If this is the only possible way to avoid nuclear war? Sure. Do I think Kim would ever willingly engage in a military conflict with the US under any circumstances? No, I don't.
It's trying to be polite in an awkward situation with different customs.
Oh, is that the president's job? I was under the impression that he's the commander-in-chief of our military, and that there are specific protocols about saluting, particularly when it relates to adversaries or enemies, and that Trump has no clue about what those are. See, I just thought he was a dumbass, but it's good that you're here to correct the record.
Again, that legitimacy can be taken away by Trump with a single word and we are right back to where we were 2 years ago.
I don't think you understand the power of propaganda. Those videos and those images can not just be disappeared. They are being used in NK to legitimize that government. Until then, I thought the best chance of peace on the peninsula was going to come from an internal revolt, from instability. Trump made that process much, much less likely. Kim is the legitimate ruler, he's so legitimate that he doesn't even need to meet with our Secretary of State when Pompeo visits.
How about the legitimacy of a meeting with a sitting US president, complete with all of the pomp of our flags sitting next to each other, Trump saluting their generals, etc? That has enormous propaganda value in NK and is something their leadership has been craving for decades.
I'm not sure that answers my question on why conservatives aren't interested in it, and it's a fact that conservatives whine about the media.
So, let's try this again: why do you think the majority of the people who decide to make a career out of figuring out and reporting on true events are not conservatives?
Sure, an algorithm that trips with every GOP and no Dems isn't biased at all
It may surprise you to learn that less than 100% of GOP accounts are affected, and more than 0% of Democratic accounts are affected. I know it's comforting to think you live in a binary world, but you don't.
Although, if you'd like an example of the difference between conservative and liberal discourse, there's a pretty good example that's the latest in a long trend. It used to be that conservatives were reading and sharing obviously fake stories on obviously fake sites because fact checking is completely foreign to them, and those same fake news peddlers admitted that targeting liberal audiences did not work because it got called out immediately as fake. If you want proof that still happens, and maybe is the reason why conservatives tend to be blocked more than liberals (call it a deficiency in determining facts if you'd like), watch Sacha Baron Cohen's new show on Showtime. You'll notice that he has Bernie Sanders and Ted Koppel. He doesn't get far with either of them. Bernie Sanders asks him almost immediately if the motorized scooter means he is actually disabled, and Sacha says he is not disabled, just lazy, and Bernie figures out pretty quickly that this guy isn't serious. Ted Koppel straight up says this is a waste of time. Then look at some of the conservatives he's got. There's a string of current and former US congressmen and gun lobbyists filming an advertisement for a program that will arm kindergarteners with guns (what do Trent Lott, Larry Pratt, Dana Rohrabacher, Rep. Joe Wilson, and Joe Walsh have in common? see for yourself). There's a Georgia lawmaker shouting the n-word and running around with his pants down, and the lovely residents of Kingman here in AZ can't figure out that the largest mosque in the world might not actually be planned for a town with a population of less than 30,000 (but they make sure you know they don't like black people). No one stops to ask who this person is, look up his name online to see if he actually exists, get details about the project, etc, they're all just so fired up over the prospect of the mosque that they completely dive in and start raging. Maybe differences like these between conservatives and liberals are why conservatives tend to end up on the losing end of bans and so-called "censorship." Maybe a little more critical thinking could help.
It's ridiculously simple, man: you simply tell your algorithm that the opposing view is "inflammatory" and there you go.
Man, that really is simple. "Computer, censor the view point that opposes my own." I didn't realize that programming had come so far, that's pretty impressive.
I think the takeaway is that no one can trust anything Trump says, about anything. He's a proven liar, he has a track record going back as far as anyone has known him.
If you want to be concerned about something, let's be concerned about what he and Putin talked about for 2 hours. Let's be concerned that our president insists on a private meeting with the leader of a country actively attacking us. Let's be concerned that no one except them knows what was said in that meeting. That's something to be concerned about.
If what Trump has done in either case here is illegal, most of the important people in NYC, Chicago, LA, SanFran, and Washington DC are all going to need bail bondsmen.
It's not that him paying porn stars to not talk about fucking him is illegal, just that it's a little strange to be coming from the leader of the "conservative" "family-oriented" party. There was probably a campaign finance violation, but the legality of that and the morality of his actions are 2 separate things.
I realize it's all just for show though. I believe 100% that absolutely no male Republican lawmaker ever wants to see Roe v. Wade reversed, for example. Abortions are an easy solution to problems that they (and other men in Congress) sometimes have.
