Trump Is Going to Get Us All Killed

Comments

1
KTMFA
2
Kiss him yourself, jackass.
3
Maybe that's the price you should pay for not voting.
4
if NK is going to hit us, they should try to be accurate. I want to die in the initial fireball and not from radiation poisoning.
5
@4, ah don't worry. If NK doesn't, China will.
6
He's a lot more likely to get everyone in Seoul killed.

On a side note: isn't it grand that we now have our own dear leader who talks just like their dear leader?
7
@2: Sure! I'd love to give my sweet Donnie a peck on the forehead for a slice of that luscious Mar-a-Largo Chocolate Mousse Torte cake immediately before the blast.
8
Kim Jung Un, meet our Presinazi, One Dum Fuk.
9
Kim is a deranged fat little doughboy but I'm sure he realizes that the consequences of his pushing the button will be the end of his regime and hopefully his life. He cares little about co-lateral damage. The world will not tolerate his actions.
10
@6, EXACTLY. We'll probably be okay: the chances of the North sending a nuke to the US mainland isn't that great: Alaska or Japan are probably fucked though. But Seoul is probably doomed at this point.

But history shows us that the US leaves countries alone that have achieved a verifiable nuclear ability: see Iran and why we were never seriously going to go after them.
11
No. The NPRK cannot put one of their supposed "miniaturized" warheads on any of the hunk-of-shit missiles they have tested.

They have not tested these warheads. They have not tested them on an ICBM. They are not even close to testing them. And it would require MANY tests to refine this technology. And you know what the entire nations power grid cannot supply the electricity necessary to refine the kinds of materials necessary to produce any of the warheads in question in sufficient quantities to even test. And even if they did they don't have the the targeting technology or satellites to make them worth a shit if they did.

It's nonsense.

This is sensationalistic fear mongering horseshit completely designed to distract from the Russia investigation.

Quit falling for it and AND QUIT SPREADING IT.

Here is a more detailed explanation:

http://www.metafilter.com/168682/Foal-Ea…
12
Everyone seems to be assuming the collective fear is that NK will attempt a first-strike; but I think the REAL collective fear is that WE might shoot first - after all, IL DOUCHE is just crazy enough to try it.
13
@3- Or nominating someone with a massive disapproval rating among independent voters and then actively alienating anyone who supported another nominee in the primaries. I voted for Hillary in the general, but my gods the Democratic Party fucked themselves so badly.
14
@12- That is clearly the only thing to reasonably fear. NK has nothing to gain from starting a war.

Trump has a lot to gain from starting a war.
15
Someone watched Game of Thrones
16
@14: Like what, re-election? That's too Machiavellian for most people.
17
@6 & 10 & 12 - yup yup yup. We're the terrifying ones, and we are likely to get a lot of other people killed. It's what we do.
18
Well, at least housing will be cheaper.
19
@11 - thanks. I've been wondering "WTF? where did this come from? is it really reliable? is it as scary as trump claims it is or is it just our govt faking an excuse for war?"
20
@13 hillary's disapproval numbers were normal until fox started their fake news campaign against her. What makes you think Bernie would've gone any differently?
21
@14, "Trump has a lot to gain from starting a war."

No he wouldn't. It'd be a disaster even for Trump, even if it's not a nuclear holocaust. Not that it doesn't mean Trump wouldn't still do it. He's not a smart man.
22
@20, I doubt the FBI would have opened an investigation on Bernie Sanders the week before the election.
23
@Jonno

I'm not coming at you from a Bernie would've won point of view. I have no idea if he'd have won or not. I think, considering he was unknown at the beginning of the primary and more popular by the end but couldn't recover from the early losses, that he had a decent chance. But I would not claim he would've won. So set that aside for a sec. Anyway, I didn't see where @13 mentioned Bernie but maybe I've lost the thread.

