Trump Slams Allies in favor of Putin (again)...
|
Trump Slams Allies in favor of Putin (again)...
|
07-12-2018, 02:29 AM
I hope the article shows the cargo ship that carries liquified natural gas. Like I've said, my iPad is old and has a lot of trouble doing things now.
Anyway, http://fortune.com/2016/02/25/lng-exports-petroleum-prices/ 
07-12-2018, 09:06 AM
(07-12-2018, 12:50 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Yes, Nord Stream 2 is a new thing. It seems to just be a bigger, better, safer version of what they already have: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/11/behind-nord-stream-2-the-russia-to-germany-gas-pipeline-that-fueled-t.html Quote:What is Nord Stream 2? I understand some countries not wanting to be more MORE reliant on one source. We should be the same way here with emphasis on renewable resources but we all see how that conversation goes. However it's capitalism. If your boy Trump wants to do something about he needs to "make a deal" and make it work for his allies. Every POTUS that opposed it should have come up with a better answer for our allies. I don't recall them acting like Trump and stomping his feet and pretending that the US doesn't WANT to spend all that money on military spending but they HAVE too because the ungrateful NATO allies won't pay him what he's owed. A mistaken take on how NATO operates, but one that a man-child who barely wants to scratch the surface before creating an opinion would make. ![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media0.giphy.com/media/1kwsTjL8BNqlszNtnCE/giphy.gif) Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self. 
07-12-2018, 11:16 AM
(07-12-2018, 12:59 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Complete economic strangulation (which Europe wouldn't do because then they'd have to pay the US more for liquefied natural gas for heating), total asset seizure of all foreign Russian investments, blanket denial for all Russian businesses and citizens from accessing western financial services, limited to escalated military direct military action. Putin wasn't willing to risk a real war over the Crimea, he was willign to risk the west wouldn't do anything of real substance. he was correct. Right. Things you said make a lot of sense, this one included... while I realized I proposed similar courses of action right now, and I can't quite blame Trump for not doing what Obama wasn't doing as well. Meaning, I can't defend Obama on that one really, or Europe for that matter. One thing is different now, that being Russia starting to run propaganda attacks in the meantime. And there I have a problem with Trump specifically, in that he seems to be unwillling to acknowledge that. -- For some reason, and that's an unreasonable reason, the propaganda hits closer to home for me than the Crimea annexion, which in some respect I probably view as not an unlogical correction of a border drawn the wrong way in the first place. Including wrong for Ukraine, because that Ost vs. West/ Russia vs. Europe conflict in that country paralyzed it to the point of not functioning at all. Of course I know it was still very wrong to annex Crimea and I should see that as objectively worse... but the propaganda is more hostile towards me personally and the folks in western countries. Hard to get data on this one, but I can recognize Russian bots in the comment sections of local newspapers etc., and though it's not provable I am quie certain about the bots appearing there, and it's spooky. Especially knowing how effective their overall net operations are in the end. And the west is not united against that threat, and that one is on Trump for big parts. Believing Putin's words over all our intelligence's findings (not just the rigged US intelligence) is unforgivable to me. (07-12-2018, 12:59 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, Saddam was the enemy of my enemy. Hardly the same thing as our ally. Don't try and play blame the US for the Kuwait invasion, you normally do a good job of not being stereo-typically European.  