Select Page
Poker Forum
Over 1,291,000 Posts!
Poker ForumFTR Community

*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

Page 86 of 125 FirstFirst ... 3676848586878896 ... LastLast
Results 6,376 to 6,450 of 9319
  1. #6376
    wtf is an ethernet cable?

    Oh wait I remember those.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  2. #6377
    Quote Originally Posted by oskar View Post
    I am rarely that literally at loss for words. I don't know what they think they're doing, what they think they're accomplishing, why they think this is a good look and why this is then posted on the official whitehouse.gov page.


    This one's still bizarre but it's explicable:



    They ldo didn't want him in the situation room during the Baghdadi raid, so they organized a photo op to make it look like he did something, and during the photo op he asked an intern to pull the Ethernet cables out of the trunking because he thinks that makes it look more sophisticated. Nobody cared enough to object.
    lol wtf is going on with everyone's eye line? Is there are three ring circus being performed?
  3. #6378
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,504
    Location
    Finding my game
    Hardened laptops aren't allowed to use wifi, so the cables look standard. Seems there's 2 different networks available, probably for two different security classifications.
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

  4. #6379
    Nothing says 'hi-tech' more than a bunch of tangled loose cables, everyone knows that.

    Trump's laptop is probably showing Call of Duty.

    Everyone is looking in a different direction because they're too embarrassed to look at the camera.
  5. #6380
    Poop, do you not think cocco's explanation is credible?
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  6. #6381
    Throw an irregularity or two into a photo and you sometimes get people thinking past the sale.
  7. #6382
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Poop, do you not think cocco's explanation is credible?
    Sure it was. I was referring to the idea of having the cables looking like a disorganized mess.
  8. #6383
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Throw an irregularity or two into a photo and you sometimes get people thinking past the sale.
    Ah, it's 3D chess again.
  9. #6384
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Sure it was. I was referring to the idea of having the cables looking like a disorganized mess.
    The yellow ones are plugged in. The red ones aren't. Looks pretty organised to me.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  10. #6385
    Did you see the part where Trump told them to pull the cables out of the trunking so it'd look more 'sophisticated?'. That's what I'm laughing at.

    And do you think it looks 'sophisticated' in your photo op to have a loose cable sitting on top not connected to anything?
  11. #6386
    Did you see the part where Trump told them to pull the cables out of the trunking so it'd look more 'sophisticated?'
    No. It doesn't look more sophisticated though, it just looks like they're on the yellow channel, and the red ones are untidy simply because they need to be readily accessible.

    If he deliberately did it for the cameras, yeah that's worthy of mockery.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  12. #6387
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Throw an irregularity or two into a photo and you sometimes get people thinking past the sale.
    Honestly, no one would be going in so hard on the picture if Trump didn't insist on claiming to have one upped Obama. He drew the comparisons, needlessly, and, in turn, being the visual creatures we are, we're shitting on his situation room photo op, because Obama's was objectively so much better. Beyond one just being a better photo, if you chose to read into them, especially when they're side by side, they say a ton about each man, and each man's administration.


    Last edited by boost; 11-03-2019 at 10:57 AM.
  13. #6388
    Trump's looks like people gathering for a photo op with no-one knowing where they're supposed to look. Obama's looks like people actually doing work and not just trying to look like they might be doing work.
  14. #6389
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Ah, it's 3D chess again.
    It's a sales technique he uses. I'm not sure how effective it is, and I wouldn't use it the way he does.
  15. #6390
    Quote Originally Posted by boost View Post
    Honestly, no one would be going in so hard on the picture if Trump didn't insist on claiming to have one upped Obama. He drew the comparisons, needlessly, and, in turn, being the visual creatures we are, we're shitting on his situation room photo op, because Obama's was objectively so much better. Beyond one just being a better photo, if you chose to read into them, especially when they're side by side, they say a ton about each man, and each man's administration.


    You're right, they do say a ton about each man. I like Obama's photo much better. Trump's looks very silly.

