Explain the 2% thing to me. I was always under the impression that NATO members pledge to spend 2% of their GDP on their military (which is the hardware and personnel used in NATO operations). There are no penalties for not doing it, so it's more of a "suggestion," but still the freeloading europeans weren't doing it. And Americans (particularly the ones whose support Trump wanted) would much prefer they meet these pledges.
You're saying it's actually some bait and switch about NATO dues? How does this bait and switch work? We're not supposed to care about the total defense spending, but should be caring about the dues paying? And were duped in some way about this?
At the end of the day, don't more guns for NATO members mean Putin's less likely to attack, and if Putin does attack, it'll be easier to defend because the guns are already in hand?
I guess he's either brilliant, or an idiot, or a brilliant idiot. Still seems to me a 5 year old could have come up with a better plan if you're going to be clever enough to make a puppet of the President of the United States. If you can manage that, why not just...have him announce he's pulling out of NATO? This is sort of feeling like a Dr. Evil plan to me.
Again, "draining the swamp" means "changing the lobbying rules." It has nothing to do with appointments.
Trump supporters are perfectly happy with the draining of the swamp, because they understood what "drain the swamp" means (changing the lobbying rules). When you pretend "drain the swamp" means "appoint people who meet my political criteria" you're not saying anything persuasive to Trump supporters. You're just confirming their preconception that you have no idea what you're talking about.
"Draining the swamp" means 5 specific promises related to lobbying, and he's enacted them for the executive branch (no lobbying after executive branch service for 5 years, no lobbying for a foreign power ever). The rest require the legislature, and they're working on that.
You can't just make up whatever you want "Draining the swamp" to mean and then say he's not doing it. "Trump didn't appoint only lesbian eskimo transmidgets to the Supreme Court! So much for 'Draining the Swamp,' huh?!?!"
And the market is showing that the RT scores are well calibrated. If it's got a low critic score and a decently high audience score, that's a "wait for Redbox." And that's exactly what's happening. I'll probably see Pirates of the Caribbean at some point, but I'm not sure not going to the theater for it. Guardians of the Galaxy 2, though, was well worth the price of admission.
As for your item 3, what would be gained? If anything, Putin would lose respect.
"Russia big and stronk. Russian patriots make foolish Amerikanskis dance to tune of Russian bear heh heh heh!" Puts fear into enemies, and gives him support at home.
As for item 4, I happen to be a believer that where there is smoke, there is fire. What we have already is a conflagration. So what would be gained by Putin blowing in a little more smoke?
Depends on whether or not there really is a conflagration. I happen to...not see any conflagration. But I kind of don't mind watching the Democrats and the media run around in circles like idiots. Screaming about Russia prevents them from actually doing something to fix their dumpster fire of a party. So I'm perfectly happy to keep the Russia narrative alive. Similar to the perpetual freak-out over Trump's tax returns. If I had Trump's ear I would advise him to never release his tax returns, because it makes his enemies focus on that nonsense instead of the productive tactic of figuring out how to get votes from the white working class again.
Ah, I see now, so Putin's doing a spin on the ol' Trudeau maneuver, where "if you kill your enemy, they win." Perhaps if you make your enemy stronger and better armed, you win! Very, very clever that Putin.
Maybe that's how we should beat ISIS. Instead of bombing them, just give them so many guns they can't carry all the guns, and they get too tired from carrying the guns so they stay home.
The way to split NATO is by having a US president hint that we might not live up to its Article V obligations
I don't think that's going to split up NATO. Especially when the context is, "we might not follow through on Article V because you guys aren't paying up." Especially when then they start paying up. So, you think the end goal there was not for the NATO nations to pay more, but to give the US an excuse to leave?
Seems like a pretty risky plan for Putin. If the Europeans just do what they're supposed to do then he winds up with a strengthened, better funded NATO, not a split NATO. And that seems like what's going to happen. I guess Putin's plan backfired?
I think Trump's victory hinged on beating the other 16 Republicans for the nomination. Any moron with an R after their name is guaranteed 40% of the vote, and so is any moron with a D after her name. It's getting that R or D that's the hard part.
What did Putin do to help Trump win the Republican nomination?
3. He wants to be seen as a bigger player in world affairs than he is.
4. He likes watching the western media and the Democrats chase their tails. Get 3 pigs and paint the numbers 1, 2, and 4 on them and let them go in the school yard.
