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.

My disrespect for the current (PoS) PotUS has dropped to a new low.

Kissing the ass of a murderous tyrant is a new low. How anyone can support Trump now is beyond me.

He’s good at saluting NK generals though.

 d-usa wrote:
He’s good at saluting NK generals though.

He learned that as a veteran from his Vietnam.

 d-usa wrote:
He’s good at saluting NK generals though.

He probably was awed into submission by their many medals:


Such great heroes of the people.

One has to wonder...do all NK officer uniforms come like 2 sizes too large for a reason? Like...they always look like theyre wearing Daddys clothes.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
No, but that doesn't mean that Trump isn't a racist.

However let's get back to the new criminal charges.

"A.G. Eric Schneiderman, are doing everything they can to sue me on a foundation that took in $18,800,000 and gave out to charity more money than it took in, $19,200,000. I won’t settle this case!"
#Trump
Hummm....that is interesting. I'd start with trying to disprove that statement.

This is the actual quote;

"The sleazy New York Democrats, and their now disgraced (and run out of town) A.G. Eric Schneiderman, are doing everything they can to sue me on a foundation that took in $18,800,000 and gave out to charity more money than it took in, $19,200,000. I won’t settle this case!..."

 Vaktathi wrote:
One has to wonder...do all NK officer uniforms come like 2 sizes too large for a reason? Like...they always look like theyre wearing Daddys clothes.

Well, maybe they are.
North Korea isn't really known for its great manufacturing capabilities and it has a massive army to supply with uniforms. I would not be surprised if a lot of things are handed down father to son in NK, including military uniforms. I know for a fact that medals are inheritable, which is why you see North Koreans wear so many of them. It is just not their own, but also those of their father and grandfather and other relatives.

They used to fit, then the rationing started.

So... the IG report over FBI's handling of Clinton's email server investigation dropped.

There's some real Greek Tragedy here... that CNN's Jake Tapper hits on:

@jaketapper
DOJ IG: "found no documentary or testimonial evidence directly connecting the political views these employees expressed in their text messages and instant messages to" decisions made about the Clinton investigation through the July 2016 conclusion 1/

@jaketapper
yet IG also said those political views from FBI Deputy Assistant Director Peter Strzok and special counsel Lisa Page expressed in text "messages cast a cloud over the FBI investigations to which these employees were assigned."
2/

@jaketapper
3/ The IG is very specific about that though -- saying no evidence anything impacted the decisions through July 2016, when announcement made to not prosecute Hillary Clinton.

@jaketapper
4/ Of this August 2016 text, the IG is quite critical:

Lisa Page: “[Trump’s] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!”

Peter Strzok: “No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it.”

@jaketapper
5/ IG says that exchange "is not only indicative of a biased state of mind but, even more seriously, implies a willingness to take official action to impact the presidential candidate's electoral prospects. This is antithetical to the core values of the FBI..."

@jaketapper
6/ Moreover -- and this is a complicated one so stay with me -- the IG suggests that Strzok may have had bias that impacted a decision to not prioritize the Weiner computer issue -- though how this went down may have ultimately hurt Hillary Clinton.

@jaketapper
7/ IG says "we did not have confidence that Strzok’s decision to prioritize the Russia investigation over following up on the Midyear-related investigative lead discovered on the Weiner laptop was free from bias." ("Midyear" = Clinton email investigation)

@jaketapper
8/ IG specifically mentions the "We'll stop it" text. (p. 329) and says "Strzok might be willing to take official action to impact a presidential candidate’s electoral prospects."

@jaketapper
9/ But how it played out is the exact opposite. Weiner laptop sat there from September 29 through Oct 27. IG believes the only thing that prompted FBI to finally act on Weiner laptop were "people outside of the FBI" (from US Attorney SDNY) asking about it

@jaketapper
10/ IG makes it clear he doesn't believe any of the other explanations as to why FBI acted before end of October. He calls them "unpersuasive."

@jaketapper
11/ IG: "The FBI had all the information it needed on September 29 to obtain the search warrant that it did not seek until more than a month later. The FBI’s neglect had potentially far-reaching consequences..." (p. 330)

@jaketapper
12/ What were those "far-reaching consequences"? Comey going public with the warrant, notifying Congress and perhaps impacting the election. IG says it quite clearly.

@jaketapper
13/ IG: "Comey told the OIG that,
had he known about the laptop in the beginning of October and thought the email review could have been completed before the election, it may have affected his
decision to notify Congress."

@jaketapper
14/ IG: "Comey told the OIG, 'I don’t know [if] it would have
put us in a different place, but I would have wanted to have the opportunity.'"