The idea that Hilary's approval ratings were normal then dropped is problematic. I have no doubt there are polls somewhere that show that- there are all sorts of ways to collect data, and plenty of them have been WAY wrong lately about predicting political outcomes or the intentions/opinions of voters. What I do know is that lots of people hate the Clintons, especially in the south. I mean, she's literally the most hated political figure in the country BY FAR in many regions of the US. I'm not arguing that this is deserved or not- some of it is, some of it isn't. But it's just very out of touch to pretend that she started out on some level ground then lost it in campaigns against from cable news in recent years. She has been deeply hated since the early 90s. She and Bill too are probably the most polarizing political figures in the country. And I'm not talking about hatred from the left/progressives b/c of the Iraq War support, Patriot Act, handling of Syria & Libya, crime bill but rather hatred from centrists and the right over NAFTA, the first health care debacle, financial dereg & the Waco catastrophe - all four are things the Democrats dramatically underestimated their resonance throughout time. Then when you pile on top of that conspiracy stuff about murders and sex rings and white water- she becomes literally a figure that is more hated than just about anyone else. I mean, it's pretty common for southern white men especially to think that she's the most evil and dangerous person in the country. I know it's ridiculous and I know most of it isn't warranted, but it is stupid beyond reason for the Democrats to repeatedly run someone with THAT much baggage. I don't think they could have picked a worse candidate if they tried. The only reason she did as well as she did is because Trump is so uniquely horrifying. The only explanation is that they, like you, believe in polls which told them everything would be fine. I don't know where you live or how old you are, but if you talk to ANYONE who is old enough to have been an adult in the 90s and who lives in a rural or southern area, they will verify everything I've said. This is not unknown. It's just that the Democrats chose to look at polls and hope that all this hatred wouldn't matter since so many more people live in cities.

24
I hate to wade into this tired, pointless argument, but I feel the need to quietly murmur that If one believes that there wouldn't be a huge campaign against a Socialist Jew as the Democratic nominee, I don't know what to tell you.
25
@Catalina, I agree with that. That's why, even though I supported Bernie in the primary, I've never been on the Bernie-Wouldve-Won bandwagon. But I do believe that loads of people, especially in the coastal areas, have no idea how deeply hated Clinton is in many parts of this country. Loads of people chose not to vote or voted Trump because they hated Clinton. That does not mean enough would've voted for Bernie for him to win either. (It's the wrong argument anyway. Any chance Bernie had was in the combination of abstaining people who did not vote because they hated both candidates remaining the same while Bernie could have picked up disaffected voters. I think this argument is possible though I haven't any clue if it is likely and tend to agree with you.)
But that's not what I'm saying. Let Bernie aside- pretend he didn't exist. This doesn't change the fact that Clinton was a terrible candidate. There are plenty of other people in the DNC. A small group of powerful and very moneyed party hacks kept pushing for her despite all her baggage. It was stupid of them to run her. It's totally out of touch. I'm telling you, people were quite literally prepping for some end times when she was running. I don't think there is anyone more hated in many regions of this country.

26
Also the argument might be tired and pointless, but I've come to realize it's something we are going to have to work out (the larger issue of wtf happened to get us here) before we are going to be able to move on from here. We're looking at this asshole starting a major war, or else, more likely, the GOP will intervene and either get him out or distract him while the rest of us get Paul Ryan and Pence who are even worse because they aren't idiots.
27
As others have commented, I find it nearly impossible to believe NK has the ability to attack us with nuclear armed ICBM's.

These are war cries, they are disgusting and this is where this Trump voter draws the line. No more fucking wars.

Started as a Bush supporter, ended as a Bush hater. I'm starting to sense a pattern here.
28
He talks like a lunatic and so did Hitler.
29
@27 So you're a moron with absolutely no foresight and a history of backing the worst of the worst.

Perhaps, then, you should consider your opinions, philosophy, to be utterly tainted and without merit.
30
Dan, if the missiles fly, will you have any time to regret a career wasting your talent on fecal foam?
31
@29 - my philosophy is one of limited government and no foreign entanglements. Of course it has merit - our country was founded upon it!
32
are there really people in seattle who don't want to kill koreans? why are people talking about facts or trying to be realistic about dprk's capabilities, don't they know that the true evil lurks? don't they know bernie would have maybe not won?
33
On September 9th 2016 the North Koreans tested a nuclear bomb.
According to the North Koreans, the bomb had a 10 kiloton yield. That's about half the size of the bomb the United States dropped on Nagasaki at the end of World War II.
Analysts here in the United States said it would take North Korea at least 10 years to develop a missile that could reach the United States and a warhead that could be mated to that missile.
Today is August 9th 2017.
Somehow the North Koreans managed to squeeze 10 years of weapon development into 11 months?
34
I'm in Detroit. It's already August 9th here.
35
The US and even Guam have little to worry about from North Korea. Even if they did succeed in firing something that could hit Hawaii or the west coast, there's a lot of time for the US military to do something about it, and it's precisely why, despite people whining about the expense, we have military personnel in Korea and Japan. It's the people in South Korea (especially Seoul, which is close to the border) and Japan who should be - and probably are - worried. And since I have close family in Seoul, I'm definitely not happy about the stupid and ignorant things coming from Trump's mouth. Both North Korea and Trump are bullies and have a history of doubling down when they're called out on something, and I'm concerned that that could make this situation escalate very quickly.