Radio Paradise

Recently Active Forum Topics:

Page: Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 990, 991, 992 ... 1140, 1141, 1142 Next

Post to this Topic

kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male

Posted: Nov 30, 2016 - 3:10pm

kurtster wrote:

Exactly. Trump ran on a non interventionist foreign policy. Something we haven't seen since Monroe. One reason I supported him.

To everyone else ... To those who say Trump has no clue regarding foreign policy ... Just exactly how much experience did the present occupant of the WH have going in ? Was he conducting business in 20 countries prior to taking office ? Just how many countries did he visit as an adult before taking office ? For that matter, just what experience did he have going in in anything that qualified him for POTUS more than Trump ? What did Obama run or operate ?

So we (the USA) are going to throw the Baltic States under the bus and give them back to Russia ? Says who ? And just why is it the responsibility of the USA (only) ? Can't the EU defend itself without the help of again, the USA ? If so why not ?

Its time that everyone starts pulling their own weight. The USA spent the entire 20th Century saving the world from itself and what have we got in return ? Hate is all.

The NWO and all the Globalists can go eff themselves.

Ya know, I addressed everyone's thoughts expressed below regarding Trump's potential foreign policy and not one response was directed at that. Not one.

Instead its a complete redirect to something different. I'll be happy to share my thoughts regarding those redirects, if my thoughts above are responded to.

steeler

steeler Avatar

Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth

Posted: Nov 30, 2016 - 12:32pm

Here is the thing about the whole "drain the swamp" promise and other promises like that: They are born out of a need to vilify those in power with whom you have policy differences (or, in some cases, to vilify those who are contending for the office or power you are seeking, even when there might not be significant policy differences). It is not enough to attack an opponent's policies. So, you have the recurring theme (from this year's campaign especially) of being someone who is not part of the "establishment." Someone who will "fix" what is wrong in Washington, D.C., and stand up to the Washington, D.C. "cartel." Some billionaires are not part of the establishment. Some incumbent Senators are not part of the establishment. Some members of the media are part of the establishment, but others are not Trump is not alone in making these types of claims, but he did up the ante on using vilification as a campaign strategy. Candidates for all kinds of offices are no longer just not the best choice, they actually are evil devils who need to be locked up. This is all smoke and mirrors. Us against Them stuff. And it works.

Steely_D

Steely_D Avatar

Location: Biscayne Bay
Gender: Male

Posted: Nov 30, 2016 - 10:32am

islander wrote:

I'm not sure which is more ridiculous, the shifting rationales, or the outright denial. Of course, given the candidate, neither is really surprising.

I think that's it. The idea that someone can be completely untested, caught in documentable severe contradictions or episodes of flagrant ignorance, be morally suspect (including being tone deaf to incest), and then beginning his term by picking the same people he'd vilified...

Then I have to stop and sincerely ask myself: The folks at FOX and other alt-right sites frothed mightily and incessantly about how Obama was this or that. And from my perspective they were so totally confabulating and caught up their own echo chamber. It was pathetic.

And now, the folks talking about Trump are using the same emotive dismay and anger. But...this time it's legit, isn't it?

Red_Dragon

Red_Dragon Avatar

Location: Dumbf*ckistan

Posted: Nov 30, 2016 - 10:09am
ScottFromWyoming wrote: I had a couple of Cuba Libres last night and will probably repeat the process tonight. ¡Viva!

ScottFromWyoming

ScottFromWyoming Avatar

Location: Powell
Gender: Male

Posted: Nov 30, 2016 - 10:02am
Red_Dragon wrote: I had a couple of Cuba Libres last night and will probably repeat the process tonight. ¡Viva!

Red_Dragon

Red_Dragon Avatar

Location: Dumbf*ckistan

Posted: Nov 30, 2016 - 9:52am

islander

islander Avatar

Location: West coast somewhere
Gender: Male

Posted: Nov 30, 2016 - 7:51am

NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:

kurtster wrote:

Aren't you the guy who thought trump was going to drain the swamp?

your feet kindly ask you to put away the gun.

I'm not sure which is more ridiculous, the shifting rationales, or the outright denial. Of course, given the candidate, neither is really surprising.

aflanigan

aflanigan Avatar

Location: At Sea
Gender: Male

Posted: Nov 30, 2016 - 7:45am
How to Manipulate an Emotional Weakling

Red_Dragon

Red_Dragon Avatar

Location: Dumbf*ckistan

Posted: Nov 30, 2016 - 6:15am
drainin' that swamp...

