THE ERA OF TRUMP

[Speaker to Animals]

Wrong, it is used as a deterrent. When you know, you are going up against an enemy that has superior numbers, and power you are less likely to loose your shit against them, because you don't want to deal with the repercussions, like death and humiliating defeat.

How much warfare, do you suppose, the people of Japan and Germany have been exposed to since 1945?

If you ranked developed nations by casualties in foreign wars, you'd also see a correlation between size of the armed forces and war. Maybe those wars were all just wars, that's not really the point. The point is that, when some foreign war is a choice, and when a nation has a very large armed forces, the choice is more often than not: yes.

When you have another country's army to protect you... it's called a shield.

You are moving goalposts around. Nobody has attacked the western territory of Europe since WW2. Our wars have been foreign, mostly set in the third world. The bigger the armed forces, the more engaged the nation is in the third world conflicts. France and UK are tits-deep in foreign engagements. France is perpetually locked in African conflicts, for example. But the other nations of Western Europe.. not so much. Even when they do participate, it's quite minimal.

Large armed forces tends to pull a nation into foreign conflicts. I did not make a value judgment over whether that is favorable to us or not. It just simply is the case.

[The Conservative]

How much warfare, do you suppose, the people of Japan and Germany have been exposed to since 1945?

If you ranked developed nations by casualties in foreign wars, you'd also see a correlation between size of the armed forces and war. Maybe those wars were all just wars, that's not really the point. The point is that, when some foreign war is a choice, and when a nation has a very large armed forces, the choice is more often than not: yes.

When you have another country's army to protect you... it's called a shield.

You are moving goalposts around. Nobody has attacked the western territory of Europe since WW2. Our wars have been foreign, mostly set in the third world. The bigger the armed forces, the more engaged the nation is in the third world conflicts. France and UK are tits-deep in foreign engagements. France is perpetually locked in African conflicts, for example. But the other nations of Western Europe.. not so much. Even when they do participate, it's quite minimal.

Large armed forces tends to pull a nation into foreign conflicts. I did not make a value judgment over whether that is favorable to us or not. It just simply is the case.

France and the UK are "tits deep" as you call it because of their belief of the UN's effectiveness...

As for the rest, the US gets involved when it needs to pull the other country's ass out of the proverbial fire. If the UN had real power the countries would be going to them instead of demanding the US getting involved. We get involved because we have an effective military. Trump wants to expand on that and make us effective to the point where if we show up on the field of battle most enemy combatants will say "fuck this" and either surrender or walk off.

It's happened before, it can happen again.

[Montegriffo]

France and the UK are "tits deep" as you call it because of their belief of the UN's effectiveness...

Nope, they are involved because of their own vested interests, just as the US is.
Going to war for altruistic reasons is as rare as rocking horse shit....

[SilverEagle]

Thanks Mexico! Helping Americans be less fat!

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-m ... 6E0OZ?il=0

[SuburbanFarmer]

Thanks Mexico! Helping Americans be less fat!

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-m ... 6E0OZ?il=0

Great news for Florida. They can stop shutting down sugar mills for a while.

[ssu]

What are you referring to as Russian disinformation, Wikileaks? It's a very safe bet that the documents are genuine.

And I just said that the email hacks were genuine. You should first read what people write before commenting.

It's unAmerican to be blindly subservient to your government and appreciating the leaks doesn't mean I want to see our country defeated by the Russians.

The leaks do tell how US politics work. And that the DNC had a favorite candidate was totally obvious even without the DNC hacks, just as was that GOP establishment was against Trump. The pay-to-play schemes was something rather likely too, if one knows how Washington works. That isn't the issue. The issue has been the utter denial that Russia had anything to do with the hacks.

What I critisize is the blindly being subservient in following your partisan line then.

If the other party does something bad, it's an outrage, yet if the party you support does exactly the same, it's totally different and not true. I noticed this first when Obama succeeded Bush and suddenly the critics of the Bush administration and it's War-on-Terror fell silent even if Obama de facto continued the policies of the Bush administration.

It doesn't matter where the documents came from because they expose the truth and expose corruption in our country. We're better off knowing the truth so that we can attempt to fix things.

Like draining the swamp? Or does that means believing in every tweet Trump sends out? OK.

[Dand]

What are you referring to as Russian disinformation, Wikileaks? It's a very safe bet that the documents are genuine.

And I just said that the email hacks were genuine. You should first read what people write before commenting.

