Orange is the new President

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 22451
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Orange is the new President

Post by JasonL » 11 Jul 2018, 17:09

Fin Fang Foom wrote:
11 Jul 2018, 16:56
JasonL wrote:
11 Jul 2018, 16:48
Fin Fang Foom wrote:
11 Jul 2018, 16:46
I'm not sure why we all want use of military force to be an easy and quick policy option for everyone. It's certainly not a good thing when we do it.
It had better be at least as quick and easy as it is for the people knocking on your door. Other views are simply naive.
This is how WWI started.
Right the world would be great if only Iran, NK, Putin maybe a few others had armies.

User avatar
Fin Fang Foom
Posts: 9539
Joined: 05 May 2010, 22:39

Re: Orange is the new President

Post by Fin Fang Foom » 11 Jul 2018, 17:13

It is impossible for NATO to have the capacity to make a quick response to an attack on the Baltic without looking like we are going to attack St. Petersburg. If they look like they are going to hit Poland, they are going to have to fill up Kaliningrad with military and or work with Balarus, both of which we should notice. There are Russians in the Baltic that they may be able to do Ukraine II with, but not anywhere else. In any event, I am extremely skeptical of Russia's capacity to do anything big given how much of a clusterfuck Georgia was. The U.S. does logistics. Everybody else, not so much. In any event, Russia wants to fuck with Europe and NATO so sanctions fail and the oligarchs can buy beach property in Spain, not rebuild a real conventional strategic threat to the West.

Edited: Baltic, not Balkans.
Last edited by Fin Fang Foom on 11 Jul 2018, 17:35, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Fin Fang Foom
Posts: 9539
Joined: 05 May 2010, 22:39

Re: Orange is the new President

Post by Fin Fang Foom » 11 Jul 2018, 17:18

JasonL wrote:
11 Jul 2018, 17:09
Fin Fang Foom wrote:
11 Jul 2018, 16:56
JasonL wrote:
11 Jul 2018, 16:48
Fin Fang Foom wrote:
11 Jul 2018, 16:46
I'm not sure why we all want use of military force to be an easy and quick policy option for everyone. It's certainly not a good thing when we do it.
It had better be at least as quick and easy as it is for the people knocking on your door. Other views are simply naive.
This is how WWI started.
Right the world would be great if only Iran, NK, Putin maybe a few others had armies.
I feel like you must have been in a coma between 1995 and yesterday.

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 26142
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Orange is the new President

Post by thoreau » 11 Jul 2018, 17:32

Fin Fang Foom wrote:
11 Jul 2018, 17:13
It is impossible for NATO to have the capacity to make a quick response to an attack on the Balkans without looking like we are going to attack St. Petersburg.
Balkans? Did you, perchance, mean the Baltics?
"ike Wile E. Coyote salivating over a "4000 Ways To Prepare Roadrunner" cookbook without watching his surroundings, the Road Runner of Societal Inertia snuck up on them both and beepbeeped them off the mesa."
--Shem

User avatar
Fin Fang Foom
Posts: 9539
Joined: 05 May 2010, 22:39

Re: Orange is the new President

Post by Fin Fang Foom » 11 Jul 2018, 17:33

thoreau wrote:
11 Jul 2018, 17:32
Fin Fang Foom wrote:
11 Jul 2018, 17:13
It is impossible for NATO to have the capacity to make a quick response to an attack on the Balkans without looking like we are going to attack St. Petersburg.
Balkans? Did you, perchance, mean the Baltics?
Yes, autocorrect is a strange creature.

User avatar
Painboy
Posts: 3654
Joined: 18 Feb 2013, 11:33
Location: Seattle

Re: Orange is the new President

Post by Painboy » 11 Jul 2018, 17:35

Fin Fang Foom wrote:
11 Jul 2018, 16:56
JasonL wrote:
11 Jul 2018, 16:48
Fin Fang Foom wrote:
11 Jul 2018, 16:46
I'm not sure why we all want use of military force to be an easy and quick policy option for everyone. It's certainly not a good thing when we do it.
It had better be at least as quick and easy as it is for the people knocking on your door. Other views are simply naive.
This is how WWI started.
And there's no difference between now and then? Historical parallels are nice but you have to take in account the differences as well as the similarities. The current cause for concern is essentially binary. We're not talking about obscure entangling alliances. It's NATO v Russia.

