A little evidence goes a long way to support claims.
Regardless, what you need to determine is whether or not a crime was committed. It is obviously not illegal for any arbitrary person to attempt to influence an election. That is specifically what politicians, PACs, etc do during a campaign.
Why is it important how or when it started? Shouldn't it be stopped regardless of how it started? Isn't the important thing to protect our country now? Why does anything you say matter to the question of how to stop it from happening in the future?
Moreover - if any of the people you mentioned committed a crime, great, charge them for it. If not, then enough with the "whataboutism", it is not helpful.
Seriously, I'm not being facetious or sarcastic. Even for-profit media (yes, run by an actual corporation!) is preferable to a bunch of uninformed idiots "just asking questions" without a single shred of proof between them. Look at back in 2016 when "fake news" was a bunch of people creating inflammatory posts to spread through social media with the goal of page views and advertising dollars. Look at how well those people did (5-figure incomes every month), and look at who they targeted. They targeted conservative groups and gave them stories that stroked their existing biases or presumptions, and those people spread that disinformation like wildfire. It only would have taken a single person to discover that, hey, this "local news website" does not have a homepage, and in fact it has only a single story on the entire site - the one that was linked to.
People are very easy to fool, and various groups of people will not check facts or question what they're reading. When that's the case, yes, even professional news corporations are preferable to a bunch of idiots in their bubbles reinforcing each others' biases without a single fact involved.
That's just a factually incorrect statement. Look at the indictment against Papadopoulos, for example. I haven't looked at all of the other indictments, but that one example is enough to disprove your claim of zero.
Nobody was complaining when the Obama and Clinton campaigns spent tens of millions of dollars on artificial social media campaigns, in fact they were celebrated for it!
Why wasn't anyone complaining? Why didn't you complain? Why did you celebrate that? Moreover, what evidence shows they did that?
If interference and collusion are proven, it undermines the legitimacy of the Trump presidency.
It may, but probably not in any actionable way. Even if collusion is proven, the most that could happen would be impeachment and then Pence or Ryan or whoever would become president. The only way we would see a lot of chaos there is probably if Democrats gain a House majority and then both Trump and Pence are implicated in something where both of them get impeached, then we would end up with a Democrat as president. There are a lot of huge "ifs" there though.
Personally, I find it more likely that Mueller will find evidence of things more serious than collusion with Russia (but completely unrelated to the election) and that will take priority, which wouldn't de-legitimize the administration.
Now, we had heads of state meet and tensions are calming.
Maybe. We can see that NK is dismantling the engine test stand at Sohae, but it looks like they've resumed construction at the factory that assembles ICBMs. Their work at Sohae is generally complete, so they can dismantle that without losing capability, and naturally they can built it again if they need it. You keep saying that we haven't given them anything that we can't take back (which is not completely true), but the same is true for them. They have given us nothing that they can't undo (in fact, they have given us nothing). We, still, have given Kim a propaganda victory that he can use at home and that we cannot undo. They can show him as legitimate, and blame any problems on us, while he continues to built ICBMs and warheads. There is one and maybe two uranium enrichment facilities that are undeclared (one of them is here, the Kangson facility). We think that he has continued to produce fissile material, and he can enrich it at places where we can't tell. This is still true, and as Trump did not push for nor even mention any inspection regime at all, it's going to continue. So, what does that mean? That means that Kim can make a show of destroying somewhere around 20 warheads, which looks great, and makes everyone happy, and he will still have nuclear weapons and the capability to make more. So, tensions appear to be calming, but Kim is more legitimate than ever and he's on track to continue his weapon development with new missiles, new warheads, and new factories. This is going according to his plan, not ours. He has been busy for a while, that new factory will produce parts for his rockets that will go to other places to be assembled and then deployed. That construction is as recent as this month.
Yes, it would have been nice but not getting the optimal isn't the same as not getting something favorable.
Yes, you're correct. And, in this case, we have gotten nothing at all. If you disagree, let me know what we've gained in our talks, what NK has given up or done. So far they have dismantled an engine test stand that they are finished with (in the process, anyway, and again they can rebuild it if they need it), and we have 55 sets of remains from the Korean war. Maybe they're even American soldiers, so I guess that's 55 down and 5,300 or so to go, if that's important to you. Personally I think it's nothing more than a token gesture. Again, it does not change their capabilities in any way.