What either of these two cases has to do with Russian collusion in the 2016 election is simply beyond comprehension
Absolutely nothing, I'm not sure why you're trying to comprehend that. Trump has many problems and many issues, and they are not all related. In fact, whether or not Trump colluded with Russia and the fact that Russia has been and is still attacking our election processes are 2 separate issues also. I don't know why Trump supporters get so butthurt every time Russia is mentioned. It's a fact that Russia has been and is attacking our election processes. It is also a possibility that there was collusion between Trump and Russia. These are 2 separate issues and need to be handled separately. Maybe Russia is guilty and Trump is not, that's a possibility. I'm not sure why Trump supporters just want to drop the entire Russia investigation though, it is beyond comprehension. Maybe they hate America and don't care who is attacking us, but I don't think that's true, just because they got duped into thinking Trump was on their team doesn't mean they hate America.
it would only re-affirm what we already know: President Trump has far better taste in Women than President Bill Clinton and unlike Bill, Don does not need to force himself on them.
OK, is that really what's important here? Fucking Bill Clinton's taste in women? Sure, Trump doesn't need to force, he just pays for sex like anyone else who can't get it for free. Did you see Stormy Daniels on Saturday Night Live, by any chance? Does she sound like she likes Trump?
But, speaking of forcing himself on women, should we go back to the Access Hollywood tape? Do you want to talk about "grab her by the pussy" and he doesn't ask, he just kisses them? "When you're famous they let you do anything." But he doesn't force himself on women, yeah OK smart guy. Go talk to some Ms. America contestants and see what they have to say, see if they consented to Donald drooling over them naked (don't worry - I'm sure he specifically put that in the contract and they technically did consent).
She doesn't seem to enjoy being FLOTUS and could easily get a big fat settlement out of Trump now there is incontrovertible evidence of his infidelity.
1. Charge people the maximum they are willing to pay. 2. Deny every payment they can get away with. 3. Use the difference to purchase lawmakers to make sure this doesn't change.
Trump has zero experience with diplomacy, and it shows.
Oh, come on. You're only saying that because he gave North Korea everything they wanted with absolutely nothing in return except the dream of one day having Trump-branded buildings on their beaches, and the fact that he can seamlessly switch between talking tough on Twitter while laying in his bed at night and then meeting with Putin as he drops his pants and bends over while nicely asking Vlad to use lube.
so there is a good chance next time they will vote in someone much more reasonable.
If you believe that, then I admire your optimism. Unfortunately, as long as the Democrats and Republicans have people convinced that their parties are the only game in town, nothing is going to change for the better.
To put it simply, the problem with health care in the US is that there is a profit motive for people being sick. For-profit health care is a pretty sick concept.
You can see it by comparing the dollars per capita in health care. The US spends the most of any nation per capita for health care, mostly because our private expenses are sometimes triple other countries. Then you look at the total health care quality by country, and the US is something like 18th or 19th on that list. So, when you combine those, and consider that we are paying more than anyone else to barely be ranked in the top 20, our "health care quality per dollar" puts us barely within the top 40 countries. So we're getting less and spending more for it, and the reason is because there are so many people making money on this and there are so many laws in place to make sure that they keep making money and so many politicians who have been purchased to make sure the status quo stays like this. Polls from last year show that over 60% of Americans want universal health care in the US, the reason why those laws haven't been passed is because of the amount of money that pharmaceutical and insurance companies spend on "lobbying" in the US.
The left leaning seem aughfully interested in who's been diddling with Trumps Cheeto penis.
I think in general it's more about expecting a certain standard of behavior from our president, and the sad realization that the current one is dragging the office down to his level instead of trying to rise to the level of the office.
But it has been since 1949, and it held the Soviet Union back since then. That's what Putin wants to change.
Trump's merely calling them out on their freeloading.
No, Trump is only grandstanding, playing to his base. You can tell by his recent NATO meetings when he talked about getting everyone to agree to do more. Well, he lied. He didn't. They didn't agree to anything more than what they agreed to during Obama's term, which was to increase defense spending to 2% of their GDP by 2024. That agreement did not change, but Trump was still trying to sell his meeting as some sort of success. Literally nothing changed, and Trump is saying he won something.
What is so terrifying about the US and Russia improving relations and bringing a little more piece to the world?