!!!!

@jaketapper
15/ In other words, IG suspects Strzok was biased against Trump, and that may have influenced the decision to sit on the Weiner laptop for a month. Which might have ultimately set a course of events in motion that cost Clinton, his preferred candidate, the presidency.

To recap: McCabe says he mentioned this “big deal” to Comey in September but that apparently nothing much was done. Strzok got a briefing about what had been found in early October and then did nothing for 3 weeks (the implications here was the Strzok would be *the guy* to move the ball forward at this stage... we'll see if that's accurate).

Finally, the lack of action was noticed outside the FBI (the crews who found the laptop:SDNY FBI) and everyone went into 'Oh gak Mode!' trying to make up for the lost time.

Again, the report doesn’t really prove/disprove partisanship was a problem... but even the IG says:
a) Strzok’s partisanship raises questions and
b) no other credible explanation for the delay has been offered.

So the Greek Tragedy of this particular event is that it’s possible that someone, maybe McCabe...maybe Strzok...I'm not clear on it yet, was slow-walking this, trying to run out the clock on the election, believing that a Clinton win would render all of that moot. That back-fired spectacularly, and resulted in Comey’s letter to Congress, the one Clinton blames for her loss. So maybe the real cause of Clinton’s loss was pro-Clinton partisanship at the FBI.

Nah... that's too neat.

The real cause of HRC's loss was 62 million Americans voting for a proven liar and con man.

 feeder wrote:
The real cause of HRC's loss was 62 million Americans voting for a proven liar and con man.

Well not even that, less than 100k people across 3 key states cause trump to win

 feeder wrote:
The real cause of HRC's loss was 62 million Americans voting for a proven liar and con man.

I don’t think we’ve had a presidential election in my lifetime in which none of the candidates were liars or con men.

 feeder wrote:
The real cause of HRC's loss was 62 million Americans voting for a proven liar and con man.

Not gonna lie I love how bitter she is....

Prestor Jon wrote:

 feeder wrote:
The real cause of HRC's loss was 62 million Americans voting for a proven liar and con man.

I don’t think we’ve had a presidential election in my lifetime in which none of the candidates were liars or con men.

By that standard, you can say no democratic state has had an election free of liars and con men.

Trump is a liar and a con man because that is what he is and does every day, it is the base of his success long before he entered politics.

The same cannot be same about HRC or Bama/Mcain/Romney, Bush jr/Gore/Kerry, or Clinton/Dole/Bush sr, etc, etc, etc. Not really.

I'd opine that saying that is precisely how Trump won. By convincing voters to believe that there are no nuances, and that all politicians are equally corrupt. It's bollocks, of course, but Trump didn't have to convince people to vote for him so much as he needed to convince people to just not bother voting.

 feeder wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 feeder wrote:
The real cause of HRC's loss was 62 million Americans voting for a proven liar and con man.

I don’t think we’ve had a presidential election in my lifetime in which none of the candidates were liars or con men.

By that standard, you can say no democratic state has had an election free of liars and con men.

Trump is a liar and a con man because that is what he is and does every day, it is the base of his success long before he entered politics.

The same cannot be same about HRC or Bama/Mcain/Romney, Bush jr/Gore/Kerry, or Clinton/Dole/Bush sr, etc, etc, etc. Not really.

wut?

The Clintons are in the league of their own of liars and con men (woman). They actually give politicians a bad name.

I mean if the Democrats had not nominated a candidate who was publicly marinated in corruption for 25 years and under a thoroughly justified FBI investigation in 2016, I don't see how Trump would be president. At the very least, he'd have a much harder time of winning the EV.

Bitch and moan all you want for Hillary or Trump, rant all you like about Russians and NeverTrumpers and the Deep State and the media and racists and sexists and grabbing pussies....at the end of the day, Trump doesn't win a race this close if his opponent isn't notoriously corrupt...regardless of the fact you think HRC's "corruptness" was fair or unfair...it was a baggage she would've never shaken.

Conventional wisdom of the historical trends meant that Generic R would have beaten Generic D in 2016, after 8 years of Obama. Republicans offered up a candidate with a ton of vulnerabilities. It's also on Democrats that they picked an opponent who neutralized many of them.

So only by the epic incompetence of the leadership, primary voters of both parties and luck (or unluckiness), plus the actions of the White House and AG, put the FBI in a position to have such a big role in the election. *EVEN* then, had the FBI simply followed standard policies and procedures, the outcome may have turned out differently.

