Trump refuses to condemn Russian aggression against Ukraine

[Bengalholic]

(11-29-2018, 07:50 PM)Benton Wrote: Just saw a story linked on Facebook that the Bundys (the ones who had the recent standoff with the BLM) had spoken out against Trump over the immigration issue. I didn't read the story, but it's interesting.

Trump put the GOP in a weird position. Since Clinton it had been the other party and focused on attack attack attack. They seemed to get the ideal candidate in Trump as nobody before him had been able to attack with such impunity. Now it seems like it may cost them a chunk of voters frustrated with the way things are heading.

Yeah, it's weird for sure. The establishment Republicans didn't want Trump, but once he won, they pretty much allowed him to take over and re-define the party in his image. They've either stood by or been complicit in so much of what Trump has done over the last 2 years, that it's going to be very hard to separate themselves from him going forward. With the exception of McCain before his death...who has really stood up to him? Flake, Corker? Graham or Sasse on occasion? 

Republicans took a beating this past election in a number of areas / demographics that are going to be even less in their favor in 2020. I still can't believe Orange County went so damn blue. 

[Bengalholic]

(11-29-2018, 08:00 PM)wildcats forever Wrote: To the bolded/underlined: This is where I've been long before the '16 election. And why I refuse to enter many discussions about politics in general. Oh, I will continue my due diligence come election time, and vote for whomever best fits someone who will actually act in favor of the best interests for all citizens. It's been slim pickin's for a long time on that front though.

This has pretty much been my approach since I started voting.

[GMDino]

(11-29-2018, 07:50 PM)Benton Wrote: Just saw a story linked on Facebook that the Bundys (the ones who had the recent standoff with the BLM) had spoken out against Trump over the immigration issue. I didn't read the story, but it's interesting.

Trump put the GOP in a weird position. Since Clinton it had been the other party and focused on attack attack attack. They seemed to get the ideal candidate in Trump as nobody before him had been able to attack with such impunity. Now it seems like it may cost them a chunk of voters frustrated with the way things are heading.

He was on NPR this afternoon.

https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2018/11/29/ammon-bundy-trump-immigration

It was...interesting.

[Belsnickel]

(11-29-2018, 07:31 PM)Bengalholic Wrote: I'm not much on the whole left versus right stuff. I'm growing more tired of politics in general by the day. 

(11-29-2018, 08:00 PM)wildcats forever Wrote: To the bolded/underlined: This is where I've been long before the '16 election. And why I refuse to enter many discussions about politics in general. Oh, I will continue my due diligence come election time, and vote for whomever best fits someone who will actually act in favor of the best interests for all citizens. It's been slim pickin's for a long time on that front though.

A lot of people take this approach these days. I understand why, I get it, but I don't agree with it. I see the whole thing as problematic, same as y'all. But instead of distancing myself further from it I decided to get more involved. I don't like what's going on so I am determined to become a part of the process and work to change it. Even if it is only at the state and local level.

Some people run away from the storm, the fire, the fight. Some people run towards it. I'm choosing to run towards this one.

[fredtoast]

I don't blame Trump.

I hate condemns too.

[Dill]

(11-28-2018, 01:18 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Just to be fair, Trump threatened to cancel his meeting with Putin. But there isn't much expectation for that to happen.

https://www.apnews.com/17f1ff79b09e411b9b6a85b00afbe618

To be fair about fairness, I think Trump can still meet with Putin Argentina. It's just not a big public extravaganza show.

The cancellation will ease some political pressure from his own party, and he can still respect the big man privately.

Throw MbS in the mix too. Public respect for all.

[jj22]

Trump, 2016: "I know nothing about Russia. I don't deal there. I have no businesses there."

Trump, 2018: "In 2016, we were looking at a project in Moscow. Everybody knew about it, it was a well-known project."

[*bfine32*]

(11-30-2018, 09:03 PM)Dill Wrote: To be fair about fairness, I think Trump can still meet with Putin Argentina. It's just not a big public extravaganza show.

The cancellation will ease some political pressure from his own party, and he can still respect the big man privately.