User avatar
Fin Fang Foom
Posts: 9539
Joined: 05 May 2010, 22:39

Re: Orange is the new President

Post by Fin Fang Foom » 11 Jul 2018, 17:37

Painboy wrote:
11 Jul 2018, 17:35
Fin Fang Foom wrote:
11 Jul 2018, 16:56
JasonL wrote:
11 Jul 2018, 16:48
Fin Fang Foom wrote:
11 Jul 2018, 16:46
I'm not sure why we all want use of military force to be an easy and quick policy option for everyone. It's certainly not a good thing when we do it.
It had better be at least as quick and easy as it is for the people knocking on your door. Other views are simply naive.
This is how WWI started.
And there's no difference between now and then? Historical parallels are nice but you have to take in account the differences as well as the similarities. The current cause for concern is essentially binary. We're not talking about obscure entangling alliances. It's NATO v Russia.
Yes, the difference now is that if Russia feels threatened war isn't unstoppable because the troop trains have left for the front and the dying starts in ten hours, it's unstoppable because the missiles have left their silos and the dying is over in fifty minutes.

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 12224
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Orange is the new President

Post by Eric the .5b » 11 Jul 2018, 18:19

Highway wrote:
11 Jul 2018, 12:36
Cause a bunch of Euro countries with too much army sitting around has never turned out bad in the past. Right?
If they manage to stay united under one military alliance, it's not as scary. It's when they start Great Powering at each other than the wars start.

As much as we worry about Russia and confrontations with it, Europeans shooting at Europeans is the thing that tends to start big, unpredictable messes that fuck the world over, going by the last 200+ years.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
"Cyberpunk never really gave the government enough credit for their ability to secure a favorable prenup during the Corporate-State wedding." - Shem

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 12224
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Orange is the new President

Post by Eric the .5b » 11 Jul 2018, 18:24

thoreau wrote:
11 Jul 2018, 16:59
Use of some amount of force for some amount of time had better be as quick and easy as it is for the people knocking on your door.

Punching back at the guy knocking on your door doesn't necessarily require the same resources as knocking on somebody else's door.
Yup. That being said, NATO, outside of the US is mostly oriented toward the first job (with a dubious degree of effectiveness) and mostly useless at the second job, particularly without assistance. That's why they pulled the US into things like Libya.
Last edited by Eric the .5b on 11 Jul 2018, 18:27, edited 1 time in total.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
"Cyberpunk never really gave the government enough credit for their ability to secure a favorable prenup during the Corporate-State wedding." - Shem

User avatar
Painboy
Posts: 3654
Joined: 18 Feb 2013, 11:33
Location: Seattle

Re: Orange is the new President

Post by Painboy » 11 Jul 2018, 18:26

Fin Fang Foom wrote:
11 Jul 2018, 17:37
Painboy wrote:
11 Jul 2018, 17:35
Fin Fang Foom wrote:
11 Jul 2018, 16:56
JasonL wrote:
11 Jul 2018, 16:48
Fin Fang Foom wrote:
11 Jul 2018, 16:46
I'm not sure why we all want use of military force to be an easy and quick policy option for everyone. It's certainly not a good thing when we do it.
It had better be at least as quick and easy as it is for the people knocking on your door. Other views are simply naive.
This is how WWI started.
And there's no difference between now and then? Historical parallels are nice but you have to take in account the differences as well as the similarities. The current cause for concern is essentially binary. We're not talking about obscure entangling alliances. It's NATO v Russia.
Yes, the difference now is that if Russia feels threatened war isn't unstoppable because the troop trains have left for the front and the dying starts in ten hours, it's unstoppable because the missiles have left their silos and the dying is over in fifty minutes.
MAD works as well now as it ever did. No one's going to start throwing nukes around.

