American Politics

[SharkBait]

It begins and not even policy related.

 

[Onyx Darkmatter]

Of course a For-Profit company will drop the Obamacare act, because the issue is that it's a fucking FOR-PROFIT, the real reason why we'll never have a decent Healthcare in America.

 

[kkck]

It is as bad as it sounds. And hilarious if you think about what fuss people made about clinton's private emails.

I want to find this hillarious but seeing this lunatic treat the nuclear football as a joke and the fact that he at any point in time is at the most 30 minutes away from firing a nuke without a speck of oversight is kinda terrifying. Welp, at least russia knows for a fact that trump keeps the damn thing close right?

 

[M3J]

Affordable Care Act was a great step in the right direction. All the republicans had to do was improve it, like not forcing people to get insurance or pay fines, but no, they decided to fuck the Americans over and try to repeal it.

 

[shionoro]

By the way, i want it to be said: I think after the embarassing north korea missile crisis incident in which trump was shown to be absolutely clueless and 'reacted' in public while even the secret service agent holding the missile codes was filmed and identified, that this guy is a fucking joke and not 'hard' towards other nations.

What is the reaction anyway? Was the Mad Dog sent after Kim? Nah, the reaction was nothing, and nothing at all except embarassing.

The allegedly weak president Obama reacted in another way back then:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/12/us/politics/donald-trump-north-korea-missile.html
"North Korea challenged Mr. Obama early in his tenure, too, with an underground nuclear blast four months after he took office. The effect was to harden Mr. Obama’s attitude toward North Korea for the rest of his presidency, according to former aides. Rather than try to negotiate, as both Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush did, Mr. Obama focused on tightening international sanctions and bolstering alliances with Japan and South Korea."

North Korea didnt have a fun time under Obama reign. They will have a field day under Trump.

 

[kkck]

By the way, i want it to be said: I think after the embarassing north korea missile crisis incident in which trump was shown to be absolutely clueless and 'reacted' in public while even the secret service agent holding the missile codes was filmed and identified, that this guy is a fucking joke and not 'hard' towards other nations.

What is the reaction anyway? Was the Mad Dog sent after Kim? Nah, the reaction was nothing, and nothing at all except embarassing.

The allegedly weak president Obama reacted in another way back then:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/12/us/politics/donald-trump-north-korea-missile.html
"North Korea challenged Mr. Obama early in his tenure, too, with an underground nuclear blast four months after he took office. The effect was to harden Mr. Obama’s attitude toward North Korea for the rest of his presidency, according to former aides. Rather than try to negotiate, as both Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush did, Mr. Obama focused on tightening international sanctions and bolstering alliances with Japan and South Korea."

North Korea didnt have a fun time under Obama reign. They will have a field day under Trump.

Well, from what I can tell by this point russia and north korea have basically called trump's bluff regarding being tough and whatnot. And also we have this going on at the same time. So what is the context here? As north korea and russia test how trump reacts to their very overt taunts, you have matis threatening to reduce nato support unless they basically enter an arms race. And yet, there is also the issue here that trump is quite literally a bully running out of options. He could be about to so something stupid or useless. Either threaten to invade or threaten with nukes or perhaps just spread his legs for putin and beg for him to go again.

 

[shionoro]

Well, from what I can tell by this point russia and north korea have basically called trump's bluff regarding being tough and whatnot. And also we have this going on at the same time. So what is the context here? As north korea and russia test how trump reacts to their very overt taunts, you have matis threatening to reduce nato support unless they basically enter an arms race. And yet, there is also the issue here that trump is quite literally a bully running out of options. He could be about to so something stupid or useless. Either threaten to invade or threaten with nukes or perhaps just spread his legs for putin and beg for him to go again.

Mattis is right on that one tho. The Nato allies have to do their responsibilities, and a lot of them do not.
I cannot blame him for saying that, the problem runs since a long time. He did clearly confirm his interest in being a good Nato ally.
That is not an arms race, that is doing their fair share. We talk about the bare minimum to uphold a capable army, it is sadly a fact that for example germany is not able to even pull off the few missions it has decently and always needs backup to do them.
That has to stop, you cannot drag the US into your military missions (Lybia) and then just let them have the political backlash against them while you do not even pull your weight during the mission.


As for Trump: He simply does not know what he is even doing. And that is a good thing here, because i believe the people arround him would be able to control him before he does something that is actually dangerous.