I'm not? That's a bummer... ok, you're not the stereotypical US Conservative either. There you have it.Of course my choice of words was bad. Your actual allies would never lead a war on your behalf... :) But sure, enemy of an enemy, ally; these fine distinctions are too fine for outsiders. But the US did back Saddam for a long time, hence helping to create the situation that led to the Kuwait annexion. I usually blame Saddam for being Saddam and not someone else primarily, but I don't think that whole chain of events is amongst the more proud moments in US foreign policy. US sure helped create the monster. (07-12-2018, 12:59 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I've answered this before but I'll do so again. Cease eastward expansion of NATO. While it is essentially harmless the Russians have a visceral reaction to it and perceive it as rubbing the cold war loss in their faces. Meet with Russia and introduce the idea of gradual cooperation and support. Let Russia, slowly, into the West's "boys club" which they've wanted to be a part of since the 1800's. Privately remind them of China's huge shared border with Russia and the Chinese "historical claims" on much of Siberia. Remind them how China deals with historical claims a la the South China Sea. Essentially do what we should have done upon the collapse of the Soviet Union, pick them up off the ground brush of their shoulder, grasp their hand, pat them on the back and go get a drink with them. Russian psychology is tremendously wrapped up in being taken seriously and seen as an equal. Start to give them that. Russia is an easy country to understand, they are obsessed with being relevant, let them be. Essentially, politically seduce them. It's very doable and no one has ever tried it before. Hm. I have a feeling that's similar to the approach we chose after the Soviet Union broke apart. We promoted businesses go there, we let them into the G7, for some time the new leaders up to Putin were treated as a guest of honor. I don't know if it's time to try that again, after all that's happened, I can't quite see a policy of reconciliation with that particular leader. And while I don't disagree with your assessment of Russian psychology (which is a bit broad, in that probably most folk on this planet have a similar attitude), I think it's incomplete though, as it lacks their reaction to percieved weakness. Which was kind of your own (fair) point regarding Obama. And I'm afraid that would be Putin's take if we started to meet his demands and go for cooperation. His goals will not align with ours still, meaning that course of action might just encourage him to take it even further with all the meddling and other cyper attacks; it might even make him take a harder look at the Baltic states again. I'm not willing to give up the hard line at this point against a man who actively tries to distort the west. You'd think he'd stop that if we're just nice to him and remind him of the South China sea? I don't see that happening. Since you asked where to go from here, I keep my stance, which is we need to look strong as well, and we need sanctions, albeit maybe indeed different ones. Ones that hurt Putin personally, meaning I don't want to strangle their economy, I want to strangle the oligarchs and their businesses specifically. How those guys still can do business in the west and run all their accounts etc. is beyond me in the first place. Also, I think we need a concerted effort to counter the cyber attacks more effectively. Finally, ceasing he NATO expansion probably would have been a good idea from the start, or maybe replacing the whole NATO construct in the first place after the end of the cold war. But making concessions right now is the wrong signal, I'd say. Putin won't take that as an "Hey, they're reasonable and treat us with respect, so let's lay down the things I'm doing to weaken them in exchange and think about China instead", but rather something like "hey look, we can extort them to meet our demands! That's a winning strategy!" - And I don't think it's a good idea to give Putin a win at this point. ![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
07-12-2018, 11:20 AM
(07-12-2018, 12:00 AM)hollodero Wrote: Of course there is logic to it. You handle partners in an alliance differently than countries you're less close with. Expect different things from them. Want them to commit to agreements you made with them. I agree that the 2% is being completely mischaracterized. It is not owed to anyone. It is what you spend on your own military in order to show a commitment to the alliance and for readiness.
“History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.”-Thurgood Marshall
07-12-2018, 11:45 AM
(07-12-2018, 12:08 AM)fredtoast Wrote: The question is "Why do we treat NATO countries differently". There is no logic to the answer "Because we treat NATO countries differently". That is circular logic. It is a classic example of "begging the question". This is just preposterous. They're treated differently because specific agreements are made amongst the NATO partners, that aren't made with Japan. That is not a circular logic. 
