US Politics: Opening Pandora's Box

[Dr. Pepper]

21 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

So I'm trying to get to the bottom of something.

Let's say Trump does genuinely feel he can work with Putin. Let's say he even admires Putin. And that his vision is truly that together, the United States and Russia can achieve a tremendous amount in the world.

If it turns out that this is truly not because of some "kompromat" that Putin has on him, and also not because of some "secret sale of shares in a Russian oil company to him or his family", and in fact not about any personal gain for Trump in Russia, which is basically what the critics base their accusations on. If it is truly simply because he likes Putin and believes the US and Russia can achieve great things together.

Is it not his right to have that honest opinion, and to base his agenda on that conviction? Will the critics then be satisfied that the Russian witch hunt can stop? And just settle with disagreeing with his views on Putin?

 

I think the more relevant question is whether your kind will accept that Trump is compromised when/if definitive supporting documentation is released.  Would you accept it even if both Trump and Putin readily admitted to it?  Would you care?

 

 

[Jaxom 1974]

4 minutes ago, Mexal said:

Here is Donald Trump's survey in case anyone is interested in taking it.

https://action.donaldjtrump.com/mainstream-media-accountability-survey/

That could not have been more self serving...absolute crap survey.  

[Free Northman Reborn]

15 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

It is not his right to have that honest opinion if it is based on bad premises. He should have that opinion if and only if he believes that being allied with Russia is a net positive gain for the US. 

So far he has provided no basis for that viewpoint, other than 'it would be great'. Which itself is hugely contentious given the amount of disruption that Russia has done to other US allies, the human rights violations in Syria, the invasion in Crimea and the ongoing escalation of tensions across the world. 

Most notably, one should NEVER go into a negotiation with the goal being to make relations better. The goal should first be set as what is desired to be achieved and then work towards that goal. The actual value of relations is completely pointless as a value. Should you give concessions for 'better relations'? Should you reduce sanctions for 'better relations'? Of course not. This is true regardless of who you're dealing with or why - you should always have concrete goals when negotiating in diplomacy. 

So no, it is a bad idea to base his agenda on 'we can do great things together'. It should be a very specific, measurable goal. If the goal is to defeat ISIS, for example, dealing with Russia is one possibility - but so is dealing with other allies, and one should figure out the best overall plan regardless of relations with Russia. IF the goal is dealing with AQ, the same applies. If the goal is to get Russia out of Crimea, the same is also true. "Do great things" is a horrifying diplomatic failure as a policy. 

What if the goal is to join with Russia to dominate the world?

That is arguably in the US's interests. What if he believes that with Russia's support, he can achieve an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement, destroy ISIS, destroy Al Qaida, reign in Iran, heck, even deal with North Korea and push China back in the South China Sea territorial island dispute.

And in exchange for that, he let's Russia keep Crimea, retain dominance over Ukraine, and agrees to reign in NATO expansion into Russia's sphere of influence.

Sure, many liberals would not agree with that agenda, for touchy feely reasons. And that is their right. But it is equally Trump's right to pursue the agenda that he legitimately believes achieves the most gain for his country.

[Mexal]

4 minutes ago, Week said:

Complete and utter fucking insanity.

It's sure is. If you read the questions and the slant, it's nuts.

[Relic]

Just now, Free Northman Reborn said:

What if the goal is to join with Russia to dominate the world?

That is arguably in the US's interests. What if he believes that with Russia's support, he can achieve an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement, destroy ISIS, destroy Al Qaida, reign in Iran, heck, even deal with North Korea and push China back in the South China Sea territorial island dispute.

And in exchange for that, he let's Russia keep Crimea, retain dominance over Ukraine, and agrees to reign in NATO expansion into Russia's sphere of influence.

Sure, many liberals would not agree with that agenda, for touchy feely reasons. And that is their right. But it is equally Trump's right to pursue the agenda that he legitimately believes achieves the most gain for his country.

For touchy feely reasons? You're living in a totalitarian dream world/hellscape. 

[Week]

1 minute ago, Mexal said:

It's sure is. If you read the questions and the slant, it's nuts.

I filled it out and submitted with a throwaway email.

 

I just looked again and the questions have changed. A bunch before were things like "does the media bend over backwards to defend Hillary Clinton?" "Is it fair that Donald Trump's candidacy would be over if he had done half of the things that Hillary Clinton has done"

Weird.

 

[Free Northman Reborn]

Just now, Relic said:

For touchy feely reasons? You're living in a totalitarian dream world/hellscape. 

How is it totalitarian if Trump can be voted out in the next election? It is not totalitarianism. It is geopolitical strategy.

[TrueMetis]

11 minutes ago, Werthead said:

Trudeau, meanwhile, nails quantum computing 101.

Meh, he did alright. Can only imagine what Harper would have done, not that he'd be willing to give money to scientists.

[Dr. Pepper]

1 minute ago, Relic said:

For touchy feely reasons? You're living in a totalitarian dream world/hellscape. 

This is what people like him want.  They have wet dreams over big strong men taking away all their rights and making their children's future a horror show.

[aceluby]

11 minutes ago, Mexal said:

Here is Donald Trump's survey in case anyone is interested in taking it.

https://action.donaldjtrump.com/mainstream-media-accountability-survey/

What in the suffering fuck?  I seriously can't believe this survey.  It's like a high schooler wrote it about the school paper

[TrueMetis]

7 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

What if the goal is to join with Russia to dominate the world?