    The sale Trump is thinking past with this photo is likely (1) being imagined as Head of State and (2) associated with deadness of Bagh-Deadi. Obama didn't need sale #1, but Trump needs it big time to survive. It probably would have hurt Obama to hamfist that sale. Obama sitting on the side in casual dress is a great image for him in this situation.

    Is Trump's photo a good image for him? The photo is dumb, but it sells him as Head of State because everybody's arguing over the silly details of a photo where the backdrop is Trump looking exactly the way he wants to look.
    Last edited by wufwugy; 11-03-2019 at 12:04 PM.
  16. #6391
    Obama's looks like they're watching Two Girls One Cup. Trump's looks like he's put cardboard cutouts of pretend officials there. The gormless black haired dude looks real, but the others look fake.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  17. #6392
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Trump's doing that squinty-eyes thing that always reminds me of the movie Get Shorty.

    Skip the first minute for the exact dialogue I'm referring to.




    It's like Trump thinks that squinting his eyes makes him look thoughtful or serious, but it really doesn't.
    EDIT: his frown makes him look serious, but not the squint.
    Last edited by MadMojoMonkey; 11-04-2019 at 12:06 PM.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  18. #6393
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Obama's looks like they're watching Two Girls One Cup. Trump's looks like he's put cardboard cutouts of pretend officials there. The gormless black haired dude looks real, but the others look fake.
    2x lol

    In Trump's photo, the guy on the left looks like he's been caught mid-fart. Pence knows.

    Clinton's all, "Try to look shocked. Hand on mouth. Yeah. No one will notice my eyes."
    Biden's like, "not bad. I give it an 8."
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  19. #6394
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    You're right, they do say a ton about each man. I like Obama's photo much better. Trump's looks very silly.

    The sale Trump is thinking past with this photo is likely (1) being imagined as Head of State and (2) associated with deadness of Bagh-Deadi. Obama didn't need sale #1, but Trump needs it big time to survive. It probably would have hurt Obama to hamfist that sale. Obama sitting on the side in casual dress is a great image for him in this situation.

    Is Trump's photo a good image for him? The photo is dumb, but it sells him as Head of State because everybody's arguing over the silly details of a photo where the backdrop is Trump looking exactly the way he wants to look.
    Good analysis. Trump's play here, if intentional, is like a dictator that wears military fatigues with an absurd amount of brass pinned to them-- this always hit me as silly and an illustration of their delusions of grandeur, but you make a good point: there's an audience for everything and they may just be pandering to that audience. And it's not that Obama is immune from this analysis either. To some he probably looks weak and ineffectual off in the corner like that, but to the audience that matters more to him, he comes across as confident and uninterested in self indulgent pomp.

    Yet even if we are cynical on both accounts, in this narrow circumstance in a vacuum, I find it hard to not prefer the president who's pretending at higher minded ideals. Nonetheless, your point that doing so may simply not be a viable option for Trump in this moment is not lost on me.
    Last edited by boost; 11-04-2019 at 04:56 PM.
  20. #6395
    You make some great points.
    Last edited by wufwugy; 11-04-2019 at 09:39 PM.
  21. #6396
    So the rules of the impeachment proceedings laid out by Pelosi allow Trump to both testity and ask questions at his own hearings. I know he won't go, but God it's fun to imagine the potenital shitshow that would be.
  22. #6397
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Pelosi's proceedings are laid out basically the same as the Nixon proceedings. Still, the Congressional R's are crying foul play. Turns out they're upset because the Clinton case was blown open as a part of a much wider investigation, so the Clinton impeachment proceedings started with a ton more general knowledge of the facts by both parties. Whereas in the Nixon case and the current case, the closed door investigations have whatever info they have that is not on the public record at this point in the process.

    There's no real precedent for impeachment proceedings, though*.. so if the R's argue that the availability of information in the Clinton case was good for everyone, then I'm open to changing the rules. They just have to swallow that pill the next time a Dem POTUS is on the hot seat. Which I'm fine with.