I would agree but everyone knows what the goals are. Both sides know what they want and know what the other-side wants.
That doesn't matter. When we say we want de-nuclearization, and Kim says he pledges to de-nuclearize, the first step is to define what that means. Because I guarantee we aren't speaking the same language. We want one thing, and he's agreeing to something else. If this is not in writing then it doesn't mean anything.
No extraction costs? What do you call the $2.8 billion to build the thing?
I'm not a geologist or anything, but I call that a construction cost. Which applies to any power generation station.
Really, this isn't hard. Most of the same costs like construction and transmission will apply to any power generation station. But with things like solar, wind, and hydro, you only need to build them in the right location, you do not need to pay to get the fuel.
It can also be lost. For instance, if Trump changes his mind on NK and starts a twitter fiasco the main complaint of NK will remain, the sanctions.
And you're thinking that the NK state media will report on this and how no ones likes Kim any more? I bet they won't... I bet that propaganda victory in NK can't simply be just taken away without the state media's help.
Or, maybe we should ask someone in NK. Any NK citizens here who can comment on what your state media shows? Anyone? Anyone at all? I'm not going to hold my breath on a response to that, because they do not let their citizens on the internet.
Right now, all that has happened is Trump treating Kim like the media treated NK during the Olympics or NK and SK border handshake.
Yes, I know that is all that happened. It would have been nice to have some sort of agreement or framework that formally states our goals, but I realize that Trump didn't bother to do that. Preparing for a meeting isn't exactly his style.
it is legitimization toward a specific goal and with actors that seemingly are willing to agree to that shared goal
Then wouldn't it make sense to have the result be a co-drafted document which states the goals? I mean, that sounds pretty reasonable, no?
Picture a world where a blank slate president is here with the current results through the same actions
I would still be wondering why that president walked away without some sort of statement about what our goals are and what we expect from NK.
My mistake, when you responded about Trump grabbing pussy I assumed you cared about that.
That article makes some decent points, although some of the things it claims are not correct. I don't think Clinton's team immediately blamed only Russia for the loss. They scrambled to make any excuse they could, I think Clinton's book blames 19 different things or something like that, but what was missing from their self-examination was the obvious fact that Clinton was a terrible candidate and no one liked her. That's the reason she lost.
I think one statement in that article is right on the money though, even though it's a quote. Trump is definitely a useful fool for Russia. We've also already seen him making claims that Russia is going to intervene on behalf of Democrats, so that's already set up as an excuse if Democrats win anything. Trump is hardly status quo, but I would expect that any member of the status quo, people who have been in Congress for decades, are going to whine about Russia if voters finally show them the door (maybe rightly so, maybe not). We do need that kind of change in this country, but we also need to be aware of the fact that Russia is and will attack us and take measures to protect our voting system.
Your original point in this thread is, what, that nothing has been given to NK? That's demonstratively not true, and I pointed that out. The propaganda victory for NK is self-evident. If you don't believe me, feel free to look at the actual propaganda media accounts of the meeting from NK itself. You can find that evidence for yourself if you refuse to believe that a dictatorship is using the meeting with our president that it has sought for decades as a propaganda victory to legitimize their dictator. If you want to waffle on about how we can restart whatever exercises at any time, great, but that does not cancel out their victory and it does not mean that they have made a single substantive change in their policies. Their missile and nuclear tests were finished before Trump ever even met Kim, he doesn't get credit for that. The demolition in front of international media happened before they ever went to Singapore. Now Kim gets to dismantle all of his finished programs, move that money towards feeding his people, and claim victory. He must have read The Art Of The Deal, because claiming victory for solving a problem that you caused is straight out of Trump's playbook.
Now, I have long thought that treating NK with more respect was the correct way forward, but what we have here is just lazy. The stated goal of administration officials has been CVID - complete, verifiable, and irreversible denuclearization. So when there is not a single mention of this in any document co-drafted with NK, then any rational person would ask what Trump got if he didn't push our stated goal. We have no formal framework. We have no roadmap towards denuclearization. We have vague language of future talks, even though Kim decided not to meet with Pompeo when he visited.
