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.

 Frazzled wrote:
Well we can agree to disagree on several of those. Fiorina would be another who...no just no.

I don't see Trump picking Fiorina as DNI.

No way.

I don't think Trump would ever forgive her over the primary smack down...

If he does chose her... the only rationale left is that he's Trolling.

As for his other picks, I'm either 'meh' (carson for HUD), 'right on' (Sessions for AG) or 'orgasmically happy' (mattis for DoD).

I still don't know much about Tiller... I'm not going to be the one who's going to denounce it automatically because he's a CEO of BIG OIL!.

He's CEO of the largest and most successful company in the history of Mankind.

That might qualify him for a few things.

Maybe Trump is hoping Fiorina will bankrupt the CIA, making it so he doesn't have to deal with facts anymore?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
[quote=whembly 698575 9073985 1f3a4541aff816ba5d6eca832e31b5b9.jpgI still don't know much about Tiller... I'm not going to be the one who's going to denounce it automatically because he's a CEO of BIG OIL!.

Wisconsin recertifies Trump win... he actually GAINED additional 131 votes:
http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/completed-wisconsin-recount-widens-donald-trump-s-lead-by-votes/article_3f61c6ac-5b18-5c27-bf38-e537146bbcdd.html

I blame Russia.

 whembly wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Well we can agree to disagree on several of those. Fiorina would be another who...no just no.

I don't see Trump picking Fiorina as DNI.

No way.

I don't think Trump would ever forgive her over the primary smack down...

If he does chose her... the only rationale left is that he's Trolling.

As for his other picks, I'm either 'meh' (carson for HUD), 'right on' (Sessions for AG) or 'orgasmically happy' (mattis for DoD).

I still don't know much about Tiller... I'm not going to be the one who's going to denounce it automatically because he's a CEO of BIG OIL!.

Oh look you actually approve of the racist for AG

His closeness with Russia is a major concern. A bit of a running theme in this administration is seems.
http://money.cnn.com/2016/12/11/investing/rex-tillerson-exxon-russia-putin/

Lets look at that directly. Lets say Trump is secretly Putin's bed buddy.

And where's the down side? Post are on here about saber rattling with China. Whats wrong with having better relations? What exactly is the downside?

Syria remains with Assad? Thats highly certain already.
What else?

Inversely, lets say Trump suddenly had dinner with the Chinese premier and decided to be best bus internationally with them. What is the downside for the US?

 Ustrello wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Well we can agree to disagree on several of those. Fiorina would be another who...no just no.

I don't see Trump picking Fiorina as DNI.

No way.

I don't think Trump would ever forgive her over the primary smack down...

If he does chose her... the only rationale left is that he's Trolling.

As for his other picks, I'm either 'meh' (carson for HUD), 'right on' (Sessions for AG) or 'orgasmically happy' (mattis for DoD).

I still don't know much about Tiller... I'm not going to be the one who's going to denounce it automatically because he's a CEO of BIG OIL!.

Oh look you actually approve of the racist for AG

Oh look you actually have yet to provide any evidence that he's racists. I'm still waiting from our last conversation.

 Frazzled wrote:

His closeness with Russia is a major concern. A bit of a running theme in this administration is seems.
http://money.cnn.com/2016/12/11/investing/rex-tillerson-exxon-russia-putin/

Lets look at that directly. Lets say Trump is secretly Putin's bed buddy.

And where's the down side? Post are on here about saber rattling with China. Whats wrong with having better relations? What exactly is the downside?

Syria remains with Assad? Thats highly certain already.
What else?

"What is the downside to a de-facto dictator having the ear of our president?" "What is the downside of a foriegn government having influence on our highest office?"


Seriously, that's what you are asking here. And besides just the issues with foreign governments, Russia/Putin isn't exactly benign. They are they ones who kill journalists, forcibly annexed and invaded anther country, are supporting a brutal dictator who started killing his own people, bedsides the various civil and human rights abuses. Russia is not "nice".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Well we can agree to disagree on several of those. Fiorina would be another who...no just no.

I don't see Trump picking Fiorina as DNI.

No way.

I don't think Trump would ever forgive her over the primary smack down...

If he does chose her... the only rationale left is that he's Trolling.

As for his other picks, I'm either 'meh' (carson for HUD), 'right on' (Sessions for AG) or 'orgasmically happy' (mattis for DoD).