    It wont change the fact that closed door investigations nearly always precede any open, formal investigations, and if the R's are crying that this is foul play, then that's nonsense. We definitely want to quietly weed out false and spurious claims from getting undue attention and this is done via closed door investigations.


    * I mean, yes, there is the legal framework and there are a few instances where it's happened, but I don't think the current political climate puts too much weight on that. As I mentioned before, Trump got elected for things that Andrew Johnson got impeached for, so using the Johnson impeachment as a standard wont be a clean fit.
    Nixon had lost his party's support by the time it got that far, whereas Trump still has his party's and his base's support.
    Clinton lied about sex in public in America. While under oath! Yeah. That was juicy, right? It's nothing like this case, though, so treating it like a precedent is again, not a clean fit.
    Last edited by MadMojoMonkey; 11-05-2019 at 04:46 PM.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  23. #6398
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    Pelosi's proceedings are laid out basically the same as the Nixon proceedings.
    My understanding is Pelosi's proceedings are more 'generous' in that Nixon wasn't invited to testify/cross-examine at his, which I'm sure he could have done better than Trump had it come to that.

    And yeah, if you can impeach a guy for lying about a blowjob you can impeach another guy for holding up foreign aid in return for getting dirt on a political opponent. Even Watergate looks tame compared to that. Both were shady election shit, but Trump's has serious consequences for foreign policy whereas Nixon's didn't.
  24. #6399
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    And yeah, if you can impeach a guy for lying about a blowjob you can impeach another guy for holding up foreign aid in return for getting dirt on a political opponent. Even Watergate looks tame compared to that.
    I don't think you can directly link those 2 things. While on paper the Clinton scandal was an impeachment proceeding, I don't think it's really the best comparison for what's going on today. The Ukraine scandal is much more like Nixon's watergate than an inconsequential lie under oath.
    We'll see, at any rate.

    Americans are screeching harpys when it comes to a couple of things. 1) Americans are shady AF when it comes to talking about sex. Even couples who've been having sex for years probably don't talk about it much if at all. 2) Catching someone in a personal lie that shows they have some insecurity is blood in the water.

    Clinton got caught in a lie, and that lie was about sex. America was frothing at the mouth. The fact that he did so while under oath was just pouring gas on the flame.
    He was cheating on his wife. Lol obv. he lies about that. BUT he did so while under oath. It just ticked all the boxes for Americans to put on our holier-than-thou hats and riot.
    Most people didn't actually care, but were entertained by the noise. Most people didn't even know at the time that he was impeached. I'd wager that most people today don't think Clinton was impeached, since he never left office, and that's the one thing Americans know about impeachment: It's how you de-president someone.

    When it comes to Trump... keep in mind that the Congressional R's and his Rep base are still in support of Trump. Clinton's supporters were not defending him that hard when it came to his lie. He was caught on tape, in a court of law. The meaning of the word "is" got brought into question. How is it not great fun to mock that? Dems were mocking Clinton, but not really turning against him politically. No one on the D side really was ever planning on kicking him out of office, AFAIK. It was just a glorious shit show that everyone could cash in on for some press time and so it went.


    Looking back, it's hard to see the Clinton impeachment as anything other than a huge publicity stunt, though none of the people that gained from the publicity really had any hand in creating the stunt... but they sure had a hand in prolonging the attention it got. It didn't even really hurt Bill long-term and Hillary remained a political powerhouse after the humiliation of the cheating scandal subsided.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  25. #6400
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,914
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  26. #6401
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    That, "... or something," is a weird moment.

    I'd actually enjoy it if more politicians ended their sentences that way.

    It adds a little credibility for them to openly state they have no credibility.
    Oh god, I'm part of the problem.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  27. #6402
    Damn, maybe Trump does hire the best people. Or at least ones that aren't willing to go to jail for him.

  28. #6403
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,914
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    He is incomprehensibly stupid.