 

[kkck]

Mattis is right on that one tho. The Nato allies have to do their responsibilities, and a lot of them do not.
I cannot blame him for saying that, the problem runs since a long time. He did clearly confirm his interest in being a good Nato ally.
That is not an arms race, that is doing their fair share. We talk about the bare minimum to uphold a capable army, it is sadly a fact that for example germany is not able to even pull off the few missions it has decently and always needs backup to do them.
That has to stop, you cannot drag the US into your military missions (Lybia) and then just let them have the political backlash against them while you do not even pull your weight during the mission.


As for Trump: He simply does not know what he is even doing. And that is a good thing here, because i believe the people arround him would be able to control him before he does something that is actually dangerous.

I get what he means here but the timing for such a thing seems off. It is perfectly reasonable that the US is pushing for that (but I would still call it an arms race considering the implication is that now of all times they are demanding them to invest in their military which probably implies buying a ton of weapons) but in turn they are doing it now, that the US has repeatedly made the point they are not necessarily a reliable ally for nato and when you have russia and north korea testing the waters and trump has responded absolutely nothing so far. Under this circumstances trump should be asserting the US support for NATO, not threatening to remove it.

 

[shionoro]

I get what he means here but the timing for such a thing seems off. It is perfectly reasonable that the US is pushing for that (but I would still call it an arms race considering the implication is that now of all times they are demanding them to invest in their military which probably implies buying a ton of weapons) but in turn they are doing it now, that the US has repeatedly made the point they are not necessarily a reliable ally for nato and when you have russia and north korea testing the waters and trump has responded absolutely nothing so far. Under this circumstances trump should be asserting the US support for NATO, not threatening to remove it.

It is hardly an armsrace in my opinion because it is something the EU countries promised since a long time but just didn't really follow up on.
We are talking about the difference between not being able to pull off missions or being able to.

2% of the GDP is hardly anything to talk about. It just means that your soldiers have actual weapons and your airplanes don't fall off the sky.

The point of a military alliance is that all members contribute. if the US is the only one (with some exceptions like Britain or Poland) who ever really does things, then the US damn well should moderate their efforts.
We talk about the US paying as little as everyone else does, not more, not less, and hardly anyone could blame them for that.

I agree that the timing is not good, but on the other hand: When was it ever more necessary to urge the non US Nato countries to actually invest in defense?
We can't have the EU countries save up on absolutely necessary military spendings and just think they can rely on the US forever.
That is far more dangerous than having a symbol of inner weakness at a bad timing.
The russian leadership can very well see whether something is actually weak, even if strong words would suggest otherwise.

It is high time that the other Nato countries invest more, whether under Trump or under anyone else. In my opinion, Mattis did the right thing here.
It is not the first time the US urged their allies to do it, it happened under Obama too (with kinder words, but still).
At some point, if promises are not held, the US has really no obligation to pay more than everybody else does.

--- Double Post Merged, Feb 15, 2017, Original Post Date: Feb 15, 2017 ---

That said: The efforts to improve the military spendings started before Mattis comment, BECAUSE Trump is unreliable.

So, this might be a thing that could backfire, because it might make the EU less dependend on the US if the members succesfully create something resembling an EU army at some point.

It is not a bad thing to have an independend partner who can do things on the military level on his own.
Not for a sane political leader. But for someone like trump who needs other people as scapegoats for everything, a something like that is a problem. BUt hey, hopefully he is not in office anymore when these things bear fruits.

 

[kkck]

It is hardly an armsrace in my opinion because it is something the EU countries promised since a long time but just didn't really follow up on.
We are talking about the difference between not being able to pull off missions or being able to.

2% of the GDP is hardly anything to talk about. It just means that your soldiers have actual weapons and your airplanes don't fall off the sky.

The point of a military alliance is that all members contribute. if the US is the only one (with some exceptions like Britain or Poland) who ever really does things, then the US damn well should moderate their efforts.
We talk about the US paying as little as everyone else does, not more, not less, and hardly anyone could blame them for that.

I agree that the timing is not good, but on the other hand: When was it ever more necessary to urge the non US Nato countries to actually invest in defense?
We can't have the EU countries save up on absolutely necessary military spendings and just think they can rely on the US forever.
That is far more dangerous than having a symbol of inner weakness at a bad timing.
The russian leadership can very well see whether something is actually weak, even if strong words would suggest otherwise.

