Trump comes to a fire. And sprays gasoline on it

[bamscram]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Everyone knows that, Ekim the Inbred Chimp, and that's why it finally dawned on you that you needed to change your handle.

You and three retards on one forum is not everyone, clown.
You made it up and your weak minded altright followed, when I first joined your minions guessed 3 other people. Parrot your lie it all you got.
As I have said to several here (prove it) no one has even made an attempt.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

He's the only Turkey in this scenario.

I find it absolutely amazing that Twitler did NOTHING when Erdogan's thugs kicked and beat protesters in Washington DC. In fact, he BLEW him like a 15 minute BnG in a back alley, as he always does with brutal dick-tasters.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics...testers-again/

Not the first time a foreign dictator has strongarmed Americans. Not the first time under Twitler's failed regime.

Nor is it the first time Twitler attacks the dick-taster in question with his mouth while vigorously jerking him off under the table.

Witness the latest round of sanctions against Russia. (LMAO!)

This guy gotta go. He's the king of the dick-tasters.

Yssup, Trump's tweet yesterday about tariffs on Turkey, in the middle of a currency crisis, was incredibly stupid. However, I'm not sure it was his responsibility to do anything about Erdogan's men roughing up the protesters. Wouldn't that have been under the purview of the local or state governments?

Turkey's an incredibly difficult situation for the U.S. President Erdogan of Turkey wants the head of Fethullah Gulen, who's a holy man, cult leader, or self help guru depending on your point of view. Gulen has followers throughout Turkey, who formerly supported Erdogan. But not any longer. Erdogan rightly or wrongly blames Gulen for a coup attempt in 2016.

Well, Gulen lives in the U.S., and the USA isn't going to turn him over to Erdogan without convincing evidence that he's done something wrong. And Erdogan hasn't provided that.

Another big point of contention is the U.S.'s support of Kurds in northern Syria. Some of these same Kurds who helped us defeat Isis have also attacked Turkey. And other problems are U.S. sanctions on Iran and Russia, the biggest suppliers of oil and natural gas to Turkey.

Turkey has responded to these "affronts." It has attacked or defended itself, depending on your point of view, from the Kurds in Syria, even at the risk of killing Americans embedded with Kurd forces. It has put an American pastor who it accuses of being a Gulenist in jail. And it has started to pivot towards Iran and Russia in defense and foreign policy. Turkey is even buying a missile defense system from Russia, which is problematic considering Turkey is part of NATO.

Turkey has historically been an important ally. It has supported us in foreign adventures, sacrificing its sons in the Korean war and Afghanistan. Remember the Cuban missile crisis? During that period, the USA had nuclear weapons based in Turkey aimed at the USSR, and it was their removal (and the USSR's removal of weapons from Cuba) that could possibly have averted a nuclear war. That was a big deal - Turkey was at risk of being wiped from the map by a Russian pre-emptive nuclear attack, to destroy nuclear missiles planted there by the USA. Today Turkey provides bases we use for operations in the Middle East.

The USA is trapped between a rock and a hard place. Do you pursue realpolitik (the ends justify the means)? Hand over Gulen and screw the Kurds? Or do you base your policy on human rights and the rule of law? You might expect Trump to do the former and Obama to do the later. But it hasn't really worked out that way. The Trump administration has reacted more the way you would expect Obama would. That's kind of what has happened with respect to Russia too. Trump expresses admiration for Erdogan and Putin, but then, for better or worse, his administration ends up tightening the screws on Turkey and Russia for reasons having more to do with standing up for the rights and interests of non-citizens (Kurds, Gulen, Ukrainians) rather than promoting U.S. interests.

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

I think this was a fake military coup. they did some stupid, incompetent things during the coup. a real military coup wouldn't have that many mistakes.

Dilbert, This is exactly what Gulen thinks. I suspect both Gulen and Erdogan are wrong. Gulen probably wasn't responsible for the coup, and it's unlikely Erdogan staged it.

[Yssup Rider]

We’ll see how that bears out, won’t we, Tiny.

[Hotrod511]

Originally Posted by Tiny

Yssup, Trump's tweet yesterday about tariffs on Turkey, in the middle of a currency crisis, was incredibly stupid. However, I'm not sure it was his responsibility to do anything about Erdogan's men roughing up the protesters. Wouldn't that have been under the purview of the local or state governments?

