The President Of The USA: Donald Trump

Forums › Politics › The President Of The USA: Donald Trump

1 | ... | 160 | 161 | 162 | 163 | 164 | 165 | 166 | 167 | 168 | 169 | 170 | 171 | 172 | 173 | 174 | 175 | 176 | 177 | 178 | 179 | 180 | ... | 1125

Devastation by stupidity
12267 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1685856 10-Dec-2016 19:05

This it too good to pass up. During an interview Stephen Hawking was asked to account for Trump's popularity. He admitted he couldn't, and then said 'He is a demagogue, who seems to appeal to the lowest common denominator.'

There was no immediate response from the Trump camp, but according to the New Yorker Google did report a sudden sharp increase in searches for the terms 'demagogue' and 'denominator'. After Trump's supporters figured out what Hawking had said, they complained about him using 'big words' to confuse them. Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski said, 'If Professor Hawking wants to do some damage, maybe he should try talking in English next time.'

Hawking's response: 'Trump bad man. Real bad man.'

I don't think there is ever a bad time to talk about how absurd war is, how old men make decisions and young people die. - George Clooney

Sideface

5933 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1685860 10-Dec-2016 19:14

'Apprentice' role: He'll do it in his spare time

Donald Trump's has decided to remain an executive producer on NBC's "Celebrity Apprentice" even as he takes office, arguing that "presidents have a right to do things in their spare time."

Words fail me

Sideface

Fred99

10376 posts

Uber Geek

#1685863 10-Dec-2016 19:30

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38273933

ra ra Trumputin
Greatest yankee love machine
It was a shame, how he carried on

DarthKermit

5271 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1685876 10-Dec-2016 20:29

Rikkitic:

This it too good to pass up. During an interview Stephen Hawking was asked to account for Trump's popularity. He admitted he couldn't, and then said 'He is a demagogue, who seems to appeal to the lowest common denominator.'

There was no immediate response from the Trump camp, but according to the New Yorker Google did report a sudden sharp increase in searches for the terms 'demagogue' and 'denominator'. After Trump's supporters figured out what Hawking had said, they complained about him using 'big words' to confuse them. Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski said, 'If Professor Hawking wants to do some damage, maybe he should try talking in English next time.'

Hawking's response: 'Trump bad man. Real bad man.'

Maybe Herr Trump would like to do a caricature of Hawking's disability next?

Fred99

10376 posts

Uber Geek

#1686350 12-Dec-2016 09:24

Boeing have just announced according to the WSJ that they've secured orders from Iran worth almost $17 billion.

They should be congratulated for great timing for that announcement - quite perfect when Trump's not yet in power and has stated that he wants to tear up the Iran deal, yet he's appointing a secretary of state (Tilleron) who's opposed to the concept of sanctions, probably because of his close ties to Russian oil and the Putin regime.

Meanwhile Trump doesn't need daily security briefings, apparently. “You know, I'm, like, a smart person. I don't have to be told the same thing in the same words every single day for the next eight years. Could be eight years — but eight years. I don't need that”.

amiga500

1488 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1686394 12-Dec-2016 10:33

Some seriously crazy appointments being made for sure! I think Trump is justified in questioning the huge cost of the new Air Force One programme though. According to Wikipedia a Boeing 747 8 series costs around $379 million.

It looks like an absolutely excellent cash cow for Boeing adding all the presidential security & command center features to the aircraft. When compared to the travel protocols for other heads of state the system the US uses for the presidents looks like a huge and expensive farce. First they send out a C17 with one or more of the 'Beast' limos. If the President is going to a place where the USA is really loved there will be three of the identical limos. For a visit to NZ probably only one.

Many World leaders travel first class on their national airline. For example I think British prime ministers would have used Concorde on many occasions. Now the British PM will travel first class on BA much of the time especially for long haul flights. I'm pretty sure that the president of France would have used Concorde. The prime minister of Japan travels to the USA on the national airline. Same with the president of China. When the prime minister of Australia travels to the USA he may well use Qantas as the RAAF Boeing 737 would need a few refueling stops on the way.

Fred99

10376 posts

Uber Geek

#1686406 12-Dec-2016 10:54

The main thing I have against the "Air Force One" planes is that much of the cost (for systems to protect against electromagnetic pulse etc) is so that in the event of nuclear war, the Commander in Chief (Trump LOL) can safely fly around in comfort pushing buttons to launch more nuclear strikes to finish off the job.

That (IMO) is an abominable concept. So yes - I'd be happy if Trump canned it - even if for the wrong reasons.

DarthKermit

5271 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1686442 12-Dec-2016 11:19

It's no different from the prezi hiding in a nuclear bunker and starting WW3 though.

Rikkitic

Devastation by stupidity
12267 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1686468 12-Dec-2016 11:27

These days Pakistan and India seem much more a cause of concern than the USA or anyone else. If anyone is to precipitate nuclear armageddon, my bet is on them. Between them they have more than enough warheads to end life as we know it even without others chiming in. I find that a thoroughly chilling thought.