It is high time that the other Nato countries invest more, whether under Trump or under anyone else. In my opinion, Mattis did the right thing here.
It is not the first time the US urged their allies to do it, it happened under Obama too (with kinder words, but still).
At some point, if promises are not held, the US has really no obligation to pay more than everybody else does.

Well, but how much of difference would pushing those countries, now of all times, make? Wikipedia conveniently has a table with the GDP and percentage of GDP spent:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_NATO#Military_expenditures

Say canada doubles it's military expenditure.... How much of an effect would it have? It would be an extra 1% to the total nato is worth. It's annoying they don't meet NATO standards but it is also not a huge problem. And the same goes for a bunch of tiny countries whose extra 1% on military spending wouldn't amount to a significant number. Also did a few numbers:

Assuming countries over the 2% minimum maintain that and every other country gets to the 2% goal then NATO would be worth 950 bil so to speak. Contrary to the 905 bil it is worth now. That represents an increase in spending of about 5.6%. And the US rather than representing 66% of the total budgets would represent 62%. Is that 5.6% really worth it? The way I see it, the only country that is overtly not doing it's part here is germany since they have a meaningful GDP and they investing just over half what they are supposed to. Then france but they are 0.22% short so their increase wouldn't be world changing. Then you have italy and I guess you could poke at canada and spain... But is is all so marginal.... Again, it would be fantastic if the US succeeded in pressuring these guys but again, this is definitely not the time. It's not even about putting unnecessary pressure on the US. There is no scenario where the US can do less for NATO anyways and what other countries can conceivably add is marginal.

 

[shionoro]

Say canada doubles it's military expenditure.... How much of an effect would it have? It would be an extra 1% to the total nato is worth. It's annoying they don't meet NATO standards but it is also not a huge problem. And the same goes for a bunch of tiny countries whose extra 1% on military spending wouldn't amount to a significant number. Also did a few numbers:

It is a huge problem, because it means that every nato action HAS TO involve US support, usually US being the majority source of troops.
Even when it is in the EU'S backyard.
You should exspect a power that has more population and at least the same economic power as the US to be able to pull off something like the Lybia mission alone without the US having to bring all their planes.
With a weak EU, something like a potential Syria mission before things got out of hand was not possible too.
The EU even relied on the US in the yugoslawia war back then.

I cannot think of a single recent military action of an EU member that had no US backup except for the french Mali intervention, and that is a problem.
We see why now: If the US is in a state of weakness, the whole west is basically defenseless.
There could be a genocide happening in some african or middle eastern country, but if the US won't go there, the Nato will not interfere.
The Nato was not even able, without US help, to create a capable intervention group in eastern europe.
That is quite honestly ashaming and it is better for everybody if at least the bigger forces like germany, france and Italy create a capable military so the US does not have to be the main source of power in every single conflict that is well inside the potential capability of EU countries.

Assuming countries over the 2% minimum maintain that and every other country gets to the 2% goal then NATO would be worth 950 bil so to speak. Contrary to the 905 bil it is worth now. That represents an increase in spending of about 5.6%. And the US rather than representing 66% of the total budgets would represent 62%. Is that 5.6% really worth it? The way I see it, the only country that is overtly not doing it's part here is germany since they have a meaningful GDP and they investing just over half what they are supposed to. Then france but they are 0.22% short so their increase wouldn't be world changing. Then you have italy and I guess you could poke at canada and spain... But is is all so marginal.... Again, it would be fantastic if the US succeeded in pressuring these guys but again, this is definitely not the time. It's not even about putting unnecessary pressure on the US. There is no scenario where the US can do less for NATO anyways and what other countries can conceivably add is marginal.

It is the difference between Nato countries being able to pull of a mission alone or requiring US help.
Take Germany for example, the biggest european power.
Germany, from its population and economical power alone, would basically be able to be a power as big is Russia if it was really going for it.
Now, noone wants that, least of all the Germans, but i am talking about the potential a country could contribute.
What we have now is that german airplanes don't fly, german rifles don't shoot, their troops do not get a sufficient training and they require backup from other armies to even function properly on the field.
It is basically as if Germany had no military. It would be completely hopeless for the german army to try to tackle any mission alone.
Their equipment fails them, their troops are not ready and even the working equipment is outdated.

