America - The Official Thread

[xyloscissor]

Not a plan in any way, it's a list of aims and objectives with no plan behind it.

He is Implementing plans though, as your comment regarding lifting sanctions confirms.

 

[Fredzy]

Part of this argument as I see it is a Europe, just in a general sense that while there is unhappiness with U.S.'s recent meddling(At least I hope so, Libya, Egypt, and Syria come to mind), there is a fear that we will not offer protection and co-operation to our allies. Some countries are going to have to step it up though because Trump is not interested in footing the bill with money and american lives.

Spilt milk, Trump is interested in solutions not complaints or continuing down a road that leads to no where good.

American lives don't have a dollar amount tied to them, do they? Neither do our allies. This is why Trumps words are preposterous. To think we would let our allies burn because they couldn't pay some bill. You're good with that? You don't think we would be weakened in the end?

 

[xyloscissor]

American lives don't have a dollar amount tied to them, do they? Neither do our allies. This is why Trumps words are preposterous. To think we would let our allies burn because they couldn't pay some bill. You're good with that? You don't think we would be weakened in the end?

How many countries do not honor their pledge to NATO? And it seems to me most on the left are tired of having our bases in all your backyards? A quick google found this, the number is 25 out of 28.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/nato-calls-for-rise-in-defence-spending-by-alliance-members-1434978193

What is it that you want then, to have a U.S. military at your disposal and we have no say in the matter?

 

[Scaff]

How many countries do not honor their pledge to NATO? And it seems to me most on the left are tired of having our bases in all your backyards? A quick google found this, the number is 25 out of 28.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/nato-calls-for-rise-in-defence-spending-by-alliance-members-1434978193

What is it that you want then, to have a U.S. military at your disposal and we have no say in the matter?

The single most important pledge in regard to NATO has only ever been enacted once, that of mutual defence should a member be attacked.

It pledged the armies of every NATO country and cost them many lives, can you remember which country that was for?

 

[Fredzy]

Wasn't it the Obama administration that thought it would be a good idea to have an Arab spring in Syria, and pull out of Iraq leaving a power vacuum?

If it weren't for Russia, Syria would have been totally overrun by Islamic extremists by now.

"If it weren't for Russia, Syria..." The only thing we could say for sure if Russia didn't intervene in Syria is that Assad would have been lynched. Would the US have invested in restructuring Syria to the point where ISIS would have been marginalized? Probably not. But the country wouldn't be completely flattened right now, and Europe wouldn't be swimming in quite so many refugees.

I'm not sure what your point is bringing up Obama here, but if it's to point out that we opened the door for Russia to take advantage of a terrible situation, then yes, you're right.

 

[Scaff]

He is Implementing plans though, as your comment regarding lifting sanctions confirms.

What a great plan it is as well, what exactly does it get for the US? Or was it just a gift to the FSB.


Just like the raid in the Yeman he green lite, the one that was ok'd without sufficient intelligence in place that cost the life of a SEAL and may have resulted in the death of ten or more civilians.

 

[xyloscissor]

It pledged the armies of every NATO country and cost them many lives, can you remember which country that was for?

When you carry the load to the tune of 75% or more you're going to be able to do that. My point is being ignored, members of NATO need to increase their defenses and not rely so heavily on the U.S.

As for Russia it ties together to me, we need effective forces is Syria, it's not so simple to say if the U.S. works with Russia it's going to open the gates and allow them to trample Europe. As long as people believe that Trump is an idiot and somehow any form of diplomacy on behalf of the U.S. is now a boozoo show every little action is going to be met with resistance and unwarranted concerns for shock value.

 

[Scaff]

When you carry the load to the tune of 75% or more you're going to be able to do that. My point is being ignored, members of NATO need to increase their defenses and not rely so heavily on the U.S.

As for Russia it ties together to me, we need effective forces is Syria, it's not so simple to say if the U.S. works with Russia it's going to open the gates and allow them to trample Europe. As long as people believe that Trump is an idiot and somehow any form of diplomacy on behalf of the U.S. is now a boozoo show every little action is going to be met with resistance and unwarranted concerns for shock value.