And, what's also important - and try to stay with me here, because I realize you get distracted easily - this does not happen in a vacuum. If you are not viewing this against the backdrop that everything Trump does, every time he puts his foot in his mouth, every time he gets caught blatantly lying, every time he rolls over for another foreign leader, and you think that NK does not notice those things and adjusts their own policies towards the US, then you're delusional. It does not happen in a vacuum. And if, like you, NK believes that Trump can simply undo everything with a word, and not a week goes by that he doesn't lie about something, then what do you think their response is going to be? Do you think they're going to make a good-faith effort? Ask Mike Pompeo about that.
Sorry for all the words, hopefully your ADD or whatever reason you're having problems focusing isn't flaring up and you're not having problems keeping up. I know there's a lot to handle. These are complex global issues that, again, and let me be real clear about this - do not happen in a vacuum. So don't act like they do.
As far as catharsis, the only thing that will be cathartic is when Trump is no longer in a position to continue damaging the United States.
And if you want to reply to this with more "whataboutism" and talk about what a shitty job Obama did, save it, because Obama did plenty of shitty things and that does not excuse Trump. That is not how the United States works.
I'm pretty sure that Stephen Hawking had some kind of ideas concerning the existence of black holes.
Hopefully we get more information about black holes later this year.
It's amazing to watch the 22-year time-lapse to see the orbits of the stars, and how fast S2 goes at closest approach. It's amazing to realize that it's only moving at around 3% of the speed of light ("only"). It's amazing to consider that the gravity of the black hole itself is so strong that something moving more than 33 times as fast as that star cannot escape from it.
If you expect me to defend Obama, then I'm really sorry to disappoint you. I'll also call out your "whataboutism" for the bullshit that it is.
Trump is a shit president, a shit American, and a shit person, and history is going to see him that way. What Obama did or failed to do has zero bearing on that, and Obama is not even the topic. And if you think that opposing Trump means necessarily supporting Obama, then let's notch that up to yet another thing that you're wrong about.
If you want to concede all of your other points and try to pivot to Iran, well, I guess I shouldn't expect anything else from you.
My takeaway is that when confirmation bias becomes so deeply rooted, it opens the door to believing any propaganda without hesitation.
Absolutely, we are (and have been) attacked for a quite a while. Keep in mind that the goal of the people attacking us is to divide us.
And, when you refer to the recording of a rich old sociopathic narcissist bragging about how he assaulted women, try to keep in mind that he admitted and apologized for it and tried to deflect by saying that Clinton said far worse to him ("whataboutism" was in full force). He did not deny it, which is very unusual for a person who will deny saying something that he was recorded saying the previous day. There is no reason to assume he was not being serious. In fact, I think that he actually enjoys having that image. Be careful who you're defending, especially when you're pretending to be fair and objective.
"This was locker room banter, a private conversation that took place many years ago. Bill Clinton has said far worse to me on the golf course - not even close. I apologize if anyone was offended."
Early on Saturday morning, October 8, Donald Trump issued a lengthier statement, released by video. In it, Trump said of the video's contents, "I said it, I was wrong, and I apologize." He went on to "pledge to be a better man" and ended the video with the allegation that Bill Clinton, former President of the United States and husband of Trump's Democratic rival Hillary Clinton, had "abused women", and that Hillary had bullied her husband's victims.
Of course, in true Trump style, and after admitting that he said those things, in Jan. 2017 he questioned the authenticity of the tape. He makes gaslighting seem like an art form.
Anyway, back to your point, watch out for propaganda. Keep an open mind and understand the value of critical thinking. Remember that the goal of our common enemy is to divide us.
Uranium is a valuable product, available on the world market. If you want to restrict free trade, go ahead and try that argument.
Way to miss the point. This is the relationship I'm wondering about:
US: hey, we've got some uranium to sell, anyone want it? Russia: hell yeah, I'll take some. What do you want for it? US: hmm. How about uranium, you got any of that? Russia: hell yeah I got some uranium to trade. US: OK, I'll trade you some uranium for some uranium.
Listen, I'm sorry you took the time to write that whole thing out but when you start out by asserting something that is objectively and demonstratively false, there's no point in my continuing to read.
It's a fact that the only person who knows what Mueller has is Mueller. If you can't even accept that then it's not worth having a conversation with you. Sorry.
And to think he had the nerve to say that Germany was being controlled by Russia.
I'll note that he never said anything like that when speaking to Merkel. Those kinds of brainless insults are not what he tells other leaders to their faces. He doesn't have the balls for that.
