At 2/22/18 12:21 AM, tyler2513 wrote:

At 2/22/18 12:12 AM, EdyKel wrote:

At 2/21/18 10:29 PM, tyler2513 wrote: Yes I'm sure Obama knows everything.

And yet, Trump, and many others, are using hindsight to blame Obama for not doing enough - even though, Trump, and his supporters, are being vague on what they would have done in his place. But, it's a safe bet that Trump wouldn't have done anything, but tried to hide it - unless he blurts it out when in an interview, or one of his people leaks it in an attempt to save their own ass.

This is pure hypothetical speculation.

So are the reasons for why Obama didn't seem to do enough about Russia early on. The fact is that Trump, and his supporters, are just trying to get around the pesky fact that Russia's interference benefited Trump, and Republicans. It no reason why they want to distance themselves from this, and try to change the subject it to it being about Obama, what he should or shouldn't have done, while not really indicating what they would have done differently.

And I'm just going by what has been occurring for the past year with leaks coming from the white house, and Trump's own actions towards the Russian investigation - which even you admit he has now admitted that they interfered, after a year of denying it.

If Trump was tough on Russia he would be going through with the sanction against them, instead of not doing it. No, Trump wants to start another cold war - mostly with China. He thinks he can bring the country together, along with prosperity, under fear of foreign countries. It's why he's gung-ho for increased military spending, and domestic law enforcement agencies. All that will do is isolate our country, but lead to higher prices, inflation, and more domestic surveillance, and less rights for the average person. That's what happened in the past with the cold war.

According to your own criteria on what it means to be 'tough on Russia' Obama must have been pretty collaborative with them too. A lot of this is just attributing motive.

Really? The sanctions he put on Russia, or kicking their ambassadors out of the country, was not tough enough. And you think that Trump inviting those ambassadors back, and holding personnel meetings with them in the white house (telling them that he fired the person investigating Russia's interference in the election), or going out of his way not to enforce sanctions against them, is him being tough on them? LOL

If you actually look at what he's doing it's little different than how Russia currently operate under Putin. The Russian economy relies on arm sales and oil, and that is what Trump want to do here. It's why he's hell bent on on killing off green energy, and helping out the oil Industry. It's It why he is supplying american arms to rebels, and other foreign countries - like Israel and Saudi Arabia. People like Trump, and Putin, want conflict in the world, it's profitable to the right people, and it cements their power - and using nationalism as a tool for those things.

Yeah that's not a far fetched comparison at all. You notice he's also like Kim Jong-Un because he's really loud and angry and claims his country is the best on the planet? I'm telling you man, less rights for the average American. But on a serious note, the only talk about the average American rights I've seen from Trump is when he defends their right to own a firearm, what rights are exactly being infringed? I don't think he's going to be entrenching on privacy rights through the NSA like Obama/Bush did for 8 years each thanks to that Snowden debacle.

You know, Trump is going to do more on gun control than Obama did in 8 years over it. It's rather silly, but Trump is going to outlaw bump stocks. It's not going to do a damn thing, but it's still more than Obama did, who actually loosened laws over them..
And I believe that Obama also tried to reign in the abuse of domestic surveillance that was passed through by a pro-gun Republican president, and Congress. So what is Trump going to do about it? I expect him to expand it, calling it freedom or some other misleading name, using some nationalistic sentiment to make people feel patriotic about losing their right and being spied upon - just like how the freedom, gun, loving Republicans passed the Patriot act.

And I have a pretty low view of gun activists, along with gun control activist. But I often shake my head when it comes to gun activist these days, as they are often the first to give up their rights, or others, in defense to buy any type of gun, as they support other ways to prevent gun violence that ends up in bigger prisons, more surveillance to prevent it, and other pro-active policies that infringe on due process and privacy.