You didn't answer the question, which country is the only one article 5 of the NATO pact, mutual defence, has been action for?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Never mind the fact he already had his last event protested as well.

His underlying message is "I think this and anyone who disagrees with me hates democracy and free speech". Self-styled champion of free speech he may be, but he attempts to stifle it by immediately tarnishing anyone who disagrees with him as hating his values. Is it any wonder that he gets protested?

The Left has been protesting like crazy with destructive demonstrations and suddenly, Milo's protest is a conspiracy against the Left.

The right will do anything to destroy the left. American history is full of "lefties" being demonised, and yet despite the alleged evils they perpetrate, there are still people who subscribe to the leftist ideologies. Try as they might, the right simply cannot kill the left off for good, and so they're afraid of it.

 

[xyloscissor]

You didn't answer the question, which country is the only one article 5 of the NATO pact, mutual defence, has been action for?

Oh brother, is this some sort of attempt at a gotcha? Who do you suppose spends that 75%

I'll humor you for those who might not know, that article 5 iirc of NATO has been invoked only once and that was at the request of the U.S. after 9/11.

 

[mister dog]

"If it weren't for Russia, Syria..." The only thing we could say for sure if Russia didn't intervene in Syria is that Assad would have been lynched. Would the US have invested in restructuring Syria to the point where ISIS would have been marginalized? Probably not. But the country wouldn't be completely flattened right now, and Europe wouldn't be swimming in quite so many refugees.

If you look at Iraq, Libya, Syria all of these three countries have one thing in common; things were better when they were ruled by a dictator. Iraq has been a mess since Saddam was removed so it could have been pretty obvious the same would happen again when you try to sponsor the overthrowing of Assad or Khaddafi. And look and behold what happened.

Russia is there for two reasons, one because they already had a good relationship with Assad, and 2: to put a lid on pandora's box as Russia is thinking about it's own safety too. In the meantime Obama decided he would give weapons to moderate terrorists.

I'm not sure what your point is bringing up Obama here, but if it's to point out that we opened the door for Russia to take advantage of a terrible situation, then yes, you're right.

Like I said, the Obama administration got us into the situation we have today, so it doesn't make much sense to blame the refugee crisis on who entered the conflict afterwards...

 

[Scaff]

Oh brother, is this some sort of attempt at a gotcha? Who do you suppose spends that 75%

I'll humor you for those who might not know, that article 5 iirc of NATO has been invoked only once and that was at the request of the U.S. after 9/11.

So given that, and the fact that NATO members already have agreed to a rebalance of funding you think it's worth throwing away for a pact with Russia?

 

[xyloscissor]

So given that, and the fact that NATO members already have agreed to a rebalance of funding you think it's worth throwing away for a pact with Russia?

I don't but I also don't think that is going to happen, as I said already it's not black and white. Do you think NATO is going to throw us out or something? I think Trump is talking about shipping a bunch of war equipment to NATO countries, I can't find the story right now but if it's used as a boost to get those countries defenses going it hardly sounds like abandonment.

What exactly did Trump do anyway, is it more than just removing what Obama did in is very last days? In other words we'd been improving relations until Hillary goes nuts and loses an election. No one was complaining about it then.

Found it, or part of it anyway

Lithuania confirmed the presence of U.S. special forces inside its territory, stating the deployment’s purpose is to train local forces and act as a deterrent against Russian aggression. Supposedly, the move is in response to a "escalation" by Vladimir Putin, who has been deploying nuke-ready missiles in the Russian province of Kaliningrad located in the heart of central Europe. This move has prompted the neighboring Baltic states to become “highly concerned” about Russian military activity.

Meanwhile, as part of the latest conventional arms race, on Friday hundreds of U.S. tanks, trucks and other military equipment arrived by ship in Germany to be transported by rail and road to eastern Europe as part of a NATO buildup that has drawn Russia's ire

 

[Biggles]

If you look at Iraq, Libya, Syria all of these three countries have one thing in common; things were better when they were ruled by a dictator. Iraq has been a mess since Saddam was removed so it could have been pretty obvious the same would happen again when you try to sponsor the overthrowing of Assad or Khaddafi. And look and behold what happened.

