Jerry_Atrick Posted March 14 Share Posted March 14 Yeah - but it only takes one side to fire the first bullet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onetrack Posted March 14 Share Posted March 14 Quote There doesn’t seem to be anyone else interested in heading to the battlefield, so who are they going to attack? The Gubbmint. Anyone with Govt-authorised authoritarian powers. Police, the hated ATF, the "bureaucrats" that run the "Swamp". Anyone who wants to tell them what to do. "Cos they is FREE men, and no-one tells 'em what to do, and no-ones gonna take their GUNS offa them!!" 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rgmwa Posted March 14 Share Posted March 14 26 minutes ago, onetrack said: The Gubbmint. Anyone with Govt-authorised authoritarian powers. Police, the hated ATF, the "bureaucrats" that run the "Swamp". Anyone who wants to tell them what to do. "Cos they is FREE men, and no-one tells 'em what to do, and no-ones gonna take their GUNS offa them!!" Nothing new there. If they were serious, the war would have started decades ago. You also need to be organised and disciplined to fight a large scale war across the country, and the rabble isn’t. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onetrack Posted March 14 Share Posted March 14 The worry is that Trump will utilise U.S. Troops to do his bidding, and "drain the Swamp" on his orders. Armies firing on protestors and killing them, is where civil war usually starts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rgmwa Posted March 14 Share Posted March 14 That would probably lead to the army commanders refusing to carry out his illegal orders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old man emu Posted March 14 Share Posted March 14 5 hours ago, rgmwa said: That would probably lead to the army commanders refusing to carry out his illegal orders. But this is the very problem described in this podcast: https://www.theatlantic.com/podcasts/archive/2023/12/how-trump-could-manipulate-military/676341/ One point raised in that podcast is that if a military commander told Trump that they would refuse to carry out an order that was unlawful, Trump would simply relieve them of duty and parachute in a Yes Man who would. And don't forget Kent State in 1970. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted March 14 Share Posted March 14 God's got a part to play also. Many of his supporters have been instructed by God to vote for him in the fight against the VERMIN. ALL the signs are there. De NIRO is correct. WE have a real problem HERE. Nev 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nomadpete Posted March 14 Share Posted March 14 I do remember the event 2 hours ago, old man emu said: And don't forget Kent State in 1970. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings as it was reported in the day. Today, it chills me to read the full story (even though it is Wiki). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rgmwa Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 2 hours ago, old man emu said: One point raised in that podcast is that if a military commander told Trump that they would refuse to carry out an order that was unlawful, Trump would simply relieve them of duty and parachute in a Yes Man who would. Maybe. The president can nominate someone to be the army chief of staff, but the appointment has to be ratified by the Senate, so it may not be that easy to get his Yes Man in depending on who controls the Senate. I would assume that any order to use troops on home soil would need to go through the C.O.S. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty_d Posted March 20 Share Posted March 20 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-03-20/donald-trump-kevin-rudd-aukus-nigel-farage-interview/103608274 The irony of Trump, someone who's never read a book and can barely speak English, calling Kevin Rudd, who has an IQ at near genius level and is fluent in Mandarin, "not the brightest bulb", is fairly stark. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted March 20 Share Posted March 20 He doesn't like any Australian actresses either, Rejecting the ambassador from an Ally doesn't bide well for the Aukus agreement. either. Nev 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old man emu Posted March 20 Share Posted March 20 Trump is having trouble raising the bond the Court demands to permit him to appeal against the verdict in the case where he fraudulently misstated the value of his assets in loan applications. Perhaps if he sold some of his assets, he might be able to pay the bond before the bailiffs come in and take possessions of those very assets to discharge the fine the Court imposed after finding him guilty of misstating the value of his assets in loan applications. Oh, the wheels on the bus go round and round. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted March 20 Share Posted March 20 (edited) He has developed Chapter 11 Bankruptcy to a fine art. No one want's to be a Trump creditor. He's a bad RISK. Nev Edited March 20 by facthunter typo 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty_d Posted March 20 Share Posted March 20 59 minutes ago, facthunter said: Rejecting the ambassador from an Ally doesn't bide well for the Aukus agreement. either. Nev True, but Aukus is f*cked anyway. American shipyards can't produce enough Virginia class subs for themselves let alone anyone else, so regardless of who's in office I don't think it'll happen. 