lugie wrote:

trpmb6 wrote:

It could be that he's playing to Putin because that's the best way Putin will respond favorably?

Is he though? I'm asking this as a completely open question - has he made any statements that would indicate a shift towards favorable (from the West's perspective) policies?

Honestly, Russia's influence in the world is a mixed bag. They have their hands everywhere in the middle east and asia (and western europe). Through various means, economic, political and militarily. The united states has slowly been dealing blows to Russia economically. The most direct being sanctions. But far more important is the indirect attacks on their energy superiority. USA's booming natural gas and oil industries are devastating to Russia. I'd argue our energy policy is far more important in getting Russia to behave than anything else.

Putin is not going to make any public statements that would indicate anything remotely favorable to the west. Doing so would undermine everything he has said or done in the past. If you watched his (Putin's) interview with Chris Wallace you could see he was very careful with his responses even then. I don't understand his strategy with Putin, I am merely positing another possibility.

There has been some talk that we may get some movement on the conflict in Syria. Trump has been quite tough on Russia in Syria. And in recent days Iran has been increasingly annoyed with Russia. Possibly because of some potential agreement in Syria. Resolving the Syria conflict would be a win for everyone. Trump, Putin and the whole region. That would be a great start.

lugie wrote:

trpmb6 wrote:

With Kim Jong Un he played tough at first. So tough that CNN/MSNBC thought we were going to be in a nuclear war right now. But when the opportunity presented (after much squeezing) he turned to a charm offensive. Now CNN/MSNBC is flabbergasted that he would be so willing to sit in the same room with him. (An aside, this is just one example of many as to why conservatives are so frustrated with media - rather than report the news they sensationalize.)

Well to be fair he didn't just "play tough", he actively threatened nuclear obliteration ("Big red button" and "fire and fury as the world has never seen before" kinda talk), so there wasn't too much for the media to overblow/sensationalize.
Just assuming for the sake of the argument that Trump is a rational actor, he has to expect that a totalitarian dictator who came to power in pretty much monarchic succession is not.
So that's what made these comments even more dramatic and the alarmism to a certain extent justified.

I viewed those statements as akin to red lines. Trump backed up his red lines by bombing that syrian air base. Trump has more military information at his fingertips than we could imagine. I'm sure these statements were made with complete knowledge of each potential outcome.

Point is his strategy with NK worked. And while there have been hiccups since then, we are still on a better path now than when Obama left office and said to Trump "North korea is the most urgent problem you have to deal with"


I'm not going to claim to represent all conservatives, but this is how most currently view Trump's handling of foreign policy. You definitely will see some who are intelligence hawks that aren't onboard because of Trump's attacks on the intelligence community. But I think in general most in the Trump camp view him as using different negotiating tactics for different situations. Time will tell if he's successful or not.

trpmb6 wrote:

I'm not going to claim to represent all conservatives, but this is how most currently view Trump's handling of foreign policy. You definitely will see some who are intelligence hawks that aren't onboard because of Trump's attacks on the intelligence community. But I think in general most in the Trump camp view him as using different negotiating tactics for different situations. Time will tell if he's successful or not.

Because let's make it up on the fly is always better than going with the known facts. Trump has always had a sweet spot for Russia. His business has been financed by them, and he has always had allegiances with them from the beginning of the campaign. He has not swerved on his statements from prior to when it was known that Russia meddled. His inaction and continued ego stroking of Putin is weakening the US in areas of the globe where we are relevant and should continue to stay strong. Aligning with Russia over the EU is a complete folly. Economically, Strategically, and Militarily.

We can have them as partners, but if we are going to let them get away with Murder, what good are they? They will be the bear that eats us from within.

The US is not aligning with Russia economically or militarily. Would love to see your evidence of such.

Could Trump be looking to Russia to help generate a peaceful end to the Syrian conflict? Absolutely. This is really just a proxy war between Russia and USA at this point anyways. Lets be done with it and get all those syrian refugees back home.

Could Trump be looking to Russia to help with the NK conflict? Absolutely. We need more pressure on NK where China may be less willing.

Could Trump be looking to Russia to help with China on economic matters? You betcha. If we can squeeze china even more it will make it harder for them to exert more influence in south east asia (where we are currently interested in seeing countries like Vietnam undercut China in labor costs).

