Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 SkavenLord wrote:
In other news, it would appear a summit is fast approaching: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jun/28/donald-trump-and-vladimir-putin-to-hold-summit-helsinki-in-july
Expected outcomes? Desired outcomes?

Trump will tell Putin he will withdraw from NATO so he can get his 'atta boy' head pats from his idol.

 SkavenLord wrote:
In other news, it would appear a summit is fast approaching: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jun/28/donald-trump-and-vladimir-putin-to-hold-summit-helsinki-in-july
Expected outcomes? Desired outcomes?

Desired outcome? Trump and Putin get along really well and put an end to the now 101-year old enmity between Russia and the US. Russia and the US then team up to fight global terrorism and solve world problems, becoming best friends forever in the process. The world enters a new era of peace and prosperity for all.
Expected outcome? Trump kisses Putin's ass, both of them blow a lot of hot air over the need for cooperation and better relations, and then they go back home and nothing changes. Trump will alternate between though talk and sweet talk on Russia depending on what is politically convenient for him, which will really confuse the Kremlin who may or may not start to believe Trump is a secret master of maskirovka.

 feeder wrote:

 SkavenLord wrote:
In other news, it would appear a summit is fast approaching: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jun/28/donald-trump-and-vladimir-putin-to-hold-summit-helsinki-in-july
Expected outcomes? Desired outcomes?

Trump will tell Putin he will withdraw from NATO so he can get his 'atta boy' head pats from his idol.

Disbanding NATO would be an important step in permanently improving relations...

 Supertony51 wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 feeder wrote:

Are you aware that this automatic detention policy has been applied to families that attempted to enter the country by legal asylum means? Not all families effected by this new Trump admin policy are border-jumpers.

You know I keep telling them that, but all we hear us 'But, Illegals!'

*sigh*

I've had this nagging feeling all day that I should get on the first plane to anywhere as something has just gone sideways spectacularly and minimum safe distance is, about, say, Europe. It's just a nagging feeling, and it might be nothing, but I think it's something. The last time I had this feeling it was the kickoff of the Syrian civil war, so that should give you an idea of how bad whatever this is, is.

End of the day Republican supporters are a minority of the population and a shrinking demographic. It will get better.

Hate ot burst your bubble, but Generation Z is turning out to be the most conservative generation in decades.

As the Democrats keep moving to the left, they will alienate those center left democrats they count on to win elections ala PA, MI, WI.

Even taken at face value (others have gone into that already) this reinforces what I said--Gen Z trending away from the GOP and towards conservative values. Also Dems have barely budged, they just SEEM to have gone left because the GOP went right so hard so fast that they left the track entirely and now are drifting off in whatever political angle we decide to quantify them as (it certainly isn't conservative).

Further, the GOP rates among males, whites, and the elderly. Women are trending towards greater political activism, whites are a shrinking demographic, and the elderly are going to have a big problem once they try to retire and realize the GOP is anti-benefit. And everyone short of the tiny minority that is wealthy will be really angry at Republicans in the next economic downturn since anti-benefit and anti-wages can barely be sold when people actually have jobs.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Desired outcome? Trump and Putin get along really well and put an end to the now 101-year old enmity between Russia and the US. Russia and the US then team up to fight global terrorism and solve world problems, becoming best friends forever in the process. The world enters a new era of peace and prosperity for all..

I don't know that it's fair to call it a 101 year old enmity. There was a point in my lifetime when relations were quite good, during the 90s at least. I think things really started getting off-track with Putin although there wasn't one single moment you can point to and say it was a tipping point.

I thought it was outlandish when Mitt Romney was saying Russia was one of the greatest enemies the US had and I don't think I was alone in that sentiment; it felt like outdated, cold war era nonsense. He was ahead of his time, turns out. I think he might have been the first prominent politician to lay out the new reality.

 Supertony51 wrote:

Heres another study, the info is analyzed by a conservative organization, but from what I can tell, the survey data is solid.

https://hispanicheritage.org/50000-generation-z-high-school-students-identify-republican/

Look, I found an article that says the exact opposite: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/02/the-post-millennials-should-scare-the-hell-out-of-the-gop.html

Also, did you read the article you linked? Because those results seem to skew pretty Democratic to me. Anti-Clinton yes, but pro-Dem by a large margin. Approval of Obama is high, disapproval of the direction the country is going also high.

