# Trump and Russia (take 2)

## Recommended Posts

##### Share on other sites
Well we've got a ton going on, and while this may lead to some off topic stuff, how do those of you still firmly behind Trump justify any of this? And I don't mean just Russia at this point, I mean literally any of it? Is there any point where this has gone too far, or does it not exist?

##### Share on other sites

So lately I've noticed that the betting markets are pretty consistently giving more than a 30% chance that Trump will be gone by 2018 or 2019 (quite a bit before the next presidential election).

That doesn't mean anything in particular, but I thought it was a fairly striking milestone; it suggests that it's now more likely that Trump will leave office early than it was for him to be elected in the first place.

##### Share on other sites
12 hours ago, cowsarenotevil said:

So lately I've noticed that the betting markets are pretty consistently giving more than a 30% chance that Trump will be gone by 2018 or 2019 (quite a bit before the next presidential election).

That doesn't mean anything in particular, but I thought it was a fairly striking milestone; it suggests that it's now more likely that Trump will leave office early than it was for him to be elected in the first place.

That's interesting for sure. I've always been in two minds about these sort of things. If we remember the original predictions on the election, most people were saying that Trump will lose. Many see this as a failure on the so called prediction industry. Imo, people forget that FiveThirtyEight, the main reputable prediction model out there, gave trump about a 1 in 3 chance, which is pretty damned big chance.

So in short, it's certainly a distinct possibility at this point. I'm sure people will look back, 15, 20 years from now and be like "of course that was going to happen! How did they not see it?".

Whether he'll be gone or not, there's certainly been quite a bit of developments these past few weeks, especially with regards to Russia.

##### Share on other sites
On 6/2/2017 at 7:24 PM, deltaKshatriya said:

Well we've got a ton going on, and while this may lead to some off topic stuff, how do those of you still firmly behind Trump justify any of this? And I don't mean just Russia at this point, I mean literally any of it? Is there any point where this has gone too far, or does it not exist?

What exactly are you talking about? Because the narrative for most of the things that were going to get Trump "Impeached" have fallen apart.

Or do you just mean in general? In general I think he's doing a pretty good job, and I love how he doesn't hesitate to throw senate republicans under the bus as well.

Anecdote, but the other people I know who voted Trump are happy with the results so far as well.

16 hours ago, cowsarenotevil said:

So lately I've noticed that the betting markets are pretty consistently giving more than a 30% chance that Trump will be gone by 2018 or 2019 (quite a bit before the next presidential election).

That doesn't mean anything in particular, but I thought it was a fairly striking milestone; it suggests that it's now more likely that Trump will leave office early than it was for him to be elected in the first place.

Holy crap, this is pretty much free money. Thanks for the tip

PredictIt isn't based in the United States, because operating is technically in violation of US law. It's allowed to operate de facto (it avoids enforcment of the law) in the United States due to an agreement based on its academic focus and an "$850 cap on individual investments per question". tl;dr No, you didn't. Or shouldn't have, at least... #### Share this post ##### Link to post ##### Share on other sites 15 minutes ago, conquestor3 said: What exactly are you talking about? What you are quoting is a post I made out of pure frustration with Donald J. Trump, from a while ago. I'm sure many understand that frustration. 16 minutes ago, conquestor3 said: Because the narrative for most of the things that were going to get Trump "Impeached" have fallen apart. I fail to see how this is even remotely true. And no I don't want any of your lists, defending, excuses, etc. that you've thrown at everyone since Trump started running. We all more or less know where you stand, and what you believe, true or otherwise not. There's no need to go through the mental contortions once more on this forum. I at least, have little interest in seeing/reading your specific argument this time. 16 minutes ago, conquestor3 said: Or do you just mean in general? In general I think he's doing a pretty good job, and I love how he doesn't hesitate to throw senate republicans under the bus as well. Anecdote, but the other people I know who voted Trump are happy with the results so far as well. You haven't seen him do a thing wrong since he started running, so I'm not surprised by this. Only serves to underscore the point made above. We know exactly where you stand. No need to reiterate, nor defend, nor excuse. I have little interest in arguing over the narrative that you believe in and will probably present if this continues. So please, don't continue down this line of thought. #### Share this post ##### Link to post ##### Share on other sites 3 minutes ago, cowsarenotevil said: PredictIt isn't based in the United States, because operating is technically in violation of US law. It's allowed to operate de facto (it avoids enforcment of the law) in the United States due to an agreement based on its academic focus and an "$850 cap on individual investments per question".

tl;dr No, you didn't. Or shouldn't have, at least...

