President Donald J. Trump

[GravitySucks]

I didn't see the interview.

Abortion is being extremely limited and in some perspective banned would be an appropriate term. Are you aware that a clinic in (I think Alabama) is being closed due to proximity to a school? The litmus test for abortion rights extends further than an "unserious" question. And not that I want to turn this into an abortion rights thread, but abortion rights speaks to many other positions as well.

There is no such thing as abortion rights. It may be legal, but it is not a right. You can argue the semantics all you want, but just because Roe v. Wade twisted the first amendment to make it legal, a SC ruling cannot invent a "right" that doesn't exist. All they did was establish a precedent making it legal.

[VtaGeezer]

I didn't see the interview.

Abortion is being extremely limited and in some perspective banned would be an appropriate term. Are you aware that a clinic in (I think Alabama) is being closed due to proximity to a school? The litmus test for abortion rights extends further than an "unserious" question. And not that I want to turn this into an abortion rights thread, but abortion rights speaks to many other positions as well.

You should watch the whole segment in the Matthews interview on the abortion issue.  It was an unserious question because the premise is bogus; ain't ever gonna happen, period.  It's like asking a Presidential candidate if ETs should be welcomed or shot on sight.   The rest of the pack spent years rehearsing smooth PC answers to all possible pointless questions. That Trump hasn't wasted time framing ready-made positions for pointless questions should not be a negative.

From your concern about the clinic and school proximity thing, it seems you believe the "right" includes convenience.  I have to drive at least drive 20 miles to see any kind specialist.  I think I'll sue someone. 

[onan]

There is no such thing as abortion rights. It may be legal, but it is not a right. You can argue the semantics all you want, but just because Roe v. Wade twisted the first amendment to make it legal, a SC ruling cannot invent a "right" that doesn't exist. All they did was establish a precedent making it legal.

What ever, abortion has been deemed a legal procedure. Chipping away at access due to religious zealotry is a hobby for nut jobs. Examining someone's position on that topic is just as valid as building a wall.

[Lt.Uhura]

I'm here to publicly give myself an Art Bell "BONK!" after my failed NYE prediction that Trump would be gone by "late March".  His downward spiral is much slower than I expected.  The line of disillusioned ex-Trump supporters is growing longer each day however, and with 7 mos to go to the GE his chance of becoming the next POTUS is looking slim.

In this blistering piece from the National Review, Jim Geraghty scolds his fellow conservatives with his summary of Trump's candidacy--essentially crediting him for the demise of the Republican Party.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/433432/mental-utterly-stupid-trump-only-cares-about-trump

He didn’t abruptly become reckless, obnoxious, ill-informed, erratic, hot-tempered, pathologically dishonest, narcissistic, crude and catastrophically unqualified for the presidency overnight. He's always been that guy, and you denied it and ignored it and hand-waved it away and made excuses every step of the way because you were convinced that you were so much smarter than the rest of us...

[GuerrillaUnReal]

Ha, that's funny they're trying to make Trump the Heather Wade of the Republican Party. That group was dead long before Big Daddy Trump used them as cannon fodder. If anything George W Bush was the Heather Wade for that mess.

[Value Of Pi]

Many politicians have shifted their abortion position with the rise of the Bible Thumpers. The flap really has little to do with pro/anti abortion position. It's about answering the unserious gotcha question of punishing the woman that served its purpose for MSNBC.   Its litmus test bullshit since abortion is no more likely of being banned than slavery is of coming back.  If one thinks that being President requires response to flashcards, this could be a problem for Trump.   

You didn't say whether you saw the interview, or even the entire exchange on abortion.

Presidents are faced with "flashcards" all the time, no matter how well they are prepared for expecting the unexpected. Something entirely unpredictable comes up and they need to respond fast. It's always a good test of thinking on your feet. Trump failed this test and it exposed not only his lack of ability to respond effectively to "flashcard" situations but his lack of knowledge and belief when saying what he did.

[VtaGeezer]

Presidents are faced with "flashcards" all the time, no matter how well they are prepared for expecting the unexpected. Something entirely unpredictable comes up and they need to respond fast. It's always a good test of thinking on your feet. Trump failed this test and it exposed not only his lack of ability to respond effectively to "flashcard" situations but his lack of knowledge and belief when saying what he did.

Nope.  Any Pres is connected with his advisers 24/7. The good Presidents usually have smart advisors.  The bad ones are surrounded by party hacks. I'll take Trump's Rolodex over any of the ideologue retreads advising the rest of the field, not on the best course of action for the country, but the best short term political course of action. 

