• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Does Putin have something on Trump? (Answer: YES)

WFFaithful said:
That didn't bring jobs back
Click to expand...

Industrial Carnage. The regulations necessary to implement the Paris agreement would have cost the U.S. industrial sector 1.1 million jobs, according to a study commissioned by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. These job losses would center in cement, iron and steel, and petroleum refining. Industrial output would decline sharply.
Hollowing Out Michigan, Missouri, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. The industrial carnage would have been concentrated on four states, according to the Chamber of Commerce study. Michigan’s GDP would shrink by 0.8 percent and employment would contract by 74,000 jobs. Missouri’s GDP would shrink by 1 percent. Ohio’s GDP would contract 1.2 percent. Pennsylvania’s GDP would decline by 1.8 percent and the state would lose 140,000 jobs.
Click to expand...

Protecting the states that put him in office. Representing the people who voted for him. How refreshing to have an outsider businessman do what he said he'd do during the campaign.
 
Want to know where those numbers came from?

NERA was founded by Irwin Stelzer, senior fellow and director of the right-wing Hudson Institute’s Center for Economic Policy. In Oct. 2004, The Guardian described Stelzer as the “right-hand man of Rupert Murdoch,” the CEO of News Corp., which owns Fox News.
Click to expand...

The American Council on Capital Formation (ACCF) has partnered twice with the National Association of Manufacturers to produce and disseminate distorted economic analyses that overstate the costs of climate legislation and have been prominently featured at US Chamber of Commerce-organized “forums” on climate over the past year. The ACCF/NAM studies have been credibly debunked more than once.
Click to expand...
 
palmab03 said:
To like not be in a pissing contest with someone with 9,000 nukes? Christ. That's what he said he'd do in the campaign and also a big reason why most people voted for him. Stop making it a scandal. Russia is smart enough to realize Trump>Clinton without needing to have had contact with him via the Red Phone.

On the flip side, no one didn't vote for Hilary because of completely benign emails being released on wikileaks. Someone name the damaging email that was released that anyone remembers or was scandalous whatsoever?
Click to expand...

So if we don't lift economic sanctions, Russia may nuke us? What was that thing about mutually assured destruction?

Plus I thought Donald wrote the art of the deal? It looks like he's been bending over and taking it from Russia since day 1. If we're really talking America first, what are we getting out of this...outside of a reduction in your fear of Russia's 9000 nukes.
 
Last edited:
Haha the biggest bullshit in the dumbassery Palma is peddling is that a big reason why people voted for Trump was to appease a nuclear Russia.
 
Art of the Deal. Chapter One: How to give Russia anything they want without getting anything in return.

I remember that chapter well.

If Donald and company didn't think there was something untoward about the Russia issue why did so many of their surrogates lie about meeting with Russians and why did so many lie about what was discussed in those meetings (Jared).
 
If Trump gives back Putin's spy centers, Congress needs to act in some way to stop it. If he does, the only rational explanation is that Trump owes Putin.
 
palmab03 said:
To like not be in a pissing contest with someone with 9,000 nukes? Christ. That's what he said he'd do in the campaign and also a big reason why most people voted for him. Stop making it a scandal. Russia is smart enough to realize Trump>Clinton without needing to have had contact with him via the Red Phone.

On the flip side, no one didn't vote for Hilary because of completely benign emails being released on wikileaks. Someone name the damaging email that was released that anyone remembers or was scandalous whatsoever?
Click to expand...

On it's face there is nothing wrong with getting along with Russia. You're right that it kind of makes sense, and even though Putin in sketchy at best, sometimes you have to take on some strange bed fellows for the greater good (e.g., Stalin in WW2). For example, one way end the Syria fiasco and the middle east issues with ISIS, might be to team up with Russia and crush the bad actors in the region overwhelmingly. However, This specific action and the timing of it is so bad. Those compounds were confiscated as part of the sanctions implemented after Russia was implicated in the DNC hacking and election manipulation in the fall of 2016. Actions that, whether or not they worked, were intended to help Trump, and now Trump himself is working to lift at least part of the sanctions. What a bad look; the timing of it is awful. So many suspicious actions from the Trump team leads to people being suspicious.
 
 
palmab03 said:
Yeah, its weird we'd try to get along with someone with 9,000 nukes. makes no sense.
Click to expand...

palmab03 said:
giving them their compounds back
Click to expand...
Palma,

Given you are concerned about nuclear weapons, please explain how Russia breaking the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances from 1994 relates to the motivation for smaller states to develop weapons to protect their territorial integrity.

And if you believe that the weapons states should not guarantee the sovereignty of smaller states against other weapons states, how do you propose that sovereignty be guaranteed without further proliferation if nuclear weapons.

And finally, compare and contrast the lessons Iran and similar states have learned from Pakistan and Ukraine.

Look forward to your in depth and clearly well developed analysis.
 
vadimivich said:
Palma,

Given you are concerned about nuclear weapons, please explain how Russia breaking the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances from 1994 relates to the motivation for smaller states to develop weapons to protect their territorial integrity.

And if you believe that the weapons states should not guarantee the sovereignty of smaller states against other weapons states, how do you propose that sovereignty be guaranteed without further proliferation if nuclear weapons.

And finally, compare and contrast the lessons Iran and similar states have learned from Pakistan and Ukraine.