    I'm just now catching up on the hearings. Coming from Mueller doing his cute little dance, it's comforting to see no-bullshit testimonies from pre-geriatric government officials.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  29. #6404
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    "I want nothing! Just tell them that they'll get the money when they 'investigate corruption.' But no quid pro quo. Do make sure they do the thing and they'll get the money. BUT I don't want that! I want nothing! Just make sure they know if they do the thing they'll get the money, alright. But no quid pro quo. I want nothing!"
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  30. #6405
    Quote Originally Posted by oskar View Post
    He is incomprehensibly stupid.

    I'm just now catching up on the hearings. Coming from Mueller doing his cute little dance, it's comforting to see no-bullshit testimonies from pre-geriatric government officials.
    But Sondland, Vindman, and Pence's hireling are all "never Trumpers" lol.

    Man, this ship is sinking. Fast. Even the Dems can't fuck this up.

    It'll be interesting to see what happens in the Senate.
  31. #6406
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,914
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    Let's say this is an accurate representation of a conversation that happened. How amazing would that be!

    Sondland: What do you want Mr President, what do you want? What do you want from Ukraine? What do you want? I hear all these theories, what do you want?
    Trump: I want nothing! That's what I want from Ukraine. I want nothing!
    Sondland: What do you want? I keep hearing all these things. What do you want?
    Trump: I want nothing! I want nothing! I want no quid pro quo! Tell Salinsky to do the right thing! I want nothing! I want nothing! I want no quid pro quo!
    Sondland: This is the final word from the president of the united states: "I want nothing."
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  32. #6407
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,914
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    David Zucker and Jim Abrams need to come back to do a movie about the Trump presidency. They're the only ones who can do it!
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  33. #6408
    That convo seems plausible.
  34. #6409
    Quote Originally Posted by oskar View Post
    David Zucker and Jim Abrams need to come back to do a movie about the Trump presidency. They're the only ones who can do it!
    I think Scorcese should do it. Joe Pesci can play Don Jr.
  35. #6410
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,914
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    Tim and Eric would be a solid 2nd choice for me.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  36. #6411
    I'm really going to miss him. Are they going to let him tweet from prison I wonder?

  37. #6412
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,914
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    Mani from Florida with one of the greatest CSPAN calls ever:

    https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1...313200640?s=20
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  38. #6413
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,914
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz



    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  39. #6414
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    It's not often Twitter gets a reaction out of me, but that made me laugh.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  40. #6415
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,914
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    The state of the maga cult right now:

    https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/...8/trump_tweet/

    Last edited by oskar; 01-03-2020 at 09:19 AM.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  41. #6416
    Haha, that Trump. You never know what he's going to do next. Good thing he's in charge of the world's most powerful military and has the nuclear launch codes and doesn't feel the need to ask congress if the US can go to war.
  42. #6417
    UN already saying what Trump did was "probably" illegal.
  43. #6418
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,914
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    I'm surprised how long it took. You don't put John Bolton in your cabinet and get out of the Iran Nuclear Deal in order not to go to war with Iran. I guess he got cold feet at least once that we know of, but it's election year so I guess he has to.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  44. #6419
    Quote Originally Posted by oskar View Post
    I'm surprised how long it took.
    That's cause you dont play 3D chess. What looks like dangerous incompetence to us is just Trump disguising how he's like, really smart. I mean who else can see how killing one of a hostile country's top leaders is de-escalating things.

    Even Tucker doesn't get it, that's how advanced this move is.




    Still waiting to hear the evidence of an imminent threat. But, I'm sure the WH will be releasing a picture of Sulemani with a sword drawn in his hands with a sharpie pretty soon.
  45. #6420
    Quote Originally Posted by poop
    Still waiting to hear the evidence of an imminent threat.
    You won't. The words "imminent threat" were carefully chosen to refer to the Bethlehem Doctrine (named after a person, not the place). This is a document that "justifies" extrajudicial state assassinations on the basis of self defence. In this document, the meaning of "imminent threat" is not what normal people who speak English would imagine, in that "imminent" does not mean "soon" or "inevitable". In fact, if there is any evidence that someone might have been planning an attack at any time in the past or the present, then they will use the phrase "imminent threat". It's like playing chess and killing you opponent after one move because he might checkmate you. This document was created by a guy who worked as a legal advisor first for Netanyahu and then for Blair, and it only seems to hold weight with the governments of UK, USA and Israel.

