Werthead Posted February 16, 2017 Share Posted February 16, 2017 "Does anyone in this room really believe that Hillary Clinton would be tougher on Russia than Donald Trump? Does anyone believe that?" * entire press corps looks at each other and sticks their hand up. Even the Breitbart guy with an apologetic look * I made that last bit up. But you know everyone thought it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JGP Posted February 16, 2017 Share Posted February 16, 2017 45 minutes ago, Week said: A little bit of both actually - the provisional approval for the trademark came on November 14th and then the registering the award came in the timeline linked by Manhole (Feb 14). Provisional Approval (90 day public notice period to follow) - https://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-scores-legal-win-in-china-trademark-dispute-1479169494 Trademark Award - http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/china-awards-trump-valuable-trademark-45504953 Right. So, if Flynn and other Admin were communicating with the Russians prior to the transition, and if what we're seeing is mock saber rattling as chaff flares... why wouldn't it be the same with China in this particular case? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IheartIheartTesla Posted February 16, 2017 Share Posted February 16, 2017 In non-crazy news, Republicans here in Michigan are flirting with letting Kid Rock run for Senate against Debbie Stabenow. Yes, I said non-crazy news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Week Posted February 16, 2017 Share Posted February 16, 2017 6 minutes ago, JEORDHl said: Right. So, if Flynn and other Admin were communicating with the Russians prior to the transition, and if what we're seeing is mock saber rattling as chaff flares... why wouldn't it be the same with China in this particular case? Certainly could be, I agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted February 16, 2017 Share Posted February 16, 2017 10 minutes ago, JEORDHl said: Right. So, if Flynn and other Admin were communicating with the Russians prior to the transition, and if what we're seeing is mock saber rattling as chaff flares... why wouldn't it be the same with China in this particular case? Eh, not sure I see the same connection to China as there seems to be with Russia. He was talking shit about China pretty much constantly on the campaign trail. They were like the #3 evil behind only ISIS and Mexico. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Werthead Posted February 16, 2017 Share Posted February 16, 2017 Trump seemed to be flirting with saying that Chicago was more dangerous than Aleppo and Mosul but he decided to change his mind and said instead it was "almost worse than any of these places you see in the Middle East." Hmm. Why is Trump asking a reporter to set up a meeting between himself and the Congressional Black Caucus? Pretty sure that isn't her job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JGP Posted February 16, 2017 Share Posted February 16, 2017 3 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: Eh, not sure I see the same connection to China as there seems to be with Russia. He was talking shit about China pretty much constantly on the campaign trail. They were like the #3 evil behind only ISIS and Mexico. Sure. But since I'm speculating-- take the implied connection out of it and look at the MO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Werthead Posted February 16, 2017 Share Posted February 16, 2017 Donald Trumps gives an exhaustive nuclear physics lesson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mexal Posted February 16, 2017 Share Posted February 16, 2017 37 minutes ago, Werthead said: Trump seemed to be flirting with saying that Chicago was more dangerous than Aleppo and Mosul but he decided to change his mind and said instead it was "almost worse than any of these places you see in the Middle East." Hmm. Why is Trump asking a reporter to set up a meeting between himself and the Congressional Black Caucus? Pretty sure that isn't her job. To that, I give you this... Also, there is this that was just launched after the press conference... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Northman Reborn Posted February 16, 2017 Share Posted February 16, 2017 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Relic Posted February 16, 2017 Share Posted February 16, 2017 One thing is abundantly clear - POTUS should not give any more press conferences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JGP Posted February 16, 2017 Share Posted February 16, 2017 Blubbering fucking maniac. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Relic Posted February 16, 2017 Share Posted February 16, 2017 Anyone who has read the most basic book knows...Nuclear Holocaust will be like no other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted February 16, 2017 Share Posted February 16, 2017 8 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? 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Werthead Posted February 16, 2017 Share Posted February 16, 2017 Trump struggles to explain what uranium is used for. Trudeau, meanwhile, nails quantum computing 101. 14 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? Yes. But since we don't live in that timeline, it's not really relevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Relic Posted February 16, 2017 Share Posted February 16, 2017 Just now, 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? Let's go with the assumption that he is not compromised by the Russians. Big assumption, but whatever. IF Trump could reign Putin in and create a stable and secure situation within which NATO is not threatened by Russia, within which Putin's crimes against humanity are kept in check, than I personally would not have any issues with it. He's right about one thing, the world would be a safer place if Russia was not constantly flexing. Same goes for the USA, obviously. However, he is going about this in the most backwards way possible. He wants better relations...but at what cost to everyone else? What does he want to achieve by giving Putin a foot massage? Shouldn't you start there and THEN work your way towards "friendship" and such? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Northman Reborn Posted February 16, 2017 Share Posted February 16, 2017 Just now, Relic said: Anyone who has read the most basic book knows...Nuclear Holocaust will be like no other. What he was getting at, if you listened carefully, was that he started out talking about a detailed briefing he'd had, probably on the exact extent and capability of the Russian nuclear arsenal, which probably included a frank and classified assessment of the damage that the US is likely to suffer in such a nuclear exchange, despite popular propaganda about so-called missile defense shields, early warning systems, and other defensive measures. That's where he started talking about the briefing, and then shifted gear and tried to talk more generally about "what he is allowed to say". And he diverted it away from revealing classified information by comparing it to "information that you would get from reading any book on the matter". But the fact remains, this revelation was initiated by information he had recently been briefed on. Which we can assume means that a realistic (and classified) assessment of the US's capability to deflect or avoid significant damage in any nuclear war with Russia is apparently not good. In any case, that's the reason for his diversion into "what you can read in any book" and his fuzzy reference to "a nuclear Holocaust being like no other". Because he stopped himself from saying "despite our best efforts we would likely lose every major city and half the population", or whatever the actual assessment is that was provided to him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Relic Posted February 16, 2017 Share Posted February 16, 2017 Just now, Free Northman Reborn said: In any case, that's the reason for his diversion into "what you can read in any book" and his fuzzy reference to "a nuclear Holocaust being like no other". Because he stopped himself from saying "despite our best efforts we would likely lose every major city and half the population", or whatever the actual assessment is that was provided to him. The White House should hire you to be a Trump Whisperer. And anyone that has read a basic book knows that nuclear war would mean the end of civilization. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mexal Posted February 16, 2017 Share Posted February 16, 2017 Here is Donald Trump's survey in case anyone is interested in taking it. https://action.donaldjtrump.com/mainstream-media-accountability-survey/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Week Posted February 16, 2017 Share Posted February 16, 2017 1 minute 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/ Complete and utter fucking insanity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.