Hillary shouldn't have been the nominee. But the voters were given only one other choice, as Sanders was terrible, and the DNC system obviously helped her. Trump shouldn't have been the nominee. But the voters were given *too many* other choices and the RNC system allowed it. There's even the $2 billion dollars of free advertising of favorable Trump things during the primary to suck the oxygen from the room - the media thinking Trump would be a better opponent for Hillary. The absolute irony of this, I think, is that the RNC elites probably wished they had the same DNC system (superdelegates) to avoid the next Trump candidate during the primary. I mean, you can't write an insane script any better than what actually happened.

...and dammit, I didn't want to relitigate the 2016 election... bah.

 whembly wrote:

 feeder wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 feeder wrote:
The real cause of HRC's loss was 62 million Americans voting for a proven liar and con man.

I don’t think we’ve had a presidential election in my lifetime in which none of the candidates were liars or con men.

By that standard, you can say no democratic state has had an election free of liars and con men.

Trump is a liar and a con man because that is what he is and does every day, it is the base of his success long before he entered politics.

The same cannot be same about HRC or Bama/Mcain/Romney, Bush jr/Gore/Kerry, or Clinton/Dole/Bush sr, etc, etc, etc. Not really.

wut?

The Clintons are in the league of their own of liars and con men (woman). They actually give politicians a bad name.

I mean if the Democrats had not nominated a candidate who was publicly marinated in corruption for 25 years and under a thoroughly justified FBI investigation in 2016, I don't see how Trump would be president. At the very least, he'd have a much harder time of winning the EV.

Bitch and moan all you want for Hillary or Trump, rant all you like about Russians and NeverTrumpers and the Deep State and the media and racists and sexists and grabbing pussies....at the end of the day, Trump doesn't win a race this close if his opponent isn't notoriously corrupt...regardless of the fact you think HRC's "corruptness" was fair or unfair...it was a baggage she would've never shaken.

Conventional wisdom of the historical trends meant that Generic R would have beaten Generic D in 2016, after 8 years of Obama. Republicans offered up a candidate with a ton of vulnerabilities. It's also on Democrats that they picked an opponent who neutralized many of them.

So only by the epic incompetence of the leadership, primary voters of both parties and luck (or unluckiness), plus the actions of the White House and AG, put the FBI in a position to have such a big role in the election. *EVEN* then, had the FBI simply followed standard policies and procedures, the outcome may have turned out differently.

Hillary shouldn't have been the nominee. But the voters were given only one other choice, as Sanders was terrible, and the DNC system obviously helped her. Trump shouldn't have been the nominee. But the voters were given *too many* other choices and the RNC system allowed it. There's even the $2 billion dollars of free advertising of favorable Trump things during the primary to suck the oxygen from the room - the media thinking Trump would be a better opponent for Hillary. The absolute irony of this, I think, is that the RNC elites probably wished they had the same DNC system (superdelegates) to avoid the next Trump candidate during the primary. I mean, you can't write an insane script any better than what actually happened.

...and dammit, I didn't want to relitigate the 2016 election... bah.

25 years of GOP lies, you mean.

I thought she was gettin' locked up? Oh wait, it looks like that is actually most of the PoSPotUS's campaign staff

Interestingly, the state AG for New York may have found a way around Trump being immune to prosecution.

Papers were filed this morning that New York is suing Trump for violating New York law.

 feeder wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 feeder wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 feeder wrote:
The real cause of HRC's loss was 62 million Americans voting for a proven liar and con man.

I don’t think we’ve had a presidential election in my lifetime in which none of the candidates were liars or con men.

By that standard, you can say no democratic state has had an election free of liars and con men.

Trump is a liar and a con man because that is what he is and does every day, it is the base of his success long before he entered politics.

The same cannot be same about HRC or Bama/Mcain/Romney, Bush jr/Gore/Kerry, or Clinton/Dole/Bush sr, etc, etc, etc. Not really.

wut?

The Clintons are in the league of their own of liars and con men (woman). They actually give politicians a bad name.

I mean if the Democrats had not nominated a candidate who was publicly marinated in corruption for 25 years and under a thoroughly justified FBI investigation in 2016, I don't see how Trump would be president. At the very least, he'd have a much harder time of winning the EV.

Bitch and moan all you want for Hillary or Trump, rant all you like about Russians and NeverTrumpers and the Deep State and the media and racists and sexists and grabbing pussies....at the end of the day, Trump doesn't win a race this close if his opponent isn't notoriously corrupt...regardless of the fact you think HRC's "corruptness" was fair or unfair...it was a baggage she would've never shaken.

