Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
Russia eyes sending Snowden to U.S. as 'gift' to Trump, official says
Maybe Snowden should consider making tracks to the Ecuadorean Embassy.
The Trump presidency
- Thread starter brogdale
- Start date
- Status
Russia eyes sending Snowden to U.S. as 'gift' to Trump, official says
Maybe Snowden should consider making tracks to the Ecuadorean Embassy.
ska invita
back on the other side
Ecuador are talking about evicting Assange too....id go to China!
AnnO'Neemus
Is so vanilla
Weren't British schools asking parents to complete a questionnaire that asked where their children were born? Dodgy as.
Miss Caphat
I want it that way
There are times that I'll google some idea, person etc that's new to me. I don't feel any shame in admitting that I'm not an authoritative expert on every possible subject under the sun.
Also, one of the pleasures of discourse, for me, is learning about new things.
Whenever I come across someone [there are a few of them here] who talk as if authoritative about almost anything, I assume some googling is going on. It's possible that some people have gargantuan stores of knowledge on all subjects, but I don't think that's the case, in general.
For one thing, most people aren't sufficiently interested in absolutely everything, to spend the time to become authoritative on all subjects. There's vast amounts of information out there. Which is why we tend to see specialization to specific fields and areas, and even to subcategories within fields. A university History department will have specialists in American history, British history, etc.
You don't see too many 'Professors of Everything' anymore.
However, I do think that here at U75 [and elsewhere on the internet] we have a number of 'Masters of Profundity'.
Not sure why I'm yammering on about this, and possibly inviting ire
(oh no, not ire!) But I do think one needs to look at the USA with some sense of balance. I think a lot of the focus amongst historians, intellectuals, lefty types, etc, tends to be on the negative - with good reason, and there is plenty of it. This is largely caused by the US being so in love with itself - so we definitely invite this sort of skepticism. On the other hand, a lot of the ideals that shaped the thinking, policy, and social progress we've experienced in the 200 -ish years we've existed are often commendable, regardless of how they've turned out, or backfired, or what sort of hypocrisy has been exposed regarding any of them. You gotta try, right? And keep trying. So I think looking at things either too negatively or too positively are both somewhat incorrect.
Also, we saved yr butts in WWII lol
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
I think that's true about anything. In the case of passing judgement on a country, if that's one's wont, it's necessary to read widely about the history, politics and people, before the opinion might be worth anything. Going and spending time there is probably equally valuable.
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
ah it was a beautiful dream, e pluribus unum. However true it never was, it was a nice dream. Trumps just pissing all over it. Probably while getting a minion to hold his cock while he sends yet another WTF tweet out to the worldNot sure why I'm yammering on about this, and possibly inviting ire
But I do think one needs to look at the USA with some sense of balance. I think a lot of the focus amongst historians, intellectuals, lefty types, etc, tends to be on the negative - with good reason, and there is plenty of it. This is largely caused by the US being so in love with itself - so we definitely invite this sort of skepticism. On the other hand, a lot of the ideals that shaped the thinking, policy, and social progress we've experienced in the 200 -ish years we've existed are often commendable, regardless of how they've turned out, or backfired, or what sort of hypocrisy has been exposed regarding any of them. You gotta try, right? And keep trying. So I think looking at things either too negatively or too positively are both somewhat incorrect.
Also, we saved yr butts in WWII lol
Miss Caphat
I want it that way
I hope you know I was completely kidding. I admittedly don't know that much about WWII history from the American side other than what's been depicted in movies, novels, etc.
Archimage
Kat Knapper
We just like to say we were the ones that won the war. We take a lot of credit for things we have nothing to do with.