I still don't know much about Tiller... I'm not going to be the one who's going to denounce it automatically because he's a CEO of BIG OIL!.

Oh look you actually approve of the racist for AG

Oh look you actually have yet to provide any evidence that he's racists. I'm still waiting from our last conversation.

Don't know much about it myself, but I found this with a quick google.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/17/politics/jeff-sessions-racism-allegations/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/11/22/my-testimony-about-jeff-sessionss-racist-remarks-kept-him-from-becoming-a-judge/?utm_term=.9358eeb3a191
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/18/10-things-to-know-about-sen-jeff-sessions-donald-trumps-pick-for-attorney-general/?utm_term=.de3c24ec0ff7




Don't know about rasicm, but personally, I think anyone who thinks that the ACLU is "un-american" is unfit to hold any sort of office, much less AG.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

His closeness with Russia is a major concern. A bit of a running theme in this administration is seems.
http://money.cnn.com/2016/12/11/investing/rex-tillerson-exxon-russia-putin/

Lets look at that directly. Lets say Trump is secretly Putin's bed buddy.

And where's the down side? Post are on here about saber rattling with China. Whats wrong with having better relations? What exactly is the downside?

Syria remains with Assad? Thats highly certain already.
What else?

"What is the downside to a de-facto dictator having the ear of our president?" "What is the downside of a foriegn government having influence on our highest office?"
Yes, like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, China, Vietnam, Turkey etc. etc. have with the current administration. Where is the downside? Or do you believe we should remain in cold war status with everyone? I guess I should note the reminder-we've never had a war with Russia, unlike most of our "allies."

Seriously, that's what you are asking here. And besides just the issues with foreign governments, Russia/Putin isn't exactly benign. They are they ones who kill journalists, forcibly annexed and invaded anther country, are supporting a brutal dictator who started killing his own people, bedsides the various civil and human rights abuses. Russia is not "nice".

Again, whats the downside to the US? Why should we be friendly with China but not Russia?

 Frazzled wrote:
Again, whats the downside to the US? Why should we be friendly with China but not Russia?

I wouldn't exactly call our relationship with China "friendly". "Not overtly antagonistic" would be a better description. We have been interfering and working against them in SE Asia for years. It just seem friendly because we benefit off each-other fictionally. And they don't shoot down our airplanes or invade other countries (besides Tibet).

My concern regarding friendly relations with Russia is Putin will lead Trump around by the nose.

Putin a veteran of Soviet/KGB machiavellian style negotiations, and Trump is hopelessly outclassed.

 feeder wrote:
My concern regarding friendly relations with Russia is Putin will lead Trump around by the nose.

Putin a veteran of Soviet/KGB machiavellian style negotiations, and Trump is hopelessly outclassed.

So no different then now.

I think there needs to be a delineation between "having the ear of Russia, China, et al" and "being beholding to Russia, China, et al" in any debate over potential candidates' appropriateness for upper echelon admin positions. Just because a nominee like Tillerson has had dealings with Russia isn't, in-and-of-itself, a bad thing. Actually, it could be a very good thing. You know, the whole "keep your friends close but your enemies closer" adage? That said, there is a very valid concern being voiced regarding the nature of his ties, i.e. Exxon investment and deals with Russia, which could very conceivably cloud and influence policy decisions in cases where Russia steps out of line and needs to be dealt with sternly, i.e. Ukraine and the sanctions thereof. That is where the potential influence of any conflict of interest will require monitoring.
What happens down the road is still down the road. There's reason to be concerned and vigilant, absolutely no debate on that, but all there is now is speculation on what "could" happen.

 Frazzled wrote:

 feeder wrote:
My concern regarding friendly relations with Russia is Putin will lead Trump around by the nose.

Putin a veteran of Soviet/KGB machiavellian style negotiations, and Trump is hopelessly outclassed.

So no different then now.

No, the difference is Obama knows who Putin is and what he is capable of.

Trump is a vainglorious buffoon who thinks he is a master negotiator.

To quote General George Washington: "Y'all are fethed, boys."

 Frazzled wrote:

 feeder wrote:
My concern regarding friendly relations with Russia is Putin will lead Trump around by the nose.

Putin a veteran of Soviet/KGB machiavellian style negotiations, and Trump is hopelessly outclassed.

So no different then now.

That's a burn...




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 feeder wrote:


To quote General George Washington: "Y'all are fethed, boys."

