[Winstonm]

The case against Donald Trump.

[ldrews]

 Winstonm, on 2017-November-11, 19:09, said:

The case against Donald Trump.

Not according to Diane Feinstein:

https://townhall.com...gation-n2405379

[hrothgar]

 ldrews, on 2017-November-11, 15:12, said:

Absolutely, just like the US, China, and other nations mess with other nation's elections. So what is new?

Well lets see...

First and foremost, there's that whole little issue with the Trump Organization and criminal money laundering...

The Russians were attempting to influence our elections for a reason. In part, Putin really really hates Hillary Clinton, but they also wanted to place a stooge who they can easily blackmail into the White House. (I agree that this statement can not yet be proven. ive Mueller a bit more time)

Second, the Trump Campaign was stupid enough to solicit help from the Russians. In particular, Donald Trump Senior directly asked the Russians to intervene in the election by releasing Clinton's emails at a point in time when he knew that the Russians were involved in criminal activities to hack into the DNC.

Of course, there are those nagging little charges related to obstruction of justice.

And this is only the beginning...

[Zelandakh]

 ldrews, on 2017-November-11, 18:53, said:

I was asked my standard for success, not my prescription for addressing the issue.

You stated that Trump was addressing the issue. I asked you how he was doing so that was not already being done previously, not what your personal policy would be.

 ldrews, on 2017-November-11, 18:53, said:

I don't remember previous presidents actively engaging with China, Russia, Japan, and others to impose severe sanctions on North Korea to try to convince them that cooperation is the better choice. I don't remember other presidents countering Kim Jong Un's bluster with even bigger bluster to try to communicate that bluster is not going to work. Can you give counter examples?

Well yes. The sanctions policy was begun during the Obama presidency and many commentators have noted that the Trump administration is continuing that same policy, which given the general theme of "everything Obama = bad" is to their credit. Nothing new though, just a continuation of the same ideas. The bluster is new but surely not even you could consider that any form of addressing the issue?!! The experts in this area I have heard from, such as Daniel Fried, generally believe that the bluster gets in the way of the (otherwise good) strategy. In other words, full marks to the administration for not tearing up Obama's good groundwork but no marks for new initiatives and negative marks for Trump personally.

It seems to me that you think the Obama policy was a good one and are simply giving credit for it to the wrong people. If this qualifies as addressing the NK issue for you, you presumably therefore give Obama full credit for addressing the issue too. Right?

[Winstonm]

You would think someone would have to read more than a headline if he thought he would refute the article. The Atlantic article doesn't talk about collusion - which is actually a rather meaningless word. What The Atlantic speaks to is the complicity of Trump after the fact.

[ldrews]

 Zelandakh, on 2017-November-11, 19:25, said:

You stated that Trump was addressing the issue. I asked you how he was doing so that was not already being done previously, not what your personal policy would be.


Well yes. The sanctions policy was begun during the Obama presidency and many commentators have noted that the Trump administration is continuing that same policy, which given the general theme of "everything Obama = bad" is to their credit. Nothing new though, just a continuation of the same ideas. The bluster is new but surely not even you could consider that any form of addressing the issue?!! The experts in this area I have heard from, such as Daniel Fried, generally believe that the bluster gets in the way of the (otherwise good) strategy. In other words, full marks to the administration for not tearing up Obama's good groundwork but no marks for new initiatives and negative marks for Trump personally.

It seems to me that you think the Obama policy was a good one and are simply giving credit for it to the wrong people. If this qualifies as addressing the NK issue for you, you presumably therefore give Obama full credit for addressing the issue too. Right?

Wrong. While I don't presume to have all of the information on Obama's foreign policy regarding North Korea, I was here and following the news. I certainly don't remember Obama or his administration negotiating with the Chinese and Russia to turn the screws on North Korea. Perhaps you could provide me with a link that says otherwise?

[hrothgar]

 ldrews, on 2017-November-11, 19:29, said:

Wrong. While I don't presume to have all of the information on Obama's foreign policy regarding North Korea, I was here and following the news. I certainly don't remember Obama or his administration negotiating with the Chinese and Russia to turn the screws on North Korea. Perhaps you could provide me with a link that says otherwise?