 Ouze wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Desired outcome? Trump and Putin get along really well and put an end to the now 101-year old enmity between Russia and the US. Russia and the US then team up to fight global terrorism and solve world problems, becoming best friends forever in the process. The world enters a new era of peace and prosperity for all..

I don't know that it's fair to call it a 101 year old enmity. There was a point in my lifetime when relations were quite good, during the 90s at least. I think things really started getting off-track with Putin although there wasn't one single moment you can point to and say it was a tipping point.

I thought it was outlandish when Mitt Romney was saying Russia was one of the greatest enemies the US had and I don't think I was alone in that sentiment; it felt like outdated, cold war era nonsense. He was ahead of his time, turns out. I think he might have been the first prominent politician to lay out the new reality.

You're not the first person I've heard make that exact statement about Romney. He definitely saw the writing on the wall.

 djones520 wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Desired outcome? Trump and Putin get along really well and put an end to the now 101-year old enmity between Russia and the US. Russia and the US then team up to fight global terrorism and solve world problems, becoming best friends forever in the process. The world enters a new era of peace and prosperity for all..

I don't know that it's fair to call it a 101 year old enmity. There was a point in my lifetime when relations were quite good, during the 90s at least. I think things really started getting off-track with Putin although there wasn't one single moment you can point to and say it was a tipping point.

I thought it was outlandish when Mitt Romney was saying Russia was one of the greatest enemies the US had and I don't think I was alone in that sentiment; it felt like outdated, cold war era nonsense. He was ahead of his time, turns out. I think he might have been the first prominent politician to lay out the new reality.

You're not the first person I've heard make that exact statement about Romney. He definitely saw the writing on the wall.

C'mon guys.... the 80's called and want their foreign policy back!

 djones520 wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Desired outcome? Trump and Putin get along really well and put an end to the now 101-year old enmity between Russia and the US. Russia and the US then team up to fight global terrorism and solve world problems, becoming best friends forever in the process. The world enters a new era of peace and prosperity for all..

I don't know that it's fair to call it a 101 year old enmity. There was a point in my lifetime when relations were quite good, during the 90s at least. I think things really started getting off-track with Putin although there wasn't one single moment you can point to and say it was a tipping point.

I thought it was outlandish when Mitt Romney was saying Russia was one of the greatest enemies the US had and I don't think I was alone in that sentiment; it felt like outdated, cold war era nonsense. He was ahead of his time, turns out. I think he might have been the first prominent politician to lay out the new reality.

You're not the first person I've heard make that exact statement about Romney. He definitely saw the writing on the wall.

Obama was a solid domestic president but I find that he was weak on foreign affairs.

And before it's said, yes I know he was still better than Bush.

 Supertony51 wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 Supertony51 wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 Supertony51 wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 feeder wrote:

Are you aware that this automatic detention policy has been applied to families that attempted to enter the country by legal asylum means? Not all families effected by this new Trump admin policy are border-jumpers.

You know I keep telling them that, but all we hear us 'But, Illegals!'

*sigh*

I've had this nagging feeling all day that I should get on the first plane to anywhere as something has just gone sideways spectacularly and minimum safe distance is, about, say, Europe. It's just a nagging feeling, and it might be nothing, but I think it's something. The last time I had this feeling it was the kickoff of the Syrian civil war, so that should give you an idea of how bad whatever this is, is.

End of the day Republican supporters are a minority of the population and a shrinking demographic. It will get better.

Hate ot burst your bubble, but Generation Z is turning out to be the most conservative generation in decades.

As the Democrats keep moving to the left, they will alienate those center left democrats they count on to win elections ala PA, MI, WI.

See I looked that up, and you aren't really telling the whole truth there buddy

Granted this is a OP-ED, the information referenced is valid

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ashleystahl/2017/08/11/why-democrats-should-be-losing-sleep-over-generation-z/#60f0f4ac7878




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ustrello wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
We should also remember the everpresent “conservative =/= Republican” argument.

I’m pretty conservative in many ways, registered Indepentent, and frequently vote Democrat.

