The secret meeting in Georgia to undue Trump

[Malintent]

I don't know... when you have a group of billionaires all working together to figure out how to prevent another Billionaire from gaining power, I can't help but ask myself why. Are these Billionaires concerned for the wellbeing of America, or the wellbeing of their money? I don't really have to ask myself that, the answer is obvious. No one, anywhere, ever, made a fortune being concerned with the wellbeing of anyone but themselves... so whatever those guys are worried about... I'm all for it.

I don't like Trump, I am not for Trump, but I can't help but feel that with Trump there will be significantly less shenanigans and a significant increase in transparency.

My take is that the Billionaire's don't like to spend their money for nothing. They have already bought all the other candidates, and they don't want that money to go to waste. Normally, it wouldn't be a big deal, they would just buy the guy who isn't bought yet. The problem is that Trump is already a Billionaire, so they don't think they can buy him. Trump doesn't give a shit about the wellbeing of America any more than they do, except where it matters to his bottom line.

I think we will see significantly more shenanigans with Trump than we have now, and doubt that there will be any increase in transparency.

That sounds reasonable.. protecting their investment...makes sense.

however, while I do not trust Trump, nor like him, nor think he would be a good president... I DO think, based on a history of seeing him in the public eye, that like many CEO's, he is all about transparent transactions and processes... he explains how things work, where the checks and balances are, where the gaps are.. just like in a boardroom. He has a long history of dealing with business level compliance issues that operating in a transparent, legal, and compliant manner is just natural to him. I am sure he has taken advantage of many loopholes in the law, but I do not believe he flat out has broken the law for gain.

If a 'competitor' is abusing a loophole, Trump would call out the gap in the law and try to level the playing field.
If a politician sees a loophole, they would just join in on the scam.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The United States has been killing civilians near targeted terrorists and that is viewed as collateral damage. Trump says he wants to target the families, meaning they are the actual targets.
.

Trump is worse on that point, but less hypocritical.

Intentionally targeting and killing civilians is a war crime.

Drone pilots have admitted they don't know who they really kill, and have had little regard for civilians. Soldiers too have deliberately killed civilians on many occasions.

We are talking about the head of the Military ordering the military to kill civilians. This is a notable distinction.

I suspect part of the appeal of Trump is that he just says it. This can be contrasted with the lying cowardice and shameless hypocrisy of the recent administrations.

No. Trump isn't saying that collateral damage is what it is, he is saying he wants to target and kill civilians, the families of terrorists. The people that are for torture think that somehow that is a winning strategy.

 

[AdamWho]

So now "Huffington Post" counts as evidence for something?

This is supposed to be a skeptic forum, and I have serious doubts about this source and the claims.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Are you saying that Trump is a better choice than Clinton or Romney for this? I see him as trying hard to write bombing orders with his little fingers as soon as he can - with a shout and a taunt and a FUCK YOU!

If you look at my thread about searching for the peace candidate, you'll find that Trump has the second best grade. I was surprised too.

That's just crazy. Trump's demeanor alone puts the US at much greater danger of world war. He doesn't have the temperament. Scary to think of him with the nuclear football.

 

[funinspace]

My take is that the Billionaire's don't like to spend their money for nothing. They have already bought all the other candidates, and they don't want that money to go to waste. Normally, it wouldn't be a big deal, they would just buy the guy who isn't bought yet. The problem is that Trump is already a Billionaire, so they don't think they can buy him. Trump doesn't give a shit about the wellbeing of America any more than they do, except where it matters to his bottom line.

I think we will see significantly more shenanigans with Trump than we have now, and doubt that there will be any increase in transparency.

That sounds reasonable.. protecting their investment...makes sense.

however, while I do not trust Trump, nor like him, nor think he would be a good president... I DO think, based on a history of seeing him in the public eye, that like many CEO's, he is all about transparent transactions and processes... he explains how things work, where the checks and balances are, where the gaps are.. just like in a boardroom. He has a long history of dealing with business level compliance issues that operating in a transparent, legal, and compliant manner is just natural to him. I am sure he has taken advantage of many loopholes in the law, but I do not believe he flat out has broken the law for gain.

Except that Trump is the CEO of a family LLC, not a publicly traded corporation. There are far fewer checks and balances and far less transparency in that world.

