President Trump: The NEW one and only politics thread

I would support said policy.

 

I could use a laugh. Somebody tell me again how Mike Pence would be just as bad.

 

Which U.S. city would you be willing to sacrifice in order to maintain the policy?

 

Do you crazy people realize that announcing an intention to nuke someone you of think might nuke you, by default gives them reason to think you might nuke them so they should invoke the same principle on you?

 

I hear he's soft on cigarets. Can't have that.

 

Somewhat related: I've never understood why a country with nuclear weapons—many, many nuclear weapons—is allowed to tell another country that it can't have nuclear weapons.

And you can't say: America is a sane country and North Korea is insane, because you elected FUCKING DONALD TRUMP TO BE YOUR FUCKING PRESIDENT.

 

We should be clear, Trump did not specifically threaten to nuke anyone.

Yes, he didn't limit himself when he promised to bring fire and fury in response to further threats, and such language, it could be argued, suggests a nuclear strike.

But, at the end of the day, he's talking about taking necessary military action to prevent a strike by North Korea, should it be determined that they are preparing to launch such a strike.

There's nothing wrong, or new about this. He "talked tough".

I'd argue that's a good thing. Quiet diplomacy has gotten us nowhere. Trump has let the Korean dictator know there's a new sheriff in town.

 

This is the Internet message board version of, "I eat pieces of shit like you for breakfast."

 

You forgot the "like the world has never seen" part. The world has seen atomic bombs. That pretty much leaves nukes.

 

Yes, yes, I'm familiar with the "he didn't say it unless it benefits me tomorrow to say he did say it" doublespeke defense.

"Fire and fury the world has never seen" can only mean large nuclear. The world has seen a lot.

 

Diplomacy has gotten us exactly where we need to be. Or did North Korea attack one of our allies and I missed it?

 

I would not. Stipulating that: A) it could be proved that a major attack was aborning; and B) the use of a nuclear weapon was the best way to eliminate said threat (accounting for all secondary, tertiary, etc. contingencies), I think a President would be derelict in his/her duty if he/she refused to do the deed.