The Never-President Trump

[littleyellowbirdie 2,605]

2 minutes ago, nevermind, neoliberalism has had it said:

Thank you, its quiet a large cave, calling people idiot is BiBi's game, and he is a criminal running away from being judged.

And you're a conspiracy-spreading disgrace.

Edited January 24 by littleyellowbirdie

[Iwans Big Toe 312]

35 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

And you're a conspiracy-spreading disgrace.

Birdy, you know I have plenty of respect for you. You have never lowered yourself to name calling when we have discussed issues. I am however inclined to lean to NMNLHHIS's side here. Who benefits from war? Not you, I or the common man. The whole Ukraine thing has been a Russia/NATO proxy war. Peace should be the aim, not inflammatory rhetoric until we are watching the missiles reign down.

And as for conspiracy theorists, that is what "state" sponsored media outlets label the journalist they wish to silence. It's propaganda 101, discredit your opponent.

I'm not saying believe everything Alex Jones says, I certainly do not, but look at things critically and not through the lense of mainstream media.

 

 

Edited January 24 by Iwans Big Toe

[littleyellowbirdie 2,605]

18 minutes ago, Iwans Big Toe said:

Birdy, you know I have plenty of respect for you. You have never lowered yourself to name calling when we have discussed issues. I am however inclined to lean to NMNLHHIS's side here. Who benefits from war? Not you, I or the common man. The whole Ukraine thing has been a Russia/NATO proxy war. Peace should be the aim, not inflammatory rhetoric until we are watching the missiles reign down.

And as for conspiracy theorists, that is what "state" sponsored media outlets label the journalist they wish to silence. It's propaganda 101, discredit your opponent.

I'm not saying believe everything Alex Jones say, I certainly do not, but look at thing critically and not through the lense of mainstream media.

 

 

This guy actually claimed on here that it was not Hamas who slaughtered the kids at the nova music festival, but Israeli attack helicopters, in spite of the evidence of plenty of deeply traumatised eye witness survivors, some of whom who have since committed suicide, and video of the Hamas militants throwing grenades into crowded bomb shelters, some of it from Hamas body cams. They're just lies and should be called out as such, but nobody does. Sick.

Also, a proxy war is two combatants fighting for influence in one country. As Russia directly invaded Ukraine and is fighting with the Ukrainian military, it can't be characterised as any sort of proxy war.

As far as the arms industry is concerned, there would be no need to spend without the Russian invasion. All of this expense has been driven by Putin's imperial ambitions. You don't get peace by rolling over in the face of aggressors, you just get further aggression in the knowledge everyone will probably roll over again.

Edited January 24 by littleyellowbirdie

[Iwans Big Toe 312]

2 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

This guy actually claimed on here that it was not Hamas who slaughtered the kids at the nova music festival, but Israeli attack helicopters, in spite of the evidence of plenty of deeply traumatised eye witness survivors  and video of the Hamas militants throwing grenades into crowded bomb shelters. They're just lies and should be called out as such, but nobody does. Sick.

Like I said, plenty I agree and respect you for. Not least you calling out the awful situation in Israel.

I have a very good friend, of fighting age, that lives in Tel Aviv. I have not heard from him since the Hamas attack. It worries me, but an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

Is Putin the answer? No. Is Trump the answer? No. Is Zelenskyy the answer? No. Peace is the answer, no matter if in Russia, Ukraine, Gaza, Syria or the Congo.

Trump has said his first act of his 2nd presidency would be to stop the Ukraine/Russia war. I don't know if he can do that, but I do know that the Democrats have opposed him on this at every point. Why?

 

 

[Iwans Big Toe 312]

22 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

This guy actually claimed on here that it was not Hamas who slaughtered the kids at the nova music festival, but Israeli attack helicopters, in spite of the evidence of plenty of deeply traumatised eye witness survivors, some of whom who have since committed suicide, and video of the Hamas militants throwing grenades into crowded bomb shelters, some of it from Hamas body cams. They're just lies and should be called out as such, but nobody does. Sick.