07-12-2018, 11:46 AM
(07-12-2018, 11:16 AM)hollodero Wrote: Right. Things you said make a lot of sense, this one included... while I realized I proposed similar courses of action right now, and I can't quite blame Trump for not doing what Obama wasn't doing as well. Meaning, I can't defend Obama on that one really, or Europe for that matter. Propaganda/disinformation attacks are hard to address as the standard public can't "see" it. Sure, they see the results, but they are easily deniable and, with all the news sources out there it's hard to convince people of what is and is not credible. Hence hanging punitive responses on these actions is difficult at best. Quote:-- For some reason, and that's an unreasonable reason, the propaganda hits closer to home for me than the Crimea annexion, which in some respect I probably view as not an unlogical correction of a border drawn the wrong way in the first place. Including wrong for Ukraine, because that Ost vs. West/ Russia vs. Europe conflict in that country paralyzed it to the point of not functioning at all. Of course I know it was still very wrong to annex Crimea and I should see that as objectively worse... but the propaganda is more hostile towards me personally and the folks in western countries. Or maybe that's just what they wan't you to think.  Trump can't publicly admit that Russia does this as he'd be handing over a huge stockpile of ammunition to the Dems to fire back at him. Schumer, Pelosi and Waters would have a field day if he admitted any Russian interference in the 2016 election.Quote: The ninja mask should have implied I was being sarcastic. Sure we did, just as we did in Afghanistan with the mujahideen that eventually spawned the Taliban and Al Queda. Quote:Hm. I have a feeling that's similar to the approach we chose after the Soviet Union broke apart. We promoted businesses go there, we let them into the G7, for some time the new leaders up to Putin were treated as a guest of honor. I don't know if it's time to try that again, after all that's happened, I can't quite see a policy of reconciliation with that particular leader. And while I don't disagree with your assessment of Russian psychology (which is a bit broad, in that probably most folk on this planet have a similar attitude), I think it's incomplete though, as it lacks their reaction to percieved weakness. Which was kind of your own (fair) point regarding Obama. More no than yes. We treated Russia as a vanquished opponent and threw them some crumbs. If we had started treating them as the equal they were when they were the USSR (or something close to that) we could have forged something like a lasting friendship. We didn't and it's Clinton's biggest mistake of his presidency IMO. Instead we expanded NATO towards their borders. Quote:And I'm afraid that would be Putin's take if we started to meet his demands and go for cooperation. His goals will not align with ours still, meaning that course of action might just encourage him to take it even further with all the meddling and other cyper attacks; it might even make him take a harder look at the Baltic states again. I'm not willing to give up the hard line at this point against a man who actively tries to distort the west. You'd think he'd stop that if we're just nice to him and remind him of the South China sea? I don't see that happening. No, I think he'd see the logic in long term aligning himself with the west over China, a country that traditionally holds his in contempt. Russia is an ally of convenience for China, there is nothing like the links between the US and UK between them and there never will be. Putin is not stupid, he realizes this, he just has no other alternatives right now. Start, gradually, giving him one. I agree with not giving up a hard line right now. Open this door in small increments. Quote:Since you asked where to go from here, I keep my stance, which is we need to look strong as well, and we need sanctions, albeit maybe indeed different ones. Ones that hurt Putin personally, meaning I don't want to strangle their economy, I want to strangle the oligarchs and their businesses specifically. How those guys still can do business in the west and run all their accounts etc. is beyond me in the first place. Also, I think we need a concerted effort to counter the cyber attacks more effectively. Agreed on all counts, with incentives thrown in for certain actions, such as ceasing armed conflict in Ukraine. Quote:Finally, ceasing he NATO expansion probably would have been a good idea from the start, or maybe replacing the whole NATO construct in the first place after the end of the cold war. 100% true, which was one of my points about treating Russia as a vanquished for rather than a potential friend. This more than anything cemented in the Russian mind that we were their enemy, not just the enemy of the Soviet Union. Quote:But making concessions right now is the wrong signal, I'd say. Putin won't take that as an "Hey, they're reasonable and treat us with respect, so let's lay down the things I'm doing to weaken them in exchange and think about China instead", but rather something like "hey look, we can extort them to meet our demands! That's a winning strategy!" - And I don't think it's a good idea to give Putin a win at this point. You act like these concessions would have to be given in return for nothing. They wouldn't have to be.
07-12-2018, 11:53 AM
(07-12-2018, 11:20 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I agree that the 2% is being completely mischaracterized. It is not owed to anyone. It is what you spend on your own military in order to show a commitment to the alliance and for readiness. Could you repeat that for the guy in the oval office handing out past due bills? 
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
07-12-2018, 11:55 AM
(07-12-2018, 11:53 AM)GMDino Wrote: Could you repeat that for the guy in the oval office handing out past due bills? Dude hasn't taken my call in a month. He did tell me I was the best poster on this board though.