Looking at voter registrations and exit polls for the folks born after the mid-90s says a lot more about surveys asking the if they self identify as conservative or liberal.

One thing SuperTony left out was the fact that gen Z believe heavily in things that are non-starters for the current GOP, making it extremely unlikely that they would get any votes from gen Z

From what ive read, GEN Z is both socially and fiscally more conservative.

Besides, things like Gay marriage, aren't a big issue for mainstream conservatives.

Still wrong there, or is the GOP all of a sudden in favor of pot legalization, and gun control? Also yes gay marriage is still a big issue for republican voters since they are trying to pass laws to limit it in one form or another as seen by the recent supreme court ruling and the crop of anti-gay signage etc.

I can't speak for the GOP or all conservatives, but most conservatives I know (18-30), myself included, take a more libertarian approach regarding Pot, and gay marriage. furthermore every study I've seen, on issues important to Gen Zer's, show maintaining gun rights as a top 5 issue. From everything I've read, Gen Z certainly isn't in favor of additional gun control.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Heres another study, the info is analyzed by a conservative organization, but from what I can tell, the survey data is solid.

https://hispanicheritage.org/50000-generation-z-high-school-students-identify-republican/

The only problem is that with this 'generation z', you are talking mostly about young kids and maybe some young adults. Young people, kids especially, change their opinions a lot, sometimes quite drastically (like I have a friend who went from being a huge fan of communism to being a total fascist to being a staunch monarchist all in the span of a single month). I also find my own political viewpoints shift quite frequently. So I would say that if the people of my age and just below that (18-14) that I know are any indication, than any poll on the opinions of this generation is completely unreliable. Sure, they may be republicans today, but they will be democrats tomorrow, then full-blown commies the day after tomorrow and tea party supporters the day after that. Political views generally don't become entrenched until much later in life, if the little psychology that I know is any indication.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Desired outcome? Trump and Putin get along really well and put an end to the now 101-year old enmity between Russia and the US. Russia and the US then team up to fight global terrorism and solve world problems, becoming best friends forever in the process. The world enters a new era of peace and prosperity for all..

I don't know that it's fair to call it a 101 year old enmity. There was a point in my lifetime when relations were quite good, during the 90s at least. I think things really started getting off-track with Putin although there wasn't one single moment you can point to and say it was a tipping point.

I thought it was outlandish when Mitt Romney was saying Russia was one of the greatest enemies the US had and I don't think I was alone in that sentiment; it felt like outdated, cold war era nonsense. He was ahead of his time, turns out. I think he might have been the first prominent politician to lay out the new reality.

You're not the first person I've heard make that exact statement about Romney. He definitely saw the writing on the wall.

Obama was a solid domestic president but I find that he was weak on foreign affairs.

And before it's said, yes I know he was still better than Bush.

I'm not going to agree on that. Bush knew how to draw that line in the sand and back it up. Was he ill advised to go into Iraq? That's for historians to debate. But when the rest of the world saw that happen, they knew he wasn't going to back down.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Obama was a solid domestic president but I find that he was weak on foreign affairs.

I'm not 100% sure he was that great on domestic either. His hopelessly naive view of GOP obstructionism meant that a majority in the house and senate was all but squandered.

I guess I'm saying that with the benefit of hindsight, but I think it was clear how it was by the time the Merrick Garland situation unfolded, and still he essentially rolled over when he could have been using the bully pulpit each and every night remaining to him.

 djones520 wrote:
I'm not going to agree on that. Bush knew how to draw that line in the sand and back it up. Was he ill advised to go into Iraq? That's for historians to debate.

is it? Is it, though? Even in 2003 that intel was real, real lousy; and it's not like the invasion was exactly full of bright ideas once underway: firing the Iraqi army for example, letting the museums be looted while guarding oil rigs, etc etc.

I think Bush's biggest shortcoming was that he prized loyalty above all other qualities, including basic competence, and that was a mistake. He also wasn't super great on messaging: for example, the overflight of New Orleans without landing made perfect sense when explained, but it wasn't explained until much later and the optics were just terrible.