Turkey's an incredibly difficult situation for the U.S. President Erdogan of Turkey wants the head of Fethullah Gulen, who's a holy man, cult leader, or self help guru depending on your point of view. Gulen has followers throughout Turkey, who formerly supported Erdogan. But not any longer. Erdogan rightly or wrongly blames Gulen for a coup attempt in 2016.

Well, Gulen lives in the U.S., and the USA isn't going to turn him over to Erdogan without convincing evidence that he's done something wrong. And Erdogan hasn't provided that.

Another big point of contention is the U.S.'s support of Kurds in northern Syria. Some of these same Kurds who helped us defeat Isis have also attacked Turkey. And other problems are U.S. sanctions on Iran and Russia, the biggest suppliers of oil and natural gas to Turkey.

Turkey has responded to these "affronts." It has attacked or defended itself, depending on your point of view, from the Kurds in Syria, even at the risk of killing Americans embedded with Kurd forces. It has put an American pastor who it accuses of being a Gulenist in jail. And it has started to pivot towards Iran and Russia in defense and foreign policy. Turkey is even buying a missile defense system from Russia, which is problematic considering Turkey is part of NATO.

Turkey has historically been an important ally. It has supported us in foreign adventures, sacrificing its sons in the Korean war and Afghanistan. Remember the Cuban missile crisis? During that period, the USA had nuclear weapons based in Turkey aimed at the USSR, and it was their removal (and the USSR's removal of weapons from Cuba) that could possibly have averted a nuclear war. That was a big deal - Turkey was at risk of being wiped from the map by a Russian pre-emptive nuclear attack, to destroy nuclear missiles planted there by the USA. Today Turkey provides bases we use for operations in the Middle East.

The USA is trapped between a rock and a hard place. Do you pursue realpolitik (the ends justify the means)? Hand over Gulen and screw the Kurds? Or do you base your policy on human rights and the rule of law? You might expect Trump to do the former and Obama to do the later. But it hasn't really worked out that way. The Trump administration has reacted more the way you would expect Obama would. That's kind of what has happened with respect to Russia too. Trump expresses admiration for Erdogan and Putin, but then, for better or worse, his administration ends up tightening the screws on Turkey and Russia for reasons having more to do with standing up for the rights and interests of non-citizens (Kurds, Gulen, Ukrainians) rather than promoting U.S. interests.




Dilbert, This is exactly what Gulen thinks. I suspect both Gulen and Erdogan are wrong. Gulen probably wasn't responsible for the coup, and it's unlikely Erdogan staged it.

Donald Trump understands something that has eluded U.S. residents at least since Ronald Reagan — the American economy is a potent weapon.

Reagan wielded that weapon to win the Cold War. He understood that defense spending was expensive, and the higher tech the weapons system, the greater the expense. He didn’t particularly like spending American money on military technology, but he knew that the U.S. could sustain the investment far better than could the economically moribund Soviet Union.

Trump faces a very different world. No single power comes close to matching American military or economic capacity. No single power threatens American interests with anything close to the completeness or the ferocity of the Soviet Union.

That’s not to say that American interests go unchallenged.

Rather than a single overwhelming foe, America today faces many significant challengers: Chinese expansionism, North Korean nukes, global Islamism, free-riding allies, Russian revanchism, Chavistas destroying Latin America, and a nuclear-threshold Iran seeking to export its revolution top the list. These threats are neither subtle nor partisan.

The Obama administration recognized all of them, and organized its foreign policy around accommodation rather than confrontation. On the flip side, there is no shortage of American hawks willing to deploy the U.S. military in whichever theater dominates their particular interests.

Much to the chagrin of these two dominant schools of American elite opinion, Trump has embraced neither approach. He is rebuilding the American military while deploying our economic weapon — broadly.

The president has taken a page from Reagan's playbook, adapted, and improved upon it.

Unlike Reagan, who began outspending the Soviets with the American economy still mired in the malaise he inherited from Jimmy Carter, Trump pulled the country out of the Obama doldrums before deploying. Trump emphasized growth from day one.

He focused first on the regulatory thicket strangling American innovation and investment, before championing a broad tax cut tailor-made to promote employment and growth.

As a result, the American economy took off like a shot.

With growth restored, employment booming, and the future looking bright, Trump had replenished the arsenal of American economic might. Then — and only then — did he begin to brandish his weapons: sanctions and tariffs.

Trump’s message to the world was simple: We believe that the American economy is so vibrant that everyone wants to enter it. That’s great. We welcome competition from all of our friends. But we will not open our doors to those who seek to undermine American interests.