I think your model to understand and predict reality is very flawed because you can see results that are objectively beneficial by any measure yet still say things like "he's an embarrassment".
Whether or not he has done things that have had a benefit, and whether or not he is an embarrassment, are not mutually exclusive. He is clearly a pathological liar. That gets in the way of a lot of good things. He's on his third marriage and has obviously cheated multiple times, including months after his son was born and with multiple women. He has no problem mocking physically disabled people. He makes gaslighting look like an absolute art form. I mean, there's a long, long list of things this guy has said and done that should be embarrassing to him (although I don't think they are, I don't think he is very self-aware) and are certainly embarrassing to a large portion of the country, and this list literally gets updated every week. If you're willfully ignorant of all of that, then fine, I don't enjoy arguing with you, but it's also ridiculous to suggest that I'm asserting that because of this he has done nothing that could be seen as beneficial. I have never even suggested that claim.
You want to defend something else about him? How about this: he always promised to have the best people around him, drain the swamp, etc. Do you want to talk about how many people have quit or been fired (that he appointed), and the kinds of swamp creatures that be brought in? I mean, if these are the best people, why are they quitting or resigning or being fired? I thought they were the best. Are they not the best? If not, why did he hire them? Let the gaslighting begin...
Helsinki? Look weak and cowardly? I guess...
He stood next to the hostile leader of a country that is actively attacking the US, and he sided with that man instead of his own government. Literally, that's what he did, that's what he literally said. He called Putin strong. He said there was no reason to believe Russia is actively attacking us, despite the unanimous conclusions of his own government. Hell, when they initially sat down he winked at Putin. From what I hear all of his advisors were telling him to be strong and stand up to Putin, and instead we get a closed-door meeting where we don't even know what happened, and never will, and then Trump walks out and talks about what a strong leader Putin is and how he's so generous because he made an offer to let us watch them interrogate their own military intelligence officers while they interrogate some of our people. Trump called that offer very generous. The only people I hear claiming he did a good job are the people who will never drop support for him under any circumstances. It was another embarrassment. And he is cowardly and weak because his actions were in direct opposition to all the tough talk he delivers via his phone while he's laying in bed. He's all talk, he is not the strong leader he wants everything to think he is. Like Schwarzenegger said, he was like a wet noodle next to Putin.
I think the fact that Russia created a 100 mile buffer between Syria and Israel and now coordinating military efforts with Israel is something to consider.
What the hell does that even mean? Are you trying to suggest that this is because of Trump? You're saying we should credit Trump because Russia is not trying to actively attack Israeli targets? Is the bar really set that low?
Particularly so when Putin said that he can be useful toward NK denuclearize (which he can) and stability in the ME (which he can).
Yeah, he can, and he should, but he's not. Instead he's working with a murderous dictator in Syria who has been killing hundreds of thousands of his own citizens for, what, 7 years? 8?, while he's also actively attacking the US including our democratic processes and our infrastructure. And for some reason a bunch of Americans decided that it'
If you don't want to try to come up with an answer you can just admit that. I guess that's just as well though. Take care. Let me know if you care to point out exactly what I said about you which I know to be untrue, because I don't know what you're referring to.
Haha, how many people do you know who think their opinions are wrong? Are you one of them?
It's pointless to have a discussion with you, the last time we tried it didn't go anywhere. This is headed down the same path with comments like that, so take care.
I'm not obsessed with anything Trump does, I just think he's an embarrassment, to himself and the country. He certainly made himself look weak and cowardly in Helsinki.
Was Kim going to lose his power if Trump didn't do what he did? probably not.
We'll never know. But a lot of his old generals are dying, and progress is creeping in. He is known to be paranoid about a coup. Once again his country is starving because he spent everything on missiles and nukes. I think there's probably a reason why he kills his family members with anti-aircraft guns, but yeah I guess I'm just dumb. Thanks for keeping the bar for the conversation so high.
Slashdot Mirror
A little evidence goes a long way to support claims.
Regardless, what you need to determine is whether or not a crime was committed. It is obviously not illegal for any arbitrary person to attempt to influence an election. That is specifically what politicians, PACs, etc do during a campaign.
Did they do anything illegal? If so, charge them. If not, stop with the "whataboutism."