“History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.”-Thurgood Marshall
07-12-2018, 12:03 PM
(07-12-2018, 11:55 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Dude hasn't taken my call in a month. He did tell me I was the best poster on this board though. Over bfine? #fakenews  ** This is a joke. It refers to another poster because he won the Bengals Board Award for Best PnR Poster. No offense is intended or implied. Thank you. Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
07-12-2018, 12:19 PM
(07-12-2018, 11:46 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Propaganda/disinformation attacks are hard to address as the standard public can't "see" it. Sure, they see the results, but they are easily deniable and, with all the news sources out there it's hard to convince people of what is and is not credible. Hence hanging punitive responses on these actions is difficult at best. So... I can get on board with your stance on Russia, and the smaller differences don't need to be dragged out too far. We're actually quite close, and incremental ease of sanctions as some kind of "reward" is fine with me too. But with these points, there's strong disagreement. I cannot acknowledge a point like "Maxine Waters would have a field day" as a valid reason to distort the truth, telling falsehoods, slamming the institutions, offending guys from Clapper to Brennan etc., to not admit the country was targeted by a cyber attack. That's as if the Democrats were a bigger threat to national security than the Russian propaganda war. If one sees it that way, he acted for the best of the country. But since I don't, I see Trump's actions as putting his own interests over the interests of the country, and that is a presidential failure. Because Russian cyber attacks ARE a matter of national security, that have to take precedence over political gains. The propaganda attacks are easy to address. And only folk who want to believe what they believe over the truth and that read news accordingly would see that differently. Russian attacks are well-documented, we know about the troll farms, we know about the hacking, we know about all the connections, Trump just chooses to call that fake news and some of his followers choose to believe him over the agencies and the journalists. There's no excuse for that course of action from Trump, none. He's president of the USA, not just the chief republican, and the former has to be more important than the latter. 
07-12-2018, 01:53 PM
(07-12-2018, 12:19 PM)hollodero Wrote: But with these points, there's strong disagreement. I cannot acknowledge a point like "Maxine Waters would have a field day" as a valid reason to distort the truth, telling falsehoods, slamming the institutions, offending guys from Clapper to Brennan etc., to not admit the country was targeted by a cyber attack. You took the words right out of my mouth. This is a classic example of why our system is broken. People think their tribe (party) is more important than the country. And they think it is better to try and get people to believe blatant lies than tell the truth because the more people who believe lies the better their tribe will do.
07-12-2018, 01:58 PM
(07-12-2018, 12:03 PM)GMDino Wrote: Over bfine? #fakenews Bfine is the worst. Believe me I am a way better poster than he is. And the linking of JN threads by non-Bengal fans is against the law.
“History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.”-Thurgood Marshall
07-12-2018, 02:04 PM
(07-12-2018, 01:58 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Bfine is the worst. Believe me I am a way better poster than he is. And the linking of JN threads by non-Bengal fans is against the law. I said: (07-12-2018, 12:03 PM)GMDino Wrote: No offense is intended or implied. Thank you. 
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
07-12-2018, 02:08 PM
“History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.”-Thurgood Marshall
07-12-2018, 02:09 PM
Now it might LOOK like John Kelly is reacting to what Trump says as completely unbelievable....but Sarah Sanders assures us he was just upset that he didn't get a full breakfast.
And he chose RIGHT then to display his feelings. Complete coincidence.  Also it is GREAT to hear him say other presidents didn't "do anything" about the spending because maybe "they didn't understand it". He is such a fool. Y'all must be so proud of him! Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
07-13-2018, 09:17 AM
Trump goes to London and insults the Mayor over a personal dislike for him and slams PM May.