Stop looking at things in such a tiny lens. Russia is connected to everything. That's how it works with a geopolitical foe (cough Romney was right).

trpmb6 wrote:

The US is not aligning with Russia economically or militarily. Would love to see your evidence of such.

Could Trump be looking to Russia to help generate a peaceful end to the Syrian conflict? Absolutely. This is really just a proxy war between Russia and USA at this point anyways. Lets be done with it and get all those syrian refugees back home.

Could Trump be looking to Russia to help with the NK conflict? Absolutely. We need more pressure on NK where China may be less willing.

Could Trump be looking to Russia to help with China on economic matters? You betcha. If we can squeeze china even more it will make it harder for them to exert more influence in south east asia (where we are currently interested in seeing countries like Vietnam undercut China in labor costs).

Stop looking at things in such a tiny lens. Russia is connected to everything. That's how it works with a geopolitical foe (cough Romney was right).

Russia is connected to everything, including undermining our Federal Republic. If you want to use a wide lens, you better make sure everything is in Focus.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-trump-putin-summit-20180717-story.html


Looks like Trump is trying to backtrack after being back in the US and seeing all those angry intelligence officials glaring at him,

How do you backtrack after reaffirming in tweet after tweet, and on Hannity last night?

2122M wrote:

If these victories are so lopsided in favor of the US, why is Assad still able to gas his own people?

Apparently his own people don’t believe that he is gasing them. Some of alleged “victims” even stated this right in OPCW headquarters - “there was no gasing”. Evidence to this “gasing” was never found either.

trpmb6 wrote:

Honestly, Russia's influence in the world is a mixed bag. They have their hands everywhere in the middle east and asia (and western europe). Through various means, economic, political and militarily. The united states has slowly been dealing blows to Russia economically. The most direct being sanctions. But far more important is the indirect attacks on their energy superiority. USA's booming natural gas and oil industries are devastating to Russia. I'd argue our energy policy is far more important in getting Russia to behave than anything else.

Putin is not going to make any public statements that would indicate anything remotely favorable to the west. Doing so would undermine everything he has said or done in the past. If you watched his (Putin's) interview with Chris Wallace you could see he was very careful with his responses even then. I don't understand his strategy with Putin, I am merely positing another possibility.

There has been some talk that we may get some movement on the conflict in Syria. Trump has been quite tough on Russia in Syria. And in recent days Iran has been increasingly annoyed with Russia. Possibly because of some potential agreement in Syria. Resolving the Syria conflict would be a win for everyone. Trump, Putin and the whole region. That would be a great start.

I see the point you're raising with energy policies and how it hurt Russia's economy but then this puts the comments Trump made vs. Germany last week into an even more dubious context - on the one hand they're attacking allies (once more) and on the other hand he shows that he has no interest in getting Russia to the table by means of amending the energy policy as you said it.

As for Syria, I'm not too sure what I should think about it. I've always been against the Putin-Assad alliance but it has become more and more obvious that a regime change towards a democratic system is close to impossible, especially due to the ideological factionalization within the opposition forces.
Still, I can't see what a peace deal would look like safe for an unconditional return to power by the Assad regime which would maybe stabilize the region in the very short run, but be prone to renewed disruption in the not too distant future.

trpmb6 wrote:

I viewed those statements as akin to red lines. Trump backed up his red lines by bombing that syrian air base. Trump has more military information at his fingertips than we could imagine. I'm sure these statements were made with complete knowledge of each potential outcome.

Point is his strategy with NK worked. And while there have been hiccups since then, we are still on a better path now than when Obama left office and said to Trump "North korea is the most urgent problem you have to deal with"


I'm not going to claim to represent all conservatives, but this is how most currently view Trump's handling of foreign policy. You definitely will see some who are intelligence hawks that aren't onboard because of Trump's attacks on the intelligence community. But I think in general most in the Trump camp view him as using different negotiating tactics for different situations. Time will tell if he's successful or not.