Despite what the president tells you on Twitter, Putin's goal is not peace and improved relations. Putin wants to break apart NATO, he wants to break apart the EU, he wants to disrupt democratic governments and would rather deal with autocrats and dictators. These are his goals, not happy fun times and unicorns. He is working to achieve them, and has been for decades. One of the ways his intelligence services help accomplish this are by creating divisions in other countries. Look at Brexit. Look at Trump's election. It's working. He's been playing a long game, also.
Trump's poll numbers didn't budge an inch even after that downright terrifying display in Helsinki.
I know. I don't know if everything is to be blamed on Russia or not, but I know one of their goals is to divide the US. If people can watch a president talk all tough on Twitter, then show up and fold like a cowardly wet paper towel, sell out our country, and talk about how strong our greatest adversary is, and still like the president, then I'm inclined to believe that Russia's machine is doing its job.
It'd be one thing if Putin wasn't ex-KGB.
"There is no such thing as a former KGB man." - Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, responding to Prime Minister Sergei Stepashin, who called himself a former KGB officer.
"My notion of the KGB came from romantic spy stories. I was a pure and utterly successful product of Soviet patriotic education." - Putin
I'd like to know why the US and Russia are trading uranium at all. Why are we trading uranium with each other? Do we send them natural uranium and they send it back to us enriched?
You see that constant statements that you're attacking the US don't lead to any significant response.
In your hypothetical world, does this include the President of the United States America traveling to see you, telling everyone how strong you are, and completely discounting the conclusions of the combined intelligence community, including his own DNI, and Congress, by saying on international TV that he doesn't see any reason why you would be attacking us? I mean, is the president talking all tough like he's some kind of badass when he's laying in his bed messing with his phone, but when he actually gets face to face with you he folds like a wet paper towel? Hypothetically, I mean.
Slashdot Mirror
If this is the only possible way to avoid nuclear war? Sure. Do I think Kim would ever willingly engage in a military conflict with the US under any circumstances? No, I don't.
It's trying to be polite in an awkward situation with different customs.
Oh, is that the president's job? I was under the impression that he's the commander-in-chief of our military, and that there are specific protocols about saluting, particularly when it relates to adversaries or enemies, and that Trump has no clue about what those are. See, I just thought he was a dumbass, but it's good that you're here to correct the record.
Again, that legitimacy can be taken away by Trump with a single word and we are right back to where we were 2 years ago.
I don't think you understand the power of propaganda. Those videos and those images can not just be disappeared. They are being used in NK to legitimize that government. Until then, I thought the best chance of peace on the peninsula was going to come from an internal revolt, from instability. Trump made that process much, much less likely. Kim is the legitimate ruler, he's so legitimate that he doesn't even need to meet with our Secretary of State when Pompeo visits.
Let me also point out that Trump said that NK did not even ask for the suspension of military exercises. He offered it. He literally gave it to them.
How about the legitimacy of a meeting with a sitting US president, complete with all of the pomp of our flags sitting next to each other, Trump saluting their generals, etc? That has enormous propaganda value in NK and is something their leadership has been craving for decades.
I'm not sure that answers my question on why conservatives aren't interested in it, and it's a fact that conservatives whine about the media.
So, let's try this again: why do you think the majority of the people who decide to make a career out of figuring out and reporting on true events are not conservatives?
Sure, an algorithm that trips with every GOP and no Dems isn't biased at all
It may surprise you to learn that less than 100% of GOP accounts are affected, and more than 0% of Democratic accounts are affected. I know it's comforting to think you live in a binary world, but you don't.
Although, if you'd like an example of the difference between conservative and liberal discourse, there's a pretty good example that's the latest in a long trend. It used to be that conservatives were reading and sharing obviously fake stories on obviously fake sites because fact checking is completely foreign to them, and those same fake news peddlers admitted that targeting liberal audiences did not work because it got called out immediately as fake. If you want proof that still happens, and maybe is the reason why conservatives tend to be blocked more than liberals (call it a deficiency in determining facts if you'd like), watch Sacha Baron Cohen's new show on Showtime. You'll notice that he has Bernie Sanders and Ted Koppel. He doesn't get far with either of them. Bernie Sanders asks him almost immediately if the motorized scooter means he is actually disabled, and Sacha says he is not disabled, just lazy, and Bernie figures out pretty quickly that this guy isn't serious. Ted Koppel straight up says this is a waste of time. Then look at some of the conservatives he's got. There's a string of current and former US congressmen and gun lobbyists filming an advertisement for a program that will arm kindergarteners with guns (what do Trent Lott, Larry Pratt, Dana Rohrabacher, Rep. Joe Wilson, and Joe Walsh have in common? see for yourself). There's a Georgia lawmaker shouting the n-word and running around with his pants down, and the lovely residents of Kingman here in AZ can't figure out that the largest mosque in the world might not actually be planned for a town with a population of less than 30,000 (but they make sure you know they don't like black people). No one stops to ask who this person is, look up his name online to see if he actually exists, get details about the project, etc, they're all just so fired up over the prospect of the mosque that they completely dive in and start raging. Maybe differences like these between conservatives and liberals are why conservatives tend to end up on the losing end of bans and so-called "censorship." Maybe a little more critical thinking could help.