There may be some truth in that. You can add Egypt & Afghanistan to that list. However, aside from the very clear case of Iraq, the other situations are pretty complex. The US didn't create the situation in Syria, Libya, Egypt or Afghanistan. The people in those countries remain the main protagonists in the unfolding of events - the Arab Spring wasn't created by Obama or anyone else from the West.

Whether trying to "direct" events is a good idea ... well that's another question. The bottom line is: sitting it out entirely isn't really an option, while intervening isn't a great idea either. It's easy to take an isolationist stance in the abstract, but what happens when US citizens abroad are kidnapped or killed by terrorists? What happens when the Iran nuclear deal is ended by Trump & the Iranians return to building their nuclear capabilities? What happens when Russia moves on Ukraine or the Baltic states? What happens if China expands its territorial claims in the Pacific?

Trump believes that bullying & bluster will make things go his way. It may work like that on the "Apprentice" but in the real world it's not going to play out that way.

 

[Scaff]

I don't but I also don't think that is going to happen, as I said already it's not black and white. Do you think NATO is going to throw us out or something? I think Trump is talking about shipping a bunch of war equipment to NATO countries, I can't find the story right now but if it's used as a boost to get those countries defenses going it hardly sounds like abandonment.

What exactly did Trump do anyway, is it more than just removing what Obama did in is very last days? In other words we'd been improving relations until Hillary goes nuts and loses an election. No one was complaining about it then.

Found it, or part of it anyway

Lithuania confirmed the presence of U.S. special forces inside its territory, stating the deployment’s purpose is to train local forces and act as a deterrent against Russian aggression. Supposedly, the move is in response to a "escalation" by Vladimir Putin, who has been deploying nuke-ready missiles in the Russian province of Kaliningrad located in the heart of central Europe. This move has prompted the neighboring Baltic states to become “highly concerned” about Russian military activity.

Trump managed to do all of that before he got into office?

Now that is impressive.

Check the date on your source, it's from early Jan, Trump wasn't in office then.

 

[xyloscissor]

Check the date on your source, it's from early Jan, Trump wasn't in office then.

My bad 👍

It looks like it remains to be seen then if he's going to continue supporting this Obama action with NATO. It's worth noting I'm seeing varying opinions on it from Polish Officials and German press.

 

[Fredzy]

Like I said, the Obama administration got us into the situation we have today, so it doesn't make much sense to blame the refugee crisis on who entered the conflict afterwards...

Unless, like me, you believe escalation of the refugee crisis was a Russian goal. They could have worked with Obama to end it. He tried, they duped him. Syria is a heap of rubble. The little Syrian boy that washed up on the beach in the Mediterranean will be Obama's Iraqi ghost boy.

 

[Dennisch]

"This is library"

A new hero.

 

[Dotini]

"Supported and worked" with the Russians since the Revolution? You've got to be kidding! One of the reasons the Russian distrust the US (& Britain) is that there is a strong belief in Russia that the Allies deliberately allowed the Germans to bleed Russia during WWII in order to weaken the position of the USSR after the war. And that was followed by the Cold War.

I appreciate that occasionally you ask intelligent questions, but not when you ask a whole bunch them each one opening potentially book length discussions. Whew!

The one I snagged has some interesting, non-obvious high level answers which most people are totally unaware of, but which are nevertheless quite meaningful and important. I'll make a couple of assertions and leave you to either go ballistic or go away and research them yourself.

#1) The Russian revolution of 1917 was partly financed by Wall Street.
#2) Rocketry and the exploration of space was one arena in which the Russians and the US have cooperated, since before the end of WWII and continuing to the present day. For instance, during the Cold War we exchanged lunar soil samples retrieved by the Apollo missions with samples taken and returned from different areas of the moon by the Russian Luna missions.

 

[McLaren]

His underlying message is "I think this and anyone who disagrees with me hates democracy and free speech". Self-styled champion of free speech he may be, but he attempts to stifle it by immediately tarnishing anyone who disagrees with him as hating his values. Is it any wonder that he gets protested?


