Helsinki--the Tipping Point?

[Dill]

(07-18-2018, 12:16 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Dude, above is the question you posed. You clearly asked someone to look at this single incident, by excluding them with "not to mention". When it was answered you moved the goalpost and continue to do so

So your question was answered and when you found you could not take fault with the answer provided, you chose to reframe your question. 
But to answer your question: Yes. I generally try to answer questions as they are posed, not how the sender whats me to answer. 

Sure, I CLEARLY posed a question about this one incident, and you CLEARLY answered by stating a general principle--no rational person would change a vote because of one incident.

Then I CLEARLY "re-framed" the question to refute that principle, which I could and did "take fault with." That is not moving the goal posts. It is removing the ground from your point. Clearly rational people can change their vote because of one incident.

[GMDino]

(07-18-2018, 11:52 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Well to be honest I didn't expect an open-minded response, but Jim Webb's political views as well as his decorated Military service held a lot of weight with me. As to "not liking Clinton", you do realize Jim Webb stated he would not vote for Clinton, aligned himself closer to Trump, and was a huge critic of Obama's foreign policy. 

BTW, care to share who you voted for so I can call you a liar? 

Well I wasn't talking about who Jim Webb voted for.  Is he out there defending Trump too?

In order I voted for:

Dukakis (if I remember correctly) I know at the time I thought eight years of Reaganomics were more than enough...my family suffered greatly due to his pro big business/anti-union ways...but I might have changed my mind at the last second because I wasn't 100% sure of what Dukakis planned on really doing and I remember liking Bush Sr.

Clinton.  I'd had enough of Reaganomics.  Clinton was young and energetic.  I was 22, fresh out of college and ready for a younger generation to lead the country.

Perot.  Clinton should have resigned over the Lewinsky affair.  Dole seemed to get nominated because it was "his turn".  Perot was an outsider and I got caught up in the buzz with him.  I think he would have been a more sane Trump...maybe.  Not sure I would vote for him today.

GW Bush.  Eight years of democrat control was enough.  Despite his lack of experience  thought Bush would surround himself with people to help him learn the job.  I didn't realize they would also use this time to push through foreign policy they couldn't get past the stronger, smarter Bush Sr.

Kerry.  The Iraq "war" was a step too far.  

McCain.  He should have been the candidate in 2000.  He was the candidate I supported in 2000.  And I held my nose with Palin as his VP and a heartbeat from the oval office because I respected him.

Obama.  He turned the economy around and was a good man.  Given the overt obstructionism he received from 2014 on he deserved to keep working.

Clinton.  PA is a state she should have won.  Trump was an ahole long before he ran for president or even started tweeting about politics.  He's a snake oil salesman.  A con artist.  Someone who was born on third and thought he hit a triple and makes his "living" off people thinking he's successful and getting out of his way.  The Vince McMahon of real estate, if you will.  His giant ego doesn't allow for learning or self-inspection.  He is an awful human being to the people he is intimately involved with let alone people he works with or work for him.  He's a world class, pathological liar.  People can make all kinds of excuses for why they "couldn't" vote for Clinton...but in the end they voted for a horrible human being instead who also had no experience and no history that says he would even TRY to learn what he needs to do at his new job.  He thinks he was elected CEO and everyone works for him and all that matters is making money.  And most of us will suffer because of it.

Now tell me how my vote put an awful person who can't do his job and lies every day in office.  

And I didn't say anyone lied about who they voted for. I said they say they didn't vote for him but that theyidentify more closely with him and defend hm constantly.

[*bfine32*]

(07-18-2018, 12:34 PM)Dill Wrote: Sure, I CLEARLY posed a question about this one incident, and you CLEARLY answered by stating a general principle--no rational person would change a vote because of one incident.

Then I CLEARLY "re-framed" the question to refute that principle, which I could and did "take fault with." That is not moving the goal posts. It is removing the ground from your point. Clearly rational people can change their vote because of one incident.

Then why did you feel the need to bring in previous events when refuting the answer?

Never mind, don't answer that. I don't feel like reading a soliloquy and to how you didn't ask a question you asked or how you didn't change the perimeters once the question was rightly answered. 

[*bfine32*]

(07-18-2018, 11:36 AM)GMDino Wrote: Someone who is all in on supporting Trump saying they "would have voted for a democrat if it was (fill in the blank)" is just empty.  Especially when their main excuse is they didn't "like" Clinton, so the unprepared guy who claims to never make a mistake is the better choice. 