Past actions do not excuse current crimes, regardless of who is involved.
More "whataboutism".
Why is it important how or when it started? Shouldn't it be stopped regardless of how it started? Isn't the important thing to protect our country now? Why does anything you say matter to the question of how to stop it from happening in the future?
Moreover - if any of the people you mentioned committed a crime, great, charge them for it. If not, then enough with the "whataboutism", it is not helpful.
And what's better, corporate-controlled media?
Yeah.
Seriously, I'm not being facetious or sarcastic. Even for-profit media (yes, run by an actual corporation!) is preferable to a bunch of uninformed idiots "just asking questions" without a single shred of proof between them. Look at back in 2016 when "fake news" was a bunch of people creating inflammatory posts to spread through social media with the goal of page views and advertising dollars. Look at how well those people did (5-figure incomes every month), and look at who they targeted. They targeted conservative groups and gave them stories that stroked their existing biases or presumptions, and those people spread that disinformation like wildfire. It only would have taken a single person to discover that, hey, this "local news website" does not have a homepage, and in fact it has only a single story on the entire site - the one that was linked to.
People are very easy to fool, and various groups of people will not check facts or question what they're reading. When that's the case, yes, even professional news corporations are preferable to a bunch of idiots in their bubbles reinforcing each others' biases without a single fact involved.
That's just a factually incorrect statement. Look at the indictment against Papadopoulos, for example. I haven't looked at all of the other indictments, but that one example is enough to disprove your claim of zero.
Nobody was complaining when the Obama and Clinton campaigns spent tens of millions of dollars on artificial social media campaigns, in fact they were celebrated for it!
Why wasn't anyone complaining? Why didn't you complain? Why did you celebrate that? Moreover, what evidence shows they did that?
If interference and collusion are proven, it undermines the legitimacy of the Trump presidency.
It may, but probably not in any actionable way. Even if collusion is proven, the most that could happen would be impeachment and then Pence or Ryan or whoever would become president. The only way we would see a lot of chaos there is probably if Democrats gain a House majority and then both Trump and Pence are implicated in something where both of them get impeached, then we would end up with a Democrat as president. There are a lot of huge "ifs" there though.
Personally, I find it more likely that Mueller will find evidence of things more serious than collusion with Russia (but completely unrelated to the election) and that will take priority, which wouldn't de-legitimize the administration.
Now, we had heads of state meet and tensions are calming.
Maybe. We can see that NK is dismantling the engine test stand at Sohae, but it looks like they've resumed construction at the factory that assembles ICBMs. Their work at Sohae is generally complete, so they can dismantle that without losing capability, and naturally they can built it again if they need it. You keep saying that we haven't given them anything that we can't take back (which is not completely true), but the same is true for them. They have given us nothing that they can't undo (in fact, they have given us nothing). We, still, have given Kim a propaganda victory that he can use at home and that we cannot undo. They can show him as legitimate, and blame any problems on us, while he continues to built ICBMs and warheads. There is one and maybe two uranium enrichment facilities that are undeclared (one of them is here, the Kangson facility). We think that he has continued to produce fissile material, and he can enrich it at places where we can't tell. This is still true, and as Trump did not push for nor even mention any inspection regime at all, it's going to continue. So, what does that mean? That means that Kim can make a show of destroying somewhere around 20 warheads, which looks great, and makes everyone happy, and he will still have nuclear weapons and the capability to make more. So, tensions appear to be calming, but Kim is more legitimate than ever and he's on track to continue his weapon development with new missiles, new warheads, and new factories. This is going according to his plan, not ours. He has been busy for a while, that new factory will produce parts for his rockets that will go to other places to be assembled and then deployed. That construction is as recent as this month.
Yes, it would have been nice but not getting the optimal isn't the same as not getting something favorable.
Yes, you're correct. And, in this case, we have gotten nothing at all. If you disagree, let me know what we've gained in our talks, what NK has given up or done. So far they have dismantled an engine test stand that they are finished with (in the process, anyway, and again they can rebuild it if they need it), and we have 55 sets of remains from the Korean war. Maybe they're even American soldiers, so I guess that's 55 down and 5,300 or so to go, if that's important to you. Personally I think it's nothing more than a token gesture. Again, it does not change their capabilities in any way.
I would agree but everyone knows what the goals are. Both sides know what they want and know what the other-side wants.