The right will do anything to destroy the left. American history is full of "lefties" being demonised, and yet despite the alleged evils they perpetrate, there are still people who subscribe to the leftist ideologies. Try as they might, the right simply cannot kill the left off for good, and so they're afraid of it.

Boy I thought you couldn't conjure up a post sillier than that last one about caring what terrorists think, but you continue to out do yourself.

The irony alone is enough to discredit anything you say.

 

[Biggles]

I appreciate that occasionally you ask intelligent questions, but not when you ask a whole bunch them each one opening potentially book length discussions. Whew!

The one I snagged has some interesting, non-obvious high level answers which most people are totally unaware of, but which are nevertheless quite meaningful and important. I'll make a couple of assertions and leave you to either go ballistic or go away and research them yourself.

#1) The Russian revolution of 1917 was partly financed by Wall Street.
#2) Rocketry and the exploration of space was one arena in which the Russians and the US have cooperated, since before the end of WWII and continuing to the present day. For instance, during the Cold War we exchanged lunar soil samples retrieved by the Apollo missions with samples taken and returned from different areas of the moon by the Russian Luna missions.

Yeah, "the Jews" financed the Bolsheviks ... and they financed the rise of Hitler. Those little cucarachas have their fingers in every pie ... including the Pizzagate pies. You crack me up Dotini!

 

[LeMansAid]

I also think it's about time someone takes away Trump's Twitter access. It was nice to see him commicating directly with the American people through it but now he's getting to brazen with it. If you want to talk forgein policy with a country I think a phone call is probably a better route than Tweeting them.

I'd be cautious about assuming that the conscious effect is not by design, and not for the sake of the subconscious effect. He already had a bit of the "better the devil you know" going on relative to "Killary". I don't doubt that he might think that playing it "dumb", like with what you mentioned, plus with other things, will subconsciously lower people's defences. If on the surface we think "inexperienced idiot", but below the surface we think "but at least he's up front", that's massive power to wield in having people less focused on questioning what covertness also exists.

 

[xyloscissor]

The right will do anything to destroy the left. American history is full of "lefties" being demonised, and yet despite the alleged evils they perpetrate, there are still people who subscribe to the leftist ideologies. Try as they might, the right simply cannot kill the left off for good, and so they're afraid of it.

I'd hardly say afraid of it, the tussle goes all the way back to just after our constitution was ratified and is the basis for our two party system.

Jefferson on the social left and Hamilton on the Capital right. I honestly wonder if you know these things before going off. One of Jefferson's main arguments was small central government and power to the states while Hamilton would be viewed as someone in favor of what we now have. Or more what Trump invissions.

Interestingly enough the majority of our left is all for big central government and regulation, something I've never quite understood. I thought liberals would be against those things. I'm not speaking of how our two parties changed platforms either, I'm talking about specifically a liberal's mind set.

 

[Joey D]

After reading about Trump's speech at the prayer breakfast thing, I think the only way I would be OK if a church contributed to a political party or candidate is if they lost their tax exempt status. Religious organizations are as much of a business as they are a morale authority. If they are going to stay tax exempt though, I don't think they should be allowed to give money to a political party or candidate.

Also, throwing shade at Arnold? What the hell man, you're the president, TV rating shouldn't concern you.

American lives don't have a dollar amount tied to them, do they?

Weirdly, they do, it's $8,000,000. (source 1, 2) It does seem funny that it was actually calculated though and it's one of those things I always felt a bit fascinated by. I know what point you were trying to make in your post, just thought this would be a fun fact.

 

[Tornado]

Can I take an equity loan against that?

 

[Fredzy]

Can I take an equity loan against that?

omg sign me up

 

[xyloscissor]

After reading about Trump's speech at the prayer breakfast thing, I think the only way I would be OK if a church contributed to a political party or candidate is if they lost their tax exempt status. Religious organizations are as much of a business as they are a morale authority. If they are going to stay tax exempt though, I don't think they should be allowed to give money to a political party or candidate.

