Political Roundtable Part XIX

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

?s=20

[gtn130]

Okay, so Trump has this elaborate collusion scheme with Putin, but he has no way of communicating with him via backchannels? How do you collude with someone without communicating about it? It's practically the definition of collusion.

It's not elaborate at all lol. The 'scheme' is pretty damn simple on its face.

That said, Trump associates and Russian emissaries did have a pretty huge number of meetings and communications that are public record at this point. I strongly doubt Trump was ever personally involved, and there is no chance Putin was ever personally involved.

Trump praising Putin in public and ambiguously asking for his help likely went a long way in confirming how serious the Trump campaign was about working with Russia. If Trump doesn't do that stuff, everything communicated between the two groups had to up to that point passed through multiple layers of intermediaries, so both parties would be understandably uncertain about where they stand.

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

?s=20

[gtn130]

Yeah, I think you're both wrong here.

Trump puts on a show because that's what he does. I don't think that tweet was a joke or some sort of secret communication hidden in plain sight. Trump puts on a show because it gets people to ignore everything else he does and lump it all in with the show. I don't really see how anyone could come away with any other conclusion but that, to be honest, though clearly people are, because we see 2 different takes right here in this thread.

I mean, Trump made huge efforts to praise Putin throughout the campaign. I really don't see a reason to draw a line at the "if you're listening" statement and saying that's the one that was Trump being loony theatrical mindless Trump. It was a clear pattern.

[dckingsfan]

Pulling out of Iraq was a mistake because it evidently left a massive power vacuum allowing ISIS to seize control. it was largely an environment we created by invading in the first place.

The situation in Syria is different for a variety of reasons, but generally speaking i think there is no viable way out of these military endeavors in the middle east.

Cutting off all US military presence in Syria does benefit Russia and Assad though

Yep - two equally stupid mistakes. Invading Iraq based upon nebulas intel of WOMD.

And to follow that pulling out prematurely - we should have learned from WWI.

So, gtn - should Trump pull out of Syria? Iraq? Afghanistan? The middle east? Can we get our of Europe? Should we stop being the world's policeman and withdraw to the US?

I'm obviously very strongly anti-involvement in all of these international military conflicts, and we should absolutely not be the world police or the moral compass for all of humanity. But we're already in these countries and it's the reality we live in.

I don't think there is a scenario in which we can pull out of all these places primarily because of how we saw things unfold in Iraq. It's why Obama turned to things like drone strikes - because it allows us to manage and contain things from afar with relatively minimal involvement. I'm not defending drone strikes or saying it's an ethical solution - it's not even a solution - but I can see the reasoning behind it.

I think the best (of what are all bad options) is to maintain the status quo and hope some of these countries can cobble together self-sustaining and stable governments - something that is sadly not on the horizon.

Thanks for the feedback!

[nate33]

Okay, so Trump has this elaborate collusion scheme with Putin, but he has no way of communicating with him via backchannels? How do you collude with someone without communicating about it? It's practically the definition of collusion.

Does Jeff Sessions, Jarad Kushner, Paul Manafort, Don Jr., Mike Flynn, Rick Gates, George Papadopoulos and Rodger Stone ring any bells?

There's a difference between being approached by Russians with (non existent) dirt on Clinton, and collusion. I don't doubt that the Russians tried to influence the election in a manner that harmed Clinton. I dispute the notion that the Trump campaign was initiating or directing the contact or that they had arranged any kind of quid pro quo. I also don't see how this behavior differs from the behavior of foreign actors in any U.S. Presidential campaign. Wasn't Mexico colluding with the Clinton campaign with their anti-Trump propaganda. Wasn't Britain colluding with the Clinton campaign with their assistance with spying on Trump. Didn't the Ukraine collude with the Clinton campaign? Don't we consistently meddle in other campaigns, including our allies like France?

[cammac]

Under the category I'm against it unless I get paid!
John Boehner R. a past Republican Speaker was always against the legalization of pot.

(NORML) had rated Boehner "hard on drugs" and given him a "zero percent" rating on legalization, meaning he was opposed to "all forms of marijuana decriminalization." In 2011, Boehner claimed to be "unalterably opposed to the legalization of marijuana" and said, "I remain concerned that legalization will result in increased abuse of all varieties of drugs, including alcohol."