Except Hillary said her #1 foreign policy priority if elected would be the removal of Putin's ally in Syria, Assad. It seems to me Putin's interests in Syria (pipeline from Iran -> Iraq -> Syria -> Med) are best suited with anyone but Hillary (incidentally her KSA and Qatar backers supported a competing pipeline Qatar -> KSA -> Syria -> Turkey -> Europe).
So, given that Trump has now shamed the other NATO nations into spending more money building up their militaries, does that mean Putin's plan backfired?
1) The travel ban was for failed states / war zones / places where we have no embassy so we can't vet anybody. You cannot call up the government of Somalia and ask them if Odobungo here is a terrorist because they don't have a government. So no, including Saudi Arabia in the list of "countries we can't vet people from" wouldn't make sense because it's at least technically feasible to vet people from KSA since they have a functioning government and we have an embassy there.
2) Unless you're going to use nukes, bombing Saudi Arabia isn't going to do you any good. I thought we leaned this from Iraq. The people aren't yearning for Democracy and blue jeans and Hawaii 5-0 reruns if only they could throw off their oppressive government. They like their oppressive government. Overthrow their government and ask them what kind of government they want and they'll say "more Sharia law, please!" They're not sitting around saying "man I really wish I could blaspheme Allah and draw pictures of the Prophet Mohammed (PBUH)." They're sitting around saying "man I sure am glad we have this Islamic government that punishes anyone who blasphemes Allah or draws pictures of the Prophet Mohammed (PBUH)!"
So no, bombing KSA won't do you any good unless you're planning to wipe them out of existence, or do it Ann Coulter's way ("Invade, kill their leaders, convert them to Christianity.") Instead you need to give them the carrot to reform their own shit, which is basically what Trump yelled at them to do. Drive them out of their places of worship, drive them out of their communities, drive them out of this earth! Will it work? Beats me, but it's definitely better than topple stable governments so even more ruthless Islamists can take their place.
Question, were there any good emails? I mean, if my work emails got leaked, I'm sure there might be an embarrassing one or two if it were taken out of context, but by and large they would show that my team genuinely wants to do their job well and serve our customers. Was there anything redeeming in Hillary's emails about how much they actually really and truly want to help Americans?
I call this the left's One Drop Rule of Nazism. If there's one nazi, in any group, then the entire group is nazis.
Yes, there are a handful of racist trolls on 4chan and twitter, but that's nowhere near the 30 million Americans who made up half of Trump's votes. These people are working in coal mines or factories or farms, have never heard of the notorious hacker on steroids known as 4chinz, and are vaguely aware that something called "twatter" exists. Instead of going ofter those people's votes, she lumped them in with the asshole of the internet and sounded like a crazy person screaming at a cartoon frog.
"Ready For Hillary" was worse, still. The best interpretation is "gee, I guess I'm...resigned to the fact that Hillary's getting rammed through" and at worst it's something like "okay doctor I'm ready for my colonoscopy."
One would think that Bill Clinton's spouse would have gotten better advice.
I think she did, she just ignored it. In the article I read on...I want to say Politico...dissecting the loss shortly after the election, they were saying that Bill was telling her to make more stops in Michigan, Ohio, etc to talk to the white working class and they laughed Bill off. The blue wall was on lock and the data said they didn't need white men anymore. Whoops.
I was talking with my wife about this and I said in the last year (or whatever) my favorite TV show or movie had been Stranger Things. The show was nothing special, no fantastic plot or Terrible Secret of Space I hadn't seen before, and the acting was solid but not phenomenal. But it was a story, with a beginning, a middle, and an end, and characters with motivations that made sense. And no political commentary, it wasn't trying to teach me a story about racism in a small town or female empowerment, and no associated political controversy. It was just a coherent story about some people and some weird shit and that was enough to make it best of the year. And that's sad.
Slashdot Mirror
Explain the 2% thing to me. I was always under the impression that NATO members pledge to spend 2% of their GDP on their military (which is the hardware and personnel used in NATO operations). There are no penalties for not doing it, so it's more of a "suggestion," but still the freeloading europeans weren't doing it. And Americans (particularly the ones whose support Trump wanted) would much prefer they meet these pledges.