The same is true for a lot of european powers that definitely are able to do better.
It is not per se about money alone, but everything beneath 2% means your army is in a state of incapability.
It is no problem if an army is small, but it is a problem if it is ineffectual.

A lot of the money inequality also comes from the fact that the US army has very expensive things like aitship carriers and nuclear weapons and submarines which other forces do not have (or at least not that many).
It is one thing if your allies do not have airship carriers and other things which you need to project powers.
That is what the US brings to the table.
It is a problem when your allies couldn't even succesfully pacify a minor conflict in their backyard or defend themselves.
Then they are not allies but a burden, and in that case, an alliance makes no sense at all.

The difference in numbers a raise to 2% might bring can seem marginal, but it is really a big difference.

--- Double Post Merged, Feb 15, 2017, Original Post Date: Feb 15, 2017 ---

Also, are you sure about the numbers?
When i even just let the biggest european powers germany, france, italy and spain 8excluding britain here) go to 2%, i do get a much bigger shift in pulled weight than you calculated.

 

[kkck]

It is a huge problem, because it means that every nato action HAS TO involve US support, usually US being the majority source of troops.
Even when it is in the EU'S backyard.
You should exspect a power that has more population and at least the same economic power as the US to be able to pull off something like the Lybia mission alone without the US having to bring all their planes.
With a weak EU, something like a potential Syria mission before things got out of hand was not possible too.
The EU even relied on the US in the yugoslawia war back then.

I cannot think of a single recent military action of an EU member that had no US backup except for the french Mali intervention, and that is a problem.
We see why now: If the US is in a state of weakness, the whole west is basically defenseless.
There could be a genocide happening in some african or middle eastern country, but if the US won't go there, the Nato will not interfere.
The Nato was not even able, without US help, to create a capable intervention group in eastern europe.
That is quite honestly ashaming and it is better for everybody if at least the bigger forces like germany, france and Italy create a capable military so the US does not have to be the main source of power in every single conflict that is well inside the potential capability of EU countries.

It is the difference between Nato countries being able to pull of a mission alone or requiring US help.
Take Germany for example, the biggest european power.
Germany, from its population and economical power alone, would basically be able to be a power as big is Russia if it was really going for it.
Now, noone wants that, least of all the Germans, but i am talking about the potential a country could contribute.
What we have now is that german airplanes don't fly, german rifles don't shoot, their troops do not get a sufficient training and they require backup from other armies to even function properly on the field.
It is basically as if Germany had no military. It would be completely hopeless for the german army to try to tackle any mission alone.
Their equipment fails them, their troops are not ready and even the working equipment is outdated.

The same is true for a lot of european powers that definitely are able to do better.
It is not per se about money alone, but everything beneath 2% means your army is in a state of incapability.
It is no problem if an army is small, but it is a problem if it is ineffectual.

A lot of the money inequality also comes from the fact that the US army has very expensive things like aitship carriers and nuclear weapons and submarines which other forces do not have (or at least not that many).
It is one thing if your allies do not have airship carriers and other things which you need to project powers.
That is what the US brings to the table.
It is a problem when your allies couldn't even succesfully pacify a minor conflict in their backyard or defend themselves.
Then they are not allies but a burden, and in that case, an alliance makes no sense at all.

The difference in numbers a raise to 2% might bring can seem marginal, but it is really a big difference.

--- Double Post Merged, Feb 15, 2017, Original Post Date: Feb 15, 2017 ---

Also, are you sure about the numbers?
When i even just let the biggest european powers germany, france, italy and spain 8excluding britain here) go to 2%, i do get a much bigger shift in pulled weight than you calculated.

Well, regardless of the circumstances any mission would have to use US support, that's not optional... The US is simply that important to NATO. It effectively is nato.

As for the difference in numbers, it absolutely is marginal.... To actually shift this you'd need every EU country to contribute to a 4%. The only reason this specifically is a problem right now is because the US brought it up at a bad time. Granted there are other issues but without that we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

The EU is not the same as the US though. If anything what you are suggesting could even be seen as a different context since not every EU nation is a part of nato anyways. What you are suggesting would be more along the lines of the EU having it's own army and budget comparable to the US. Which on account of resources and population would technically be plausible however given the political state of the EU at the moment is impossible. Honestly, while that would give EU military independence from the US, I am not much of a fan of the idea. In my mind that is a world with two USAs....