That is arguably in the US's interests. What if he believes that with Russia's support, he can achieve an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement, destroy ISIS, destroy Al Qaida, reign in Iran, heck, even deal with North Korea and push China back in the South China Sea territorial island dispute.

And in exchange for that, he let's Russia keep Crimea, retain dominance over Ukraine, and agrees to reign in NATO expansion into Russia's sphere of influence.

Sure, many liberals would not agree with that agenda, for touchy feely reasons. And that is their right. But it is equally Trump's right to pursue the agenda that he legitimately believes achieves the most gain for his country.

Avoiding WW3 is touchy feely in your world?

[Mexal]

3 minutes ago, Week said:

I filled it out and submitted with a throwaway email.

I just looked again and the questions have changed. A bunch before were things like "does the media bend over backwards to defend Hillary Clinton?" "Is it fair that Donald Trump's candidacy would be over if he had done half of the things that Hillary Clinton has done"

Weird.

I didn't notice that. Good call on burner email, it's what I did too.

[Kalbear]

7 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

What if the goal is to join with Russia to dominate the world?

Why should the goal be 'join with Russia' then? That's a bad goal. The goal first and foremost, in that case, should be 'the US should dominate the world'. If doing things with Russia is the best way to achieve that goal, fine. But you should not set as your goal 'join with X'. 

7 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

That is arguably in the US's interests. What if he believes that with Russia's support, he can achieve an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement, destroy ISIS, destroy Al Qaida, reign in Iran, heck, even deal with North Korea and push China back in the South China Sea territorial island dispute.

Again, if all of those are our goals we should look at the best possible ways to achieve those goals first. Allying with Russia may be a good choice depending on what else we have to give up - for instance, do we lose NATO and the rest of Europe and Canada and Mexico as a result? 

7 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

And in exchange for that, he let's Russia keep Crimea, retain dominance over Ukraine, and agrees to reign in NATO expansion into Russia's sphere of influence.

Again, work on what you want to achieve first. Then work on what it will cost. 

7 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Sure, many liberals would not agree with that agenda, for touchy feely reasons. And that is their right. But it is equally Trump's right to pursue the agenda that he legitimately believes achieves the most gain for his country.

It has nothing to do with touchy feely reasons. It has to do with going into a negotiation with the goal of being friends. This is an extraordinarily stupid thing to do.

Trump has not put forward the goal of any of the above. What he has done is put forward the goal of making Russia our friend. If the above comes out of it that is an accident and not good reasoning at all. 

[TheKitttenGuard]

2 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

He seriously needs a Luther. 

 

Trump's Luther will need to be calm, rational, and know what is going on.

[aceluby]

9 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

What if the goal is to join with Russia to dominate the world?

That is arguably in the US's interests. What if he believes that with Russia's support, he can achieve an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement, destroy ISIS, destroy Al Qaida, reign in Iran, heck, even deal with North Korea and push China back in the South China Sea territorial island dispute.

And in exchange for that, he let's Russia keep Crimea, retain dominance over Ukraine, and agrees to reign in NATO expansion into Russia's sphere of influence.

Sure, many liberals would not agree with that agenda, for touchy feely reasons. And that is their right. But it is equally Trump's right to pursue the agenda that he legitimately believes achieves the most gain for his country.

Yeah, a multi tiered war against multiple enemies, some of which are current trade partners, some of which have nuclear capabilities; while pissing off other allies, who are also trade partners.  What could possibly go wrong there?  We don't need no stickin' economy!

[Relic]

Just now, Free Northman Reborn said:

How is it totalitarian if Trump can be voted out in the next election? It is not totalitarianism. It is geopolitical strategy.

There is nothing akin to "strategy" in anything you said, mate. What you proposed is a march straight into horror. You think China is just going to sit back and take your grand "strategy"? You think North Korea will roll over for the sake of your "strategy"? You think weakening NATO is a sound strategy? You think empowering Putin instead of reigning him in will lead to a better life for the people of planet Earth? Madness. 

[Kalbear]

5 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

How is it totalitarian if Trump can be voted out in the next election? It is not totalitarianism. It is geopolitical strategy.

It is not a strategy to 'be friends with Russia'. Unless you're working on some kind of insane high school rom-com project. 

And 'being friends with Russia' ties the US to Russia in some fairly difficult-to-break ways that will not dissipate with Trump's removal. Treaties don't get broken just like that. Sharing of intelligence resources don't get broken just like that. Combined forces and combined commands don't get broken just like that. Getting into bed with Russia at a military stance is a very big change to US doctrine, US operations, US intelligence and US command, and would likely sever (by necessity) all relations with European military command. The naive notion that we can just be friends and things will be awesome is incredibly uninformed and impractical; it's no surprise that Trump thinks he can do it, or that he wants to. 

[aceluby]

Just now, Relic said:

There is nothing akin to "strategy" in anything you said, mate. What you proposed is a march straight into horror. You think China is just going to sit back and take your grand "strategy"? You think North Korea will roll over for the sake of your "strategy"? You think weakening NATO is a sound strategy? You think empowering Putin instead of reigning him in will lead to a better life for the people of planet Earth? Madness. 

I'm just imagining how much he would be fuming if Obama tried doing this.

[Week]

5 minutes ago, Mexal said:

I didn't notice that. Good call on burner email, it's what I did too.

This tweet has a video with some of the previous questions...

 

[Relic]

Just now, aceluby said:

I'm just imagining how much he would be fuming if Obama tried doing this.

We all know that Obama's greatest failing was not being white enough. As a result nothing he did would satisfy X percent of the American population. But getting in bed with Putin? There would be an armed uprising in fly over country.