Conventional wisdom of the historical trends meant that Generic R would have beaten Generic D in 2016, after 8 years of Obama. Republicans offered up a candidate with a ton of vulnerabilities. It's also on Democrats that they picked an opponent who neutralized many of them.

So only by the epic incompetence of the leadership, primary voters of both parties and luck (or unluckiness), plus the actions of the White House and AG, put the FBI in a position to have such a big role in the election. *EVEN* then, had the FBI simply followed standard policies and procedures, the outcome may have turned out differently.

Hillary shouldn't have been the nominee. But the voters were given only one other choice, as Sanders was terrible, and the DNC system obviously helped her. Trump shouldn't have been the nominee. But the voters were given *too many* other choices and the RNC system allowed it. There's even the $2 billion dollars of free advertising of favorable Trump things during the primary to suck the oxygen from the room - the media thinking Trump would be a better opponent for Hillary. The absolute irony of this, I think, is that the RNC elites probably wished they had the same DNC system (superdelegates) to avoid the next Trump candidate during the primary. I mean, you can't write an insane script any better than what actually happened.

...and dammit, I didn't want to relitigate the 2016 election... bah.

25 years of GOP lies, you mean.

I thought she was gettin' locked up? Oh wait, it looks like that is actually most of the PoSPotUS's campaign staff

But Benghazi

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Interestingly, the state AG for New York may have found a way around Trump being immune to prosecution.

Papers were filed this morning that New York is suing Trump for violating New York law.

There's legs to this NY indictment of Trump foundation...the New York AG included in their petition an actual picture of a note that is clearly in Trump's handwriting directing his charitable foundation to use funds to settle a legal issue involving Mar-a-lago. Trump can deflect all he wants...that's clearly illegal.

Can't tell if this is a big BIG BIG deal... meaning felony charges... but *still*, this is the kind of stuff that my old MO governor resigned over... if it's civil and the kind you'd get a slap on the wrist and pay a fine... it'd be to Trump's interest to settle.

Funnily enough, Sarah Sanders defends the Trump Foundation by saying "The foundation raised $18 million and gave nearly $19 million to charity while having virtually zero in expenses."

As it happens, that's exactly the defense offered by supporters of the Clinton Foundation.

 whembly wrote:
wut?

The Clintons are in the league of their own of liars and con men (woman). They actually give politicians a bad name.

I mean if the Democrats had not nominated a candidate who was publicly marinated in corruption for 25 years and under a thoroughly justified FBI investigation in 2016, I don't see how Trump would be president. At the very least, he'd have a much harder time of winning the EV.

Bitch and moan all you want for Hillary or Trump, rant all you like about Russians and NeverTrumpers and the Deep State and the media and racists and sexists and grabbing pussies....at the end of the day, Trump doesn't win a race this close if his opponent isn't notoriously corrupt...regardless of the fact you think HRC's "corruptness" was fair or unfair...it was a baggage she would've never shaken.

Conventional wisdom of the historical trends meant that Generic R would have beaten Generic D in 2016, after 8 years of Obama. Republicans offered up a candidate with a ton of vulnerabilities. It's also on Democrats that they picked an opponent who neutralized many of them.

So only by the epic incompetence of the leadership, primary voters of both parties and luck (or unluckiness), plus the actions of the White House and AG, put the FBI in a position to have such a big role in the election. *EVEN* then, had the FBI simply followed standard policies and procedures, the outcome may have turned out differently.

Hillary shouldn't have been the nominee. But the voters were given only one other choice, as Sanders was terrible, and the DNC system obviously helped her. Trump shouldn't have been the nominee. But the voters were given *too many* other choices and the RNC system allowed it. There's even the $2 billion dollars of free advertising of favorable Trump things during the primary to suck the oxygen from the room - the media thinking Trump would be a better opponent for Hillary. The absolute irony of this, I think, is that the RNC elites probably wished they had the same DNC system (superdelegates) to avoid the next Trump candidate during the primary. I mean, you can't write an insane script any better than what actually happened.

...and dammit, I didn't want to relitigate the 2016 election... bah.

tl;dr - Bernie would have won

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I'd opine that saying that is precisely how Trump won. By convincing voters to believe that there are no nuances, and that all politicians are equally corrupt. It's bollocks, of course, but Trump didn't have to convince people to vote for him so much as he needed to convince people to just not bother voting.

