Conservative Politics & Daily Events Discussion

I agree @Orangeman a lot of these news articles seem to be printed quite a bit after the fact. Makes it feel like the media is dragging things out to ensure a "bombshell" every week. God forbid there be a week with no Russia news.

With the heads of are biggest intelligence agencies answering questions of collusion evidence, black mail evidence and other red flag questions with, "I can answer that in closed session". It is hard for me to conclude that Mueller is just a "never trump", left wing lacky , hell bent on destroying the Administration. Since many that know him, on both sides of the isle, consider him an honest, thorough person of high integrity, I'll just trust their assessment.

@Bill Martin, Are you suggesting that the heads of our largest intelligence agencies are all making shit up? All of them? If they had no evidence, why not answer questions inquiring about evidence with "NO evidence"? I don't pretend to know what they have or what crumb trail(s) they are following. I don't think all the talking heads on t.v. and radio should be filling everybody's heads with conspiracy theories either. It kills me when the guys on the radio and T.V. profess there is no evidence in this case. None? They/we might not know any of it personally, but those in the know clearly speak of such evidence "in closed session". People resigning, people recusing themselves, Trumps people being caught in little lie after little lie in regards to this investigation. "There were 5 of us", "you're right 7 of us, but that was all", "ok, I guess There were 9". "I only met him once", "oh, your right twice, I forgot". "I never talked to them", "ok, just that once" , "I forgot, lol twice"...All of Trumps people either have horrible memories, or they are knowingly trying to withhold info. Personally, I can understand a couple guys forgetting SOME things, they're only human. But when almost all of them forget everything related to Russia during the campaign, until evidence jogs their memory...There is SOMETHING there, beyond a leftist "witch hunt".

People also shouldn't pick political sides on matters such as this and Hillary's thing. Let it play out.

I want crooked, two faced criminals to get caught and punished. They shouldn't be protected by their party or their position.

Bill Clinton's little lies burned him and I cheered. Though I felt he should have served time while also losing his job.

Looks like Hitler without a stash and a little fat happy dentist. Don't mean to disrespect President Trump or dentists. Just saying.

Okay, so let me get this straight. North Korea (the hot-air-filled 3 y/o of the world) has threatened this country with a nuclear ballistic missile. And China has said they will stay neutral if NK takes the first shot.... mmmmkay. North Korea has now shown capability, opportunity, and intent to do harm.

The vindictive bitch in me says just nuke them and call it good, but that wouldn't be good for political or ecological reasons. I mean, we really DON'T want a war with China. So maybe we continue to treat them like the toddlers they appear to be. Tell them no once, maybe twice, then let them do it and suffer the consequences of their actions. We have ballistic missile defense capability on/around Guam, that is undoubtedly being strengthened. It's not fail-proof, but it reduces the chance of success for NK. Then we turn around and wipe NK off the face of the map (I mean that figuratively, not literally -- as in use conventional weapons). The lack of nuclear response indicates slightly less than proportional response which would be more widely accepted on the world political stage, and allowing NK to take first strike allows us the latitude to defend our own. Notionally, I would prefer to do a preemptive conventional strike on the known launch, development, and storage sites, but then we set ourselves up for a nuclear reaction from NK and a less firm position on the world stage.

The problem here isn't North Korea. It's China and Russia who are now friends. The response has to be one that is equal in severity, harsh and fast enough to show Putin that we're serious, but not so serious that China needs to step in. We don't want a war with NK because as Mattis says, that would be catastrophic (mostly because it would devolve into the next World War, and it would be MESSY).

Guess I need to go check the status of my bug out bag again....

Quote from sideseatdriver

harsh and fast enough to show Putin that we're serious

Trump ain't gonna do anything to piss off Putin.

Quote from sideseatdriver

And China has said they will stay neutral if NK takes the first shot....

That was reported in a Chinese Newspaper- not an official release. That cup doesn't hold water with me........ They may control the press, but still unofficial in my book.

NK has an extensive tunnel network. The chances of us taking out their weaponry , without making the country a big hole in the earth, are slim. If we to attack, South Korea would probably be north Korea's first target on the list. It's also my understating that if we went nuke, the fallout would flow to Japan. And because in order to truly be effective the nukes wouldn't be air bursts but rather penetration/ground bursts. This would cause the fallout to be dirty. Just my .02

I believe if they srike we have to strike. The big problem is we have to damn sure we know where there artillery pieces are that are aimed at Seoul. You also have to believe there are many NK military in the South already.
If it happens we have to strike fast and furious to cut off the heads of their leadership. A communist military is not effective with out its leadership.

Quote from sideseatdriver

Okay, so let me get this straight. North Korea (the hot-air-filled 3 y/o of the world) has threatened this country with a nuclear ballistic missile. And China has said they will stay neutral if NK takes the first shot.... mmmmkay. North Korea has now shown capability, opportunity, and intent to do harm.

The vindictive bitch in me says just nuke them and call it good, but that wouldn't be good for political or ecological reasons. I mean, we really DON'T want a war with China. So maybe we continue to treat them like the toddlers they appear to be. Tell them no once, maybe twice, then let them do it and suffer the consequences of their actions. We have ballistic missile defense capability on/around Guam, that is undoubtedly being strengthened. It's not fail-proof, but it reduces the chance of success for NK. Then we turn around and wipe NK off the face of the map (I mean that figuratively, not literally -- as in use conventional weapons). The lack of nuclear response indicates slightly less than proportional response which would be more widely accepted on the world political stage, and allowing NK to take first strike allows us the latitude to defend our own. Notionally, I would prefer to do a preemptive conventional strike on the known launch, development, and storage sites, but then we set ourselves up for a nuclear reaction from NK and a less firm position on the world stage.

The problem here isn't North Korea. It's China and Russia who are now friends. The response has to be one that is equal in severity, harsh and fast enough to show Putin that we're serious, but not so serious that China needs to step in. We don't want a war with NK because as Mattis says, that would be catastrophic (mostly because it would devolve into the next World War, and it would be MESSY).

Guess I need to go check the status of my bug out bag again....

Display More

Well, you are possibly the first woman for me in the rank of president. Interested in the job? (2nd statement was for your benefit, I wouldn't wish that on you!) I agree with most, if not all of what you said. As for the last sentence, I'll go check mine too....

Quote from Bill Martin

If we had cut MacArthur loose in the Korean War we would not be dealing with this threat today !!

Should have let Patton go after the Russians too.