Yep, that sure is easy, and also not happening.
It's ridiculously simple, man: you simply tell your algorithm that the opposing view is "inflammatory" and there you go.
Man, that really is simple. "Computer, censor the view point that opposes my own." I didn't realize that programming had come so far, that's pretty impressive.
I'd still prefer a prez that screws a hoe to one that screws over the country.
Yeah that would be great if it was one or the other, unfortunately we've got one that does both.
I think the takeaway is that no one can trust anything Trump says, about anything. He's a proven liar, he has a track record going back as far as anyone has known him.
If you want to be concerned about something, let's be concerned about what he and Putin talked about for 2 hours. Let's be concerned that our president insists on a private meeting with the leader of a country actively attacking us. Let's be concerned that no one except them knows what was said in that meeting. That's something to be concerned about.
If what Trump has done in either case here is illegal, most of the important people in NYC, Chicago, LA, SanFran, and Washington DC are all going to need bail bondsmen.
It's not that him paying porn stars to not talk about fucking him is illegal, just that it's a little strange to be coming from the leader of the "conservative" "family-oriented" party. There was probably a campaign finance violation, but the legality of that and the morality of his actions are 2 separate things.
I realize it's all just for show though. I believe 100% that absolutely no male Republican lawmaker ever wants to see Roe v. Wade reversed, for example. Abortions are an easy solution to problems that they (and other men in Congress) sometimes have.
What either of these two cases has to do with Russian collusion in the 2016 election is simply beyond comprehension
Absolutely nothing, I'm not sure why you're trying to comprehend that. Trump has many problems and many issues, and they are not all related. In fact, whether or not Trump colluded with Russia and the fact that Russia has been and is still attacking our election processes are 2 separate issues also. I don't know why Trump supporters get so butthurt every time Russia is mentioned. It's a fact that Russia has been and is attacking our election processes. It is also a possibility that there was collusion between Trump and Russia. These are 2 separate issues and need to be handled separately. Maybe Russia is guilty and Trump is not, that's a possibility. I'm not sure why Trump supporters just want to drop the entire Russia investigation though, it is beyond comprehension. Maybe they hate America and don't care who is attacking us, but I don't think that's true, just because they got duped into thinking Trump was on their team doesn't mean they hate America.
it would only re-affirm what we already know: President Trump has far better taste in Women than President Bill Clinton and unlike Bill, Don does not need to force himself on them.
OK, is that really what's important here? Fucking Bill Clinton's taste in women? Sure, Trump doesn't need to force, he just pays for sex like anyone else who can't get it for free. Did you see Stormy Daniels on Saturday Night Live, by any chance? Does she sound like she likes Trump?
But, speaking of forcing himself on women, should we go back to the Access Hollywood tape? Do you want to talk about "grab her by the pussy" and he doesn't ask, he just kisses them? "When you're famous they let you do anything." But he doesn't force himself on women, yeah OK smart guy. Go talk to some Ms. America contestants and see what they have to say, see if they consented to Donald drooling over them naked (don't worry - I'm sure he specifically put that in the contract and they technically did consent).
She doesn't seem to enjoy being FLOTUS and could easily get a big fat settlement out of Trump now there is incontrovertible evidence of his infidelity.
She really doesn't care, do u?
Why do you think conservatives don't pursue journalism? If conservatives aren't interested in journalism, why do they whine so much about it?
I appreciate the irony that none of your links work.
illegally sell military hardware to gangs in California, illegally smuggled into the US from SEA
Thankfully he was limited to the SEA and hadn't yet learned about smuggling from the AIR, things would have gotten really out of hand then.
You seem confused by how insurance works.
