Trump's safe...

lawpoke87

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Dec 17, 2002
26,259
5,624
113
Posters still arguing that Trump demanding Europe pay a greater share of the costs associated with NATO was wrong. Even after Putin’s invasion of Ukraine and the crisis in Europe resulting from the same. 🤷‍♂️
 
  • Like
Reactions: noble cane

Gmoney4WW

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Jul 4, 2007
22,368
8,321
113
Posters still arguing that Trump demanding Europe pay a greater share of the costs associated with NATO was wrong. Even after Putin’s invasion of Ukraine and the crisis in Europe resulting from the same. 🤷‍♂️
If I'm being included in 'Posters', that's not true. He did like a President or before and asked them to contribute more. He just went beyond the pale and also threatened to leave/defund NATO.(unlike any President before) And I don't think his threats were just to push them harder. He really did want to get out of it whether they contributed more or not. He was just waiting for justification.

It's his party and he'll cry if he wants to...
(That should be his new motto.)
 

lawpoke87

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Dec 17, 2002
26,259
5,624
113
If I'm being included in 'Posters', that's not true. He did like a President or before and asked them to contribute more. He just went beyond the pale and also threatened to leave/defund NATO.(unlike any President before) And I don't think his threats were just to push them harder. He really did want to get out of it whether they contributed more or not. He was just waiting for justification.

It's his party and he'll cry if he wants to...
(That should be his new motto.)
I don’t believe he ever had any intention of leaving NATO. He was frustrated at the European members long continued refusal to contribute for to the organization…and rightly so. He’s also a arrogant businessman. In business when a partner continually refuses to contribute to partnership a common negotiating tactic is to threaten to quit the partnership. Trump never was able to mesh his business experience with politics. Largely due to arrogance and stubbornness. Which in the end was one of the things which led to his downfall.
 

Gmoney4WW

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Jul 4, 2007
22,368
8,321
113
I don’t believe he ever had any intention of leaving NATO. He was frustrated at the European members long continued refusal to contribute for to the organization…and rightly so. He’s also a arrogant businessman. In business when a partner continually refuses to contribute to partnership a common negotiating tactic is to threaten to quit the partnership. Trump never was able to mesh his business experience with politics. Largely due to arrogance and stubbornness. Which in the end was one of the things which led to his downfall.
His business sense caused a lot of lawsuit for and against Trump, and many bankruptcies. So maybe his business sense did get transferred successfully to politics. We disagree on his motivation. I generally equate a lot of his motivations to a spoiled five year old.
 

astonmartin708

I.T.S. Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Apr 17, 2012
16,206
5,409
113
I don’t believe he ever had any intention of leaving NATO. He was frustrated at the European members long continued refusal to contribute for to the organization…and rightly so. He’s also an arrogant businessman. In business when a partner continually refuses to contribute to partnership a common negotiating tactic is to threaten to quit the partnership. Trump never was able to mesh his business experience with politics. Largely due to arrogance and stubbornness. Which in the end was one of the things which led to his downfall.
Whatever Trump’s personal purpose, driving a wedge in tofay’s most important US military alliance right before Russia dialed up its aggression only seemed to serve Putin’s strategy. Same goes for withholding weapons from Ukraine in exchange for personal political favors. Personally I think there were backchannels and machinations from the East to Washington (be they known or unknown to Trump directly) that were dictating our policy to put Russia at an advantage and Trump went along with them.
 

astonmartin708

I.T.S. Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Apr 17, 2012
16,206
5,409
113
S
Special Master; what's wrong with having an IMPARTIAL party view the records.
Is the justice department considered ’partial’?

Maybe the fact that they’re partial to justice is unfavorable to someone who enjoys subverting It.
 

lawpoke87

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Dec 17, 2002
26,259
5,624
113
Whatever Trump’s personal purpose, driving a wedge in tofay’s most important US military alliance right before Russia dialed up its aggression only seemed to serve Putin’s strategy. Same goes for withholding weapons from Ukraine in exchange for personal political favors. Personally I think there were backchannels and machinations from the East to Washington (be they known or unknown to Trump directly) that were dictating our policy to put Russia at an advantage and Trump went along with them.
Aston,

The Biden Admin as well as our NATO Allie’s withheld arms from Ukraine even as Putin was declaring his intent to invade and building troop numbers at the border. We refused Ukrainian pleas for said arms even after the invasion begun. Biden and NATO certainly gave Russia an advantage as well and this was during a time when Putin’s intent was known. I don’t claim to know the reasons for any of these actions (Biden, EU, Trump) but they all seemed to be intended to weaken Ukraine’s ability to repel a Putin invasion.
 

Gmoney4WW

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Jul 4, 2007
22,368
8,321
113
Aston,

The Biden Admin as well as our NATO Allie’s withheld arms from Ukraine even as Putin was declaring his intent to invade and building troop numbers at the border. We refused Ukrainian pleas for said arms even after the invasion begun. Biden and NATO certainly gave Russia an advantage as well and this was during a time when Putin’s intent was known. I don’t claim to know the reasons for any of these actions (Biden, EU, Trump) but they all seemed to be intended to weaken Ukraine’s ability to repel a Putin invasion.
I don't think it had anything to do with weakening Ukraine. What it had to do with, was not upsetting Russia enough that they decided to attack us,(U.S. & Nato) We were afraid of something along the lines of Nuclear Weapons, or cutting off energy supplies.

This is when the West feared Russia, not having seen the debacle of their military efforts in Ukraine.

