Front Office Football Central

Front Office Football Central (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//index.php)
-   Off Topic (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   The Trump Presidency – 2016 (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//showthread.php?t=92014)

miami_fan 11-16-2019 07:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 3256658)
Trump has pardoned three war criminals over the objections of the Pentagon.


That smell is the UCMJ and SOFA agreements going up in smoke.

Edward64 11-16-2019 07:48 AM

Trump is probably thinking couple years in a white collar jail won't be that bad for Roger. I think he pardons Stone, either before or lets say 2 months into his jail term.

Roger Stone was found guilty. Now all eyes turn to Trump. - POLITICO
Quote:

Stone’s fate now rests in part with Trump, who has the power to issue an election-season pardon or commutation to spare one of his longest-running political advisers any jail time. While the president has danced around the question for months, he tweeted about the verdict within minutes of it being read in open court.
:
:
Asked after the verdict whether Trump is considering a Stone pardon, White House deputy press secretary Steven Groves replied, “Not that I’m aware of."

The fact that Stone was not immediately jailed makes a Trump decision on a potential pardon less urgent, with Stone not likely to be sent to prison until February or later.

Still, pressure on Trump is likely to increase as that date nears.
:
The charges against Stone carry a maximum potential prison term of 50 years, but he’s likely to be sentenced in accordance with federal guidelines that typically call for a much more lenient sentence for first-time offenders. Those guidelines are expected to call for Stone to spend a couple of years in prison, if convicted, legal experts said.

PilotMan 11-16-2019 08:14 AM

It's guaranteed if he loses in November.

Edward64 11-16-2019 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PilotMan (Post 3256684)
It's guaranteed if he loses in November.


He doesn't look as if he can survive that long even in a white collar prison.

Coffee Warlord 11-16-2019 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 3256658)
Trump has pardoned three war criminals over the objections of the Pentagon.


My daughter does little kid gymnastics. Was talking with a couple parents while she was there today, turns out the guy I was sitting next to served with Lorance, and served under his CO in the exact same location.

Got a very different story from him than what the media gives.

JPhillips 11-16-2019 02:21 PM

Nine members of Lorance's platoon testified against him and not a single member testified for him. I'm comfortable letting the military justice system make a determination of what happened and what punishment was warranted.

Flasch186 11-16-2019 02:25 PM

Never Trumpers.

BYU 14 11-16-2019 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord (Post 3256702)
My daughter does little kid gymnastics. Was talking with a couple parents while she was there today, turns out the guy I was sitting next to served with Lorance, and served under his CO in the exact same location.

Got a very different story from him than what the media gives.


Would be curious to hear more

Coffee Warlord 11-16-2019 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BYU 14 (Post 3256721)
Would be curious to hear more


Short-ish version, from what I gathered. And I will also note, this is one person talking, and this isn't someone I know even remotely well, but it was interesting.

1) The CO of that unit was and still is *hated*. He was described to me as a self serving CYA officer, whose MO was to immediately blame a subordinate if one of his decisions turned out to be wrong. (His almost exact words - if he is told one thing, disagrees and decides another thing, if he's proven wrong, he blames the guy who told him the 'right' thing.)

2) This leads to how this went down (and I will point out, guy I spoke to agrees the guy fucked up, but disagrees the guy deserved the punishment he got). He (guy I talked to) summed it up like this: "He (Lorance), screwed up. But he called those guys were going to attack us, he warned his CO, and he turned out to be right.".

3) Which leads to the impression of why the hammer came down, in this guy (parent)'s eyes: Lorance screwed up, but his assessment of the incoming attack was dead on. Heat came on the self-serving CO, who basically decided Lorance was going to go down hard. Lorance's platoon effectively were told how this was going to play out, and played ball.

TLDR - According to one person I barely know, but says he plays in the same pond as many of the principles, he got railroaded by a carreerist superior officer (who is now a general) who needed someone to go down hard for this. Too many eyes.

edit: There's a lot of pronouns here. I apologize. I'm exhausted right now. Rough week.

JPhillips 11-16-2019 07:49 PM

Trump went, unannounced, to Walter Reed. The WH is saying he went to get a head start on his physical. They also released a statement verifying how healthy and strong he is.

Very odd.

kingfc22 11-16-2019 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 3256725)
The WH is saying he went to get a head start on his physical.


Even if that was true, this WH lies so often that it doesn’t really matter what they say the reason is/was.

We’ll never know.

But I for one always go to the hospital, on a Saturday, 3 months prior to a scheduled physical when nothing is wrong with me.

JPhillips 11-16-2019 10:02 PM

Interesting thought in a very close election that I saw on twitter, would Edwards have won if LSU had lost to Alabama?

NobodyHere 11-16-2019 10:04 PM

I wonder if this is true

Trump Chest Discomfort Claim After Walter Reed Visit | Heavy.com

Thomkal 11-16-2019 10:12 PM

Dems win another electon-this time the Louisiana Governor race. Curious as to why the election was held on a Saturday though?