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 12224
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Orange is the new President

Post by Eric the .5b » 11 Jul 2018, 18:33

Painboy wrote:
11 Jul 2018, 18:26
Fin Fang Foom wrote:
11 Jul 2018, 17:37
Painboy wrote:
11 Jul 2018, 17:35
Fin Fang Foom wrote:
11 Jul 2018, 16:56
JasonL wrote:
11 Jul 2018, 16:48
Fin Fang Foom wrote:
11 Jul 2018, 16:46
I'm not sure why we all want use of military force to be an easy and quick policy option for everyone. It's certainly not a good thing when we do it.
It had better be at least as quick and easy as it is for the people knocking on your door. Other views are simply naive.
This is how WWI started.
And there's no difference between now and then? Historical parallels are nice but you have to take in account the differences as well as the similarities. The current cause for concern is essentially binary. We're not talking about obscure entangling alliances. It's NATO v Russia.
Yes, the difference now is that if Russia feels threatened war isn't unstoppable because the troop trains have left for the front and the dying starts in ten hours, it's unstoppable because the missiles have left their silos and the dying is over in fifty minutes.
MAD works as well now as it ever did. No one's going to start throwing nukes around.
And it isn't a damn bit different from the status quo and the US throwing the nukes instead of Europe. Or a bunch of non-allied nations throwing nukes.

I've come cross the "an alliance like NATO is no different from the immediate setup for WW1!!!" argument before, and it's brainless. It's one public agreement for mutual defense if attacked by an outside force, not a bunch of secret agreements leading to unpredictable conflicts. Instead of leading rapidly to a super-destructive war, it's helped deter military confrontation with the obvious "outside force" for almost 70 years.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
"Cyberpunk never really gave the government enough credit for their ability to secure a favorable prenup during the Corporate-State wedding." - Shem

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 12224
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Orange is the new President

Post by Eric the .5b » 11 Jul 2018, 18:37

Not, to be sure, that I want the US to be on the hook for Europe's defense or nuclear deterrence. There are just better ways to handle a transition away from managing the bulk of Europe's defense than this.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
"Cyberpunk never really gave the government enough credit for their ability to secure a favorable prenup during the Corporate-State wedding." - Shem

User avatar
Warren
Posts: 24250
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: Orange is the new President

Post by Warren » 11 Jul 2018, 19:07

Aresen wrote:
11 Jul 2018, 16:55
Jake wrote:
11 Jul 2018, 16:41
When I was in the Army and stationed in Germany (2000-2002), we were still preparing for the Soviets to come rolling in from the GDR.
It's 2018 and the situation remains unchanged.
Image
THIS SPACE FOR RENT

User avatar
Fin Fang Foom
Posts: 9539
Joined: 05 May 2010, 22:39

Re: Orange is the new President

Post by Fin Fang Foom » 11 Jul 2018, 19:53

Painboy wrote:
11 Jul 2018, 18:26
Fin Fang Foom wrote:
11 Jul 2018, 17:37
Painboy wrote:
11 Jul 2018, 17:35
Fin Fang Foom wrote:
11 Jul 2018, 16:56
JasonL wrote:
11 Jul 2018, 16:48
Fin Fang Foom wrote:
11 Jul 2018, 16:46
I'm not sure why we all want use of military force to be an easy and quick policy option for everyone. It's certainly not a good thing when we do it.
It had better be at least as quick and easy as it is for the people knocking on your door. Other views are simply naive.
This is how WWI started.
And there's no difference between now and then? Historical parallels are nice but you have to take in account the differences as well as the similarities. The current cause for concern is essentially binary. We're not talking about obscure entangling alliances. It's NATO v Russia.
Yes, the difference now is that if Russia feels threatened war isn't unstoppable because the troop trains have left for the front and the dying starts in ten hours, it's unstoppable because the missiles have left their silos and the dying is over in fifty minutes.
MAD works as well now as it ever did. No one's going to start throwing nukes around.
MAD never worked that well. We or the Russians have gotten very close to launching, where it has been down to judgment calls or last minute IT fixes (literally) that stopped us from shooting.

Even if MAD has been effective so far, it only has to fail once.

Being able to quickly defend the Baltic means being able to quickly attack St. Petersburg.

The closest we've probably ever come to an intentional nuclear war was in Able Archer 83. That was a gigantic NATO exercise that looked exactly like an attack on the Soviet Union would. The Soviets were damn scared that we were gonna go for it, but held off.