Simple. Straightforward. Want to do business in America? Play by the rules. Don’t like the rules? Good luck making due without us.

The rules themselves hardly seem onerous: Don’t expand into the territory of others. Don’t export revolutions. Don’t sponsor terrorism. Don’t be a rogue state. Don’t proliferate nuclear weapons or missile delivery systems.

Don’t subsidize your own industries to take American jobs. Don’t place barriers in front of Americans seeking to do business with your people. Don’t undermine American interests in international organizations. Pay for defense benefits you desire.

Trump has deployed tariffs to discipline minor offenders, saving the sanctions only for the most grievous violations. In his first eighteen months, he has sanctioned Russia, North Korea, Iran, and Turkey, while aiming tariffs at China, Canada, Mexico, and the EU.

In each case, his goal was the same: Telling international players that accessing the U.S. economy requires a commitment to peaceful, even-handed competition. For those unable to hear the message amidst the cacophony of the press, Trump spelled it out in his "National Security Strategy."

The U.S. seeks a world of strong sovereigns peacefully pursuing their own interests.

Many — including President Trump — have termed his approach a "trade war." The term is instructive, though few seem willing to draw the obvious inferences.

War is always expensive. A military war requires investments in personnel and equipment. People die. Governments spend millions of dollars building weapons they use once.

Viewed strictly as an expense, the expenditures seem irrational. Risking the lives of your bravest young people while purchasing multi-million dollars single-use objects? Bizarre!

Unless, that is, you also consider the goals of the war.

Precisely the same is true with a trade war. Yes, as we deploy our weapons, some Americans will suffer. We will lose some business and some jobs. We may lose some economic skirmishes. America will feel some pain. But with the economy roaring and employment at an all-time high, we’ve never been better positioned to withstand it.

The strength of our Trumpian economy guarantees that no world power has ever been better positioned to win such a war. And the ultimate costs are guaranteed to be far lower than anything we might have paid had we had to deploy the military in any of these theaters.

Therein lies the brilliance of President Trump’s trade wars: Peace through strength —American economic strength.

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by Hotrod511

Donald Trump understands something that has eluded U.S. residents at least since Ronald Reagan — the American economy is a potent weapon.

Reagan wielded that weapon to win the Cold War. He understood that defense spending was expensive, and the higher tech the weapons system, the greater the expense. He didn’t particularly like spending American money on military technology, but he knew that the U.S. could sustain the investment far better than could the economically moribund Soviet Union.

Trump faces a very different world. No single power comes close to matching American military or economic capacity. No single power threatens American interests with anything close to the completeness or the ferocity of the Soviet Union.

That’s not to say that American interests go unchallenged.

Rather than a single overwhelming foe, America today faces many significant challengers: Chinese expansionism, North Korean nukes, global Islamism, free-riding allies, Russian revanchism, Chavistas destroying Latin America, and a nuclear-threshold Iran seeking to export its revolution top the list. These threats are neither subtle nor partisan.

The Obama administration recognized all of them, and organized its foreign policy around accommodation rather than confrontation. On the flip side, there is no shortage of American hawks willing to deploy the U.S. military in whichever theater dominates their particular interests.

Much to the chagrin of these two dominant schools of American elite opinion, Trump has embraced neither approach. He is rebuilding the American military while deploying our economic weapon — broadly.

The president has taken a page from Reagan's playbook, adapted, and improved upon it.

Unlike Reagan, who began outspending the Soviets with the American economy still mired in the malaise he inherited from Jimmy Carter, Trump pulled the country out of the Obama doldrums before deploying. Trump emphasized growth from day one.

He focused first on the regulatory thicket strangling American innovation and investment, before championing a broad tax cut tailor-made to promote employment and growth.

As a result, the American economy took off like a shot.

With growth restored, employment booming, and the future looking bright, Trump had replenished the arsenal of American economic might. Then — and only then — did he begin to brandish his weapons: sanctions and tariffs.

Trump’s message to the world was simple: We believe that the American economy is so vibrant that everyone wants to enter it. That’s great. We welcome competition from all of our friends. But we will not open our doors to those who seek to undermine American interests.

Simple. Straightforward. Want to do business in America? Play by the rules. Don’t like the rules? Good luck making due without us.

The rules themselves hardly seem onerous: Don’t expand into the territory of others. Don’t export revolutions. Don’t sponsor terrorism. Don’t be a rogue state. Don’t proliferate nuclear weapons or missile delivery systems.