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
Operation Calendar - Wikipedia
Operation Bowery - Wikipedia
lose malta you lose the supply route to north africa, you lose north africa and then you are fucked. As rommel found out. Just around 140 years before this a british force burned down the whitehouse. One can only assume diplomatic relations improved during the period of 1812-1942. Oh there was ww1 as well. That probably helped things along. Elvis, trench broom tommy guns and so on
Miss Caphat
I want it that way
I honestly am starting to have a lot of hope for the future. People asked for a shake-up, and though what's happening is probably NOT what they had in mind, a couple of things keep going through my head.
1) This is sort of the final outcome of the nationalist, Tea Party, and Rush Limbaugh era, but it's not looking good for them. People are seeing that their dream of finally getting control of 'Murica is just not going to work. Too many people are not going to let it happen, and the Tea Party types will have to start re-thinking. Maybe some will see the error of their ways. In any case, all signs point to a sort of last gasp. Despite some odd shit like young men who feel alienated being indoctrinated to the far right, younger people are turning out to be more progressive, inclusive, and more willing to take actual action against things like global warming and corporate greed than we've seen in past generations.
2) The Democratic Party. Sigh. It also keeps occurring to me that this party is in for a world of pain as well. Do we really think that after what probably seems like hysterical, liberal elitist cry-baby faux-outrage at Trump & the Republican party, after obstructing way harder than they even would have dared with Obama, that they're going to go easy on us next time. Hell no. They will fight back just as hard.
Who knows how long this will go on for. And things like, they keep saying "you lost your rural, working class base" ...but no suggestions of how on earth to get it back - when I can't even have a reasonable attempt at dialogue with any of the very middle-class, educated, community-minded Republicans I know from my very "liberal" state without them turning it into "you're just saying this because Hillary / you lost, get over it snowflake, Democrats are evil, blah blah, fake news, blah blah" - yeah I don't hold much hope for this strategy.
So what next?
I have no idea, but it either ends up in a civil war, or new parties, or maybe a different system. What I think would be ideal would be for a political system that just focuses on issues. With no lobbying allowed. When you look at opinion polls, we are shockingly undivided on most things. There are a few things, like gun control, abortion, and so on that are split down the middle. I think this system is never going to work if one side continues to take one side of one issue as theirs, and thereby all the other issues of that side get lumped in with them. So, like it or leave it you're stuck supporting all these other things if you're going to vote one way or the other. It's a illusion of choice which I think we're outgrowing.
Last edited:
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
this is what I so don't want. You seem (as americans) to be seriously fracturing along certain lines and this is excacerbated by the incredible wealth divide and the continuing fallout from the 2008 crash. You've enough hardware to make it incredibly vicious (and theres no fight more vicious than when brother fights brother). Something has to change, and its not just over there in america land. There is a dangerous amount of polarisation and line drawing going on and it makes me very twitchy.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
There's a good chance that the USSR could have defeated Germany, even without the Normandy landings.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
Until I realised the limitations of his repertoire
mauvais
on reddit or something
Supposedly he had a call with Putin about New START, didn't know what it was, got briefed mid-call and then because it was one of the Obama admin's works, he called it a bad deal.
Donald Trump Screwed Up A Big Opportunity To Avoid Nuclear Holocaust
I mean, Christ...
Donald Trump Screwed Up A Big Opportunity To Avoid Nuclear Holocaust
I mean, Christ...
CrabbedOne
Walking sideways snippily
On Arms Control Wonk TEAR-DOWN MODE
Piece sees Trump and Congress quite set on dismantling what slight progress Obama and his predecessors made on Arms Control.
My bold, Putin here is probably responding to Trump previously talking of both arms reductions and an arms race. Trump reportedly had to go on mute and ask his staff what START is. He's appears at sea despite being briefed. He never managed to grasp the basics of the Casino business either. He does seem to instinctively think all Obama's deals are bad ones. Concessions made by a weak President. Did Trump just miss the offer here in the confusion or is he playing Putin like a hooked soft mouthed fish? I'd not underestimate Trump as a negotiator. I'd hope the latter but I rather suspect the former. I do wonder what Putin thought at being blanked?