SackAttack 11-17-2019 03:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thomkal (Post 3256734)
Dems win another electon-this time the Louisiana Governor race. Curious as to why the election was held on a Saturday though?


Because that's what Louisiana's Election Code calls for.

Gubernatorial primaries and general elections are held on Saturdays. Everything else is Tuesdays.

JPhillips 11-17-2019 08:44 AM

Putin has run easily the greatest intelligence operation in history. Is there a country in the West that the Russians haven't interfered with top political leadership?


Thomkal 11-17-2019 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SackAttack (Post 3256736)
Because that's what Louisiana's Election Code calls for.

Gubernatorial primaries and general elections are held on Saturdays. Everything else is Tuesdays.



Thanks Sack, just seemed odd it was on a Sat.

Flasch186 11-17-2019 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 3256743)
Putin has run easily the greatest intelligence operation in history. Is there a country in the West that the Russians haven't interfered with top political leadership?



It's no surprise that the Brexit (break up of the EU) and Trump election interference (pro-Russian slant) and activities in the Middle East (ceding control to Russia), Ukraine military aid hold up (pro Russian), G7 controversy to add Russia back in under Trump (pro Russian) all align nicely with Putin's silent war on the west. He's winning by allowing cancer to eat western democracy and alliances to be eaten from within.

Flasch186 11-17-2019 10:49 AM

When someone wants to tell me that Trump has Freedom of Speech and that they steadfastly support it...


NobodyHere 11-17-2019 11:35 AM

Meaning what?

Should somebody be forced to hire him?

Flasch186 11-17-2019 12:47 PM

The Trump Presidency – 2016
 
Meaning some people felt that Colin needed to shut up and play even going so far as to saying he was anti patriotic for taking a knee in silent protest

Now let’s see those same people fawning over freedom of speech rights for an American who happens to be the president


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

JPhillips 11-17-2019 01:37 PM

I've been thinking a lot about how different things may look politically in twenty or thirty years. With the GOP going all in on shrinking demo groups and the Dems pulling in a lot of former GOP moderates in the suburbs, I can see a future where the parties are very different ideologically than they are currently. I could see a future where the Dems are a Euro like right-center party and a new party emerges for the left. Meanwhile the GOP shrinks to the point of irrelevance.

JPhillips 11-18-2019 07:44 AM

NK sure has the measure of Trump. After Trump nearly begged for a new meeting, NK issued a statement that says they won't meet until they get something first.

So much winning.

Edward64 11-18-2019 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 3256790)
NK sure has the measure of Trump. After Trump nearly begged for a new meeting, NK issued a statement that says they won't meet until they get something first.

So much winning.


I thought Trump reach out to NK was worth the gamble but you are right, nothing much has come of it.

Haven't heard much from Trump on HK either. Its understandable we wouldn't jeopardize foreign and trade policy on HK (blame the Brits for where they are now) but a nice "measured" statement of support would be nice.

Still hoping for a breakthrough on China. I read an article that they may want to deal with Trump as Warren may be tougher on them. My guess is a rollback on tariffs some but nothing else until after 2020 is settled which means 2 years of ups-and-downs and uncertainty for not much to show for it.

Galaril 11-18-2019 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 3256767)
I've been thinking a lot about how different things may look politically in twenty or thirty years. With the GOP going all in on shrinking demo groups and the Dems pulling in a lot of former GOP moderates in the suburbs, I can see a future where the parties are very different ideologically than they are currently. I could see a future where the Dems are a Euro like right-center party and a new party emerges for the left. Meanwhile the GOP shrinks to the point of irrelevance.


The first two parts I agree with are inevitable but not sure we can declare the far right dying yet.

JPhillips 11-18-2019 09:39 AM

I'm not sure any of it will happen, that's just a possibility that I see.

JPhillips 11-18-2019 10:04 AM

dola

The Fed. Chair certainly implies that Trump and Mnuchin leaned on him to change policy.

Quote:

At the President's invitation, Chair Powell met with the President and the Treasury Secretary Monday morning at the White House to discuss the economy, growth, employment and inflation.

Chair Powell's comments were consistent with his remarks at his congressional hearings last week. He did not discuss his expectations for monetary policy, except to stress that the path of policy will depend entirely on incoming information that bears on the outlook for the economy.

Finally, Chair Powell said that he and his colleagues on the Federal Open Market Committee will set monetary policy, as required by law, to support maximum employment and stable prices and will make those decisions based solely on careful, objective and non-political analysis.

NobodyHere 11-18-2019 10:26 AM

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/doug-ma...ion-uncovered/

Why not a new scandal?

Edward64 11-18-2019 12:15 PM

It would be fun to see/hear Trump testify.

