North Korea

[Kelly Gruene 26]

Don't you think he's backed himself into a corner now? Either he's all talk or he has to unleash the military(that nobody really wants). Right now, I think he's done pretty much what every other president has done-pass down sanctions.

However, I do think he's tried hard to curb China's power in stopping North Korea. But you know what China wants I return...Trade in their favor. We are back to square one. ASU said, it's if,but when NK gets them. We need to be focused on setting up our defense systems.

 

I don't think he's backed himself into a corner. I have a good friend who is a 2 star general. I've met several of his similarly ranked friends. These are smart people, impressive on pretty much every level. I don't think that it's like shown in the movies, where generals in the situation room are continually pushing the president to use military might just because we have it. Clearly I could be wrong, but it seems likely to me that the military people only want to use the military if there is a clear end in sight. Getting into a conflict with North Korea does not, in my opinion, have a clear or simple ending.

China, too, is and always has been difficult. Trump has at least been able to make them respond in some way to North Korea, something past Republican and Democratic administrations have been unable to do.

Defense systems are key. The effect of a nuclear electromagnetic pulse from a high altitude explosion over the central US would be devastating (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_electromagnetic_pulse).

[Jim2Dokes 3]

I'll bet right now that Trump is not President for the full four years. I believe he will leave under his own volition with 8-12 months left in his term. I think he is being as disruptive as he can be, "draining the swamp", understanding that with disruption come enemies. Those enemies are both Republican and Democrat, and all want him gone before he takes away what is theirs. They are and will be gunning for him, and I think he'll resign after receiving some type of guaranteed pardon for any and all perceived offenses. Purely conjecture of course, but I don't think he really wants to be President for four years.

 

Trump didn't drain any swamp, cabinet is filled with Goldman Sachs (as all previous presidents) and career politicians, please. At least Obama brought intelligence in, an example, Obamas director or energy a nuclear physicist, Trumps dumbass Rick perry who thought there shouldn't be a deptartment of energy before he was appointed. You don't think he's gonna last 4 years? Why did you vote for him? The writing was on the wall before he was elected. He hasn't changed, same narcissistic 13 year old child that ran for president. Who's more crazy KIm or Donald? Donald had checks and balances only difference. Both narcissistic man-child pos.

Edited October 15, 2017 by Jim2Dokes

[corysold 0]

I'll bet right now that Trump is not President for the full four years. I believe he will leave under his own volition with 8-12 months left in his term. I think he is being as disruptive as he can be, "draining the swamp", understanding that with disruption come enemies. Those enemies are both Republican and Democrat, and all want him gone before he takes away what is theirs. They are and will be gunning for him, and I think he'll resign after receiving some type of guaranteed pardon for any and all perceived offenses. Purely conjecture of course, but I don't think he really wants to be President for four years.

 

I had the thought that Trump didn't really want to be president to begin with. Started as a publicity stunt, he said a bunch of crazy stuff, got into the lead and was sort of stuck thinking, "Oh crap, what now?" Then he just ran with it and tried to see how much crazy sh** he could say and still get elected.

[Kelly Gruene 26]

Trump didn't drain any swamp, cabinet is filled with Goldman Sachs (as all previous presidents) and career politicians, please. At least Obama brought intelligence in, an example, Obamas director or energy a nuclear physicist, Trumps dumbass Rick perry who thought there shouldn't be a deptartment of energy before he was appointed. You don't think he's gonna last 4 years? Why did you vote for him? The writing was on the wall before he was elected. He hasn't changed, same narcissistic 13 year old child that ran for president. Who's more crazy KIm or Donald? Donald had checks and balances only difference. Both narcissistic man-child pos.

 

I love how you make assumptions of who I am, what I believe, and how I vote. I've posted before and am posting again, your assumptions are just assumptions and are more often than not incorrect. Please don't make these things personal, or I will be forced to reply in kind. I like to have discussions based on fact, supported by documentation, and I will interject opinions from time to time and clearly state they are just my opinions.

Living in Texas I will admit that I too question whether Rick Perry is/was the best choice for the Secretary of Energy position. Time will tell. I can understand the appointment, though, since Texas is the number 1 state in US production of natural gas, petroleum, and wind power, and is number 10 in solar power production. Being a 4 term governor in a state with that kind of energy production means he has a lot of experience understanding the issues involved in energy production, from legal to legislative to environmental concerns. So, at least the appointment makes some sense from a "hands on" experience perspective.