You're saying it's actually some bait and switch about NATO dues? How does this bait and switch work? We're not supposed to care about the total defense spending, but should be caring about the dues paying? And were duped in some way about this?
At the end of the day, don't more guns for NATO members mean Putin's less likely to attack, and if Putin does attack, it'll be easier to defend because the guns are already in hand?
I guess he's either brilliant, or an idiot, or a brilliant idiot. Still seems to me a 5 year old could have come up with a better plan if you're going to be clever enough to make a puppet of the President of the United States. If you can manage that, why not just...have him announce he's pulling out of NATO? This is sort of feeling like a Dr. Evil plan to me.
Again, "draining the swamp" means "changing the lobbying rules." It has nothing to do with appointments.
Trump supporters are perfectly happy with the draining of the swamp, because they understood what "drain the swamp" means (changing the lobbying rules). When you pretend "drain the swamp" means "appoint people who meet my political criteria" you're not saying anything persuasive to Trump supporters. You're just confirming their preconception that you have no idea what you're talking about.
"Draining the swamp" means 5 specific promises related to lobbying, and he's enacted them for the executive branch (no lobbying after executive branch service for 5 years, no lobbying for a foreign power ever). The rest require the legislature, and they're working on that.
You can't just make up whatever you want "Draining the swamp" to mean and then say he's not doing it. "Trump didn't appoint only lesbian eskimo transmidgets to the Supreme Court! So much for 'Draining the Swamp,' huh?!?!"
And the market is showing that the RT scores are well calibrated. If it's got a low critic score and a decently high audience score, that's a "wait for Redbox." And that's exactly what's happening. I'll probably see Pirates of the Caribbean at some point, but I'm not sure not going to the theater for it. Guardians of the Galaxy 2, though, was well worth the price of admission.
As for your item 3, what would be gained? If anything, Putin would lose respect.
"Russia big and stronk. Russian patriots make foolish Amerikanskis dance to tune of Russian bear heh heh heh!" Puts fear into enemies, and gives him support at home.
As for item 4, I happen to be a believer that where there is smoke, there is fire. What we have already is a conflagration. So what would be gained by Putin blowing in a little more smoke?
Depends on whether or not there really is a conflagration. I happen to...not see any conflagration. But I kind of don't mind watching the Democrats and the media run around in circles like idiots. Screaming about Russia prevents them from actually doing something to fix their dumpster fire of a party. So I'm perfectly happy to keep the Russia narrative alive. Similar to the perpetual freak-out over Trump's tax returns. If I had Trump's ear I would advise him to never release his tax returns, because it makes his enemies focus on that nonsense instead of the productive tactic of figuring out how to get votes from the white working class again.
We know the e-mail leaks were subsetted by someone wanting to hurt Hillary's campaign.
That's the first I've heard of this. Source?
Ah, I see now, so Putin's doing a spin on the ol' Trudeau maneuver, where "if you kill your enemy, they win." Perhaps if you make your enemy stronger and better armed, you win! Very, very clever that Putin.
Maybe that's how we should beat ISIS. Instead of bombing them, just give them so many guns they can't carry all the guns, and they get too tired from carrying the guns so they stay home.
The way to split NATO is by having a US president hint that we might not live up to its Article V obligations
I don't think that's going to split up NATO. Especially when the context is, "we might not follow through on Article V because you guys aren't paying up." Especially when then they start paying up. So, you think the end goal there was not for the NATO nations to pay more, but to give the US an excuse to leave?
Seems like a pretty risky plan for Putin. If the Europeans just do what they're supposed to do then he winds up with a strengthened, better funded NATO, not a split NATO. And that seems like what's going to happen. I guess Putin's plan backfired?
I'm pretty sure patriotic Americans like the Tea Partiers have been trying to expose the misdeeds of the RNC for a decade. Trump finally did it.
Mr. Trump's recent European trip was nothing less than a triumph for Russian policy. They've been trying to split NATO for half a century.
Splitting NATO...by the member states increasing their defense spending? Isn't that the opposite...?
I think Trump's victory hinged on beating the other 16 Republicans for the nomination. Any moron with an R after their name is guaranteed 40% of the vote, and so is any moron with a D after her name. It's getting that R or D that's the hard part.
What did Putin do to help Trump win the Republican nomination?