Lathum 11-18-2019 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edward64 (Post 3256793)
I thought Trump reach out to NK was worth the gamble but you are right, nothing much has come of it.



First off, the way he did it was absurd. Saying " talk to you soon" at the end of a tweet. Can he be anymore embarrassing?

Second, there is zero reason for us to reach out to NK. All it does is legitimize them. Trump has been played over and over by them, and he comes off looking even weaker in this.

RainMaker 11-18-2019 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NobodyHere (Post 3256803)


I thought this was pretty standard. Ambassadorships are mostly given out to big money supporters. Obama, Bush, etc did the same.

I guess this is different because instead of doing it without an implicit directive, this one was out in the open. But I guarantee behind the scenes this stuff takes place all the time.

And that's not to say it's right. I personally believe that you should not be given a post if you've donated to a candidate.

https://www.npr.org/2014/12/03/36814...ps-critics-say

NobodyHere 11-18-2019 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 3256834)
I thought this was pretty standard...


That's because you live in Illinois :p

PilotMan 11-18-2019 02:53 PM

I thought it seemed like a nothingburger too.

A. Appointees to locations like that are often political supporters and donate large sums.

B. Campaigns always ask for more. And when you've already donated a million, what's the hurt asking for more.

That's nothing. Why worry about it when there's so much more actually on the record that is worrying?

albionmoonlight 11-18-2019 02:59 PM

I agree. It seems like the kind of non-scandal that the GOP would be pushing the media to discuss so they can use it as "proof" that everything is a nothingburger and everyone is just out to get Trump.

QuikSand 11-18-2019 03:04 PM

It's Ambassador to the Bahamas, for crying out loud. If you're not selling that, I don't even know what to say. I know this is jaded-insider talk, but come on.

PilotMan 11-18-2019 04:09 PM

Some people say they are worried that trump is ill and hiding his illness in order to fool the American public! Well, I don't know, but they do! Because they are people who know things, and they know that a sick president is a weak president. So for the good of the country, donald, come out to the world and tell us what your hiding!

JPhillips 11-19-2019 06:53 AM

Apparently we walked out of talks today with the Koreans...the South Koreans.

WTF?

PilotMan 11-19-2019 07:22 AM

Hey, you'd be upset too, if you raised my prices by 500%. I am so ungrateful.

Right?

NobodyHere 11-19-2019 07:37 AM

Well the left (and some libertarians) always wanted to remove overseas bases that form our American Empire right?

Lathum 11-19-2019 08:09 AM

Who is hungry for some Gym Jordan word salad!

Lathum 11-19-2019 08:13 AM

Jennifer Williams looks hung over. Maybe she was hanging out with Brett Kavanaugh last night. Beer!

QuikSand 11-19-2019 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lathum (Post 3256875)
Jennifer Williams


whoever that is

Lathum 11-19-2019 08:24 AM

More of the same crap from Nunes. It is amazing almost half the country can't see through this nonsense.

Media is bad!

Flasch186 11-19-2019 08:42 AM

It's amazing that the GOP (Ron Johnson now & Trump) will literally set fire to anyone that doesn't drink the kool-aid and push everyone else to hold the line...

Who will be the last one set on fire? Pence?

Izulde 11-19-2019 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NobodyHere (Post 3256872)
Well the left (and some libertarians) always wanted to remove overseas bases that form our American Empire right?


I'd say no, but then I remembered despite being left overall, foreign policy is one of the areas I take a neorealist conservative view.

Lathum 11-19-2019 10:42 AM

And again Nunes starts questioning with speculation about Hunter Biden. How about a defense of Trump, or questions relevant to the impeachment.

NobodyHere 11-19-2019 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lathum (Post 3256889)
And again Nunes starts questioning with speculation about Hunter Biden. How about a defense of Trump, or questions relevant to the impeachment.


Isn't that the GOP defense right now though? That Trump was simply trying to root out corruption and therefore it was reasonable to withhold the money until Ukraine took actions against said corruption.

I don't buy it personally but I imagine it would sell well to the base.

Atocep 11-19-2019 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NobodyHere (Post 3256892)
Isn't that the GOP defense right now though? That Trump was simply trying to root out corruption and therefore it was reasonable to withhold the money until Ukraine took actions against said corruption.

I don't buy it personally but I imagine it would sell well to the base.


They have 5 or 6 defenses floating around out there at the moment and that is one. The problem is that he only specifically mentioned Biden and the DNC server nonsense and the server thing is probably the dumbest conspiracy they could have come up with but I guess if you don't understand servers and have no idea at all of how digital forensics work then it sounds exciting.

They're also claiming that since it's Trump just being himself there's nothing wrong with it. Another is that since the quid pro quo failed its all good.

JPhillips 11-19-2019 12:01 PM

And SK announces they are developing new security ties with China.

So, so much winning.

albionmoonlight 11-19-2019 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 3256895)
And SK announces they are developing new security ties with China.