That doesn't matter. When we say we want de-nuclearization, and Kim says he pledges to de-nuclearize, the first step is to define what that means. Because I guarantee we aren't speaking the same language. We want one thing, and he's agreeing to something else. If this is not in writing then it doesn't mean anything.
No extraction costs? What do you call the $2.8 billion to build the thing?
I'm not a geologist or anything, but I call that a construction cost. Which applies to any power generation station.
Really, this isn't hard. Most of the same costs like construction and transmission will apply to any power generation station. But with things like solar, wind, and hydro, you only need to build them in the right location, you do not need to pay to get the fuel.
Yes, building a power generation station is a public works project. That's specifically what it is, in fact.
Also, see if you can guess the times of peak electricity usage in Egypt. You think it might be when the sun is out?
It can also be lost. For instance, if Trump changes his mind on NK and starts a twitter fiasco the main complaint of NK will remain, the sanctions.
And you're thinking that the NK state media will report on this and how no ones likes Kim any more? I bet they won't... I bet that propaganda victory in NK can't simply be just taken away without the state media's help.
Or, maybe we should ask someone in NK. Any NK citizens here who can comment on what your state media shows? Anyone? Anyone at all? I'm not going to hold my breath on a response to that, because they do not let their citizens on the internet.
Right now, all that has happened is Trump treating Kim like the media treated NK during the Olympics or NK and SK border handshake.
Yes, I know that is all that happened. It would have been nice to have some sort of agreement or framework that formally states our goals, but I realize that Trump didn't bother to do that. Preparing for a meeting isn't exactly his style.
it is legitimization toward a specific goal and with actors that seemingly are willing to agree to that shared goal
Then wouldn't it make sense to have the result be a co-drafted document which states the goals? I mean, that sounds pretty reasonable, no?
Picture a world where a blank slate president is here with the current results through the same actions
I would still be wondering why that president walked away without some sort of statement about what our goals are and what we expect from NK.
Yeah? Is it really all GOP members, like the person I responded to asserted?
My mistake, when you responded about Trump grabbing pussy I assumed you cared about that.
That article makes some decent points, although some of the things it claims are not correct. I don't think Clinton's team immediately blamed only Russia for the loss. They scrambled to make any excuse they could, I think Clinton's book blames 19 different things or something like that, but what was missing from their self-examination was the obvious fact that Clinton was a terrible candidate and no one liked her. That's the reason she lost.
I think one statement in that article is right on the money though, even though it's a quote. Trump is definitely a useful fool for Russia. We've also already seen him making claims that Russia is going to intervene on behalf of Democrats, so that's already set up as an excuse if Democrats win anything. Trump is hardly status quo, but I would expect that any member of the status quo, people who have been in Congress for decades, are going to whine about Russia if voters finally show them the door (maybe rightly so, maybe not). We do need that kind of change in this country, but we also need to be aware of the fact that Russia is and will attack us and take measures to protect our voting system.
Your original point in this thread is, what, that nothing has been given to NK? That's demonstratively not true, and I pointed that out. The propaganda victory for NK is self-evident. If you don't believe me, feel free to look at the actual propaganda media accounts of the meeting from NK itself. You can find that evidence for yourself if you refuse to believe that a dictatorship is using the meeting with our president that it has sought for decades as a propaganda victory to legitimize their dictator. If you want to waffle on about how we can restart whatever exercises at any time, great, but that does not cancel out their victory and it does not mean that they have made a single substantive change in their policies. Their missile and nuclear tests were finished before Trump ever even met Kim, he doesn't get credit for that. The demolition in front of international media happened before they ever went to Singapore. Now Kim gets to dismantle all of his finished programs, move that money towards feeding his people, and claim victory. He must have read The Art Of The Deal, because claiming victory for solving a problem that you caused is straight out of Trump's playbook.
Now, I have long thought that treating NK with more respect was the correct way forward, but what we have here is just lazy. The stated goal of administration officials has been CVID - complete, verifiable, and irreversible denuclearization. So when there is not a single mention of this in any document co-drafted with NK, then any rational person would ask what Trump got if he didn't push our stated goal. We have no formal framework. We have no roadmap towards denuclearization. We have vague language of future talks, even though Kim decided not to meet with Pompeo when he visited.