I think the numbers are right. What I did was pretty simple, I multiplied the countries gdp by 2% except for those that are already above that. I gonna try that again later tonight to see if I get a different result in case I did something wrong though...

--- Double Post Merged, Feb 15, 2017 ---

On another note, trump has been going on about Flynn being taken down by "illegal leaks". However illegal they might be or not, I guess that also legitimizes the leaks. They are "illegal", not lies or otherwise incorrect. With that being perfectly clear now, it is clear that trump's incompetency knows no bounds. I guess that technically it is possible for him to still get on track so to speak given that he has been failing at the job only for a month but given how clueless the trump administration is collectively I don't see it happening.

--- Double Post Merged, Feb 15, 2017 ---

And the sad part here is that when it comes to Flynn, trump is defending him by saying the leaks were illegal. When regardless of that what flynn did is indefensible to begin with. Some even suggest that what flynn did is technically treason.... Though I am not 100% sold on the idea yet, it seems far fetched....

 

[SharkBait]

Another no for Trump, when will he ever fill his cabinet.

 

[shionoro]

Well, regardless of the circumstances any mission would have to use US support, that's not optional... The US is simply that important to NATO. It effectively is nato.

As for the difference in numbers, it absolutely is marginal.... To actually shift this you'd need every EU country to contribute to a 4%. The only reason this specifically is a problem right now is because the US brought it up at a bad time. Granted there are other issues but without that we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

The EU is not the same as the US though. If anything what you are suggesting could even be seen as a different context since not every EU nation is a part of nato anyways. What you are suggesting would be more along the lines of the EU having it's own army and budget comparable to the US. Which on account of resources and population would technically be plausible however given the political state of the EU at the moment is impossible. Honestly, while that would give EU military independence from the US, I am not much of a fan of the idea. In my mind that is a world with two USAs....

I think the numbers are right. What I did was pretty simple, I multiplied the countries gdp by 2% except for those that are already above that. I gonna try that again later tonight to see if I get a different result in case I did something wrong though...

I did the math now: By now, we got 33% funding from non US Nato members, with the increase we'd have roughly 40% funding by nonnatomembers (even a tad more because Britain is already spending more and germany promised to spend more than 2%).

That still might not sound like much, but as i said, it actually is.
The fact that any mission requires US assistance is THE PROBLEM, if that stays the same we can do away with the Nato already, then it could just be the 'US defense promise' or something like that.
A raise to 4% is not necessary in any way, even the US (whose military is more expensive than that of most nato states had to be due to airship carriers) has only 3.2% of their GDP.

A raise to 2% is enough to have all Nato members have an effective army in which their soldiers are welltrained and wellequipped.
That is enough and it should go without saying that we should aim for that.
In the state that most nato member's armies are right now, they are not much better than having no army at all.

An EU army is not the worst thing in the world and it might happen at some point, it would simply make it easier to assign missions and organize military movement.
Noone in the EU wants to exchange Nato for that, however. It would rather be a way to effectively organize EU forces to actually be able to fullfill requirements of Nato missions (or even nato independend missions).
I admit that it is a long shot until then, but there are steps taken to at least lay the groundwork for it right now.

On another note, trump has been going on about Flynn being taken down by "illegal leaks". However illegal they might be or not, I guess that also legitimizes the leaks. They are "illegal", not lies or otherwise incorrect. With that being perfectly clear now, it is clear that trump's incompetency knows no bounds. I guess that technically it is possible for him to still get on track so to speak given that he has been failing at the job only for a month but given how clueless the trump administration is collectively I don't see it happening.
--- Double Post Merged, Today at 9:31 PM --- And the sad part here is that when it comes to Flynn, trump is defending him by saying the leaks were illegal. When regardless of that what flynn did is indefensible to begin with. Some even suggest that what flynn did is technically treason.... Though I am not 100% sold on the idea yet, it seems far fetched....

If Trump goes on and on about clinton's emails or Podesta's emails which were similarly leaked, then really, it is no time to cry foul right now.
Leaks were always welcome when they suited him.

 

[Aonori]

Look, i do not say that body language cannot give any clues about a person.
But you thinking trump is not wrong because kitchen psychology about bodylanguage is a very questionable thing to say.

Body language is a highly personal thing and only works with averages.