While you have to credit Trump with attempting to forge a peaceful solution to the North Korea crisis, it's already becoming obvious that the framework is crumbling away. An important reason for that is that an actual "deal" was never made. I understand both the North Korean side not trusting the US commitment after what happened to the Iran deal (really bad precedent for nuclear weapons agreements with rogue states) and the US bureaucracy (State Department, DOD) fearing that without a contractual frame North Korea won't end up committing to denuclearization.
What comes of out of the NK situation remains to be seen.

A final remark about the relation Trump - intelligence agencies: I consider his behavior highly problematic as especially with his comments at the press conference he has played an active role in undermining a central institution of the American security apparatus. This distrust does not help anyone and alienating both the CIA and the FBI will specifically not help him.

anrec80 wrote:

2122M wrote:

If these victories are so lopsided in favor of the US, why is Assad still able to gas his own people?

Apparently his own people don’t believe that he is gasing them. Some of alleged “victims” even stated this right in OPCW headquarters - “there was no gasing”. Evidence to this “gasing” was never found either.

There is evidence

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-43697084

lugie wrote:

As for Syria, I'm not too sure what I should think about it. I've always been against the Putin-Assad alliance but it has become more and more obvious that a regime change towards a democratic system is close to impossible, especially due to the ideological factionalization within the opposition forces.
Still, I can't see what a peace deal would look like safe for an unconditional return to power by the Assad regime which would maybe stabilize the region in the very short run, but be prone to renewed disruption in the not too distant future.

Our recent attempts at trying to stabilize via regime changes are why I'm increasingly pessimistic about any regime change proposals. The main difference being - Gadaffi was a puppet of ours who we threw under the bus once his people gained enough of a traction (though, it is unclear to me how much the locals really wanted regime change and how much were just out in the streets being influenced/manipulated by extremists so they (extremists) could achieve what they wanted). Assad is a puppet of Russia. Putin didn't throw him under the bus and instead has propped him up. That's a fairly significant difference between what happened in Libya vs Syria. I'd argue the only reason the US even got involved was to because we had to oppose the Russian influence.

Very complicated mess.

An aside: I'm curious, are there any Russian users on a.net? Have they peaked their heads in here yet? Would be interesting to see their take..

trpmb6 wrote:

It could be that he's playing to Putin because that's the best way Putin will respond favorably?

One is a skilled kgb officer and the other one is a dork. Yeah we wonder who played who. Still beliving that nk will give up their nukes?

You can't make this stuff up...

Trump now says he misspoke on Russian meddling, believes election interference took place
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/t ... took-place

agill wrote:

Still beliving that nk will give up their nukes?

I certainly hope so. As should you.

Are you hoping Trump fails? That's a nasty bit of business if you do.

A Prescient exchange from October 19, 2016:

CLINTON: Well, that's because he'd rather have a puppet as president of the United States.

TRUMP: No puppet. No puppet.

CLINTON: And it's pretty clear...

TRUMP: You're the puppet!

CLINTON: It's pretty clear you won't admit...

TRUMP: No, you're the puppet.

CLINTON: ... that the Russians have engaged in cyberattacks against the United States of America, that you encouraged espionage against our people, that you are willing to spout the Putin line, sign up for his wish list, break up NATO, do whatever he wants to do, and that you continue to get help from him, because he has a very clear favorite in this race.

So I think that this is such an unprecedented situation. We've never had a foreign government trying to interfere in our election. We have 17 -- 17 intelligence agencies, civilian and military, who have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyberattacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin and they are designed to influence our election. I find that deeply disturbing.

Thus far, Trump has definitely delivered for Putin, with withering attacks on NATO and NATO allies and basically ticking off every conceivable wish list item on Putin's list. So hopefully Putin won't put Ivanka's head in a vice like he told Trump he would. Yesterday Putin even admitted that Clinton was, in fact, correct about his choices.

trpmb6 wrote:

agill wrote:

Still beliving that nk will give up their nukes?

I certainly hope so. As should you.

Are you hoping Trump fails? That's a nasty bit of business if you do.

Why on earth would I hope that. But hoping on that dictatorships all of a sudden will become nice just because you bend over, I would think, is hoping too much. I know that the world cant make demands on the US. But it is troubling when the country that we've gotten used to being the leader of the free world has a president who is extraordinary weak.

...bleeding out of his, wherever.

agill wrote:

trpmb6 wrote:

agill wrote:

Still beliving that nk will give up their nukes?