Here's the basic idea:
1. Charge people the maximum they are willing to pay.
2. Deny every payment they can get away with.
3. Use the difference to purchase lawmakers to make sure this doesn't change.
Trump has zero experience with diplomacy, and it shows.
Oh, come on. You're only saying that because he gave North Korea everything they wanted with absolutely nothing in return except the dream of one day having Trump-branded buildings on their beaches, and the fact that he can seamlessly switch between talking tough on Twitter while laying in his bed at night and then meeting with Putin as he drops his pants and bends over while nicely asking Vlad to use lube.
so there is a good chance next time they will vote in someone much more reasonable.
If you believe that, then I admire your optimism. Unfortunately, as long as the Democrats and Republicans have people convinced that their parties are the only game in town, nothing is going to change for the better.
To put it simply, the problem with health care in the US is that there is a profit motive for people being sick. For-profit health care is a pretty sick concept.
You can see it by comparing the dollars per capita in health care. The US spends the most of any nation per capita for health care, mostly because our private expenses are sometimes triple other countries. Then you look at the total health care quality by country, and the US is something like 18th or 19th on that list. So, when you combine those, and consider that we are paying more than anyone else to barely be ranked in the top 20, our "health care quality per dollar" puts us barely within the top 40 countries. So we're getting less and spending more for it, and the reason is because there are so many people making money on this and there are so many laws in place to make sure that they keep making money and so many politicians who have been purchased to make sure the status quo stays like this. Polls from last year show that over 60% of Americans want universal health care in the US, the reason why those laws haven't been passed is because of the amount of money that pharmaceutical and insurance companies spend on "lobbying" in the US.
The left leaning seem aughfully interested in who's been diddling with Trumps Cheeto penis.
I think in general it's more about expecting a certain standard of behavior from our president, and the sad realization that the current one is dragging the office down to his level instead of trying to rise to the level of the office.
NATO wasn't a thing in 1917 or 1941.
But it has been since 1949, and it held the Soviet Union back since then. That's what Putin wants to change.
Trump's merely calling them out on their freeloading.
No, Trump is only grandstanding, playing to his base. You can tell by his recent NATO meetings when he talked about getting everyone to agree to do more. Well, he lied. He didn't. They didn't agree to anything more than what they agreed to during Obama's term, which was to increase defense spending to 2% of their GDP by 2024. That agreement did not change, but Trump was still trying to sell his meeting as some sort of success. Literally nothing changed, and Trump is saying he won something.
Trump is the APK of international politics.
What is so terrifying about the US and Russia improving relations and bringing a little more piece to the world?
Despite what the president tells you on Twitter, Putin's goal is not peace and improved relations. Putin wants to break apart NATO, he wants to break apart the EU, he wants to disrupt democratic governments and would rather deal with autocrats and dictators. These are his goals, not happy fun times and unicorns. He is working to achieve them, and has been for decades. One of the ways his intelligence services help accomplish this are by creating divisions in other countries. Look at Brexit. Look at Trump's election. It's working. He's been playing a long game, also.
Trump's poll numbers didn't budge an inch even after that downright terrifying display in Helsinki.
I know. I don't know if everything is to be blamed on Russia or not, but I know one of their goals is to divide the US. If people can watch a president talk all tough on Twitter, then show up and fold like a cowardly wet paper towel, sell out our country, and talk about how strong our greatest adversary is, and still like the president, then I'm inclined to believe that Russia's machine is doing its job.
It'd be one thing if Putin wasn't ex-KGB.
"There is no such thing as a former KGB man." - Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, responding to Prime Minister Sergei Stepashin, who called himself a former KGB officer.
"My notion of the KGB came from romantic spy stories. I was a pure and utterly successful product of Soviet patriotic education." - Putin
Yeah, do it smart. Post anonymously without any citations to back up your claims.
Do it smart!
http://www.worldstopexports.co...
http://www.worldstopexports.co...
I'd like to know why the US and Russia are trading uranium at all. Why are we trading uranium with each other? Do we send them natural uranium and they send it back to us enriched?
You see that constant statements that you're attacking the US don't lead to any significant response.
In your hypothetical world, does this include the President of the United States America traveling to see you, telling everyone how strong you are, and completely discounting the conclusions of the combined intelligence community, including his own DNI, and Congress, by saying on international TV that he doesn't see any reason why you would be attacking us? I mean, is the president talking all tough like he's some kind of badass when he's laying in his bed messing with his phone, but when he actually gets face to face with you he folds like a wet paper towel? Hypothetically, I mean.
Cause that would be wack.