Sure, I'd like a guy who is quick with an informed response, but picking the smooth glib PC candidate instead one who's not owned bu special interests is what put the country in this declining state.  Trump erred only by not saying "I haven't really considered that issue, because unless the Court reverses R v W it's a pointless waste of time".  Sanders reacted by saying Trump's answer was outrageous, but that the issue is a distraction from the serious issues, and Clinton jumped him for that simple truth to a cacophonous roar from her SJW audience.

Clinton and Cruz would have given golden responses, PC to their respective bases, because they've spent the past four years cramming for the inanity of the campaign, not the job.  Some choice for November, eh?

[21st Century Man]

I loved how Trump said he would have raised taxes if he was the governor of Ohio and then follows up with the stupid abortion comments.  Let's piss off any conservative  supporters and what's left of his female supporters. What a dumbass. He is torpedoing his own campaign and I for one am a bit relieved.  Keep it up, Kamikaze Don.

[albrecht]

I loved how Trump said he would have raised taxes if he was the governor of Ohio and then follows up with the stupid abortion comments.  Lets piss of any conservative  supporters and what's left of his female supporters. What a dumb-ass. He is torpedoing his own campaign and I for one am a bit relieved.  Keep it up, Kamikaze Don.

I still have my sneaking suspicion that The Donald could've been a Billary plot or stalking-horse, though I like some of what he says. The "social issues" are such a tired issue that don't matter all that much (since we don't have a democracy or even a representative republic since the Gods-On-High Court can dictate at will, expand/create their own jurisdiction, override the people, etc.) But I still point out if you ask any most mothers you see or know: "don't you wish you aborted your child?" The answer would be no. Likewise though, mainly due to Hollywood media, if you ask your average couple who is having a baby: "do you hope your child will end up being a QBLTH, or whatever the moniker is?" Heck, even in liberal "bastions" the people vote against homosexual "marriage." Whatever, I wish people and politicans would focus on the real issues. The proper response to the abortion or homo stuff should be:

"Guess what Matthews, the Obama's CDC says less that 3% of the population is BLTQH. And a smaller percentage of that population wants to get married. But the economy, the wars, the open-border, terrorism, our failure in schools, healthcare, debt, deficient, loss of civil rights, etc etc effects 100% of the population and I'm going to focus on that. Now get out of my face."

[21st Century Man]

I still have my sneaking suspicion that The Donald could've been a Billary plot or stalking-horse, though I like some of what he says. The "social issues" are such a tired issue that don't matter all that much (since we don't have a democracy or even a representative republic since the Gods-On-High Court can dictate at will, expand/create their own jurisdiction, override the people, etc.) But I still point out if you ask any most mothers you see or know: "don't you wish you aborted your child?" The answer would be no. Likewise though, mainly due to Hollywood media, if you ask your average couple who is having a baby: "do you hope your child will end up being a QBLTH, or whatever the moniker is?" Heck, even in liberal "bastions" the people vote against homosexual "marriage." Whatever, I wish people and politicans would focus on the real issues. The proper response to the abortion or homo stuff should be:

"Guess what Matthews, the Obama's CDC says less that 3% of the population is BLTQH. And a smaller percentage of that population wants to get married. But the economy, the wars, the open-border, terrorism, our failure in schools, healthcare, debt, deficient, loss of civil rights, etc etc effects 100% of the population and I'm going to focus on that. Now get out of my face."

I view social issues as unimportant as well. I'm more concerned about reducing the size of the federal government and sending more power back to the states. I do believe these issues should be left to the states rather than the fed but that is the only change I care about.  I don't like abortion and I hope the rate continues to go down but I really don't think prosecuting doctors who perform such services is a good idea nor do I think women that get abortions should be punished and become pariahs.  I for one don't think we should go back to the days of back alley abortions that endanger the health of the woman.  As time rolls on, abortions will become obsolete anyway as technology makes it easier to stop an unwanted pregnancy before a fetus is formed. I know we have the day after pill now but I'm concerned about the side effects of that drug.

The fact of the matter is though many women will be concerned by these anti-abortion comments.  I don't think many on the pro-life side or those on the pro-choice side want to see women punished for having an abortion.

