Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[smjjames]

"Friendliness" as in takes bribes and advice

Has it been confirmed that Trump took bribes from Russia? I haven't heard anything official, just speculation over his tax returns and news media reporting that FBI said "Trump has no ties with Russia".

We (us civillians at least) don't absolutely know for sure he has no ties to Russia. Nobody's saying that Trump is taking bribes from Russia. Though all the conflicts of interest that he has will definetly get in the way.

And generally ignore Russia's bad acts.

Such as? I'm not familiar with what's going on in Russia aside from their involvement in Syria conflicts.

Their annexation of Crimea for example?

Also, Pence says he had no issues with the booing or the message the cast had for him. Why he didn't also say that on Twitter though, no idea.

[Frumple]

Uh, we absolutely know for sure he has ties to russia. His businesses do business with russians, he's been over there for stuff over the years, some of his advisors over the course of the last year had connections of their own, etc., etc. Bribes et al are questionable, but the connection is not. Its strength, yes, but not its existence.

And yeah, there's the stuff in ukraine, there's the civilian bombings in syria and whatever else is going on in that  mess, there's any number of cases of military sabre rattling, more stuff I'm forgetting besides. Putin's kinda' been a bit (more) of a shit (than usual) the last handful of years.

[Baffler]

Also, Pence says he had no issues with the booing or the message the cast had for him. Why he didn't also say that on Twitter though, no idea.

Speaking on the subject on Twitter directly adds more fuel to the embarrassing Twitter outrage machine dumpster fire than saying it somewhere else would.

[sprinkled chariot]

Uh, we absolutely know for sure he has ties to russia. His businesses do business with russians, he's been over there for stuff over the years, some of his advisors over the course of the last year had connections of their own, etc., etc. Bribes et al are questionable, but the connection is not. Its strength, yes, but not its existence.

And yeah, there's the stuff in ukraine, there's the civilian bombings in syria and whatever else is going on in that  mess, there's any number of cases of military sabre rattling, more stuff I'm forgetting besides. Putin's kinda' been a bit (more) of a shit (than usual) the last handful of years.

Putin was not the one, who started middle east mess. And, well, you cant drop bombs on targets in city without hitting civilians.

[smjjames]

Uh, we absolutely know for sure he has ties to russia. His businesses do business with russians, he's been over there for stuff over the years, some of his advisors over the course of the last year had connections of their own, etc., etc. Bribes et al are questionable, but the connection is not. Its strength, yes, but not its existence.

And yeah, there's the stuff in ukraine, there's the civilian bombings in syria and whatever else is going on in that  mess, there's any number of cases of military sabre rattling, more stuff I'm forgetting besides. Putin's kinda' been a bit (more) of a shit (than usual) the last handful of years.

Putin was not the one, who started middle east mess. And, well, you cant drop bombs on targets in city without hitting civilians.

They're deliberately targeting civillians for the sake of targeting civillians. Most of that is from the Assad regime, but Putin has done some of that as well.

We at least try to avoid civillian casualties. Also, ISIS uses the tactic of human shields, so, it's even harder to avoid civillian casualties.

[misko27]

Putin was not the one, who started middle east mess.

Yeah sure, that was the British, obviously. And the Ottomans before them. You see where I'm going with this? Arguing about "who started it" is the least reasonable debate possible  to have about the middle east, and even if it wasn't it would still say absolutely nothing because who started it has nothing to do with "what now?" A problem I notice many people having in the middle east discussion.

[SaberToothTiger]

Putin was not the one, who started middle east mess.

Yeah sure, that was the British, obviously. And the Ottomans before them. You see where I'm going with this? Arguing about "who started it" is the least reasonable debate possible  to have about the middle east, and even if it wasn't it would still say absolutely nothing because who started it has nothing to do with "what now?" A problem I notice many people having in the middle east discussion.

T'was the Mamluks, I tell ya!

[Baffler]

Putin was not the one, who started middle east mess.

Yeah sure, that was the British, obviously. And the Ottomans before them. You see where I'm going with this? Arguing about "who started it" is the least reasonable debate possible  to have about the middle east, and even if it wasn't it would still say absolutely nothing because who started it has nothing to do with "what now?" A problem I notice many people having in the middle east discussion.

T'was the Mamluks, I tell ya!

If the Byzantines and Sassanids hadn't spent all that time fighting each other over the region, directly or by proxy, none of this would have happened.

[smjjames]

Putin was not the one, who started middle east mess.