Totes agree with you there.

 whembly wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 feeder wrote:
My concern regarding friendly relations with Russia is Putin will lead Trump around by the nose.

Putin a veteran of Soviet/KGB machiavellian style negotiations, and Trump is hopelessly outclassed.

So no different then now.

That's a burn...

I suppose... if you believe Obama and Trump are of a similar character. But you don't believe that, do you?

 feeder wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 feeder wrote:
My concern regarding friendly relations with Russia is Putin will lead Trump around by the nose.

Putin a veteran of Soviet/KGB machiavellian style negotiations, and Trump is hopelessly outclassed.

So no different then now.

That's a burn...

I suppose... if you believe Obama and Trump are of a similar character. But you don't believe that, do you?

Obama administration has been hopelessly outclassed by Putin for quite some time.

Trump will be in the same boat... only because he wants to be besties with Putie-poo.

 Frazzled wrote:

His closeness with Russia is a major concern. A bit of a running theme in this administration is seems.
http://money.cnn.com/2016/12/11/investing/rex-tillerson-exxon-russia-putin/

Lets look at that directly. Lets say Trump is secretly Putin's bed buddy.

And where's the down side? Post are on here about saber rattling with China. Whats wrong with having better relations? What exactly is the downside?

Syria remains with Assad? Thats highly certain already.
What else?

Inversely, lets say Trump suddenly had dinner with the Chinese premier and decided to be best bus internationally with them. What is the downside for the US? [/quote

The downside is that neither Putin nor the Chinese guy nor Trump have the USA's best interests in mind, and Trump being a limp brained narcissist will do whatever he thinks benefits him the most based on who he talked to in the men's lavatory five minutes ago that stroked his ego.

 Peregrine wrote:
Got to disagree here. If there is convincing evidence of a foreign power manipulating our elections then that evidence needs to be published as a counter to the attempted manipulation. You don't let them get away with it just because you're afraid of it being seen as a political move if you expose the plan. Otherwise you're sending the message that it's ok to attempt to interfere in our business, as long as you make sure you're helping the winning side.

I think you've missed the key distinction. If the CIA or some other intelligence agency felt they needed to release the information, then that might be okay, if their evidence was strong enough and that followed proper processes and safeguards.

The question was whether Obama or some other president should decide to release classified documents to show the hacking took place. That would require extreme circumstances to be justified. Extreme circumstances such as evidence that not only was Russia attempting to get Trump in to power, but also that Trump was an active and knowing part of it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
The EC was a compromise between the large and small states.

Why should NY, TX and CA dominate the other 47 states?

Please just stop posting the same fething arguments over and over again, with no regard for the counters that have been put to you dozens of times. It's like we're in fething groundhog day.

Once again, while the intent was to stop a a few states from dominating the election, this concern made little sense, because people in large states are no more a hive mind than anywhere else. A person who campaigns heavily in the most populated states might improve his vote share in those states, but if he fails to campaign in the smaller states then he will lose far more than his gains in the large states. As such, it was a concern that was ever particularly valid.

However, the EC has ended up giving you a system where only a handful of states count. As I've mentioned before, more than 2/3 of campaign activity in 2016 occurred in 7 states. You obviously agree that it is bad for a handful of states to decide the election, but that is what the EC has given you.

So your argument there just does not work. It didn't work the last dozen times you posted it, so please stop ignoring the counter I've explained to you, and stop making that fething argument that we all know is wrong.

 whembly wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Well we can agree to disagree on several of those. Fiorina would be another who...no just no.

I don't see Trump picking Fiorina as DNI.

No way.

I don't think Trump would ever forgive her over the primary smack down...

If he does chose her... the only rationale left is that he's Trolling.

As for his other picks, I'm either 'meh' (carson for HUD), 'right on' (Sessions for AG) or 'orgasmically happy' (mattis for DoD).

I still don't know much about Tiller... I'm not going to be the one who's going to denounce it automatically because he's a CEO of BIG OIL!.

I was initially wary of his choice for Secretary of Defence. The nickname "Mad Dog" does not inspire a feeling of comfort when combined with a man as erratic and angry as Trump.

However, the CBC did a story on him that made me feel much more at ease with the idea of Mattis being Secretary of Defence. I believe they described him with the word "monk" at one point, their descriptions of his way of doing things made him out to be a very sensible and competent General, and I legitimately believe that he would be a good choice. They also mentioned that he's not a fan of the "Mad Dog" nickname.