[albrecht]

I view social issues as unimportant as well. I'm more concerned about reducing the size of the federal government and sending more power back to the states. I do believe these issues should be left to the states rather than the fed but that is the only change I care about.  I don't like abortion and I hope the rate continues to go down but I really don't think prosecuting doctors who perform such services is a good idea nor do I think women that get abortions should be punished and become pariahs.  I for one don't think we should go back to the days of back alley abortions that endanger the health of the woman.  As time rolls on, abortions will become obsolete anyway as technology makes it easier to stop an unwanted pregnancy before a fetus is formed. I know we have the day after pill now but I'm concerned about the side effects of that drug.

The fact of the matter is though many women will be concerned by these anti-abortion comments.  I don't think many on the pro-life side or those on the pro-choice side want to see women punished for having an abortion.

But due to the Party system candidates (in both Parties) need to pander to core constituencies and subgroups. Some of them that even the "big money" donors can't touch or manipulate as they can do in general elections. I'm against the BLTQH "marriages" and use of locker-rooms or bathrooms etc, abortions, whatever but they are minor issues that, aside from a few places, are a non-issue (Obama's government says less than 3% is HBLQT even.) But, like abortion, it is a red-flag for a certain, rich group and so must be pandered too. It is not surprising but it would be refreshing if a candidate stopped it and said "no mas" these are the issues that effect EVERYBODY and that is what I'm concerned about.....economy, wars, Veteran health issues, banking system, terrorism, pollution, healthcare, crime, the open-border, etc.
ps: CNN in their anti-Trump crusade just had Glenn Beck on. He didn't cry though.

[Value Of Pi]

Nope.  Any Pres is connected with his advisers 24/7. The good Presidents usually have smart advisors.  The bad ones are surrounded by party hacks. I'll take Trump's Rolodex over any of the ideologue retreads advising the rest of the field, not on the best course of action for the country, but the best short term political course of action. 

Sure, I'd like a guy who is quick with an informed response, but picking the smooth glib PC candidate instead one who's not owned bu special interests is what put the country in this declining state.  Trump erred only by not saying "I haven't really considered that issue, because unless the Court reverses R v W it's a pointless waste of time".  Sanders reacted by saying Trump's answer was outrageous, but that the issue is a distraction from the serious issues, and Clinton jumped him for that simple truth to a cacophonous roar from her SJW audience.

Clinton and Cruz would have given golden responses, PC to their respective bases, because they've spent the past four years cramming for the inanity of the campaign, not the job.  Some choice for November, eh?

That's not how it works. Advisors advise but only the President decides. Most presidents get a variety of advice and they have to choose from and often combine the ideas of their advisors. Sometimes they decide to reject all of it. That takes judgement and instinct that Trump does not have. Also, look at Trump's sad group of foreign policy advisors, an indication of what he means by "the best people."

[DanTSX]

The abortion comments are going to leave a mark.

Yeah I'm not sure what he was thinking when he went there. 

It is possible that he was just punch drunk from fielding intensive interview after interview.  Who knows.

Personally, I'm against abortion except unless medically necessary or as a result of a criminal act or other trauma resulting in the pregnancy.   But it shouldn't be on the table right now.   Win the election.  Do some things to make the country better, and then build a consensus and try to change it in your second term.   It's has been settled law since the 80's.  Its just a dog whistle topic and trap for politicians.

I'm sick of losing elections because candidates can't get it through their head that they can take far more convincing approaches to ending the practice of killing humans who never had a chance, because they double down on "rape rape vs good rape" and victim blaming.  It's not a difficult topic to argue considering the best defense the pro choice ers have is "muh body" when that child certainly isn't, and that it also has a father that should have a vote in the deal as well considering it is half his.


Hopefully this is part of Trump's plan.   I don't want to play guessing games, but he really drew out Hillary over this.  She had been rather quiet, except in select, and highly controlled circumstances.   He might just be drawing her out of hiding.   

[VtaGeezer]

That's not how it works. Advisors advise but only the President decides. Most presidents get a variety of advice and they have to choose from and often combine the ideas of their advisors. Sometimes they decide to reject all of it. That takes judgement and instinct that Trump does not have. Also, look at Trump's sad group of foreign policy advisors, an indication of what he means by "the best people."

Of course the prez decides.  But I thought you wanted a flash card President who'd make snap decisions.  Make up your mind. 

I agree Trump's choice of advisors leaves something to be desired.  Dunno who helped him with picks but its a 2nd rate team.  I wonder if the 1st team conservatives been told "Work for Trump and you'll never work in Washington again."  In the meantime, Cruz hired Frank Gaffney as mideast advisor; a true zealot who thinks Sharia law is a serious threat to America plus a gaggle of neocon Bush 2nd stringers, and HRHH's policy advisors are all from her past State and Senate staffs, and we know how that went.