To quote the good Reverend Berkeley, "If a tree falls in a forest and Drews has his head up his ass, did it make a noise?"

Previous administrations did not conduct foreign policy via Twitter and the fact that you and your peanut sized brain are not aware of things does not mean that it did not happen.

Quick hint, given that both China and Russia have vetos on the Security Council, most any UN Sanctions required negotiating with both these countries.

However, if you want more direct evidence, the consider the following quote from Foreign Policy

http://foreignpolicy...un-trump-obama/

Quote

Eight years of U.S. and U.N. diplomatic maneuvering during President Barack Obama’s tenure has left North Korea increasingly isolated. But it has still utterly failed to achieve the primary goal of curbing the country’s nuclear weapons and missile program. North Korea has detonated five nuclear weapons in underground tests since 2006 — four while Obama was in office — and conducted a flurry of missile launches for its growing missile arsenal. U.S. intelligence officers believe it is only a matter of time before the regime builds a nuclear-tipped intercontinental missile capable of striking the United States.

The resolution on Wednesday was designed to address a gaping loophole in a previous set of sanctions adopted in March that allowed coal exports from the North for “livelihood” reasons. China, with its large appetite for commodities, cited the exception to increase imports of coal from its neighbor since the spring.

The new measures are the product of U.S. lobbying of China over the issue, including a veiled threat that the United States would take unilateral action against Chinese companies doing illegal business with the North. In a move seen as a warning to Beijing, the Treasury Department in September issued criminal charges against Dandong Hongxiang Industrial Development Co. and its owner, alleging that the Chinese firm had links to a notorious North Korean bank, Kwangson Banking.

The U.N. resolution also reflects China’s frustration with the North, as the regime’s provocative actions have irritated Beijing and prompted South Korea to acquire a sophisticated missile defense system that China views a threat to its own military.

<BTW, following the news is not the same as reading Breitbart and Townhall....>

[ldrews]

 hrothgar, on 2017-November-11, 19:40, said:

To quote the good Reverend Berkeley, "If a tree falls in a forest and Drews has his head up his ass, did it make a noise?"

Previous administrations did not conduct foreign policy via Twitter and the fact that you and your peanut sized brain are not aware of things does not mean that it did not happen.

Quick hint, given that both China and Russia have vetos on the Security Council, most any UN Sanctions required negotiating with both these countries.

However, if you want more direct evidence, the consider the following quote from Foreign Policy

http://foreignpolicy...un-trump-obama/



<BTW, following the news is not the same as reading Breitbart and Townhall....>

So, no link to Obama actually negotiating directly with China or Russia regarding North Korea. That is what I thought.

Obama had 8 years to accomplish something in regards to North Korea nuclearization. No success. Let's see what Trump can do in 8 years.

[hrothgar]

 ldrews, on 2017-November-11, 19:51, said:

So, no link to Obama actually negotiating directly with China or Russia regarding North Korea. That is what I thought.

Obama had 8 years to accomplish something in regards to North Korea nuclearization. No success. Let's see what Trump can do in 8 years.

Stop trying to change the goalposts ***** for brains

In the previous post you claimed to be well educated on this topic and stated that " I certainly don't remember Obama or his administration negotiating with the Chinese and Russia"
It took me all of 11 minutes to provide a quote showing that the Obama administration negotiated with the Chinese.
And now you try to claim that you're right because the quote doesn't indicate that Obama was involved in the meeting.

Does this sort of idiocy normally work for you?

[ldrews]

 hrothgar, on 2017-November-11, 20:02, said:

Stop trying to change the goalposts ***** for brains

In the previous post you claimed to be well educated on this topic and stated that " I certainly don't remember Obama or his administration negotiating with the Chinese and Russia"
It took me all of 11 minutes to provide a quote showing that the Obama administration negotiated with the Chinese.
And now you try to claim that you're right because the quote doesn't indicate that Obama was involved in the meeting.

Does this sort of idiocy normally work for you?

