Quantcast
The Official US Politics OT

Forums - Politics Discussion - The Official US Politics OT

the-pi-guy said:
SpokenTruth said:

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the President of the United States.

"Please be fake, please be fake"

*Googles*

https://mobile.twitter.com/katierogers/status/1184567108853751809

Oh Grog it's real.  

I am not sure if I am or should be surprised.

You know the twitterverse is having a field day with this letter.  Some of the tweets will have you on the floor laughing which is very sad since this came from our President.



Around the Network
Baalzamon said:
EricHiggin said:

I don't think you're following. I'm not saying what would be right or wrong, just presenting another way to look at it.

To help or not to help a new friend afterwards, even though you helped in the first place in another scenario, which benefited you to some degree.

Based on what was being argued, was that the new friend should go out of their way, to find a way, to get the ransom paid in this new scenario and not give up, while also having all the blame put on them, because the blame isn't to be shared with anyone else involved, or who could help, who also felt someone should do something.

*Think I see where you got confused. The very last line maybe should have ended with, 'decided to help a little bit in the first place'. That seemed apparent to me at the time since I was referencing a prior line, but looking at it another way, I can see why it may have been confusing.

No. You are wrong.

Your scenario suggests you help a friend by borrowing them money. The friend then gets kidnapped. While they are kidnapped, you continue helping them by letting them still borrow the initial money, but help EVEN FURTHER by also paying the ransom for their kidnapping. You are now currently out the initial money you borrowed them AS WELL as the ransom money. Two separate instances of help.

In the case of the Kurd scenario. This would be us providing troops (instance 1 of help). Then, once things get worse, us providing even more yet troops and support beyond the initial troops already there to help (instance 2).

What the US did is quite literally pull the money away that was just borrowed to the friend in the first place.

It's not pulling the money away, because that would mean the U.S. directly attacked the Kurds and/or free'd ISIS prisoners. It's the fact that, what good was the initial help, if it's basically useless now because of the new scenario you're stuck in, kidnapped or fighting the Turks and having ISIS prisoners being free'd? The U.S. pulling out and letting this happen to the Kurds, is like the new friend not helping with the ransom. Why not help now, if you already helped in the first place? Why is the new friend the only one who get's blamed when there's plenty of other people who are clearly to blame as well who could help but might not?

I say the new friend who paid in the first place, isn't helping with the ransom, or at least not yet, because I'm posing another example as a question, like I've been doing the entire time. I'm not taking sides, I'm just pointing out the possibilities from both sides, so why am I being placed on one side while others come at me from the opposing position? I'm not taking sides here, I'm just posing questions, and instead of legit answers, I'm getting spun to one side and being smeared.

Why did the man cross the road? 

OMG what's with all the toxic masculinity, Eric? 

lol



The Canadian National Anthem According To Justin Trudeau

 

Oh planet Earth! The home of native lands, 
True social law, in all of us demand.
With cattle farts, we view sea rise,
Our North sinking slowly.
From far and snide, oh planet Earth, 
Our healthcare is yours free!
Science save our land, harnessing the breeze,
Oh planet Earth, smoke weed and ferment yeast.
Oh planet Earth, ell gee bee queue and tee.

sundin13 said:
In other news, Mulvaney basically admits to a quid pro quo with Ukraine:

"Did he also mention to me in [the] past the corruption related to the DNC server? Absolutely," Mulvaney said of a conversation he had Trump. "No question about that. But that's it, and that's why we held up the money."

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/17/mulvaney-confirms-ukraine-aid-2016-probe-050156

So, now we know that the money that was held up was held up in order to convince Ukraine to convince them to undertake and publicize highly political investigations on Trump's political opponents.

So I read this story today and was thinking to myself, what is the game plan here.  I am not a fan of Mulvaney but I do not believe he is a total idiot so its not like he doesn't know how his admission will go down.  I can see that he is trying to make it appear that the US use money for gain in foreign relations which no one is contending, its that personal aspect that he is trying to tiptoe which is a huge problem.

I am sure with all of the people who are testifying that he believe that trying to waffle on holding the aid to ukraine is a lost cause so he is trying to get ahead of that element but one thing he cannot get ahead of is Rudy.  Rudy is the achilles to every plot the White House tries to play and each day it gets worst.  Somebody is going to go down for this but I believe Rudy will sink just about everyone before he sees any jail time.