It's rather odd to be posting on something of substance and not the fabricated crap that the MSM has spewed at Trump for months.

[21st Century Man]

What happened to King of Kings?  Did he finally get himself banned?

[VtaGeezer]

What happened to King of Kings?  Did he finally get himself banned?

A week or so back, he crossed the line.

[21st Century Man]

A week or so back, he crossed the line.

Thanks, I was trying to find his posts and he wasn't on the memberlist anymore. I finally found one dated from the 3/22 where he talked pretty harshly about killing all Muslims and any sympathizers.  I'm sure that didn't go over well with MV as his wife is Muslim.  The idiot deserved the ban with all of his Neo-Nazi talk.

[GravitySucks]

Thanks, I was trying to find his posts and he wasn't on the memberlist anymore. I finally found one dated from the 3/22 where he talked pretty harshly about killing all Muslims and any sympathizers.  I'm sure that didn't go over well with MV as his wife is Muslim.  The idiot deserved the ban with all of his Neo-Nazi talk.

MV posted somewhere it had to do with his Nazi anti Jew rants.

[Value Of Pi]

Of course the prez decides.  But I thought you wanted a flash card President who'd make snap decisions.  Make up your mind. 

I agree Trump's choice of advisors leaves something to be desired.  Dunno who helped him with picks but its a 2nd rate team.  I wonder if the 1st team conservatives been told "Work for Trump and you'll never work in Washington again."  In the meantime, Cruz hired Frank Gaffney as mideast advisor; a true zealot who thinks Sharia law is a serious threat to America plus a gaggle of neocon Bush 2nd stringers, and HRHH's policy advisors are all from her past State and Senate staffs, and we know how that went.

It's rather odd to be posting on something of substance and not the fabricated crap that the MSM has spewed at Trump for months.

The ability to respond to situations rapidly and make decisions as needed, OTW known as thinking on your feet, does not mean making snap decisions (which are generally ill-considered). Trump doesn't think well on or off his feet.

He's had plenty of time to consider his ideas on nuclear non-proliferation, NATO and a bunch of other issues he's been asked about. What he came up with, in spite of any advice he might have gotten, is just as absurd and nonsensical as his extemporaneous thoughts on abortion.

The problem here was, is and always will be Trump himself.

[21st Century Man]

MV posted somewhere it had to do with his Nazi anti Jew rants.

Damn, it took long enough.  He's been posting that crap for months.  Thanks, GS.

[FightTheFuture]

This is all, as I have been saying for months, a moot point. Donald ("the orange anti-Christ") Trump can not win a general election. He will NEVER be President. Ever. I am baffled as to why the trumpkins are incapable of realizing that simple truth. Larry Sabato, of UVA Center For Politics, has released Crystal Ball projection for November.

Behold:

[GravitySucks]

This is all, as I have been saying for months, a moot point. Donald ("the orange anti-Christ") Trump can not win a general election. He will NEVER be President. Ever. I am baffled as to why the trumpkins are incapable of realizing that simple truth. Larry Sabato, of UVA Center For Politics, has released Crystal Ball projection for November.

Behold:

No reason to have a convention. The GOP should just close its doors. BTW, similar projections were made in 1980

[VtaGeezer]

He's had plenty of time to consider his ideas on nuclear non-proliferation, NATO and a bunch of other issues he's been asked about. What he came up with, in spite of any advice he might have gotten, is just as absurd and nonsensical as his extemporaneous thoughts on abortion.

The problem here was, is and always will be Trump himself.

I don't really agree with much that Trump says aside from his foreign policy and trade positions. What he's said about NATO is that as originally conceived it's obsolete, and several wealthy Euro nations are freeloading.  Both are true.  His remarks likely shook up some politicians in Brussels, Amsterdam, Rome, Oslo, and Copenhagen...and perhaps Berlin, that their comfy post-Cold War laxness and ineffectiveness has been taken note of by Uncle Sugar.  How long do we keep them on the American tit for defense?  70 years isn't enough?