Also, a proxy war is two combatants fighting for influence in one country. As Russia directly invaded Ukraine and is fighting with the Ukrainian military, it can't be characterised as any sort of proxy war.

As far as the arms industry is concerned, there would be no need to spend without the Russian invasion. All of this expense has been driven by Putin's imperial ambitions. You don't get peace by rolling over in the face of aggressors, you just get further aggression in the knowledge everyone will probably roll over again.

Sorry my friend, but a proxy war is exactly what it has been. Zelenskyy has been coming, hat in hand to NATO asking for weapons and money and that is exactly what they have supplied. It is the definition of a proxy war.

Now should Russia have invaded? A totally different question, but Putin in all likelihood felt Ukraine joining NATO puts his biggest "enemy" on his doorstep. Let me play a little semantic game with you. What would the U.S have done if the USSR had followed through with their plans in 1962, would they have invaded Cuba?

 

 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,605]

8 minutes ago, Iwans Big Toe said:

 Zelenskyy has been coming, hat in hand to NATO asking for weapons and money and that is exactly what they have supplied. It is the definition of a proxy war.
 

 

Ukraine is not fighting because we've encouraged it to; it's because Russia invaded it. It's in our interests to support Ukraine, because if Russia annexes Ukraine then Russia then has a direct border with NATO, where there's a severe risk of Russia taking that on and causing a direct war between Russia and NATO. But that doesn't make it a proxy war. If not, seeing as Iran, North Korea, and China are supporting Russia's war effort with hardware (their hardware is making Russia's winter missile and drone campaign possible), why not say Russia and Ukraine is actually a proxy war between China, Iran, North Korea, against NATO?

Edited January 24 by littleyellowbirdie

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

4 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Ukraine is not fighting because we've encouraged it to; it's because Russia invaded it. It's in our interests to support Ukraine, because if Russia annexes Ukraine then Russia then has a direct border with NATO, where there's a severe risk of Russia taking that on and causing a direct war between Russia and NATO. But that doesn't make it a proxy war. If not, seeing as Iran, North Korea, and China are supporting Russia's war effort with hardware (their hardware is making Russia's winter missile and drone campaign possible), why not say Russia and Ukraine is actually a proxy war between China, Iran, North Korea, against NATO?

Yes, and this is why we must not give Ukraine membership of NATO. If we do then we are committed to defend them if attacked and then the conflict escalates into the next world war.

[horsefly 4,318]

8 hours ago, Rock The Boat said:

Yes, and this is why we must not give Ukraine membership of NATO. If we do then we are committed to defend them if attacked and then the conflict escalates into the next world war.

Why do you think Russia hasn't attacked a NATO country since the organisation came into being in 1949? Why do you think Sweden and Finland (and former Soviet countries) have joined (or want to join) NATO? Because it deters Russia from doing precisely what it has done to Ukraine. Had Ukraine been a member of NATO there is good reason to think Russia would not have invaded. If Ukraine prevails it will be imperative that it joins NATO to prevent a repeat invasion. The history of appeasement in the 20th century speaks for itself.

[How I Wrote Elastic Man 1,198]

19 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Ukraine is not fighting because we've encouraged it to; it's because Russia invaded it. It's in our interests to support Ukraine, because if Russia annexes Ukraine then Russia then has a direct border with NATO, where there's a severe risk of Russia taking that on and causing a direct war between Russia and NATO. But that doesn't make it a proxy war. If not, seeing as Iran, North Korea, and China are supporting Russia's war effort with hardware (their hardware is making Russia's winter missile and drone campaign possible), why not say Russia and Ukraine is actually a proxy war between China, Iran, North Korea, against NATO?

 

14 hours ago, Rock The Boat said:

Yes, and this is why we must not give Ukraine membership of NATO. If we do then we are committed to defend them if attacked and then the conflict escalates into the next world war.

Russia already has several borders with NATO

[Yellow Fever 3,844]

1 minute ago, How I Wrote Elastic Man said:

 

Russia already has several borders with NATO

Even maritime borders with the likes of Turkey and even the US! 