Boehner has seized upon an opportunity to accept a very lucrative position as a spokesperson for Acreage Holdings, an "investment company with an established footprint in the cannabis industry in the United States."

Maybe it wasn't really tobacco he was smoking all those years?

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/4/11/1756185/-Retired-Republican-Speaker-of-the-House-John-Boehner-is-now-a-Pot-Dealer

[I_Like_Dirt]

I mean, Trump made huge efforts to praise Putin throughout the campaign. I really don't see a reason to draw a line at the "if you're listening" statement and saying that's the one that was Trump being loony theatrical mindless Trump. It was a clear pattern.

Oh, of course Trump did. I just mean, Trump's praise wasn't him trying to communicate with Putin or anything, either. Trump knows what he's going to try to do, so he puts on an act. I very much don't expect Mueller is going to build a case on Trump's praising of Putin, either. To me, that's more symptom of Trump likely being compromised already or thinking it will play well regardless of what he is or isn't doing, than any particular evidence of ongoing negotiations or anything. Negotiations probably were ongoing at the same time, too, from the sounds of it, but I really don't see any reason to believe that the tweets in particular are linked directly as communications, so to speak, rather than just a part of the show. The actual communication was pretty clearly going on through other channels, which have started to be shown by Mueller already. I'm willing to let the FBI follow the evidence here and see what comes up.

[Pointgod]

Pulling out of Iraq was a mistake because it evidently left a massive power vacuum allowing ISIS to seize control. it was largely an environment we created by invading in the first place.

The situation in Syria is different for a variety of reasons, but generally speaking i think there is no viable way out of these military endeavors in the middle east.

Cutting off all US military presence in Syria does benefit Russia and Assad though

Yep - two equally stupid mistakes. Invading Iraq based upon nebulas intel of WOMD.

And to follow that pulling out prematurely - we should have learned from WWI.

So, gtn - should Trump pull out of Syria? Iraq? Afghanistan? The middle east? Can we get our of Europe? Should we stop being the world's policeman and withdraw to the US?

I'm obviously very strongly anti-involvement in all of these international military conflicts, and we should absolutely not be the world police or the moral compass for all of humanity. But we're already in these countries and it's the reality we live in.

I don't think there is a scenario in which we can pull out of all these places primarily because of how we saw things unfold in Iraq. It's why Obama turned to things like drone strikes - because it allows us to manage and contain things from afar with relatively minimal involvement. I'm not defending drone strikes or saying it's an ethical solution - it's not even a solution - but I can see the reasoning behind it.

I think the best (of what are all bad options) is to maintain the status quo and hope some of these countries can cobble together self-sustaining and stable governments - something that is sadly not on the horizon.

Hell of a post and pretty accurate assessment of the situation. The idea of the US just up and leaving the middle East is like heading into a China shop, breaking everything, stripping the foundation and leaving without bothering to clean up the mess or fix anything. These things have a habit of coming back to bite America years down the road. This is why just up and leaving is pretty idiotic. Assad has to be held accountable for his actions, but that does not mean going to war. This is actually a time that it makes sense for Trump to tout his relationship with Putin but like always when faced with poor options Trump will always pick the worst.

[verbal8]

The reality is that the Republicans have never been deficit hawks! The deficits were higher under the Republican administrations. The largest deficits we Obama, George W Bush, Reagan & George H. W. Bush. Much of Obama's deficits were the direct result of George W Bush disastrous handling of the economy and the Iraq War.

Republicans are the biggest hypocrites indeed. If Obama had been doing half of what they are allowing Trump to get-away with, impeachment hearings would have started long ago.

It would have been the day after inauguration.

[dckingsfan]

Yep - two equally stupid mistakes. Invading Iraq based upon nebulas intel of WOMD.

And to follow that pulling out prematurely - we should have learned from WWI.

So, gtn - should Trump pull out of Syria? Iraq? Afghanistan? The middle east? Can we get our of Europe? Should we stop being the world's policeman and withdraw to the US?

I'm obviously very strongly anti-involvement in all of these international military conflicts, and we should absolutely not be the world police or the moral compass for all of humanity. But we're already in these countries and it's the reality we live in.