    With that said, I'm not sure why people are so fucking outraged by this. Sure its legality is extremely tenuous, but USA have hardly cared about "legality" for decades, and taking out a general seems like a more civilised method of warfare than regime change, enforced by relentless air strikes and drone attacks on civilians and critical infrastructure like airports and hospitals. Or even funding the opposition, no matter how brutal and criminal they are.

    I couldn't give a fuck about an Iranian general, especially one allegedly responsible for the killing of many Iranian protesters. The Iranian people are a great culture compared to places like Saudi Arabia, but their leaders, political and military, can go fuck themselves for all I care.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  46. #6421
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,914
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    I haven't heard of anyone suggesting this was bad because they have intimate feelings about Soleimani. This is bad because at best this ends with an exchange of airstrikes and a couple hundred civilian casualties, and at worst it's all-out war with Iran and hundreds of thousand civilian casualties.

    Reading up on the Bethlehem Doctrine... interesting stuff. When did lying become this complicated?
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  47. #6422
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,914
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    Reportedly Iran put an $80M bounty on Trump's head. I said 3 years ago Trump is going to get either impeached or assassinated before his term is over. If it's both, that would be so nice.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  48. #6423
    Quote Originally Posted by oskar View Post
    Reportedly Iran put an $80M bounty on Trump's head. I said 3 years ago Trump is going to get either impeached or assassinated before his term is over. If it's both, that would be so nice.
    If he does get assassinated, my money is on it being an inside job.
  49. #6424
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    USA have hardly cared about "legality" for decades, and taking out a general seems like a more civilised method of warfare than regime change, enforced by relentless air strikes and drone attacks on civilians and critical infrastructure like airports and hospitals. Or even funding the opposition, no matter how brutal and criminal they are.
    Or, they could just get the fuck out of the whole continent.

    The one thing Trump had going for him was he wasn't a warmonger. So much for that.
  50. #6425
    Quote Originally Posted by oskar
    I haven't heard of anyone suggesting this was bad because they have intimate feelings about Soleimani. This is bad because at best this ends with an exchange of airstrikes and a couple hundred civilian casualties, and at worst it's all-out war with Iran and hundreds of thousand civilian casualties.

    Reading up on the Bethlehem Doctrine... interesting stuff. When did lying become this complicated?
    Best case scenario is Iran shit themselves and do not further antogonise a very unpredictable and powerful enemy. When generals get droned, that's a game changer. Suddenly the Mullahs themselves are thinking they could be next. Worst case scenario, yeah all out war. The Mullahs themselves are unpredictable, and they do have powerful allies.

    Reportedly Iran put an $80M bounty on Trump's head. I said 3 years ago Trump is going to get either impeached or assassinated before his term is over. If it's both, that would be so nice.
    It's amusing you have enough insight to recognise the potential problems Trump's aggression might cause, yet you sit here and say that you'd be glad if he got assassinated, completely oblivious to the shitstorm that would create, ie civil war. On the one hand, you're anti-war when it comes to the Middle East, and on the other you're pro-war when it comes to internal USA politics. Do you really hate USA that much?
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  51. #6426
    Quote Originally Posted by poop
    Or, they could just get the fuck out of the whole continent.

    The one thing Trump had going for him was he wasn't a warmonger. So much for that.
    If he's droning generals instead of civilians, he's doing better than Obama. Here's the thing... none of us here know what's really going on. I have no idea if Iran are a genuine enemy or not. It seems odd to me that we're having a go at Shiites, when it's Sunnis that have caused us problems and foster global terrorism, but I long ago gave up hope of understanding Middle Eastern geopolitics.

