Donald Trump

[Dr. Gonzo]

Trump thanked Putin for expelling U.S. diplomats. He is Putin's bitchboy - the film for this will be called Brokeback Gulag.

[God is Haaland]

Take that!

[Dr. Gonzo]

Steve Bannon sacked.

[El Profesor]

12 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Steve Bannon sacked.

Breitbart is already declaring war to Trump. It´ll get nasty.

By the way, is there any place where you can bet on Trump not finishing his term? 

 

[Honey Honey]

1 hour ago, El_Loco said:

Breitbart is already declaring war to Trump. It´ll get nasty.

By the way, is there any place where you can bet on Trump not finishing his term? 

 

You won't get good odds. Paddypower have him 2/3 to be impeached.

[Fairy In Boots]

Rumours Bannon walked 2 weeks ago, he'll do damage to Trump. I think Trump deserves it he's no doubt going to replace Bannon with some Goldman Sachs excecutive and Briebart won't let him live this down. 

[Dr. Gonzo]

1 hour ago, Fairy In Boots said:

Rumours Bannon walked 2 weeks ago, he'll do damage to Trump. I think Trump deserves it he's no doubt going to replace Bannon with some Goldman Sachs excecutive and Briebart won't let him live this down. 

He might replace him with another general. He does love to seem hanging around the generals.

[Fairy In Boots]

Yeah it will be some globalist cock sucker because he want to appeal to the white Obama voter. It's odd really Obama did sweet fuck all to remove confederate statues, pretty much tore up the Middle East, fucked Americas economy and standing globally. Yet he's seen as a good president, white Obama fanboys don't need courting they need drowning in a sack. 

[Harry]

Its astonishing that Trump still has support among 80% of republican voters. 

There has now been turnover of basically 100% of the non family members of his inner circle. The man most to blame for all the fuck ups continues on. 

[Harry]

6 hours ago, HoneyNUFC said:

You won't get good odds. Paddypower have him 2/3 to be impeached.

Think he'd be more likely to resign before impeachment were to occur. 

That would be my bet. 

Resigning early next year after Mueller turns up a solid paper trail of business deals with Russian mob money that has him near certainty to be impeached.

[Honey Honey]

[oliveandblue]

On 8/17/2017 at 11:18 AM, True Bender said:

Take that!

Trump may be a fool, but I think German politicians have been a little too willing to get on their high horse as of late.

[oliveandblue]

On 8/18/2017 at 9:47 PM, Harry said:

Its astonishing that Trump still has support among 80% of republican voters. 

There has now been turnover of basically 100% of the non family members of his inner circle. The man most to blame for all the fuck ups continues on. 

Thing is, if he loses any more of them then those swing states go bye-bye in the next election cycle.  He's not going to get 8 years.  

[Harry]

1 hour ago, oliveandblue said:

Thing is, if he loses any more of them then those swing states go bye-bye in the next election cycle.  He's not going to get 8 years.  

I'm starting to think there is a floor to his approval that he may already be scraping the bottom of. 

On present trends even 2 years seems more likely than 8 but things can change. 

[God is Haaland]

4 hours ago, oliveandblue said:

Trump may be a fool, but I think German politicians have been a little too willing to get on their high horse as of late.

What? Why?

[Panflute]

On that note name me one present-day German politician who doesn't deserve to be tarred and feathered. How those in charge of that retarded joke of a country can even muster the cognitive dissonance required to criticize other countries is a question that future historians will struggle to answer.

[Harry]

Matt Taibbi on Stevie B:

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/taibbi-fire-steve-bannon-w498354

 

[oliveandblue]

https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/sewing-seeds-of-hate-donald-trump-s-unforgivable-disgrace-a-1163538.html

Does Germany have anything else to worry about other than Trump?  He's OUR #1 concern, but he shouldn't be yours.  I could be wrong, but this feels like all of this "focus" is a cover for something else.

I don't like him either, but still... ...damn.

[El Profesor]

1 hour ago, oliveandblue said:

https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/sewing-seeds-of-hate-donald-trump-s-unforgivable-disgrace-a-1163538.html

Does Germany have anything else to worry about other than Trump?  He's OUR #1 concern, but he shouldn't be yours.  I could be wrong, but this feels like all of this "focus" is a cover for something else.

I don't like him either, but still... ...damn.

I agree. Trump is terrible, but some of Germany´s officials criticism seems to have a very deliberate intention of gaining geopolitical power and positioning themselves as the "new leaders of free world".

The next time they accuse Erdogan of meddling in their internal affairs, they should remember they also do the same. 

[oliveandblue]

1 hour ago, El_Loco said:

I agree. Trump is terrible, but some of Germany´s officials criticism seems to have a very deliberate intention of gaining geopolitical power and positioning themselves as the "new leaders of free world".

The next time they accuse Erdogan of meddling in their internal affairs, they should remember they also do the same. 