For example, many people do not look others straight into the eye when they are lying or give themselves away with other clues.
That does not hold true tho for a natural liar, who has incorporated lying into his personality (speaking from experience here, i lie when i open my mouth).

Trump is a person who lies since his whole life, it can be proven that more than half of his statements are flat out wrong or at least not completely true.
His bodylanguage can be as it wants: Trump is a liar and the things he does are mostly deconstructive or flat out desastrous.

Deception, or lies; Truth and Belief, to those key aspects of body language there´s no Kitchen psychology involved:
What there is good analysis or poor analysis, misunderstandings, or some other sort of human error, with skill what matters is the work of the reader and how much experience there is to back up the work, we humans have many skill potential and those that work hard in something adquire expertise in it, reading body language and understanding it isnt not much diferent than training in Martial arts or flexibility, learning diferent languages, etc... It all ties down to some sort of brainwork as well.

And I dont see why you keep on saying "Kitchen psychology", on something like this, it doesnt match-up, it´s weird and makes it very hard to take the rest of whatever you say seriously, so this is all I´m saying on body language, defense on this thread.

How is he a liar when he´s trying to do what he promised to do on his campaign but is being sabotaged so he cant do them? If he was a complete liar all he needed to do was go back on his campaign promises from day one. Also Trump should´ve had good sources to get his intel on, it´s his fault for falling in some cases, but in others some sources themselves are to blame for his beliefs on them (CNN cough*) and oh boy, once a belief is set, good luck bringing that down

Well when it comes to paying taxes we know how smart he was to get around those, so he does lie, but calling it his whole life, is a bit of a stretch dont you think? Hell Hillary lies a lot and even I can tell she must not have been lying her whole life, a guy like George Soros though, I wont put any guesses on.

I already knew he was deconstructive or flat out desastrous (Wildcard status), I dont need to be told the same exact stuff time and time again, I´d rather hear the details from the best sources available and people more experienced in what Trump´s risks represent (like Philia is doing, thank you on that), than the average, I can watch the average stuff any day of the week (in any fake news outlet), but without the details or other key points, to understand the rest of what I´m watching I get an incomplete puzzle, I dont debate how bad trump can be for the US, if I had to do so, with lets say, my professor from the History of Fascism, class, at least that one, knows a lot of how dangerous Trump and his protecionism can be (wild-card status), but even then there wouldnt be such a "Oh trump is a Nazi" extreme POV defense on his part either. So I will keep trying to look at things with trump from two diferent POV(s)

I also try to take this view on the other side of the spectrum with a Hillary Clinton presidency, I just see it as having too many negatives and the positives would be a more keeper policy from the Obama legacy, there isnt exactly a lot of positives to talk about that anyone else doesnt already know, thats why I´m not saying too much on that and the negatives are taking more focus in some of my other comments, sorry on that.

It´s not about me taking or accepting any extreme POV(s) here, but about understanding the situation, from the most neutral POV possible, otherwise it wouldnt have any meaning to me, but then again, this is kinda a side-eff of me taking the History path, more than anything, so I´m already biased in a way. And thats that, Body Language just helps a lot in this, I´d apreciate some respect on that, but if it´s not possible it´s fine eitherway.

 

[shionoro]

How is he a liar when he´s trying to do what he promised to do on his campaign but is being sabotaged so he cant do them? If he was a liar all he needed to do was go back on his campaign promises from day one.

Well....You didn't watch the news about the russia leaks?
Trump's dteam first denied any connection to the russians alltogether, then said 'they talked', then the story was flynn independently talked to russia without informing pence, now it becomes clear that the whole trump administration knew about flynn doing that and being a safety risk and not doing anything about that.

And you tell me trump is not a liar? Really?
I remember him shouting 'lock her up' when clinton did basically nothing, and now his own safety advisor basically commits treason and it is a-ok, and he only had to go because the public noticed?
Suuure.....How can you defend such a thing?

 

[Aonori]

Well....You didn't watch the news about the russia leaks?
Trump's dteam first denied any connection to the russians alltogether, then said 'they talked', then the story was flynn independently talked to russia without informing pence, now it becomes clear that the whole trump administration knew about flynn doing that and being a safety risk and not doing anything about that.

And you tell me trump is not a liar? Really?
I remember him shouting 'lock her up' when clinton did basically nothing, and now his own safety advisor basically commits treason and it is a-ok, and he only had to go because the public noticed?
Suuure.....How can you defend such a thing?

