Do you think there is a touch of irony to this comment and the conversation?

 

I completely would agree if a specific class of people weren't being burdened by his actions.

 

And to be clear, I'm looking at this solely as work related discrimination. Who he socializes with in non-work related situations should be his call. Assuming politicians ever have off hours?

Oh god, my family is doing it again.

 

They're doing exactly what Trump was hoping they'd do after the Syria attack.  They're playing the "You're either for us or against us" card, the same garbage I had to hear during the entirety of the Iraq War, where you're borderline committing treason for any slight amount of criticism towards the President.  Same crap, different President with an R next to his name. 

 

And yep, these same people also thought Republican Congressmen deliberately trying to sabotage Obama's nuclear treaty with Iran were doing God's work.   

 

Gotta check with the boss first.

 

I completely would agree if a specific class of people weren't being burdened by his actions.

 

And to be clear, I'm looking at this solely as work related discrimination. Who he socializes with in non-work related situations should be his call. Assuming politicians ever have off hours?

 

I guess that would depend if there truly is a burden and how much so.  

 

I would agree, in general, that Pence seems like that kind of old-school Christian that is discriminatory whether he means to be or not.

JUST IN FROM Reuters: Syrian warplanes take off from air base hit by U.S., carry out strikes in Homs countryside - Syrian observatory for human rights.

According to Syrian journalists via CNN, Syrian airbase hit by 50 Tomahawk Cruise missiles last night is still operational.

JUST IN FROM Reuters: Syrian warplanes take off from air base hit by U.S., carry out strikes in Homs countryside - Syrian observatory for human rights.

According to Syrian journalists via CNN, Syrian airbase hit by 50 Tomahawk Cruise missiles last night is still operational.

And the beat goes on...have to think Trump will escalate. This doesn't end well.

 

And the beat goes on...have to think Trump will escalate. This doesn't end well.

Except for Raytheon.

Except for Raytheon.

Indeed

 

Gotta check with the boss first.

 

He has ranted about previous administrations telling too much of their military plans, but he tells one of the allies of the person he is going to bomb who then somehow knows he needs to move things as if he was tipped off he was going to be bombed.  It is almost as if it was a PR move than doing it because he was so concerned about the children (the children which he has banned from entering the country).. 

Russia vowing to beef up Syria's air defense.....

 

As I said above, WAR (not the baseball kind) will be Trump's legacy. 

 

Russia vowing to beef up Syria's air defense.....

 

As I said above, WAR (not the baseball kind) will be Trump's legacy. 

 

The Russian factor here is so god damn strange.  If there is something behind all this Russia smoke....what is it?  How does that play in?  If they wanted Trump not Hillary for this, is this a failure on their part?

 

I struggle to wrap my head around this whole ordeal with them.

Good to see plenty of Dems and much of the mainstream media jump on the war train.

 

Good to see plenty of Dems and much of the mainstream media jump on the war train.

 

sigh. Just like the leadup to Iraq.....sigh.

 

The Russian factor here is so god damn strange.  If there is something behind all this Russia smoke....what is it?  How does that play in?  If they wanted Trump not Hillary for this, is this a failure on their part?

 

I struggle to wrap my head around this whole ordeal with them.

I imagine there's competing interest where what ever could be mutually gained by Russian and Trump colluding for the Presidency can be gained in spite of war/military conflict.   There's probably a tipping point, however, that whatever is mutually desired isn't worth a competing cost. 

 

For instance, if what Russia wants is looser sanctions, at some point, they may realize Trump won't be able to deliver that, or much of anything else. Should that happen it will be interesting to see what Russia decides to do going forward (perhaps releasing what dirt they have a Trump).  

 

I imagine there's competing interest where what ever could be mutually gained by Russian and Trump colluding for the Presidency can be gained in spite of war/military conflict.   There's probably a tipping point, however, that whatever is mutually desired isn't worth a competing cost. 

 

For instance, if what Russia wants is looser sanctions, at some point, they may realize Trump won't be able to deliver that, or much of anything else. Should that happen it will be interesting to see what Russia decides to do going forward (perhaps releasing what dirt they have a Trump).  

 

I've considered similar things.  I've yet to figure out if Russia is cold, calculated, and playing the long game or just hot heads that like dicking around with others.  

 

I lean towards the latter. 

If Putin staged an event to make Trump seem presidential and un-puppety wouldn’t it look a lot like this?

 

If Putin staged an event to make Trump seem presidential and un-puppety wouldn’t it look a lot like this?

It would.  But you figure if that was the Russian's goal, they wouldn't tell Syria to hold off on using that airfield for a couple of days to at least make the attack look successful.

The US getting involved and taking a side in a middle eastern conflict/civil war. Boy, what could go wrong!

 

Don't get me wrong, Assad is a monster, but Trump is 100% NOT the man to call these sort of shots.

 

At least Bannon is out of the equation...for now.

 

It would.  But you figure if that was the Russian's goal, they wouldn't tell Syria to hold off on using that airfield for a couple of days to at least make the attack look successful.

