>>...but starting a pointless unnecessary trade war with them is, in fact, stupid and costly.

We'll see. Didn't China just offer to buy in extra $10B soy beans per annum? Oh, the horror.

>>I agree that he doesn't want to take any dictators out -- he wants to join their club and be one with unchecked power and control of the press. He wants to be praised blindly by the people like Kim is and kill journalists who write disapproving stories about him like the other dictators. He want's to be part of that high-fives between Putin and the Saudi Crown Prince. Soo...while Kim may have nothing to worry about as far as Trump goes -- Kim also understands that we get a new president every few years and that many have a track record of taking out dictators like Qaddafi and Saddam. He's not going to drop is guard and give up his nukes - now or ever.

This is a ridiculous rant. Why would you care if Kim and Trump end up buddies watching Westerns together if it ends 50 years of stalemate and the threat of nuclear war as recently as 2017? This blinded by hatred stuff is pretty ugly.

>>Suppressing free press is 'how ALL dictators get started -ALL OF THEM remember it does't happen overnight. Trump has a real problem with the press -- hell he can't even handle comedians! Look at what he did last week after the Saturday Night Live episode... here is the exact quote:

You've changed "attack" to "suppress" which is closer to the truth, but still wrong. It *does* happen overnight. A dictator would have disappeared the editor and two or three of the most vicious actors overnight and put thugs into the studio to encourage the rest. As I said earlier, Trump's inability even to keep a stroppy CNN boor out of his personal residence, makes the comparison laughable.

>>1. Called NBC 'fake news'...another attack on the free press.
>>2. 'without retribution" -- ok what exactly is that supposed to mean here? That there should be some sort of 'retribution' now for telling jokes in the USA - land of free speech??? Plus in the process here he's no doubt put Alex Baldwin and his family in danger.

You may immediately assume he's saying he wants dictator powers to "get" them. Others may think he's referring to the 1964 NYT vs Sullivan decision that gives the MSM almost unlimited power to defame public figures, which more than a few think now is being abused to pursue partisan politics. Certainly if SNL were as defamatory about a private person, they could expect to be sued- as WAPO just found out when sued by a schoolboy for hundreds of $M for their coverage of the Native American racist hoax. Whereas they can go after Trump and Republicans (but never leftist saints) with impunity and no pretense of holding to account, only gratuitous insult. Do not be surprised if this misused privilege is moderated by SCOTUS during 45's term. Of course leftists will scream that it's a free speech violation, but it's a free speech violation entrenched by an earlier SCOTUS at a time when the MSM still believed you're supposed to be neutral and was presumed to be a pillar of democracy.

>>3. "how do the networks get away with..." -- soo uhhh questioning how the networks get away with free speech??!!! in the USA!!?? OMG.

Free speech doesn't give you or the MSM the right to defame others at will. They get away with it re Trump because of that decision from less partisan days. Trump's viewpoint is that the increasingly leftist media now uses this as a tool to create a one-sided vicious narrative. I'm not sure he needs to worry- every poll suggests that reasonable US citizens see what the MSM is doing.

>>4. The 'real collusion" that should be "looked into" ??? So WTF there should be some sort of investigation into the SNL staff writers to determine if they're working with the democrats or something? Like what the hell is he talking about?

Perhaps he's referring to the Democrat collusion with Russians and other foreigners to create the pee pee dossier to imply that Trump is guilty of collusion, which you now believe fervently?

>>Keep in mind that this is just ONE of a zillion examples I'm talking about here -- I could go on and on for hours if not days giving examples just like this -- some much worse.
>>...dude these are all signs of fascist dictator -- and as we all know from world history classes that fascism happens over a period of time - and this is that exact carbon-copy of how it all gets started.

You need to get away from this increasingly irrational narrative that intends to make you unhappy.

>>And lets not forget that he is undoubtedly a criminal - and won an election that was tampered with by the Russians with the assistance of his campaign and possibly himself. He has zero business being our leader.

Mueller has investigated this for 2 years, so if you're correct then you need only wait.

>>The only sympathy I actually have for this guy is that he's basically just a giant man-baby with the mental capacity of about a 12 year old -- so busting him is gonna be kinda like arresting a child...should it ever get to that point....so in a way I will feel sorry for him as he won't be able to understand exactly what's happening to him.

What if Mueller says no evidence of collusion or conspiracy? Will you eagerly shift allegiance to the Schiff hoax extension or will you wonder who was so vicious as to mislead you and millions of others to fill your life with hate for 2 years?