At 2/22/18 01:27 AM, EdyKel wrote: You know, Trump is going to do more on gun control than Obama did in 8 years over it. It's rather silly, but Trump is going to outlaw bump stocks. It's not going to do a damn thing, but it's still more than Obama did, who actually loosened laws over them..

memorandums don't do shit, Obama proved that on the issue. plus it was for Sessions to look into it, and look into the ATFs power (which it has very little) which is regulatory under current Federal law bump stocks don't make the right action to warrant regulation since the ATF already verified it didn't break the law. the only thing they can do is go through Congress that has that power to legislate to be able to change the regulations.

otherwise I call this a red herring or a feint to get a backdoor mandatory constitutional ruling by the Supreme Court on the issue for the gun lobby. I think that's what Trump is up to that or just lip service who knows.

And I have a pretty low view of gun activists, along with gun control activist. But I often shake my head when it comes to gun activist these days, as they are often the first to give up their rights, or others, in defense to buy any type of gun, as they support other ways to prevent gun violence that ends up in bigger prisons, more surveillance to prevent it, and other pro-active policies that infringe on due process and privacy.

that's funny I'm anti-surveillance and anti pro-active policing and anything that violates due process a majority are just like me when it comes to the Constitution that aren't backward sheep and bothered to learn it.

At 2/22/18 07:25 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:

At 2/22/18 01:27 AM, EdyKel wrote: You know, Trump is going to do more on gun control than Obama did in 8 years over it. It's rather silly, but Trump is going to outlaw bump stocks. It's not going to do a damn thing, but it's still more than Obama did, who actually loosened laws over them..

memorandums don't do shit, Obama proved that on the issue. plus it was for Sessions to look into it, and look into the ATFs power (which it has very little) which is regulatory under current Federal law bump stocks don't make the right action to warrant regulation since the ATF already verified it didn't break the law. the only thing they can do is go through Congress that has that power to legislate to be able to change the regulations.

otherwise I call this a red herring or a feint to get a backdoor mandatory constitutional ruling by the Supreme Court on the issue for the gun lobby. I think that's what Trump is up to that or just lip service who knows.

Still more than Obama could do, without the trained response of the gun community crying the sky is falling, and rushing off like a bunch of herrings to buy up guns and ammo - then blame government for the shortage of ammo.

And I have a pretty low view of gun activists, along with gun control activist. But I often shake my head when it comes to gun activist these days, as they are often the first to give up their rights, or others, in defense to buy any type of gun, as they support other ways to prevent gun violence that ends up in bigger prisons, more surveillance to prevent it, and other pro-active policies that infringe on due process and privacy.

that's funny I'm anti-surveillance and anti pro-active policing and anything that violates due process a majority are just like me when it comes to the Constitution that aren't backward sheep and bothered to learn it.

Yeah, I Keep seeing your words, and I read differently in the news. We got the largest prison system in the world for our population size. We got huge government agencies scanning for anything to prevent some terrorist attack, or other criminal offenses. We got people enjoying being frisk to go into public places, and their personnel stuff searched. A lot of this shit has lead to the decline of gun violence. But ,again, as we both know, your only interested when it actually affects you, or people you know. Fuck everyone else. So, your interpretation of the Constitution really doesn't mean a whole lot to me when it just centers around you.

At 2/22/18 12:25 PM, EdyKel wrote: Still more than Obama could do, without the trained response of the gun community crying the sky is falling, and rushing off like a bunch of herrings to buy up guns and ammo - then blame government for the shortage of ammo.

yet the Government buys rounds up by the billions ;).

Yeah, I Keep seeing your words, and I read differently in the news.

mmm CNN yummy.

We got the largest prison system in the world for our population size.

I could care less thats not my problem.

We got huge government agencies scanning for anything to prevent some terrorist attack, or other criminal offenses.

and the FBI and that Florida Sheriff department did such a great job "investigating" that shooter when both of them got tipped off about the shooter, and did bumkiss!

We got people enjoying being frisk to go into public places, and their personnel stuff searched.

hey thats the most attention some people have gotten in years don't be shamin yo. ;). though in all seriousness street beat stop and frisk are probably borderline illegal I did a google search there is precedent in favor of it from back in the 60s but they need to be reasonable.