[How I Wrote Elastic Man 1,198]

2 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

Even maritime borders with the likes of Turkey and even the US! 

When the sea freezes over, it's possible to walk from Russia to The USA. They're only 2.5 miles apart at the neighbouring Diomede Islands 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,605]

13 minutes ago, How I Wrote Elastic Man said:

 

Russia already has several borders with NATO

Good point. Taking that into account, that makes Putin's NATO excuse for invading Ukraine even more lame; another hole in the proxy war argument.

Edited January 25 by littleyellowbirdie

[TheGunnShow 6,029]

15 hours ago, Rock The Boat said:

Yes, and this is why we must not give Ukraine membership of NATO. If we do then we are committed to defend them if attacked and then the conflict escalates into the next world war.

Like Norway then - a founding member of NATO back in 1949?

[Iwans Big Toe 312]

9 hours ago, horsefly said:

Why do you think Russia hasn't attacked a NATO country since the organisation came into being in 1949? Why do you think Sweden and Finland (and former Soviet countries) have joined (or want to join) NATO? Because it deters Russia from doing precisely what it has done to Ukraine. Had Ukraine been a member of NATO there is good reason to think Russia would not have invaded. If Ukraine prevails it will be imperative that it joins NATO to prevent a repeat invasion. The history of appeasement in the 20th century speaks for itself.

Our resident intellectual savant (and his friends) thinks that NATO and their expansion is preventing wars rather than starting them.

This is the same person that believes that you can only save democracy by preventing half of a country from voting for their preferred candidate. Or who thinks that unarmed old women wandering about a building they should not have been admitted to is a military coup. Or that the that the disorganised withdrawal of an occupied state which results in billions of $ of military equipment and citizens of that country and their allies being left in the hands of militant jihadists is the fault of his predecessor and not the sitting president.

This same person thinks that admitting Ukraine to NATO is likely to de-escalate the threat of war. I 100% think they should be determining all foreign policy. After all what could go wrong by backing Russia into a corner, Putin has proved to be a most stable individual and will probably acquiesce to NATOs demands that he stands down.

It's amazing that one person can be so wrong on so many subjects with so much conviction.

 

 

[Iwans Big Toe 312]

23 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Ukraine is not fighting because we've encouraged it to; it's because Russia invaded it. It's in our interests to support Ukraine, because if Russia annexes Ukraine then Russia then has a direct border with NATO, where there's a severe risk of Russia taking that on and causing a direct war between Russia and NATO. But that doesn't make it a proxy war. If not, seeing as Iran, North Korea, and China are supporting Russia's war effort with hardware (their hardware is making Russia's winter missile and drone campaign possible), why not say Russia and Ukraine is actually a proxy war between China, Iran, North Korea, against NATO?

This is a good point. If NATO had not encouraged the old Iron Curtain states to join NATO, then Russia would not be on our border if they invaded Ukraine. It is NATOs expansion that has brought us to this point, Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria, Finland, the Baltic states and Turkey are all now members since the fall of the Iron Curtain. So it is NATO that has encroached on Russia's border not the other way round. If Russia had slowly enveloped Europe until France, Belgium and Holland were allied states, I'm sure our leaders would be as equally irked.

 

 

 

Edited January 25 by Iwans Big Toe

[littleyellowbirdie 2,605]

21 minutes ago, Iwans Big Toe said:

This is a good point. If NATO had not encouraged the old Iron Curtain states to join NATO, then Russia would not be on our border if they invaded Ukraine. It is NATOs expansion that has brought us to this point, Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria, Finland, the Baltic states and Turkey are all now members since the fall of the Iron Curtain. So it is NATO that has encroached on Russia's border not the other way round. If Russia had slowly enveloped Europe until France, Belgium and Holland were allied states, I'm sure our leaders would be as equally irked.

 

 

 

Russia doesn't own it's neighbours. They're independent, self-determining states. Your mistake is buying into Russia's view that it does. And most accessions to NATO were largely because those states actively wanted out of Russia's kleptocratic and corrupt influence.