Throw MbS in the mix too. Public respect for all.

Do you want to be fair about your fair approach to fairness?

All reports are that he snubbed Putin at the G20.

Seems Putin was only left with MbS to high 5

[Dill]

(12-03-2018, 05:54 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Do you want to be fair about your fair approach to fairness?

All reports are that he snubbed Putin at the G20.

Seems Putin was only left with MbS to high 5

All reports? 
https://www.politico.eu/article/donald-trump-vladimir-putin-meeting-g20/

According to Putin’s remarks to reporters, as reported by Bloomberg, the two leaders discussed Russia’s confrontation with Ukrainian ships in the Kerch Strait. They were unable to discuss at length issues including North Korea, Syria, arms control and trade, Putin said.

Trump scrubbed a previously scheduled meeting, citing Russia’s naval confrontation with Ukraine.

Asked if Trump s wary of meeting him, Putin replied: “I don’t think President Trump is wary of anything. He is a man of character, a very experienced man. He is a grown-up.”

For those not always looking to find fault, Trump also engineered a breakthrough trade agreement with Xi.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-may-have-had-his-most-successful-outing-at-g-20-but-he-didnt-accomplish-much/2018/12/02/fd54526c-f66d-11e8-8c9a-860ce2a8148f_story.html?utm_term=.bcfce04fb322

[*bfine32*]

(12-03-2018, 05:54 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Do you want to be fair about your fair approach to fairness?

All reports are that he snubbed Putin at the G20.

Seems Putin was only left with MbS to high 5

(12-03-2018, 07:41 PM)Dill Wrote: All reports? 
https://www.politico.eu/article/donald-trump-vladimir-putin-meeting-g20/

According to Putin’s remarks to reporters, as reported by Bloomberg, the two leaders discussed Russia’s confrontation with Ukrainian ships in the Kerch Strait. They were unable to discuss at length issues including North Korea, Syria, arms control and trade, Putin said.

Trump scrubbed a previously scheduled meeting, citing Russia’s naval confrontation with Ukraine.

Asked if Trump s wary of meeting him, Putin replied: “I don’t think President Trump is wary of anything. He is a man of character, a very experienced man. He is a grown-up.”

For those not always looking to find fault, Trump also engineered a breakthrough trade agreement with Xi.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-may-have-had-his-most-successful-outing-at-g-20-but-he-didnt-accomplish-much/2018/12/02/fd54526c-f66d-11e8-8c9a-860ce2a8148f_story.html?utm_term=.bcfce04fb322

To be honest: I knew the answer to the question before I asked it.

[Dill]

(12-03-2018, 08:54 PM)bfine32 Wrote: To be honest: I knew the answer to the question before I asked it.

LOL, that's not exactly being honest, especially if you knew Trump had conversed with Putin.

[*bfine32*]

(12-03-2018, 08:58 PM)Dill Wrote: LOL, that's not exactly being honest, especially if you knew Trump had conversed with Putin.

i said he snubbed him. But as I said: I knew the direction your fair meter would tilt. 

[Dill]

(12-03-2018, 09:01 PM)bfine32 Wrote: i said he snubbed him. But as I said: I knew the direction your fair meter would tilt. 

LOL cause you got a "bias" meter you can hold up to anyone's post.  


A fair observer of Trump's actions would . . . . say what exactly?

[*bfine32*]

(12-03-2018, 10:02 PM)Dill Wrote: LOL cause you got a "bias" meter you can hold up to anyone's post.   


A fair observer of Trump's actions would . . . . say what exactly?

He snubbed Putin. 

He did well with China

He did poorly with the climate issue

[Dill]

(12-03-2018, 10:20 PM)bfine32 Wrote: He snubbed Putin. 

He did well with China

He did poorly with the climate issue

Let's start with "well with China." 

What is the measure of "well" and what did Trump do to achieve it?

E.g., was a trade deal nailed down? Or was there an agreement to "talk more"?

[*bfine32*]

(12-03-2018, 11:56 PM)Dill Wrote: Let's start with "well with China." 

What is the measure of "well" and what did Trump do to achieve it?

