• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

The 2018 Trump Presidency thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
But is selling them uranium still bad, against the US national interest and potentially treasonous?

For eg. in today's news Trump secretly organized a deal selling Putin 20% more of US uranium so now Putin has 40% of US uranium.
A few Russians linked to the deal also donated $100+ million to the Trump foundation.
Would we now say that's the smoking gun to impeach/indict/remove Trump?
 
Let's say you got your wish and Trump did call out Russia's meddling at the meeting.
And then Putin called out the USA for meddling in their elections (which we also know undoubtedly happened).
And then they fight and walk away and we can shit on Trump some more for being a failure diplomat but unfortunately we might go to nuclear war.

The only way to do it is say (on the world stage because there are other serious violators like China, which Trump addressed in his correction) "we the USA will stop meddling in others' elections. If anyone does it to us from now on there will be serious consequences".

Let's say that we do this; we go to Russia and the world and say we'll stop meddling in elections (and actually mean it), and promise consequences to anyone that meddles in our elections. What sort of consequences do you think are appropriate if this agreement is broken? I don't think we should necessarily go to war over it, but we also shouldn't ignore it and pretend it never happened (or say it didn't have any impact so it's not a big deal). I think that's the difficulty in situations like this, how to apply significant pressure and express how upset we are without risking war and millions of lives.

I was reading the other day that every President from Clinton to Obama has tried to 'reset' the relationship with Russia and move past various issues; this has invariably broken down at some point and we have gone back to our stalemate and frosty relationship. If you could make policy, what would your plan or strategy be with Russia? How would you try to make this policy succeed, and what would you do differently from previous presidents that have not succeeded?
 
Let's say that we do this; we go to Russia and the world and say we'll stop meddling in elections (and actually mean it), and promise consequences to anyone that meddles in our elections. What sort of consequences do you think are appropriate if this agreement is broken? I don't think we should necessarily go to war over it, but we also shouldn't ignore it and pretend it never happened (or say it didn't have any impact so it's not a big deal). I think that's the difficulty in situations like this, how to apply significant pressure and express how upset we are without risking war and millions of lives.

I was reading the other day that every President from Clinton to Obama has tried to 'reset' the relationship with Russia and move past various issues; this has invariably broken down at some point and we have gone back to our stalemate and frosty relationship. If you could make policy, what would your plan or strategy be with Russia? How would you try to make this policy succeed, and what would you do differently from previous presidents that have not succeeded?

Hi, thank you so much for this insightful and constructive question.
I think it's a fairy tale to suggest the US will cease meddling/hacking, the problem here is that the US is one of the if not the worst violators of other states' sovereignty.
But hypothetically if we stop and they continue - the punishment really depends on the severity of the attacks.
I'm pretty sure it's actually legal for their trolls farms to buy Facebooks ads. Last count I heard it was at least 6,000 FB ads. I mean if people think that they can change voters' minds through some ads then that's really a problem FB and Zuckerberg should be addressing.
But let's say that Russians DID hack the DNC's servers and give their emails to Wikileaks (which they didn't) but if that were the case then that calls for serious disciplinary action.
The tricky part is if we can only prove it was some Russian nationals vs proving it was actually ordered by the government.
If it's the former we could just demand that the guilty parties be held accountable and/or extradited. Apart from that it's the DNC's fault for having such shitty cybersecurity.
If the Russian government ordered it..... shit that is extremely serious. At the very least powerful sanctions, to the point of kicking out diplomats.
I mean that's basically an act of war, and the worst part is, and I'm sorry to have keep harping on it, but the USA has interfered in 81 elections in the past 50 years.
Oftentimes removing democratically-elected governments and replacing them with dictators. That isn't just election-meddling that is straight evil behavior. And we're worried about Russia.
(although one good thing about this recent conspiracy theory is that it's made people more aware of foreign espionage)

Also if I was policy-man I would pull NATO troops back to the buffer zone line agreed upon at the end of WWII. I would remove US army bases directly alongside the Russian border and work seriously on tacking nuclear proliferation, revising the ABM-treaty etc. If Russia continues to cooperate and make mutual concessions proving itself to be a peaceful/fair player then I would look at dismantling NATO completely as they would no longer serve a purpose.
Unfortunately this is fantasy but it's nice to speculate on what could be possible. Thanks again for the question.

-I will add though that every president through Clinton to Obama tried and failed to get through to the North Korean regime and handle that situation yet the current president made objectively far more progress than the previous ones. So honestly, with Russia as an ally (long shot) I can see us potentially diffusing the Iranian and Israeli situations. All this nothingburger hooplah about the meeting isn't helping though.
 