The role reversal is very muddled; Russia is a nation state. If Russia envelopes those states then Russia will have had to have actively invaded and conquered many European states already. NATO is a treaty between states entirely passive in nature.

Edited January 25 by littleyellowbirdie

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

12 hours ago, horsefly said:

Why do you think Russia hasn't attacked a NATO country since the organisation came into being in 1949? Why do you think Sweden and Finland (and former Soviet countries) have joined (or want to join) NATO? Because it deters Russia from doing precisely what it has done to Ukraine. Had Ukraine been a member of NATO there is good reason to think Russia would not have invaded. If Ukraine prevails it will be imperative that it joins NATO to prevent a repeat invasion. The history of appeasement in the 20th century speaks for itself.

That's a huge assumption. The fact is Russia has invaded Ukraine and giving them NATO membership now is a huge risk to take. I suppose you are personally ready to sign up for the fighting should this scenario ever comes to existence?

[horsefly 4,318]

7 hours ago, Rock The Boat said:

That's a huge assumption. The fact is Russia has invaded Ukraine and giving them NATO membership now is a huge risk to take. I suppose you are personally ready to sign up for the fighting should this scenario ever comes to existence?

Which NATO country has Russia invaded since its formation in 1949? What's the record for appeasing dictators throughout the 20th century? Russia traded recognition of Ukrainian borders for the removal of Ukrainian nuclear weapons, how did that go for Ukraine?

[TheGunnShow 6,029]

2 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Which NATO country has Russia invaded since its formation in 1949? What's the record for appeasing dictators throughout the 20th century? Russia traded recognition of Ukrainian borders for the removal of Ukrainian nuclear weapons, how did that go for Ukraine?

Exactly this. You can be pretty sure Putin would have gone for the Baltic States if they weren't in NATO (opened up access to the Baltic and linked up St. Petersburg and Kaliningrad), and my guess would have been Latvia first due to the high proportion of Russians living there, especially in the area around Daugavpils.

Not to mention, as you said, Ukraine gave its nukes up.

[horsefly 4,318]

Just a reminder of Trump's utterly embarrassing moment in court when he claimed he had never met Jean Carroll, and that she was "not my type". He then pointed to a picture of Carroll saying "That's my (ex) wife, Marla". And there are people on this site who want him to be in charge of the red button, FFS! 

 

[Nik Vawn 161]

What will happen if Trump turns his back on NATO ?  

[A Load of Squit 5,224]

10 hours ago, Iwans Big Toe said:

 

It's amazing that one person can be so wrong on so many subjects with so much conviction.

 

 

And yet you are.

[horsefly 4,318]

18 minutes ago, Nik Vawn said:

What will happen if Trump turns his back on NATO ?  

Putin will be the happiest dictator in the world. We have to trust that as the election campaign progresses the sane section of the American public will recognise the utter lunacy of allowing the psychologically crazed narcissist and crook into power. The Maga morons will support him whatever he does. He could be shagging their wife in front of them and they would hold his wig in place to stop it slipping. But they represent a minority of the voters, and I fully expect the traditional GOP supporters and independents to unite against his vision of Gilead.

[Nik Vawn 161]

18 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Putin will be the happiest dictator in the world. We have to trust that as the election campaign progresses the sane section of the American public will recognise the utter lunacy of allowing the psychologically crazed narcissist and crook into power. The Maga morons will support him whatever he does. He could be shagging their wife in front of them and they would hold his wig in place to stop it slipping. But they represent a minority of the voters, and I fully expect the traditional GOP supporters and independents to unite against his vision of Gilead.

I fear that trust won’t be enough, sadly the only hope as I see it would be if poor old Joe shuffles off the coil and a more dynamic and electorally attractive individual stands against our orange friend.

[horsefly 4,318]

2 minutes ago, Nik Vawn said:

I fear that trust won’t be enough, sadly the only hope as I see it would be if poor old Joe shuffles off the coil and a more dynamic and electorally attractive individual stands against our orange friend.