Clear example of accusing someone as lying; you even found the response laughable.

(07-18-2018, 12:34 PM)GMDino Wrote: Well I wasn't talking about who Jim Webb voted for.  Is he out there defending Trump too?


And I didn't say anyone lied about who they voted for.  I said they say they didn't vote for him but that theyidentify more closely with him and defend hm constantly.

Actually he has wished Trump well and aligned himself more on his side of the fence. But his stances were brought up to refute someone suggesting I was lying. When you could not take issue with my rational for supporting a Democrat you changed it to no one asked who Webb voted for.

When you call someone names or slur them at least own; hell, Trump owns it about 75% of the time. 

[Dill]

(07-18-2018, 12:25 AM)hollodero Wrote: I don't know if you're not falling for a pseudo argument here (strong, defending the country etc.). That is used if it seems effective, which doesn't mean it's imperative. Benton just mentioned an uninformed meme generation, and I think that's what we're dealing with when really talking the "base". They take anything in as an argument and selectively search for them. And there are enough providers.  One can see the spin already. He only tries to make peace with Russia, he is so smart and doesn't fall for media naratives and for the propaganda about Putin that was stuffed in our heads by hateful leftist ideologists in the media etc. etc.

Pretty sure I am not falling for it. But I am saying others have and continue to. The "strong leader" criterion has always been a priority for authoritarian personalities. And it has been a leading theme in Trump speeches, building on years of Fox claims Obama was "weak." All Trump's rants about weak trade deals and the Iran deal were premised on weak leaders not being tough enough and giving the store away. Not going to happen under Trump. Who is going to pay for the wall, Hollo?

I agree the base is generally uniformed. (Why is it a problem if Trump talks with the president of Taiwan?) But the lack is cross-generational.  Further, the base is disinformed. That is why so many claim the choice between Hillary and Trump was between equally bad candidates. That isn't just absence of information, but the presence of disinformation.

(07-18-2018, 12:25 AM)hollodero Wrote: I see. They really run that?
It seems you come to agree with me that FOX news has to find a conscience and save the country. I still see them as crucial. And you're right, if they can't go along any more, than I'd say the tipping point is reached. I just have my doubts, I just took a peek at yesterday's Hannity show and he's already on full "Trump did great in Helsinki, media leftists deep state" mode.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/07/16/putin-eats-trumps-lunch-in-helsinki-this-is-no-way-to-win-against-russia.html

Yes, much depends on Fox. And Fox is more than Hannity, who has by far the deepest investment in Trump and, it could be argued, some direct influence over domestic and foreign policy. Horrors! 

Some of the more professional journalists at Fox will have much difficulty continuing as before. Of course there will be effort to repair this damage among the base. What I am saying is 1) the repair will not be complete (both Trump and Hannity are desperate), 2) the next unforced error will prove easier to address and more divisive,  and 3) the stage is now set for continual erosion of support, the breakdown of the bubble--barring war or similar mass disaster which requires everyone to set aside criticism.

[Bengalzona]

(07-18-2018, 11:31 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: As for Trump's comments in Helsinki, yes, they were ill advised.  However, I have a question for the "treason!" crowd, what exactly changed based on those statements?  What benefits did Russia gain and what did the US lose?  I honestly think Trump is trolling people at this point.  Do people really want to go to war with Russia?

Question: How many of our NATO allies sent troops to Afghanistan.

Answer: All of them.

Question: How many NATO allies were attacked during 9/11?
Answer: None. But they supported us because WE were attacked. They sent sons and daughters to die in a shit hole on the other side of the world.... because WE were attacked.

That is what is known as having an ally.

Question: How many troops did Russia and Putin send?
Answer: None. Instead, they chose to take advantage of us and invade Georgia, Crimea and the Eastern Ukraine and then peddle in our elections.

The question isn't "Do people (in the U.S.) really want to go to war with Russia?". The question is, "Why does the government of Russia want to go to war with us?".

As for Trump trolling the nation, you may be correct. So... my 11 year old son is more mature than the 72 year old POTUS? Good God!!

[Dill]

(07-18-2018, 12:25 AM)hollodero Wrote: I guess you're right about Trump's personality, I can see him lashing out and tweeting awful things, I'm not so sure it matters much. With Congress, I suppose that's right also, but with these Republicans I don't see it happening. A neutered party is what I see, that already took so many steps into the mess for Trump that it's hard to suddenly stop and admit all the dirt. Especially when most republican voters won't appreciate it.
And the step that would be needed is conservatives voting democrat for the good of the country in those Midterms. Which I'd say would be the right thing to do, but already I saw the question posed who else to possibly vote for, so I guess others don't agree with that stance.
After all, hey the economy is good.