Machiavellian said:
EricHiggin said:

Well that seems to make me think the decision was being talked about and made ahead of time, because if Trump made the decisions last minute, how did the Turks know how to mobilize for that exact time? It could also mean there was a leak, which shouldn't have happened, but based on America's intelligence branches and there leaks over the last couple of years, well. If a leak did come from American intelligence to make the problem much worse, then considering who's been doing the majority of the leaking, and who it typically impacts, I'd say both sides are partially to blame.

If what other countries do or say doesn't matter, then who cares about anything related to Russia? They're just sticking their noses into America's business, so who cares? Russia sticking it's nose into America's election impacted the outcome you say? Well you know what would impact the outcome of the Kurd/Turk conflict right now? Another country who's capable, getting involved and helping solve the problem. Does one matter, yet the other doesn't, even though they both effect America?

Lastly, let's say you help a newly acquired friend financially who was slightly in debt, partially because nobody else will even though their capable, and because it will likely lead to a positive outcome for both of you. Now what if that friend get's kidnapped and held for a costly ransom like a month afterwards? If you don't pay that ransom to get them released, does that make you a terrible person, considering you tried to help a little in the first place? What about this friends parents, siblings, cousins, friends, etc, who all don't want this unfortunate soul to face the consequences? Do they factor into this at all? If they decide not to help out, does the finger get pointed solely at you, because you're the newest ally who decided to help a little bit?

Yes the decision was talked about between Trump and Erdogan but not with the very allies he should have been protecting.  Is this the point you are not getting.  Was it not Trump who had a meeting with Erdogan just before he pulled out our Troops.  I will leave that one for you to chew on as you look for another excuse.

To your second paragraph, stop gaslighting.  Stop trying to find some silver lining that make Trump decision any less what it is because you want to throw others into the mix.  If 2 people killed someone does it make it any less of a crime if we are talking about just one of them.  Stay focused on the current topic instead of trying to create something else.  Since we only know the decision by the person we are discussing lets not throw your hypothetical BS into the mix to derail the current topic.

To your third paragraph, its another one of your analogies that totally misses the mark.  Its some made up hypothetical situation that doesn't even relate to the current event and pretty much a throw away paragraph on nothing.

Here is how I interpreted it.  If I was your friend and helped you through tough times, if there ever was a situation where you could help me out, you would always be looking for a way to stab me in the back.  This is basically how you come off as a person who will always look for a way out of helping your friends if you find a way to do so. This is my analogy of your waffling, trying to find a way to make stabbing your allies in the back instead of looking for solutions.

Just pointing out the lack of consistency.

Well your interpretation isn't how it was meant. 



The Canadian National Anthem According To Justin Trudeau

 

Oh planet Earth! The home of native lands, 
True social law, in all of us demand.
With cattle farts, we view sea rise,
Our North sinking slowly.
From far and snide, oh planet Earth, 
Our healthcare is yours free!
Science save our land, harnessing the breeze,
Oh planet Earth, smoke weed and ferment yeast.
Oh planet Earth, ell gee bee queue and tee.

Machiavellian said:
sundin13 said:
In other news, Mulvaney basically admits to a quid pro quo with Ukraine:

"Did he also mention to me in [the] past the corruption related to the DNC server? Absolutely," Mulvaney said of a conversation he had Trump. "No question about that. But that's it, and that's why we held up the money."

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/17/mulvaney-confirms-ukraine-aid-2016-probe-050156

So, now we know that the money that was held up was held up in order to convince Ukraine to convince them to undertake and publicize highly political investigations on Trump's political opponents.

So I read this story today and was thinking to myself, what is the game plan here.  I am not a fan of Mulvaney but I do not believe he is a total idiot so its not like he doesn't know how his admission will go down.  I can see that he is trying to make it appear that the US use money for gain in foreign relations which no one is contending, its that personal aspect that he is trying to tiptoe which is a huge problem.

I am sure with all of the people who are testifying that he believe that trying to waffle on holding the aid to ukraine is a lost cause so he is trying to get ahead of that element but one thing he cannot get ahead of is Rudy.  Rudy is the achilles to every plot the White House tries to play and each day it gets worst.  Somebody is going to go down for this but I believe Rudy will sink just about everyone before he sees any jail time.

I'm thinking it is the ol' Don Jr. powerplay, where if you confidently admit that you did something wrong, you can convince some people it wasn't wrong, because if it was wrong, why would you so confidently admit it?

I would typically call that a really stupid move, but these days, who knows if people will buy it.