It’s not that there are no nuances it’s just the fact that the lesser of two evils is still evil. Being less evil doesn’t make you virtuous. Trump helped people stay home by being a candidate that many people never seriously considered to be viable or capable of winning and Hillary helped convince people to stay home by being out of touch, uncharismatic and staid. Candidates aren’t entitled to votes from people that don’t believe that candidates are worthy. It’s the responsibility of the Parties and candidates to convince voters to vote for them the voters aren’t beholden to the Parties to hold their nose and cast a vote for a gakky candidate just because.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 feeder wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 feeder wrote:
The real cause of HRC's loss was 62 million Americans voting for a proven liar and con man.

I don’t think we’ve had a presidential election in my lifetime in which none of the candidates were liars or con men.

By that standard, you can say no democratic state has had an election free of liars and con men.

Trump is a liar and a con man because that is what he is and does every day, it is the base of his success long before he entered politics.

The same cannot be same about HRC or Bama/Mcain/Romney, Bush jr/Gore/Kerry, or Clinton/Dole/Bush sr, etc, etc, etc. Not really.

All of those politicians lied and misled with partial truths and all of them tried to put on a false front a project an image to woo voters that wasn’t an accurate representation of themselves. Bush raised taxes, Clinton did have sex with that woman, Bush didn’t find WMDs or accomplish the mission in Iraq, Obama didn’t shut down Gitmo or let me keep my health insurance plan, Trump isn’t going to build a wall or take away NK’s nuclear program. Yes Trump lies more profusely and unabashedly than previous presidents but we’ve let presidents lie to us for decades so why wouldn’t we eventually get t a candidate that just doesn’t give a fetch about the truth when the truth clearly isn’t of interest to the electorate? If we’ve shown repeatedly that we’ll hold our collective nose and accept that we have to choose between a douche and a poop sandwich on Election Day why are we surprised that an overtly stinky and disgusting poop sandwich got elected?

How Christ like of this administration

Honestly if Christ himself were to come on down from the heavens, this administration and quite a few "christian" republicans would him fake and a menace

White House defends border separations: 'It's biblical to enforce the law'
Christopher Wilson 3 hours ago
Reactions Reblog on Tumblr Share Tweet Email
The White House cited a nonexistent law and the Bible to defend the government’s controversial policy of separating undocumented immigrant parents from their children upon their arrest at the U.S. border with Mexico.

CNN reporter Jim Acosta asked press secretary Sarah Sanders about comments made by Attorney General Jeff Sessions earlier Thursday, in which he referenced the Bible to defend the administration’s border tactics.

“I would cite you to the Apostle Paul and his clear and wise command in Romans 13, to obey the laws of the government because God has ordained them for the purpose of order,” said Sessions.

In her first press briefing since CBS News reported that she may soon leave her position in the Trump administration, Sanders said she had not heard Sessions’s exact comments but agreed with the sentiment.

“I can say it is very biblical to enforce the law,” said Sanders, “that is repeated a number of times in the Bible.”

https://www.yahoo.com/news/white-house-defends-border-separations-biblical-enforce-law-211411136.html

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:

But that was forty years ago. I'd be willing to let bygones be bygones, IF the current government were to apologize for it. If they did, I'd certainly be willing to apologize for the overthrow of the pre-Shah elected government in return. That was a truly thing for America to have done, regardless of our concern about potential communist nations being founded in the mideast. Indeed, HAD they apologized for the hostages, I'd bet either Clinton or Obama would have apologized for overthrowing the pre-Shah government.

But darn it, Iran needs to acknowledge THEY screwed up too, in a very diplomacy-breaking manner.

On the other hand the US has done some gakky things it never apologized for either. Supporting Iraq, shooting down a civilian airliner, indeed the whole CIA debacle.

Take it on a global level, the US has done a lot of very undiplomatic things it never apologized for. Its a bit odd to expect everyone to start apologizing before you can make progress. Its entirely unrelated to the type of progress you want to make as well, its a step you take after the initial agreement goes well. To drag it to NK, NK has killed multiple US soldiers in violation of the ceasefire, but NK has never really been requested to apologize for it. Now if an agreement comes out of this, then you can start looking at apologies.

The problem is you're overlooking Iran's GROSS breech of diplomatic procedure.

Ever wonder why diplomats are immune to prosecution - the famed 'diplomatic immunity'? It's to keep the government of a nation from trumping up charges and imprisoning accredited diplomatic officials to extort concessions from the nation they represent. Diplomats need to be free to act on behalf of their nation in a diplomatic role. If you can't trust the government you're talking to to NOT kill, torment, or imprison your diplomats, how do you talk to them? That's why diplomatic immunity exists, and why for hundreds of years here in the west only the most uncivilized nations would attack an accredited diplomat.

