What if it was not the Russians?

So NOW Obama thinks it is ok to get fair trade deals

 

What exactly is the reward? The fakes’ stupidity is discussed, and the Democrats lose the Presidency, the Senate, the House and a thousand State political offices. It will be interesting to see their rewards in the November elections.

 

The fake outrage energizes the unthinking partisans. Not everybody is politically sophisticated enough to be swayed by logic and reason. Sometimes you act on your feelings. I'll admit Democrats rely on unthoughtful voters. Republicans do too.

 

Eventually we’ll probably be overwhelmed by those wanting “free” this or that. That’s when the music stops. Fortunately, airplanes have been invented. Malta seems nice.

 

Walking back...Trump says he "mispoke" going on to say that "it should have been obvious" except then the Tucker Carlson interview airs tonight that was filmed yesterday. Trump mispoke at the Putin PC, with Hannity and with Tucker Carlson but it "should have been obvious" what he meant. Really? I think it was obvious who's side he's on now he's simply trying to convince us that our eyes and ears aren't working.

Also in the walk back...in the prepared statements he believes the intelligence community assessment of Russian interference then ad libs "it could be others".

It's pretty clear what Trump believes but the pressure inside his own party and administration was too much to bear, even for Trump.

 

Next recession in 2022 as people become more extended on credit. At some point it snaps (just requires a trigger for a certain set of people living on the edge, then it spreads as people tighten their spending). For now, you can probably trade up for a better job, just like you could flip the house in 2005-2006. At some point that is no longer possible. Buckle up for a wild ride for the next 4 years.

 

In the mean time, Trump avoided war with Russia and is working toward joint solutions for N Korea and Iran.

 

Avoiding war with Russia was clearly the only option? Is that sort of like amping up the rhetoric with NK then meeting with him to say you diffused the situation?

What solutions? Both Un and Putin are playing pretty well in their home countries right now and what did Trump get in return?

Don't get me wrong. I believe in our POTUS meeting with our enemies but the premature victory laps are beyond laughable at this point. Trump is looking more like Chump, in International relations. The made for PR moments are looking like catastrophes, from a US voter perspective.

 

blah blah blah biased opinion blah blah blah ignore reality blah blah blah no facts blah blah blah

 

Trumps own quotes aren't facts? I've never claimed I'm without bias, just as anyone here is also.

 

Anybody disagree with Tucker? I think he nailed this one.

 

Anyone wondering if "wouldn't" is Trump's "it depends on your definition of 'is'" moment? The response is so preposterous and deservedly mocked.

 

Prosecutors have asked to hold Maria Butina in custody pending her trial.

 

.

Time will tell but what we got so far blows away anything Obama did. We got a hostage back without giving them anything. Obama gave away five terrorist for one guy that was a disgrace by going AWOL. Rocket Man hasn’t tested any Rockets since he met with President Trump. So there’s that.

.

What’s more funny is how you can say that with a straight face. Everything the Dems and their leader of the party MSM make premature analyzes over and over again and as things shake out Trump is right pretty much every time. Remember the tax cut and Pelosi’s words? Sorry but President Trump has proven himself over and over again so he’s the one that gets the benefit of doubt. Not someone that declared the Cold War was over in a debate and the 80’s are now calling. The retarded sh%t the left says is......well retarded. And I’m sorry if I offended any retards that I insulted by comparing them to the Liberal Morons.

 

A lot wrong with this. For starters, the US was not one of the key players in the encouragement of the Axis. In fact, the US had passed several neutrality acts in the 1930s to stay out of any possible war, and the Axis didn't expect to fight them. The key players were Britain and France in the West and the Soviet Union in the East. Furthermore, at the time the Axis began provoking war (the militarization of the Rheinland and the build-up of the Wehrmacht in violation of the post-WWI agreements), Britain and France were much stronger from a military standpoint. Both of their armies were bigger and better armed. The Royal Air Force was strong, and the Royal Navy had been the envy of the world for centuries.

The big thing Germany had going for it was resolve. They were willing to go to war. Britain and France wanted to avoid it at all costs, and everybody knew it. (Of course, Germany had an advantage in that it was a dictatorship, so Hitler didn't have to care what its people thought.) Accordingly, Britain and France appeased Hitler - let him rebuild his military, let him annex Austria, and seize Czechoslovakia. In other words, they were willing to Make Germany Great Again to have less confrontation (or so they thought).

My point wasn't to draw a Nazi reference. It was to point out the irony of your post. Conservatives usually don't buy into the idea of appeasing a bad guy in hopes that he won't act so badly. We criticized appeasers of communist regimes during the Cold War as well as of terrorist organizations and Islamic states like Iran. But on Putin, you're basically saying the same thing that Obama and his ilk said about Iran.

 

Good post Deez. The disagreement comes from who Americans think is a threat. I still feel Cuba is a threat to our interests in central and south america. Many americans disagree. I think Iran is a threat, BUT a lesser threat now than they were 20 years ago. I think most Americans see Iran as a threat. I think Russia is a small threat at best that can be turned into a friend or into a real threat depending upon our approach. You and many others disagree and see them as a serious threat. I think both sides and the EU have used Russia as a political football worsening relations.

The way to resolve this would be for Americans to elect candidates based on foreign policy issues. However, unless something massive occurs like 9/11, Americans do not care or care very little about foreign policy when they vote. For better or worse, Obama and Trump
pretty much had and have free rein unless Congress steps up.

I have thought for awhile America may be better served with a European system where the vice president runs domestic policy while the president runs foreign policy. It would force americans to think about foreign policy and actually vote on an approach.

 

It's not a matter of sides but of topics. When we're talking about actual policy, I'm much tougher on Husker than I am on you or Joe Fan. I do treat him with respect, but that's because he extends the same courtesy to me. However, I do confront him when I think he's wrong. I did it on the immigration issue. I've done it on taxes. I've done it some on foreign policy, though in the abstract, I'd describe him as somewhat Right-leaning on foreign policy.

When we're talking about raw politics and dick-slapping, I'm definitely tougher on Joe Fan and others. Why? Because I'm not a fan of partisanship and trash-talk. I think it's bad for the country, diverts attention from real issues, shields bad actors from accountability, and discourages free thought. Joe Fan posts plenty of things I do enjoy, but he does a lot of dick-slapping. I'm not a fan of dick-slapping and those who dick-slap. Husker virtually never dick-slaps, so even when I disagree with him on politics or strategy, he doesn't elicit hostility from me.

What is he? Is he a bad guy for not agreeing with us? I don't think so. He's a guy who has carefully examined the issues and reached different conclusions than we have. Furthermore, it does no good to be hostile to people like that. It just makes them dig in and close their minds. (In fact, we're all like that.)

If you want people who aren't conservative (or not as conservative as you'd like them to be) to embrace conservatism, you have to be respectful to them. That earns you credibility with them and the right to confront their politics. Once you do that, then their minds are open. It doesn't mean you'll get them to become Reaganites, but it at least lets you make your case. We'd be much better off if more people on the Right chose this route.

 

Of course not. I've debated many a good liberal in my day. Husker isn't one of them. I could give you details to the **** he pulls but there's no sense in me starting an argument with him over it. There's a good reason why many have blocked him on here and it has nothing to do with politics. However, I will give him credit that's he's been much better of late. It's one of the reasons why he and I haven't clashed lately.

 

Anyone ever accuse Nixon going soft in China?

 

I'm not sure what kind of **** somebody can pull on a message board, but most of the time when I see you all get into fights with him, it's him tossing some sarcasm in response to dick-slapping and/or ridicule.

 

Probably so. Plenty (including Reagan) were hostile to the detente policy.

 

I'm willing to bet if we took a poll here more people would agree with me than you. Like I said i don't understand why you can't see things for what they really are.

 

Seattle has never offended me. Not even close.

I have a t-shirt I wear with a picture of Marvin Gaye and the words, "War is not the answer." I always have strangers come up to me and tell me they like my t-shirt. Of course, I live in Austin. It's my assumption people are more receptive here than in other areas of the country. It's an interesting thing to wear those words out in public. I wasn't sure how people would take it. Would they think I was an appeaser or some white guy appropriating a black man's words? I over-think things quite a bit but at the moment I think people just like to see someone who is not beating the drum for militarism. The thing is, I'm not a pacifist per se. I get there are times when we have to step up. It's a bad world out there. The basic question on that score is this: Would it be worse in the absence of the American hegemony? My Father (as I've said before) was a Cuban immigrant and a PH.D. in Political Science. He would always talk about the influence of the US in the world and he felt only China or Russia could effectively replace us in terms of world dominance. His Machiavellian point of view was that the United States absolutely mattered when it came to countering what he saw as totalitarian and truly corrupt nations. He did not buy into any notion that Russia and China were the blow-back from our own actions. And even if they were, their resulting form of government and interaction with the rest of the world was not to be emulated.