Don’t subsidize your own industries to take American jobs. Don’t place barriers in front of Americans seeking to do business with your people. Don’t undermine American interests in international organizations. Pay for defense benefits you desire.

Trump has deployed tariffs to discipline minor offenders, saving the sanctions only for the most grievous violations. In his first eighteen months, he has sanctioned Russia, North Korea, Iran, and Turkey, while aiming tariffs at China, Canada, Mexico, and the EU.

In each case, his goal was the same: Telling international players that accessing the U.S. economy requires a commitment to peaceful, even-handed competition. For those unable to hear the message amidst the cacophony of the press, Trump spelled it out in his "National Security Strategy."

The U.S. seeks a world of strong sovereigns peacefully pursuing their own interests.

Many — including President Trump — have termed his approach a "trade war." The term is instructive, though few seem willing to draw the obvious inferences.

War is always expensive. A military war requires investments in personnel and equipment. People die. Governments spend millions of dollars building weapons they use once.

Viewed strictly as an expense, the expenditures seem irrational. Risking the lives of your bravest young people while purchasing multi-million dollars single-use objects? Bizarre!

Unless, that is, you also consider the goals of the war.

Precisely the same is true with a trade war. Yes, as we deploy our weapons, some Americans will suffer. We will lose some business and some jobs. We may lose some economic skirmishes. America will feel some pain. But with the economy roaring and employment at an all-time high, we’ve never been better positioned to withstand it.

The strength of our Trumpian economy guarantees that no world power has ever been better positioned to win such a war. And the ultimate costs are guaranteed to be far lower than anything we might have paid had we had to deploy the military in any of these theaters.

Therein lies the brilliance of President Trump’s trade wars: Peace through strength —American economic strength.

if that came from an article, you need to put a link on it.

[Yssup Rider]

Yep

[I B Hankering]

Pick a line ... any line, and Google it. That'll get you a source.

[Yssup Rider]

Great source. No wonder the poster wouldn’t list it.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/newsmax/

[I B Hankering]

Bruce Abramson and Jeff Ballabon write for several media outlets including the Federalists, the Washington Times, the Times of Israel, etc. Using a self-appointed, left-wing site to subjectively pass judgement on another site is laughable.

[Yssup Rider]

Not at all. Sourcing admittedly right wing media will always shift the discussion from the story to the credibility of the source.

Hell of a time we live in, eh?

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Not at all. Sourcing admittedly right wing media will always shift the discussion from the story to the credibility of the source.

Hell of a time we live in, eh?

[I B Hankering]

Sourcing self-appointed, left-wing "fact checkers" will never be accepted as credible.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Using a self-appointed, left-wing site to subjectively pass judgement on another site is laughable.

It's hard to say whether mediabiasfactcheck.com is indeed biased. On one hand, it shows CNN as having a "left bias." I'd put CNN at left-center, not left. But then on the other hand under "questionable sources", they appear to catalog considerably more far right sources than far left sources.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Tiny

It's hard to say whether mediabiasfactcheck.com is indeed biased. On one hand, it shows CNN as having a "left bias." I'd put CNN at left-center, not left. But then on the other hand under "questionable sources", they appear to catalog considerably more far right sources than far left sources.

It's easy to say mediabiasfactcheck is biased. Without any special claim to expertise, this left-winger Van Zandt sets himself up as an authority to judge others on partisanship?!?!? Really?

If you want to swallow what Van Zandt peddles that's fine, but I won't have it.

Note how at least two of Van Zandt's rating categories are highly subjective in nature: "Word Choice" and "Political Affiliation". So a Left-winger is going to *objectively* rate a Right-winger on his Political Affiliation? That, sir, does not pass the smell taste.

• Biased Wording/Headlines- Does the source use loaded words to convey emotion to sway the reader. Do headlines match the story.
• Factual/Sourcing- Does the source report factually and back up claims with well sourced evidence.
• Story Choices- Does the source report news from both sides or do they only publish one side.
• Political Affiliation- How strongly does the source endorse a particular political ideology? In other words how extreme are their views.

You might want to read this article.

Here's another article worth reading: Media Bias Fact Check: Incompetent or Dishonest?

Sure, they're right-wing sources, but rest assured they're no more biased to the Right than Van Zandt is to the Left.

[Yssup Rider]

What about the truth? Where does it fit into the discussion?