What goalposts? You think this is a ***** game? And still no link.

It has only been since Trump started negotiating with China that China has reduced doing business with North Korea, closed North Korea bank accounts, reduced or stopped shipments of materials, etc. Nothing like this happened during Obama's term. Or can you not provide a link again to counter examples?

[Winstonm]

From earlier today.

Quote

TRUMP ABOARD AF1 on accusations of election meddling:

“This artificial Democratic hit job gets in the way and that’s a shame. Because people will die because of it. And it’s a pure hit job.”

How's that? People will die? What ya gonna do, have 'em whacked?

[RedSpawn]

 ldrews, on 2017-November-11, 15:12, said:

Absolutely, just like the US, China, and other nations mess with other nation's elections. So what is new?

Now, this comment is fair.

Sources:
https://www.washingt...m=.91f749c74141

https://www.huffingt...4b02d5d5ed382bd

I would like to hear an intelligent discussion about how our historical election meddling was different and more morally superior than the election meddling that Russia has allegedly done.

We have to reign in our Puritan values when our hands are covered in Macbeth blood about election meddling matters.

The citizenry has a civic duty to question our leadership on our election meddling in other countries.

[ldrews]

 RedSpawn, on 2017-November-11, 22:05, said:

Now, this comment is fair.

Sources:
https://www.washingt...m=.91f749c74141

https://www.huffingt...4b02d5d5ed382bd

I would like to hear an intelligent discussion about how our historical election meddling was different and more morally superior than the election meddling that Russia has allegedly done.

We have to reign in our Puritan values when our hands are covered in Macbeth blood about election meddling matters.

The citizenry has a civic duty to question our leadership on our election meddling in other countries.

This may be happening. I heard a commentator say that he has worked out with the same group of guys at the gym for 10 years. Where they used to talk about sports, women, jobs, now they talk about politics, tax reform, immigration, etc. The commentator says that Trump has changed the conversation in the public. If so we may see more and more intense participation by the public which I think is a good thing.

I think we make a mistake in our viewpoints by assuming that the international relationships are similar to the social/government relationships in our home country. But internationally there is no authority that makes sure that everyone follows whatever the rules are, unlike domestically. So the game is much different. Internationally it is a game of power, military or economic. Some play the long game and some play the short game. And there is no referee. So nations regularly mess with other nations' political processes to try to gain power and influence. This has been happening since the dawn of civilization, if not before.

That's my 2 cents worth.

[RedSpawn]

 ldrews, on 2017-November-11, 20:37, said:

What goalposts? You think this is a ***** game? And still no link.

It has only been since Trump started negotiating with China that China has reduced doing business with North Korea, closed North Korea bank accounts, reduced or stopped shipments of materials, etc. Nothing like this happened during Obama's term. Or can you not provide a link again to counter examples?

It sounds like you need sources to show President Obama's foreign policy toward North Korea. Your wish is my command. . .

Sources:

https://www.treasury...q_other.aspx#nk ==> Look for North Korea sanctions and Executive Order 13722 by President Obama in March 2016.

http://www.bbc.com/n...d-asia-35828831

https://www.nytimes....ghts-abuse.html

https://www.reuters....E9460CX20130507

This closing of North Korean foreign trade accounts was completed by China in conjunction with the economic sanctions President Obama had issued on North Korea.

Please review Executive Order 13722.

Source:
https://www.hsdl.org...ract&did=791357 ==> Notice that it has President Obama saying how he is responding to North Korea's nuclear and missile program.

I think the links above along with the closing of the North Korean bank accounts at the Bank of China, LTD clearly show that Obama was actively aware and implementing policies and issuing executive orders to address North Korea's provocative acts and nuclear testing.

The North Korea sanctions is a NOT a new thing that President Trump is doing; it's a continuation of some of President Obama's previous foreign policy strategies.

The difference this time is the guy in front of the White House microphone is a mythic Anglo Saxon tragic hero who is more appealing to certain members of the tribal American electorate.

[cherdano]

 ldrews, on 2017-November-11, 18:53, said:

I was asked my standard for success, not my prescription for addressing the issue.