(I'm sure it has nothing to do with him being Pakistani and her being a woman.) But is it VERY "modern presidential" to insult the people hosting you. I'm sure he'll be very tough on Putin also. https://www.npr.org/2018/07/13/628674350/in-fiery-interview-with-british-tabloid-trump-criticizes-prime-minister-london-m Fortunately Trump never does anything wrong...so he knows if leaders of other countries just did things HID was everything would be great! In all honesty Trump is probably just tired and worried he's going to miss his tee time this weekend. I've heard that the McDonald's in the UK aren't as good as the US and they have a big problem with Rupert Murdoch and FOX over there. He's a 70+ year old man who is very set in his ways. It's like hell on earth for a "man" like Trump. Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
07-13-2018, 12:05 PM
(07-12-2018, 12:19 PM)hollodero Wrote: So... I can get on board with your stance on Russia, and the smaller differences don't need to be dragged out too far. We're actually quite close, and incremental ease of sanctions as some kind of "reward" is fine with me too. Glad to hear it. Quote:But with these points, there's strong disagreement. I cannot acknowledge a point like "Maxine Waters would have a field day" as a valid reason to distort the truth, telling falsehoods, slamming the institutions, offending guys from Clapper to Brennan etc., to not admit the country was targeted by a cyber attack. Fred sort of addressed this, but he got the main point wrong. You can't hand your political opponents weapons to use against you. I'm not saying it's morally right, but it is the reality of our political system. I also can't imagine that Austria's is much different. In our sound byte era of politics any admission by Trump that Russia helped get him elected would be endlessly looped. It would be a political disaster for the GOP. You can admit it in private and make efforts to prevent future occurrences, but you cannot admit it publicly. Quote:That's as if the Democrats were a bigger threat to national security than the Russian propaganda war. If one sees it that way, he acted for the best of the country. But since I don't, I see Trump's actions as putting his own interests over the interests of the country, and that is a presidential failure. Because Russian cyber attacks ARE a matter of national security, that have to take precedence over political gains. Neither party acts for the good of the country, they act for the good of themselves. Neither party has a plurality of US citizens, they do what they feel they must to either gain or maintain power. Occasionally a party platform will aid or hinder certain parts of the population. It's mostly giving the appearance of doing something without actually achieving anything of substance. Quote:The propaganda attacks are easy to address. And only folk who want to believe what they believe over the truth and that read news accordingly would see that differently. Russian attacks are well-documented, we know about the troll farms, we know about the hacking, we know about all the connections, Trump just chooses to call that fake news and some of his followers choose to believe him over the agencies and the journalists. There's no excuse for that course of action from Trump, none. He's president of the USA, not just the chief republican, and the former has to be more important than the latter. I've already addressed this, but I will point out that if the reverse were true, Russia aided Hillary and she had won, there is zero chance she would publicly acknowledge it for the same reasons.
07-13-2018, 12:41 PM
(07-13-2018, 12:05 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Fred sort of addressed this, but he got the main point wrong. You can't hand your political opponents weapons to use against you. I'm not saying it's morally right, but it is the reality of our political system. I also can't imagine that Austria's is much different. In our sound byte era of politics any admission by Trump that Russia helped get him elected would be endlessly looped. It would be a political disaster for the GOP. You can admit it in private and make efforts to prevent future occurrences, but you cannot admit it publicly. Austria, since you brought that up, is a country full of narrow-minded, mostly rather primitive people. But no way. Really, no way. If Russia had aided a certain party by hacking opponents, a propaganda attack and whatnot and all agencies had confirmed that, no way the electorate would ever tolerate that leader calling all of that fake news, that Putin is to be believed over them, that whoever disagrees, journalist or official or opponent, is attacked, insulted and called names up to enemy of the people, that every investigation is painted as fraudulent and must be stopped immediately, when there's a demonstrable huge avalanche of lies to deny the obvious, there's simply no way that would be accepted. Not as of now at least. Maybe some, a few, would be so naive and out of touch to honestly believe the lies still, maybe a few really wouldn't care, but the rest of us through all allegiances and beyond all loyalties would unequivocally be outraged, furious by that hypothetical I described. And an reelection bid (that probably would come way earlier as planned) would become a disaster for said party/leader. And the fact that you're so cynical as to be willing to understand and accept Trump's behaviour as the right thing to do and a political necessity might be the single saddest thing I ever read on this board. Tribalism really trumps national security and you actually make the case that this is the reasonable thing to do for Trump. As someone who always looked up and admired the USA, this is simply heart-breaking and that is not a hyperbole.
07-13-2018, 12:41 PM
(07-13-2018, 09:17 AM)GMDino Wrote: Trump goes to London and insults the Mayor over a personal dislike for him and slams PM May. Never mind folks! Trump said the recorded interview where he said all those things is "fake news". Don't trust your ears! Trump has told you what the truth is!
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
07-13-2018, 12:56 PM
Also there are NOT thousands of people protesting Trump in London right now.
You can't believe everything you see with your own eyes! Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self. |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
![[Image: 20180711_nord_stream_2_gazprom.1531321212232.png]](https://fm-static.cnbc.com/awsmedia/chart/2018/6/11/20180711_nord_stream_2_gazprom.1531321212232.png)