So, so much winning.


You are just missing the long game.

NFL players can't kneel for the flag if the United States ends up as a vassal state of China/Russia with no flag of its own.

Getting our ass kicked in foreign policy is simply another way to own the libs.

bronconick 11-19-2019 03:25 PM

Jim Jordan accusing people of not reporting misconduct properly breaks the irony scale.

Lathum 11-19-2019 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bronconick (Post 3256910)
Jim Jordan accusing people of not reporting misconduct properly breaks the irony scale.


I may hate him more than I hate Trump. We all know what Trump is. At least he owns it and hasn’t tried to convince us otherwise. The Gym Jordan’s of the world are really the horrible ones who defend him and spin doctor things. They are the ones who could truly make a difference but they have sold their souls for party over country.

He reminds me of the warden from Shawshank. He’s the worst.

Edward64 11-19-2019 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by QuikSand (Post 3256843)
It's Ambassador to the Bahamas, for crying out loud. If you're not selling that, I don't even know what to say. I know this is jaded-insider talk, but come on.


If I was rich rich, what better way to end a career in a low stress job.

Edward64 11-19-2019 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PilotMan (Post 3256871)
Hey, you'd be upset too, if you raised my prices by 500%. I am so ungrateful.

Right?


SK military budget is about $43B of the $420B+ budget. Total debt of $577B and debt to GNP is about 40%.

From $1B to $5B. I would like to know what the true cost is for our troops in Korea and assume its much greater than $1B ... not against SK paying more but yeah, how we are "negotiating" leaves a lot to be desired.

Atocep 11-19-2019 05:36 PM

I really don't get how the GOP carries the label of the Pro Military party. Trump, obviously isn't pro military, and Vindman's exchanges today with Nunes and Stewart really show they give no shits about respect for the military.

Atocep 11-19-2019 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edward64 (Post 3256920)
SK military budget is about $43B of the $420B+ budget. Total debt of $577B and debt to GNP is about 40%.

From $1B to $5B. I would like to know what the true cost is for our troops in Korea and assume its much greater than $1B ... not against SK paying more but yeah, how we are "negotiating" leaves a lot to be desired.


South Korea is paying us and we gain a strategic advantage with our military forces. That alone puts us ahead. Asking for more defies common sense.

RainMaker 11-19-2019 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atocep (Post 3256927)
I really don't get how the GOP carries the label of the Pro Military party. Trump, obviously isn't pro military, and Vindman's exchanges today with Nunes and Stewart really show they give no shits about respect for the military.


Same way they label themselves Christians? Just taking on a fake persona to make themselves feel better about their beliefs.

NobodyHere 11-19-2019 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atocep (Post 3256927)
I really don't get how the GOP carries the label of the Pro Military party. Trump, obviously isn't pro military, and Vindman's exchanges today with Nunes and Stewart really show they give no shits about respect for the military.


They get that label the same way they get the label of being fiscally conservative and the party of family values. They...ummm....

I got nothing.

kingfc22 11-19-2019 07:16 PM

I’ve been able to see a majority of the testimonies and Morrison’s testimony has to be the biggest stretch of them all. The I thought the call required me to notify lawyers for the first time ever BUT there was nothing wrong with the call. Ummm what?

PilotMan 11-19-2019 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edward64 (Post 3256920)
SK military budget is about $43B of the $420B+ budget. Total debt of $577B and debt to GNP is about 40%.

From $1B to $5B. I would like to know what the true cost is for our troops in Korea and assume its much greater than $1B ... not against SK paying more but yeah, how we are "negotiating" leaves a lot to be desired.


The value of global and regional influence, coupled with the strategic value over decades transcends the pittance of cash that we're talking about in comparison. If the administration is willing to throw that away because of some kind of concept of fair payment for US protection then he and the administration are even dumber and more short sighted than they've been given credit for.

Neon_Chaos 11-19-2019 09:43 PM

Welp. Looks like the Trump Admin definitely is ceding its sphere of influence in Asia, shedding off decades of traditional alliances. China’s slowly gobbling up the region in the last 3 years.

JPhillips 11-19-2019 09:46 PM

If it isn’t in our national interest, no amount is enough, and if it is in our national interest, we shouldn’t be haggling over small sums. The US military shouldn’t be rental mercenaries.

Edward64 11-19-2019 10:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neon_Chaos (Post 3256949)
Welp. Looks like the Trump Admin definitely is ceding its sphere of influence in Asia, shedding off decades of traditional alliances. China’s slowly gobbling up the region in the last 3 years.


Let's be fair. Obama failed too. The time to stop China's spread to the Spratley islands was early on, its a done deal now. And China's reach into rest of SEA began prior to Trump.

TPP? Let's not forget that Hillary was for it initially and then was against it. Its better than nothing though which is what we have now.