    I'd definitely prefer it if USA, UK, Israel and Saudi Arabia didn't have this insane alliance that opposes Iran. It would be nice if war didn't happen. But it does. The next best thing after no war is being on the winning side. I'd rather be on USA's side than anyone else's, that's for sure.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  52. #6427
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,914
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    If he does get assassinated, my money is on it being an inside job.
    Baron Trump!
    Calling it now.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    On the one hand, you're anti-war when it comes to the Middle East, and on the other you're pro-war when it comes to internal USA politics. Do you really hate USA that much?
    What I would like to see for my personal entertainment is not necessarily what I would wish on world history.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  53. #6428
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,914
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    Video footage of Spoon and Wuf new year's eve 2020: https://twitter.com/Stop_Trump20/sta...854704640?s=20
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  54. #6429
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    If he's droning generals instead of civilians, he's doing better than Obama.
    Imma gonna go out on a limb here and guess that he didn't put the order out to stop droning civilians, has been doing it the whole time and then got bored one day and decided to turn it up to 11 and who knows why the fuck he does anything...pretty sure though the guy who says you should kill terrorists' families wouldn't lose any sleep over some collateral dead brown people.
  55. #6430
    What I wonder about the Trump-assassinating-Iranian-General defenders is how much they would shit their pants if the top US general in Iraq got picked off, and the next day the Ayatollah tweeted an Iranian flag.
  56. #6431
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by ongbongtastic
    The next best thing after no war is being on the winning side. I'd rather be on USA's side than anyone else's, that's for sure.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  57. #6432
    Can anyone name a war America has won since WWII?
  58. #6433
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,914
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    War On Christmas
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  59. #6434
    Quote Originally Posted by poop
    Can anyone name a war America has won since WWII?
    Depends what you mean by "won". I think think of a fair few countries that have been fucked up by USA, but can't think of any that have caused any problems for USA on their own soil, or that of their allies. So... in that context, I can think of lots.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  60. #6435
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,914
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  61. #6436
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop
    Can anyone name a war America has won since WWII?
    Trick question. Congress hasn't declared a war since WWII.

    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  62. #6437
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,914
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    Ok I have one suggestions that I think everyone can rally behind: Iran should retaliate by striking Trump properties and Congress needs to halt any military action against Iran. Iran wipes out what is left of his business and he can't use the US military to strike back because emoluments.
    Last edited by oskar; 01-06-2020 at 12:48 PM.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  63. #6438
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,914
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    Trick question. Congress hasn't declared a war since WWII.

    Hahaaaaaa! Banana republic.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  64. #6439
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Depends what you mean by "won". I think think of a fair few countries that have been fucked up by USA, but can't think of any that have caused any problems for USA on their own soil, or that of their allies. So... in that context, I can think of lots.
    I'm going with a non-zero sum definition of win. So, you don't "win" by making the other country suffer more death and destruction from the war than you do. By that definition, the US "won" against N. Vietnam. By any other definition though, it lost. You only win if your country is better off after the war than before it, either economically, in terms of prestige, or in terms of security.

    The US has been dumping trillions into wars in Asia since 1950 and has nothing to show for it afaict.
  65. #6440
    Well then America won every war it engaged in, because it continues to be the world's dominant economy, and that dominance is underpinned by their military aggression, securing global resources and maintaining the dollar as the prime petrocurrency.

    From my pov, I'm on the winning side if I don't see war happening in the UK, or if I don't see disasterous economic consequences, despite us being involved. Not that I'm happy for us to be involved, just that if we're going to be, I'd rather be on Team America (fuck yeah).
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  66. #6441
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Vietnam was a proxy war against the Soviets during the cold war. The soviet union no longer exists and the US does, so in that respect, at least, the US won the cold war.

    I'd argue the Vietnam conflict wasn't really won by either side, the US or the Soviets. While the US took heavy losses and had to leave in a hurry, US culture has remained, not the soviet culture. There's McDonalds and Baskin Robins in downtown Hanoi, I mean. In the sense that a war is a cultural takeover, this is a US win.