Being able to defend the Baltics quickly and effectively would look be for Russia like seeing a constant Able Archer, with training exercises looking like it's actually going off. We should not count on the Russians knowing we are just playing.

The WWI analogy doesn't have anything to do with alliances, it has to do with being able to pull back once committed. At the beginning of the war, once troops were headed to the front , there wasn't any means to recall them. The Great Powers had been in an arms race, and the ability to win was thought to be based on moving quickly. They didn't really have a means of quickly stopping them from engaging the enemy once deployed. Once fighting has started it is hard to stop.

Here, where the militaries would be close to one another, they are going to need to act quickly if they believe they are under attack. Here forces will be engaged so quickly that neither side nay be willing or able to pull back.

A Six Day War by mistake scenario is likely . There the Arab States were going to attack Israel. Israel has little space to trade for time , and when they figured it out, they decided to go on the offense, maybe less than 24 hours before being attacked. Russia could easily mistake preparation for an exercise as preparation for an attack.

And while obviously Russia has more strategic depth than Israel, St. Petersburg doesn't, and neither does it's sub fleet up in Murmansk.

Further, with us being so close to Russia, MAD may no longer work. We can put three reMIRVed Ohio class subs in the Gulf of Finland and destroy their command and control. To be able to attack us back, they would be more likely to slip more control of nukes to local commanders, which would likely lead to more chances for a fuckup and an accident or a launch or even a General Ripper situation.

Now we are already pretty far along in threatening Russia this way. The Baltic states are part of NATO. We have a bunch of forward deployed USMC stuff in Norway, we've even done military exercises with Finland recently. We are up in Russia's business.

But we don't need to get any further up in it, and Russia has acted pretty much as has been predicted. They have always wanted a buffer between themselves and Western Europe. If the Baltics hadn't moved so decisively to the West while Russia was in disarray, they might have gotten the same treatment as Ukraine. Ukraine got hit because it was moving decisively into the Europe column. It looks like it still will move that way.

Do we want to attack? I don't think so. But why did we attack Iraq? Why are there senators who would attack NoKo and Iran tomorrow? John Bolton somehow gets work.

And don't count on Russia really knowing that we wouldn't really want war. In Able Archer, Eastern Bloc spies in the West didn't think an attack likely, but they weren't being allowed to pass that up the chain. It looks like there was paranoid groupthink in the Kremlin that almost won the day.

In 2021 in the middle of the night when some Marines on maneuvers in Estonia are fucking around in a zodiac boat in Lake Peipus, when the Russian border unit reports it up the chain, some slow general decides it needs to go all the way to the top, where maybe a RyanAir flight has gotten shot down over the Black Sea in circumstances similar to Iran Air 655 a week earlier and President 46 has been throwing some hot rhetoric, do you want Putin woken up in the middle of the night knowing that he could be the next up for a bayonet enema? A little paranoia in that situation would go a long way to starting a very nasty hot war.

User avatar
Aresen
Posts: 14362
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 20:18
Location: Great White Pacific Northwest

Re: Orange is the new President

Post by Aresen » 11 Jul 2018, 20:07

Fin Fang Foom wrote:
11 Jul 2018, 19:53
The WWI analogy doesn't have anything to do with alliances, it has to do with being able to pull back once committed. At the beginning of the war, once troops were headed to the front , there wasn't any means to recall them. The Great Powers had been in an arms race, and the ability to win was thought to be based on moving quickly. They didn't really have a means of quickly stopping them from engaging the enemy once deployed. Once fighting has started it is hard to stop.
In the early fighting, that may have been true, but after the First Battle of the Marne, there was a stalemate in the West. Both sides fell into the 'sunk cost' fallacy: 'We've put so much into destroying les Boches/Frogs/English Swine that we can't give up now. Push harder.' There was plenty of time after that to reconsider and stand down, even though they did not.