But ,again, as we both know, your only interested when it actually affects you, or people you know. Fuck everyone else. So, your interpretation of the Constitution really doesn't mean a whole lot to me when it just centers around you.

for the most part I care about constitutional rights of everyone unless they break the usual NAP and (play stupid games you get the stupid prize as a consequence), and I know that I'm only one guy and I can't change the world to my whims if I have to deal with it I will but that doesn't mean I won't voice my opinion.
I don't like when slippery slope bullshit can be used as potential precedent for constitutional infringements.

At 2/22/18 01:04 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: yet the Government buys rounds up by the billions ;).

So, you're telling me you honestly don't believe that the massive propaganda campaign the NRA, and other gun lobbies and their sympathizers did with the election of Obama (which played in part of the cynical, nihilistic, and racist view that a black President would have "revenge on whitey" at the top of his agenda), who was portrayed as a crazy gun hating liberal who was out to shred at least the interpretations of the Second Amendment on day 1 had absolutely NOTHING to do with increased private gun and ammunition sales? Because I can't believe you are. I know you're smarter then that.

I could care less thats not my problem.

Sure it is. You pay taxes right? It's part of the governments budget right? This is the problem with your view Tony. You keep assuming none of this stuff touches you because you don't see the direct impact onto your life, but it is impacting you.

and the FBI and that Florida Sheriff department did such a great job "investigating" that shooter when both of them got tipped off about the shooter, and did bumkiss!

They fucked this one hard. As Wade pointed out on his facebook, we shut down a school shooting in England by just taking a couple of posts seriously enough to do some investigation and get in touch with the local police department. Law enforcement dropped the ball hard here and any call for reforms and change has to ask the simple questions of "why did they fuck this up?" and "what can be done to not let it happen again?"

though in all seriousness street beat stop and frisk are probably borderline illegal I did a google search there is precedent in favor of it from back in the 60s but they need to be reasonable.

Stop and frisk has been repeatedly ruled Un-Constitutional. It's a pretty clear 4th amendment violation to my mind.

I don't like when slippery slope bullshit can be used as potential precedent for constitutional infringements.

Should never be. But I think we also have to remember that Constitutional rights were written broadly, and a lot of what we believe is "settled" there is things that have simply come from court interpretations that are well removed from the Founders who wrote the thing. My own personal belief is that we widely misinterpret the 2nd Amendment from a man on the street perspective that has also bled into the courts because of effective lobbying efforts. I doubt most people actually know the full text of the amendment. In much the same way they don't really understand The 1st either.

At 2/22/18 07:45 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

So, you're telling me you honestly don't believe that the massive propaganda campaign the NRA, and other gun lobbies and their sympathizers did with the election of Obama (which played in part of the cynical, nihilistic, and racist view that a black President would have "revenge on whitey" at the top of his agenda), who was portrayed as a crazy gun hating liberal who was out to shred at least the interpretations of the Second Amendment on day 1 had absolutely NOTHING to do with increased private gun and ammunition sales? Because I can't believe you are. I know you're smarter then that.

I chalk Obama's policies down to the left leaning learning institutions and the Democratic Party more than anything. he even had to change his tune after the SCOTUS constitutional ruling, that and the Democrat controlled Congress up until 2012 that drove the fear I mean that gave Feinstein ample opportunity. I don't remember too much on the subject of gun control back then because I was still in High School and more worried about the economy and finding my place in the world.
And are we talking his 08 election or his 12 election or both? because Dems had control of Congress and and they had Feinstein lobbying continually for expanded control but never could or did especially after Heller and Mcdonald beating Obama's home city by SCOTUS even when there was momentum after tragedies that occurred gave opportunity for an AWB which drove up sales.
it also doesn't help that that ammo manufacturers have dedicated plants for production the Military has them that run 24/7 that are government owned but contracted out, while Federal, State and Local along with citizens get their own manufacturer pool which they have to share the overall manufactured product. DHS alone buys hundreds of millions for both operations and training, while States and Local may buy tens to hundreds of thousands for ongoing operations and training, then the biggest would be for commercial use for citizens who might buy the leftovers.

I could see scarcity when that shared pool starts getting eaten up.

Sure it is. You pay taxes right? It's part of the governments budget right? This is the problem with your view Tony. You keep assuming none of this stuff touches you because you don't see the direct impact onto your life, but it is impacting you.