I certainly hope so. As should you.

Are you hoping Trump fails? That's a nasty bit of business if you do.

Why on earth would I hope that. But hoping on that dictatorships all of a sudden will become nice just because you bend over, I would think, is hoping too much. I know that the world cant make demands on the US. But it is troubling when the country that we've gotten used to being the leader of the free world has a president who is extraordinary weak.

What would you have Trump do then?

When he was tough on NK the left said he was leading us towards nuclear war. When he sits down with NK the left says he is soft and that it's a hopeless pipe dream.

So instead of spewing vitriol what are your solutions then?

So far I think Trump has done better than any previous president in modern time on NK. The man is damned if you do damned if you don't in your mind. So freaking tired of that kind of attitude.

trpmb6 wrote:

An aside: I'm curious, are there any Russian users on a.net? Have they peaked their heads in here yet? Would be interesting to see their take..

I am from Russia, and I have already spoken. However, local "political scientists" are very offended when I say what I think about their arguments. However, you can ask me questions.

trpmb6 wrote:

So far I think Trump has done better than any previous president in modern time on NK.

How so? Clinton in 1994 went further with North Korea. They promised to halt nuclear weapon development in the Agreed Framework (treaty?). Of course nothing came of it ultimately but they did stop their works and reactors etc for a while. That is more so far than has occurred under Trump's "agreement" (though they did dismantle their failing nuke testing location as it could not support any more tests).

Tugg

Well i don't know, this is a job for much smarter people than me. But giving nk a victory just to impress his fans who only only remember a few weeks of politics kind of showed everyone else that he's easily played. I think he just isn't interested in diplomacy and international relations. He's just interested in giving the impression of "winning" and convincing voters who barely have a clue of the world outside of the US of A.

trpmb6 wrote:

When he was tough on NK the left said he was leading us towards nuclear war. When he sits down with NK the left says he is soft and that it's a hopeless pipe dream.

He wasn't tough on NK at the beginning, he was childish and unnecessarily provocative. "Little Rocket Man" and "my button is bigger than your button" come to mind. Then, he was weak on NK for not demanding any deliverables prior to a face to face meeting, giving him a great photo opp on the global stage showing him as an equal with the leader of the free world, then celebrating a non-agreement that delivered zero results.

There have always been pre-conditions to these kinds of meetings, and for good reason. Now, without getting anything at all for the US, Trump has called Kim Jong Un an "honorable man" and fully capitulated to Putin. He's a terrible negotiator and an awful diplomat.

The Iran deal, on the other hand, gave us verifiable deliverables and a path for Iran to re-enter the global community. It was a true multi-lateral agreement and had a safety net built in. If Trump could have written up something like that with NK it would have been a great success. But it's clear he's not interested that.

To quote Trump he accepts “our intelligence community conclusion that Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election took place.”

I wonder how many people on here are now trying to figure out how to.....Well backtrack on their posts here ? I know a couple of my friends have gone silent on another site as they try to put together how their leader has screwed them....Again....

Anyways, while this is certainly an interesting time we live in, I can only hope that we continue to discuss these matters in a civilized way, I had lunch today with someone I consider far smarter than myself, I asked him if he thought Trump would be impeached, his reply was eye opening AND maybe something that some people on here should consider...." I hope he is never impeached, there is 30% of the population that would view that as a coup, what we need to do is continue the dialogue, marginalize the people that try to do this country harm and if need be let the legal process work and let them rot in jail"....

SAS A340 wrote:

Putin played out Trump for sure this time....again.

Well no, he didn't, again.

L410Turbolet wrote:

DIRECTFLT wrote:

“The cold war is over, ideological confrontation is in the past.” - Vlad

I know it must really hurt to hear that, but grow up and someday you'll be able to sit at the grownups table too.