Oh, and that troubling quote of his? I have actually heard that quote, or something incredibly similar before. I'll link the video.

https://youtu.be/9NZDwZbyDus?t=68

 sebster wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
The EC was a compromise between the large and small states.

Why should NY, TX and CA dominate the other 47 states?

Please just stop posting the same fething arguments over and over again, with no regard for the counters that have been put to you dozens of times. It's like we're in fething groundhog day.

Once again, while the intent was to stop a a few states from dominating the election, this concern made little sense, because people in large states are no more a hive mind than anywhere else. A person who campaigns heavily in the most populated states might improve his vote share in those states, but if he fails to campaign in the smaller states then he will lose far more than his gains in the large states. As such, it was a concern that was ever particularly valid.

However, the EC has ended up giving you a system where only a handful of states count. As I've mentioned before, more than 2/3 of campaign activity in 2016 occurred in 7 states. You obviously agree that it is bad for a handful of states to decide the election, but that is what the EC has given you.

So your argument there just does not work. It didn't work the last dozen times you posted it, so please stop ignoring the counter I've explained to you, and stop making that fething argument that we all know is wrong.

Nah. This is where you must agree to disagree and go our separate ways.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Pouncey wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Well we can agree to disagree on several of those. Fiorina would be another who...no just no.

I don't see Trump picking Fiorina as DNI.

No way.

I don't think Trump would ever forgive her over the primary smack down...

If he does chose her... the only rationale left is that he's Trolling.

As for his other picks, I'm either 'meh' (carson for HUD), 'right on' (Sessions for AG) or 'orgasmically happy' (mattis for DoD).

I still don't know much about Tiller... I'm not going to be the one who's going to denounce it automatically because he's a CEO of BIG OIL!.

I was initially wary of his choice for Secretary of Defence. The nickname "Mad Dog" does not inspire a feeling of comfort when combined with a man as erratic and angry as Trump.

However, the CBC did a story on him that made me feel much more at ease with the idea of Mattis being Secretary of Defence. I believe they described him with the word "monk" at one point, their descriptions of his way of doing things made him out to be a very sensible and competent General, and I legitimately believe that he would be a good choice. They also mentioned that he's not a fan of the "Mad Dog" nickname.

Oh, and that troubling quote of his? I have actually heard that quote, or something incredibly similar before. I'll link the video.

https://youtu.be/9NZDwZbyDus?t=68

Yuppers.

He'll be a warrior monk as head of the DoD.

 whembly wrote:

Yuppers.

He'll be a warrior monk as head of the DoD.

Yup.

However, it's pretty damned obvious that Trump chose him purely because he heard the nickname "Mad Dog" and went, "Yes, that's the one." without bothering to learn anything further.

Trump's a pretty obvious example of the Denning-Kruger Effect.

 d-usa wrote:
It's also interesting that he's making the argument that democrats are so far removed from the majority of Americans (despite the fact that the majority of voters voted democrats), while also making the argument that Hillary was a horrible candidate and that another democrat would have won.

Pretty much. There's a couple of interesting ways to flesh out actual voting support for each side. Obviously there's who actually has power, and that's the Republicans, they control everything, all Democrats have is the senate filibuster.

In terms of who is actually voting for whom, though, we get a different picture. There's more people voting for Democrats for the presidency than Republicans, not just in 2016, but in 6 of the last 7 elections. However, the way voting shares break down between states typically gives Republicans an EC advantage, 2008 and 2012 were somewhat unique in that the Democratic candidate had a 'firewall' where his 270 EVs were stronger than his overall winning margin - in other cases it has been the Republican with that advantage. This is largely because Democrats have strong majorities in more of the large states, California, New York etc...

In terms of the House, well as much as people comment on gerrymandering, there is also an issue here that Democrats don't get the vote out as much as Republicans. They gained on Republicans this year, but they still lost the vote total by 3.2 million votes, that 47% of the vote won 45% of the vote isn't gerrymandering. That's a perfectly fair result, really. This doesn't mean there isn't gerrymander, of course, more that it tends to show up when elections get closer, like in 2012 when Democrats got 800k more votes, but only won 47% of the seats. We can observe this by looking back over the past 30 years, and observing that on only two occasions did Democrats win the most votes and fail to win the House, in 2012 and 1996. That's not much of an explanation for Republican dominance of the senate in all but two elections, since they first flipped it in 1994, which is much better explained by Republicans turning out in mid-terms as well as presidential elections, and in reliably voting right down the ticket, as opposed to Democrats who have a tendency to vote in the presidential race only.