I can accept that students on a rampage might have started things. I can see the Marines on guard not being willing (or ordered not to) shoot a horde of unarmed, ununiformed people. But when we did get our people back, their reports CLEARLY told us that they were held by the Iranian military for virtually their entire captivity... and they were not treated well, either.

Let's go over that again. The Iranian military - an agency of the Iranian government - held our accredited diplomats in violation of all international law and tradition, and tormented if not tortured them. The U.S.S.R. never went that far. Heck, even NORTH KOREA never went that far. It's pretty much a declaration of unrestricted war. "We're so against you we don't even care to talk to you anymore" is what they said when they did that. The only thing that kept America from wiping Iran off the map at that point was the certainty of Soviet intervention once Iran was on the ropes, and America's overall preoccupation with the Soviets in the first place.

The dick moves you point out afterwards - supporting Iraq, the downing of the airliner, the sanctions - all were in response to that violation of international law and tradition and undeclared war.

I never said America shouldn't apologize for it's dick moves. But Iran HAS TO make the first move to rehabilitate that quintessentially uncivilized act to reopen formal communications with America. It HAS TO apologize for what it did, and promise not to do it again. Only then can diplomatic process begin again.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Everyone now congratulating Trump for defusing the fear of war with NK should remind themselves that it was Trump's aggressive Tweeting which stoked up the tension and fear of war in the first place.

No, I'm sure it was Obama's weakness that emboldened him.

Obama's been out of office for a year now, and he CERTAINLY wasn't the one on twitter talking about bringing all sorts of destruction down on NK the past year.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The USA invaded France, Holland, Italy, Germany, Japan and Tunisia in WW2, and maybe some others.

Is that part of your metrics for saying the USA is very agressive?

Leaving aside the invasion and near genocide of the Native Americans, there's Mexico, Cuba, the Philippines, (we'll call the WWII and Korean actions self-defense), Cuba again, Laos and Cambodia (during Vietnam), Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Afghanstan, and Iraq again.

And I'm sure I've missed at least one that's hovering in the back of my mind.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Logistical nightmare of PR being an island? 70 years ago the US was in a war which involved shipping millions of tons of equipment and people halfway around the world, much of it moving from small island to small island.

There is no excuse for the US being unable to provide immediate disaster relief to its own citizens. You put how much money into your military? But then cannot load a carrier with generators, plastic, tarpaulins etc. and sail to help your own citizens? What a waste of money.

It's an island of brown people who have no representation in congress and no say in who becomes President, sitting almost 2000 miles from the US mainland. Not exactly a priority for the current government sadly.

Mostly brown?
Ethnic composition: white (mostly Spanish origin) 80.5%, black 8%, Amerindian 0.4%, Asian 0.2%, mixed and other 10.9%.

Wiki has: 2010 white=%75.8 others=%24.2

O.o

It's probably because it isn't a state, as you'd think this wouldn't be tolerated if it were a US state, rather than a territory.

You would probably be amazed how many people in the continental U.S. perceive Puerto Rico as 100% Hispanic, therefore effectively Mexican.

Spetulhu wrote:
Iran is way less dangerous than premier US ally Saudi Arabia, but ofc they also don't provide big US business with billions of dollars. Where there's money the US frequently looks the other way. Saudi-funded terrorists mostly kill the other sort of muslims anyway (or often their own to make a show) so it's no big deal.

Money plays a role, but it isn't really sole determinant people make it out to be. For instance Pakistan has no money, but the US still actively protects Pakistan because of long established relationships. For instance, in 2010 the US secured clear evidence that NK was exporting its nuclear capabilities, and they presented this info, largely to other countries in Asia to get them on-board with tightening sanctions. It worked great, except over time it emerged that the US had not revealed the role Pakistan played as a middle man in selling the nuclear tech for cash. The US didn't reveal that because it was protecting its relationship with Pakistan.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:
Is it imagined though? Trump's campaign had very clear racist tones, along with him never really denouncing any of his racist supporters, and just the opposite in fact.

It is absolutely imagined. What are the racist tones you are speaking about? I assume you mean "Muslim ban" and the "fine people on both sides" issues?

Or the gakhole countries, the Mexicans are rapists, wanting more Norwegians etc.

So if I say "everyone from this country is a gakhole" that makes me a racist?
I believe he was referring to illegal Mexican immigrants all being criminals (by definition they are) then mentions that some are rapist too (this is true of any culture of people)?
Nothing racist about wanting immigration from one country and not the other when you consider the facts. Norwegians are well educated, have lots of money and therefor lots to offer. Mexicans are poor, offer litter, drain resources. When you can't talk about objective facts due to PC nonsense - you can't heave real discussions anymore. It's not racism ether - it's insensitive to poor people who aren't your responsibility to begin with. That is about it.