Of course it is over... in a sense. The emphasis is on "ideological". Neostalinist, Putin's Russia does not offer any alternative social system. Faithful to their inferiority complex, they will only kick the heels of others and exploit inherent weakneses of free societies for their own gain.
Putin is a very product of the USSR aka Evil Empire (someone deliberately joining repressive apparatus of a totalitarian state is all you need to know about his moral compass) and I seriously doubt any of his predecessors in Kremlin or Lubyanka ever hoped they would have an asset right in the Oval Office.
Not even with Carter or Obama, with Roosevelt they were very close.
However, thanks to people like you, who elected this intellectually subpar sociopath into the White House, they now have. What is even more scary is the near zero self-reflection on your mistake.

wingman wrote:

And now, lest we do forget context, Obama when that video was taken was not confronting a Russia that had just invaded a sovereign nation, murdered 300 innocent people on a 777 or interfered with a general election in the US

It was always the same Russia and the same Putin. Obama was foolish and criminally naive. I thought this one sentence would/should cost him reelection... too bad it didn't, maybe we would not have to deal with Trump today.

If you want an example of an American President that did sell out to a Russian Dictator, then look at the Democratic darling FDR, and how FDR gave Stalin whatever he wanted. Then FDR died, and left the God-awful mess to Truman, The Cold War.

Trump, Thank God, *is not* FDR.

casinterest wrote:

There is evidence

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-43697084

Let's see what we have here. There is an "unverified video". And OPCW states "no phosphorous nerve agents detected". US just "assessed with confidence". This is not an evidence, this is "highly likely". In 2003 they have also "assessed with confidence" about Saddam's chemical weapons. You know what followed.

jetwet1 wrote:

Anyways, while this is certainly an interesting time we live in, I can only hope that we continue to discuss these matters in a civilized way, I had lunch today with someone I consider far smarter than myself, I asked him if he thought Trump would be impeached, his reply was eye opening AND maybe something that some people on here should consider...." I hope he is never impeached, there is 30% of the population that would view that as a coup, what we need to do is continue the dialogue, marginalize the people that try to do this country harm and if need be let the legal process work and let them rot in jail"....

This guy said absolutely correct thing. An impeachment proceeding is a huge test for all USA's institutions. And - as the result these 30% of population will lose their trust in the very core essence of USA's democracy and institutions. The state will be considerably weakened. And when that happens - anything is possible. More and more people get to arms to defend what each of them believes is right. States declaring independence. This is a path straight to the civil war. And guess what - Democrats who lost the election and started organizing all sorts of events with Madonna cursing actually were moving straight there.

A prominent example - Ukraine. Who knew that a bloody civil war is just a month away from Maidan's "democratic victory" in 2014? That psychos psychos who came to power as the result of it, calling themselves "democratic leaders" will soon order to bomb their own cities from planes?

anrec80 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

There is evidence

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-43697084

Let's see what we have here. There is an "unverified video". And OPCW states "no phosphorous nerve agents detected". US just "assessed with confidence". This is not an evidence, this is "highly likely". In 2003 they have also "assessed with confidence" about Saddam's chemical weapons. You know what followed.

Then why did the Syrian Government lie and say no attack occurred?
There was video and satellite confirmation of the attacks.
Why were chlorine and other agents discovered that were consistent with known chemical attacks in Syria?


2003 was about the building of chemical weapons. In Syria we have confirmation of multiple uses by Assad and his regime.

I notice that the usual US-based Trump apologists have realized this Putin summit was a bad for Trump. They've disappeared from this board completely today, presumably an attempt to push the topic down the board and replace it with topics less damaging to Trump.

I'm curious to know, do any Trump supporters here buy his "I meant to say wouldn't" defense?

Scorpius wrote:

trpmb6 wrote:

An aside: I'm curious, are there any Russian users on a.net? Have they peaked their heads in here yet? Would be interesting to see their take..

I am from Russia, and I have already spoken. However, local "political scientists" are very offended when I say what I think about their arguments. However, you can ask me questions.

So has anyone asked any questions for you?
For me the question would be: Do you think Trump could, with his "mental ju jitsu", out maneuver, out negotiate, Putin? Do you, do most Russians see Trump as Putin's equal in skill and intelligence?

Tugg

Tugger wrote:

So has anyone asked any questions for you?
For me the question would be: Do you think Trump could, with his "mental ju jitsu", out maneuver, out negotiate, Putin? Do you, do most Russians see Trump as Putin's equal in skill and intelligence?