I pay as little as possible, won't go into details. but no not really I even have a nifty little graph for me on sales and other tax rates for two states on the border I live on to see which is cheaper :). and I try to have the foresight to buy or acquire, whatever before something happens like a ban or a buy low sell high sort of situation to make a quick buck.

They fucked this one hard. As Wade pointed out on his facebook, we shut down a school shooting in England by just taking a couple of posts seriously enough to do some investigation and get in touch with the local police department. Law enforcement dropped the ball hard here and any call for reforms and change has to ask the simple questions of "why did they fuck this up?" and "what can be done to not let it happen again?"

Stop and frisk has been repeatedly ruled Un-Constitutional. It's a pretty clear 4th amendment violation to my mind.

see thats what I thought but apparently not true when I first made that statement I looked at a LegalZoom article, the NYC way they were doing was because they were profiling (ignore the election shit) and they can if there is reasonable suspicion by said officer called a Terry Stop

it's messed up man.

At 2/22/18 07:45 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: They fucked this one hard. As Wade pointed out on his facebook, we shut down a school shooting in England by just taking a couple of posts seriously enough to do some investigation and get in touch with the local police department.

Fake news Sirtom tried burning it down also I was there I got banned for posting in the thread lol. I'd wonder if you coud go that fr back into my ban history and look it up.

Law enforcement dropped the ball hard here and any call for reforms and change has to ask the simple questions of "why did they fuck this up?" and "what can be done to not let it happen again?"

The FBI fucked up hard and the sheriffs deputies as well. another three have been found out for not going in. and all of them had training for active shooter training yet the local PD entered.

At 2/24/18 02:25 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:

At 2/22/18 07:45 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: They fucked this one hard. As Wade pointed out on his facebook, we shut down a school shooting in England by just taking a couple of posts seriously enough to do some investigation and get in touch with the local police department.

Fake news Sirtom tried burning it down also I was there I got banned for posting in the thread lol. I'd wonder if you coud go that fr back into my ban history and look it up.

I reckon avie was making a point about the rapid involvement of the police, rather than anything regarding the weapon of choice.

At 2/24/18 02:45 PM, TurkeyOnAStick wrote: I reckon avie was making a point about the rapid involvement of the police, rather than anything regarding the weapon of choice.

I know I was just trying to be snarky.

At 2/24/18 03:06 PM, SolidPantsSnake wrote:

At 2/24/18 02:45 PM, TurkeyOnAStick wrote: I reckon avie was making a point about the rapid involvement of the police, rather than anything regarding the weapon of choice.

Even though it was brought up while discussing gun policy?

Yes.

He was even talking about [a different topic] later in that same post.

Yes, people can do that.

At 2/24/18 04:51 PM, SolidPantsSnake wrote: So lets agree that we disagree

I’d prefer it if you don’t disagree with people over petty stuff, thanks.

====
Regarding Trump’s response to the situation by suggesting armed teachers in schools, I can’t help but feel that it’s more smokescreening to avoid anything that may be considered as considerable tampering of the second amendment. It will be a talking point for a while, sure, but once we’ve concluded that civilians shouldn’t be put into life-and-death situations it will be back to the status quo.

At 2/24/18 02:45 PM, TurkeyOnAStick wrote: I reckon avie was making a point about the rapid involvement of the police, rather than anything regarding the weapon of choice.

You reckon right sir. It's this "can't see the forest for the trees" type of discussion that has me lurking more, posting less these days. It's not that terribly hard to have a sensible, informed discussion about big issues to my mind...I despair that I am increasingly proven wrong.

At 2/23/18 09:50 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: I chalk Obama's policies down....

That was in no way the questions I was asking or anywhere near it. Please try reading again.

And are we talking his 08 election or his 12 election or both? because Dems had control of Congress and and they had Feinstein lobbying continually for expanded control but never could or did especially after Heller and Mcdonald beating Obama's home city by SCOTUS even when there was momentum after tragedies that occurred gave opportunity for an AWB which drove up sales.

I'm talking about both, gun sales spiked immediately after his initial election, and stayed high afterwards. I fail to see how a AWB ban would drive up sales on ALL guns, which is what I'm referring to. We also had an AWB in effect under Clinton, and gun sales did not see a similar or even comparable spike. Also Dems have been lobbying for expanded control for awhile now and done fuck all to get it. I also note increased right win activity on guns and militias (which I tend to feel also inflame the issue) even after the Dems lost Congress. How do you account for this?

it also doesn't help that that ammo manufacturers have dedicated plants for production the Military has them that run 24/7 that are government owned but contracted out, while Federal, State and Local along with citizens get their own manufacturer pool which they have to share the overall manufactured product. DHS alone buys hundreds of millions for both operations and training, while States and Local may buy tens to hundreds of thousands for ongoing operations and training, then the biggest would be for commercial use for citizens who might buy the leftovers.

Are you suggesting increased buying is due to some sort of ammo shortage? If so, could you post some articles about this? It's not an issue I've ever heard of, but if a thing I'd be very much obliged to you for helping me educate myself on this issue

I could see scarcity when that shared pool starts getting eaten up.

You "could see" this. Neat. Anything to back that up? Any one sounding that alarm bell? Or is this just a personal surmise?

I pay as little as possible, won't go into details.

Not asking you to. Just pointing out if you pay in anything, you're money is possibly and probably being spent on things you may not like. Or by partaking in services, or just generally living in the country, you are effected by things you don't seem to recognize your effected by.

see thats what I thought but apparently not true when I first made that statement I looked at a LegalZoom article, the NYC way they were doing was because they were profiling (ignore the election shit) and they can if there is reasonable suspicion by said officer called a Terry Stop

it's messed up man.

I'm going to have to look into this one a bit more. I think that one may still be wending it's way through the courts to try and see if even that part is Constitutional. I do know the more broader elements of the program were tossed on 4th Amendment grounds, but we keep chipping away at the 4th in a bipartisan manner so much that it's really becoming a case where if you apply just a little creativity you can beat it.

At 2/25/18 04:20 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

That was in no way the questions I was asking or anywhere near it. Please try reading again.

oh no sorry misunderstood. excessive demand by the civilian sector certainly played a part, the ones who sheepishly bought the idea that Obama would do something with the Democrat controlled Congress bought into it and ruined it and for the rest of us with limited supplies at gouged prices. but by that time the Heller Ruling came in from SCOTUS and the Mcdonald, but that didn't stop them because they didn't know any better because now it was a court game.

I'm talking about both, gun sales spiked immediately after his initial election, and stayed high afterwards. I fail to see how a AWB ban would drive up sales on ALL guns, which is what I'm referring to. We also had an AWB in effect under Clinton, and gun sales did not see a similar or even comparable spike. Also Dems have been lobbying for expanded control for awhile now and done fuck all to get it. I also note increased right win activity on guns and militias (which I tend to feel also inflame the issue) even after the Dems lost Congress. How do you account for this?

that's because after 04 the AWB expired after 10 years and people could buy whatever they pretty much want after that, and three years post 9/11 you think people (with the mentality at the time) wanted to give up that right? and yes I can see and admit that Obama and a dem controlled congress would drive people to sheepishly buy stuff up especially with fears of another Feinstein control bill.

Are you suggesting increased buying is due to some sort of ammo shortage? If so, could you post some articles about this? It's not an issue I've ever heard of, but if a thing I'd be very much obliged to you for helping me educate myself on this issue

trying to ramp up Iraq increased Homeland Security operations bout 1.6 Billion rounds all for homeland training and operations, and here's another stating said purchase is for the next four or five years. and these articles were made in 2013 so if they buy in batches like that every four to five (because you get a discount if you go in bulk) and take a certain amount right off the belts once made trying to fill that order for the government and the excessive consumer demand due to Obama's election and a Dem congress the idea of not enough to go around could be possible. luckily it has caused manufacturers to expand a little if such demand happens again and run 24/7

You "could see" this. Neat. Anything to back that up? Any one sounding that alarm bell? Or is this just a personal surmise?

personal surmise

Not asking you to. Just pointing out if you pay in anything, you're money is possibly and probably being spent on things you may not like. Or by partaking in services, or just generally living in the country, you are effected by things you don't seem to recognize your effected by.

oh god I HAVE A VIDEO FOR THIS., I know my money is spent on stupid shit but I also adult enough to know I can't do anything about it individually, that's why I try weasel my way out of paying as much as I can to undermine them as petty "F you".

I'm going to have to look into this one a bit more. I think that one may still be wending it's way through the courts to try and see if even that part is Constitutional. I do know the more broader elements of the program were tossed on 4th Amendment grounds, but we keep chipping away at the 4th in a bipartisan manner so much that it's really becoming a case where if you apply just a little creativity you can beat it.

yeah probably, the broader were thrown out but Terry Stops are still legal and I don't understand how after reading the wiki page, I literally made a pot of coffee sat down read reread and googled some of the big words and latin I didn't understand.

At 2/25/18 05:05 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: oh no sorry misunderstood.

It happens. Didn't quote the rest because it seems to me a reasonable grasp on the issue and anything I might add in is admittedly speculative and while I think I could offer some "preponderence of the evidence" stuff. It'd probably just end with us agreeing to disagree so....think I'd rather skip it, especially because we're kind of doing pure guns right now in a topic that's supposed to be about the POTUS.

that's because after 04 the AWB expired after 10 years and people could buy whatever they pretty much want after that, and three years post 9/11 you think people (with the mentality at the time) wanted to give up that right? and yes I can see and admit that Obama and a dem controlled congress would drive people to sheepishly buy stuff up especially with fears of another Feinstein control bill.

That was really my point. I don't think you can talk about an AWB as the be all end all cause of the issue. Contributing? Yeah, I think you're making a good case. But with a Dem controlled Congress, and the radical strawman of a liberal they tried to make Obama out to be (which I think was clearly for some quarters because it just wouldn't have gained traction to admit their actual issue), that seems more then likely what caused the situation.

trying to ramp up Iraq increased Homeland Security operations bout 1.6 Billion rounds all for homeland training and operations, and here's another stating said purchase is for the next four or five years. and these articles were made in 2013 so if they buy in batches like that every four to five (because you get a discount if you go in bulk) and take a certain amount right off the belts once made trying to fill that order for the government and the excessive consumer demand due to Obama's election and a Dem congress the idea of not enough to go around could be possible. luckily it has caused manufacturers to expand a little if such demand happens again and run 24/7

So...it's educated speculation, but in the end, still speculative it seems?

personal surmise

You know that doesn't really meet the bar of "evidence" for a debate, even informal ones like we have here. ;)

yeah probably, the broader were thrown out but Terry Stops are still legal and I don't understand how after reading the wiki page, I literally made a pot of coffee sat down read reread and googled some of the big words and latin I didn't understand.

Legal standards probably. As I said, things like The Patriot Act have done an absolute number on 4th amendment protections to the point that as I said before a little creative wrangling with your wording (and not even super creative) and you can turn just about any privacy violation legal unless somebody with money and organization gets involved and whacks you hard.

So does anyone know why Mr. 45 is randomly starting a trade war with most other countries right now? Legitimately asking, because I can't find where any reasoning has come from, other than him throwing out the quote "[Under the right circumstance] trade wars are good and easy to win."

Believe it or not, if used as an alternative to actual war to persuade another country to act in a particular way (say, to make China take more strict action against NK, for example), but just nilly willy it looks like everything to lose and nothing to gain, here. What am I missing, here?

:/

At 3/2/18 04:49 PM, Gario wrote: So does anyone know why Mr. 45 is randomly starting a trade war with most other countries right now? Legitimately asking, because I can't find where any reasoning has come from, other than him throwing out the quote "[Under the right circumstance] trade wars are good and easy to win."

Believe it or not, if used as an alternative to actual war to persuade another country to act in a particular way (say, to make China take more strict action against NK, for example), but just nilly willy it looks like everything to lose and nothing to gain, here. What am I missing, here?

