The Trump Effect

The key difference is that regardless of the threat posed by arussia due to its size and scope, it has more than enough nuclear weapons like the US. Reducing their nuclear force and ours in tandem makes fiscal sense. However, it doesn't tilt geopolitical force. Russia will still have enough nuclear weapons to exert itself.

On the other hand, the differences between 0 and 1 - or 1 and 5 - are stark with regard to geopolitical dynamics.

With that said, the Iran deal has us in a better place today with regard to monitoring and understanding where there program is. And they are playing ball. As soon as we see them heading in the wrong direction - and we will see that at the sites of interest to us - or they start closing doors or not opening ones we want to see, then you can ramp your response. At least you are then doing it with knowledge.

 

Lobbying Congress? Where has he said this?

 

Correct. Nuclear proliferation will be the end of mankind (please ignore Trump's comments on allowing South Korea to have a nuclear weapon, earlier in the primaries).

Iran cannot be allowed to acquire a nuclear weapon, or it will likely and quickly result in global war, IMO. Iran with a nuclear weapon would be like North Korea, but half the charm and twice the crazy, if you can imagine that.

 

Russia is vastly more stable on the global stage than Iran will be in 10 generations, if even then. At absolute worst, you have decades of experience with Russia as a nuclear super-power, and their goals / reactions to changing events are both widely known and well-proven. That's not to say, by any means, that trouble cannot erupt with Russia, but everyone knows what would be most likely to make it occur. Iran would be a completely untrustworthy and schizophrenic wild card.

No bully can be long appeased - Russia, Iran, N. Korea, etc.

 

Trump said this repeatedly on the campaign trail. He was going to get rid of lobbyists. Then he got elected, and filled his cabinet with him.

 

See, I personally think all we have to do is let SK and Japan have nuclear capabilities and suddenly NK becomes much less of a nuisance.

I don't want Iran to have any shot at a nuke, ever. We'll have WW3 within a month if they do.

Russia is much more a geo-political threat as opposed to an arms threat at this point in time, IMO.

 

Iran has the proximity and burning desire to end Israel, and are quite capable of launching a nuclear weapon against them without either warning or provocation.

This cannot be allowed to occur, at any cost.

If you have never, and could never believe anything that I ever say - believe this: Any nation either launching a nuclear weapon against Israel, or even legitimately threatening it, would immediately incur the unmitigatedly full and unapologetic wrath of the United States. It would be as close to the tangible hand of God as you'll ever see unleashed upon the face of Earth.

 

Link?

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5_ArQktFW0

In his campaign speeches, he repeatedly talked about how bad lobbyists were and how he was going to get rid of them. He has that 5 year ban thing on lobbying. But then he also has hired several lobbyists for his staff. I can't figure how someone who voted for him can shrug their shoulders and say "lobbyists" when congress does exactly what it has always done when controlled by the GOP, when he was supposed to be the fix for that.

 

Maybe Trump is more a politician than we thought.

 

Who'da thunk it?

 

I look at that like I saw his paying $0 taxes...who better to fix the tax code?

Of course, you know that he's pushing to make it illegal to go from a government job to being a government lobbyist for "x" years after leaving, right? And, he's not only raised more than Presidents Obama and Bush for his inaugural fund, but did so after banning any lobbyist's donations to it.

I don't recall any other politician on earth who has even suggested either of those, do you?

 

(Emphasis Mine)

Did President Obama suggest or require the same? W? Clinton? Taft? Monroe?

Link: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wa...g-ban-after-leaving-government/?client=safari

 

Judging from his own hiring actions, there is no ban on lobbying or lobbyists. When you rail against your opponent being in the pocket of Goldman Sachs, and then hire more Goldman Sachs executives than any other President ever has, you're a hypocrite.

 

Did any one jump on the free inauguration tickets?

 

The protests and women's march are collectively going to be more attended than the inauguration, it seems like. Between that and his polls, it'll be interesting to see how he handles the pressure cooker that will be his tenure. I keep seeing people who voted for him freak out on facebook because they realized Obamacare and the ACA are the same thing. Okay, I saw two different people. But still.

 

I'll believe it when I see it. Simply because every anti Trump event to date has been attended by 16 people. Last I saw it seemed like the different women groups were at each other's throats trying to figure out who was more oppressed, no idea if they worked it out.

 

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/314484-price-stock-buys-raise-ethical-questions

This may be a bit sticky for another Trump cabinet nominee.

 

To catch a thief?

 

Appears to be another swamp dweller. Trump will no doubt rethink this one.