But your ultimate point is correct, China is slowing gobbling up the region in the past 8+ years or so and in other places too via their silk road initiative (smart of them to invest in Africa, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, South America etc.).

The ways to stop China or slow down China is either a war (no thanks), regime change (fat chance), or my preferred option, a massive Chinese stock market crash (similar to the Japanese bubble crash) resulting in a lost decade or two.

Coffee Warlord 11-19-2019 10:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PilotMan (Post 3256945)
The value of global and regional influence, coupled with the strategic value over decades transcends the pittance of cash that we're talking about in comparison. If the administration is willing to throw that away because of some kind of concept of fair payment for US protection then he and the administration are even dumber and more short sighted than they've been given credit for.


Honest question. What is the true strategic value of SK to the US? Japan is arguably a stronger ally both economically and militarily. I get it, the more real allies the better, but from a strictly regional influence point of view, strong ties with Japan serves that purpose.

edit: And I repeat, this is an honest question. This is not me advocating one policy or another.

ISiddiqui 11-19-2019 10:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord (Post 3256953)
Honest question. What is the true strategic value of SK to the US? Japan is arguably a stronger ally both economically and militarily. I get it, the more real allies the better, but from a strictly regional influence point of view, strong ties with Japan serves that purpose.

edit: And I repeat, this is an honest question. This is not me advocating one policy or another.


Historically, Japan may be larger (economically and military), but South Korea has been a closer ally. Our military forces have deeply integrated with SK's - especially in monitoring NK and China. And while South Korea's economy isn't as large as Japan's, it is very large (over $1.5trillion in GDP, over $2trillion in GDP PPP). As noted above, with the US signaling it won't stick with SK, SK may decide to look towards China - so you are strengthening China by walking away from SK.

I would argue its akin to asking what does it matter if we drop France if Germany is our regional partner in Europe.

Edward64 11-19-2019 11:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PilotMan (Post 3256945)
The value of global and regional influence, coupled with the strategic value over decades transcends the pittance of cash that we're talking about in comparison. If the administration is willing to throw that away because of some kind of concept of fair payment for US protection then he and the administration are even dumber and more short sighted than they've been given credit for.


Defense dept says it cost $4.8B and they are paying $1B with a pervious agreement to increase 8% to $1.08B.

South Korea isn't going anywhere, Trump isn't "throwing" it all away. But yeah, some feathers will be ruffled etc. but it'll recover ... at the very least with the next admin.

But they have a great deal and they know it. We have 20K+ troops there, let South Korea invest and make up the difference in number, quality, training etc. They are grown up now, lets give them a 5-10 year transition period and reduce our presence, move our troops further south (but keep, I assume, some tactical nukes handy in the country).
  • So, why don't you think we should ask a wealthy country that can afford to pay what it cost the US to help protect them? Why give them a free pass?
In current day, I would argue the strategic value they get from us far exceeds the strategic value we get from them. Let's spend the $4B delta on Japan, Philippines (if they'll take it), Cambodia & Vietnam etc.

I'm all for asking for much more money but don't agree with how Trump has approached it

Edward64 11-19-2019 11:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atocep (Post 3256928)
South Korea is paying us and we gain a strategic advantage with our military forces. That alone puts us ahead. Asking for more defies common sense.


South Korea is paying us $1B and costs us $5B so we are losing $4B. That defies common sense especially when South Korea is getting more strategic value than we are and we are running deficits like crazy.

Same question as my above post.

Quote:

So, why don't you think we should ask a wealthy country that can afford to pay what it cost the US to help protect them? Why give them a free pass?

Chief Rum 11-20-2019 03:23 AM

Edward, this has nothing to do with who pays for what military services. This is about global hegenony.

I have been reading a fascinating book called The Nect 100 Years by George Friedman, and he talks about what American aims to do to keep at the top of the heap. The U.S. in the post-cold war era is about making sure another country doesn't rise up to overtake it in overall global influence and supremacy. The reason why the U.S. has continued to maintain a presence in South Korea (and Japan and the Phillipines) is because by being present it limits China's ability to grow outward. Right now, South Korea is a bulwark against Chinese expansion. South Korea fears China as much if not more than North Korea. It wants the U.S. there. But if the U.S. is not going to be there, it will embrace China instead, because it still needs protection.

Incidentally, Friedman believes China will eventually collapse under the weight of multiple tensions in its society, including that between an authoritarian government and a population that increasingly wants more personal freedom, government control of economy versus the expansion of capitalism already well under way, and the regional tension between a rich and urban east coast and a poorer and more eclectic group in rhe west.

That said, if we allow South Korea to fall more under China's sphere of influence than our own, we give China a pathway to get past these tensions, to extend its power into the Pacific Ocean (currently almost completely dominated by the U.S. Navy, pretty much the most poweful military force in history), and establish a regional foothold which will be a lot more difficult to loosen it from.