...every president through Clinton to Obama tried and failed to get through to the North Korean regime and handle that situation yet the current president made objectively far more progress than the previous ones.
far more progress? not really. sure, there's been a lot of talk (trump's great at talk) but little progress. the day after he met kim jong un, trump said there is "no longer a nuclear threat from north korea" which is laughable nonsense.

further, if pompeo's visit was supposed to usher in tangible steps in the process it failed pretty spectacularly. the nk foreign ministry released a statement right after he left which included: "The U.S. side came up only with its unilateral and gangster-like demand for denuclearization..." and went on to describe america's attitude as "regrettable".

i hope that we see "complete, verifiable and irreversible denuclearization" in nk in my lifetime but i think popping the champagne corks is a little premature...

alasdair
 
^I didn't say put on your party pants just yet but there was objectively FAR more progress.
Kim walking across the border and holding hands with SK's moon (WTF?)
Kim even speaking of complete denuclearization was huge.
Destroying missile test sites
Meeting with Trump

I'm amazed anyone was able to do this let alone Trump
 
Whatever dudes, if Obama did this you guys would be praising the diplomacy, and he made things worse and he had 8 years.
Give credit where it's due even if it's not curing cancer or eradicating pollution.
 
^ lol. the great thing about "if..." is that you can just assume you're right and move on.

the fact is that obama expressed willingness to meet in 2008 and this was the response from the right - talk about a double standard:

MHStImPAJeya5mhs38xRov5-jr32Zxd3n8_o_-fNGpiVSawBjYAPoepYDYCannEgXIrIfpHmn-wAckDcatOte13Fkf2DJZxaeurpjyHdf43Bdp2fq7Bs66iUrTVlP5ZpTu32DCJ6


nk has used the promise of denuclearization as a chip. for years: december 1985; january 1992; october 1994; etc.

in return for the loss of the joint exercise, trump got nothing in return: no agreement on inspections (and, on top of that, he junked the inspections in iran which everybody but trump agreed were working which sends a terrible message); no declaratoin of existing facilities; no agreement on warheads; nothing.

it's wash. rinse. repeat.

alasdair
 
Former White House Stenographer Speaks Out: ‘Trump Was Lying To The American People’

A former White House stenographer said Wednesday that she resigned because President Donald Trump was “lying to the American people.”

The stenographer, Beck Dorey-Stein, joined the White House in 2012 during Barack Obama’s presidency. But she “couldn’t be proud” of working in the White House under Trump, she told CNN on Wednesday, and resigned in early 2017.

“I was so proud to serve under the Obama administration,” Dorey-Stein said. “And I felt like President Trump was lying to the American people and not even trying ... to tell the truth.”
...
“Mr. Trump likes to call anyone who disagrees with him ‘fake news,’” she wrote in the Times. “But if he’s really the victim of so much inaccurate reporting, why is he so averse to having the facts recorded and transcribed?
(my emphasis)

why indeed?

alasdair
 
Whatever dudes, if Obama did this you guys would be praising the diplomacy, and he made things worse and he had 8 years.
Give credit where it's due even if it's not curing cancer or eradicating pollution.

I constantly lambaste Obama over several things. Mostly his shady deals with big corps, wall st., throwing out the DEA investigation against Hezbollah was a huge one...and so forth.
 
Whatever dudes, if Obama did this you guys would be praising the diplomacy, and he made things worse and he had 8 years.
Give credit where it's due even if it's not curing cancer or eradicating pollution.

Really though, how many people here really praise Obama? I've seen some positivity regarding some of his policies, as well as criticism.

The way you regularly bring up Obama is more of your red herring soup IMO,

Trump said:
Some people HATE the fact that I got along well with President Putin of Russia.
They would rather go to war than see this. It?s called Trump Derangement Syndrome!
-Source

It is simply not a fact that there are only either cosy relations with Russia or WAR. He has created that false dichotomy (one of the more manipulative logical fallacies) so that anyone who doesn't support Trump and his bromance with Putin can be summarily dismissed as advocating war. I mean, why is he even mentioning it?

The US and Russia haven't gone to war yet. It would see there is a third position besides what Trump seems to clumsily suggest.
 
Last edited:
It is simply not a fact that there are only either cosy relations with Russia or WAR. He has created that false dichotomy (one of the more manipulative logical fallacies) so that anyone who doesn't support Trump and his bromance with Putin can be summarily dismissed as advocating war. I mean, why is he even mentioning it?

Bromance? What is this high school? We're describing serious international relations here among big boys. Even if you don't take Trump seriously everyone else does. Before in business now on the world stage. So let's just assume that's a thing:

So you don't want war.
But you also don't want cozy relations?
So you don't want them to be at war but you want them to be kinda fighting, mad at each other? You realize that will further the arms race and lead to more nuclear proliferation?
Should we stay on hair-trigger alert so that a miscalculation could set off events that ended the world?
Would you want them to be at peace? I mean the common sense answer to that question from anyone sane is of course.
Tense relations can also easily kick off conflicts, so if you truly want peace then you also want de-escalation, friendly discourse and a relaxing of tensions.

Would you want them to make peace while Trump was President? You'd also have to say yes to that because peace with Russia is still desired even though it sucks that Trump may get credit.
"But... we can't make peace with Russia because we think that they interfered with the election." Really though?
The USA does that too, interfere with Russia's elections. So is that a reason to not make peace? "But Russia controls Trump" So you believe that Trump is a puppet of Russia, and what are the end goals? Does Putin want to buy more uranium? Kremlin got Trump elected and then what? Putin had it pretty sweet with the Clintons, paying them on the side for uranium. The only difference was Hillary was yelling for war with Russia while Trump was yelling for friendship. Can you think of any reason why Russia/Putin would prefer Trump???
Here's an interesting hypothetical: would you prefer Hillary as president and war with Russia, or Trump as president and peace with Russia? If you say Clinton then we can't be friends.