You know how you look at Mexicans?

That's how Norwegians look at us, BECAUSE of how you look at Mexicans.

 whembly wrote:
But, I think all sides are losing their minds over this summit. This is nothing more than a glamorous photo shoot with a promise to meet again at a later date to continue negotiation.

A president of the United States doing a glamorous photo shoot with a tyrant who operates forced labour camps and executes family members with anti-aircraft cannon is something people should lose their minds over.

This is literally a nothingburger except that both Trump and Kim met to begin negotiations.

Except for the bit where Trump proclaimed it an epochal meeting, and later tweeted that North Korea is no longer a nuclear threat. It is a big deal that after getting that nothingburger deal from Kim, Trump is acting like the job is done. That even further weakens the US position, makes it harder for them to walk away from future negotiations, which means the US will need to give up more to get less in the actual negotiations.

Standout syndicated columnist and CNN contributor Salena Zito, with veteran Republican strategist Brad Todd, reports across five swing states and over 27,000 miles to answer the pressing question: Was Donald Trump's election a fluke or did it represent a fundamental shift in the electorate that will have repercussions--for Republicans and Democrats--for years to come.

I haven't read the book but I have read excerpts and what I read was mired in dubious assumptions. First and foremost is the idea that you can take a subject words at face value and gain any real kind of insight. Sure, all these Trump supporters will say they favour practical solutions over ideology, but who doesn't? The point is that what people consider practical solutions is informed, likely on a sub-conscious level, by ideology.

Anyhow, my point wasn't about addressing the greater mystery of why people like Trump, that is destined to be an ever-lasting mystery, like jello with meat in it or Steve Gutenberg. My point was I got, for just a minute, an idea of what it was like to be in the place where you see Trump's claim, but not see the immediate follow up that Trump's claim was bs. Now, even just a few days later I actually find it hard to put myself in that mindset where I thought Trump had actually done something.

It was instructive to me how when a person follows the news only enough to get that first headline, Trump's bs actually works. That's all I was saying. On the greater issue of Trump's appeal, I've pretty much given up guessing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
When he does do something well, like finally moving our embassy to Jerusalem or stepping out of an extraordinarily flawed Iran nuclear deal, it’s ignored or villainized. Americans notice the double standard; the refusal to see anything positive, and the fixation on everything negative. There are some accomplishments every American can, or should, admit are positives. The economy is in fantastic shape; Trump has brought home American political prisoners from North Korea and Venezuela; he has pushed through the first steps of important criminal justice reform.

And here is the problem. All of it. You pick and choose when something matters, to invent a fantasy around cheering for your team, and denigrating the other team.

Presenting the horrendously stupid Jerusalem embassy shift or cancellation of the Iran deal as 'doing something well' is bad enough, that you present it as unquestionably shows a frame of mind that is, to be frank, completely uninterested in the actual results of either decision.

Presenting the economy as doing well is blatant hypocrisy. It is the same economy that was inherited from Obama. Jobs growth has continued as it was under Obama (actually it's slowed a bit, but given we're reaching full employment that's to be expected), and that's seen the fall in unemployment continue. But what is telling is this exact economy was a constant source of attack and anger for Republicans throughout the Obama administration, to the point where we saw regular claims that BLS figures must be fictional. Now Trump inherits that economy, and what was claimed to be such a dire state of affairs is suddenly an economy in fantastic shape.

And when you celebrate Trump bringing home prisoners from North Korea, did you ever spend a second celebrating the dozen prisoners Obama brought home from NK? Why is it an accomplishment for Trump, but nothing worth mentioning for Obama?

 sebster wrote:


Anyhow, my point wasn't about addressing the greater mystery of why people like Trump, that is destined to be an ever-lasting mystery, like jello with meat in it or Steve Gutenberg. My point was I got, for just a minute, an idea of what it was like to be in the place where you see Trump's claim, but not see the immediate follow up that Trump's claim was bs. Now, even just a few days later I actually find it hard to put myself in that mindset where I thought Trump had actually done something.

It was instructive to me how when a person follows the news only enough to get that first headline, Trump's bs actually works. That's all I was saying. On the greater issue of Trump's appeal, I've pretty much given up guessing.

Ah... I see what you mean. Yeah, that's a pretty apt analysis.

Trumps own version of retail politics.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
When he does do something well, like finally moving our embassy to Jerusalem or stepping out of an extraordinarily flawed Iran nuclear deal, it’s ignored or villainized. Americans notice the double standard; the refusal to see anything positive, and the fixation on everything negative. There are some accomplishments every American can, or should, admit are positives. The economy is in fantastic shape; Trump has brought home American political prisoners from North Korea and Venezuela; he has pushed through the first steps of important criminal justice reform.

And here is the problem. All of it. You pick and choose when something matters, to invent a fantasy around cheering for your team, and denigrating the other team.

Presenting the horrendously stupid Jerusalem embassy shift or cancellation of the Iran deal as 'doing something well' is bad enough, that you present it as unquestionably shows a frame of mind that is, to be frank, completely uninterested in the actual results of either decision.

Presenting the economy as doing well is blatant hypocrisy. It is the same economy that was inherited from Obama. Jobs growth has continued as it was under Obama (actually it's slowed a bit, but given we're reaching full employment that's to be expected), and that's seen the fall in unemployment continue. But what is telling is this exact economy was a constant source of attack and anger for Republicans throughout the Obama administration, to the point where we saw regular claims that BLS figures must be fictional. Now Trump inherits that economy, and what was claimed to be such a dire state of affairs is suddenly an economy in fantastic shape.

And when you celebrate Trump bringing home prisoners from North Korea, did you ever spend a second celebrating the dozen prisoners Obama brought home from NK? Why is it an accomplishment for Trump, but nothing worth mentioning for Obama?

Um... that was an article seb, I didn't write.

Also, this?

And here is the problem. All of it. You pick and choose when something matters, to invent a fantasy around cheering for your team, and denigrating the other team.

Pick up a mirror buddy. We're all cheering for our team. Own it.

 whembly wrote:
General Mattis is on record saying he knew about all that...

Of course, he could be covering Trump's ass here.

General Mattis is doing what he can to keep the ship running. He is a loyal servicemen to his country and government, and should be admired for that. In the end, like Colin Powell, he will be left with a career awkwardly bookended by service to a failed presidency, when his motivation was only ever to limit those failures.

It isn't fair, of course, but such is life for many public servants.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Cold relations where NK launches missiles and acting belligerently.

Yeah... that's what we're probably looking at if history is of any guide.

NK's belligerent acts wasn't driven by frosty relations with the US. It was always about extorting stuff from the west and building its siege mentality to bring its population more in to line.

All this has done is reward NK for its most belligerent act - building nukes. It will only encourage them to continue their current strategy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
I only watch CNN when I have time.

Friends don't let friends watch CNN.

You're acting like this is it. Pompeo/SK/NK is working to keep the dialogue/negotiation ongoing.

My point is that in on-going negotiations the US position is only going to be weaker. Kim is free to walk away at any point, because so far its all wins for him. Whereas the US needs to continue talks in order to justify the political capital and concessions already committed. Which means Kim can continue pressing the US for more, while giving away less.

How 'bout this. Take Trump out of the equation (or even superimpose that it's HRC the President): What would be your criteria(s) that would be considered as a success? Total de-nuclearlization? Reunification? Some believe it's getting them to face up to the Human Rights violations or bust.

Success depends on what is given for what is gained. It is irrelevant who is president, only what the deal is.

If NK agreed to a time table of steps to move to complete, irreversible de-nuclearisation, then it would be reasonable in response to agree to a timetable of sanctions relief.

If NK agreed to, say, something as crazy as ending all human rights abuses, open elections administered by the UN, then I could see Kim being given immunity from prosecution, enormous ecomonic development programs being offered, and the US removing troops from the peninsula.

What if, the only thing we get out of all of this, is an actual end of the armistice and a peace treaty, and no denuking?

 Vulcan wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The USA invaded France, Holland, Italy, Germany, Japan and Tunisia in WW2, and maybe some others.

Is that part of your metrics for saying the USA is very agressive?

Leaving aside the invasion and near genocide of the Native Americans, there's Mexico, Cuba, the Philippines, (we'll call the WWII and Korean actions self-defense), Cuba again, Laos and Cambodia (during Vietnam), Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Afghanstan, and Iraq again.

And I'm sure I've missed at least one that's hovering in the back of my mind.

Drop in the bucket compared to Italy, look at all those countries Rome invaded. Don't get me started on Mongolia.

...Or we can understand that it's unproductive to be bringing up things from over a century ago when trying to discuss how the US acts in the context of modern geopolitics. Further, what country in all of human history has not been aggressive when it is the dominant military power? If we look at the greater picture the US doesn't stand out.