I believe that Germany has a good shout at the title, but that title also comes with a LOT of unwanted attention.  Are they really ready for the criticism that leading the world brings with it?  

[Panflute]

14 hours ago, oliveandblue said:

I believe that Germany has a good shout at the title, but that title also comes with a LOT of unwanted attention.  Are they really ready for the criticism that leading the world brings with it?  

Germany can't even deploy their own run-down army without UN permission, they're not going to lead shit.

The "free world" is a propagandistic illusion, but that is another story altogether.

[oliveandblue]

11 hours ago, Panflute said:

Germany can't even deploy their own run-down army without UN permission, they're not going to lead shit.

The "free world" is a propagandistic illusion, but that is another story altogether.

They're using soft power combined with leadership in the EU and a relatively thriving industrial sector to achieve dominance.  Germany are still the Alphas they always were, they are just using better means to achieve their goals of European leadership.  In a way, you can say they've kinda learned from their prior mistakes...

[El Profesor]

On 20/08/2017 at 3:57 PM, oliveandblue said:

I believe that Germany has a good shout at the title, but that title also comes with a LOT of unwanted attention.  Are they really ready for the criticism that leading the world brings with it?  

I think the real problem with that title is the responsability to enforce human rights in a global scale. There´s a paradox in the universal pretension of human rights and the fact this is a historical creation, not necessarily shared in all parts of the globe. Once you take this responsability, you must acknowledge not every society is guided by the values you want to spread, otherwise there´d be no need to defend it. But then again comes the second question: how do you defend and enforce the said values?

There is a limit to what soft power can achieve, sometimes you´ll need to use brute force or at least have the military strenght to intimidate and to have your orders obeyed. Let´s say german officials denounced Nicolás Maduro. Do you really think Maduro would lose his sleep over it?

 But this also lead to what other questions: in defending liberal democracy and its values do you take the risk to hurt or kill innocent people? Isn´t this an utilitarian approach and the very opposite of the ideals that country defend? And isn´t it the human rights a cover up for crude interventionism and economic interests, just like the spread of christian faith in the colonial period?

Also another question is how the society in which the intervention occurs will respond. Obviously, this is an old dilemma, also faced by Revolutionary France. Robespierre, who was against a war against Austria, observed that noone loves armed missionaires: 

"The most extravagant idea that can be born in the head of a political thinker is to believe that it suffices for people to enter, weapons in hand, among a foreign people and expect to have its laws and constitution embraced. No one loves armed missionaries; the first lesson of nature and prudence is to repulse them as enemies."

 

Honestly, I don´t have a good answer for any those questions, while I recognize the achievements of western society and the fact it is the best part of the world to live, as a latin american I´m suspicious of this "leader of free world" talk, over the course of history this language has continually been used to disrespect our sovereignty.

[oliveandblue]

1 minute ago, El_Loco said:

I think the real problem with that title is the responsability to enforce human rights in a global scale. There´s a paradox in the universal pretension of human rights and the fact this is a historical creation, not necessarily shared in all parts of the globe. Once you take this responsability, you must acknowledge not every society is guided by the values you want to spread, otherwise there´d be no need to defend it. But then again comes the second question: how do you defend and enforce the said values?

There is a limit to what soft power can achieve, sometimes you´ll need to use brute force or at least have the military strenght to intimidate and to have your orders obeyed. Let´s say german officials denounced Nicolás Maduro. Do you really think Maduro would lose his sleep over it?

 But this also lead to what other questions: in defending liberal democracy and its values do you take the risk to hurt or kill innocent people? Isn´t this an utilitarian approach and the very opposite of the ideals that country defend? And isn´t it the human rights a cover up for crude interventionism and economic interests, just like the spread of christian faith in the colonial period?

Also another question is how the society in which the intervention occurs will respond. Obviously, this is an old dilemma, also faced by Revolutionary France. Robespierre, who was against a war against Austria, observed that noone loves armed missionaires: 

"The most extravagant idea that can be born in the head of a political thinker is to believe that it suffices for people to enter, weapons in hand, among a foreign people and expect to have its laws and constitution embraced. No one loves armed missionaries; the first lesson of nature and prudence is to repulse them as enemies."

 

Honestly, I don´t have a good answer for any those questions, but as a latin american I´m suspicious of this "leader of free world talk", over the course of history this language has continually been used to disrespect our sovereignty.

You're underrating the Germans.  They have the technological know-how and the industrial power to create a moderately good military with projection power.  Besides, they have a best friend in France that can go in with them (the French probably have the #1 military in the EU at the moment).  Merkel has Macron firmly in her corner.  

Germany, unlike the USA, is still in good graces with many other Western foreign leaders.  Germany would lead, but they'd have adequate backup and the trust of their allies to achieve their goals for the betterment of the West (aka "Leader of the Free World").  It couldn't happen tomorrow, but in 5 years I think anything is possible with enough motivation.  

[Honey Honey]

The free world means not communist. Which is why Panflute doesn't like the term