Btw, not so coincidentally, why do you think Ukraine is so important. Eerie parallel there...

I think in the long run, the Dumbass in Office will be removed (probably by 2020 election) and the U.S. will revert to its normal.policies of the past 25-30 years, and this will be a blip.

But this is much more important paying $4 B versus an ally's $1 B to protect that ally.

Edward64 11-20-2019 06:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chief Rum (Post 3256969)
Edward, this has nothing to do with who pays for what military services. This is about global hegenony.


I heard about the book below when it first came up but never did pick it up. I'm all for US global hegemony, I've used the term Pax Americana a couple times here.

Quote:

I have been reading a fascinating book called The Nect 100 Years by George Friedman, and he talks about what American aims to do to keep at the top of the heap. The U.S. in the post-cold war era is about making sure another country doesn't rise up to overtake it in overall global influence and supremacy. The reason why the U.S. has continued to maintain a presence in South Korea (and Japan and the Phillipines) is because by being present it limits China's ability to grow outward. Right now, South Korea is a bulwark against Chinese expansion. South Korea fears China as much if not more than North Korea. It wants the U.S. there. But if the U.S. is not going to be there, it will embrace China instead, because it still needs protection.

Maybe Friedman addresses this but here's my counter. There's little evidence IMO that South Korea in recent years has stopped China's "ability to grow outward".

Militarily in the Spratley's? Zilch that I know of. In Taiwan? SK doesn't get credit for that. In Hong Kong? the inevitable will happen over time.

Economically in SEA, Africa, South & Latin America? Zilch.

Technologically? Zilch

The only thing I can see South Korea stopping is North Korea and I'm all for that. South Korea is 11th largest economy and ranked 7th in military power and they can/should take care of their own over time (e.g. train up, buy more equipment etc.). Admittedly they will still need some nuke deterrence which we should provide.

Quote:

Incidentally, Friedman believes China will eventually collapse under the weight of multiple tensions in its society, including that between an authoritarian government and a population that increasingly wants more personal freedom, government control of economy versus the expansion of capitalism already well under way, and the regional tension between a rich and urban east coast and a poorer and more eclectic group in rhe west.

I do agree that China has become more capitalistic and but I don't see it collapsing from within anytime soon unless there is a "trigger" (e.g. stock market crash). Unfortunately, the government effectively controls the Chinese media & propaganda, has the Great (fire)Wall, manipulates economic numbers etc. and can probably control the rate and impact of a stock market crash also.

Quote:

That said, if we allow South Korea to fall more under China's sphere of influence than our own, we give China a pathway to get past these tensions, to extend its power into the Pacific Ocean (currently almost completely dominated by the U.S. Navy, pretty much the most poweful military force in history), and establish a regional foothold which will be a lot more difficult to loosen it from.

Its hard for me to believe this one incident will make South Korea pivot more to China than they already were doing because of economic interests. Yes, if the relationship continues to be strained and contentious, it may come to that but not anytime soon (and by then we'll have a new administration who will negotiate in a better way).

Re: extending its power into the Pacific Ocean through South Korea, I don't see it. Japan is much more strategic there and re: South China Sea, they will effectively share-ownership of it with US because of the Spratleys.

Quote:

Btw, not so coincidentally, why do you think Ukraine is so important. Eerie parallel there...

I can see some parallels but as mentioned above, China economic activities transcends borders and is welcomed (so far) by nations wanting that money. I don't think that is the same for Russia, its more of a military buffer.

Quote:

I think in the long run, the Dumbass in Office will be removed (probably by 2020 election) and the U.S. will revert to its normal.policies of the past 25-30 years, and this will be a blip.

I agree. I would want the next administration to ask for much more money but in a more diplomatic, constructive, less face-loss way.

Quote:

But this is much more important paying $4 B versus an ally's $1 B to protect that ally.

South Korea is an established ally. Its not going anywhere soon (and the next admin will return it back to somewhat normal).

Yes, the $4B is not relevant in the big scheme of things (Samsung made $6B in profits last quarter) but

(1) I'm not sure when the imbalanced happened but lets say 20 years ago. $80B is a nice chunk of money, time-value to money, opportunity costs etc.
(2) Was it asking South Korea to pay for it or was it how it was asked/threatened, I think the latter was the mistake
(3) We should be investing money and military in other places in Asia. Let's redirect those funds into making new/reinforcing new friends. Not sure I would pick Taiwan but Philippines and Thailand I think are the 2 possible choices (Malaysia, Indonesia are predominantly Muslim countries and don't see them welcoming China that much; Australia probably not an issue anytime soon. Its Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos, Myanmar and possibly Philippines that I would be very concerned about.

PilotMan 11-20-2019 06:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chief Rum (Post 3256969)
Edward, this has nothing to do with who pays for what military services. This is about global hegenony.