Similarly, his comments on Japanese and S Korean nukes have rattled Pyongyang.  It would completely change the 60 year paradigm of "war at any minute" stand-off on the Korean Peninsula, and the Chinese-N Korean game of holding 40,000 or so US troops hostage as they ignore agreements and sanctions on NK.  Kim's regime knows now that the threat to level Seoul and destroy the SK economy in minutes; long before the US 8th Army can deploy, is a security blanket, and further that the US would probably sacrifice Honolulu and Seattle before we'd do the dirty deed ourselves.  They can continue to extort enough to keep the Kim family and the DKPR army in their comfort zone.   If S Korea gets a nuke, its a new game for Kim; the shoe is on the other foot if Seoul can retaliate on its own.  Its largely the same argument for Japan and China's moves in the S and E China Seas.

Trump is also correct that its a certainty that our shadier "allies" will get nukes as their historic enemies ignore our non-proliferation foot-stamping.  Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if the Saudis already have a couple in the basement bought from Sunni Pakistan to keep the Persian Shiites at bay.

[21st Century Man]

This is all, as I have been saying for months, a moot point. Donald ("the orange anti-Christ") Trump can not win a general election. He will NEVER be President. Ever. I am baffled as to why the trumpkins are incapable of realizing that simple truth. Larry Sabato, of UVA Center For Politics, has released Crystal Ball projection for November.

Behold:

Not sure I buy Sabato's forecast.  Utah hates Trump and would likely go to Clinton.  There are other wild cards.  I wouldn't put Maine in the deep blue but light to middle blue.  Wisconsin is more of a wild card.  Nevada would go to Trump. Iowa leans to the right.

[21st Century Man]

No reason to have a convention. The GOP should just close its doors. BTW, similar projections were made in 1980

GS, Donald is no Reagan.  Reagan was a uniter not a divider. I'll be frank.  Of the 3 people running currently, Kasich would have the best chance if he had the delegates. I really hate to say that as a Cruz supporter but it is simply a fact.  Kasich is palatable to many who lean to the left and he would kill Hillary in an election.  Both Trump and Cruz have an uphill battle and Donald is really screwing up his chances with his latest blunders.

[GravitySucks]

GS, Donald is no Reagan.  Reagan was a uniter not a divider. I'll be frank of the 3 people running currently, Kasich would have the best chance if he had the delegates. I really hate to say that as a Cruz supporter but it is simply a fact.  Kasich is palatable to many who lean to the left and he would kill Hillary in an election.  Both Trump and Cruz have an uphill battle and Donald is really screwing up his chances with his latest blunders.

Trump/Kasich ticket would be palatable to me and would carry some of the swing states. That being said, I am going to vote for whomever finally gets the nod.

If Trump crashes and burns, this just strengthens the media's hold on the entire process.

[21st Century Man]

Trump/Kasich ticket would be palatable to me and would carry some of the swing states. That being said, I am going to vote for whomever finally gets the nod.

If Trump crashes and burns, this just strengthens the media's hold on the entire process.

As of now, me too but Trump had better stop with the Lyin' Ted crap.  He is acting like a hypocrite and I absolutely detest hypocrites.

[FightTheFuture]

No reason to have a convention. The GOP should just close its doors. BTW, similar projections were made in 1980

Not so much. You have to remember, John Anderson was in the mix back then and peeling votes away from Reagan. Also, Reagan`s negatives were nothing near what Trump has now. Trump won`t garner even 30% of the female vote. He simply can`t make that up with angry, uneducated white males.

I would also note, Larry Sabato has been the most accurate political prognosticator in the business for over at least a decade since he`s been publishing his Crystal Ball. Take it to the bank; Trump has no chance in November. In fact, I`ll go as far as to say, if Trump is the GOP nominee, he will be defeated in a landslide of historical proportions...by whomever the DEM nominee is.

[FightTheFuture]

I don't really agree with much that Trump says aside from his foreign policy and trade positions. What he's said about NATO is that as originally conceived it's obsolete, and several wealthy Euro nations are freeloading.  Both are true.  His remarks likely shook up some politicians in Brussels, Amsterdam, Rome, Oslo, and Copenhagen...and perhaps Berlin, that their comfy post-Cold War laxness and ineffectiveness has been taken note of by Uncle Sugar.  How long do we keep them on the American tit for defense?  70 years isn't enough?