E.g., was a trade deal nailed down? Or was there an agreement to "talk more"?

Why don't we start with the subject posted in the OP and the root of the discussion?

Did Trump snub Putin?

But to answer your question: Yes he had an open dialog with the leader of China: AKA well with China.

I get that you want to dispute it. 

[Dill]

(12-04-2018, 12:26 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Why don't we start with the subject posted in the OP and the root of the discussion?

Did Trump snub Putin?

But to answer your question: Yes he had an open dialog with the leader of China: AKA well with China.

I get that you want to dispute it. 

Thought you knew the answer to that before you asked. It's in post # 29.
Is it a good thing there is no official White House record of what was said? What little we get is from the Russian press. Again?

"Open dialogue."  Hmmm. So that is what you meant by "well with China."

Trump thinks he got an agreement.
https://secure.marketwatch.com/story/trump-today-president-touts-meeting-with-xi-and-slams-former-lawyer-michael-cohen-2018-12-03?mod=newsviewer_click

Trump tweeted out what he said were the benefits of his meeting with Xi at the Group of 20 summit in Argentina over the weekend. He said farmers would be a “BIG and FAST beneficiary of our deal with China,” and that Beijing intends to begin buying U.S. agricultural goods “immediately.”

[*bfine32*]

(12-04-2018, 12:57 AM)Dill Wrote: Thought you knew the answer to that before you asked. It's in post # 29.
Is it a good thing there is no official White House record of what was said? What little we get is from the Russian press.  Again?

"Open dialogue."  Hmmm. So that is what you meant by "well with China."

Trump thinks he got an agreement.
https://secure.marketwatch.com/story/trump-today-president-touts-meeting-with-xi-and-slams-former-lawyer-michael-cohen-2018-12-03?mod=newsviewer_click

Trump tweeted out what he said were the benefits of his meeting with Xi at the Group of 20 summit in Argentina over the weekend. He said farmers would be a “BIG and FAST beneficiary of our deal with China,” and that Beijing intends to begin buying U.S. agricultural goods “immediately.”

I actually knew how you would answer before I asked it. Reread post #29. I can predict yours and other's answers concerning Trump, just like I can predict what time it will be in 5 minutes.

Yes. open dialog is what I meant by well with China. I wonder if I can predict your view on it? Bet I can. 

[Dill]

(12-04-2018, 01:15 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I actually knew how you would answer before I asked it. Reread post #29. I can predict yours and other's answers concerning Trump, just like I can predict what time it will be in 5 minutes.

Yes. open dialog is what I meant by well with China. I wonder if I can predict your view on it? Bet I can. 

So you always know what I and the guardians are going to say ahead of time--and you can prove it after we say it. Lol.
Lot easier than checking our statements against Trump's.

You like to use the term "bias," don't you? Now I am wondering how you define it.

Don't biased people always already "know" what others say or think? 
They see and know what they want to see--over and over again. So they "know" what they are going to see.

Wonder if you can predict how Trump's China "agreement" will work out?
Then come back down to solid ground and check that against your "prediction" of my view.

[*bfine32*]

(12-04-2018, 01:28 AM)Dill Wrote: So you always know what I and the guardians are going to say ahead of time--and you can prove it after we say it. Lol.
Lot easier than checking our statements against Trump's.

You like to use the term "bias," don't you? Now I am wondering how you define it.

Don't biased people always already "know" what others say or think? 
They see and know what they want to see--over and over again. So they "know" what they are going to see.

Wonder if you can predict how Trump's China "agreement" will work out?
Then come back down to solid ground and check that against your "prediction" of my view.

I define bias as a condition that impedes one's ability to make a pragmatic decision.

Nah, I can only suggest what you and those like you will reply; only you can prove me right. Matter of fact you've freely said someone else can speak on your behalf of all things regarding Trump. So maybe only he can predict your answers.

I have 0 idea how Trump's agreement with China will work out; as Micro Econ is more my forte than Macro Econ; but I do know dialog is good.

 PS: Be careful using the term Guardians. It got me suspended (I think).