It's unAmerican to be blindly subservient to your government and appreciating the leaks doesn't mean I want to see our country defeated by the Russians.

The leaks do tell how US politics work. And that the DNC had a favorite candidate was totally obvious even without the DNC hacks, just as was that GOP establishment was against Trump. The pay-to-play schemes was something rather likely too, if one knows how Washington works. That isn't the issue. The issue has been the utter denial that Russia had anything to do with the hacks.

What I critisize is the blindly being subservient in following your partisan line then.

If the other party does something bad, it's an outrage, yet if the party you support does exactly the same, it's totally different and not true. I noticed this first when Obama succeeded Bush and suddenly the critics of the Bush administration and it's War-on-Terror fell silent even if Obama de facto continued the policies of the Bush administration.

It doesn't matter where the documents came from because they expose the truth and expose corruption in our country. We're better off knowing the truth so that we can attempt to fix things.

Like draining the swamp? Or does that means believing in every tweet Trump sends out? OK.

I read what you wrote and didn't understand how the wikileaks emails could have been disinformation if they were genuine so I asked to clarify. "Disinformation" means information that is not genuine or is misleading. The fact is that we don't know who hacked Podesta's emails and I've never said it wasn't Russia but only that we don't know. We know even less about the DNC emails that Wikileaks published; they could have been hacked or leaked by someone who had access.

I share your criticism of partisan hypocrisy and you're wrong to assume I'm a Republican loyalist that will go along with anything the party wants.

[ssu]

I read what you wrote and didn't understand how the wikileaks emails could have been disinformation if they were genuine so I asked to clarify. "Disinformation" means information that is not genuine or is misleading. The fact is that we don't know who hacked Podesta's emails and I've never said it wasn't Russia but only that we don't know. We know even less about the DNC emails that Wikileaks published; they could have been hacked or leaked by someone who had access.

I share your criticism of partisan hypocrisy and you're wrong to assume I'm a Republican loyalist that will go along with anything the party wants.

Any information campaign done by some country isn't all lies. I tried to explain that only occasionaly are falsehoods used. But a "good" information campaign blends the disinformation along with the genuine facts.

Perfect example of Russia using "genuine facts" are the telephone hacks of US & Western officials that were used during the Maidan uprising at the start of the operation where Russia annexed Crimea. The phonecalls were true, for instance the Estonian foreign minister immediately acknowledged that his recorded phonecall was true. And these phonecalls could be easily used in the Russian propaganda as part of the "larger conspiracy". Hence these facts (genuine wiretaps) were then used alongside the disinformation "that the coup was totally a CIA plot".

And when it comes to lies that will eventually be seen as lies with no chance of being undetected, even they can be used when the timing is right (how the "little green men" were told to be Crimean volunteers at first).

[SuburbanFarmer]

[de officiis]

Third protester pleads guilty in plot to wreck Trump inaugural ball, receives no jail time

An anti-Trump protester has pleaded guilty to conspiracy for his role in plotting to shut down an inaugural ball by setting off stink bombs and sprinklers, a case brought after Project Veritas videotaped the man discussing the scheme.

Scott Ryan Charney, 34, pleaded guilty Tuesday to the misdemeanor charge of conspiracy to commit assault.

Under an agreement with prosecutors, the D.C. resident can have his criminal record expunged in six months if he completes 48 hours of community service, is not rearrested and abides by other conditions including a verbal or written apology to organizers of the targeted event, the DeploraBall.

Mr. Charney is the third of three members of the D.C. Anti-Fascist Coalition charged with conspiracy after he was captured on hidden-camera video at the Comet Ping Pong pizza parlor in Northwest Washington.

Paul “Luke” Kuhn and Colin B. Dunn, who received similar deferred sentencing agreements, were sentenced Thursday to community service but no jail time after entering guilty pleas in D.C. Superior Court on unlawful conspiracy to commit an offense.

Mr. Charney, who went by the name Scott Green in the Project Veritas video, said he wanted to ruin the DeploraBall, an inaugural fete organized by the pro-Trump group MAGA3X.

“I was thinking of things that would ruin their evening, ruin their outfits and otherwise make it impossible to continue with their plans — so they get nothing accomplished,” Mr. Charney said in the undercover video.
...
DisruptJ20, whose slogans include “no peaceful transition,” crowed last week on Twitter that “activists to serve no jail time from @JamesOKeefeIII’s failed sting operation.” Organizers for the group had said the activists in the undercover video figured out that the Project Veritas investigator was a plant and went on to discuss a false plot as a joke.