And depending on ones definition of breaking the law, he has:
http://www.nytimes.com/times-insider/2015/07/30/1973-meet-donald-trump/?_r=0

“The government contended that Trump Management had refused to rent or negotiate rentals ‘because of race and color,’ ” The Times reported. “It also charged that the company had required different rental terms and conditions because of race and that it had misrepresented to blacks that apartments were not available.”
<snip>
Under an agreement reached in June 1975, Trump Management was required to furnish the New York Urban League with a list of all apartment vacancies, every week, for two years. It was also to allow the league to present qualified applicants for every fifth vacancy in Trump buildings where fewer than 10 percent of the tenants were black.

Trump Management noted that the agreement did not constitute an admission of guilt.

 

[Malintent]

Trump is worse on that point, but less hypocritical.

Intentionally targeting and killing civilians is a war crime.

Drone pilots have admitted they don't know who they really kill, and have had little regard for civilians. Soldiers too have deliberately killed civilians on many occasions.

We are talking about the head of the Military ordering the military to kill civilians. This is a notable distinction.

I suspect part of the appeal of Trump is that he just says it. This can be contrasted with the lying cowardice and shameless hypocrisy of the recent administrations.

No. Trump isn't saying that collateral damage is what it is, he is saying he wants to target and kill civilians, the families of terrorists. The people that are for torture think that somehow that is a winning strategy.

since when is it a war crime to target civilians during a declared war? We bombed the SHIT out of many cities in WW2.. killed everyone around with those pre-smart bombs we dropped.

Suicide bombers (as one type of terrorist) are often motivated by compensation for their families... either a promise they will be well cared for, money given, or a promise that they wont be round up and killed.. If it is demonstrated that their families will be executed by the US military, so their 'martyrhood' doesn't payoff in the real world, it should dent the fuck out of the volunteer rate. If a child grows up to be a terrorist, does the family have any accountability? any at all?

 

[funinspace]

Intentionally targeting and killing civilians is a war crime.

Drone pilots have admitted they don't know who they really kill, and have had little regard for civilians. Soldiers too have deliberately killed civilians on many occasions.

We are talking about the head of the Military ordering the military to kill civilians. This is a notable distinction.

I suspect part of the appeal of Trump is that he just says it. This can be contrasted with the lying cowardice and shameless hypocrisy of the recent administrations.

No. Trump isn't saying that collateral damage is what it is, he is saying he wants to target and kill civilians, the families of terrorists. The people that are for torture think that somehow that is a winning strategy.

since when is it a war crime to target civilians during a declared war? We bombed the SHIT out of many cities in WW2.. killed everyone around with those pre-smart bombs we dropped.

We humans have been trying to become more civilized...personally, I think it is a good thing:
http://www.crimesofwar.org/a-z-guide/carpet-or-area-bombing/

The Nuremberg Tribunal did not discuss area bombardment in any detail, and the practice, which flies in the face of all the civilian protections in the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, continued into the Cold War. The U.S. aerial campaigns against North Vietnam—in particular the so-called Christmas bombing of 1972 against Hanoi and Haiphong—are believed to have been illegal area bombardments.

An explicit ban on area bombardment was first codified in the 1977 Additional Protocol I, which applies to bombardments of cities, towns, villages, or other areas containing a concentration of civilians. An attack by bombardment by any methods or means that treats as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives is considered to be an indiscriminate attack and is prohibited.

Suicide bombers (as one type of terrorist) are often motivated by compensation for their families... either a promise they will be well cared for, money given, or a promise that they wont be round up and killed.. If it is demonstrated that their families will be executed by the US military, so their 'martyrhood' doesn't payoff in the real world, it should dent the fuck out of the volunteer rate. If a child grows up to be a terrorist, does the family have any accountability? any at all?

So just how would the US implement executing families of say ISIS terrorists, when those families live in places like Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Chechnya, Tunisia, among other places? How do you think it would affect the mental state of those young US soldiers? Would you want one of your grown children to be part of such death squads? Details please...

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Intentionally targeting and killing civilians is a war crime.

Drone pilots have admitted they don't know who they really kill, and have had little regard for civilians. Soldiers too have deliberately killed civilians on many occasions.

We are talking about the head of the Military ordering the military to kill civilians. This is a notable distinction.

I suspect part of the appeal of Trump is that he just says it. This can be contrasted with the lying cowardice and shameless hypocrisy of the recent administrations.

No. Trump isn't saying that collateral damage is what it is, he is saying he wants to target and kill civilians, the families of terrorists. The people that are for torture think that somehow that is a winning strategy.

since when is it a war crime to target civilians during a declared war?

What declared war?

We bombed the SHIT out of many cities in WW2.. killed everyone around with those pre-smart bombs we dropped.

Are you justifying the targeting of civilians today because of Dresden?