I don't remember previous presidents actively engaging with China, Russia, Japan, and others to impose severe sanctions on North Korea to try to convince them that cooperation is the better choice.

You think it really helps advance your argument to point out that you have terrible memory?

[RedSpawn]

 hrothgar, on 2017-November-11, 19:40, said:

To quote the good Reverend Berkeley, "If a tree falls in a forest and Drews has his head up his ass, did it make a noise?"

Previous administrations did not conduct foreign policy via Twitter and the fact that you and your peanut sized brain are not aware of things does not mean that it did not happen.

Quick hint, given that both China and Russia have vetos on the Security Council, most any UN Sanctions required negotiating with both these countries.

However, if you want more direct evidence, the consider the following quote from Foreign Policy

http://foreignpolicy...un-trump-obama/



<BTW, following the news is not the same as reading Breitbart and Townhall....>

Tis true. I made the horrendous mistake of reading a Breitbart article and I could immediately tell that a con-job and a con-journalist was at work after reading the headline.

We deserve a 4th estate that works for us instead of working for certain establishments and special interests.

[hrothgar]

 ldrews, on 2017-November-11, 20:37, said:

What goalposts? You think this is a ***** game? And still no link.

It has only been since Trump started negotiating with China that China has reduced doing business with North Korea, closed North Korea bank accounts, reduced or stopped shipments of materials, etc. Nothing like this happened during Obama's term. Or can you not provide a link again to counter examples?

Yes, this is a %&(W)$(^ game.

Its called "Look how stupid Drews is".

It involves pointing out the myriad of mistakes, counter factual, logical inconsistencies, and god knows what else that litter your posts.
You don't really think that people on the forums engage with you because they value your opinion, care what you have to say, or think that they are going to change your mind?
Conversely, do you think that your brilliant logic and detailed knowledge of US - North Korean is going convince anyone of the truth of your ways?

If I want to have an intelligent conversation about this topic I have plenty of options...

This here is the grown up version of pulling wings off of flies.

[RedSpawn]

 Winstonm, on 2017-November-11, 19:09, said:

The case against Donald Trump.

Nice article.

Trump may be guilty. But I think the real story lies behind what evidence, if any, exists that reveals our intelligence communities or Department of Defense have played in toying with election outcomes.

We are all up in arms about election meddling from foreign countries, but my gut tells me there is a whole lot of domestic election meddling occurring underneath the radar because we are angling for a Trump takedown.

We have meddled in foreign elections using various artifices of the federal government. Yet now, Russia is allegedly attacking our democracy by serving us an overflowing plate of revenge. And as usual, we are marshalling any and all resources of the United States government to get to the bottom of this rabbit hole.

However, I don't know if we really want to see how deep this rabbit hole goes especially when we feel safer viewing matters through the looking glass.

Why are we acting like the only election meddling that could have occurred in 2016 is from the Trump administration? Would the military industrial complex and intelligence communities have a motive to election meddle? Is it possible that they are behind any of the hacks into the RNC or DNC?

Could these establishments want a Trump in the White House to green light and practice a hawkish cowboy and gunboat diplomacy in North Korea and Afghanistan and provide a robust defense budget that is not subject to all of those worrying sequestration limitations of days past?

Are the military and intelligence communities above the fray from election meddling?

Have they acquired the talent in-house to hack computer network systems (domestic and foreign) to obtain DNC and RNC emails and leak them later to change election dynamics and outcomes?

I haven't proven a thing; however, if there is even a ring of truth to what I have just said, if we discover that our enemy and terrorist is really at home and its our trusted, venerated institutions, we are in a world of hurt more dangerous and sinister than even Russia or North Korea can create.

[RedSpawn]

Duplicate-please delete.

[RedSpawn]

https://www.theguard...h-data-facility
https://www.wired.co..._nsadatacenter/
https://nsa.gov1.inf...ah-data-center/ ==> this is parody website

With respect to our intelligence communities, review these websites and reassure me that it doesn't have the ability to fall prey to human folly and vice.