Around the Network

/sarcasm time/ Trump is now claiming a ceasefire in Syria. He is claiming everyone is happy. Turkey, the US and the Kurds and that hugs and kisses are to be passed around like candy. He wants to thank Turkey, the kurds for not dying anymore and making him look bad. /sarcasm off/

Unfortunately for Trump, the Turkish foreign minister stated this is not a ceasefire but a pause and the deal basically on the table is pretty much what Turkey was doing in the first place which was to displace the Kurds annex Syria and control the region.

/sarcasm time/ I am sure the Kurds have that warm and fuzzy feeling of US assistance and help in this matter and probably will be lighting up a torch in happy jubilation in support of us helping Turkey to obtain their goals. Way to go Trump, everyone is happy with how you handled this situation. /sarcasm off/



EricHiggin said:
Baalzamon said:

No. You are wrong.

Your scenario suggests you help a friend by borrowing them money. The friend then gets kidnapped. While they are kidnapped, you continue helping them by letting them still borrow the initial money, but help EVEN FURTHER by also paying the ransom for their kidnapping. You are now currently out the initial money you borrowed them AS WELL as the ransom money. Two separate instances of help.

In the case of the Kurd scenario. This would be us providing troops (instance 1 of help). Then, once things get worse, us providing even more yet troops and support beyond the initial troops already there to help (instance 2).

What the US did is quite literally pull the money away that was just borrowed to the friend in the first place.

It's not pulling the money away, because that would mean the U.S. directly attacked the Kurds and/or free'd ISIS prisoners. It's the fact that, what good was the initial help, if it's basically useless now because of the new scenario you're stuck in, kidnapped or fighting the Turks and having ISIS prisoners being free'd? The U.S. pulling out and letting this happen to the Kurds, is like the new friend not helping with the ransom. Why not help now, if you already helped in the first place? Why is the new friend the only one who get's blamed when there's plenty of other people who are clearly to blame as well who could help but might not?

I say the new friend who paid in the first place, isn't helping with the ransom, or at least not yet, because I'm posing another example as a question, like I've been doing the entire time. I'm not taking sides, I'm just pointing out the possibilities from both sides, so why am I being placed on one side while others come at me from the opposing position? I'm not taking sides here, I'm just posing questions, and instead of legit answers, I'm getting spun to one side and being smeared.

Why did the man cross the road? 

OMG what's with all the toxic masculinity, Eric? 

lol

How would it mean the US directly attacked the Kurds and/or freed ISIS prisoners?

When the US was there, it wasn't an all out shit-storm. The moment we left (us being there was helping), all hell broke loose.

The US pulling out is like pulling away the initial money you borrowed in the first place. The person still needs the money they initially borrowed (The Kurds still need us present to prevent all hell from breaking loose).

That this isn't making sense to you is completely mind boggling to me.

I now understand why everybody else has /ignored you. It is literally like talking to a brick wall.



Money can't buy happiness. Just video games, which make me happy.

Jaicee said:
DarthMetalliCube said:
I approve of withdrawing our troops 100%. I'm fed up with my country acting as the world police. It's time to focus on our own issues. Let those abroad fight their own wars.

So why didn't we fight our own war against ISIS then? Why did we have the Kurdish people fight it for us before abandoning them to be killed?

Or were we supposed to do nothing about ISIS and just let them do whatever they wanted to anyone they wanted anywhere they wanted, including here in this country?

Also, our military assistance in the SDF's fight against ISIS was directly requested by them. We weren't just imposing ourselves on the region.

Also also, those U.S. troops in Northern Syria aren't "coming home", as Trump has claimed on Twitter. They're being redeployed to other parts of the Middle East that you might say require them less, so...

First off let me say I am in the camp (aka the seeming majority) that doesn't like that we screwed our allies .  That being said we have been meddling in that part of the world for decades.  PERHAPS if we had stayed the hell out of it all along we wouldn't be viewed as the Great Satan by some in the region and we would have no ISIS today.

In this instance as you have pointed out we weren't imposing ourselves in the region but we have many times before this which has created a great deal of hate for our country by many in that oil rich part of the world.  The middle east also is very rich in Hate not just oil. Not saying they are bad individuals but you have many "neighbors/groups" there that can't stand each other.

Let me preface this by saying:  Although I doubt it would have played out this way had we stood by our allies against Turkey ... Would you have rather been in full blown war with Turkey right now? Committing more American lives and resources, generating more hate?  I can understand DarthMettaliCube's position and more than a little of me wishes things were simple and we just minded our own business in that part of the world.  Alas things are rarely simple ...