 

Right, getting people off the scent only works if it goes hand in hand with him appearing competent.  

 

The next few weeks are going to tell us a lot.

 

What bugs me in this is how much support the action is getting here and abroad.  If this is what so many people feel should have been done, why the hell did we have to wait around for Trump?  

 

I guess I'd sort of appreciate if someone else did the heavy lifting once and awhile.  It's hard to keep getting criticized for being the world's police officer, but then they keep handing us the badge and the gun and waiting for us to act. 

Edited April 8, 20179 yr by TheLeviathan

http://i.imgur.com/XluRFYP.jpg

"Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) went on Fox News this morning to explain her stance.

 

"'I think it was the right thing to do, but that being said, going forward I think we should have an authorization of military force if in fact there are going to be additional actions taken,' Klobuchar said."

 

http://alphanewsmn.com/franken-klobuchar-speak-syrian-missile-strike/

 

Fox News. Right thing to do. "Additional actions taken."

Isn't this Trump at his impulsive best/worst? He saw video of people being gassed and had to do something? It appears to me the action isn't going to do anything about what the Syrian people are suffering through and that Assad is not threatened by Tomahawks aimed at Homs. That our government informed Russia is all I need to know.

 I've yet to figure out if Russia is cold, calculated, and playing the long game or just hot heads that like dicking around with others.  I lean towards the latter. 

Why not both? I view the long game from Russia's perspective to involve the breakup of the US. Blue States seceding from the Union ten or twenty years from now, for example. Or Red States doing likewise if Congress and the White House flip. Other combinations surely exist, and from their perspective they don't care, as long as California and Texas (for example) wind up on opposite sides of the fence. Getting everyone at each others' throats over the election of Donald Trump, merely dicking around from a short-term viewpoint, fits that scenario to a tee.

I'm with the fictional character from Tom Clancy's books on this....ryan.....when a leader does this stuff, we should kill the leader, not everyone else around him/her.

I didn't have great success coming up with a definitive source, but my strong impression is that it's illegal to take out a nation's leader unless at war with that nation. It's not the Geneva Conventions, exactly, but something related.

 

Or maybe, it's just US policy - an executive order from the US president - Gerald Ford forbade covert operations to take out a leader, and Ronald Reagan extended this:

 

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2009/07/are_assassinations_ever_legal.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_12333

 

Aside from legalities, it seems there's a consensus that emerged that it's "just not done". Fidel Castro lived to a ripe old age, and while there were attempts on his life at first, a concerted effort to take him out surely would have worked eventually.

Why not both? I view the long game from Russia's perspective to involve the breakup of the US. Blue States seceding from the Union ten or twenty years from now, for example. Or Red States doing likewise if Congress and the White House flip. Other combinations surely exist, and from their perspective they don't care, as long as California and Texas (for example) wind up on opposite sides of the fence. Getting everyone at each others' throats over the election of Donald Trump, merely dicking around from a short-term viewpoint, fits that scenario to a tee.

I think their game is chaos. Attempting to fracture the US along state lines is a fool's errand. The red states would suffer immediately. The blue states won't secede.

 

But creating dissension and conflict can pay dividends.

 

Why not both? I view the long game from Russia's perspective to involve the breakup of the US. Blue States seceding from the Union ten or twenty years from now, for example. Or Red States doing likewise if Congress and the White House flip. Other combinations surely exist, and from their perspective they don't care, as long as California and Texas (for example) wind up on opposite sides of the fence. Getting everyone at each others' throats over the election of Donald Trump, merely dicking around from a short-term viewpoint, fits that scenario to a tee.

Wow! That is a crazy thing to throw out there. But crazy is the norm these days and you could be the Futurist who nails it.

 

Why not both? I view the long game from Russia's perspective to involve the breakup of the US. Blue States seceding from the Union ten or twenty years from now, for example. Or Red States doing likewise if Congress and the White House flip. Other combinations surely exist, and from their perspective they don't care, as long as California and Texas (for example) wind up on opposite sides of the fence. Getting everyone at each others' throats over the election of Donald Trump, merely dicking around from a short-term viewpoint, fits that scenario to a tee.

That would be a inconvenient geographical challenge. How would that work?

 

Blue = Dem

Red = Rep

White = ???

That would be a inconvenient geographical challenge. How would that work?

Not nearly as neatly as that. When I said "blue states", I didn't mean en masse. Piecemeal. And maybe some present states break in two, as part of the process. Tying in with Brock's comment, dissension and conflict would be the motivating factor, leading to randomness that would be silly to try to predict now.

 

Not nearly as neatly as that. When I said "blue states", I didn't mean en masse. Piecemeal. And maybe some present states break in two, as part of the process. Tying in with Brock's comment, dissension and conflict would be the motivating factor, leading to randomness that would be silly to try to predict now.

 

No, I get that. I threw the map out as more of a joke. I could never see how it would work. For example in Minnesota if I remember correctly in the Pres Election, Clinton took the Twin Cities Area, Rochester Area and the Arrow Head. The rest of the state went to Trump.