3. He wants to be seen as a bigger player in world affairs than he is.
4. He likes watching the western media and the Democrats chase their tails. Get 3 pigs and paint the numbers 1, 2, and 4 on them and let them go in the school yard.
Except Hillary said her #1 foreign policy priority if elected would be the removal of Putin's ally in Syria, Assad. It seems to me Putin's interests in Syria (pipeline from Iran -> Iraq -> Syria -> Med) are best suited with anyone but Hillary (incidentally her KSA and Qatar backers supported a competing pipeline Qatar -> KSA -> Syria -> Turkey -> Europe).
So, given that Trump has now shamed the other NATO nations into spending more money building up their militaries, does that mean Putin's plan backfired?
1) The travel ban was for failed states / war zones / places where we have no embassy so we can't vet anybody. You cannot call up the government of Somalia and ask them if Odobungo here is a terrorist because they don't have a government. So no, including Saudi Arabia in the list of "countries we can't vet people from" wouldn't make sense because it's at least technically feasible to vet people from KSA since they have a functioning government and we have an embassy there.
2) Unless you're going to use nukes, bombing Saudi Arabia isn't going to do you any good. I thought we leaned this from Iraq. The people aren't yearning for Democracy and blue jeans and Hawaii 5-0 reruns if only they could throw off their oppressive government. They like their oppressive government. Overthrow their government and ask them what kind of government they want and they'll say "more Sharia law, please!" They're not sitting around saying "man I really wish I could blaspheme Allah and draw pictures of the Prophet Mohammed (PBUH)." They're sitting around saying "man I sure am glad we have this Islamic government that punishes anyone who blasphemes Allah or draws pictures of the Prophet Mohammed (PBUH)!"
So no, bombing KSA won't do you any good unless you're planning to wipe them out of existence, or do it Ann Coulter's way ("Invade, kill their leaders, convert them to Christianity.") Instead you need to give them the carrot to reform their own shit, which is basically what Trump yelled at them to do. Drive them out of their places of worship, drive them out of their communities, drive them out of this earth! Will it work? Beats me, but it's definitely better than topple stable governments so even more ruthless Islamists can take their place.
Question, were there any good emails? I mean, if my work emails got leaked, I'm sure there might be an embarrassing one or two if it were taken out of context, but by and large they would show that my team genuinely wants to do their job well and serve our customers. Was there anything redeeming in Hillary's emails about how much they actually really and truly want to help Americans?
I call this the left's One Drop Rule of Nazism. If there's one nazi, in any group, then the entire group is nazis.
Yes, there are a handful of racist trolls on 4chan and twitter, but that's nowhere near the 30 million Americans who made up half of Trump's votes. These people are working in coal mines or factories or farms, have never heard of the notorious hacker on steroids known as 4chinz, and are vaguely aware that something called "twatter" exists. Instead of going ofter those people's votes, she lumped them in with the asshole of the internet and sounded like a crazy person screaming at a cartoon frog.
Actually in 2008 I thought Hillary got more votes than Obama, but lost in the delegate count.
But all those "voters" will have been deported by 2020, so she'd need new ones.
"Ready For Hillary" was worse, still. The best interpretation is "gee, I guess I'm...resigned to the fact that Hillary's getting rammed through" and at worst it's something like "okay doctor I'm ready for my colonoscopy."
One would think that Bill Clinton's spouse would have gotten better advice.
I think she did, she just ignored it. In the article I read on...I want to say Politico...dissecting the loss shortly after the election, they were saying that Bill was telling her to make more stops in Michigan, Ohio, etc to talk to the white working class and they laughed Bill off. The blue wall was on lock and the data said they didn't need white men anymore. Whoops.
USA #1 Fuck Yeah We're #1!! We're #1! Eat it yuropoors!
You have never read the bible. You are a meme.
I thought his healthcare promise was "repeal and replace," and that's in progress right? Also, healthcare is hard, this is easy.
I was talking with my wife about this and I said in the last year (or whatever) my favorite TV show or movie had been Stranger Things. The show was nothing special, no fantastic plot or Terrible Secret of Space I hadn't seen before, and the acting was solid but not phenomenal. But it was a story, with a beginning, a middle, and an end, and characters with motivations that made sense. And no political commentary, it wasn't trying to teach me a story about racism in a small town or female empowerment, and no associated political controversy. It was just a coherent story about some people and some weird shit and that was enough to make it best of the year. And that's sad.