The Rise of Trump


His whole back catalog is brilliant! I envy you getting to discover it fresh!


Not at all sure that we would we get ‘radiation sickness’.

We might just end up with an increased chance of cancer in 20 years time (or no effect at all).

It really depends upon what one is exposed to and what levels and that depends very much upon whether a North Korean nuke launch creates a Mutually Assured Destruction scenario between Russia and the USA or not.


This is not to defend Trump, but the challenge is the last people on this planet that should have nukes is North Korea. Kim is the kind of guy who would nuke Australia because of sanctions.

In some respects I’m glad this is coming to a head now, because the longer he goes on with Nuke development, the more Australia is at risk


Frankly I don’t trust either Kim nor Don… though if I had to choose I’d go with Trump.


And apparently has threatened us, if we keep following US policy.


Yup. But are we going to continue to bow down to Kim because he has nukes? So if we implement economic sanctions, he threatens us with nukes? What then? What about when he has long range missiles that can reach us because we have let him continue? Right now, he has small warheads and small missiles, but long term he is changing that and the longer he goes on, the higher the risk.

I would personally prefer they pick a fight with him now than later. I don’t think it will come down to war or the use of nukes, but I think it could put pressure on china to sort it out.


I wasnt making any value judgements about whether we should or should not follow in the footsteps of the USA. I’ve done that before. I was simply remarking that he has threatened us.


No problem. I read it wrong. I think right now, Kim is probably one of the dangerous people in the world. I think both Trump and Putin would avoid nuclear war at all costs because they’d be aware of the implications. Kim on the other hand probably knows that if he ever loses power, he’s dead so he’d be prepared to drag the whole world down with him.


That movie (and the remake) were based on a book by Nevil Shute called, unsurprisingly, On the Beach. Forgot to comment earlier, sorry :frowning:


@missionman I think part of the problem comes back to Iraq… Bush promised Suddam had The Bomb, but no proof was found. Ok, Kim allegedly has tested NBomb/s… And is threatening the world… So, sure, different kettle, but the pain lingers - we went into Iraq over a decade ago and it’s still a mess.

Perhaps now is the time to take Kim down… I’ll agree no sanctions will likely work… I think the main issue is the new leader of the Free World kept asking why he couldn’t use nukes in the lead up to his taking power, and now…


so no one has watched john pilger’s recent doco?


I think it’s a challenging situation. Kim falls into the classic megalomaniac type of role, in some respects through no fault of his own, his dad would have positioned him to be where he is today and would probably have convinced him that it’s the best thing for the country. He has no respect for life or human rights.

On the converse, I’m not saying the US is any better with some of the things they have done. I think the fact that some of the US presidents have never faced trial for the atrocities that were committed in the name of “good” is a travesty in itself, but realistically we have to look at now, and the now is where we have a dangerous person with access to very dangerous weapons who will only get more dangerous in time.

I’ll be honest and say I don’t know the right answer to how we deal with him. Kill him and there will be a catastrophe, don’t kill him and the same outcome could occur. The big question is which will be worse? I’m glad its not my responsibility to make the decision, because I think a lot of innocent people will end up dying either way and like it or not, whoever makes that decision will have blood on their hands, even if it’s ultimately the right decision.


Well first of all, I’m a politics/international relations and history double major, so that account for me knowing something about something, I’m also a dual national European, so the general conjecture would be SOME anti-American bias but, it’s not really the case as my formal education keeps what I say in check. But this thread isn’t about me.

Unfortunately the propensity is that most Americans take Pax Americana all to seriously and don’t believe there is a world outside of America… The constitution is difficult to change, but it depends on how you wish to interpret it. Is it a living document? Is it how the founding fathers would have wanted. The nonsense with Gorsuch put a bad taste in my mouth.

If the Repubs thought Obama was out of control with executive orders we’ve seen a new level with Trump and I’m beginning to lose faith that the separation of powers is doing what its supposed to do with a rampant executive. See that is the difference which makes the Australian constitution work the way it does. Our executive is always a foreign impartial third party.

I once supported an independent Australia with an Australian executive and head of state but the more I look at what goes on in the Philippines, Russia, the United States, Malaysia. Where ever there is an example of this, the lights not shining brightly on a large and unwieldy president. The more I think about it the more I’m starting to believe in Pax Britannica simply because the executive cannot be manipulated in such a way as to watch the whole world burn around you.

At least in Australia when things get this unwieldy we have precedent that the commonwealth can remove a dysfunctional Prime Minister… Now whether you believe that rightly or wrongly, it happened. It happened through an impartial third party, and I’m starting to think that the checks and balances in Australia are right in these situations.

If I were an America right now, I’d be burrying my head in the sand until the mid terms and then I’d be voting democrat regardless of what state I was living in.


that is certainly an ‘interesting’ assessment of Whitlam’s dismissal.


Whether you believe its right wrong or indifferent it shows how the separation of powers acts when your executive is separated from your legislature. And in the face of the current executive crisis in most nations where their president is also the head of the legislature you can start to draw your own conclusions. On all accounts whether you look at the Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, Russia or America. They all have the one thing in common that the executive is also the head of the legislature and resultantly all of the presidents of those nations are corrupt and unwieldy.

Meanwhile you start to look at Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and so on and so forth and in none of the aforementioned states do we see such overt corruption and manipulation of the executives power. In a practical sense the executive can never be manipulated because they are a foreign third party. You might not like the results but you can never directly blame the executive for them.