Trump even sold weapons to Ukraine!! This is actually one of his moves that I massively opposed. But is that bending over for Russia?
If you don't think Russians or the Russian government altered the results of the election then this issue is not important enough to be bringing up at a summit.
I mean you can bring up the issue of everyone committing cybercrime, but it is insane to suggest lambasting a nuclear superpower over it. And you can't be up there and say "we do it too" so we just mention it. Demanding Trump mention it is just you wanting Trump to fuck up and look bad, but in the process hurt the relationship with the opposing nuclear superpower, not help it.
And if you honestly think that if it was Obama up there, that you'd suggest Obama to tell Putin off, then ask yourself why Obama said nothing when they found those Russians hacking crimes in 2016 and then later on he said that there was no way you could even rig a US election. That proves it wasn't that serious.
You cannot refuse to take it seriously then and only pretend to now because you lost.

Also really tired of the stock file reasons most people give me why Russia and their government is more morally inferior to our countries.
The people that I speak to who criticize Russia know nothing about Russia.
"Putin kill journalists KGB poison shoot down airliner invade Ukraine hate gays"
It's quite easy to tell who has bothered to do some research, or even someone who's interested in learning more about the truth instead of following the hate-trend.
Also I will say, that this whole debacle is making 4-5 million Russian-Americans very uncomfortable. They know that this is mostly agenda-driven, war-baiting nonsense but they've had to listen to it for years already and it may lead to stigmatizing an entire people.

Check this out, more evidence of irrational Russia agenda.
A video of Silicon Valley representatives testifying in front of the House.
They are flatly asked a simple question whether they know if other countries are also attacking us.
We all know the answer is YES but they refuse to answer. Yet they have pages and pages on Russia!
Bullshit. Lies. Bias. Agenda.

Tech giants squirm and dodge when grilled about China & N. Korea "election meddling" (VIDEO)
https://www.rt.com/usa/433646-tech-giants-dodge-us-house/


 
Last edited:
...serious international relations...
somebody should tell your guy trump.

Here's an interesting hypothetical: would you prefer Hillary as president and war with Russia, or Trump as president and peace with Russia? If you say Clinton then we can't be friends.
it's not that interesting - it's a false dilemma which is rarely useful.

i get it. you feel you're an independent thinker and those who disagree with you can't possibly also be independent thinkers. you like trump a lot and, it appears, there's almost nothing he can do to change that opinion. you'll (demonstrably) defend or make excuses for pretty much anything he says or does.

he blew this putin meeting and the conference afterwards. democrats believe that. republicans believe it. his hated cnn believes it. fox news - hell, even fox and friends - believe it. you're pretty much the only person here who seems to disagree. to me, that's telling...

alasdair
 
Last edited:
No because I'm saying that the entire situation is ridiculous. You're such an independent thinker yet you can't get out of this paradigm of "Trump needed to lambast Putin".
What exactly did you want him to say, would you have been happy with it, and how do you want US's relationship to Russia to be?

By the way Tucker Carlson on FOX, one of the few voices of reason left in the media pretty much agrees with me. +Rand Paul
 
https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/international/im-not-trump-says-trump-20180718175427

"DONALD Trump has denied being this ‘President Trump’ who has apparently done something bad.

The US leader looked exaggeratedly around the White House conference room when his actions at the Helsinki summit were criticised in an apparent attempt to locate the individual under discussion.

Trump said: “Trump? Trump who? Never heard of him.

“I’ll get my people on it, to look for him. Bring him to justice so fast. So much justice.

“Me? John Barron, businessman, operating out of New York City. Which I own. Currently dating Gigi Hadid but you didn’t hear that from me. You can print it, though, okay? Just say ‘anonymous source’.

“Look like him? He must be a good-looking guy, sure. Maybe he didn’t do anything wrong, did you think of that? That’s what I heard.”

The President then left the room and returned moments later, clapping his hands and announcing that he was back and no more questions would be taken."
 
Obama Bashes Identity Politics: Don’t Dismiss Voices Because They’re ‘White’ or ‘Male’



+1 Obama


Los Angeles Times said:
Early Thursday, the Trump administration said officials had reunited 57 of 103 young migrant children separated from their parents, but have not returned another 46 for reasons including deportation and criminal histories of some of the adults.

The federal government began its first major wave of reuniting migrant children with their parents on Tuesday, the deadline set by U.S. District Judge Dana Sabraw for those children younger than 5. Sabraw ordered the reunifications after a class-action lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union.

Of 103 children younger than 5 who were covered by the court case, 57 had been reunited as of 7 a.m., officials said. Forty-six were "acknowledged by the court to be ineligible for reunification or determined by HHS, DHS and DOJ to be ineligible under court-approved criteria."
 
Last edited:
^The comments section on youtube is always gross, but on that video... particularly gross.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top