Steven Chu, the Obama Secretary of Energy you referenced, had no real time experience in these issues. At the time of his appointment he was professor of physics and molecular and cellular biology at the University of California, Berkeley. A Nobel prize winner. A man of impeccable academic credentials and clearly a very very smart man. My son had dinner with him one evening. True story. So, one Secretary was very very smart, one Secretary has real time experience dealing with the issues. Which one is better? Opinion. Just opinion.

I would be happy to argue the merits of various Cabinet appointees of the various presidents. Since this is a North Korea thread, perhaps Secretary of State is most appropriate. You mentioned career politicians as populating Trump's Cabinet. Let me try to remember.... Rex Tillerson is the current Secretary of State. Exxon Mobile in his past. I don't seem to recall who was Secretary of State during Obama's administration. Seems to me it was someone who had some sort of background in politics, maybe a career politician? Perhaps you can refresh my memory?

 

It would be interesting to discuss Cabinet appointments of various Presidents, but that would probably best be done in another thread. This thread is about North Korea.

 

And yes, both Kim and Trump are narcissistic. I wonder if any other leaders of countries or any other politicians in office are narcissistic. Probably not. Just those two.

Edited October 15, 2017 by Kelly Gruene

[Jim2Dokes 3]

I love how you make assumptions of who I am, what I believe, and how I vote. I've posted before and am posting again, your assumptions are just assumptions and are more often than not incorrect. Please don't make these things personal, or I will be forced to reply in kind. I like to have discussions based on fact, supported by documentation, and I will interject opinions from time to time and clearly state they are just my opinions.

Living in Texas I will admit that I too question whether Rick Perry is/was the best choice for the Secretary of Energy position. Time will tell. I can understand the appointment, though, since Texas is the number 1 state in US production of natural gas, petroleum, and wind power, and is number 10 in solar power production. Being a 4 term governor in a state with that kind of energy production means he has a lot of experience understanding the issues involved in energy production, from legal to legislative to environmental concerns. So, at least the appointment makes some sense from a "hands on" experience perspective.

Steven Chu, the Obama Secretary of Energy you referenced, had no real time experience in these issues. At the time of his appointment he was professor of physics and molecular and cellular biology at the University of California, Berkeley. A Nobel prize winner. A man of impeccable academic credentials and clearly a very very smart man. My son had dinner with him one evening. True story. So, one Secretary was very very smart, one Secretary has real time experience dealing with the issues. Which one is better? Opinion. Just opinion.

I would be happy to argue the merits of various Cabinet appointees of the various presidents. Since this is a North Korea thread, perhaps Secretary of State is most appropriate. You mentioned career politicians as populating Trump's Cabinet. Let me try to remember.... Rex Tillerson is the current Secretary of State. Exxon Mobile in his past. I don't seem to recall who was Secretary of State during Obama's administration. Seems to me it was someone who had some sort of background in politics, maybe a career politician? Perhaps you can refresh my memory?

 

It would be interesting to discuss Cabinet appointments of various Presidents, but that would probably best be done in another thread. This thread is about North Korea.

 

And yes, both Kim and Trump are narcissistic. I wonder if any other leaders of countries or any other politicians in office are narcissistic. Probably not. Just those two.

 

Sorry I made the assumption you voted for Trump or voted at all. I made that assumption based on your support for trump during the campaign, links posted from breibert, stating it didn't matter if Russia and trump worked together to get him elected, and your critical statements of left leaning politicians and positions in general. But, your right I don't recall you saying you voted for trump in the past and am not going to spend all day forging through your post history.

 

You are right, there are other leaders that are narcissistic. But These two and other dictators have a certain trait of bumping that narcissism to new levels.

[Soko 128]

Rick Perry once campaigned for the Department of Energy to abolished. Then he forgot it's name. I can't think of a single reason why anybody would think he was qualified for this job.