I have been reading a fascinating book called The Nect 100 Years by George Friedman, and he talks about what American aims to do to keep at the top of the heap. The U.S. in the post-cold war era is about making sure another country doesn't rise up to overtake it in overall global influence and supremacy. The reason why the U.S. has continued to maintain a presence in South Korea (and Japan and the Phillipines) is because by being present it limits China's ability to grow outward. Right now, South Korea is a bulwark against Chinese expansion. South Korea fears China as much if not more than North Korea. It wants the U.S. there. But if the U.S. is not going to be there, it will embrace China instead, because it still needs protection.

Incidentally, Friedman believes China will eventually collapse under the weight of multiple tensions in its society, including that between an authoritarian government and a population that increasingly wants more personal freedom, government control of economy versus the expansion of capitalism already well under way, and the regional tension between a rich and urban east coast and a poorer and more eclectic group in rhe west.

That said, if we allow South Korea to fall more under China's sphere of influence than our own, we give China a pathway to get past these tensions, to extend its power into the Pacific Ocean (currently almost completely dominated by the U.S. Navy, pretty much the most poweful military force in history), and establish a regional foothold which will be a lot more difficult to loosen it from.

Btw, not so coincidentally, why do you think Ukraine is so important. Eerie parallel there...

I think in the long run, the Dumbass in Office will be removed (probably by 2020 election) and the U.S. will revert to its normal.policies of the past 25-30 years, and this will be a blip.

But this is much more important paying $4 B versus an ally's $1 B to protect that ally.



This is exactly the point that I was trying to make. Well stated.

PilotMan 11-20-2019 07:05 AM

I still get the regular official WH emails and I find it amusing that they send so many that over half of them find their way into my spam folder. I also find it amusing to see just what the angle is that comes out directly from the WH. For example, yesterday, the headline was about how the left is trashing the constitution. The only supporting point was Barr's speech at the Federalist Society where he stated that over last several decades the power of the executive has been eroded by the other branches. {no other commentary; personally I'd argue that it's gone the opposite way}




After that they go to an editorial from the NYPost about Vindman's audacity to know what US foreign policy should look like, and editorial from The Federalist, a report from National Review about Ivanka, and one from Fox Business about the Stock Market.



Shocked there was no Washington Examiner, Brietbart. Yet.



Today, the mailer is basically the answer to yesterday's testimony. The overall feeling was this. trump was elected by the people, therefore he is the only person who can say what the people want, and since he is the president he is allowed to set any sort of foreign policy that he wants, and those who work for him must do it, because he's the boss. Vindman doesn't personally know trump and has never met him, therefore his insight is completely invalidated. NEW TRANSCRIPT! SWAMP!



That's basically it. That's the whole thing. It looks like the prevailing official defense is going to be, I'm the president and I was elected, therefore I can do it, and nobody can disagree with me and I cannot legally do anything wrong....at all...and there is nobody that can argue with that and if they do then they are in the service of the enemy seeking to nullify the 'voice of the people'.

JPhillips 11-20-2019 07:51 AM

SK has one of the largest militaries in the world, millions larger than the Philippines. You can't just swap SK out for someone else just as good.

Again, if the troops in SK are vital to our national interests, arguing over less than one percent of the defense budget is moronic. If troops in SK are not vital to our national interests using a major portion of our resources to be rental mercenaries is moronic.

Flasch186 11-20-2019 08:14 AM

Sondland gets set on fire today


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edward64 11-20-2019 08:17 AM

May have to watch CNN while working to hear this ... but I do want him to be more direct and say quid pro quo for Biden investigation (not for 2016 election investigation).

'The answer is yes': Sondland affirms 'quid pro quo' in Ukraine dealings - POLITICO
Quote:

"Was there a “quid pro quo?" Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union — a close Trump ally and GOP donor — plans to say in his opening remarks to impeachment investigators. "The answer is yes."

Sondland also intends to frame the matter as widely understood across the Trump administration, indicating that senior officials and even cabinet secretaries were aware of the arrangement.

"Everyone was in the loop. It was no secret," he intends to say, according to his prepared remarks. And he directly delivered the message of that quid pro quo was to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, Sondland will say. He specifically cites a July 19 email copied to Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, Energy Secretary Rick Perry, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and "a lot of senior officials." In that email, he reveals that he "just talked to Zelensky" and secured a commitment for a "fully transparent investigation."

Edward64 11-20-2019 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flasch186 (Post 3256985)
Sondland gets set on fire today

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Darn, I think I missed it.

QuikSand 11-20-2019 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PilotMan (Post 3256977)
It looks like the prevailing official defense is going to be, I'm the president and I was elected, therefore I can do it, and nobody can disagree with me and I cannot legally do anything wrong....at all...and there is nobody that can argue with that and if they do then they are in the service of the enemy seeking to nullify the 'voice of the people'.


It's equal parts papal infallibility and Louis XIV's L'etat c'est moi.