58 minutes ago, old man emu said: Trump is having trouble raising the bond the Court demands to permit him to appeal against the verdict in the case where he fraudulently misstated the value of his assets in loan applications. Perhaps if he sold some of his assets, he might be able to pay the bond before the bailiffs come in and take possessions of those very assets to discharge the fine the Court imposed after finding him guilty of misstating the value of his assets in loan applications. Oh, the wheels on the bus go round and round. He'll just do a public appeal and his basket of deplorables will dig deep for him. Who needs food, clothes and health care when you have a criminal ex/current billionaire to save. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spenaroo Posted March 20 Share Posted March 20 Apparently his supporters are pissed that there hasn't been a bail out from a billionaire republican supporter. seriously. the Kevin Rudd thing is nonsence. his actual quote was: "He won't be there long if that's the case; I don't know much about him," "I heard he was a little bit nasty, I hear he's not the brightest bulb. I don't know much about him, but if he's at all hostile, he will not be there long." Aka... I dont know the guy, from the tone of your question im going to say he is bad. as thats what you want to hear. but i have no clue. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
red750 Posted March 20 Share Posted March 20 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post red750 Posted March 20 Popular Post Share Posted March 20 2 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onetrack Posted March 20 Share Posted March 20 AUKUS will be finished before it's even started anyway, if Trump gets in. You only have to see how he's abused and (mis)treated the NATO countries to see how he'd treat Australia as soon as he gets into power again. He'll be abusing us for "not paying for our share of defence costs" and tearing up every agreement Joe Biden signed, because that's what he enjoys doing - not to mention firing people wholesale, another thing he enjoys doing immensely, to add to his already inflated ego. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willedoo Posted March 20 Share Posted March 20 Plan A - Japanese subs, Plan B- French subs, Plan C - American subs, Plan D-?. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old man emu Posted March 20 Share Posted March 20 Here's another Trump falsehood regarding NATO. He shot his mouth off about NATO members not coughing up the money needed for each member to be effective members of the Treaty. Here's the reality. The members of NATO agreed to allocate 2% of each member's annual Gross Domestic Product (GDP). It is not a membership fee. Just a figure that the members agreed would be sufficient to expend on their military needs without affecting the other demands of their individual economies. The amount that equals 2% of GDP varies with the actual GDP of the country. Quite simply, the number of dollars ('cause it's always quoted in US dollars) a country spends depends on how much it produces. Countries like England, France, Germany have very big GDPs in terms of dollars, so 2% of a very big GDP equals very big numbers of dollars. For countries with much smaller GDPs, their 2% equals fewer dollars. There are even some countries in NATO, such as Greenland and Luxemburg, which are, by consensus, "carried" by the other members because their GDPs are trivial. Many European members of NATO actually allocate more than 2%. These tend to be the countries which border Russia and Belarus, for obvious reasons. As countries are located further from Russia, their allocations towards their military tend to reduce because they must think that the risk to them is lower. In any case most of those members allocate around 1.75% of GDP to their defence forces. It's quite clear that the Orange One has merely looked at the number of dollars each NATO member allocates from its GDP and has had a dummy spit because obviously the USA, with a massive GDP, is at the top of the list of money spent on its military. If you want to take on the mantle of "World's Policeman", then you better be prepared to fork out for the privilege. This video goes deeper into the subject: 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
red750 Posted March 20 Share Posted March 20 The sort of adverts/memes the GOP is posting. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
red750 Posted March 21 Share Posted March 21 The beach outside Mar-a-Lago. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry_Atrick Posted March 21 Share Posted March 21 Apparently, he can't post bond for the NY State fraud case he wants to appeal, so he has gone cap in hand to his supporters after no institutional lenders were will ing to support him. He has been able to divert some camapign funds to his legal fund as he has claimed the cases result political witch hunts and he has to fight them, but that will only last so long (I don't even think it has been tested in court). So, now the billionaire who didn't get into this because he needs the money - you know, he has plenty - is going cap in hand to his supporters - directl marketing to about a million of them to put in what they can. He has to raise an average of $420 per person, and they don't strike me as the wealthiest people that support him. https://www.theage.com.au/world/north-america/trump-campaign-fights-for-one-million-donations-after-bond-flop-20240321-p5fe8k.html 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty_d Posted March 21 Share Posted March 21 F*ck him. I hope he dies in a ditch as a pauper, after his treatment of his country and its people, and the threat his behaviour poses to the environment and the world at large. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry_Atrick Posted March 21 Share Posted March 21 I don't jhope anyone dies in a ditch, but there aren't too many who are more worthy relevant to the rest of the population. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now