Tugg

Putin is in power for almost 2 decades and has seen it all and then some. Given that Trump was agreeing with Putin nearly on everything when next to him, and then renounced everything the next day after he returned, obviously not. This does not look good neither on him nor on the US, it just shows that the US can’t commit and follow through with negotiations results. This isn’t the behavior of a leader who stands his ground.

I'm mostly curious what kind of coverage the Mueller investigation gets in Russia, if any.

@2122M, I find his "oops did I do that?" defense weak. It just provides more fuel for the left to attack him with. I can see you guys saying "well he must have dementia then!" Also have not disappeared from the board today.. (not that I really consider myself a Trump Apologist per se, to use your terminology).. I'm just bored of the topic. News cycle has already moved on and you're stuck in the past my friend! 24 hours is too long in today's news! (Joking aside, if one were to go on vacation and disconnect themselves from the internet I bet they would never even really see much about the summit in a couple days!)

2122M wrote:

I notice that the usual US-based Trump apologists have realized this Putin summit was a bad for Trump. They've disappeared from this board completely today, presumably an attempt to push the topic down the board and replace it with topics less damaging to Trump.

I'm curious to know, do any Trump supporters here buy his "I meant to say wouldn't" defense?

Well, I wouldn’t want to be in Trump’s shoes now. He knows he needs to get the USA out of many messes. It’s also well known Putin is the only one who can meaningfully help. He needs to talk to him, like it or not. Together with that, there’s Washington DC. And - pretty much everyone involved understands that all that’s happening there is a complete idiocy. That can not be stopped and nothing can be done.

trpmb6 wrote:

I'm just bored of the topic. News cycle has already moved on and you're stuck in the past my friend! 24 hours is too long in today's news! (Joking aside, if one were to go on vacation and disconnect themselves from the internet I bet they would never even really see much about the summit in a couple days!)

And this is where Trump wins. It doesn't matter how egregious his error or immoral his behavior, his fans shrug it off in a day or two. "Well, that's Trump for you" seems to be the attitude and no-one seems to care about the long term implications of his words and actions. As the saying goes, "Rome wasn't destroyed in a day" (I'm paraphrasing)

anrec80 wrote:

2122M wrote:

I notice that the usual US-based Trump apologists have realized this Putin summit was a bad for Trump. They've disappeared from this board completely today, presumably an attempt to push the topic down the board and replace it with topics less damaging to Trump.

I'm curious to know, do any Trump supporters here buy his "I meant to say wouldn't" defense?

Well, I wouldn’t want to be in Trump’s shoes now. He knows he needs to get the USA out of many messes. It’s also well known Putin is the only one who can meaningfully help. He needs to talk to him, like it or not. Together with that, there’s Washington DC. And - pretty much everyone involved understands that all that’s happening there is a complete idiocy. That can not be stopped and nothing can be done.

I think you are making some bold assumptions by saying Putin is the only one that can meaningfully help. NATO could meaningfully help. The EU could meaningfully help. Stronger economic ties with our allies could meaningfully help.

Press Conference at 2pm EST. My crystal ball tells me Sarah Sanders wil:

1) Blame the media for making a big deal out of nothing
2) Repeat the claim that Trump simply misspoke (possible blame the an interpreter or microphone?)
3) Claim that "real American's" simply don't' care about this and want to talk about the "real issues" (because publicly undermining your own intelligence agency in deference to a dictator is a non-issue)
4) Point out the sanctions Trump signed (but leave out the fact that he had to due to a veto-proof majority)

and lastly she will

5) https://youtu.be/QcnogXICTeA?t=59s

2122M wrote:

Press Conference at 2pm EST. My crystal ball tells me Sarah Sanders wil:

1) Blame the media for making a big deal out of nothing
2) Repeat the claim that Trump simply misspoke (possible blame the an interpreter or microphone?)
3) Claim that "real American's" simply don't' care about this and want to talk about the "real issues" (because publicly undermining your own intelligence agency in deference to a dictator is a non-issue)
4) Point out the sanctions Trump signed (but leave out the fact that he had to due to a veto-proof majority)

and lastly she will

5) https://youtu.be/QcnogXICTeA?t=59s

It's going to be an interesting press conference . Not sure if she will take questions as they will be harsh

Oh for Pete's sake!

https://www.npr.org/2018/07/18/63012309 ... geting-u-s

We are off the deep end of contradictions folks

"
Asked by reporters at the start of a Cabinet meeting if Russia is still targeting the U.S., Trump shook his head and answered "no."