    Though I dislike even talking about a "winner" in a war. Going to war means both sides have already lost. War is mostly just the violence that follows national failures.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  67. #6442
    Quote Originally Posted by poop
    Ok I have one suggestions that I think everyone can rally behind: Iran should retaliate by striking Trump properties and Congress needs to halt any military action against Iran. Iran wipes out what is left of his business and he can't use the US military to strike back because emoluments.
    Iran should retaliate by not hanging gays.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  68. #6443
    Sorry that was an oskar quote, not poop. I can't even edit/delete posts due to unknown errors.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  69. #6444
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Congress can't really stop POTUS from using the military however he pleases unless they remove him from office. He is the commander in chief of all the armed forces, after all.

    POTUS can do whatever he wants with the US military for up to 90 days without any Congressional approval or oversight. Technically, Congress has to declare war for the use of military forces in armed conflict that lasts more than 90 days, but the reality is that just doesn't happen anymore. Congress just authorizes the use of military force without calling it an official policy of war.


    Topically, the argument that Congress controls the purse ends up being moot in these cases. While Congress can pull the plug on the POTUS's military funding, the reality is that puts the soldiers in the field in danger, not POTUS. This is a powerful ethos in America that has been used to the same effect for decades. Once the troops are in the field, the idea of not supporting them is just not being heard by American citizens, regardless of party lines.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  70. #6445
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Well then America won every war it engaged in, because it continues to be the world's dominant economy, and that dominance is underpinned by their military aggression, securing global resources and maintaining the dollar as the prime petrocurrency.
    Are you familiar with the term "guns or butter?" History is full of examples of countries that tried to use guns to acquire more butter when they should have been making butter themselves.

    If that's too abstract for you, here's a more direct way of saying it: Spending money on aggressive wars almost never benefits a country economically compared to putting the same money back into its economy. If you took those trillions the US spent on projecting its power around the world (in places where it was never directly threatened mind you) in the last sixty years and instead used it to build trillions of dollars worth of roads, schools, technology, and whatnot in the US with it, there's no doubt they'd have more wealth and be more powerful today than they are now.

    In fifty years when China takes over first place in the world it will be because they kept investing in their country, not investing in an oversized military they used to wave their dicks around the world.
  71. #6446
    Spending money on aggressive wars almost never benefits a country economically compared to putting the same money back into its economy.
    This kind of ignores the fact that war is huge business.

    In fifty years when China takes over first place in the world it will be because they kept investing in their country, not investing in an oversized military they used to wave their dicks around the world.
    And this assumes China's growth is sustainable. Spoiler - it's not. I mean, I'm no expert, but there's only so many ghost cities a country can build before the bust.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  72. #6447
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    This kind of ignores the fact that war is huge business.
    You're making it more complicated than it is. A million dollars worth of bombs that are dropped on some foreign countries is not the same as a million dollars worth of road improvements or schools or tech investment. There's no return on the bombs, they don't make your country richer. There's return on the other investments.



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    And this assumes China's growth is sustainable. Spoiler - it's not. I mean, I'm no expert, but there's only so many ghost cities a country can build before the bust.
    I'm not an expert either but I know enough about history that countries' relative power is not a static thing. I think that's pretty obvious. Its also a historical pattern that the most powerful country overspends and overextends itself militarily until it's no longer the most powerful country. That's going to happen to the US eventually (at least the way it's going now). And the most likely country that's on a trajectory to replace it at the top is China.
  73. #6448
    You're making it more complicated than it is. A million dollars worth of bombs that are dropped on some foreign countries is not the same as a million dollars worth of road improvements or schools or tech investment. There's no return on the bombs, they don't make your country richer. There's return on the other investments.
    USA already has adequate roads and world class schools, they already lead the world when it comes to innovation.

    I don't think I'm making it complicated enough, Geopolitics is complex as fuck. What I can say with reasonable confidence is that those in power in the USA, and I'm not talking about presidents, are not stupid. They are intelligent sociopaths or maybe even psychopaths that understand the complexities a great deal better than I do. With that said, why do they prefer to invest in war than roads and tech? Corruption and personal greed? Maybe. Or economic self preservation? Also maybe. What I do know is that lots of countries have large reserves of dollars, which means that if the dollar crashes, so do lots of economies around the world. That's no accident. USA have created this situation to ensure that any attack on the dollar is mutually disadvantageous.