I don't think there is ever a bad time to talk about how absurd war is, how old men make decisions and young people die. - George Clooney

Geektastic

14627 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1686471 12-Dec-2016 11:33

Even France has enough to end life as we know it.

It's a pointless thing to worry about to be honest.

Fred99

10376 posts

Uber Geek

#1686533 12-Dec-2016 13:26

Trump has been quite inconsistent on nuclear.

He's on record saying that he'd be "the last" to use them, that he's against proliferation. But OTOH he's argued that the US arsenal is in "very terrible shape" and that impacts on the US ability to "protect" South Korea and Japan who in his opinion at the time should/could be nuclear armed. Taking N Korea out of that equation, I assume that his guess of threat is from China who he seems to have a bit of a downer on, but China have an official "no first use" policy. Considering the size of their nuclear industry which would give them the ability to easily produce a massive arsenal complete with state of the art delivery systems, their weapons stockpile is very small, a tiny fraction of US or Russian arsenals.

I don't think Trump is at all keen on nuclear weapons and isn't a "direct" threat. He's nuts in many ways IMO, but not in that one. Clinton even seemed to target him earlier in the campaign questioning whether he'd have the will to launch a strike if needed 'cause "she would". China also isn't a nuclear threat IMO. Pakistan/India are a risk only to each other. N Korea is a PITA that someone's going to have to deal with.

It's really only the possibility of an indirect effect - something inadvertently initiated by Trump - which bothers me.

networkn

22700 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1686541 12-Dec-2016 13:38

Fred99:

Trump has been quite inconsistent on nuclear.

He's on record saying that he'd be "the last" to use them, that he's against proliferation. But OTOH he's argued that the US arsenal is in "very terrible shape" and that impacts on the US ability to "protect" South Korea and Japan who in his opinion at the time should/could be nuclear armed. Taking N Korea out of that equation, I assume that his guess of threat is from China who he seems to have a bit of a downer on, but China have an official "no first use" policy. Considering the size of their nuclear industry which would give them the ability to easily produce a massive arsenal complete with state of the art delivery systems, their weapons stockpile is very small, a tiny fraction of US or Russian arsenals.

I don't think Trump is at all keen on nuclear weapons and isn't a "direct" threat. He's nuts in many ways IMO, but not in that one. Clinton even seemed to target him earlier in the campaign questioning whether he'd have the will to launch a strike if needed 'cause "she would". China also isn't a nuclear threat IMO. Pakistan/India are a risk only to each other. N Korea is a PITA that someone's going to have to deal with.

It's really only the possibility of an indirect effect - something inadvertently initiated by Trump - which bothers me.

I'd agree with all these points.

You know, the initiator of the first Nuclear launch has as much to lose as gain. Retaliation is nearly *certain* and a lot of lives would be lost on both sides, mostly innocents. I don't think any current leader is going to be dreaming of the day they thought they might get to "launch" because unlike decades ago, there are a lot of missiles pointing right back at you.

Rikkitic

Devastation by stupidity
12267 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1686603 12-Dec-2016 17:00

The point being, according to what I read, that it takes 200 warheads to wipe out the world even if not aimed at the world, and India and Pakistan have that many between them. Even if they only shot at each other they could still end all life (in any meaningful sense) on earth.

I don't think there is ever a bad time to talk about how absurd war is, how old men make decisions and young people die. - George Clooney

Sam91

607 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1686613 12-Dec-2016 17:27

Rikkitic:

The point being, according to what I read, that it takes 200 warheads to wipe out the world even if not aimed at the world, and India and Pakistan have that many between them. Even if they only shot at each other they could still end all life (in any meaningful sense) on earth.

You might find this tool interesting.

shk292

1879 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1686620 12-Dec-2016 18:08

Fred99:

The main thing I have against the "Air Force One" planes is that much of the cost (for systems to protect against electromagnetic pulse etc) is so that in the event of nuclear war, the Commander in Chief (Trump LOL) can safely fly around in comfort pushing buttons to launch more nuclear strikes to finish off the job.

That (IMO) is an abominable concept. So yes - I'd be happy if Trump canned it - even if for the wrong reasons.

It's called "credible deterrence". If an enemy can "decapitate" the military/executive of a country with a pre-emptive nuclear strike, disabling that country's ability to launch a counter-strike, then it increases the chance of the pre-emptive strike being launched. Arguably, the reason we haven't had a nuclear exchange is because both/all sides maintain a credible deterrent. The reason the cold war ended was that NATO had a very credible deterrent and also had a stated policy (flexible response) to use tactical nukes first if the USSR overwhelmed Western Europe's defences with a massive invasion of conventional forces. So, by wishing for USA to scrap an EMP-proof command facility, you're wishing for a greater chance of a nuclear exchange. Personally, I don't think that's a good prospect.

1 | ... | 160 | 161 | 162 | 163 | 164 | 165 | 166 | 167 | 168 | 169 | 170 | 171 | 172 | 173 | 174 | 175 | 176 | 177 | 178 | 179 | 180 | ... | 1125