Shoney'sPonyBoy

Nobody said it was hard, but your original criticism isn't what you're really after here. Nothing about those two approaches is any different in terms of being "serious" or "Intelligent," which is what you said was the problem, as they communicate the same ideas. Thus my confusion. What you want is for people to be more polite. (Ostensibly, anyway. I haven't found this forum to be very polite up to now, but maybe you're trying to influence a change.) O.k., now that we've accurately communicated the expectation and I know what you really want, thanks for the clarification.

So what if I had said, "Your characterization of people carrying AR-15s in public seems to be a bit narrow, as groups such as the Black Panthers or the people who took over part of Seattle during the George Floyd protests carried them as well. What—if any—characteristics differentiate those people carrying AR-15s in public from the people you were talking about? Or in your opinion, does your characterization apply to anyone who carries an AR-15 in public for any reason?" What then? Because I got to exactly the same place with a lot fewer words with my original post. And if you're still going to claim that the above isn't a serious inquiry, in order to have any credibility whatsoever you're going to have to explain why. I already asked what the big difference between the clarifying questions you asked above and what I asked, and you didn't answer. You posted a link to your question, but I already knew that (I'm the one who brought it up, remember?). So we could start with that.

That's quite arrogant. This is exactly why I almost never post here.

Not being resistant to your directive, but what makes those questions non-serious or not intelligent? I genuinely don't understand. You asked for clarification about someone's stance regarding the death penalty and commented on someone's stance on immigration above. What makes that different than the questions I asked? My questions were brief, yes, but I'm trying to understand more about the thought process before potentially proceeding.

Such as what?

Also got Architect.

https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-business-europe-middle-east-india-ad0ad81c4e7003f62a00af842513b435

So you think Russia Today faked the multiple videos of Zelenski telling everyone pre-invasion that Biden had promised to protect Ukraine? Might need to polish that tin-foil hat of yours. And I don't think there was a single thing in that video about Trump, although it is very telling that your entire response was only about Trump. If I were honor-bound to never admit a single mistake or wrong act EVER that anyone in my party had made I guess I might whatabout all over myself too. But do you have anything at all to say about our current president—the subject of the videos, the guy who is actually responsible for dealing with this, the guy on whose watch this occurred? No? O.k. Trump's no spring chicken, you know. One day he's going to die. It will be the saddest day of many of your lives because you will no longer have him to deflect everything to. For example, there's an absolute idiot a couple of posts above who wants people to think Trump had a mandate to change the entire country when he couldn't even win re-election.

If we're going to talk about not being hypocritical depending upon whether the POTUS has an R or a D beside his name, after watching that video I would like for you to type, "Biden lied, people died!" Or just STFU.

LOL. The circus called and they need you back in the mind-reader/fortune teller tent. I've never accused anyone of being unhinged for keeping their word. Since we're asking each other questions, watch this video and tell me you approve of Biden basically lying to Ukraine about supporting them.

Disagree all you want, I guess. You're making the claim that a guy who was barely elected the first time—didn't win the popular vote— and couldn't even win re-election once had more support to make significant structural changes than any Democrat going back to FDR, who was elected FOUR TIMES and would have been elected more if he hadn't died, and all of his election were by comfortable margins if not landslides. It's a patently ridiculous claim. And the comments regarding Clinton and Obama is me trying to figure out what you're even talking about making such a claim. You said Trump had a lot of "unconditional support." That certainly can't mean from the opposing party, as that's clearly not true. In fact, the true statement there would be that he had a lot of unconditional opposition. It can't mean from within his own party, as his entire term was characterized by Republicans breaking ranks to oppose him. So it has to mean just ordinary citizens. "Unconditional" being the important word. The ones who, as he famously said, he could shoot someone in the face and they would still support him. Like the people who still supported Clinton despite having been exposed as a sexual harasser of women, a criminal perjurer, and a probable rapist. Unconditional support. Regardless of anything he did. You're literally claiming that Trump had more of that than Clinton. Who was elected twice and would have been elected again if he could have been. Obama's behavior didn't ever rise to the level of Clinton's or Trump's, but again, he was elected comfortably the first time and in a landslide the second time. There's no reason to believe he was lacking in "unconditional support." And yes, Trump had Congress for two years. So did Obama. So did Clinton. So do most presidents b/c of the dynamic between the POTUS and midterm elections. So what? Possibly the most absurd thing you're claiming is that Republicans calling Democratic policies socialist or saying they are soft on crime is such a blow to the popularity of Democratic presidents that they just didn't have the support they need to do anything. Good grief, man. Democrats have every major tv news outlet except for one carrying their water. They have NPR, PBS, almost every university in the country, and almost the entire entertainment industry. Basically all Republicans have is Fox News, talk radio, and a few DIY personalities on YouTube. Trump (whether you believe he deserved it or not is again, not the point here) got more criticism from all of those influencers of public opinion than any president I can ever remember. Metric tons more than Obama. Orders of magnitude more than Clinton. He probably got more criticism from those influencers of public though than all the rest combined. (If I am not mistaken, this was actually studied and confirmed, btw.) To try to claim that Trump had an advantage over Democratic presidents because Republicans say "socialism" or "soft on crime" while almost the entirety of public influencers are shouting "racism" and "fascism" about Trump is so absurd I don't know what to say about it. The one thing I will say is that Democrats are so afraid of the word "socialism" that they've let a guy run for POTUS under their banner TWICE now who calls himself a Democratic Socialist. Yeah, they're scared of that word, all right. This whole thing is just too absurd for words.