    I'm not an expert either but I know enough about history that countries' relative power is not a static thing. I think that's pretty obvious. Its also a historical pattern that the most powerful country overspends and overextends itself militarily until it's no longer the most powerful country. That's going to happen to the US eventually (at least the way it's going now). And the most likely country that's on a trajectory to replace it at the top is China.
    I'm probably in agreement with most of this. I just don't see China replacing them, not the way they're going. Their ambitions seem very short term. Maybe I'm not giving them enough credit, maybe these ghost cities are a well considered plan for the future, but it seems to me that it's just creating growth for the sake of it.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  74. #6449
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    "Adequate" is not really a worthy standard for a nation leading in innovation, IMO.

    The fed only pays for interstate roads (highways), though, and those are pretty good (so long as you're not comparing them to German roads, lol). Most of the shitty roads are owned and maintained on state or local levels and they're quite often shit.
    I am biased. StL has some of the worst maintained roads in the country, according to various surveys.

    I'd say our colleges and universities are world class, but the lower education system is extremely hit and miss. Public schools vary wildly in quality, and even charter schools and other less public options can be average at best.

    ***
    The economics of war is hard to wrap my head around.
    I think of the Apollo missions and I want to say John Glen once retorted to criticism over the cost of the program by saying something to the effect of, "We didn't leave any bags of money on the moon. All that cost went to American scientists and businesses and went back into the American economy."

    I know it's not a direct correlation to war costs. It's just not directly clear that spending money on bombs is a direct negative. Those people who got paid to make the bombs presumably spend their money on other American enterprises, enriching them and enabling them to innovate.

    I think both Poopy and ong are making good points about this. The cost of the bombs could have gone into any research and had the same trickle-down effect on the rest of the economy. But the stability of the dollar is buoyed by our military strength. We use military strength to encourage other nations to buy into our dollar so they have a stake in keeping it stable.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  75. #6450
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    With that said, why do they prefer to invest in war than roads and tech? Corruption and personal greed? Maybe. Or economic self preservation? Also maybe.
    I think it's pretty common knowledge that contractors and interest groups who make profits selling arms to the government are pulling a lot of the strings here. It's not because the US needs to overspend on military to protect itself. There's no country even within spitting distance of being able to hurt America. What, is Canada going to invade Montana?

    Eisenhower warned about the growing military-industrial complex and how it was becoming too influential back in 1960. That was 60 years ago. All you have to do is look at a graph showing how the US spends more on military than the next ten biggest spenders combined to get an idea of how out of control it's gotten.


    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    What I do know is that lots of countries have large reserves of dollars, which means that if the dollar crashes, so do lots of economies around the world. That's no accident. USA have created this situation to ensure that any attack on the dollar is mutually disadvantageous.
    Not sure what this has to do with the conversation. No country is anywhere near capable of sinking the dollar, and military spending is not what's keeping it up.



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I'm probably in agreement with most of this. I just don't see China replacing them, not the way they're going. Their ambitions seem very short term. Maybe I'm not giving them enough credit, maybe these ghost cities are a well considered plan for the future, but it seems to me that it's just creating growth for the sake of it.
    I've read historians on this topic. According to them, military power comes from economic power, not the other way around. This year China will overtake the US in GDP. By 2030 India will overtake them too. That's doesn't mean they'll automatically be able to kick the US' ass in a war, but it does mean they'll be getting relatively more powerful as the decades go on.

    Historically, there is a pattern of being the strongest country on the planet and the response to the inevitability of losing that status (someday) is to spend more and more on military to try to protect that status with the effect being that the status gets lost faster than it naturally would.

    The UK, France, and Spain have all been in the US' position in the last few centuries. They've all overspent and overextended themselves militarily on wars in far off places they didn't need to be involved in, and this hastened their losing their status as superpowers (so the argument goes). For the US, this problem is multiplied by the corruption that leads it to not just overspend, but overspend to an absurd degree.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •