International Trump/Putin Summit

[Johnny Alpha]

If people think what Trump ha done is treason I can't wait to see what happens if Jeremy Corbyn becomes Prime Minister of Britain.

BBC propaganda

 

[Fawlty]

American's still believe Russia invaded Ukraine with tanks and took part of it over like some invasion of Poland.

Look at the demographics of Crimea. Notice something?

Russia's have been the majority likely in the 1940's.


Maybe if Alaska had a majority Russian population they would want to be part of Russia otherwise the talks of Russia taking over Alaska are ridiculous.

Hey with so many Mexicans taking over America, how long until those areas become part of Mexico?

Pepperidge Farms remembers when Hitler used this excuse.

 

[Gregolian]

The pumpkin story kills

It does.

 

[Quequeg]

Trump on Fox, doubted whether we would defend Montenegro(Nato member), in 2016 Russian tried to overthrow Montenegro's elected Govt. Just a coincidence or just more clear proof of Trump doing Putins bidding?

 

[Soul Rebel 2]

oh now you're all patriotic america first citizens ? lol you guys don't even know where you're standing

Why would I be America first? I’m not American. I’m just stating facts, no anthem protest comes anywhere near to this travesty.

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/19/politics/donald-trump-vladimir-putin-summit/index.html

 

[Jack V Savage]

Bizarre response.

I started this by emphasizing that Trump exaggerates for rhetorical effect. I showed how 75% is calculated (that's Bernie Sanders's figure).

90% is not a preposterous leap. If you start including things like Social Security and Medicare payments to veterans, you're going to go over 75%.

Both 75% and 90% are preposterous leaps when you consider the actual claim. Trump's comment was simply wrong, and you're lowering yourself by trying to spin a defense of it.

Trump is a lock for 2020. Deal with it.

When you say a "lock," what odds are you giving him? 20-1?

 

[waiguoren]

Both 75% and 90% are preposterous leaps when you consider the actual claim.

75% is not preposterous at all. NATO itself calculates 73% using the DOD base budget figure of <$600 billion. Add in large US expenditures on overseas contingency operation funds for fighting IS, VA funding, National Nuclear Security Administration funding, cybersecurity funding through DoJ and some portion of State Department funding and you get close to $900 billion. That should take you to the mid-80s.

By the way, if the Democrats and the MSM would make the bloated military budget their major talking point instead of this Russia nonsense or "the children!", I'd be taking the anti-Trump side in most discussions.

When you say a "lock," what odds are you giving him? 20-1?

You know me better than that. It was bait.

 

[waiguoren]

Both 75% and 90% are preposterous leaps when you consider the actual claim.

“The volume of the US defense expenditure effectively represents 73 per cent of the defense spending of the Alliance as a whole,” NATO says in a discussion of indirect funding.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...or-nato/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.0e756fe0c914

 

[Jack V Savage]

75% is not preposterous at all. NATO itself calculates 73% using the DOD base budget figure of <$600 billion.

Trump's comment was not that U.S. military expenditures are 90% of the combined military expenditures of all NATO countries (which also be wrong by any reasonable accounting), it was that we pay for 90% of NATO. The accounting you're using is ridiculous, and you know it.

You know me better than that. It was bait.

What odds do you give him? I think there's close to an even shot that we'll have a recession before the election, and contingent on that, I think his odds are very low. He's also facing a risk of impeachment (and a much greater risk of facts that would justify impeachment becoming known, which could hurt his chances), and is old and feeble. Also a chance of being primaried (which he would certainly win, but which would hurt his chances in the general). I think if we assume nothing too damaging politically from the probe, no recession, and no primary, and he's healthy and willing to run again, he's a slight favorite. But I don't think he's better than even right now.

 

[waiguoren]

Trump's comment was not that U.S. military expenditures are 90% of the combined military expenditures of all NATO countries (which also be wrong by any reasonable accounting), it was that we pay for 90% of NATO.

Source?

I don't think he's better than even right now.

Ok, looks like bet territory. Sig or AV? Bet is null if Trump doesn't make it to election day.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Source?

Ok, looks like bet territory. Sig or AV? Bet is null if Trump doesn't make it to election day.

He said we pay for 90% of NATO and then separately that we're paying between 70% and 90% of it, depending on how you calculate it. The quotes have been going around. Are you suggesting that he was misquoted? I don't have a video link.

Note that the bet you're offering is quite different from what I said (and what you said that I was responding to). I'll make the bet right now if you drop the last sentence. Also, what did you think of the speculation (aside from the conclusion)?

 

[TheGreatA]

Agreed, but let me ask you this: what have countries like Finland, Norway, and Switzerland done in the last 200 years to significantly advance human civilization? They are not active historical actors. Yeah they have a common culture and a common ethnicity, but so do other countries. There's nothing exceptional about them.