With nukes, it is over even before you've been hit.
If Trump supporters wanted a tough guy, why did they elect such a whiny bitch? - Mo

Those who know history are doomed to deja vu. - the innominate one

Never bring a knife to a joke fight" - dhex

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 12224
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Orange is the new President

Post by Eric the .5b » 11 Jul 2018, 20:29

Fin Fang Foom wrote:
11 Jul 2018, 19:53
The closest we've probably ever come to an intentional nuclear war was in Able Archer 83. That was a gigantic NATO exercise that looked exactly like an attack on the Soviet Union would. The Soviets were damn scared that we were gonna go for it, but held off.
One of the times we were closest. And it involved, like most of the others, a dangerous lack of communication between Moscow and DC—and even then, it went down without a war Nowadays, I think Thoreau will tell us that there's plenty of communication and coordination, there.
Fin Fang Foom wrote:
11 Jul 2018, 19:53
The WWI analogy doesn't have anything to do with alliances, it has to do with being able to pull back once committed.
Commitment is definitionally when you can't pull back. That's why the USSR went with Perimeter, because they wanted an option other than "fire all the missiles at first sign of a possible attack". (Or at least they wanted to calm down generals who thought the US would one-shot them without answer.) It's an interesting question whether Perimeter still works; Russia claims it does, but who knows? Given the problems and expenses the US has had in keeping our nukes working and operational without having our regime and empire collapse, I wouldn't be surprised if Russian nuclear capabilities across the board were less than advertised.

As for the Baltics in specific, what's their alternative to allies who could actually respond usefully if their revanchist neighbor made a play for taking them back? An obvious one to me is borrowing a leaf from, well, Israel, and covertly developing a nuclear arsenal. And then they're back to MAD.

I want to slash away the bulk of the US military, and I'm totally for making offensive wars difficult...but we have oceans and friendly neighbors, not hostile military powers who drove tanks through our streets a few times in the last three decades. When you have enemies, the alternative to a military defense is not shrugging and saying, "Well, we just won't have wars, that's all."
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
"Cyberpunk never really gave the government enough credit for their ability to secure a favorable prenup during the Corporate-State wedding." - Shem

User avatar
Fin Fang Foom
Posts: 9539
Joined: 05 May 2010, 22:39

Re: Orange is the new President

Post by Fin Fang Foom » 11 Jul 2018, 20:43

I don't think the Baltic have much an alternative to getting conquered, other than fighting a guerilla war. The Russians may not have the stomach for that. Russia is also an export economy, and things could be made very rough at home by extensive sanctions on everyone. Also, while they have messed with our elections and hacked us pretty badly, I am under the impression that our cyberwarfare capabilities are in the lead with respect to offense. We might just wipe out their bank accounts.

As to one of the countries developing nuclear weapons on the dl, I don't know that that would be possible for a long time. Israel had France's help. Further, developing nukes seems like a suckers bet anyways. It might be good for a dictator who will otherwise die violently , but it isn't so good for a country, at least when they can only ever act like a madman to be "credible" with them.

User avatar
Fin Fang Foom
Posts: 9539
Joined: 05 May 2010, 22:39

Re: Orange is the new President

Post by Fin Fang Foom » 11 Jul 2018, 21:01

I kinda wonder if it would be feasible for the U.S. to torpedo Russia's economy by allowing if not subsidizing LNG sales to Europe.

User avatar
Jake
Posts: 2573
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 18:38

Re: Orange is the new President

Post by Jake » 11 Jul 2018, 21:03

So what happens if we invite Russia to join NATO? Something bad, I assume? I don't know enough about the topic to identify what the likely bad thing would be.
"TIL that it's genetically impossible for whales to have evolved from leg-having ancestors, millions of scientists are signing a petition to stop the teaching of evolution and evolution isn't real because Nazis wanted to kill all the Jews. Alternately, I met a moron at the museum." -- TIO

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 12224
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Orange is the new President

Post by Eric the .5b » 11 Jul 2018, 21:10

Fin Fang Foom wrote:
11 Jul 2018, 20:43
I don't think the Baltic have much an alternative to getting conquered, other than fighting a guerilla war. The Russians may not have the stomach for that.
Having allies is another option, and the one they're taking. As for the Russian government's stomach for dealing with a backyard guerrilla war, ask the Chechens.