I won the election, therefore I am the United States, and if I care about it, it is by definition "the American interest" therefore, suggesting I did (or even could do) something wrong is treasonous. It's airtight.

bronconick 11-20-2019 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flasch186 (Post 3256985)
Sondland gets set on fire today


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


He's decided to throw everyone else under the bus.

Edward64 11-20-2019 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edward64 (Post 3256988)
Darn, I think I missed it.


No I didn't! Seems a major part of Sondland's defense re: perjury is he didn't have access to all his notes, emails etc. to do an accurate reconstruction for his first testimony. I get some mis-recollections here but com'on.

He did say quid pro quo for 2016 election and Burisma.

I do think Congress should pursue perjury against him. No pardon for him.

spleen1015 11-20-2019 08:53 AM

Sometimes that happens with you tell the truth.

Edit - that was in response to him throwing everyone else under the bus.

He should go down for perjury.

Doesn't change any of the rest though.

kingfc22 11-20-2019 08:57 AM

Sondland has basically said they ordered the code red.

JPhillips 11-20-2019 09:05 AM

Sondland has become the impeachment Santa Claus, he made a list and checked it twice and now everybody on it gets implicated in the crimes.

PilotMan 11-20-2019 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edward64 (Post 3256997)


I do think Congress should pursue perjury against him. No pardon for him.



There was some discussion as to whether or not he would take the 5th under oath today. The argument then was that he was far more valuable to trump than he was to the house and to just take away trump's ability to hold the pardon in front of him. Therefore, give him complete immunity and let him go to town. With no fear of punishment he would be free to testify however and trump loses any advantage by being able to pardon him.

kingfc22 11-20-2019 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 3257001)
Sondland has become the impeachment Santa Claus, he made a list and checked it twice and now everybody on it gets implicated in the crimes.


Can't wait to hear how the Republicans try to tear this apart. HAHAHAHHAH

:popcorn:

Flasch186 11-20-2019 09:09 AM

The best part is the GOP game is to plow headlong to the end with the same talking points and pray that the base doesn't care and that'll be enough.

Flasch186 11-20-2019 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kingfc22 (Post 3257006)
Can't wait to hear how the Republicans try to tear this apart. HAHAHAHHAH

:popcorn:


They won't address it. They'll just keep playing the fruit of the poisoned tree charade. BTW this charade will continue for the next 20 years no matter the official outcomes.

kingfc22 11-20-2019 09:12 AM

And some R's have left the chamber to go run and find a new strategy.

JediKooter 11-20-2019 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kingfc22 (Post 3257010)
And some R's have left the chamber to go run and find a new strategy.


At this point what do they have left? The Chewbacca defense?

Edward64 11-20-2019 09:21 AM

Sondland says he didn't know Burisma meant Bidens at that time.

Good defense for him (if true and no contradictory evidence that he did know it meant the Bidens' back then).

Ben E Lou 11-20-2019 09:27 AM

Ambassador Nino Brown ftw!



QuikSand 11-20-2019 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kingfc22 (Post 3257006)
Can't wait to hear how the Republicans try to tear this apart. HAHAHAHHAH

:popcorn:


See, you're thinking they will feel duty bound to come up with a "coherent" approach. Nah...


Bee 11-20-2019 09:31 AM

Obviously he’s just another Never Trumper....who donated a million dollars to Trump’s campaign.

QuikSand 11-20-2019 09:32 AM


NobodyHere 11-20-2019 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by QuikSand (Post 3257019)
See, you're thinking they will feel duty bound to come up with a "coherent" approach. Nah...



They'll leave that to Rush Limbaugh

Edward64 11-20-2019 09:42 AM

Sondland sure is taking a lot of sips of water.

Lathum 11-20-2019 09:45 AM

I’m just listening to opening statement now, but I wonder how Trump feels being the one thrown under the bus so someone else can save their ass.

Chief Rum 11-20-2019 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lathum (Post 3257028)
I’m just listening to opening statement now, but I wonder how Trump feels being the one thrown under the bus so someone else can save their ass.


Do we need to wonder? I'm sure we"ll see a tweet soon, since he's "not watching" in the Oval Office right now.

Kodos 11-20-2019 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lathum (Post 3257028)
I’m just listening to opening statement now, but I wonder how Trump feels being the one thrown under the bus so someone else can save their ass.


How my ass taste, President Trump?

JediKooter 11-20-2019 10:14 AM

Piece of shit nunes face after realizing they will now need another new strategy to try to protect the criminal organization in the white house:

Face of a loser realizing they are losing...

Jas_lov 11-20-2019 10:18 AM

My guess is it's now Rudy's turn to be thrown under the bus. Not sure what other argument they can make. And Bolton needs to testify.

JediKooter 11-20-2019 10:31 AM

If nunes was my public defender, I would just plead guilty in hopes I would get a less harsh sentence.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:43 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.