That is counter to a warning issued by his director of National Intelligence, Dan Coats, who said last week that "the warning signs are there. The system is blinking," and that "today, the digital infrastructure that serves this country is literally under attack."
"

casinterest wrote:

Oh for Pete's sake!

https://www.npr.org/2018/07/18/63012309 ... geting-u-s

We are off the deep end of contradictions folks

"
Asked by reporters at the start of a Cabinet meeting if Russia is still targeting the U.S., Trump shook his head and answered "no."

That is counter to a warning issued by his director of National Intelligence, Dan Coats, who said last week that "the warning signs are there. The system is blinking," and that "today, the digital infrastructure that serves this country is literally under attack."
"

And you are surprised? We all know that Trump lies and then flip flops and then returns to what he wants to say. Returns the message or phrase or things he actually believes and is wanting to get into the public's consciousness. He is very effective at it and his supporter are very wishy washy and accepting of it.

Tugg

Nobody has disappeared.

The bottom line is that this isn't going to change anything. The left has cried wolf so many times that nothing is sticking. Trump's polls remain remarkably solid.

You guys blew it.

VTKillarney wrote:

Nobody has disappeared.

The bottom line is that this isn't going to change anything. The left has cried wolf so many times that nothing is sticking. Trump's polls remain remarkably solid.

You guys blew it.

How do you know what his poll numbers are going to do as a result of this incident?

VTKillarney wrote:

Nobody has disappeared.

The bottom line is that this isn't going to change anything. The left has cried wolf so many times that nothing is sticking. Trump's polls remain remarkably solid.

You guys blew it.

???

I thought polls were meaningless? Also, as a moderate why would you lump this all into "left" issues. Moderates are also constantly calling out Trumps poor actions.

Tugg

anrec80 wrote:

2122M wrote:

If these victories are so lopsided in favor of the US, why is Assad still able to gas his own people?

Apparently his own people don’t believe that he is gasing them. Some of alleged “victims” even stated this right in OPCW headquarters - “there was no gasing”. Evidence to this “gasing” was never found either.

... says the troll who thinks we should get our news from "Russia Today"...

Tugger wrote:

???

I thought polls were meaningless? Also, as a moderate why would you lump this all into "left" issues. Moderates are also constantly calling out Trumps poor actions.

Tugg

A true moderate reaction would be to note, "Combined with the indictments to date and a great quantity of circumstantial evidence that continues to come out, the nexus between Trump and Russia is worth investigating. While there is no publicly available evidence at this point that links Trump directly to the Russian election meddling, none of us knows what evidence has been accumulated at this point and I await the results of the Mueller investigation." Perhaps something to the effect of Ross Douthat's column in the Times today (mind you, he is a conservative Republican):

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/18/opin ... eft-region

Instead, the self-proclaimed "moderates" (maybe one or two of them--don't be confused by different multiple screennames) choose instead to focus their posts entirely on a rabidly apologist defense of Trump, replete with the rhetorical techniques of a coordinated misinformation campaign--demanding evidence of others and implying that the absence of publicly available evidence at this point in time constitutes some blanket exoneration; accusing others of bias, including the body of moderators; and cherry-picking what "facts" they deem appropriate for formulating a conclusion. It is entirely to be expected that there would be no publicly available evidence for an investigation of this nature at this point in time. It is perfectly appropriate and is to be expected (and desired) for the media, Americans, and others to engage in speculation based on the information available at this time.

I suspect it's also the case that if some posters would be forthright about their true political alignments, nationalities, and motivations, we would not be having much of a debate.

2122M wrote:

VTKillarney wrote:

Nobody has disappeared.

The bottom line is that this isn't going to change anything. The left has cried wolf so many times that nothing is sticking. Trump's polls remain remarkably solid.

You guys blew it.

How do you know what his poll numbers are going to do as a result of this incident?

Because the left has cried wolf so many times that nothing is sticking. Opportunity blown.

casinterest wrote:

VTKillarney wrote:

2122M wrote:

How do you know what his poll numbers are going to do as a result of this incident?