Suicide bombers (as one type of terrorist) are often motivated by compensation for their families... either a promise they will be well cared for, money given, or a promise that they wont be round up and killed.. If it is demonstrated that their families will be executed by the US military, so their 'martyrhood' doesn't payoff in the real world, it should dent the fuck out of the volunteer rate. If a child grows up to be a terrorist, does the family have any accountability? any at all?

Wow!

 

[Harry Bosch]

Intentionally targeting and killing civilians is a war crime.

Drone pilots have admitted they don't know who they really kill, and have had little regard for civilians. Soldiers too have deliberately killed civilians on many occasions.

We are talking about the head of the Military ordering the military to kill civilians. This is a notable distinction.

I suspect part of the appeal of Trump is that he just says it. This can be contrasted with the lying cowardice and shameless hypocrisy of the recent administrations.

No. Trump isn't saying that collateral damage is what it is, he is saying he wants to target and kill civilians, the families of terrorists. The people that are for torture think that somehow that is a winning strategy.

since when is it a war crime to target civilians during a declared war?

What declared war?

We bombed the SHIT out of many cities in WW2.. killed everyone around with those pre-smart bombs we dropped.

Are you justifying the targeting of civilians today because of Dresden?

Suicide bombers (as one type of terrorist) are often motivated by compensation for their families... either a promise they will be well cared for, money given, or a promise that they wont be round up and killed.. If it is demonstrated that their families will be executed by the US military, so their 'martyrhood' doesn't payoff in the real world, it should dent the fuck out of the volunteer rate. If a child grows up to be a terrorist, does the family have any accountability? any at all?

Wow!

Totally agree with "wow"! To Malintent: most suicide bombers are totally disconnected from their family. It's unlikely that slaughtering their family will matter much to them.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

My take is that the Billionaire's don't like to spend their money for nothing. They have already bought all the other candidates, and they don't want that money to go to waste. Normally, it wouldn't be a big deal, they would just buy the guy who isn't bought yet. The problem is that Trump is already a Billionaire, so they don't think they can buy him. Trump doesn't give a shit about the wellbeing of America any more than they do, except where it matters to his bottom line.

I think we will see significantly more shenanigans with Trump than we have now, and doubt that there will be any increase in transparency.

That sounds reasonable.. protecting their investment...makes sense.

however, while I do not trust Trump, nor like him, nor think he would be a good president...

...I think he is a good business man.

...I think he is transparent.

...I agree we should target the families of terrorists.

What exactly don't you like about Trump?

 

[Will Wiley]

Trump is worse on that point, but less hypocritical.

Intentionally targeting and killing civilians is a war crime.

I's surprised . I didn't think Americans cared at all if their governments committ war crimes.

Drone pilots have admitted they don't know who they really kill, and have had little regard for civilians. Soldiers too have deliberately killed civilians on many occasions.

We are talking about the head of the Military ordering the military to kill civilians. This is a notable distinction.

Trump hasn't done anything yet. Your present President has been ordering the murder of hundreds of civilians without any trial.
Who cares if you happen to believe your lying government when they tell you theyt are guilty. Who the fuck gives you the right to kill people without trial. So hypocritical.

Oh...sorry...we are mainly Americans here so it's bad form to point this out. Isn't it.

Because these days America can lock people up or kill them without trial safe in the knowledge that many Americans will support them in doing so.
But hey...trump is the problem isn't he ??

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

http://www.alternet.org/grayzone-pr...-cruzs-most-fanatical-foreign-policy-advisors

The GOP presidential hopeful who has called for the “carpet bombing” of densely-populated cities and the rejection of Muslim Syrian refugees in favor of Christians has reportedly picked his foreign policy team. No, this is not a reference to the multi-billionaire Donald Trump, who recently declared that his “primary consultant” on international affairs is himself.
Ted Cruz, who is presenting himself to the GOP establishment as the reasonable alternative to Trump, has assembled a team of anti-Muslim crusaders, war criminals and conspiracy theorists.

-----

A cabal of islamophobes, kooks and conspiracy theorists. This is disturbing. Cruz is a dangerous candidate, far more so than Trump on foreign policy.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Intentionally targeting and killing civilians is a war crime.

I's surprised . I didn't think Americans cared at all if their governments committ war crimes.

Drone pilots have admitted they don't know who they really kill, and have had little regard for civilians. Soldiers too have deliberately killed civilians on many occasions.

We are talking about the head of the Military ordering the military to kill civilians. This is a notable distinction.

Trump hasn't done anything yet. Your present President has been ordering the murder of hundreds of civilians without any trial.
Who cares if you happen to believe your lying government when they tell you theyt are guilty. Who the fuck gives you the right to kill people without trial. So hypocritical.