Baalzamon said:
EricHiggin said:

It's not pulling the money away, because that would mean the U.S. directly attacked the Kurds and/or free'd ISIS prisoners. It's the fact that, what good was the initial help, if it's basically useless now because of the new scenario you're stuck in, kidnapped or fighting the Turks and having ISIS prisoners being free'd? The U.S. pulling out and letting this happen to the Kurds, is like the new friend not helping with the ransom. Why not help now, if you already helped in the first place? Why is the new friend the only one who get's blamed when there's plenty of other people who are clearly to blame as well who could help but might not?

I say the new friend who paid in the first place, isn't helping with the ransom, or at least not yet, because I'm posing another example as a question, like I've been doing the entire time. I'm not taking sides, I'm just pointing out the possibilities from both sides, so why am I being placed on one side while others come at me from the opposing position? I'm not taking sides here, I'm just posing questions, and instead of legit answers, I'm getting spun to one side and being smeared.

Why did the man cross the road? 

OMG what's with all the toxic masculinity, Eric? 

lol

How would it mean the US directly attacked the Kurds and/or freed ISIS prisoners?

When the US was there, it wasn't an all out shit-storm. The moment we left (us being there was helping), all hell broke loose.

The US pulling out is like pulling away the initial money you borrowed in the first place. The person still needs the money they initially borrowed (The Kurds still need us present to prevent all hell from breaking loose).

That this isn't making sense to you is completely mind boggling to me.

I now understand why everybody else has /ignored you. It is literally like talking to a brick wall.

How is the new friend who borrowed the money initially, going to benefit from it long term, if they are held captive, and possibly killed because the ransom isn't paid? Sure they paid off their small debt, but if they end up dead now because you didn't help, should you have even bothered to help in the first place?

How are the Kurds going to benefit from the initial help from their 'friend' the U.S, if they can't keep ISIS imprisoned, and possibly are killed by the Turks? Sure the U.S. helped defeat ISIS and kept the Turks at bay, but would the Kurds ever have been able to handle things on their own, and if not, then should the U.S. have bothered to help in the first place, and why won't anyone else help?

Even if you want to change the scenario, and say that somehow the person does get their money back, what does that matter? The new friend is in trouble now and needs help. If they don't help their new friend, and they pay the price because of it, does that mean they're a bad person? Does that mean they are the only one to blame, even though there are others who could help, who don't want them to get hurt, but may not help, because reasons? Aren't they at the very least, equally to blame if they don't help?

If the answer is, 'no, it's the new friends fault period', then all you're doing is teaching people to be selfish, because the moral of the story wouldn't be 'always keep helping someone once you've started helping them', because that would be ridiculous, it would be, 'don't bother helping anyone in the first place, because eventually you're going to get blamed for whatever happens to them that you can't or won't help solve'. Maybe that's why nobody else wants to show up and help?

Are friends always forever? Is marriage always forever? Do more people today have stronger longer lasting friendships and marriages? When those things end, do bad things happen to either person after the fact? Who's to blame for that?

How long do the Kurds have to become capable enough to completely protect themselves without issue in the future whatsoever?

If the U.S. kept backing the Kurds until they were a force to be reckoned with, if the Kurds later decide to mow through Turkey, since the U.S. is their ally and 'friend', should the U.S. go along with it? What if it's not just Turkey? What if the tide turned and the Turks got the upper hand and wanted revenge which led to a similar scenario like what's happening now? Should the U.S. ally 'friends' come to the Kurds rescue?

It's not that simple, no matter how you slice it. 

Last edited by EricHiggin - on 17 October 2019

The Canadian National Anthem According To Justin Trudeau

 

Oh planet Earth! The home of native lands, 
True social law, in all of us demand.
With cattle farts, we view sea rise,
Our North sinking slowly.
From far and snide, oh planet Earth, 
Our healthcare is yours free!
Science save our land, harnessing the breeze,
Oh planet Earth, smoke weed and ferment yeast.
Oh planet Earth, ell gee bee queue and tee.

DarthMetalliCube said:
I approve of withdrawing our troops 100%. I'm fed up with my country acting as the world police. It's time to focus on our own issues. Let those abroad fight their own wars.

I'd approve too, but under the conditions that either the job is done or the troops being replaced, either by nationals or by UN Blue helmets. Neither being true in Syria, so calling them back already is a bad move.

And if the US wants to stop playing World police and save some bucks, maybe vacate some of their hundreds of military bases the US has abroad instead? Especially those in safe regions like the UK, Germany or the Azores have no real right to be anymore.

Last edited by Bofferbrauer2 - on 18 October 2019