I agree that a convenient health issue for Joe would truly be a Godsend. However, I still think that the people repulsed by Trump last time will be even more repulsed by him now. His recent speeches demonstrate a man who is going absolutely bat-sh*it crazy, and in full demagogue mode. As the pressure of his many trials mount up we can see the toll being paid is an increasing paranoia and dictatorial insanity infecting his rhetoric. The MAGA mob love it, but the traditional GOP and independents hate it. Fox News (yes, them) reported that 35% of Republicans who voted for Haley in NH have declared they would not vote for Trump in the election. 

Looking forward to Trump's meltdown (possibly later today) when the jury in the Carroll defamation trial announce the damages he will have to pay. I'm guessing it could be a lot closer to $100m than the $5m he was ordered to pay when found liable for sexual assault.

[Yellow Fever 3,844]

29 minutes ago, horsefly said:

I agree that a convenient health issue for Joe would truly be a Godsend. However, I still think that the people repulsed by Trump last time will be even more repulsed by him now. His recent speeches demonstrate a man who is going absolutely bat-sh*it crazy, and in full demagogue mode. As the pressure of his many trials mount up we can see the toll being paid is an increasing paranoia and dictatorial insanity infecting his rhetoric. The MAGA mob love it, but the traditional GOP and independents hate it. Fox News (yes, them) reported that 35% of Republicans who voted for Haley in NH have declared they would not vote for Trump in the election. 

Looking forward to Trump's meltdown (possibly later today) when the jury in the Carroll defamation trial announce the damages he will have to pay. I'm guessing it could be a lot closer to $100m than the $5m he was ordered to pay when found liable for sexual assault.

Yes - All the media is on the GOP primaries in which only a very small percentage of even the registered GOP voters who actually bother to vote.

I rather suspect Trumps apparent  strength isn't actually what it seems for all the reasons you allude too. Indeed a few convictions and beyond the cultists it could be very soft. Ultimately its a run off between Biden and Trump complete with Trumps ever more stinking baggage to turn away rational people of all political flavours.

All that said Biden is too old but likely best placed to defeat Trump (who is also too old) again probably by a greater margin than before.

 

Edited January 26 by Yellow Fever

[ricardo 7,416]

3 hours ago, Yellow Fever said:

Yes - All the media is on the GOP primaries in which only a very small percentage of even the registered GOP voters who actually bother to vote.

I rather suspect Trumps apparent  strength isn't actually what it seems for all the reasons you allude too. Indeed a few convictions and beyond the cultists it could be very soft. Ultimately its a run off between Biden and Trump complete with Trumps ever more stinking baggage to turn away rational people of all political flavours.

All that said Biden is too old but likely best placed to defeat Trump (who is also too old) again probably by a greater margin than before.

 

The polls paint a different picture.

I think we will see Biden back out before November and the Democrats will nominate Newsom.

[Yellow Fever 3,844]

17 minutes ago, ricardo said:

The polls paint a different picture.

I think we will see Biden back out before November and the Democrats will nominate Newsom.

Quite possible - I think some of it  depends on Trump's issues and impact. Early days.

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

5 hours ago, horsefly said:

Which NATO country has Russia invaded since its formation in 1949? What's the record for appeasing dictators throughout the 20th century? Russia traded recognition of Ukrainian borders for the removal of Ukrainian nuclear weapons, how did that go for Ukraine?

But you ignore the most salient fact of all which is Russia is invading Ukraine as we speak. Are you claiming that if Ukraine was to join NATO today Russia would withdraw?  That isn't going to happen. But the UK would be drawn into the conflict. 

[horsefly 4,318]

3 hours ago, Rock The Boat said:

But you ignore the most salient fact of all which is Russia is invading Ukraine as we speak. Are you claiming that if Ukraine was to join NATO today Russia would withdraw?  That isn't going to happen. But the UK would be drawn into the conflict. 

Don't be so ridiculous! No one has suggested Ukraine should join NATO while the current conflict is ongoing. It has only been suggested as an option when/if Ukraine successfully defeats Russia.