So what about Trump? Is he incoherent? Maybe. He says a lot of things. He's a show-off and a blow-hard. But is he being soft on Putin? Well I guess he was publicly. But what about some of these things (I pulled this from a friends Facebook page; I apologize if any of it is fake):


-Trump upheld Russian sanctions in January of 2017.

-Trump administration imposed new sanctions on Russia — including strict sanctions on seven of Russia’s richest individuals and 17 top government officials for their interference in our elections.

-Expelled 60 Russian "diplomats".

-Closed a Russian consulate.

-Trump ordered the closure of Russian diplomatic properties in San Francisco, Washington, D.C., and New York City that appeared to be a threat to American security.

-In August 2017, Trump signed a bill slapping even more sanctions on Russia, this time specifically aimed at the country’s energy and defense industries. Congress made the legislation Trump-proof, meaning that no executive order could ever undo such sanctions; yet Trump signed it anyway.

-Cancelled the Iran deal. Hurts Russia.

-Trump military actions killed 100-300 Russian forces in Syria.

-Trump publicly and openly supports Ukraine and sent arms and munitions to military forces engaged w Russians.

-Trump reinstituted missile defense systems in Poland and Eastern Europe, which Obama withdrew from as a pre-emptive olive branch to Putin in 2009 (an olive branch that then beat Obama over the head for seven years).

-Obama said in 2012 that his red line with the Assad regime would be the use of chemical weapons. Later that year, Assad's forces killed nearly 1,500 people in a chemical-weapons attack. Obama did nothing...

-Trump bombed Syria for using chemical weapons as he promised. Russia is propping up Syria.

-In his speech in Poland, Trump lambasted Russia for using oil to hold NATO’s Eastern European countries hostage.

-Trump called out Germany for getting 70%+ of its gas from Russia while relying on US to defend them from Russia. Clearly not something Russia would want.

To me, a public speech in the middle of negotiations standing next to your adversary is a made for TV event and doesn't say much to me. If all the above is true what is so wrong about backing off a bit after you've already proven you're willing to stand up to someone?

The interesting thing out of all of this is similar to the meme I saw about Michael Moore: Since when did the Left become so patriotic about the CIA or our intelligence community?

 

I'm sure more would agree with you than with me. When it comes to politics, we're a dick-slapping culture now. People like it. Just look at social media or the comments sections of news articles. Obviously it stands to reason that most will sympathize with those who dick-slap over those who resist it.

 

It has nothing to do with dick-slapping culture, dude. Husker can be a real jerk at times. I don't why you don't see it or you just don't want to see it. He does treat you differently than anyone else here. If you look back to when I first started posting here regularly I was cordial to him. Remember how I apologized to him when we got into our first serious argument? However, his antics got under my skin quick and that was done with. There are some here that would dick-slap him because of his politics. However, there are others here that aren't like that like Prodigal, Mchammer and me that have had confrontations with him and are tired of his ****. Are you telling me that mb227 is a dick-slapper? She's one of the nicest people on here and she's chewed his *** out many times.

 

Why do you think that is? Culturally and politically I'm far to his Right across the board and not just on fiscal matters but on matters where he's furthest from conservatism. I'm pro-life, hostile to social liberalism across the board, and I'm an evangelical Christian. Yet somehow I can have a civil discussion with him. Yes, the dick-slapping culture is the difference-maker..

Glad you can acknowledge that.

Prodigal routinely has civil discussions with him. And mchammer? He loves dick-slapping almost as much as he loves taint.

 

Your dad is right, and this is what the Ron Paul idiots so seldom consider. They think that if the US disengaged and unilaterally threw away its power, everybody would just get along. That's not how the world works, because it's not how human nature works.

That's the sad thing, and it's why the Russia junk is so overblown by the Left. On actual policy and actions, he hasn't been particularly favorable to Russia. Let's put it this way. To the extent that Putin spent money to help Trump win, it wasn't a particularly good investment.

The problem is that words matter when they come out of the president's mouth, because they create perceptions, which at least get treated like realities. I think Trump views any possibility that Russia interfered in his favor as an attack on his legitimacy, so he goes into idiot mode the minute it comes out.

Good points. When did they become so patriotic or more precisely, jingoistic? They're taking on a mindset that they have frequently attacked or ridiculed in the past.

 

Ron Paul's position on the US expressing it's power globally is not that it's none of our business, it's that we cannot afford it. RP is all about the spending.