Week Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 7 minutes ago, Ormond said: If he can get his wife and kids to vote for him, couldn't he be President Scot or Prime Minister Scot instead? I have it on good authority that Scot could easily receive about 97% of the vote. http://foreignpolicy.com/2012/02/13/the-dictators-dilemma-to-win-with-95-percent-or-99/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Werthead Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 Breaking news about a press conference in LA where a woman will be taking legal action against Trump for sexual assault or discrimination. That's happening now but helpfully C4 News switched off at that point and the BBC isn't covering it yet. 16 hours ago, Savannah said: They really are not legally bound to do no such a thing I'm afraid. Under Article V of the North Atlantic Treaty, member states are bound to treat an attack on any one member state as an attack on all. Germany, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia are all member-states of NATO at present. An unambiguous attack on any of the Baltic States by Russia legally requires the rest of the Alliance to respond in their defence. The only exception to this is if a NATO member state undertakes aggressive action against another country and that country retaliates. In that situation the Alliance is not bound to intervene. This is why NATO refused to support Turkey after Turkey shot down a Russian jet fighter that wasn't infringing on Turkish airspace. If Russia can introduce significant tactical confusion to the situation, as they have done in Ukraine, then they may try to spin any kind of casus belli to justify an attack, but at this stage that would be pretty easily seen through. Of course, any NATO member state is free to choose not to follow the obligations of the treaty, at which point the Alliance pretty much collapses, since mutual defence and support is its underlying foundation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 31 minutes ago, Ormond said: If he can get his wife and kids to vote for him, couldn't he be President Scot or Prime Minister Scot instead? Nah. Scot shows all the signs of a ruthless dictator. I think Conqueror Scot sounds about right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
all swedes are racist Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 3 hours ago, Mlle. Zabzie said: Isn't Scot in Columbia? That's right at the epicenter of Southern Carolinian power Luckily, I hear Columbia is working on joining NATO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martell Spy Posted January 17, 2017 Author Share Posted January 17, 2017 But Trump’s repeated claims that the press was irrelevant and powerless should never have been taken at face value, and Crowley’s withdrawal underscores this. Trump’s political genius was not in steering away from the press. It was recognizing how important the press was and figured out ways to marshal it to his own ends. When he blasted the press as powerless early in the campaign, it was disingenuous posturing. Throughout his career as a businessman, Trump grasped the power of using the media to his own ends, and that may be the most important lesson he brings to Washington. (By the end of the campaign, his attacks on the media seemed to become personal, as he got angrier and angrier at the stories about him.) The Crowley affair shows that while the president-elect may be unusually skilled at manipulating the press, he is not omnipotent. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/monica-crowley-trump-press-plagiarism/513299/ Monica Crowley and the Limits of Trump's Dismissal of the Press The pundit was forced to decline a White House appointment after revelations that a book and a dissertation were rife with plagiarized passages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savannah Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 42 minutes ago, Werthead said: Breaking news about a press conference in LA where a woman will be taking legal action against Trump for sexual assault or discrimination. That's happening now but helpfully C4 News switched off at that point and the BBC isn't covering it yet. Under Article V of the North Atlantic Treaty, member states are bound to treat an attack on any one member state as an attack on all. Germany, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia are all member-states of NATO at present. An unambiguous attack on any of the Baltic States by Russia legally requires the rest of the Alliance to respond in their defence. The only exception to this is if a NATO member state undertakes aggressive action against another country and that country retaliates. In that situation the Alliance is not bound to intervene. This is why NATO refused to support Turkey after Turkey shot down a Russian jet fighter that wasn't infringing on Turkish airspace. If Russia can introduce significant tactical confusion to the situation, as they have done in Ukraine, then they may try to spin any kind of casus belli to justify an attack, but at this stage that would be pretty easily seen through. Of course, any NATO member state is free to choose not to follow the obligations of the treaty, at which point the Alliance pretty much collapses, since mutual defence and support is its underlying foundation. The NATO states would be legally bound to respond how ever they would see necessary. That's it. The Economist: "Article 5 says that the response may include armed force, but it does not mandate it. All that NATO actually promises is to take “such action as it deems necessary” to restore and maintain security. That could be anything from nuclear war to a stiff diplomatic protest. Three tricky considerations would determine the precise nature of any NATO response to foreign aggression. The first is geography: in places where an aggressor can quickly complete and consolidate an invasion, NATO's options are very limited. The Baltics, for instance, occupy a thin flat strip of land which is all but indefensible. A Russian surprise attack could reach the coast within hours, and reversing a successful Russian invasion would be hard, even futile. Yet that was also true of West Berlin. The Baltics argue that an attack on them would mean an all-out East-West confrontation thanks to Article 5. If Russia believes that, deterrence is working. But Article 5 does not specify such a response." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commodore Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 Dems have no political reason to support a replace bill that needs 60 votes, and they shouldn't GOP will have to improve things by repeal and by executive action (waiving penalties, etc) to pressure Dems to replace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martell Spy Posted January 17, 2017 Author Share Posted January 17, 2017 The Spies Who Love Putin How the FSB's loyalty to Russia's president made it the country's most powerful intelligence agency https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/01/fsb-kgb-putin/513272/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 10 minutes ago, Commodore said: Dems have no political reason to support a replace bill that needs 60 votes, and they shouldn't GOP will have to improve things by repeal and by executive action (waiving penalties, etc) to pressure Dems to replace The Dems actually have a very good reason to support a replace bill that needs 60 votes. They are the party that actually proclaims government works. If they pass on a bill that is actually good policy because they won't work with the GOP, they're playing right into the arguments of 'small government' and 'bad fed'. Having a nonfunctioning government is horrible for Dems. No matter who is in office, it's bad for them. And if they proclaim that the only way they can get what they want is a majority, well, that's not doing themselves any favors either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Anti-Targ Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 2 hours ago, Jaxom 1974 said: A friend of mine in Ohio causing "controversy" and benefiting from the inauguration... I wanna know if Bob Frantz followed through and ordered the Obama Piles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fragile Bird Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 NYT on the visits Trump made to Russia over the last 30 years, including his comments from 2008 when he revealed he had been to Russia half a dozen times over an 18 month period. He also registered all his trademarks in Russia. Just in case you doubt there wasn't lots of fodder for people like Christopher Steele to uncover.https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/16/us/politics/donald-trump-russia-business.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mlle. Zabzie Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 5 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said: NYT on the visits Trump made to Russia over the last 30 years, including his comments from 2008 when he revealed he had been to Russia half a dozen times over an 18 month period. He also registered all his trademarks in Russia. Just in case you doubt there wasn't lots of fodder for people like Christopher Steele to uncover.https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/16/us/politics/donald-trump-russia-business.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0 FB - I'm far from a Trump apologist, but a global hospitality business registering its trademark in Russia doesn't sound that nefarious to me. It's not EU, so from a trademark defense perspective seems relatively prudent (whether actually enforceable, who knows, I know people register in China all the time with ... mixed success in enforcement). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BloodRider Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 6 hours ago, Chaircat Meow said: The USA reserves the right to determine if countries on its own borders can ally with anyone else. If Mexico agreed to host a big Chinese base and join a Chinese economic/political group Washington's reaction might look a bit Russian. Nah. Now if they did that with Austria though..... That's a horse of a different color. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mexal Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 16 minutes ago, Kalbear said: The Dems actually have a very good reason to support a replace bill that needs 60 votes. They are the party that actually proclaims government works. If they pass on a bill that is actually good policy because they won't work with the GOP, they're playing right into the arguments of 'small government' and 'bad fed'. Having a nonfunctioning government is horrible for Dems. No matter who is in office, it's bad for them. And if they proclaim that the only way they can get what they want is a majority, well, that's not doing themselves any favors either. I think this is true. I just don't believe there will be a plan from the Republicans that they'd agree with. Their approach is the antithesis of what they believe in. If they take the same elements from Obamacare, fix them and call it Trumpcare, I think they'd be ok with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fragile Bird Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 2 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said: FB - I'm far from a Trump apologist, but a global hospitality business registering its trademark in Russia doesn't sound that nefarious to me. It's not EU, so from a trademark defense perspective seems relatively prudent (whether actually enforceable, who knows, I know people register in China all the time with ... mixed success in enforcement). Zabz, the point is Trump has been saying he has avoided Russia as a place to do business. As the story points out, far from avoiding it, he and his family members made repeated business trips to Russia. He was not able to cut any deals, though, so in that sense he 'avoided' Russia. I think registering all his trademarks showed he was getting prepped to do business there. The story suggests he was a bit too greedy, asking for more than what Russian investors were willing to pay for the using the Trump name. The story also came up on my facebook feed after I heard Putin saying they don't track every billionaire businessman who comes to town, which made me guffaw out loud, as the Russians have a long history of blackmailing businessmen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fragile Bird Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 Breaking News...... Chelsea Manning's sentence has been commuted by President Obama. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mlle. Zabzie Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 2 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said: Zabz, the point is Trump has been saying he has avoided Russia as a place to do business. As the story points out, far from avoiding it, he and his family members made repeated business trips to Russia. He was not able to cut any deals, though, so in that sense he 'avoided' Russia. I think registering all his trademarks showed he was getting prepped to do business there. The story suggests he was a bit too greedy, asking for more than what Russian investors were willing to pay for the using the Trump name. The story also came up on my facebook feed after I heard Putin saying they don't track every billionaire businessman who comes to town, which made me guffaw out loud, as the Russians have a long history of blackmailing businessmen. Honestly, even if he wasn't preparing to do business in Russia, I could well see registering the trademark there for brand protection. I mean, someone could make Trump Vodka in Russia and sell it there without repercussion! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sperry Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 Don't think Obama's parting shots are helping anything on his way out the door. And commuting Manning's sentence is just ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swordfish Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 56 minutes ago, Martell Spy said: But Trump’s repeated claims that the press was irrelevant and powerless should never have been taken at face value, and Crowley’s withdrawal underscores this. Trump’s political genius was not in steering away from the press. It was recognizing how important the press was and figured out ways to marshal it to his own ends. Hasn't virtually every presidential candidate done this for like the last 100 years? I don't think it's particularly genius to understand the importance of the media in winning the presidency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.