Still better than Trump though, obviously. I long for the days of guys who were just kind of bad at their job, like Michael Brown, as opposed to lowlife grifters trying to score free mattresses.

 djones520 wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Desired outcome? Trump and Putin get along really well and put an end to the now 101-year old enmity between Russia and the US. Russia and the US then team up to fight global terrorism and solve world problems, becoming best friends forever in the process. The world enters a new era of peace and prosperity for all..

I don't know that it's fair to call it a 101 year old enmity. There was a point in my lifetime when relations were quite good, during the 90s at least. I think things really started getting off-track with Putin although there wasn't one single moment you can point to and say it was a tipping point.

I thought it was outlandish when Mitt Romney was saying Russia was one of the greatest enemies the US had and I don't think I was alone in that sentiment; it felt like outdated, cold war era nonsense. He was ahead of his time, turns out. I think he might have been the first prominent politician to lay out the new reality.

You're not the first person I've heard make that exact statement about Romney. He definitely saw the writing on the wall.

Obama was a solid domestic president but I find that he was weak on foreign affairs.

And before it's said, yes I know he was still better than Bush.

Was he ill advised to go into Iraq? That's for historians to debate.

Yes, it was ill advised.

 Ouze wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Desired outcome? Trump and Putin get along really well and put an end to the now 101-year old enmity between Russia and the US. Russia and the US then team up to fight global terrorism and solve world problems, becoming best friends forever in the process. The world enters a new era of peace and prosperity for all..

I don't know that it's fair to call it a 101 year old enmity. There was a point in my lifetime when relations were quite good, during the 90s at least. I think things really started getting off-track with Putin although there wasn't one single moment you can point to and say it was a tipping point.

I thought it was outlandish when Mitt Romney was saying Russia was one of the greatest enemies the US had and I don't think I was alone in that sentiment; it felt like outdated, cold war era nonsense. He was ahead of his time, turns out. I think he might have been the first prominent politician to lay out the new reality.

Putin actually loved the US. He was incredibly pro-American (especially for Russian standards) during the first years of his presidency. Then something happened which changed that. Or actually, it was the sum of a lot of somethings. But mostly it was the so-called 'colour revolutions' in which the US had a hand. That really showed us how the US truly thought about Russia. That was a borderline hostile act, and combined with other constant encroachments in Russia's sphere of influence and attempts to undermine Russia... Yeah, it is not difficult to see where it went wrong.
I do think it is fair to call it a 101-year enmity. It doesn't feel like the American attitude to Russia really changed in the 90's. They were still seen as enemy, like some sort of USSR without communism basically. Mitt Romney, which you bring up, is a perfect example of that.
But still, bad relations between the US and Russia were not inevitable. Far from it. They still are not inevitable. Russia and the US have in fact little real reason to be at each other's throats. Smart politicians should be able to truly reset the relationship. Sadly, Putin has become a hostage of the specter of Russian nationalism and militarism that he unleashed again, while Trump is well... Trump...

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Putin actually loved the US. He was incredibly pro-American (especially for Russian standards) during the first years of his presidency. Then something happened which changed that. Or actually, it was the sum of a lot of somethings. But mostly it was the so-called 'colour revolutions' in which the US had a hand. That really showed us how the US truly thought about Russia. That was a borderline hostile act

Would you expand on this? I'm not familiar with this and the wikipedia article is a little... dense.

 Ouze wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Putin actually loved the US. He was incredibly pro-American (especially for Russian standards) during the first years of his presidency. Then something happened which changed that. Or actually, it was the sum of a lot of somethings. But mostly it was the so-called 'colour revolutions' in which the US had a hand. That really showed us how the US truly thought about Russia. That was a borderline hostile act

Would you expand on this? I'm not familiar with this and the wikipedia article is a little... dense.

It was like the Arab Spring for Russia's sector of the world. We pretty heavily encouraged it.

Fun fact. I was in Kyrgyzstan during the Tulip Revolution portion of this. In Kyrgyzstan, the Russian's kind of owned the government there, and the people didn't like it. So they rose up, and kicked them out. Funnily enough, the people put in to replace them were very soon bought out by the Russians as well. Hence the Rose revolution 5 years later. Russia has since bought those people out as well.

 Ouze wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Obama was a solid domestic president but I find that he was weak on foreign affairs.

I'm not 100% sure he was that great on domestic either. His hopelessly naive view of GOP obstructionism meant that a majority in the house and senate was all but squandered.