Damn, Assuming it will be rejected when I go to place it then?

To clarify, I sold my starbucks shares, and used the margin advance to transfer money to PredictIt. Etrade doesn't advance margin on weekends though, so I can't actually place it yet.

##### Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, conquestor3 said:

Damn, Assuming it will be rejected when I go to place it then?

To clarify, I sold my starbucks shares, and used the margin advance to transfer money to PredictIt. Etrade doesn't advance margin on weekends though, so I can't actually place it yet.

No idea. I'm not sure if ensuring that individual investors follow the law is their responsibility.

All I'm saying is that it sort of looks like you're either a) being less than truthful about your actual level confidence in Trump, for some reason or b) making rash and questionably legal decisions based on a poor understanding of the options presented and a potentially misplaced sense of confidence. That reminds me a bit of someone I've heard of, but I just can't place it...

##### Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, conquestor3 said:

Or do you just mean in general? In general I think he's doing a pretty good job, and I love how he doesn't hesitate to throw senate republicans under the bus as well.

Anecdote, but the other people I know who voted Trump are happy with the results so far as well.

That is how I started to see the whole "Trump as POTUS" thing. I don't want to talk for anyone (sorry for hijacking your post here, conquestor), but I can understand WHY some people are happy with the "results".

Because the results they want to see are just the other side getting riled up and running around like headless chickens. Because they want to see Trump stomping all over the real republican politicians. Because they want to see him cause havoc in the established political circles, no matter if democratic or republican.

An on that he certainly delivers. If that is going to prove positive for ANYONE in the US outside of some people getting a chuckle out of it... I have my doubts. But I am sure at the moment many who voted trump are pretty happy with their vote. Because their protest hit home.

Now, I think longterm it will come back to bite them. Because their protest missed to send a message to the other side. More importantly, I don't think the left is even willing to listen. This will not end well for anyone if the left now kicks some anti-trump and anti-right machinery into high gear without even trying to understand WHY Trump made it into office... which is just as much the fault of Trumps voters and right demagoges as it is the fault of some left extremists constantly trying to rile up the other side (not saying the rightwing extremists are any better here).

In the end, the Trump voters are also part of the US population. The key to getting the white house back and maybe uniting the country just a little bit will be to understand what SOME of the more moderate trump voters want, and offering compromises they can get onboard with.

With the current political climat in the US, on the left and on the right, I have my doubts this will happen within a decade. It would involve the republicans moving closer to the mid AND the democrats doing the same. I will certainly not hold my breath.

In the meantime, IDK how much of a difference it makes if Trump is still in office after 2018 or not. The people who voted for him will not be gone once he is replaced, just as the people now complaining about him will stay. He is the symptom, not the cause of all this antagonistic climate in the US politic and society.

Edited by Gian-Reto

##### Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Gian-Reto said:

Because the results they want to see are just the other side getting riled up and running around like headless chickens. Because they want to see Trump stomping all over the real republican politicians. Because they want to see him cause havoc in the established political circles, no matter if democratic or republican.

No doubt about this that many a voter just wanted to see the "Left" (and I'm starting to hate the notion of "Left vs Right", it only serves to undermine the whole point by making this a "us vs them" argument) go crazy. And no doubt that is exactly what's happening.

2 hours ago, Gian-Reto said:

An on that he certainly delivers. If that is going to prove positive for ANYONE in the US outside of some people getting a chuckle out of it... I have my doubts. But I am sure at the moment many who voted trump are pretty happy with their vote. Because their protest hit home.

As of this moment, it isn't doing any good. Mainly because he hasn't done anything other than throw public tantrums, lash out at people, and generally run a reality TV show in the White House. But the point about certain voters is quite well noted.