Citizen for citizen, I would say more than the United States.

America's strength is in its 300+ million population. Yet you can find areas with tens of millions of people that have not amounted to anything, historically. You could say that only a select few key areas within the U.S. are contributing, and in these areas you will find a concentration of professionals from each region of the world, not merely American citizens, the Silicon Valley being one of such examples.

Right now Finland is doing pretty significant business in the areas of green tech, automation, pollution filtering, etc.

 

[waiguoren]

He said we pay for 90% of NATO, and then separately that we're paying between 70% and 90% of it, depending on how you calculate it.

Which is true, if "paying for NATO" means "paying for a share of total NATO defense expenditures".

I'll make the bet right now if you drop the last sentence.

Not a chance. But I'm willing to make it a loss for me in the event that Trump gets primaried.

what did you think of the speculation

??

 

[Jack V Savage]

Which is true, f "paying for NATO" means "paying for a share of total NATO defense expenditures".

OK, I think you realize that Trump's actual statement was false. But granting your interpretation, dp you really think it is reasonable from an accounting standpoint to list 100% of U.S. military expenditures as a contribution to NATO?

Not a chance. But I'm willing to make it a loss for me in the event that Trump gets primaried.

What do you think his actual odds are, with no conditions?

??

Odds of a recession, odds of Trump winning conditional on a recession, etc. I spelled out my thinking, and your only response was that you disagree with a different conclusion.

 

[waiguoren]

OK, I think you realize that Trump's actual statement was false.

No I do not, I don't think you do either.

But granting your interpretation, dp you really think it is reasonable from an accounting standpoint to list 100% of U.S. military expenditures as a contribution to NATO?

I think this is just a semantic game that I really won't enjoy playing. It would involve defining the word "contribution".

Odds of a recession, odds of Trump winning conditional on a recession, etc. I spelled out my thinking, and your only response was that you disagree with a different conclusion.

I firmly believe that as long as Trump is in office, there won't be another recession.





lol, just kidding.

Sure, the rest of your thinking seemed fine to me.

Now let's get back to that parlay that you won't finalize with me. At least give an example where ambiguity would arise.

 

[Pupi]

Citizen for citizen, I would say more than the United States.

America's strength is in its 300+ million population. Yet you can find areas with tens of millions of people that have not amounted to anything, historically. You could say that only a select few key areas within the U.S. are contributing, and in these areas you will find a concentration of professionals from each region of the world, not merely American citizens.

Right now Finland is doing pretty significant business in the areas of green tech, automation, pollution filtering, etc.

American power could be defined in many ways, (especially the productive strength of the population in general) but I argue that its scientific leaders are what propelled its exceptionalism and rise as global leader. America and its values gave birth and nurtured the likes of Benjamin Franklin, Benjamin Banneker, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, W.E.B. Du Bois, G. W. Carver, Katherine Johnson, Thomas Edison, Carl Sagan, James Watson, David Bohm, J. Robert Oppenheimer, and I can go on and on, but I think you get the inarguable picture: America in its short history has produced world historical figures of a much larger importance than any of those countries you named.

 

[Jack V Savage]

No I do not, I don't think you do either.

The U.S. funds about a 5th of NATO's expenses, does it not?

I think this is just a semantic game that I really won't enjoy playing. It would involve defining the word "contribution".

I think this is another way of saying that you realize that, of course, it is absurd to define all U.S. military expenses as "contributing to NATO." I mean, we have a security treaty with Japan that is unrelated to NATO just to cite one example. It's an utterly indefensible accounting treatment, and no one would be trying to use it if they didn't feel some kind of tribal obligation to defend every lie or stupid comment by our disgraceful president.

Now let's get back to that parlay that you won't finalize with me. At least give an example where ambiguity would arise.

One thing that I'd like to see an explanation of is how the Trump Tower meeting where they discussed the hacked emails and the Magnitsky Act doesn't lock it for me (assuming the campaign didn't openly reject Russia's ask).

 

[LangfordBarrow]

Interesting questions about what happened to the cia source in putins circle cause this couldn't come out if it was still active

Trump's a moron, and probably did give away sources and methods, but I don't think he flat out gave the Russians names. That would really be insane.

 

[waiguoren]

One thing that I'd like to see an explanation of is how the Trump Tower meeting where they discussed the hacked emails and the Magnitsky Act doesn't lock it for me (assuming the campaign didn't openly reject Russia's ask).

The terms of the bet state that, in order for you to win, Mueller's final report must state that candidate Trump offered something to the Russian state in exchange for hacking or the fruits of the hacking. So obviously just discussing those topics wouldn't lock it for you.