Cont: All things Trump + Russia Part 2

[BobTheCoward]

If these people are of no use, why did Trump not pull them (and their peers in all the other 189 nations) back? Would have saved much more money than banning transgender service members!

So presumption ought to be that the ejection does harm, or having these people were of no use to start with, and Tillerson would be responsible for continuing this waste.

Do you favor giving Tillerson the boot?
Or do you agree that the null hypothesis ought to be "there is harm in the ejection"?
Try to be consisten.

Our benefit is like the benefit from providing charity to other places. It is nice, but it would be better to have country x refuse and let the US spend it somewhere else.

 

[Oystein]

FFS
http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/...nzen-nach-diplomaten-ausweisung-15129773.html

Just because it isn't on page 1 (Because it would go against the "RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA"-narrative doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

Thanks for confirming my point!
1. It's some speaker of the State Department, not Trump, who is quoted there. No sign of Trump hitting back, when he is so damned known for hitting (personally) against every perceived foe.
2. The statement says the ejections are "regrettable" and "disproportionate" and that they "examine" what a appropriate reaction might be. In other words: No reaction yet. I could hardly imagine a softer statement.

 

[Oystein]

Huh?
Sanctions ... (Germany, UK) that advocated for them.

No.

 

[Oystein]

Our benefit is like the benefit from providing charity to other places. It is nice, but it would be better to have country x refuse and let the US spend it somewhere else.

Do you believe that Trump made Tillerson SecState so he could be "nice" to other countries, even though it would be better if those countries refused? This hardly sounds like a Trump policy.

Do you advocate removing Tillerson because he wastes US money on needlesly being "nice"? If not, why not?

 

[BobTheCoward]

Do you believe that Trump made Tillerson SecState so he could be "nice" to other countries, even though it would be better if those countries refused? This hardly sounds like a Trump policy.

Do you advocate removing Tillerson because he wastes US money on needlesly being "nice"? If not, why not?

That is a political question and I'm not interested in politics. How much benefit public state department officials actually do that provides a benefit is interesting.

 

[dudalb]

Huh?
Sanctions where never popular in europe.
It was mainly the US poodles (Germany, UK) that advocated for them.
UK is out, and merkel needs to be elected in germany, not the US.
So yeah, it's not suprising that sanity starts to surface again.

Ah a Putin fanboy. How cute.

 

[dudalb]

Are we supposed to be shocked or embarrassed that Europeans don't want to get into it with Russia? It's a state run by criminals and for criminals, and supporting the regime is wrong.

And a number of the countries in Eastern Europe have had first hand experience of "Friendship " with Russia from 1945 to 1990,and don't want a repeat performance.
I admit Putin is clever in one way...he has managed to get the support of a number of useful idiots on both the left and the right..something the Soviet Union never could have done.

 

[Oystein]

That is a political question and I'm not interested in politics. How much benefit public state department officials actually do that provides a benefit is interesting.

LOL
How is that not a political question?
Bob, stop digging.

 

[NoahFence]

If they are not his sanctions then the Russians are not hitting him. If they are him hitting then he is hitting back.

Further, Russians making it more difficult to get what they want is not hitting the US, just punching themselves in the face.

CONGRESS is hitting back.

Not Trump.

 

[BobTheCoward]

LOL
How is that not a political question?
Bob, stop digging.

I have no position on what a state department should or should not do. It is merely a cost benefit question.

 

[BobTheCoward]

CONGRESS is hitting back.

Not Trump.

Then he is not being hit by the response.

 

[Oystein]

Then he is not being hit by the response.

I already schooled you on this.
The ejections are from State Department - i.e. Administration, executive. I.e. The President. Trump. NOT congress.

Congress hits Russia
Russia hits Trump.
Trump sits and doesn't hit back.

Repeat this after me 100 times, so you learn it.

And stop digging. You are shoveling dirt now that you already heaped onto yourself.

ETA:

I have no position on what a state department should or should not do. It is merely a cost benefit question.

LOL
And there you go, digging the hole deeper

 

[BobTheCoward]

I already schooled you on this.
The ejections are from State Department - i.e. Administration, executive. I.e. The President. Trump. NOT congress.

Congress hits Russia
Russia hits Trump.
Trump sits and doesn't hit back.

Repeat this after me 100 times, so you learn it.

And stop digging. You are shoveling dirt now that you already heaped onto yourself.

If the president is so capable of completely distancing himself from a law passed by the government then I can't imagine him having much attachment to the state department.

 

[BobTheCoward]

And there you go, digging the hole deeper

What are you talking about? I really don't have an interest in what the state department or government should do.

 

[Civet]

Well never mind, the White House is now confirming that Trump was involved in Trump Jr.'s original statement. Confirms at least part of the leaks.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Since the one making a positive claim bears the burden of evidence, you ought to have said: "There are several avenues of investigation needed to be completed before one can say there was collusion."



The emails smell like part of the cheese in the trap.

Since I believe there is enough evidence, I used collusion as the default. You can hold out your benefit of the doubt as long as you want.

Too many people in the inner circle meeting with Russians.
Too many denials/lies later taken back.
No way it's credible Jr's meeting was about adoption, another lie.
Too many financial connections.
The computer communicating with a sanctioned Russian bank.
The attempts to create a back-channel to the Kremlin.
Trump's obvious refusal to address the Russian election interference.
Et cetera.

How much evidence do you want before you change your default position?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Well never mind, the White House is now confirming that Trump was involved in Trump Jr.'s original statement. Confirms at least part of the leaks.

After first denying it, of course.

 

[phiwum]

Delete.

 

[Belz...]

Delete.

Dammit! Phiwum's been converted by the cybermen!

 

[trustbutverify]

Sorry, as a non-native speaker, I have to look this word up. It apparently has several meanings. Do you mean "fools"? Do you mean "small change"? Do you mean "steaks of lamb"? Do you mean "chunks"?

All of the above. Trump's Chumps.