Look forward to your in depth and clearly well developed analysis.
Click to expand...

Can't we all get along? Trump's trying.
 
palmab03 said:
Can't we all get along? Trump's trying.
Click to expand...
No, we evidently can't. And Russia and Trump are telling smaller states in the world that if you don't have nuclear bombs you can get fucked whenever and nobody will stick up for you. So guess what - they are starting to want to build bombs.

Ukraine had the 3rd largest nuclear arsenal in the world. Weapons capable of annihilating the US. They gave them up with assurance that the US would guarantee their land. Going back on that promise means nobody will ever believe the US again on this issue.

And that is a very, very, very big deal for the long term security of the entire globe.

Pakistan and North Korea built bombs. Nobody is fucking with them, no matter how shittily they act. That's not a hard lesson to learn from.
 
vadimivich said:
No, we evidently can't. And Russia and Trump are telling smaller states in the world that if you don't have nuclear bombs you can get fucked whenever and nobody will stick up for you. So guess what - they are starting to want to build bombs.

Ukraine had the 3rd largest nuclear arsenal in the world. Weapons capable of annihilating the US. They gave them up with assurance that the US would guarantee their land. Going back on that promise means nobody will ever believe the US again on this issue.

And that is a very, very, very big deal for the long term security of the entire globe.

Pakistan and North Korea built bombs. Nobody is fucking with them, no matter how shittily they act. That's not a hard lesson to learn from.
Click to expand...

Everyone's going to build the technology to destroy eachother soon enough anyways, that much has been inevitable for quite some time because of #science. Whether its a bomb or a test tube with a few germs in it.
 
Also #wiki

A 2016 study argues that the denuclearization of Ukraine was not a "stupid mistake" and that it is unclear that Ukraine would be better off as a nuclear state.[8] The study argues that the push for Ukrainian independence was with a view to make it a nonnuclear state.[8] The United States would also not have made Ukraine an exception when it came to the denuclearization of other post-Soviet states such as Belarus and Kazakhstan.[8] The deterrent value of the nuclear weapons in Ukraine was also questionable, as Ukraine would have had to spend 12 to 18 months to establish full operational control over the nuclear arsenal left by the Russians.[8] The ICBMs also had a range of 5.000-10.000 km (initially targeting the United States), which meant that they could only have been re-targeted to hit Russia's far east.[8] The air-launched cruise missiles (ALCMs) left by the Russians had been disabled by the Russians during the collapse of the Soviet Union, but even if they had been reconfigured and made to work by the Ukrainians, it is unlikely that they would have had a deterrent effect.[8] Had Ukraine decided to establish full operational control of the nuclear weapons, it would have faced sanctions by the West and perhaps even a withdrawal of diplomatic recognition by the United States and other NATO allies.[8] Ukraine would also likely have faced retaliatory action by Russia.[8] Ukraine would also have struggled with replacing the nuclear weapons once their service life expired, as Ukraine did not have a nuclear weapons program
Click to expand...
 
palmab03 said:
Everyone's going to build the technology to destroy eachother soon enough anyways, that much has been inevitable for quite some time because of #science. Whether its a bomb or a test tube with a few germs in it.
Click to expand...
Not really. We as a global community have kept a tight lid on Pandora's box for 75+ years and have stable and strong systems that work.

Putin (and now Trump acquiescing) are tired of those systems, but nobody is being honest about the consequences.

You want to open the lid on Pandora's Box just because you think someone might do it in the future? Especially when the damn lid is working just fine right now? You're fucking insane, frankly.
 
vadimivich said:
Not really. We as a global community have kept a tight lid on Pandora's box for 75+ years and have stable and strong systems that work.

Putin (and now Trump acquiescing) are tired of those systems, but nobody is being honest about the consequences.

You want to open the lid on Pandora's Box just because you think someone might do it in the future? Especially when the damn lid is working just fine right now? You're fucking insane, frankly.
Click to expand...

Past success does not indicate future performance. Ask the people dying from nail bombs whether everything's working just fine. The crazies just don't have the technology yet, they will, and there was no way anyone could stop that.
 
Although I can see why you Europeans was totes cool with us taking on all the risks and the costs, it enables you to afford all that awesome healthcare we cannot.
 
palmab03 said:
Past success does not indicate future performance. Ask the people dying from nail bombs whether everything's working just fine. The crazies just don't have the technology yet, they will, and there was no way anyone could stop that.
Click to expand...
Yes, there is. You really don't know a damn thing about what you are talking about in that field. It's not the technology that's hard, per se - it's the immense industrial scope of it (mining all the way through enrichment to fabrication).

Terrorists don't have stability and infrastructure, so nuclear is beyond them. Small states though, they have those things. Let alone larger economies such as Japan or Brazil, Argentina or Turkey.
 
vadimivich said:
Yes, there is. You really don't know a damn thing about what you are talking about in that field. It's not the technology that's hard, per se - it's the immense industrial scope of it (mining all the way through enrichment to fabrication).

Terrorists don't have stability and infrastructure, so nuclear is beyond them. Small states though, they have those things. Let alone larger economies such as Japan or Brazil, Argentina or Turkey.
Click to expand...

Or they can just buy them from Russia if we piss off Russia too much. How about spend more than 1.2% of your GDP on the military then get back to us.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top