Similarly, his comments on Japanese and S Korean nukes have rattled Pyongyang.  It would completely change the 60 year paradigm of "war at any minute" stand-off on the Korean Peninsula, and the Chinese-N Korean game of holding 40,000 or so US troops hostage as they ignore agreements and sanctions on NK.  Kim's regime knows now that the threat to level Seoul and destroy the SK economy in minutes; long before the US 8th Army can deploy, is a security blanket, and further that the US would probably sacrifice Honolulu and Seattle before we'd do the dirty deed ourselves.  They can continue to extort enough to keep the Kim family and the DKPR army in their comfort zone.   If S Korea gets a nuke, its a new game for Kim; the shoe is on the other foot if Seoul can retaliate on its own.  Its largely the same argument for Japan and China's moves in the S and E China Seas.

Trump is also correct that its a certainty that our shadier "allies" will get nukes as their historic enemies ignore our non-proliferation foot-stamping.  Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if the Saudis already have a couple in the basement bought from Sunni Pakistan to keep the Persian Shiites at bay.

I would agree that Trump, at least, hits the outer rings of the target with regard to NATO. But to assert that NATO is obsolete is completely absurd. Where would Putin be meddling right now if not for NATO? NATO is a tremendous force multiplier and a valuable asset in Afghanistan.

In the future, we will rely more and more on NATO. Now is not the time to start pissing off our European allies (anymore than they already are!). Where Trump is right, is when he talks about making burden sharing more equitable. However, that deal will require a velvet glove, not an iron-fisted Trump approach.

Japan will never have nukes. Period. End of discussion. It`s in the constitution and beyond a few isolated right-wingers and Yakuza types, there is no desire to change the constitution to allow the development of nuclear weapons.

Similarly, South Korea is in no need of nukes. They`ll never have them, because they will never use them under any circumstances. What they do need, is a sturdy missile defense system, which we can provide for them.

[Value Of Pi]

I don't really agree with much that Trump says aside from his foreign policy and trade positions. What he's said about NATO is that as originally conceived it's obsolete, and several wealthy Euro nations are freeloading.  Both are true.  His remarks likely shook up some politicians in Brussels, Amsterdam, Rome, Oslo, and Copenhagen...and perhaps Berlin, that their comfy post-Cold War laxness and ineffectiveness has been taken note of by Uncle Sugar.  How long do we keep them on the American tit for defense?  70 years isn't enough?

Similarly, his comments on Japanese and S Korean nukes have rattled Pyongyang.  It would completely change the 60 year paradigm of "war at any minute" stand-off on the Korean Peninsula, and the Chinese-N Korean game of holding 40,000 or so US troops hostage as they ignore agreements and sanctions on NK.  Kim's regime knows now that the threat to level Seoul and destroy the SK economy in minutes; long before the US 8th Army can deploy, is a security blanket, and further that the US would probably sacrifice Honolulu and Seattle before we'd do the dirty deed ourselves.  They can continue to extort enough to keep the Kim family and the DKPR army in their comfort zone.   If S Korea gets a nuke, its a new game for Kim; the shoe is on the other foot if Seoul can retaliate on its own.  Its largely the same argument for Japan and China's moves in the S and E China Seas.

Trump is also correct that its a certainty that our shadier "allies" will get nukes as their historic enemies ignore our non-proliferation foot-stamping.  Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if the Saudis already have a couple in the basement bought from Sunni Pakistan to keep the Persian Shiites at bay.

Gosh, where do I begin with all this crapola? Sorry but there's no other word and it's fully justified. NATO helped to win the Cold War and only a few years later found that the Soviet Union wasn't the only threat in Europe. So it won another war, this time against a bunch of genocidal nationalists. NATO was also instrumental in helping to defeat Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. Today, it defends the same former Soviet satellites it helped to liberate, this time from a guy named Putin.

European nations often don't pay their fair share and that needs to change. This doesn't necessitate threatening to scrap the alliance. There are better ways to get cooperation from your allies than trying to bully them. Not, though, according to Trump"s philosophy.

Your analysis on North Korea is fairly ignorant. At this point, they're not holding anyone hostage or extracting concessions from the U.S. They are under a total embargo of U.S. goods, including food. Everything going into and out of that country is subject to inspection. They have some black market trade and food/oil from the Chinese. That is all they've got and the Chinese are starting to tire of their antics.

Your notion that the U.S. would sacrifice our own cities before acting against a NK invasion is too stupid for words. So is the idea that a South Korean nuclear capability would change any of the North's behavior. None of the countries under our nuclear umbrella have ever been invaded or seriously attacked. Nobody has dared or would dare -- unless maybe we put some doofus in the White House.

I'm not even going to address the whole insane idea of throwing our entire post-WWII policy against nuclear proliferation out the window. That one should get any politician locked in a rubber room.