You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: US Politics Thread
You know I read where this was his intent from the beginning, but his campaigns chances of winning just spiraled out of control. But that with his DC hotel opening, he also had an interest of getting into a political news TV cable channel, probably seeing the profitability in it. A Presidential run would give it credibility, so he put his name onto a ticket, never expecting to win.
I agree. When its all over and done and in the history books, we're gonna find out it was all nothing but a publicity stunt gone wrong and a mere quirk of fate, perfect timing, etc. propeled him into the presidency.
The moment he realized it was no longer a joke candicacy for attention and he could win, his ego went into overdrive.
Its only the beginning. While Trump wasn't the first, you're going to see a lot more celebrities becoming politicians in the coming decades.
Its good for attention and its good for business.
Our social media culture is perfect for it.
All you need is a trending hashtag for a landslide.
I also read where the State of the Union Address something like the rule is 'it has to be made available to the public', but nowhere is it stated it NEEDS to be offered to NBC, ABC, CBS, Fox, CNN etc... so, in theory, come January the SOTU Address might be able to be shown onto Trump TV and nowhere else. I think it said something about how nothing stipulates that it can't be sponsored or something, so again you could see a sponsor or commercial during it.
Yeah that'll happen.
Everything has a sponsor now. Even roller coasters have sponsors now.
'Vertical Velocity is brought to you by Twix'
Makes me sick. Cant even get a tank of gas without an ad in your face.
Its not time for war yet. Wait til we get a bit closer to 2020.
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: US Politics Thread
I think we need to take military action. For over 2 decades now we've appeased North Korea, and now they're months or a year away from being able to strike the US. Kim is threatening to strike Guam. At what point do we say "enough is enough" and act to prevent this from becoming much worse. Russia and China aren't going to stop or respond militarily if the US takes out Kim. They'll bitch and yell, but they won't act and neither will the UN or the EU.
It's nor going to be pretty and people will die, but somehow the idea of Americans dying to make the world a better place has become taboo and people pretend we live in a bubble where there's always a peaceful answer. NK can't hit the US yet, so why not act now before a US strike could result in LA or SF being hit.
I'm sure millions of people would have preferred Chamberlain acted in 1935 rather than waiting until 1940 to stop Hitler.
Re: US Politics Thread
I think we need to take military action. For over 2 decades now we've appeased North Korea, and now they're months or a year away from being able to strike the US. Kim is threatening to strike Guam. At what point do we say "enough is enough" and act to prevent this from becoming much worse. Russia and China aren't going to stop or respond militarily if the US takes out Kim. They'll bitch and yell, but they won't act and neither will the UN or the EU.
It's nor going to be pretty and people will die, but somehow the idea of Americans dying to make the world a better place has become taboo and people pretend we live in a bubble where there's always a peaceful answer. NK can't hit the US yet, so why not act now before a US strike could result in LA or SF being hit.
I'm sure millions of people would have preferred Chamberlain acted in 1935 rather than waiting until 1940 to stop Hitler.
Yup...antagonize your enemies and then act surprised when they retaliate. Then use the as a reason to go to war.
Of course you would fall for this...
Ah well....it's more okay when innocent Asians died.
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: US Politics Thread
I say we hold off. Arm up our military into Guam & get ready. Navy, Air Force. AFAIK we should be able to bring down ICBM's pretty accurately. If NJ does strike tho, or attempts to, I say we go full on Ted Cruz & carpet bomb the shit out of them.
I'm not saying nuke Pyongyang tomorrow. But we can't allow them to have ICBMs. Idiots may think the US is a recent antagonist in this, but NK has been threatening destruction for a decade. We can't act surprised when they finally do something.
Years of appeasement have resulted in this scenario. China won't act because they don't want a United Korea under the western friendly South.
And quite frankly, the opinions of those who live in the bubble and think the US is just as bad as NK don't concern me.
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: US Politics Thread
Once this goes to shit, are you going to pretend you were against it all the time like you did with Iraq?
I didn't pretend. Sadam didn't threaten the US. Sadam wasn't a threat to the US. I'm also not advocating a ground war either.
But I'm sure after Kim strikes the west coast, you'll find a YouTube video claiming Trump detonated a bomb to get the insurance money, then spend years circulating it.
The question you need to ask is would you rather 3 million Koreans die to prevent 300k Americans from dying. It's not even a debate for me.