But it's the senate where it gets clear how much Republican power is based on the system in place, not the actual level of voting support. The senate is splits in to three classes, with 1/3 of seats voted on each two years. So looking at a single year won't give us a fair reflection of what the senate should be, we can instead look over 6 years, across the three elections that produced our current senate. Here are the last three elections;

Democrat votes/ Republican votes/ Democrat seats/ Republican seats
2016/ 51,092,983/ 40,273,424/ 12/ 22
2014/ 20,875,493/ 24,631,488/ 12/ 24
2012/ 49,998,693/ 39,130,984/ 23/ 8
Total/ 121,967,169/ 104,035,896/ 46/ 52 (note the senate seats don't quite add up because of vacated seats that were flipped)

So what we see there is over a six year period, Democrats have won 54% of the vote, to get 46% of the senate seats. This isn't unfair or broken, it is the result of the senate being designed to represent each state in the union equally regardless of population. It just so happens that Republicans are better represented among smaller states. The other reason Republicans dominate here is the reduced turn out in mid-term elections - with turn for both sides dropping but Democrats dropping as much as 60%, then it takes relatively fewer votes to decide each senate race.

But it does mean that any claim about Republicans being dominant and Democrats being weaker among voters is utterly wrong. The only place that case can be made is in the House, where Republicans have been dominant. In the Senate and in the Presidency Democrats have a record, both recently and over time, of winning a majority of voters more often than not. But advantages given to smaller states have resulted in Republicans winning power more often than not.

 Frazzled wrote:
Just wait until the impeachment in two years or when he resigns in a year after realizing being Prez requires actual work.

Alternatively, Pence and Tiller may run things so well he's re-elected in a landslide.

Thing is, Pence isn't exactly a superstar. Possibly being the defacto POTUS is one helluva rise for kind of a mediocre career politician. He just looks like Teddy fething Roosevelt when standing next to the moron.

 whembly wrote:
Yah... more dog pile!

So when I replied "No, I beleive this current generation of Democrats are so fething far removed from what most Americans want"... I was thinking of this tidbit:
Since Obama's first election... by my count:
- Democrats have lost 13 Senate seats and 69 House seats in Congress
- Democrats have lost 12 state governorships
- Democrats have lost 30 state legislative chambers
- Democrats have lost more than 900 state legislative seats

See my post above, Republican gains are more a sign of systemic advantage due to Republican gains coming in smaller states. Their actual gain in total votes is not much of the story.

At the state level it really comes down to energy, Republicans have been reliably voting in smaller elections in a way Democrats have not. Is that because Republicans have an inherent advantage in partisanship and energy that Democrats can't match? If so then Democrats will continue to struggle. Or alternatively, is it the result of not holding the presidency, which gave Republicans a strong motivating factor, while allowing Democrats to be complacent? If that is the case then you can expect Democratic gains to begin showing up in strong numbers in 2 or 4 years.

 gorgon wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Just wait until the impeachment in two years or when he resigns in a year after realizing being Prez requires actual work.

Alternatively, Pence and Tiller may run things so well he's re-elected in a landslide.

Thing is, Pence isn't exactly a superstar. Possibly being the defacto POTUS is one helluva rise for kind of a mediocre career politician. He just looks like Teddy fething Roosevelt when standing next to the moron.

I hear Pence wants to bring back conversion therapy. My partner's name for it is, "beat the gay outta ya". He's read the stories to a few people who survived it, it's horrific enough that he didn't believe the first victim, but when similar stories kept cropping up from others... He spared me the details, except that it usually starts with the parents of a gay teenager consenting for strangers to kidnap their child.

 cuda1179 wrote:
It's not that Democrats are doing a great job, it's that a majority of people think they are doing a marginally better job than Republicans.

This is a pretty fair summary. And I think in this regard one big advantage is that the party out of power hasn't pissed people very much lately. Hence the swing back and forth between the two parties.

