess based on his record of high-level productive achievements and negotiating skills. And that he is doing in spades.

After we are sure the ship will no longer sink, it is up to people like us--and I mean that literally--to get someone elected who will make the good things more permanent, more rational, and more individual freedom oriented.

This is thinking in stages and in reality, not in all-or-nothing mental visions that ideologues always do.

In fact, this is exactly the way President Trump gets things done--in stages. For people like the critics who might not be familiar with the term, it's called a business plan with a timeline.

 

For those who stuck it out here on OL, don't think you didn't make a difference. You did. OL's influence in this election was small (tiny  ), but it was real. Each of us played a part in getting President Trump elected, not as characters in a play in the theater of our minds or just on some online forum, but out there in reality. We helped change the world. You were part of that, so was I, and it is damn important.

Behold the results. They unfold before our eyes every day all around us--out there in reality.

Be proud. That's worth a lot and nobody can take it from you.

Michael

[Peter]

I do not doubt that people have stopped posting on OL because of the moderator’s support of Donald Trump. It kind of stacks the deck. It pissed them off. It pains me to say it. I have questioned the sagacity of that *official* support. Where did the deserters go? Would I be happier on another site? Nah. I will wait it out. Some may have noticed I try to quote some a’ dose guys to see if that will retrieve them from the nether world. I have not contacted them personally except in one case, and using that evidence I decided not to personally contact any others.    

Michael wrote: In fact, this is exactly the way President Trump gets things done--in stages. For people like the critics who might not be familiar with the term, it's called a business plan with a timeline. end quote

I see that. I hope Michael’s timeline corresponds with each Trump victory. Like a weather vane I watch President Trump to see if each decision propels us in the right direction. So far, so good, but I will go further and say, it’s been so very, very good with President Trump.

Though I served in Korea, I do not claim to be an authority but I wonder about Trump’s Korean tweets. Our best scenario would be Kim’s own generals, with Chinese support, arrest him and send him with his head still attached, to U.N. asylum in Botswana. And then some unknown James Bond, blows his sorry ass to pieces.

Sorry if I Hurt any feelings.

Peter 

[anthony]

"Trump's Biggest Achievement in His 1st 100 Days? Stopping the Left"
 http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/elder

[Peter]

Thanks Tony, for the Larry Elder article on Trump’s first 100 days. The following may have already been shown here but I don’t remember seeing it.

Peter

Clips from 13 Ways Trump Has Rolled Back Government Regulations in His First 100 Days by Rachel del Guidice April 23, 2017.

1. Regulations governing the coal mining industry (H.J. Res 41).

2. Regulations defining streams in the coal industry (H.J. Res 38).

3. Regulations restricting firearms for disabled citizens (H.J. Res 40).

4. A rule governing the government contracting process (H.J. Res. 37).

5. A rule covering public lands (H.J. Res. 44).

6. Reporting requirements regarding college teachers (H.J. Res. 58).

The rule mandated annual reporting by states “to measure the performance and quality of teacher preparation programs and tie them to program eligibility for participation in the Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education grant program,” Spicer said.

7. Regulations on state education programs (H.J. Res. 57).

Congress and Trump rescinded federal rules that “require states to have an accountability system based on multiple measures, including school quality or student success, to ensure that states and districts focus on improving outcomes and measuring student progress,” Spicer said.

8. Drug-testing requirements (H.J. Res 42).

Spicer said the regulation mandates an “arbitrarily narrow definition of occupations and constrains a state’s ability to conduct a drug-testing program in its unemployment insurance system.”

9. Hunting regulations for wildlife preserves in Alaska (H.J. Res 69).

10. Internet privacy rule (S.J.Res. 34).

Published during the final months of Obama’s presidency, the rule sought to force “new privacy standards on internet service providers, allowing bureaucrats in Washington to pick winners and losers in the industry,” Spicer said.  

11. Rule for logging workplace injuries (H.J. 83).

This rule from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration sought to squelch a more lenient one from the Labor Department. Spicer said the rule “disapproved” of a Labor regulation “extending the statute of limitation for claims against employers failing to maintain records of employee injuries.” 

12.  Rule preventing states from withholding funds from Planned Parenthood (H.J. Res 43).

By undoing this rule, Congress and the president allow states to opt out of letting federal funds go to Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider.

13. Rule on retirement savings (H.J. Res 67).

The rule allowed state governments “to trap individuals’ savings in accounts that individuals cannot access or control,” Rachel Greszler, a research analyst at The Heritage Foundation, said.

Promulgated during Obama’s last full month in office, the rule allowed states to create public retirement funds. However, it also eliminated protections from those public plans that initially were covered under a law that set standards for private sector employee pension and health plans.

[Marc]

15 hours ago, anthony said:

"Trump's Biggest Achievement in His 1st 100 Days? Stopping the Left"
 http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/elder

Brilliant read , thank you

[BaalChatzaf]

43 minutes ago, Marc said:

Brilliant read , thank you

I concur.  So far Trump's greatest contribution is a Hillary Free America.  

[Peter]

I too concur that so far Trump's greatest contribution is a Hillary Free America, but I think he is going to rack up some huge victories for freedom before 2018. Just check out those articles or the Wiki article about his first 100 days. Impressive. It is tough getting things through the molasses House and the Gingerbread Senate, but President Trump has started the ball of cookie dough rolling.    