 

His predecessor was a 'smart' guy and appropriately a molecular physicist because one of the main priorities of the Department of Energy is managing the United State's nuclear arsenal as well as the electric grid. Rick Perry wants to bail out the coal industry. It is so corrupt and sad I'm beyond caring anymore and just looking out for my own personal family interests. This government is sending this country into hell in a hand basket even quicker than I could have imagined and I genuinely fear what will be left when it is all over in 3+ years.

 

It is like we are dealing with flat-earthers again. The things being rolled back purely because are Obama legacies are frightening and the respec thet US currently holds and has held for the past 100+ years is withering away over an egotisical, out of control maniac. But I digress... so yeah, North Korea eh?

[Kelly Gruene 26]

Sorry I made the assumption you voted for Trump or voted at all. I made that assumption based on your support for trump during the campaign, links posted from breibert, stating it didn't matter if Russia and trump worked together to get him elected, and your critical statements of left leaning politicians and positions in general. But, your right I don't recall you saying you voted for trump in the past and am not going to spend all day forging through your post history.

 

You are right, there are other leaders that are narcissistic. But These two and other dictators have a certain trait of bumping that narcissism to new levels.

 

I'm pretty certain I've never linked to Breitbart. You routinely say things like this, but I don't recall ever linking there. I also don't recall being particularlarly critical of left leaning politicians. I think you have lumped me into broad categories.

My wife accuses me of being Switzerland. I am actually relatively neutral on many political issues because almost never, in my opinion, are things as black and white as people tend to portray them; there are multiple sides to each issue and I will look at them.

We can discuss Russia in another thread if you'd like.

[Kelly Gruene 26]

Rick Perry once campaigned for the Department of Energy to abolished. Then he forgot it's name. I can't think of a single reason why anybody would think he was qualified for this job.

 

His predecessor was a 'smart' guy and appropriately a molecular physicist because one of the main priorities of the Department of Energy is managing the United State's nuclear arsenal as well as the electric grid. Rick Perry wants to bail out the coal industry. It is so corrupt and sad I'm beyond caring anymore and just looking out for my own personal family interests. This government is sending this country into hell in a hand basket even quicker than I could have imagined and I genuinely fear what will be left when it is all over in 3+ years.

 

It is like we are dealing with flat-earthers again. The things being rolled back purely because are Obama legacies are frightening and the respec thet US currently holds and has held for the past 100+ years is withering away over an egotisical, out of control maniac. But I digress... so yeah, North Korea eh?

 

Yes, I agree, politicians should never forget the names of agencies or other significant politicians. Oh, wait: http://http://theduran.com/for-a-third-time-nancy-pelosi-says-george-w-bush-is-us-president-video/.

 

And as I said before, Chu is clearly a very smart dude, and Perry is probably nowhere near that from a purely intellectual point of view. On the other hand, Chu resigned because he was ineffective, an intellectual who couldn't get things done: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/energy-secretary-steven-chu-resigns/2013/02/01/f6253df6-6cb4-11e2-ada0-5ca5fa7ebe79_story.html?utm_term=.b7f7f8d00a00. Here's a great quote from the article: “My sense is that he was technically brilliant but naive in terms of energy politics and energy markets,” said J. Robinson West, chairman of PFC Energy, a Washington-based consulting firm. “The other thing is, in the last four years we’ve been going through this extraordinary transformation in energy and he’s had nothing to do with it through no fault of his own.”

So, it's not just intellect that get's things done, it's also hands-on experience in understanding how industry thinks, how lobbyists and legislators work, and how to make deals that accomplish goals. Chu had some of the qualities, Perry has some of the qualities. Neither one probably has all of the best qualities to be really great at that position.

 

But again, back to the topic of North Korea...

[Soko 128]

Rick Perry is a certifiable moron. What an absolute an embarrassment of a human being.

 

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/358386-rick-perry-fossil-fuels-will-help-prevent-sexual-assault

 

Energy Secretary Rick Perry suggested Thursday that expanding the use of fossil fuels could help prevent sexual assault.

 

Speaking during an energy policy discussion about energy policy with “Meet the Press’” Chuck Todd and Axios CEO and founder Jim VandeHei, Perry discussed his recent trip to Africa. He said a young girl told him that energy is important to her because she often reads by the light of a fire with toxic fumes.

 

"But also from the standpoint of sexual assault,” Perry said. “When the lights are on, when you have light that shines, the righteousness, if you will on those types of acts.”