Piece sees Trump and Congress quite set on dismantling what slight progress Obama and his predecessors made on Arms Control.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
Lol, put on ignore for daring to disagree with your conspiraloon bullshit. What a sad and pathetic wanker you are.There's no shortage of white guys who just love to make assumptions about how and why Black folks vote for their own aims (in this case, dissing Clinton). On the other thread, I posted links to several articles from, y'know, actual African American people, explaining why they didn't back Sanders in the primaries and would vote Clinton. The response here was to ignore what they said, insisting Black people should support Bernie, their oppression was based on class, not race, maybe Bernie could have done more reaching out, yada yada - like dropping a few buzzwords would be all that's needed for them to fall in line.
We're not going to agree on this, so I suggest you put me on ignore, as I'm about to do with you. Ciao baby.
bimble
floofy
Why? Do you think he's been cunningly pretending all this time, putting on an act of bonkers buffoonery to distract from his strategic genius? That is a hell of a conspiracy theory.
krtek a houby
Merry Xmas!
That kind of prolonged contact (the handshake) isn't the norm in Japan. And Trump tugging his hand like that. Forceful.
J Ed
Follow Back Pro Expropriation
I also wonder whether a lot of what we are hearing, putting people on hold to have people explain things etc, is really so particular to Trump or whether it happened under Obama, Bush, Clinton and it just wasn't either leaked or reported on.
Nylock
I hate 'these days'...
More esoteric FP stuff maybe, but START?
CrabbedOne
Walking sideways snippily
On War Is Boring Trump’s Muslim Ban Is a National Security Nightmare
Put the case that Trump's Muslim ban greatly exaggerates minor well managed threats from refugee flows at expense of being likely to exacerbate more serious threats of domestic radicalisation of US citizens.
Of course it's helpful to IS and AQ to have the US under Trump now acting out as the sort of enemy to Muslims as a whole that they've always portrayed it as. For the Iranians it's just gravy. Trump's pointless winding up of most important of the US allies in the war against IS, the Iraqis, is peculiarly stupid. The childish bragging about "keeping the oil" was perhaps even worse than the ban in that respect.
No counterterrorism policy is without side effects. Hysterical reactions essentially reward and encourage terrorists. Every act of Security Theatre has to be consider a victory for them. And that's what Trump's Muslim ban is. Their ideas are no longer contained by high walls and borders. Extremism now streams across the global internet like free pornography. IS's dark appeal isn't even confined to Muslims. About 25% of its French recruits aren't even from that background.
But I'd say the imminent problem is the effect of Trump's stimulating rhetoric on already rather violent US nativists. The US is not so much prone to sectarian problems as racial ones. This can cook off into very serious race problems particularly effecting the black community of the sort that have not been seen in this century. Consider the LA Riots of 92, 55 people killed and over a a billion bucks of damage.
Critics jumping up and down about the dangers of Merkel's recent very open handed refugee policy should perhaps consider the effects of their own populist stances. It's one thing to insist that it's common sense that a large Muslim population is a terrorism problem. It's quite another to ignore the radicalising effects of such rhetoric. Particularly on a small community of very pissed off Salafi that actually do the attacking currently. This can become a bigger community much faster if well integrated Muslims are systematically alienated. For example France with a large young Muslim population really can't afford such ham fisted blundering. The compounding effect of one of Europe's most persistent terrorist problem: nativists far right groups which are looking more and more dangerous.
I'd point out insisting too much on this argument you might end up with getting rid of any citizens liable to be radicalised i.e. all Muslims. Which is perhaps Trump's final solution if it all goes a bit Turner Diaries after the thin end of wedge is accepted.
Put the case that Trump's Muslim ban greatly exaggerates minor well managed threats from refugee flows at expense of being likely to exacerbate more serious threats of domestic radicalisation of US citizens.