I can't see that as anything other than a ridiculous statement. The opposing party was literally promising to obstruct Trump before he even took office. He faced division and opposition from within his own party that I haven't seen from another POTUS's party in my lifetime (and the fact that he deserved it is not the point, so please don't reply with that.) If you're talking about members of his base, three things about that: 1. Yes, he had a minority of the voting base who supported him no matter what. But how is that any different than the people who supported Bill Clinton even though he was a proven sexual harasser and perjurer and probable rapist? Obama never acted like either of the other two mentioned here, but you really think his core supporters would have balked at anything he wanted to do policy-wise? 2. So what? Having ordinary citizens support you doesn't mean "you have a lot of power." It doesn't help one bit with making structural reforms. Especially when you don't even have enough of them to get elected to a second term. 3. Did I mention it was a minority of the base? This is just literally silly.

How so?

O.k. Sorry I misinterpreted what you said and thanks for clearing it up.

The fact that we have minimum wage laws and too many regulatory agencies that drive up the cost of production means that we will never manufacture all or even most of our goods in America. It's just the way it is. As for government spending, we've foolishly involved the government in the economy over the past 100 years or so to the point that we can't cut government spending. that's why it never happens but only continues to grow regardless of who is in the WH or on the Hill. Federal, state, and local government employees, plus the military accounts for roughly 20% of the entire workforce of the United States. When you include the workers who are indirectly involved through government contracts, it's more like 23% How are you going to make significant cuts to that without wrecking the economy? The military is a jobs program. And not just the soldiers employed, but the civilian contractors and their employees. Trump found this out when he did all of his grandstanding about cutting the federal bureaucracy. He did make cuts in some agencies, but he grew other departments. I think the net cut was something like 2%. Because—he found out—you can't. Not suddenly, anyway. It would be a 30 or 40 year plan we'd have to work. This is also why pointing at other countries and saying that if they can adopt this or that model for health care we can too, is not necessarily true at all. We've created a situation in which we are the largest economy in the world and the way we've grown that economy has us painted in a corner. With the military, with health care, with the size of government, and I have come to believe, with the entitlements that you mentioned. How could we have been supposedly working on helping the poor since the mid-1960s and we haven't moved the needle on it at all? 50+ years in and we haven't moved the needle, and we keep doing the same things and trying the same strategies that obviously don't work. Why? I have come to believe that it's deliberate. I don't think we want to get a significant amount of people out of poverty, because the economy needs a significant portion of the population to be people who have to spend all the money they get to survive. I think the Ruling Class deliberately takes money from people who would otherwise save it or buy real estate with it or do something with it that would take the money out of liquid circulation and gives it to people who have no choice but to spend all of it to recirculate it through the economy and keep it liquid. I don't think the motivation is anything other than that. It's certainly not to decrease the number of poor people in America. Because that hasn't happened in over 50 years of trying, and trying the same stuff that obviously doesn't work. I honestly think a whole lot of stuff that we think is because of political differences really isn't. I think individuals in politics use political differences as a way to get themselves elected and blame the other party for not allowing them to "fix" these problems, but they couldn't fix them even if they had complete dictatorial power, and they know it. Not without giving up our position as the biggest economy in the world.

But that's a totally different argument. You started off by saying that us not honoring our commitment was moot because what other choice do other countries have but to trust us, even if we go back on our word? Now you're saying we're probably not really going back on our word. That's a totally different argument. I'm not trying to argue that Trump is good for international relations. He's not. But that's not the point. The point is that if your original statement and reasoning is correct, our international relations don't matter because other countries have no choice but to work with us anyway.

My fingers are crossed. And if it works, credit to where it's due, and that includes Biden.

How does that make sense? Biden can refuse to honor an agreement between the US and an ally and it's o.k. because the rest of the world has no choice, but Trump could somehow do something in his 2nd term that what...would give them a choice? Please explain the logic.

Maybe. I actually found a book (the name escapes me at the moment) that seems to answer my question above (have economic sanctions ever stopped anybody?) A Yale professor wrote it a few years back. His historical conclusion is no, it's never stopped anybody or anything. So if it works in this case it will be the first time in history (as far as his history is concerned, anyway.) BTW, according to the sources I read this morning, the invasion isn't going so well. Russian tanks keep running out of gas and soldiers keep (literally) getting lost. What if they're largely incompetent and we let them take and take and take anyway when we (NATO) could feasibly stop them just because Putin knows all he has to do is move to DEFCON 4 and we pee ourselves?

Thanks for the link—and I hope like hell that works—but there were a whole lot of ifs, ands, and buts in that article. For one thing, the more I read on it, the more I don't think this was a recent decision of Putin's. I think this is roughly the middle of a 20 year plan. Which suggests to me that there's no way he hasn't already thought of everything in that article. I don't think there's any way he'd be doing this right now if he didn't have a plan to deal with that contingency, and what scares the hell out of me is that—as the article made reference to—that plan almost certainly involves China. As the article said, these sorts of economic sanctions could literally force Russia and China closer together to the point that when—not if, IMO—Russia makes its big move, China could end up backing them militarily. Or, more likely, since they have already said that they will continue normal trade with Russia and are the only major government to have not condemned the invasion, they will end up being the subject of sanctions themselves, and everybody better lock arms real tight if that happens.

Not to be argumentative, but if that's the reality of the situation then all of the criticism of Trump with regard to foreign policy is moot as well. I can't see how Trump could possibly do anything worse than agree to protect another country in exchange for it giving up its means of self-protection and then not protect them when the time comes. So I suppose if he campaigns again in 2024, any talk of him alienating the rest of the world will be off the table, since it doesn't matter if he does anyway?

I don't disagree with the general idea that we need to cooperate with other like-minded countries. But how will any of them trust us in the future if we don't honor our commitment to protect Ukraine? Again, they gave up what they had to enable them to deter attacks and in return we promised to protect them if they did. Why would anyone believe us in the future if we ghost Ukraine on this? Or are you saying that providing military aid is sufficient to honor our commitment? Also, when you say you think Putin has over-reached and that Russia is going to suffer mightily, do you mean sanctions? Have sanctions ever stopped any authoritarian country from doing anything they were committed to doing? Or toppled an authoritarian ruler? Has that ever actually happened? I'm afraid the attack we're seeing now is probably a decade in the making. I'm afraid that it is a deliberate move as part of a long term plan to geo-defensively position Russia to do exactly what you said was a possibility above, which is mount a major attack on a NATO country. Not in five months, but maybe five to ten years. If we (and by we, I am definitely including all of NATO, not just the US) let Putin do this, I believe we are kicking the can down the road to the point that the war (which will happen either way) that happens five to ten years from now will dwarf the one that would happen now. By then Putin will have stockpiled massive weapons and missiles and troops and established bases within easy striking distance of eastern Europe, and by then he may also have the support of China. Assassinate Putin with a drone if that's what it takes. But stop this.

To me that falls under stopping this militarily, so I'm fine with that solution. Would make the next guy think twice as well.

I would take your first sentence and ascribe it to you with equal enthusiasm, as I never once "refused to see that a President who vigorously supports NATO and treats our allies with respect is the right thing to do here." You want to talk about a straw man, that is a regular scarecrow. I just pointed out that in your continual search to make everything bad about Trump and look for any crumbs of something positive you can ascribe to Biden, you started a thread that was supposedly about Biden and over half of it was about Trump and another significant portion of it was about something else. Your last sentence was the only one specifically about Biden. If you want to know what's telling, it's your false insistence that I claimed your one Biden statement was controversial or not true. But it being non-controversial doesn't mean it's any significant point. It's like saying, "I'm going to list all of the things that make Tom Brady a great NFL QB," then you list six items about the faults of Drew Bledsoe, two items about Bill Belichick, and on your way out the door say, "and Tom rarely fumbled." Me pointing out the wide gap between your headline and your actual post doesn't mean I am claiming that it's untrue that Brady rarely fumbled. And of course you know this. You're the one building straw men and that is the one you've decided to hide behind. Of course it doesn't hurt that Biden is willing to cooperate with NATO. Never said otherwise. But what remains to be seen is whether that makes any significant difference or not in this situation. Finally, you aren't obligated to have a conversation with me. Don't do it if you don't want to.

You might want to read the NYT article I posted on another thread regarding this. This isn't about Ukraine's independence, this is about a 100% strategic geo-defense shift regarding Eastern Europe. It's about making Poland, Romania, and Hungary vulnerable to the same threat, and leaving a very thin geographical area between Russia's nuclear and conventional weaponry and Eastern Europe. This isn't about Ukraine. This is about Putin making moves that could potentially start another World War...at least another Cold War. It would be in the best interest of NATO members to stop this. Read the article, then get back to me.