As some conservative journalists have come to understand, the great success--and disaster--for the Republican party has been to convince the electorate that nothing is worse than a liberal politician.  That is why there is such paralysis among them--Trump is terrible, incompetent, a vulgar and mean person, a pathological liar, but who else could they possibly vote for if he is the Republican candidate?

Trump's now-more-fragile personality will only indirectly affect Congress. The immediate effect will be upon his staff and cabinet. Let us see if the volume of leaks and resignations/firings increases over the next month. If that happens, it will pose governance problems, problems for Congress. Remember that next week a weakened but still uncontrollable (by his lawyers and advisors) Trump will deliver a whole new set of errors to dominate the news cycle, as the steady, focused and disciplined Mueller grinds on with with the Russia investigation, pushing Trump to still riskier behavior. This cannot end well.

Pundits still speak of how Congress is fearful of the Trump base in coming elections. But some of that base is peeling away--especially military and ex-miitary. They could swallow "strong" Trump, but not weak Trump and Putin.  Republicans within the party continue to oppose Trump and work to "save" it. Helsinki made their job much easier.  The bubble is breaking.

NB: more from Fox: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/07/17/ohio-gop-leader-resigns-over-trump-putin-helsinki-summit.html
And Dems are pushing to subpoena Trump's translator.https://www.rt.com/usa/433572-democrats-trump-putin-translator/. Will some GOP support this?

[*bfine32*]

(07-18-2018, 01:06 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Question: How many of our NATO allies sent troops to Afghanistan.

Answer: All of them.

Question: How many NATO allies were attacked during 9/11?
Answer: None. But they supported us because WE were attacked. They sent sons and daughters to die in a shit hole on the other side of the world.... because WE were attacked.

That is what is known as having an ally.

Question: How many troops did Russia and Putin send?
Answer: None. Instead, they chose to take advantage of us and invade Georgia, Crimea and the Eastern Ukraine and then peddle in our elections.

The question isn't "Do people (in the U.S.) really want to go to war with Russia?". The question is, "Why does the government of Russia want to go to war with us?".

Well to be fair Russia sent a lot of troops to Afghanistan; it's just that Rambo kicked their ass. 

On a totally different note. We once had a dinner with members of the Russian Army during a JRTC rotation. I will tell you thier Soldiers were very open and friendly; as I assume most fighting men are toward one another regardless of ideology. Hell, you should have saw the shortages of TA-50 when we returned, but there was a surplus of Russian military watches, knives, hats, ect....

[Dill]

(07-18-2018, 12:41 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Then why did you feel the need to bring in previous events when refuting the answer?

Never mind, don't answer that. I don't feel like reading a soliloquy and to how you didn't ask a question you asked or how you didn't change the perimeters once the question was rightly answered. 

Wow.  So you think you "rightly" answered the question. Couldn't follow the counter. Now you are done.  Ok.

[*bfine32*]

(07-18-2018, 01:20 PM)Dill Wrote: Wow.  So you think you "rightly" answered the question. Couldn't follow the counter. Now you are done.  Ok.

Not at all. Sometimes I just grow tired of playing chess with a pigeon. 

[Bengalzona]

(07-18-2018, 01:15 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Well to be fair Russia sent a lot of troops to Afghanistan; it's just that Rambo kicked their ass. 

On a totally different note. We once had a dinner with members of the Russian Army during a JRTC rotation. I will tell you thier Soldiers were very open and friendly; as I assume most fighting men are toward one another regardless of ideology. Hell, you should have saw the shortages of TA-50 when we returned, but there was a surplus of Russian military watches, knives, hats, ect....

I think the Russian people individually are generally good people. I generally don't have a problem with them (except that ALL of their movies are so damned depressing). My issues are with the Russian government and and their choices.

[*wildcats forever*]

(07-18-2018, 01:27 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: I think the Russian people individually are generally good people. I generally don't have a problem with them (except that ALL of their movies are so damned depressing). My issues are with the Russian government and and their choices.