/

Like for a lot of things, Trump is just trying to act tough, to scare people (countries) into doing what he wants, while also hoping to appeal to his working class base - which might have slipped due to his recent comments on guns. He may be hoping to get a better trade deal with these countries, but it's unlikely he'll get much. And if he goes through with his threats on imposing tariffs then all it's going to lead to is a trade wars and higher prices for everyone - it's why it didn't work during the great depression. And if Trump is so fixated on the stock market then this is the last thing he wants to do. So, this seems more of a bluff than anything else, and other countries will call him out for it..

I think he may try to impose some superficial tariff, or something that seems like it but doesn't have any teeth to it, then claimed he delivered on his promise, like the one on Obamacare - even though he never repealed it, but claimed he did. This is just they type of President Trump is, loud and superficial, and idiotic.

you know I've always wondered what a trade war looks like, I've read about them in historical context and my fiction and fantasy stories. I kinda wanna see where this heads to and see how it works.

Soooo..... Trump is going to meet with Rocket man, Kim Jong Un. Not sure what what this will lead to, but I figure that this smart cookie is either going to outwit Trump in some way, or Trump will claim some sort of superficial victory over the talks like he usually does on things.

At 3/2/18 06:12 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: you know I've always wondered what a trade war looks like, I've read about them in historical context and my fiction and fantasy stories. I kinda wanna see where this heads to and see how it works.

I hope you like recessions.

At 3/8/18 08:34 PM, EdyKel wrote: Soooo..... Trump is going to meet with Rocket man, Kim Jong Un. Not sure what what this will lead to, but I figure that this smart cookie is either going to outwit Trump in some way, or Trump will claim some sort of superficial victory over the talks like he usually does on things.

Probably won't lead to anything, except as you said a superficial victory. I have to say though, I am impressed Trump was able to arrange a meeting.

At 3/9/18 01:59 AM, Atlas wrote: I have to say though, I am impressed Trump was able to arrange a meeting.

I think one of the Koreas deserve the credit for that, as they had talks with each other following the Winter Olympics.

All sides will take this as an opportunity to score points with their country where possible.

At 3/9/18 03:09 AM, TurkeyOnAStick wrote:

At 3/9/18 01:59 AM, Atlas wrote: I have to say though, I am impressed Trump was able to arrange a meeting.

I think one of the Koreas deserve the credit for that, as they had talks with each other following the Winter Olympics.

^^^

this

South Korea has done a lot to talk down north korea get them to participate in the games.

All trumps military rhetoric may score points at home, but when your country will be the front of a significant war, possibly nuclear and has some very densely populated cities near the border, you see the flaws in a war regardless of us winning.

Honestly the best thing that can come out of these talks will be trump not completely fucking everything up.

At 3/9/18 07:16 AM, Heretic-Anchorite wrote: Honestly the best thing that can come out of these talks will be trump not completely fucking everything up.

If nothing comes from these talks except a nice chat between Don and Kim I'll take that as a W.

At 3/9/18 12:22 PM, Atlas wrote: If nothing comes from these talks except a nice chat between Don and Kim I'll take that as a W.

or the greatest meme generating thing to happen so far in this century.

so begins the great meme war: World War Meme.

At 3/9/18 12:29 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: or the greatest meme generating thing to happen so far in this century.

so begins the great meme war: World War Meme.

I'm not doing much these days. I might as well join up and fight in the Meme War.

At 3/9/18 03:55 PM, Atlas wrote: I'm not doing much these days. I might as well join up and fight in the Meme War.

its the only war that matters son, Uncle Pepe Wants You!

At 3/9/18 04:48 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: its the only war that matters son, Uncle Pepe Wants You!

And I want Uncle Pepe!

Another bizarre action by Trump - which, I know, isn't unusual anymore. He just pardoned a Navy sailor who mishandled classified information, who's lawyer used the Clinton's defense for him, and claimed that by going on Fox News he was able to grab the presidents attention to get his client that pardon.

Anyways, by this action, did Trump just undermined one of his cases against Clinton for her handling of classified e-mails over her personnel server. It certainly seems that way.

Rex Tillerson has been fired.

...almost immediately after blaming Russia for the poisoning of Sergei Skripal.

hmmmmmmmmmmm...