From The Times of Israel. N. Korea threatens Israel after Liberman calls Kim a madman, Pyongyang slams defense minister’s ‘malicious’ insults, condemns Israel’s nuclear policy, accuses Jewish state of ‘crimes against humanity’ By Times of Israel staff April 29, 2017, 7:09 pm ‘Our consistent message is to mercilessly punish those who offend the dignity of our leadership.' end quote

Of course they are alluding to handing a nuclear, chemical, or dirty bomb to Islamic terrorist. I think North Korea has an old submarine but that could be sunk without a problem.

Peter 

[Peter]

From Newmax: A United States military strike on North Korea should be the last option in dealing with the reclusive nation as it seeks to put together a nuclear weapon, Sen. John McCain said Thursday. The Arizona Republican appeared on "CBS This Morning" and pointed out that complicating matters are the artillery batteries that line North Korea's border with South Korea. A U.S. assault in any form could lead to North Korea launching its own attack against Seoul, a city of 26 million people.

 

"That complicates things dramatically, and that's why a lot of the emphasis has got to be on the only power that can restrain them, and that's China," McCain said. "The Chinese have cut back on the coal supply, but I was not encouraged when the Chinese came against our air defense system being in place in South Korea."

 

The military option has to "absolutely be the last option," McCain added. "When I say last option, that is when we're convinced North Korea has that capability to launch a missile that could strike, with a nuclear weapon, the west coast of the United States. This leader [Kim Jong-un] is not rational. He is not a person that we can depend on to act in a rational fashion." end quote

[Peter]

Welcome President Kim Jun Un to my home in Florida. I hope you and your wife enjoy your stay here. I am sorry your entire entourage of body guards could not accompany you but I assure you the Secret Service can handle all emergencies . . .  which won’t happen by the way.  Tomorrow we will have talks with you and your translators and representatives from South Korea, Japan, and China. For now, enjoy this wonderful tropical weather!       

2017 Bloomberg News: President Donald Trump said he would meet with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un amid heightened tensions over his country’s nuclear weapons program if the circumstances were right. “If it would be appropriate for me to meet with him, I would absolutely, I would be honored to do it,” Trump said Monday in an interview with Bloomberg News. “If it’s under the, again, under the right circumstances. But I would do that.”

North Korea has become the most urgent national security threat and foreign policy issue facing Trump as his first 100 days in office passed. Kim’s regime has continued development of its nuclear and intercontinental ballistic missile program in defiance of international condemnation and sanctions. Kim has never met with a foreign leader since taking charge after his father’s death in 2011 and hasn’t left his isolated country.

“Most political people would never say that,” Trump said of his willingness to meet with the reclusive Kim, “but I’m telling you under the right circumstances I would meet with him. We have breaking news.”

Tensions have escalated since Trump vowed in January that he wouldn’t let North Korea develop a nuclear weapon capable of reaching the U.S. mainland, and North Korea has labeled American military moves in the region as acts of “intimidation and blackmail.” North Korea has continued to test missiles this year after carrying out its fourth and fifth nuclear tests in a decade last year.

While dispatching an aircraft carrier group and a submarine to the region, the administration has emphasized the use of economic sanctions and diplomacy to persuade North Korea to dismantle its nuclear weapons and missile programs. Trump has said he’s leaning on Chinese President Xi Jinping to defuse the situation, given China’s economic influence with its neighbor. Trump and Xi met last month at the U.S. president’s private club in Florida and have talked several times since.

Then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was the last top U.S. official to meet with a North Korean leader. She discussed the country’s nuclear program with Kim’s father, Kim Jong Il, in 2000. At the time, she was the most senior official to visit the Stalinist state in the 50 years since the Korean War.

[Peter]

I thought the CBS story tonight about the President Trump interview was exhilarating. I won’t give it away as to content, but I would bet a twenty dollar bill the CBS guy still thinks he zapped Trump. It made me want to shake President Trump’s hand. So many times he has done what I would have done in the same circumstances. Bravo! What a man.

Watch it. You will laugh.

Peter  

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Obamacare repeal just passed in the House.

KA-BAYAAMM!

President Trump head-faked with the budget and reeled this sucker in.

Now for the Senate...

Michael

[Peter]

Can't wait for the critical analyses. How is it looking at the Senate? Is the bill free market or theft? Agent Clarisse Starling or Doctor Hannibal Lector?  (though I am not giving up my Medicare.)

Peter

 

[Marc]

On April 29, 2017 at 8:55 PM, BaalChatzaf said:

I concur.  So far Trump's greatest contribution is a Hillary Free America.  

A war is won in stages , Revolutions are not overnight . They build .

Trump is a Randian hero , no doubt .

Barbara Branden always spoke about how much she could not stand Obama , she would be loving this !!!!

 

Shoutout to Babs !!!!!!!!!!! RIP

[Brant Gaede]

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Obamacare repeal just passed in the House.

KA-BAYAAMM!

President Trump head-faked with the budget and reeled this sucker in.

Now for the Senate...

Michael

Of course it passed the House. There's no filibuster in that chamber.

--Brant