I have similar thoughts about Americans, except the movies are better 

[Dill]

(07-18-2018, 01:06 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Question: How many of our NATO allies sent troops to Afghanistan.
Answer: All of them.
Question: How many NATO allies were attacked during 9/11?
Answer: None. But they supported us because WE were attacked. They sent sons and daughters to die in a shit hole on the other side of the world.... because WE were attacked.
That is what is known as having an ally.
Question: How many troops did Russia and Putin send?
Answer: None. Instead, they chose to take advantage of us and invade Georgia, Crimea and the Eastern Ukraine and then peddle in our elections.
The question isn't "Do people (in the U.S.) really want to go to war with Russia?". The question is, "Why does the government of Russia want to go to war with us?".

Well said. I spent 5 1/2 months on a Czech/American base in Lowgar province.

I don't think the Russians really want to go to war with us; they just realize that we are weak now. We have an indecisive and manipulable leader. There is no direction and coordination of national security from the top down, as there has been in the past. They know they can take risks and push boundaries they could not before.

You like opera, right? Think of our national defense agencies like a symphony orchestra in a production of Tosca, with a conductor who knows nothing of music and cannot effectively conduct. The various sections--the woodwinds, strings, brass manned by excellent musicians--are trying their best to follow the music and do their jobs. The singers take their cues from one another as much as the conductor, having no real clue as to when they come in (he ignores some when he is angry, regardless of how it hurts the performance).

So the whole sounds atrocious, offbeat, uncoordinated as the conductor takes unnecessary bows during the symphony and ignores some sections while increasing the tempo in others. His supporters say all conductors make errors and the other choice, with years of conducting experience, would be much worse. People who call it as they see it are told they just hate the conductor.

That is how Russian intel sees our national defense/security agencies. Not to mention NK and China, and, of course, our allies. Trump supporters see a big campaign rally with bold talk from their leader.

[Dill]

(07-18-2018, 01:31 PM)wildcats forever Wrote: I have similar thoughts about Americans, except the movies are better 

LOL.

[Dill]

(07-18-2018, 12:24 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Hell yeah and many of his twitter conversation are void of rational thought from all sides. 

Did I answer that one as you wanted? 

EDIT: BTW, I learn some new and interesting terms in this forum. Would the question you posed be considered "Whataboutisim"?

Yes. Now I'd like you to take a step further and consider what might be the consequences for the nation if its leader tweets tweets void of rational thought. Does he also perhaps act on these irrational tweets? Use them to manage policy? Can they effect security?

WhataboutTrump in a post about Trump?  lol No.  You need to grasp the definition of the term as well, how it is used. Criticizing the "hyperbole train" was a bad way to start your defense of Trump's misogyny.

[Dill]

(07-18-2018, 01:24 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Not at all. Sometimes I just grow tired of playing chess with a pigeon. 

Very tiresome, when the pigeon knows the rules and you don't.

[GMDino]

(07-18-2018, 12:56 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Clear example of accusing someone as lying; you even found the response laughable.
Actually he has wished Trump well and aligned himself more on his side of the fence. But his stances were brought up to refute someone suggesting I was lying. When you could not take issue with my rational for supporting a Democrat you changed it to no one asked who Webb voted for.

When you call someone names or slur them at least own; hell, Trump owns it about 75% of the time. 

Ah...the "selective moral outrage spin machine" strikes again!

Quick edit: So I'm not a liar? Good!

Bye!

[Bengalzona]

(07-18-2018, 01:31 PM)wildcats forever Wrote: I have similar thoughts about Americans, except the movies are better 

Here, we have the opposite problem: All of the movies are so damned uplifting! (LOL!)

[*bfine32*]

(07-18-2018, 01:44 PM)Dill Wrote: Yes. Now I'd like you to take a step further and consider what might be the consequences for the nation if its leader tweets tweets void of rational thought. Does he also perhaps act on these irrational tweets? Use them to manage policy? Can they effect security?

WhataboutTrump in a post about Trump?  lol No.  You need to grasp the definition of the term as well, how it is used. Criticizing the "hyperbole train" was a bad way to start your defense of Trump's misogyny.

Well if you go back and read the posts more slowly you will clearly see that I pointed to a hyperbole train to defend my character and others that support POTUS being called into question; rather than that of POTUS himself (read post 59). No one here would assert rape/sexual harassment "doesn't count". 

As to your first point: I suppose it depends on how much stock one takes in twitter. Personally, I do not use or follow the social app. 

[GMDino]

(07-18-2018, 02:10 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Here, we have the opposite problem: All of the movies are so damned uplifting! (LOL!)

Were you forced to watch "Battleship Potemkin" too.