And, what's also important - and try to stay with me here, because I realize you get distracted easily - this does not happen in a vacuum. If you are not viewing this against the backdrop that everything Trump does, every time he puts his foot in his mouth, every time he gets caught blatantly lying, every time he rolls over for another foreign leader, and you think that NK does not notice those things and adjusts their own policies towards the US, then you're delusional. It does not happen in a vacuum. And if, like you, NK believes that Trump can simply undo everything with a word, and not a week goes by that he doesn't lie about something, then what do you think their response is going to be? Do you think they're going to make a good-faith effort? Ask Mike Pompeo about that.
Sorry for all the words, hopefully your ADD or whatever reason you're having problems focusing isn't flaring up and you're not having problems keeping up. I know there's a lot to handle. These are complex global issues that, again, and let me be real clear about this - do not happen in a vacuum. So don't act like they do.
As far as catharsis, the only thing that will be cathartic is when Trump is no longer in a position to continue damaging the United States.
And if you want to reply to this with more "whataboutism" and talk about what a shitty job Obama did, save it, because Obama did plenty of shitty things and that does not excuse Trump. That is not how the United States works.
I'm pretty sure that Stephen Hawking had some kind of ideas concerning the existence of black holes.
Hopefully we get more information about black holes later this year.
It's amazing to watch the 22-year time-lapse to see the orbits of the stars, and how fast S2 goes at closest approach. It's amazing to realize that it's only moving at around 3% of the speed of light ("only"). It's amazing to consider that the gravity of the black hole itself is so strong that something moving more than 33 times as fast as that star cannot escape from it.
If you expect me to defend Obama, then I'm really sorry to disappoint you. I'll also call out your "whataboutism" for the bullshit that it is.
Trump is a shit president, a shit American, and a shit person, and history is going to see him that way. What Obama did or failed to do has zero bearing on that, and Obama is not even the topic. And if you think that opposing Trump means necessarily supporting Obama, then let's notch that up to yet another thing that you're wrong about.
If you want to concede all of your other points and try to pivot to Iran, well, I guess I shouldn't expect anything else from you.
My takeaway is that when confirmation bias becomes so deeply rooted, it opens the door to believing any propaganda without hesitation.
Absolutely, we are (and have been) attacked for a quite a while. Keep in mind that the goal of the people attacking us is to divide us.
And, when you refer to the recording of a rich old sociopathic narcissist bragging about how he assaulted women, try to keep in mind that he admitted and apologized for it and tried to deflect by saying that Clinton said far worse to him ("whataboutism" was in full force). He did not deny it, which is very unusual for a person who will deny saying something that he was recorded saying the previous day. There is no reason to assume he was not being serious. In fact, I think that he actually enjoys having that image. Be careful who you're defending, especially when you're pretending to be fair and objective.
"This was locker room banter, a private conversation that took place many years ago. Bill Clinton has said far worse to me on the golf course - not even close. I apologize if anyone was offended."
Early on Saturday morning, October 8, Donald Trump issued a lengthier statement, released by video. In it, Trump said of the video's contents, "I said it, I was wrong, and I apologize." He went on to "pledge to be a better man" and ended the video with the allegation that Bill Clinton, former President of the United States and husband of Trump's Democratic rival Hillary Clinton, had "abused women", and that Hillary had bullied her husband's victims.
Of course, in true Trump style, and after admitting that he said those things, in Jan. 2017 he questioned the authenticity of the tape. He makes gaslighting seem like an art form.
Anyway, back to your point, watch out for propaganda. Keep an open mind and understand the value of critical thinking. Remember that the goal of our common enemy is to divide us.
Uranium is a valuable product, available on the world market. If you want to restrict free trade, go ahead and try that argument.
Way to miss the point. This is the relationship I'm wondering about:
US: hey, we've got some uranium to sell, anyone want it?
Russia: hell yeah, I'll take some. What do you want for it?
US: hmm. How about uranium, you got any of that?
Russia: hell yeah I got some uranium to trade.
US: OK, I'll trade you some uranium for some uranium.
Again, we do know exactly what he has: nothing.
Listen, I'm sorry you took the time to write that whole thing out but when you start out by asserting something that is objectively and demonstratively false, there's no point in my continuing to read.
It's a fact that the only person who knows what Mueller has is Mueller. If you can't even accept that then it's not worth having a conversation with you. Sorry.