Yeah sure, that was the British, obviously. And the Ottomans before them. You see where I'm going with this? Arguing about "who started it" is the least reasonable debate possible  to have about the middle east, and even if it wasn't it would still say absolutely nothing because who started it has nothing to do with "what now?" A problem I notice many people having in the middle east discussion.

T'was the Mamluks, I tell ya!

If the Byzantines and Sassanids hadn't spent all that time fighting each other over the region, directly or by proxy, none of this would have happened.

If the early Muslims didn't have their schism, etc and so on....

Misko's point is that while looking at the past helps to see what mistakes were made that exacerbated the problems, it does nothing to solve the problems of right now because they are so complex and go beyond the British and French (and I think the Russians a little?) drawing lines in the desert with no consideration to, for, or of, the wishes* of the Arab peoples that were once under the Ottoman Empire.

*Yes, that includes Israel, but that is just another layer to the hive of issues that is the MidEast.

Also, getting kind of offtopic here, but then again, the MidEast is intertwined in our policies atm.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/20/white-lives-matter-texas-protest-arrests There needs to be an 'All wavelengths of the EM spectrum lives matter' movement, from the shortest gamma rays to the longest radio waves.

[McTraveller]

Wow, just a few days pass, and the rate of posts drops... but I'm still hopelessly out of the loop.

One thing that has struck me as interesting today - mostly from the (yeah, I know I'm late to the party) Hamilton stuff, but it applies more generally: When was it exactly that people lost the ability to distinguish between personal opinions / preferences and policy stances?

I mean this in both directions actually - on one hand, why do people think their personal opinions would make good policy, and on the other, why do people think that just because a leader has a particular opinion that they would try (and succeed if they did) to make it policy?  (And that doesn't even get into considering the frequency with which people in the political spotlight tend to change their opinions in the first place...)

[martinuzz]

Putin was not the one, who started middle east mess. And, well, you cant drop bombs on targets in city without hitting civilians.

But if not for Putin getting involved, and starting to support Assad who was about to lose, the conflict in Syria could very well have been over already.

[TheBiggerFish]

Wow, just a few days pass, and the rate of posts drops... but I'm still hopelessly out of the loop.

One thing that has struck me as interesting today - mostly from the (yeah, I know I'm late to the party) Hamilton stuff, but it applies more generally: When was it exactly that people lost the ability to distinguish between personal opinions / preferences and policy stances?

I mean this in both directions actually - on one hand, why do people think their personal opinions would make good policy, and on the other, why do people think that just because a leader has a particular opinion that they would try (and succeed if they did) to make it policy?  (And that doesn't even get into considering the frequency with which people in the political spotlight tend to change their opinions in the first place...)

Because they often are.

[McTraveller]

Looks like we're going to be rolling out Liz to bat her eyelashes and make kissy faces at the Donald, because t. May is jealous of him being BFFs with our Nige.

I am looking forward to his first visit to the UK, though. I imagine he'll take the opportunity to one-up Obama with his choice of gift (I heard that Obama gave the Queen an iPod filled with his own speeches, or something like that?). Hopefully our own representatives will give your president something decent; it'd be very embarrassing if they gave him something shitty like a Dr Who box-set.

Wait, what? Heads of nations still give each other gifts when they visit? I can't even accept lunch from vendors because heaven forbid that might unduly influence me!

[smjjames]

Looks like we're going to be rolling out Liz to bat her eyelashes and make kissy faces at the Donald, because t. May is jealous of him being BFFs with our Nige.

I am looking forward to his first visit to the UK, though. I imagine he'll take the opportunity to one-up Obama with his choice of gift (I heard that Obama gave the Queen an iPod filled with his own speeches, or something like that?). Hopefully our own representatives will give your president something decent; it'd be very embarrassing if they gave him something shitty like a Dr Who box-set.

Wait, what? Heads of nations still give each other gifts when they visit? I can't even accept lunch from vendors because heaven forbid that might unduly influence me!

I don't know what the procedure is in other nations, but here in the US, the President legally cannot accept the gifts and the gifts instead go to the government. They can be given gifts, yes, theres no law against that, but the President cannot accept them. Which is why his businesses and deals around the globe present such a problem, it's conflicts of interests on an unprecedented scale.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Isn't it a running joke or something that the Queen and the President always give each other intentionally shitty gifts? I remember this from the "controversy" (FTFE) after Obama's election where he gave her the iPod and she gave him something from a tourist gift shop.