I guess I'm saying that with the benefit of hindsight, but I think it was clear how it was by the time the Merrick Garland situation unfolded, and still he essentially rolled over when he could have been using the bully pulpit each and every night remaining to him.

I agree on the reaction to obstructionism. He tried harder than he should have to compromise with a side that absolutely would not compromise no matter what. He should have seen that with Obamacare and been ready to just hammer the GOP on publicity every time. Call them a do-nothing congress, highlight their refusal to act, make sure as many people as possible know the extent to what's going on (still needs to be done today...). But while I wouldn't say he was a great domestic president I do feel he was a good one. Simply put, the country did well under his administration.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Obama was a solid domestic president but I find that he was weak on foreign affairs.

I'm not 100% sure he was that great on domestic either. His hopelessly naive view of GOP obstructionism meant that a majority in the house and senate was all but squandered.

I guess I'm saying that with the benefit of hindsight, but I think it was clear how it was by the time the Merrick Garland situation unfolded, and still he essentially rolled over when he could have been using the bully pulpit each and every night remaining to him.

I agree on the reaction to obstructionism. He tried harder than he should have to compromise with a side that absolutely would not compromise no matter what.

Yeah... sure... Mr. I Won would totes compromise with the GOP.

He should have seen that with Obamacare and been ready to just hammer the GOP on publicity every time. Call them a do-nothing congress, highlight their refusal to act, make sure as many people as possible know the extent to what's going on (still needs to be done today...).

Um... him, democrats and their media lackeys *did* hammer that point. I'm confused that you would think that this was some subterfuge, "wool over eyes" thing.

But while I wouldn't say he was a great domestic president I do feel he was a good one. Simply put, the country did well under his administration.

Mediocre at best. Democrats in 2009-2010 missed golden opportunities to pass big things.

I don't think Obama was weak on foreign affairs as much as he didn't spend much time on it. He seemed to defer most of the time to his appointees on foreign matters which was a mixed bag depending on who exactly was handling what. I think he scored a lot of points simply by not inserting foot in mouth the way Bush did, but he also wasn't a very active foreign policy president. Probably the only big coup in that arena for him was the Iran Deal which now doesn't exist and was mostly the work of his negotiators taking their own initiative rather than Obama playing an active role.

 LordofHats wrote:
I don't think Obama was weak on foreign affairs as much as he didn't spend much time on it. He seemed to defer most of the time to his appointees on foreign matters which was a mixed bag depending on who exactly was handling what. I think he scored a lot of points simply by not inserting foot in mouth the way Bush did, but he also wasn't a very active foreign policy president. Probably the only big coup in that arena for him was the Iran Deal which now doesn't exist and was mostly the work of his negotiators taking their own initiative rather than Obama playing an active role.

I think that's a fair assessment.

 djones520 wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Putin actually loved the US. He was incredibly pro-American (especially for Russian standards) during the first years of his presidency. Then something happened which changed that. Or actually, it was the sum of a lot of somethings. But mostly it was the so-called 'colour revolutions' in which the US had a hand. That really showed us how the US truly thought about Russia. That was a borderline hostile act

Would you expand on this? I'm not familiar with this and the wikipedia article is a little... dense.

It was like the Arab Spring for Russia's sector of the world. We pretty heavily encouraged it.

Fun fact. I was in Kyrgyzstan during the Tulip Revolution portion of this. In Kyrgyzstan, the Russian's kind of owned the government there, and the people didn't like it. So they rose up, and kicked them out. Funnily enough, the people put in to replace them were very soon bought out by the Russians as well. Hence the Rose revolution 5 years later. Russia has since bought those people out as well.

Pretty much. They were uprisings (mostly peaceful) by pro-Western elements in almost every country of the CIS, aiming to replace pro-Russian regimes with a pro-Western regime. If not outright orchestrated, they were very heavily encouraged and supported by the US. They came at a time when US-Russia relations were pretty good, and Russia was seeking closer cooperation and integration with the West. Basically, there was no real reason for these actions by the US government except to spite Russia and a 'we can do this now so why wouldn't we'-attitude.
It is a good example of US foreign policy at its worst. Both Russia and China were pretty alarmed by it. It is the turning point in the Russian attitude towards the US. Before the colour revolutions, most Russians looked up to the US. After those events, opinion slowly started to shift to the negative. Then on top of that came the whole thing with the US trying to surround Russia with missile defense systems, and yeah, it was pretty clear how the Americans thought about Russia. That realisation was the end of pro-Western Putin and the beginning of nationalist Putin.

 whembly wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Obama was a solid domestic president but I find that he was weak on foreign affairs.

I'm not 100% sure he was that great on domestic either. His hopelessly naive view of GOP obstructionism meant that a majority in the house and senate was all but squandered.

I guess I'm saying that with the benefit of hindsight, but I think it was clear how it was by the time the Merrick Garland situation unfolded, and still he essentially rolled over when he could have been using the bully pulpit each and every night remaining to him.

I agree on the reaction to obstructionism. He tried harder than he should have to compromise with a side that absolutely would not compromise no matter what.

Yeah... sure... Mr. I Won would totes compromise with the GOP.

He should have seen that with Obamacare and been ready to just hammer the GOP on publicity every time. Call them a do-nothing congress, highlight their refusal to act, make sure as many people as possible know the extent to what's going on (still needs to be done today...).

Um... him, democrats and their media lackeys *did* hammer that point. I'm confused that you would think that this was some subterfuge, "wool over eyes" thing.

But while I wouldn't say he was a great domestic president I do feel he was a good one. Simply put, the country did well under his administration.

Mediocre at best. Democrats in 2009-2010 missed golden opportunities to pass big things.

You want to post his exact quote from the article or are you going to keep the awfully paraphrased quote from the article? Mr. I Won? Words that never left his mouth? Really?

 Ouze wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 Mrs. Esterhouse wrote:
Again, criticism of one party is not defense of the other. I said nothing good about the GOP. But ok then. You want to dismiss my opinion as “shallow and wanting to be deep”, I will leave this discussion so you Ivy League philosophers can continue arguing about who’s better than who.

To be clear, I am not criticizing your opinion as shallow.

"Both sides are equally bad" arguments were pretty inane in 2016 but in the middle of 2018 they are just laugh out loud oblivious. If you want to argue you don't like brussel sprouts so it doesn't matter if brussel sprouts or cyanide are served, then expect people to point out that's an inane comparison because, well, it is.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cuda1179 wrote:
Some polls have shown that Orientals are starting to flip at an increasing rate from voting primarily Democratic. Obviously Orientals don't make up a huge demographic, but then again they may not be alone.

I'm not saying you're a racist, but that's an exceedingly depreciated phrase that makes what you said offensive-bordering-on-racist.

You want "Asians", not "Orientals".

Sorry about that. In my defense my town had a big influx of Asians 25 years ago or so. The two families I know on a personal level, and one prefers "oriental" and the other uses that and "Asian" interchangeably.

 djones520 wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Desired outcome? Trump and Putin get along really well and put an end to the now 101-year old enmity between Russia and the US. Russia and the US then team up to fight global terrorism and solve world problems, becoming best friends forever in the process. The world enters a new era of peace and prosperity for all..

I don't know that it's fair to call it a 101 year old enmity. There was a point in my lifetime when relations were quite good, during the 90s at least. I think things really started getting off-track with Putin although there wasn't one single moment you can point to and say it was a tipping point.

I thought it was outlandish when Mitt Romney was saying Russia was one of the greatest enemies the US had and I don't think I was alone in that sentiment; it felt like outdated, cold war era nonsense. He was ahead of his time, turns out. I think he might have been the first prominent politician to lay out the new reality.

You're not the first person I've heard make that exact statement about Romney. He definitely saw the writing on the wall.

Obama was a solid domestic president but I find that he was weak on foreign affairs.

And before it's said, yes I know he was still better than Bush.

I'm not going to agree on that. Bush knew how to draw that line in the sand and back it up. Was he ill advised to go into Iraq? That's for historians to debate. But when the rest of the world saw that happen, they knew he wasn't going to back down.

Its already been extensively debated in about every relevant academic section, yes it was terribly ill advised and negative to the US. Then there is the whole broader argument that Bush's obsession with the War on Terror let important aspects of foreign policy slide that China used to reinforce its position in East Asia. No need to wait on the debate, its been done already.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
You want to post his exact quote from the article or are you going to keep the awfully paraphrased quote from the article? Mr. I Won? Words that never left his mouth? Really?

What's the point of debating with him? He's saying that Obama wouldn't have done anything to compromise with the GOP, which is presumably why the public option is available now, right? He knows what he is saying isn't true. He doesn't care.

Just, for the love of god, put him on ignore. He's shown time and time and time again he has no interest in honest debate, it's just lazy, no-effort feigned obtuseness and bs talking points that are debunked ad nauseum until people get tired of debunking them.

It's been many years and it's not going to change. We can at least stop giving him attention and engagement.

 Xenomancers wrote:

I have no problem with anything that is happening at the boarder in regards to children or families. Unwanted alien invaders will not be treated well. The process will likely be scary - hopefully scary enough to the point they wont try to do it again...(they will try again). Lets get real here...no one is even getting hurt (and anyone that does - it's their fault). Call me an A-Hole but I really don't care - every single parent knows what they are getting into attempting to come here illegally. It is entirely on the criminal here.

"but the kids - they are crying"
Had a 2 kids crying in the new Jurassic park Movie I watched over the weekend. It ruined the whole experience for me. Anyways - sometimes kids cry even when they are at a movie about freaking dinosaurs. Kids cry...It's not the end of the world.

Also lets completely ignore the fact that Dems have done a complete 180 on illegal immigration and these policies were in place under Obama as well. AND trump has put some legislation into place to keep families together during the deportation process.

"Unwanted alien invaders", or legitimate asylum seekers from one of the most violence wracked places in the world? Asylum seeking is NOT illegal.

Apparently you cannot tell the difference between kids crying in a movie theatre and the trauma of being separated from your parents against your will and detained for weeks at a time. Do you have children? Would you be relaxed if someone took them from you for doing something which is your legal right? I must also ask, are you a Christian?

Yeah the "kids cry about inconsequential things therefore all crying is inconsequential" really is a fething awful argument.

It's a syllogism, a very old logical fallacy.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It's a syllogism, a very old logical fallacy.

Yeah, syllogistical fallacies are bad enough, but the context takes it to another level.

So, it seems that Trump's corporations have overlooked buying up the url trumphotels.org, so someone else did.

 Xenomancers wrote:

I have no problem with anything that is happening at the boarder in regards to children or families. Unwanted alien invaders will not be treated well. The process will likely be scary - hopefully scary enough to the point they wont try to do it again...(they will try again). Lets get real here...no one is even getting hurt (and anyone that does - it's their fault). Call me an A-Hole but I really don't care - every single parent knows what they are getting into attempting to come here illegally. It is entirely on the criminal here.

I think it shouldn't go uncommented on that "alien invaders" is a deeply, well, revealing choice of words. He has dehumanised people seeking refuge to the point that not only are they not remotely human and he cares nothing for their fate, he ascribes malicious intent to every single one. He has a perspective wherein one group is under threat from an invading Other and who have chosen not guns and tanks but children as their weapons of displacement. Obviously you need a deterrent to stop this, what form it takes is not important because you aren't dealing with true humans, and since this world view is incapable of understanding why people would make such a harsh journey it will be unable to find a solution. Until only one remains.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

One side is taking children from their parents permanently. If that doesn't make you choose a side, you are the problem. No American should be able to sleep well at night these days, especially if they choose to do nothing rather than to take action against this human rights violation.

So you get to vote for the party that is kidnapping children or for the party that enables the kidnapping of children?

The Democratic Party doesn't even mind deportations. They don't mind building a wall and are happy to use it as a bargaining chip. Give Trump his wall and maybe get something in return. Their main objection here is that this is Too Rude. That it's a crime against humanity isn't a problem for them. Consider how little the Democratic Party cared to stop drone bombings and the orphaning and mutilation of children in the Middle East.

The failing here is thinking that the sides are Democrats vs Republicans. The Democrats are accomplices to the Republicans because they don't fundamentally disagree about what a government and state should be for. The actual sides are fascists vs everyone else. The sooner people understand this, the sooner they will be able to formulate a plan of resistance that could work.