And you're thinking I'm the second one? Because that's not what you said before.
That's ok, I remember our previous conversation going about as well as this, so my bar of expectations for you is set pretty low.
And to think he had the nerve to say that Germany was being controlled by Russia.
I'll note that he never said anything like that when speaking to Merkel. Those kinds of brainless insults are not what he tells other leaders to their faces. He doesn't have the balls for that.
I think your model to understand and predict reality is very flawed because you can see results that are objectively beneficial by any measure yet still say things like "he's an embarrassment".
Whether or not he has done things that have had a benefit, and whether or not he is an embarrassment, are not mutually exclusive. He is clearly a pathological liar. That gets in the way of a lot of good things. He's on his third marriage and has obviously cheated multiple times, including months after his son was born and with multiple women. He has no problem mocking physically disabled people. He makes gaslighting look like an absolute art form. I mean, there's a long, long list of things this guy has said and done that should be embarrassing to him (although I don't think they are, I don't think he is very self-aware) and are certainly embarrassing to a large portion of the country, and this list literally gets updated every week. If you're willfully ignorant of all of that, then fine, I don't enjoy arguing with you, but it's also ridiculous to suggest that I'm asserting that because of this he has done nothing that could be seen as beneficial. I have never even suggested that claim.
You want to defend something else about him? How about this: he always promised to have the best people around him, drain the swamp, etc. Do you want to talk about how many people have quit or been fired (that he appointed), and the kinds of swamp creatures that be brought in? I mean, if these are the best people, why are they quitting or resigning or being fired? I thought they were the best. Are they not the best? If not, why did he hire them? Let the gaslighting begin...
Helsinki? Look weak and cowardly? I guess...
He stood next to the hostile leader of a country that is actively attacking the US, and he sided with that man instead of his own government. Literally, that's what he did, that's what he literally said. He called Putin strong. He said there was no reason to believe Russia is actively attacking us, despite the unanimous conclusions of his own government. Hell, when they initially sat down he winked at Putin. From what I hear all of his advisors were telling him to be strong and stand up to Putin, and instead we get a closed-door meeting where we don't even know what happened, and never will, and then Trump walks out and talks about what a strong leader Putin is and how he's so generous because he made an offer to let us watch them interrogate their own military intelligence officers while they interrogate some of our people. Trump called that offer very generous. The only people I hear claiming he did a good job are the people who will never drop support for him under any circumstances. It was another embarrassment. And he is cowardly and weak because his actions were in direct opposition to all the tough talk he delivers via his phone while he's laying in bed. He's all talk, he is not the strong leader he wants everything to think he is. Like Schwarzenegger said, he was like a wet noodle next to Putin.
I think the fact that Russia created a 100 mile buffer between Syria and Israel and now coordinating military efforts with Israel is something to consider.
What the hell does that even mean? Are you trying to suggest that this is because of Trump? You're saying we should credit Trump because Russia is not trying to actively attack Israeli targets? Is the bar really set that low?
Particularly so when Putin said that he can be useful toward NK denuclearize (which he can) and stability in the ME (which he can).
Yeah, he can, and he should, but he's not. Instead he's working with a murderous dictator in Syria who has been killing hundreds of thousands of his own citizens for, what, 7 years? 8?, while he's also actively attacking the US including our democratic processes and our infrastructure. And for some reason a bunch of Americans decided that it'
If you don't want to try to come up with an answer you can just admit that. I guess that's just as well though. Take care. Let me know if you care to point out exactly what I said about you which I know to be untrue, because I don't know what you're referring to.
Haha, how many people do you know who think their opinions are wrong? Are you one of them?
It's pointless to have a discussion with you, the last time we tried it didn't go anywhere. This is headed down the same path with comments like that, so take care.
I'm not obsessed with anything Trump does, I just think he's an embarrassment, to himself and the country. He certainly made himself look weak and cowardly in Helsinki.
Was Kim going to lose his power if Trump didn't do what he did? probably not.
We'll never know. But a lot of his old generals are dying, and progress is creeping in. He is known to be paranoid about a coup. Once again his country is starving because he spent everything on missiles and nukes. I think there's probably a reason why he kills his family members with anti-aircraft guns, but yeah I guess I'm just dumb. Thanks for keeping the bar for the conversation so high.