2 hours ago, Gian-Reto said:

Now, I think longterm it will come back to bite them. Because their protest missed to send a message to the other side. More importantly, I don't think the left is even willing to listen. This will not end well for anyone if the left now kicks some anti-trump and anti-right machinery into high gear without even trying to understand WHY Trump made it into office... which is just as much the fault of Trumps voters and right demagoges as it is the fault of some left extremists constantly trying to rile up the other side (not saying the rightwing extremists are any better here).

In the end, the Trump voters are also part of the US population. The key to getting the white house back and maybe uniting the country just a little bit will be to understand what SOME of the more moderate trump voters want, and offering compromises they can get onboard with.

With the current political climat in the US, on the left and on the right, I have my doubts this will happen within a decade. It would involve the republicans moving closer to the mid AND the democrats doing the same. I will certainly not hold my breath.

There's a reason I hate this whole "Left vs Right" thing so much: it really is just a way to throw around BS. I don't much care whether the guy in charge is a Republican or a Democrat. What I care about is that the guy is at least moderately competent. Donald Trump is not competent by any objective standard. There are all sorts of issues about this guy that people refuse to see and simply turn it into a "Left vs Right" argument. It's infuriating. And it's not good for anyone, since this is not about Left or Right, or Liberal/Conservative, or Democrat/Republican. It's about competence. And he has no competence. Any argument otherwise is simply just delusions.

There are tons of theories about why Trump won, and depending on who you are, you believe one or the other. IMHO, Trump won mainly because of the vote in the so called "Rust Belt", which had been Clinton's so called "Firewall". Their issues have been discussed quite a bit on this forum, and I'll only add one more point here: there is no solution to 'saving' jobs. There are other solutions out there, but not 'saving' ones. Those jobs were gone before, and will only be more gone now. The problem is only going to expand as time goes on, due to technological advancements that will take jobs. We've discussed these issues quite a bit too. Do Democrats need to address these issues? Certainly they do.

But reality is that Trump is basically a snake oil salesman: he's selling snake oil as a remedy for all when it doesn't actually do anything.

3 hours ago, Gian-Reto said:

In the meantime, IDK how much of a difference it makes if Trump is still in office after 2018 or not. The people who voted for him will not be gone once he is replaced, just as the people now complaining about him will stay. He is the symptom, not the cause of all this antagonistic climate in the US politic and society.

I do agree with this to an extent: no Trump doesn't mean that this Pandora's box will suddenly be closed: it's been opened and there's not a ton that can be done about that.

##### Share on other sites
14 hours ago, deltaKshatriya said:

I do agree with this to an extent: no Trump doesn't mean that this Pandora's box will suddenly be closed: it's been opened and there's not a ton that can be done about that.

I would go one step further: this pandoras box has been open for decades. This has been starting to brew way before any of the current crop of politicians came into office. Probably it started way before Obama, Bush junior, or Bill Clinton came into office. Maybe they all contributed to make things "weirder", as the Joker would say.

But for as much as they and their administrations all did some good thing (I just assume that Bush Junior did something for someone... must have been some reason for him to stay in office 8 years), they all contributed to the pendulum swininging ever more vigorously.

After Trump, what is the next democratic candidate going to be? Can't imagine the candidate can be more incompetent to be honest, but maybe more extreme?

I feel like what the US politic, economy and society now needs is people to calm down, stop this name calling and lawsuit mania, infighting and segregating themselve, and people getting more and more extreme. I hope the majority can do that, and politician follow suit. Maybe then by the time Trumps first legislation ends and he either has had enough of the white house stress, or somebody better is being voted for... or he gets impeached, you never know with this guy... the country is ready to hold an actual vote over hopefully actual candidates that REALLY try to be presidents of ALL americans, not just their sponsors and the radical groups that drummed up the most vocal support for them.

##### Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Gian-Reto said:

I would go one step further: this pandoras box has been open for decades. This has been starting to brew way before any of the current crop of politicians came into office. Probably it started way before Obama, Bush junior, or Bill Clinton came into office. Maybe they all contributed to make things "weirder", as the Joker would say.

But for as much as they and their administrations all did some good thing (I just assume that Bush Junior did something for someone... must have been some reason for him to stay in office 8 years), they all contributed to the pendulum swininging ever more vigorously.

After Trump, what is the next democratic candidate going to be? Can't imagine the candidate can be more incompetent to be honest, but maybe more extreme?