Oh...sorry...we are mainly Americans here so it's bad form to point this out. Isn't it.

Because these days America can lock people up or kill them without trial safe in the knowledge that many Americans will support them in doing so.
But hey...trump is the problem isn't he ??

How are we suppose to bring a foreign based terrorist to trial? Ask him nicely?

 

[Will Wiley]

How are we suppose to bring a foreign based terrorist to trial? Ask him nicely?

Firstly most of the people you call terrorists are really freedom fighters, or they just happen to be males 18 or over who live in the wrong part of the world.
Secondly the ones the FBI busts are usually not terrorists but fools who have been put up to it by the FBI themselves.
Thirdly when you did go after "terrorists" you attacked Iraq, where there were no terrorists, and Ignored Saudi Arabia where most of them came from and who supports most terrorists.
So the starting point is to kick out the bums who are either incompetent or who have another agenda than getting terrorists.

Recently Russia exposed for the whole world to see, what America has been up to 9although it's hard to say they had one goal as the left hand doesn't know what the right is doing). The people making the important decisions have no interest at all in getting terrorists. They are only interested in having no rivals that may control too much resources. And that means "regime change" not fighting terrorists.

Bill Blum tells you how to stop terrorist attacks against the United States.https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/William_Blum

If I were the president, I could stop terrorist attacks against the United States in a few days. Permanently. I would first apologize -- very publicly and very sincerely -- to all the widows and the orphans, the impoverished and the tortured, and all the many millions of other victims of American imperialism. I would then announce that America's global interventions -- including the awful bombings -- have come to an end. And I would inform Israel that it is no longer the 51st state of the union but – oddly enough – a foreign country. I would then reduce the military budget by at least 90% and use the savings to pay reparations to the victims and repair the damage from the many American bombings and invasions. There would be more than enough money. Do you know what one year of the US military budget is equal to? One year. It's equal to more than $20,000 per hour for every hour since Jesus Christ was born. That's what I'd do on my first three days in the White House. On the fourth day, I'd be assassinated

 

[funinspace]

Intentionally targeting and killing civilians is a war crime.

I's surprised . I didn't think Americans cared at all if their governments committ war crimes.

Drone pilots have admitted they don't know who they really kill, and have had little regard for civilians. Soldiers too have deliberately killed civilians on many occasions.

We are talking about the head of the Military ordering the military to kill civilians. This is a notable distinction.

Trump hasn't done anything yet. Your present President has been ordering the murder of hundreds of civilians without any trial.
Who cares if you happen to believe your lying government when they tell you theyt are guilty. Who the fuck gives you the right to kill people without trial. So hypocritical.

Oh...sorry...we are mainly Americans here so it's bad form to point this out. Isn't it.

Because these days America can lock people up or kill them without trial safe in the knowledge that many Americans will support them in doing so.
But hey...trump is the problem isn't he ??

The point is not that our leaders are nice, or that they aren't killing lots of people across the ME. This is about you suggestion that Trump is somehow less bad then Clinton, Obama, et.al. Several of us have been pointing out that Trump's words (as they are really all we can go by) suggest that he would consider doing things even worse than a Pres. Hillary Clinton, or what Pres. Obama has as already done. Sure he could turn out to be the second coming of Jimmy Carter, but somehow that seems less likely. He could also become a manifestation of Loki as President...

Electing a political crank doesn't have to be all bad, but it can depend on the flavor due to the division of power in the US. Ron Paul would have been fairly harmless, as he wanted to disengage from attacking places. Congress would have had a hard time stopping him from making plans to withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan. Congress could not have made him become the Drone Warrior in Chief, bombing half a dozen countries. His ideas on budget and other domestic topics would have largely been DOA within Congress, so little would have changed there. On the other side of the coin, Congress would have had to pass legislation to stop a Pres. Trump from sending stinger missiles to the Ukrainian government we were lightly backing. Congress would have had to pass legislation to stop a Pres. Trump from getting our Air Force start shooting at Russian jets over Syria, oh shit 3 down...lets debate that bill for another week. One does need Congress' support to sustain a war, but a President really doesn't need to deal with Congress to start one; just consider Libya as it was done w/o Congressional involvement as they couldn't make up their mind. A Pres. Trump could have ratcheted up the pressure to start a war with Iran. With enough bravado, pushing admirals and generals to engage in threatening military maneuvers, and working with Israeli leadership, I don't think it would have been hard to push ourselves (US) into a war with Iran. Trump seems to have grown up as a bully, and it really isn't clear if he has actually grown up...