Red_Dragon

Red_Dragon Avatar

Location: Dumbf*ckistan

Posted: Nov 30, 2016 - 6:13am
drainin' that swamp...

NoEnzLefttoSplit

NoEnzLefttoSplit Avatar

Gender:

Posted: Nov 30, 2016 - 5:54am

kurtster wrote:

Aren't you the guy who thought trump was going to drain the swamp?

your feet kindly ask you to put away the gun.

kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male

Posted: Nov 30, 2016 - 5:39am

sirdroseph wrote:

If Russia was doing exactly what the US has been doing so close to our borders, we would have none of it. Remember the Cuban missile crisis? We just need to quit meddling in the worlds affairs. Screw NATO

NoEnzLefttoSplit

NoEnzLefttoSplit Avatar

Gender:

Posted: Nov 30, 2016 - 4:57am

sirdroseph wrote:

absolutely no comparison. Russia now wants to be part of the global marketplace so it should respect international rules. Back then you had two completely different systems that were antagonistic and fighting for world hegemony.

sirdroseph

sirdroseph Avatar

Location: Not here, I tell you wat
Gender: Male

Posted: Nov 30, 2016 - 4:53am

Â kcar wrote:

Are you trying to snark at Bush I, Clinton, Bush II and Obama with that comment? It may not really matter because either in terms of past events or future possibilities, your statement doesn't apply to reality.Â

The Soviet Union is not reconstituted nor will it likely ever be even partially. Russia revived in the aughts mostly due to the rising price of oil and its hydrocarbon reserves. Outside of the petrochemical sector it does not have a robust economy, hence its struggles with falling oil and gas prices. Â

Russia has defended its traditional territorial interests with interventions in Georgia, Ukraine and Syria (a longtime client state and home to a strategic Russian naval base in Tartus), but it has nowhere near the military might of the former USSR. The People's Republic of China is a far, far greater economic and military power. Â

And if you blame the US for the decline of NATO, you'd be better off looking at the lack of contribution and cooperation from its European member states. As for the "renewed arms race" bit...what are you basing that on?

But here: let's turn the tables on you, Scott. Do you seriously think Trump has the background knowledge, advisors or detailed policy to counter any increase in Russia's influence over Europe? Beyond making noises about forcing European partners to contribute to NATO, what are Trump's plans for the organization? Is Trump seriously going to hang Estonia out to dry as he suggested in his campaign comments?

Hope you don't mind waiting for answers to those questions from the incoming administration because right now Trump has no f#$^ing clue. This emperor doesn't even have a loincloth when it comes to foreign policy.Â
Â

Â

If Russia was doing exactly what the US has been doing so close to our borders, we would have none of it. Remember the Cuban missile crisis? We just need to quit meddling in the worlds affairs. Screw NATO

kcar

Posted: Nov 29, 2016 - 9:52pm

ScottN wrote:

Howzabout the reconstitution of the Soviet Union in light of a weakened NATO, followed by a renewed arms race? Would that qualify?

Are you trying to snark at Bush I, Clinton, Bush II and Obama with that comment? It may not really matter because either in terms of past events or future possibilities, your statement doesn't apply to reality.

The Soviet Union is not reconstituted nor will it likely ever be even partially. Russia revived in the aughts mostly due to the rising price of oil and its hydrocarbon reserves. Outside of the petrochemical sector it does not have a robust economy, hence its struggles with falling oil and gas prices.

Russia has defended its traditional territorial interests with interventions in Georgia, Ukraine and Syria (a longtime client state and home to a strategic Russian naval base in Tartus), but it has nowhere near the military might of the former USSR. The People's Republic of China is a far, far greater economic and military power.

And if you blame the US for the decline of NATO, you'd be better off looking at the lack of contribution and cooperation from its European member states. As for the "renewed arms race" bit...what are you basing that on?

But here: let's turn the tables on you, Scott. Do you seriously think Trump has the background knowledge, advisors or detailed policy to counter any increase in Russia's influence over Europe? Beyond making noises about forcing European partners to contribute to NATO, what are Trump's plans for the organization? Is Trump seriously going to hang Estonia out to dry as he suggested in his campaign comments?

Hope you don't mind waiting for answers to those questions from the incoming administration because right now Trump has no f#$^ing clue. This emperor doesn't even have a loincloth when it comes to foreign policy.

ScottN

ScottN Avatar

Location: Half inch above the K/T boundary
Gender: Male

Posted: Nov 29, 2016 - 5:54pm
kcar wrote: Trump talked a lot of smack..... ........ . We are still paying the price for their mistakes. Trump is so ignorant of international affairs and so lazy that we're bound to see another foreign policy disaster. Howzabout the reconstitution of the Soviet Union in light of a weakened NATO, followed by a renewed arms race? Would that qualify?

kcar

Posted: Nov 29, 2016 - 4:57pm

islander wrote:

What happened to "drain the swamp", and "change washington" and "he may not be the best, but I'm ready to blow things up" (that last one is a paraphrase of stuff you put out over the last year)? Do you not care now that "your guy" has won?

I can't wait to see what comes about this time next year or 2019, when you are realizing that you got played. You'll have more of the same - people in power enriching themselves while the little guy continues to get screwed. I'm sure you'll find a way to say you are better off, but in your heart you'll know that nothing really changed.

Trump talked a lot of smack about building a Wall and bringing jobs back, but I think some of the more outlandish promises were so much hot air. Trump figured out that he could say crazy, reckless things and not lose supporters. Kurtster also has a point: Trump hasn't been sworn in yet. He's already waffling on issues like adherence to environmental agreements. He may not be as disastrous as his campaign rhetoric indicated simply because he'll walk towards more moderate positions.

But I agree with you, islander. Trump's promises to areas hit by declines in the manufacturing and coal industries are not going to be kept. Presidents have a tough time protecting industries since governmental actions like tariffs don't work long-term and generally don't save that many jobs. Manufacturing and coal production have become much less labor-intensive due to market forces, not government regulations.

It also appears that Trump isn't interested in guarding against the influence of lobbyists and the prevalence of cronyism. The rich are definitely going to get richer. I'm sure we'll see a lot of flag-waving and fear-mongering to keep populist anger at bay.

I see the biggest risks from Trump flowing from his lack of preparedness and attention to detail. WaPo is reporting that he's already blown off many daily intelligence briefings. Dubya and his advisers refused to believe that Al Qaeda was a serious threat and allowed Islamic terrorists to kill Americans on US soil. Rather than secure Afghanistan, they invaded Iraq—a family-run dictatorship with no real attachment to Islamic fundamentalism or terrorism. We are still paying the price for their mistakes. Trump is so ignorant of international affairs and so lazy that we're bound to see another foreign policy disaster.

Red_Dragon

Red_Dragon Avatar

Location: Dumbf*ckistan

Posted: Nov 29, 2016 - 3:52pm

ScottN

ScottN Avatar

Location: Half inch above the K/T boundary
Gender: Male

Posted: Nov 29, 2016 - 3:38pm

aflanigan wrote:

In betting, smart punters don't bet their money in ignorance and then "wait and see". They size up the horse, seek information on how the horse has done in training, and basically find whatever clues they can to give an indication of how the horse will actually run once the gate opens and the bell rings.

You're touting a horse that has looked very bad in training and is foamed and sweating in the paddock..

Perfect.
Ayup, as dragon might say.

islander

islander Avatar

Location: West coast somewhere
Gender: Male

Posted: Nov 29, 2016 - 3:17pm

kurtster wrote:

Nothing I've wanted has changed. What has Trump done so far to dissuade me ? Nothing yet. He's putting his team together. Got to wait and see what he does before I can judge.

Everyone else is judging before he has actually done anything. He's already ruined this country just by being elected is what I'm seeing. Funny how everyone has been wrong so far.

No buyers remorse yet. I'll wait and see.

Well, he has done some things. He is rewarding people who have been his yes men and early supporters (so much for "won't owe anything to anyone"). He has hired lobbyist and insiders (so much for "drain the swamp"). He is discussing Petraeus for Sec. State (the horrors of being careless with classified information). He is already using his position to lobby foreign governments on behalf of his business interests (get rid of corruption...).

I'm still waiting to see what he actually does with policy stuff, but so far just based on his appointments he's pretty much doing what I expected based on his previous behaviors. I really don't think he has the ability to "ruin the country", but I do expect we'll have to do a little reputation repair. And I really expect the poor and working classes to really take the big hits when he gets around to policy. I'm planning on moving some investments around and reducing a lot of my liabilities, but I'm going to wait until Jan. 1 when I'll get a nice tax break from him. Hopefully we'll still be in the stock market honeymoon at that point, but I expect the tax benefits to be the real winner for me there - I'll probably be ahead at least the 3.8 % I paid extra last year for Obamacare.

Page: Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 990, 991, 992 ... 1140, 1141, 1142 Next