Of course it's helpful to IS and AQ to have the US under Trump now acting out as the sort of enemy to Muslims as a whole that they've always portrayed it as. For the Iranians it's just gravy. Trump's pointless winding up of most important of the US allies in the war against IS, the Iraqis, is peculiarly stupid. The childish bragging about "keeping the oil" was perhaps even worse than the ban in that respect.
No counterterrorism policy is without side effects. Hysterical reactions essentially reward and encourage terrorists. Every act of Security Theatre has to be consider a victory for them. And that's what Trump's Muslim ban is. Their ideas are no longer contained by high walls and borders. Extremism now streams across the global internet like free pornography. IS's dark appeal isn't even confined to Muslims. About 25% of its French recruits aren't even from that background.
But I'd say the imminent problem is the effect of Trump's stimulating rhetoric on already rather violent US nativists. The US is not so much prone to sectarian problems as racial ones. This can cook off into very serious race problems particularly effecting the black community of the sort that have not been seen in this century. Consider the LA Riots of 92, 55 people killed and over a a billion bucks of damage.
Critics jumping up and down about the dangers of Merkel's recent very open handed refugee policy should perhaps consider the effects of their own populist stances. It's one thing to insist that it's common sense that a large Muslim population is a terrorism problem. It's quite another to ignore the radicalising effects of such rhetoric. Particularly on a small community of very pissed off Salafi that actually do the attacking currently. This can become a bigger community much faster if well integrated Muslims are systematically alienated. For example France with a large young Muslim population really can't afford such ham fisted blundering. The compounding effect of one of Europe's most persistent terrorist problem: nativists far right groups which are looking more and more dangerous.
I'd point out insisting too much on this argument you might end up with getting rid of any citizens liable to be radicalised i.e. all Muslims. Which is perhaps Trump's final solution if it all goes a bit Turner Diaries after the thin end of wedge is accepted.
CrabbedOne
Walking sideways snippily
I'd be pretty certain this is normal. A President can't be expected to be a master of all this stuff on day one. The uniquely unqualified Trump pausing a call and asking for background might actually be seen as a rare moment of sensible humility.
What JFK for instance didn't know after over a year in office is pretty shocking:
Raheem
Well-Known Member
It's pretty obvious that Kennedy is making an ironic observation in this instance, which is suggested in the Atlantic article. The alternative is that he just happened to imagine the exact back story and was then completely unsurprised and uninquisitive when told that that was exactly what happened.
CrabbedOne
Walking sideways snippily
US Presidents almost always play dumber than they are. Most are devious men.
I think Trump is way out of his depth as a technocrat but is a very treacherous man who does know how to manipulate people in business. He's a seat of the pants player very sure of his own instincts. Those served him pretty well in the campaign.
Mostly it pays to only slowly reveal your hand in these things. To tease and probe and establish a relationship. When offered a peach it's not always wise to appear needy. Leave the other guy interested and hungry.
That's what his real estate background brings. It's very different from having any deep strategic grasp of the situation which I doubt he has acquired as yet but Trump will have the parameters of what he wants from Putin in mind. Trump might just taken it as confirmation that Obama's START position was too good a deal for Russia or banked it for the next meeting.
For all I know the whole odd bromance with Putin thing could be as fake as Trump's draining the swamp talk now obviously was. I really would not trust this big sprayed orange critter an inch if I was in Putin's tiny shoes.
CrabbedOne
Walking sideways snippily
Reading around that seems correct. The missiles were deployed by Ike in 59. Kennedy here seems to have been fully aware of them but may have been passing the buck to Ike. Though it seems the Jupiters actually became operational on JFK's watch leading to this scary game of nuclear chicken. Wether he was on top of that detail is less clear.
Linky.
Oh, on that first assumption by Bundy McNamara was shocked to learn in 92 there were 162 nuclear warheads on Cuba at the time and Castro was quite willing to face Cuba being annihilated in a retaliatory strike rather than be toppled by a US invasion.
It's really scary imagining poor old Trump getting himself in such a pickle.
- Status
Similar threads