I don't think there is a scenario in which we can pull out of all these places primarily because of how we saw things unfold in Iraq. It's why Obama turned to things like drone strikes - because it allows us to manage and contain things from afar with relatively minimal involvement. I'm not defending drone strikes or saying it's an ethical solution - it's not even a solution - but I can see the reasoning behind it.

I think the best (of what are all bad options) is to maintain the status quo and hope some of these countries can cobble together self-sustaining and stable governments - something that is sadly not on the horizon.

Hell of a post and pretty accurate assessment of the situation. The idea of the US just up and leaving the middle East is like heading into a China shop, breaking everything, stripping the foundation and leaving without bothering to clean up the mess or fix anything. These things have a habit of coming back to bite America years down the road. This is why just up and leaving is pretty idiotic. Assad has to be held accountable for his actions, but that does not mean going to war. This is actually a time that it makes sense for Trump to tout his relationship with Putin but like always when faced with poor options Trump will always pick the worst.

I am not sure I am following. Do you advocate staying and all that entails (Europe after WWII)? Or do you advocate a half-in Obama strategy - try to do it through the State Department (if you will)? Or something different?

[cammac]

I'm obviously very strongly anti-involvement in all of these international military conflicts, and we should absolutely not be the world police or the moral compass for all of humanity. But we're already in these countries and it's the reality we live in.

I don't think there is a scenario in which we can pull out of all these places primarily because of how we saw things unfold in Iraq. It's why Obama turned to things like drone strikes - because it allows us to manage and contain things from afar with relatively minimal involvement. I'm not defending drone strikes or saying it's an ethical solution - it's not even a solution - but I can see the reasoning behind it.

I think the best (of what are all bad options) is to maintain the status quo and hope some of these countries can cobble together self-sustaining and stable governments - something that is sadly not on the horizon.

Hell of a post and pretty accurate assessment of the situation. The idea of the US just up and leaving the middle East is like heading into a China shop, breaking everything, stripping the foundation and leaving without bothering to clean up the mess or fix anything. These things have a habit of coming back to bite America years down the road. This is why just up and leaving is pretty idiotic. Assad has to be held accountable for his actions, but that does not mean going to war. This is actually a time that it makes sense for Trump to tout his relationship with Putin but like always when faced with poor options Trump will always pick the worst.

I am not sure I am following. Do you advocate staying and all that entails (Europe after WWII)? Or do you advocate a half-in Obama strategy - try to do it through the State Department (if you will)? Or something different?

There are some things that should be done diplomatically but then does the Trump administration have diplomacy? I believe one simple move would decrease the threat between the Korea's. I would withdraw 50% of the American troops on the DMZ and replace them with Chinese troops. That would decrease the chances of a conflict to zero. One country N. Korea will not threaten is China. This could also ease some of the non-economic tensions between the USA & China. One thing Beijing fears is a united Korea on it's doorstep.

It has been 73 years since WW2 and I believe both Germany & Japan should be taking a bigger role militarily. Both are economic giants and both have a threat Germany with Russia and Japan with N. Korea and China. Both would contribute in a more dominant fashion to the regions where they preside alleviating stress on the USA military.

[Ruzious]

And Ryan all of a sudden looking to escape the monkey house...

I think Ryan is very disappointed in his party...

Awwww, poor Ryan... as he and his friends and family reap the rewards of his tax plan that's horrible for the US. May his hair always stay plastered perfectly on his head. There should be a study on Republican hairstyles. The Trump and the Ryan cerainly need to be featured. The McConnell...

[stilldropin20]

So this is the very stable genius that **** Carlson seems fit to kiss his ass.

Read on Twitter

This is what he was saying just a couple years ago:

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

This is why you don't give people like **** Carlson or Trump any credit for any of their self serving takes. You just end up looking like a fool less than 48 hours later.

you are burying the lead, dumbass. I'm trying to help you tell your story. Just go with the firsrt tweet and run with "trump is now tipping off russia!!"" Get it, slow poke? he is warning russia to get out of syria before the US launches missles. theirs your quid pro quo!! Go run with it!!

[stilldropin20]

And Ryan all of a sudden looking to escape the monkey house...