His safety advisor did "talks" there was no firm ground for what was talked to be done anyway (btw, when did the talks even started? Was it before or after the leaks started, or in between? I know this news did came up but I didnt get any specific date on the talks), and the Russia/US relations arent improving properly either, I dont see any benefits from this so called treason for the Russians, but they did have a hand at the leaks that happened, but Clinton she actually did some stuff, so yes, I can understand the "lock her up", what I´m not understanding is how she´s not locked up yet, or better yet I understand, along with the fact Trump is getting weaker and is accepting to be undermined, he´s allowing others to sabotage his administration and is clearly not properly prepared to bring his campaign promises, my question now is how long will it take for this to either get solved well, badly, or for Trump to keep stuff as it´s which is starting to seem very plausible as a answer to me, but of course if that were the case then all the leftists would have to understand Trump wasnt so much of a threat as they were hyping him up to.

So you dont want the US and Russia to have a good relation? I understand how the rest of the world would react, but for me, this whole Russia vs US thing, was been going on for far too long if you ask me, in history it´s very common to see past enemy countries turn into buddies, thanks to diplomacy and time US vs Russia just isnt what it used to be anymore really, hell, my country used to have a super animosity with Spain for some nice centuries and by the time Salazar came in, him and Franco were already working together on how to keep themselves neutral in WW2 and deal with the allied forces and the nazis, without risking getting to choose any sides. Even before that there were a lot of peace treaties and stuff, the animosity still remained, but it changed intensity overtime, I dont see why the same couldnt happen sooner in a modern world with Russia and the US, consideering that even their animosity circunstances are quite more diferent and they arent close neighbours.

Dont all of us lied at least once in our lives (or at least those of us who got to live up to that point)? Trump is a liar just like the rest of the lying population in the world, the question here should be, what kind of liar is he? how much does he lie? and how much danger his lies can have? I´ve seen better liars and more dangerous ones than Trump, he just happens to have taken presidency a few months back, he has the chance of becoming worse over time though.

It´s easy, I´m not taking any radical view, so I will source check much of the intel I get and so far, defending Trump on a nationalistic POV still weighs more than exposing him, right now or better yet, there´s not much ground for me to be anti-trump with the current results he was been giving, but dont worry if it gets worse, I will expose it, for exemple, I dont like how Trump is ok with human torture. The same goes for most of his cabinet picks, in some cases I dont even have proper source material to judge them and I dont want to look pretentious... so yeah, I wont support or attack most, sorry.

I do agree that for globalist policies, Trump is a killer, but I dont like some of the current radical globalism, I´ve been watching either, otherwise, I would be bashing trump for being a anti-globalist dummie.

 

[POW]

Russia Russia Russia don't looks at the problems within just focus on Russia.

 

[shionoro]

Russia Russia Russia don't looks at the problems within just focus on Russia.

A problem with reason in the tightest circle arround your president is not a problem within? 0.0

--- Double Post Merged, Feb 15, 2017, Original Post Date: Feb 15, 2017 ---

His safety advisor did "talks" there was no firm ground for what was talked to be done anyway (btw, when did the talks even started? Was it before or after the leaks started, or in between? I know this news did came up but I didnt get any specific date on the talks), and the Russia/US relations arent improving properly either, I dont see any benefits from this so called treason for the Russians, but they did have a hand at the leaks that happened, but Clinton she actually did some stuff, so yes, I can understand the "lock her up", what I´m not understanding is how she´s not locked up yet, or better yet I understand, along with the fact Trump is getting weaker and is accepting to be undermined, he´s allowing others to sabotage his administration and is clearly not properly prepared to bring his campaign promises, my question now is how long will it take for this to either get solved well, badly, or for Trump to keep stuff as it´s which is starting to seem very plausible as a answer to me, but of course if that were the case then all the leftists would have to understand Trump wasnt so much of a threat as they were hyping him up to.

Just read this http://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/2017/02/trumps_impeachment_is_now_on_the_menu_moran.html

Trump knew about the talks, he was informed about then, but he denied knowing anything about it.
That is a proven lie, and chances are that this runs much deeper than we know by now.

So please stop denying that Trump lied here.

 

[Aonori]

Russia Russia Russia don't looks at the problems within just focus on Russia.

3:49, 5:54: Oh look, somebody else does body language