Because the left has cried wolf so many times that nothing is sticking. Opportunity blown.

Wow this is like the Chewbacca defense or should I say Benghazi defense.

It's just a fact. Despite the left's CONSTANT hammering on Trump for the past couple of years, his polls have remained quite solid. The lines have been drawn and nobody is budging anyone across those lines. All of this bodes quite well for Trump in 2020.

Part of the problem is that the left is not working on their branding. They are too focused on bashing Trump.

VTKillarney wrote:

2122M wrote:

VTKillarney wrote:

Nobody has disappeared.

The bottom line is that this isn't going to change anything. The left has cried wolf so many times that nothing is sticking. Trump's polls remain remarkably solid.

You guys blew it.

How do you know what his poll numbers are going to do as a result of this incident?

Because the left has cried wolf so many times that nothing is sticking. Opportunity blown.

Wow this is like the Chewbacca defense or should I say Benghazi defense.

VTKillarney wrote:

They are too focused on bashing Trump.

Are you saying Trump shouldn't be being "bashed" for the Helsinki debacle or his inability to at least have similar levels of respectful discourse with other nations?

Tugg

Tugger wrote:

VTKillarney wrote:

They are too focused on bashing Trump.

Are you saying Trump shouldn't be being "bashed" for the Helsinki debacle or his inability to at least have similar levels of respectful discourse with other nations?

Tugg

Let me repeat what I said. The Democrats have bashed Trump for anything and everything. People have tuned out - which is reflected in Trump's polling.

Tugger wrote:

VTKillarney wrote:

Tugger wrote:

Are you saying Trump shouldn't be being "bashed" for the Helsinki debacle or his inability to at least have similar levels of respectful discourse with other nations?

Tugg

Let me repeat what I said. The Democrats have bashed Trump for anything and everything. People have tuned out - which is reflected in Trump's polling.

Then why do you seem to have an issue with people bashing Trump when it is right and proper? As a moderate I am sure you have bashed him for some of the silly things he has done.

Tugg

I've criticized him multiple times on this forum, including just yesterday.

I don't have a problem with effective criticism. I do, however, have a problem with the hysteria that the left is engaging in. The polls aren't budging. So maybe some self reflection is in order because your message is CLEARLY not working.

VTKillarney wrote:

Tugger wrote:

VTKillarney wrote:

They are too focused on bashing Trump.

Are you saying Trump shouldn't be being "bashed" for the Helsinki debacle or his inability to at least have similar levels of respectful discourse with other nations?

Tugg

Let me repeat what I said. The Democrats have bashed Trump for anything and everything. People have tuned out - which is reflected in Trump's polling.

Then why do you seem to have an issue with people bashing Trump when it is right and proper? As a moderate I am sure you have bashed him for some of the silly things he has done.

Tugg

Tugger wrote:

VTKillarney wrote:

They are too focused on bashing Trump.

Are you saying Trump shouldn't be being "bashed" for the Helsinki debacle or his inability to at least have similar levels of respectful discourse with other nations?

Tugg

It's easy to bash Trump. Fox news continues to prop him up for the right wing.

Here is a link to his debacle today on Russia's meddling with our elections . Sarah Sanders flat out lied in her "Interpretations" of what Trump said.

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/ ... 326efd71c6

Tugger wrote:

And here is an example for you: You are constantly posting and bashing people here for endlessly bringing up things about Trump. Why? Because people are constantly doing that and you are reacting to that. So why don't you stop?

Trump is constantly doing things that are confusing or he is misspeaking or he is showing himself to be a poor president. And people constantly "bash" him for those things. Why? Because he is constantly doing that.

Tugg

A) That's not an example.
B) I don't "bash" anyone here. The last time I checked, as a matter of fact, liberals are leading in the ad hominem tally by a score of 10 to nil.
C) I primarily point out logical fallacies, inaccuracies, and hyperbolic distortions. That keeps me quite busy here.
D) The Democrats need to learn how to pick their battles. When they complain about an infinite amount of trivial and petty things, people tune out. The polls reflect that. But go on and order more diaper balloons. Keep using names like "Pooty" and "Orange Cheeto." And then wonder why nobody takes you seriously.