There are two parts to that IRS, I don't know what to call it, a provision I guess. One is not allowing funding of candidates or engaging in campaigning. But the second part is not so clear and basically comes down to the first amendment. I see no reason a preacher shouldn't be allowed to address politics to his flock. Anyway here it is, the money part makes sense the other not so much, as long as direct blackmail isn't discovered but I really don't see that as an issue. I can tell you I voted for Weird Al if I wanted to when in fact I voted for Hillary.

The Restriction of Political Campaign Intervention by Section 501(c)(3) Tax-Exempt Organizations
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes.

Certain activities or expenditures may not be prohibited depending on the facts and circumstances. For example, certain voter education activities (including presenting public forums and publishing voter education guides) conducted in a non-partisan manner do not constitute prohibited political campaign activity. In addition, other activities intended to encourage people to participate in the electoral process, such as voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives, would not be prohibited political campaign activity if conducted in a non-partisan manner.

On the other hand, voter education or registration activities with evidence of bias that (a) would favor one candidate over another; (b) oppose a candidate in some manner; or (c) have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of candidates, will constitute prohibited participation or intervention.

Also, throwing shade at Arnold? What the hell man, you're the president, TV rating shouldn't concern you.

That was a joke, he was actually thanking some guy named Mark, who introduced him. Not professional but it is just a prayer meeting. I saw a funny response from Arni but I don't know if it's true so I'll leave it out. Just silly fun.

 

[ryzno]

There are two parts to that IRS, I don't know what to call it, a provision I guess. One is not allowing funding of candidates or engaging in campaigning. But the second part is not so clear and basically comes down to the first amendment. I see no reason a preacher shouldn't be allowed to address politics to his flock. Anyway here it is, the money part makes sense the other not so much, as long as direct blackmail isn't discovered but I really don't see that as an issue. I can tell you I voted for Weird Al if I wanted to when in fact I voted for Hillary.

The Restriction of Political Campaign Intervention by Section 501(c)(3) Tax-Exempt Organizations
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes.

Certain activities or expenditures may not be prohibited depending on the facts and circumstances. For example, certain voter education activities (including presenting public forums and publishing voter education guides) conducted in a non-partisan manner do not constitute prohibited political campaign activity. In addition, other activities intended to encourage people to participate in the electoral process, such as voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives, would not be prohibited political campaign activity if conducted in a non-partisan manner.

On the other hand, voter education or registration activities with evidence of bias that (a) would favor one candidate over another; (b) oppose a candidate in some manner; or (c) have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of candidates, will constitute prohibited participation or intervention.


That was a joke, he was actually thanking some guy named Mark, who introduced him. Not professional but it is just a prayer meeting. I saw a funny response from Arni but I don't know if it's true so I'll leave it out. Just silly fun.

Maybe he is finally trying to separate church and state.
I'm wondering if he might repeal the no tax clause for churches.
I personally feel he should. The church is nothing but a money racket.

 

[xyloscissor]

Maybe he is finally trying to separate church and state.
I'm wondering if he might repeal the no tax clause for churches.
I personally feel he should. The church is nothing but a money racket.

It's hard to say, this is when he touched on it and I've not seen anything else.

It was the great Thomas Jefferson who said, the God who gave us life, gave us liberty. Jefferson asked, can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God. Among those freedoms is the right to worship according to our own beliefs. That is why I will get rid of and totally destroy the Johnson Amendment and allow our representatives of faith to speak freely and without fear of retribution. I will do that, remember.

 

[ryzno]

It's hard to say, this is when he touched on it and I've not seen anything else.

It was the great Thomas Jefferson who said, the God who gave us life, gave us liberty. Jefferson asked, can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God. Among those freedoms is the right to worship according to our own beliefs. That is why I will get rid of and totally destroy the Johnson Amendment and allow our representatives of faith to speak freely and without fear of retribution. I will do that, remember.

I feel what you are saying. But I'm curious who/which side passed the no tax for churches clause.
I think I have an idea from who, the urban churches usually support them... Though I'm sure suburban churches are enjoying the same tax benefits.
Let's be honest we know religion was created by the leaders to control the people oddly with fear and hope. /my opinion