I feel like what the US politic, economy and society now needs is people to calm down, stop this name calling and lawsuit mania, infighting and segregating themselve, and people getting more and more extreme. I hope the majority can do that, and politician follow suit. Maybe then by the time Trumps first legislation ends and he either has had enough of the white house stress, or somebody better is being voted for... or he gets impeached, you never know with this guy... the country is ready to hold an actual vote over hopefully actual candidates that REALLY try to be presidents of ALL americans, not just their sponsors and the radical groups that drummed up the most vocal support for them.

Well when I say the Pandora's box has been opened, what I mean is that much of the current divisiveness and hatred is fairly recent. The discontent and changes have been around for decades, for various factors. Times are changing faster than people can keep up with them.

Never say you can't imagine a candidate more incompetent. I think many people believed that there was nobody worse than Bush. Then we got Trump.

The other thing I mean by Pandora's box is the extremism. Trump is extreme, but as far as I can see, he doesn't really believe much in anything. More extreme than that would be a zealot like Ted Cruz.

I feel most people aren't usually extremists. Problem is that partisan politics has very much become the you're with me or you're against me approach. And I, for one, have zero faith that this will go away by the next election. That's another thing that I mean by Pandora's box: this idiot train that Trump has started where he has zealot like following will only lead to the same for those who don't like him. Cycles like this are really really tough to break.

##### Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

After 3 or 4 Trump threads, I must say...I now know entirely too much about conquestor3's finances for some reason.

Also, it's hilarious how people here say "the Left" and they mean the Democrats. Ahh...America.

Edited by mikeman

##### Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, deltaKshatriya said:

Well when I say the Pandora's box has been opened, what I mean is that much of the current divisiveness and hatred is fairly recent. The discontent and changes have been around for decades, for various factors. Times are changing faster than people can keep up with them.

Never say you can't imagine a candidate more incompetent. I think many people believed that there was nobody worse than Bush. Then we got Trump.

The other thing I mean by Pandora's box is the extremism. Trump is extreme, but as far as I can see, he doesn't really believe much in anything. More extreme than that would be a zealot like Ted Cruz.

I feel most people aren't usually extremists. Problem is that partisan politics has very much become the you're with me or you're against me approach. And I, for one, have zero faith that this will go away by the next election. That's another thing that I mean by Pandora's box: this idiot train that Trump has started where he has zealot like following will only lead to the same for those who don't like him. Cycles like this are really really tough to break.

I am curious...what do you mean by "competency"? Had Trump been competent enough to gut the ACA successfully, instead of the circus he's made with it until now, would you have been happy with him then?

I mean, sure, many times partisan politics means people artificially manufacture tensions and divisions, but it's not like those divisions don't exist. People have different interests and different opinions when it comes to what policies should be implemented. Even when it comes to a single thing like healthcare; there are many ranging options, from universal to single-payer to Obamacare to complete free market-based etc etc.

Sure, so far the Republicans seem to not even know what they want to do other than destroy everything Obama built out of sheer spite, but it's not like if a "competent" Republican was on the steering wheel, that would automatically mean "unity". What is exactly the content of this "unity" when we're talking about naturally divisive issues?

Also, what do you guys mean by "extremists" in both sides? When it comes to the left, is Sanders an extremist? Because he's pretty much as "far-left" as you currently have in your mainstream politics. And he wouldn't be anything more than a run-of-the-mill social democrat in any other country in the world. Who are those "extremists"? I can see them on the right, since the Republican party under Trump/Bannon/etc has gone completely amok, to the point that old-school conservatives like McCain are worried about it, but on the other side? Who is "extreme" on the left, when we're talking about mainstream US politics? Or are we not talking about actual policies, but how vocal they are on social media?

Edited by mikeman

##### Share on other sites
9 hours ago, mikeman said:

I am curious...what do you mean by "competency"? Had Trump been competent enough to gut the ACA successfully, instead of the circus he's made with it until now, would you have been happy with him then?

When I say he's incompetent, I don't mean accomplishing something as daft as repeal and replace. I'm not in favor of repeal and replace. The only reason this is being debated is because the Republican Party wants to undo everything Obama did for no particularly good reason other than spite.

When I say competent, I mean someone who does rational things, makes rational decisions, that is president for the whole US, not just his support base. All he's done so far is pander to his supporters at best, and at worst, do completely random things through Twitter, or fire people because they didn't demonstrate loyalty. No leader of a country, representative of a country should be simply just Tweeting away insults at any and every damned thing that criticizes him. I don't even need to get into the platform, just look at his demeanor and his rhetoric...this is no leader of a state, he's just a wise ass with too much money.

9 hours ago, mikeman said:

I mean, sure, many times partisan politics means people artificially manufacture tensions and divisions, but it's not like those divisions don't exist. People have different interests and different opinions when it comes to what policies should be implemented. Even when it comes to a single thing like healthcare; there are many ranging options, from universal to single-payer to Obamacare to complete free market-based etc etc.

Sure, so far the Republicans seem to not even know what they want to do other than destroy everything Obama built out of sheer spite, but it's not like if a "competent" Republican was on the steering wheel, that would automatically mean "unity". What is exactly the content of this "unity" when we're talking about naturally divisive issues?

Now let's get into the actual policy side. There's no question that divisions exist and people don't agree. But let's be honest: this entire repeal and replace stupidity is simply just to spite Obama and nothing more. There are definitely issues with ACA, but shouldn't we try to fix them rather than gut ACA and screw people over in the process? Or environmental policy. What good will repealing regulations for protecting people's health do? I can go on with lots of things in the Republican platform, but let's just start here.

9 hours ago, mikeman said:

Also, what do you guys mean by "extremists" in both sides? When it comes to the left, is Sanders an extremist? Because he's pretty much as "far-left" as you currently have in your mainstream politics. And he wouldn't be anything more than a run-of-the-mill social democrat in any other country in the world. Who are those "extremists"? I can see them on the right, since the Republican party under Trump/Bannon/etc has gone completely amok, to the point that old-school conservatives like McCain are worried about it, but on the other side? Who is "extreme" on the left, when we're talking about mainstream US politics? Or are we not talking about actual policies, but how vocal they are on social media?

We've already seen the right wing extremists, sure. I wouldn't characterize Sanders as an extremist tbh. Sanders is certainly further to the left than the norm in the US, but there are things I agree with that are problems, e.g. college tuition. I didn't really agree with how he wanted to solve those problems (there were aspects of his plans that didn't really add up imo), but no, I wouldn't see he was an extremist. He was a populist, however, by definition, which isn't the worst thing in the world, since he wasn't a demagogue. The Left extremism is/was a bit different. There are/were some particularly vocal people who really adopted this 'with me or against me' holier than thou attitude on a number of issues that didn't really make much sense. The Left hasn't seen organized extremism, I will agree, at least yet.

##### Share on other sites
On 7/29/2017 at 5:45 PM, conquestor3 said:

What exactly are you talking about? Because the narrative for most of the things that were going to get Trump "Impeached" have fallen apart.

Or do you just mean in general? In general I think he's doing a pretty good job, and I love how he doesn't hesitate to throw senate republicans under the bus as well.

Out of curiosity, what are your standards for a successful President Trump? That is, what do you actually want him to do (or continue doing, I guess, if you think he's doing well so far)? You mentioned "[throwing] throw senate republicans under the bus," but beyond that it's hard to tell.*

Likewise, what are your standards for a failed Trump presidency, or at least a not good one? If the narratives you say have "fallen apart" hypothetically turn out to be true, would that make a difference? What about this weird new Seth Rich story? Are there any specific policy points that are "must-have," such that a failure to implement them would make you deem Trump a failure.

I'd also be curious to know exactly when you think the impeachment narratives fell apart. It's one thing to be skeptical, but I feel like typically for a story to be discredited (fallen apart), there needs to be at least some evidence that would actually contradict said story. By all means, I'm happy to admit that the most serious allegations aren't supported by any kind of overwhelming evidence, but it looks like you're making an even stronger claim than just that.

*by the way, I know what you meant, but I'm pretty sure the idiom "throw under the bus" doesn't actually mean what you think it does.

##### Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cowsarenotevil said:

Out of curiosity, what are your standards for a successful President Trump? That is, what do you actually want him to do (or continue doing, I guess, if you think he's doing well so far)? You mentioned "[throwing] throw senate republicans under the bus," but beyond that it's hard to tell.*

Likewise, what are your standards for a failed Trump presidency, or at least a not good one? If the narratives you say have "fallen apart" hypothetically turn out to be true, would that make a difference? What about this weird new Seth Rich story? Are there any specific policy points that are "must-have," such that a failure to implement them would make you deem Trump a failure.

I'd also be curious to know exactly when you think the impeachment narratives fell apart. It's one thing to be skeptical, but I feel like typically for a story to be discredited (fallen apart), there needs to be at least some evidence that would actually contradict said story. By all means, I'm happy to admit that the most serious allegations aren't supported by any kind of overwhelming evidence, but it looks like you're making an even stronger claim than just that.

*by the way, I know what you meant, but I'm pretty sure the idiom "throw under the bus" doesn't actually mean what you think it does.

trump supporters have been moving the goal posts since day 1. You can't seriously expect an honest answer.

##### Share on other sites
On 1.8.2017 at 11:57 PM, deltaKshatriya said:

When I say he's incompetent, I don't mean accomplishing something as daft as repeal and replace. I'm not in favor of repeal and replace. The only reason this is being debated is because the Republican Party wants to undo everything Obama did for no particularly good reason other than spite.

Well, I have heard very different opinions on the whole debate apparently from Indie game devs, last in the thread on gamasutra discussing the impact of the repeal on Indie game devs. I mean, "Indie game devs" commenting on the internet could be anyone... just as people writing anything on gamasutra.

Point is, I think we pretty much know by now that there are people in favour of it and people against it. And it at least looks to me like some of the people against it are not just rich peopl trying to dodge taxes, or poor people too stupid to see that they are better of with ACA.

I as a swiss citizen am appaled that apparently it is impossible for the US politicians to come to a compromise: make sure EVERYONE can get health care without paying through their nose if they want it, without forcing it on anyone and making sure taxes do not have to be increased much (how about making sure those pharma companies don't get away with their price hiking?)...

At least to me it looks like there must be a compromise somewhere in the middle as the opposing sides seem to complain about different aspects (people not able to get or afford health care vs. being forced to get healthcare & raised taxes)... but then I come from a country where politics usually means months and years spent in discussion to come to a boring old compromise, not exciting battles between good and evil.

I think US citizens stuck in the middle should stop taking sides when it comes to polarizing topics like this, and start looking at it from both sides. Usually, if enough people or for or against something, there is some truth to their claims. There might be shills with only self interests on both sides, but not everyone leaning to the right is a nazi and not everyone leaning to the left a communist.

Maybe, just maybe, people not getting drawn into heated conflicts over such topics and instead asking for facts and an actual debate could cool down the matter enough to find the actual middle ground?

##### Share on other sites
On 8/2/2017 at 4:47 AM, cowsarenotevil said:

Out of curiosity, what are your standards for a successful President Trump? That is, what do you actually want him to do (or continue doing, I guess, if you think he's doing well so far)? You mentioned "[throwing] throw senate republicans under the bus," but beyond that it's hard to tell.*

The main I really care about are economic ones, if he has good long-term job creation, and manages to accomplish protecting American workers by creating long-term middle class jobs (H1B limitations excluded. Those make America stronger by bringing the brightest from the world here. Bad move closing them).

Addressing the national debt might be good at this point to.

Since his presidency started I'd add another to that list though, which is finally dealing with North Korea.

On 8/2/2017 at 4:47 AM, cowsarenotevil said:

Likewise, what are your standards for a failed Trump presidency, or at least a not good one?

If he goes socially conservative and we see any challenge to things like abortion/gay marriage, I'd consider it a failed presidency... Then again there's a lot of ways to fail, like if the markets are upended by something he tweets to the point where they don't recover after a correction, or if he concedes something geopolitically crucial like the South China Sea.

On 8/2/2017 at 5:51 AM, RivieraKid said:

If the narratives you say have "fallen apart" hypothetically turn out to be true, would that make a difference?

It depends which one, since there's been so many attacks. If it's something as simply as manafort spoke with the Russians about Clinton's info, I wouldn't really care since there's not even a law against gathering opposition data from any source. If it's something along the lines of Trump asked Russia to hack the DNC, that would absolutely make a difference.

On 8/2/2017 at 4:47 AM, cowsarenotevil said:

I'd also be curious to know exactly when you think the impeachment narratives fell apart. It's one thing to be skeptical, but I feel like typically for a story to be discredited (fallen apart), there needs to be at least some evidence that would actually contradict said story.

Simply because all the testimony that would supposedly going to get him impeached ended without anything bad being uncovered. I consider that fallen apart, since the narrative is "Once this testimony is heard, Trump will be gone!". Now it's "Trump's campaign manager might have spoken to a Russian diplomat for 30 minutes while staying at a hotel"

On 8/2/2017 at 5:51 AM, RivieraKid said:

trump supporters have been moving the goal posts since day 1. You can't seriously expect an honest answer.

In the way older Trump threads I should have a similar statement, albeit without North Korea as a goal. It's obvious that North Korea thinks Trump's too weak to act, and is using his presidency as an opportunity to test as much as they can.

On that side though, The decision to create a massive new military base outside of NK's striking range in SK has proven to be a great idea, although it's taking ages to move there. It's likely any direct action in North Korea will need to be after that's done.

##### Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, conquestor3 said:

Since his presidency started I'd add another to that list though, which is finally dealing with North Korea.

Out of curiosity: what do you want Trump to do with North Korea?

Surely you don't want to go to war with the lunatic. Not as long as China is still backing them to some extent. That would be the catalyst for WW3, given how near a ton of (super-)powers not that fond of the US are to north korea.

Sure, there is the chance that russia keeps out of it just to troll china. There is no way china will let the US act so freely next to their borders.

So what exactly do you want? more economic pressure on them (if there is even room for more given trade with NK is pretty much non existent)? More pressure on China to keep them in check (which I guess would be a good idea, but then the chinese have to grow tired of NK games themselves, which I think they slowly will)? Up-arming the "Friendly powers" in the region (which brings up bad memories of other times the US did that.... Japan and South Korea are not Iraq, but their governments as of late are not tree huggers either)?

Or are you saying "I don't care what you do, just make them disappear"? Consequences be damned?

Edited by Gian-Reto

##### Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Gian-Reto said:

Out of curiosity: what do you want Trump to do with North Korea?

Surely you don't want to go to war with the lunatic. Not as long as China is still backing them to some extent. That would be the catalyst for WW3, given how near a ton of (super-)powers not that fond of the US are to north korea.

Sure, there is the chance that russia keeps out of it just to troll china. There is no way china will let the US act so freely next to their borders.

Installing mass anti-missile batteries, funding a massive South Korean underground bunker, moving important assets away from the North Korean border (Already happening), and a decapitation attack with China being allowed to install a new puppet dictator.

If we were to approach China and say "Kim Jong Un and staff will die within the next 72 hours, unless you help you won't be allowed to interfere with the transition of goverment, and if you help them militarily we'll do an embargo on all food/water exports to your country", and give no margin for debate, they will try to maintain as much power as they can by helping/installing their own government.

South Korea's military alone can beat North Korea, so any show of force by arming Japan/South Korea is just a symbolic act, the only real threat they have is Seoul being in artillery range, nukes, and now possibly ICBM's.

Edited by conquestor3

##### Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Gian-Reto said:

Well, I have heard very different opinions on the whole debate apparently from Indie game devs, last in the thread on gamasutra discussing the impact of the repeal on Indie game devs. I mean, "Indie game devs" commenting on the internet could be anyone... just as people writing anything on gamasutra.

Point is, I think we pretty much know by now that there are people in favour of it and people against it. And it at least looks to me like some of the people against it are not just rich peopl trying to dodge taxes, or poor people too stupid to see that they are better of with ACA.

I understand that many people find issues with ACA. I'm not going to say that there is only ONE right way of doing this. I will back a solution that is feasible. I will concede that there are many debates surrounding this and it's a topic that has no right answer. The reason I am against repeal and replace is because partially it's born in spite and partially it won't actually benefit people much. There are certainly issues, but the Republican solutions so far have been unworkable. There is indeed a need for compromise, but if the solution is just "let's throw it all out the window and more", then it's a bit tough to work with.

Let's leave health care aside, since it's probably more appropriate for a): another thread and b): isn't really the point I'm trying to make about Trump. What has Trump done in the past 6 months? Other than endlessly scream on Twitter about various idiotic things? Other than lie time and time again? Other than claim that he is absolute and above criticism? Has he actually done anything for the people?

All I've seen him do is constantly attack the "mainstream media" which is somehow "biased" because they don't praise him on everything he does. (And no conquestor3 I'm not defending any particular media outlet before you go off on that). He's constantly pushed conspiracy theories. He has fired anybody who doesn't show loyalty to him. He literally just attacks anything and anyone he doesn't like. This is no president.

18 hours ago, conquestor3 said:

Simply because all the testimony that would supposedly going to get him impeached ended without anything bad being uncovered. I consider that fallen apart, since the narrative is "Once this testimony is heard, Trump will be gone!". Now it's "Trump's campaign manager might have spoken to a Russian diplomat for 30 minutes while staying at a hotel"

Testimonies are a part of investigations? Investigations take time perhaps? But then again, when have you ever seen Trump do any wrong? From the start of the campaign till now? The only thing you've done is twist events to fit a narrative, namely that the media is all conspiring to bring Trump down.

We don't know what'll come out of the Trump Russia probe, and it may very well not be much, but for someone who's innocent, he's sure doing a lot of cover up.

2 hours ago, conquestor3 said:

and a decapitation attack with China being allowed to install a new puppet dictator.

If we were to approach China and say "Kim Jong Un and staff will die within the next 72 hours, unless you help you won't be allowed to interfere with the transition of goverment, and if you help them militarily we'll do an embargo on all food/water exports to your country", and give no margin for debate, they will try to maintain as much power as they can by helping/installing their own government.

Right, so basically let's start World War 3. Brilliant.

##### Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, deltaKshatriya said:

Testimonies are a part of investigations? Investigations take time perhaps? But then again, when have you ever seen Trump do any wrong? From the start of the campaign till now? The only thing you've done is twist events to fit a narrative, namely that the media is all conspiring to bring Trump down.

We don't know what'll come out of the Trump Russia probe, and it may very well not be much, but for someone who's innocent, he's sure doing a lot of cover up.

We both know the narrative was that there was going to be explosive testimony even as close as 2 months ago, none of that came to pass, and it was so mundane the media dropped that line almost immediately.

Trump's done some things wrong, some examples off the top of my head are making fun of a crippled reporter's injury, trying to ban trans people from the military as a cost saving measure, bothering with a wall (Although I guess that's important to most of his base), and not re-arming Ukraine.

I could probably come up with 10-15 items easily. The point is that he's also done plenty of things well, and overall I think he's doing well overall so far. How is that ridiculously one sided like you keep implying?

No one's going to start WW3 to save North Korea. The USA has massive economic leverage and a full embargo is tantamount to destroying the economy, so people won't risk war or even support if we actually flex our muscle. We need to use it before that power shrinks, and we have no valid leverage to fix North Korea.

Edited by conquestor3

##### Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, conquestor3 said:

We both know the narrative was that there was going to be explosive testimony even as close as 2 months ago, none of that came to pass, and it was so mundane the media dropped that line almost immediately.

Those testimonies weren't completely baseless. Especially the Comey one. And we both also know that the investigation is still very much ongoing. Even Nixon didn't get impeached in a day. It isn't about media narratives. If your point is that media sensationalizes things, then it does. You're trying to posit that 'Oh Trump didn't do any wrong, it's just another BS media narrative', which has been your line from day one.

8 minutes ago, conquestor3 said:

How is that ridiculously one sided like you keep implying?

We can look through your posting history. If there is any thing that people criticized about Trump, you instantly came up with either some excuse, deflection, or straight up ignored it. Or just tried to spin BS stories (the one that particularly comes to mind is that the KKK endorsed Clinton then Obama). When haven't you defended him, from campaign till now?

11 minutes ago, conquestor3 said:

The point is that he's also done plenty of things well, and overall I think he's doing well overall so far.

My final point on this is that he's done next to nothing so far, other than a few pieces of idiotic pandering.

There's nothing to be served by continuing this debate.

## Create an account

Register a new account

• ## Partner Spotlight

• ### Forum Statistics

• Total Topics
627668
• Total Posts
2978540

• 10
• 10
• 10
• 12
• 22