How likely are "extensive sanctions [by] everyone", particularly their biggest trading partners? How many times have we see sanctions go for years to no real change in a country's policies, much less their abandoning conquered territory?
Fin Fang Foom wrote:
11 Jul 2018, 20:43
As to one of the countries developing nuclear weapons on the dl, I don't know that that would be possible for a long time. Israel had France's help.
I suspect some nuclear powers might be willing to lend them a hand. And while you might consider it a sucker's bet, many people don't.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
"Cyberpunk never really gave the government enough credit for their ability to secure a favorable prenup during the Corporate-State wedding." - Shem

User avatar
Aresen
Posts: 14362
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 20:18
Location: Great White Pacific Northwest

Re: Orange is the new President

Post by Aresen » 11 Jul 2018, 21:28

Jake wrote:
11 Jul 2018, 21:03
So what happens if we invite Russia to join NATO? Something bad, I assume? I don't know enough about the topic to identify what the likely bad thing would be.
It was considered in the 1990s. I can't remember who balked.

*****
Overall, I really consider a massive Russian invasion of Western Europe unlikely. The (apparent) Putin Doctrine - any place with more than 20% ethnic Russians is properly part of Russia - applies to a few areas of Eastern Europe. The Baltic states are definitely at risk, but I doubt the Russians have any interest in anything west of Gdansk.

The question is: How much is NATO prepared to risk for Vilnius? And how much is Putin willing to risk for it?
If Trump supporters wanted a tough guy, why did they elect such a whiny bitch? - Mo

Those who know history are doomed to deja vu. - the innominate one

Never bring a knife to a joke fight" - dhex

User avatar
Shem
Posts: 7134
Joined: 27 Apr 2010, 00:27

Re: Orange is the new President

Post by Shem » 12 Jul 2018, 01:35

Fin Fang Foom wrote:
11 Jul 2018, 20:43
I don't think the Baltic have much an alternative to getting conquered, other than fighting a guerilla war.
The Finns did OK for themselves.
Jake wrote:
11 Jul 2018, 21:03
So what happens if we invite Russia to join NATO? Something bad, I assume? I don't know enough about the topic to identify what the likely bad thing would be.
It was discussed after the end of the Cold War. The proto-neocons quashed it. I think it was a missed opportunity, personally. Wouldn't work now.
"VOTE SHEMOCRACY! You will only have to do it once!" -Loyalty Officer Aresen

User avatar
Mo
Posts: 22843
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:08

Re: Orange is the new President

Post by Mo » 12 Jul 2018, 09:06

Oh boy, now Trump wants to redesign AF1's paint job. I'm sure it will have the same understated classiness of all of his other projects.
his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

no one ever yells worldstar when a pet gets fucked up - dhex

User avatar
Aresen
Posts: 14362
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 20:18
Location: Great White Pacific Northwest

Re: Orange is the new President

Post by Aresen » 12 Jul 2018, 10:16

I wonder what effect this will have on DJT's twitter numbers:

Battling Fake Accounts, Twitter to Slash Millions of Followers
Twitter will begin removing tens of millions of suspicious accounts from users’ followers on Thursday, signaling a major new effort to restore trust on the popular but embattled platform.

The reform takes aim at a pervasive form of social media fraud. Many users have inflated their followers on Twitter or other services with automated or fake accounts, buying the appearance of social influence to bolster their political activism, business endeavors or entertainment careers.
If Trump supporters wanted a tough guy, why did they elect such a whiny bitch? - Mo

Those who know history are doomed to deja vu. - the innominate one

Never bring a knife to a joke fight" - dhex

User avatar
Aresen
Posts: 14362
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 20:18
Location: Great White Pacific Northwest

Re: Orange is the new President

Post by Aresen » 12 Jul 2018, 10:16

Mo wrote:
12 Jul 2018, 09:06
Oh boy, now Trump wants to redesign AF1's paint job. I'm sure it will have the same understated classiness of all of his other projects.
Orange would make it much easier to spot.
If Trump supporters wanted a tough guy, why did they elect such a whiny bitch? - Mo

Those who know history are doomed to deja vu. - the innominate one

Never bring a knife to a joke fight" - dhex

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests