OOTB's Political Thread . ..
- Thread starter BillyL
- Start date
New trade deal with the Messicans- negotiated by others, not him personally (he's trying to do it own his own with NK)
China renegotiating existing trade deals-we are still in a cluster f*** with them, any change has been negotiated by others
ISIS gone- I hope you're joking
Greater stability in Iraq and Afghanistan- If you say so
Freeloading Euros finally paying their own way- I'll give you that one
Venezuela about to flush the commies- I'll circle back around and give Trump credit if it actually happens
Little Fat Man no longer flipping missiles over the top of Japan or even testing on his own peeps- I'll give you that one as well
So, from your list Trump has done two good things by himself. The "freeloading euros" is not even in the same ballpark as negotiating denuclearization with NK. Stopping testing is the only thing he has done in your list that could give someone hope that he could get something done. If you want to hang your hat on that, then go ahead. I just don't think that's enough to assume something good is going to happen. He needs to let others negotiate this thing via back channels and then when something is agreed upon he can meet with him and sign something. That would be the best way to do it. That's what a smart president would do.
In the rebuttal of the first two points you don't give Trump credit because negotiations were done by others, and then at the end you go on to say that he should have others negotiate this NK thing, because that's what a smart president would do.
I'm not talking about giving him credit. I'm comparing the situations listed with the current situation. They are different. It's not a good comparison. You shouldn't assume trump will accomplish something based on that comparison. Trump would be smart to do what he did on the first two points since that was the smart thing to do.
ETA: After going back and rereading my posts, I can see where my point might not have been clear to begin with. I should have done a better job in my wording.
Last edited:
So with cohen here are the options seems to me
A. Trump once again displays horrible character judgement in the people he surrounds himself with. (How many have been indicted?)
3. Trumps the criminal cohen paints him to be.
IV. All three
A. Trump once again displays horrible character judgement in the people he surrounds himself with. (How many have been indicted?)
3. Trumps the criminal cohen paints him to be.
IV. All three
Ok... so they're different situations, I don't think anyone considered them to be the same.
Seriously? He directed the negotiations- quit being a twatwaffle. No President handles the particulars of a negotiation
China situation is going great
Use Google to find a current map of ISIS occupied Syria
I do
Thanks
OK
Exactly
Never thought you would come around. You may make manager yet.
Because every news outlet and Trump himself said others were negotiating the deals.
No it's not. He claims he's negotiating NK by himself. That makes it a completely different situation. Policy experts negotiating vs a guy who has very little foreign policy experience trying to negotiate denuclearization. It's extremely relevant.
I'll give him credit for being smart enough to know he should let more knowledgeable people deal with it. That's what presidents usually do. He needs to recognize that's what he did before and he was able to accomplish something when he did that.
The overall and original point (that I didn't word like I should have) I was trying to make is that there is nothing to suggest that Trump can just have a few meetings and get this thing done by himself. It shouldn't just be assumed it will happen.
It's dumb to do it by himself. It's been shown that presidents can achieve what they want by outsourcing. When you do something that has worked in the past, that's smart. When you do something different than what has worked, then it's not smart.
BTW, excellent gif usage. Just watched that movie last week. Thought it was funny as hell.
A February to remembrrr in L.A.: It never even reached 70 degrees
https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-cold-february-20190228-story.html
I know. I know. I know. It isn't called global warming anymore, it's called climate change.
https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-cold-february-20190228-story.html
I know. I know. I know. It isn't called global warming anymore, it's called climate change.
Are you trying to say climate change doesn't exist? If so, you made an argument that it does by linking that article. You also need to learn the difference between weather and climate change.
For the 83290458343498th time....cold weather and global warming/climate change/wacky weather/whatever the hell you want to call it have absolutely nothing to do with each other.
That's not what either of us said.
We said you sound foolish when you equate cold weather with climate change.
The climate has been changing for six thousand years. It's going to keep changing.
The question is not if the climate has changed before, it's how much are humans contributing to it now. Here is an excellent website that will answer most questions that you have and help you understand the science.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/
I know what the argument is, and I don't think it's nearly as bad as people make it out to be.
The truth is always somewhere in the middle. The people who are freaking out and say we're all going to die in the next few years and the people who say nothing is happening are both wrong. Look for the sensible people in the middle. You should really look over that website though. It's very informational and does a good job breaking things down to basics.
March roars in like a lion: Millions to endure coast-to-coast snow, then 'punishing' blast of record cold
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...snow-then-record-cold-march-roars/3020109002/
I know. I know. I know.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...snow-then-record-cold-march-roars/3020109002/
I know. I know. I know.
My issues with this movement are two-fold. First, the people screaming the loudest about this tend to have the biggest carbon footprint. The whole thing comes off as implementing austerity measures. Second, what do you do about places like China and India, which is where a lot of the issue is coming from? Do you go to war over this climate change idea?
None of that has anything to do with it actually being true. Just because Gore uses a private jet doesn't mean climate change doesn't exist. The subject of what should we do about it is a different conversation.
In that argument, I'm conceding that it's a big deal. Personally, I'm still not convinced it is a big deal, and the actions of others is a big reason for my skepticism. If it is a big deal, how do you stop it without going to war?
I enjoy it more when you troll other people instead of me.
This isn't a troll. These are legitimate concerns, especially about how we'll control the carbon output of other countries.
Edit: The troll was the "6000 years" comment.
You saying you're skeptical of the science because rich people don't walk the walk means you are trolling or have no clue what you are talking about. Given your posting history, I want to assume it's a troll. If not, look over that website. I would suggest everyone take a look at it, even people who aren't skeptics.
Still not trolling. I'm just asking questions for which nobody has an answer.
You're moving on to a different topic of conversation and ignoring the original topic. If you want to move to a different conversation then we can do that.
The topic about how to stop other countries from contributing is definitely more about implementation than the actual seriousness of the issue, but the flippant reaction by those pushing the issue is relevant.