Personally I'm expecting the next 4/8 years to be like President Bush, but on crack (and I thought at the time that Bush was Reagan on crack). We've already seen the start, with Republicans suddenly forgetting that for the last 8 years they've been claiming to be oh so concerned about the deficit, and are now coming on board with Trump's massive program of tax cuts and big spending increases.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Yeah it's a dilemma for China. They need the North as a key ally, but the South buys billions of pounds worth of stuff from China every year, so they're keen for that to keep flowing. Decisions decisions decisions

They don't need North Korea as a key ally. North Korea is like an embarrassing little brother for China. They won't let anyone else pick on North Korea, but mostly they wish they could go out with all the other countries on Friday night without having their dorky little brother tagging along.

Oh, and as well as a kind of historical obligation and desire to maintain dominance over their own region, China also has an immediate practical reason to support North Korea, no matter what crazy gak they get up to - refugees. If North Korea collapsed, China would get millions of refugees over the border the next day. They don't want that hassle, so letting North Korea continue to operate is preferred to that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CptJake wrote:
No one seems to be disputing the info Wikileaks made accessible. What is in dispute is how they got it.

Nope, the intelligence community settled on Russia as the hacker, and that's been known to the public for a couple of months now. What is new is the CIA saying that Russia didn't do it just to screw with America, but with the plan of specifically helping one candidate.

Major difference between election fraud and 'influencing' an election.

There are serious issues other than fraud. I don't even know why you brought up fraud, other than to point out what Russia did wasn't electoral fraud.

It is always hard to judge the effectiveness of Influence operations, ask any MISO guy.

This isn't about whether it helped Trump. Maybe it did, some of the leaks probably dissuaded some of the Sanders supporters switching to Clinton, maybe. But those leaks never seemed to have as much impact as, say, the emailgate. So in terms of the effect, let's just say it didn't and move on.

Now the question becomes one of what you do about the foreign country when they try to manipulate your elections. What diplomatic and economic penalties do you table?

What is really concerning is that Trump, and some number of Republicans seem to think that the best approach is to deny the findings of the intel community, and attack those services for concluding as they did. Trump is taking the side of Russia over his own intelligence community.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
Calling a country/province that we havent spoken to in 40 years because we knew it would piss off China isnt saber rattling?

Once again, Trump didn't know it would piss off China. The guy doesn't take intel briefings, so he didn't know the diplomatic consequences of the phone call.

Trump wasn't saber rattling, he is walking around in the dark and happened to bump in to a saber that made a bunch of noise as it fell over.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Lets look at that directly. Lets say Trump is secretly Putin's bed buddy.

And where's the down side? Post are on here about saber rattling with China. Whats wrong with having better relations? What exactly is the downside?

Russia has shown a willingness to engage in direct wars of aggression, most recently against Ukraine, and before that against Georgia. You may think that it is better for the US if they just let Russia do as it please, but Afghanistan is a thing, and the Soviet war there ended up radicalising a lot of people, which ended up with a significant negative effect for America.

Oh and not all of us were saying that Trump was bad for saber rattling over Taiwan. I've said a whole bunch of times the problem was that Trump didn't know he was saber rattling. As a calculated move it had merit, but it wasn't a calculated move.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Again, whats the downside to the US? Why should we be friendly with China but not Russia?

Because China hasn't invaded anyone lately. The current state of relations between Russia and the US, including the sanctions is a direct result of their actions in the Ukraine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Obama administration has been hopelessly outclassed by Putin for quite some time.

This is the most extraordinary nonsense. Russia is in a state of absolute shambles through US sanctions. The ruble has collapsed, and their whole stock market is now worth less than Apple. The idea that Putin somehow won against Obama is an exercise in willful delusion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Nah. This is where you must agree to disagree and go our separate ways.

It seems that you are continuing to refuse to defend your argument, because while you can't defend it, you still want to believe it is true.

I'll be honest mate - not good enough.

https://twitter.com/RealAlexJones/status/808393500924510209

Absolutely no evidence has been produced to substantiate the conspiracy theory.

.... and people say you don't do irony.

 Lord of Deeds wrote:
any more than Trump taking a congratulatory call from the President of Taiwan should be considered an announcement that the US is doing away with the one China policy.

Act which Trump has already put on table as what he might do...

Apologies if this is has already been covered, but the guy that's suing the EPA...has just been appointed the head of the EPA?

So he's effectively suing himself

That's up there with the Hot Shots 2 film, when President Benson decided that the key to solving America's Middle East problem was to launch an invasion of Minnesota

Satire is dead, truly dead now...