I think Ryan is very disappointed in his party...

Awwww, poor Ryan... as he and his friends and family reap the rewards of his tax plan that's horrible for the US. May his hair always stay plastered perfectly on his head. There should be a study on Republican hairstyles. The Trump and the Ryan cerainly need to be featured. The McConnell...

ryan "retiring" is old news. this has been discussed in conservative circles for at least 6 months. everyone knew this was coming. Not sure why anyone is acting surprised now?

Truth is ryan is considering primarying Trump in 2020. I could get behind that. And trump just may be impeached before then anyway. Pence cant win in 2020 so Ryan is the best guy for the job. Candice Owens as VP. well she needs some experience first. lol They would be a tough team to beat. Especially if they run on the trump platform....well most of it. the good part. And with better rhetoric.

[Pointgod]

I'm obviously very strongly anti-involvement in all of these international military conflicts, and we should absolutely not be the world police or the moral compass for all of humanity. But we're already in these countries and it's the reality we live in.

I don't think there is a scenario in which we can pull out of all these places primarily because of how we saw things unfold in Iraq. It's why Obama turned to things like drone strikes - because it allows us to manage and contain things from afar with relatively minimal involvement. I'm not defending drone strikes or saying it's an ethical solution - it's not even a solution - but I can see the reasoning behind it.

I think the best (of what are all bad options) is to maintain the status quo and hope some of these countries can cobble together self-sustaining and stable governments - something that is sadly not on the horizon.

Hell of a post and pretty accurate assessment of the situation. The idea of the US just up and leaving the middle East is like heading into a China shop, breaking everything, stripping the foundation and leaving without bothering to clean up the mess or fix anything. These things have a habit of coming back to bite America years down the road. This is why just up and leaving is pretty idiotic. Assad has to be held accountable for his actions, but that does not mean going to war. This is actually a time that it makes sense for Trump to tout his relationship with Putin but like always when faced with poor options Trump will always pick the worst.

I am not sure I am following. Do you advocate staying and all that entails (Europe after WWII)? Or do you advocate a half-in Obama strategy - try to do it through the State Department (if you will)? Or something different?

There is no simple solution, which is the point that I’m trying to get across. Cut and run is going to bite the US in the ass later down the road. However, there’s no doubt that a stable Middle East makes both the US and Europe more secure and safe. Multilateral diplomatic efforts focused on a stable Middle East without giving a **** what Israel or Saudi Arabia want need to be considered at some point.

[dckingsfan]

Hell of a post and pretty accurate assessment of the situation. The idea of the US just up and leaving the middle East is like heading into a China shop, breaking everything, stripping the foundation and leaving without bothering to clean up the mess or fix anything. These things have a habit of coming back to bite America years down the road. This is why just up and leaving is pretty idiotic. Assad has to be held accountable for his actions, but that does not mean going to war. This is actually a time that it makes sense for Trump to tout his relationship with Putin but like always when faced with poor options Trump will always pick the worst.

I am not sure I am following. Do you advocate staying and all that entails (Europe after WWII)? Or do you advocate a half-in Obama strategy - try to do it through the State Department (if you will)? Or something different?

There is no simple solution, which is the point that I’m trying to get across. Cut and run is going to bite the US in the ass later down the road. However, there’s no doubt that a stable Middle East makes both the US and Europe more secure and safe. Multilateral diplomatic efforts focused on a stable Middle East without giving a **** what Israel or Saudi Arabia want need to be considered at some point.

Multi-lateral discussions without Israel/Saudi Arabia being the touch points has the notion that we would take a (very) backseat approach to the discussions, no?

Waiting for multi-lateral discussions to come to a conclusion sounds like the quagmire of Israel - kind of a "how does never sound" approach?

[nate33]

There is no simple solution, which is the point that I’m trying to get across. Cut and run is going to bite the US in the ass later down the road. However, there’s no doubt that a stable Middle East makes both the US and Europe more secure and safe. Multilateral diplomatic efforts focused on a stable Middle East without giving a **** what Israel or Saudi Arabia want need to be considered at some point.

There will never be a stable Middle East if we keep overthrowing every authoritarian leader who manages to keep the peace just because we don't like his methods.

[stilldropin20]

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

?s=20