At this point we still considered Russia to be the big bad bear, showing no weakness.
 

lawpoke87

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Dec 17, 2002
26,259
5,624
113
I don't think it had anything to do with weakening Ukraine. What it had to do with, was not upsetting Russia enough that they decided to attack us,(U.S. & Nato) We were afraid of something along the lines of Nuclear Weapons, or cutting off energy supplies.

This is when the West feared Russia, not having seen the debacle of their military efforts in Ukraine.
Shouldn’t the west fear Putin’s resorting to nuclear weapons more once we (and Putin) realized his conventional forces were subpar? Putin now knows he will have to use nuclear weapons to win any war in Europe or with the U.S. We should fear the nuclear option more today than a year ago
 

Gmoney4WW

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Jul 4, 2007
22,368
8,321
113
Shouldn’t the west fear Putin’s resorting to nuclear weapons more once we (and Putin) realized his conventional forces were subpar? Putin now knows he will have to use nuclear weapons to win any war in Europe or with the U.S. We should fear the nuclear option more today than a year ago
With hindsight, yes. But they didn't have hindsight available to them then. That realization today doesn't change their motivation then.
 

lawpoke87

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Dec 17, 2002
26,259
5,624
113
With hindsight, yes. But they didn't have hindsight available to them then. That realization today doesn't change their motivation then.
Right…but we continue to give more and more weapons to Ukraine today despite knowing there’s an increase risk of Putin using the nuclear option than at the time when you’re arguing we didn’t supply the weapons due to said risk. I’m not saying you’re wrong here just that the logic is flawed. Not necessarily your logic but the logic of the US and NATO assuming the argument is correct.

Might I propose a different scenario. We didn’t want to back a losing horse and viewed Ukraine as just that. We underestimated the resolve of the Ukrainians and overestimated the ability of the Russian military. Not exactly the most moral of choices but it was the decision we made imo.
 

Gmoney4WW

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Jul 4, 2007
22,368
8,321
113
Right…but we continue to give more and more weapons to Ukraine today despite knowing there’s an increase risk of Putin using the nuclear option than at the time when you’re arguing we didn’t supply the weapons due to said risk. I’m not saying you’re wrong here just that the logic is flawed. Not necessarily your logic but the logic of the US and NATO assuming the argument is correct.

Might I propose a different scenario. We didn’t want to back a losing horse and viewed Ukraine as just that. We underestimated the resolve of the Ukrainians and overestimated the ability of the Russian military. Not exactly the most moral of choices but it was the decision we made imo.
Our analysis probably was that our fears of Russia, and a seemingly lost cause of Ukraine, were cause for the only logical move we could make.

This is the only sensible move with everything considered.

It was very pragmatic.
 

astonmartin708

I.T.S. Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Apr 17, 2012
16,206
5,409
113
Aston,

The Biden Admin as well as our NATO Allie’s withheld arms from Ukraine even as Putin was declaring his intent to invade and building troop numbers at the border. We refused Ukrainian pleas for said arms even after the invasion begun. Biden and NATO certainly gave Russia an advantage as well and this was during a time when Putin’s intent was known. I don’t claim to know the reasons for any of these actions (Biden, EU, Trump) but they all seemed to be intended to weaken Ukraine’s ability to repel a Putin invasion.
They didn’t withhold arms due to requests for dumb political favors like disavowing your political opponent. I.E. The leaders of NATO weren’t, to our knowledge, making lending decisions strictly based upon their own personal gain, they were doing what they thought would best serve their country.
 
  • Like
Reactions: watu05

Gmoney4WW

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Jul 4, 2007
22,368
8,321
113
I'm sure they took this as a situation where they will increase support gradually. Such that the Russians are the lobster. The water gets a little bit hotter, a little bit at a time. Before they know it, the gradual increases in heat(support, ammo, & weapons) had them setting in a boiling pot.
 

lawpoke87

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Dec 17, 2002
26,259
5,624
113
They didn’t withhold arms due to requests for dumb political favors like disavowing your political opponent. I.E. The leaders of NATO weren’t, to our knowledge, making lending decisions strictly based upon their own personal gain, they were doing what they thought would best serve their country.
True. We instead withheld arms during the buildup and commencement of an an actual invasion by Putin. In short, we were cowards who didn’t believe in the Ukrainian people. Pragmatic or not.

If you recall I was one the voices calling for us to send arms as the buildup was occurring. Many on this board including you fell on the opposite end of the spectrum. I do feel vindicated by the will of the Ukrainian people and the subsequent decision to arm them post invasion.
 

Gmoney4WW

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Jul 4, 2007
22,368
8,321
113
True. We instead withheld arms during the buildup and commencement of an an actual invasion by Putin. In short, we were cowards who didn’t believe in the Ukrainian people. Pragmatic or not.

If you recall I was one the voices calling for us to send arms as the buildup was occurring. Many on this board including you fell on the opposite end of the spectrum. I do feel vindicated by the will of the Ukrainian people and the subsequent decision to arm them post invasion.
I don't consider weighting the risks involved as cowardice.
 

lawpoke87

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Dec 17, 2002
26,259
5,624
113
I don't consider weighting the risks involved as cowardice.
We’re going to disagree on this one. The risk of Putin going nuclear today is greater than before the invasion due to the ineffectiveness of his conventional forces. Same if not greater risks today than pre invasion. Which leads me back to the notion of not wanting to support a losing side. Once Ukraine began to look like they had a chance to prevail in this conflict everyone including us jumped on that bandwagon. Something we have seen throughout history.
 

Gmoney4WW

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Jul 4, 2007
22,368
8,321
113
We’re going to disagree on this one. The risk of Putin going nuclear today is greater than before the invasion due to the ineffectiveness of his conventional forces. Same if not greater risks today than pre invasion. Which leads me back to the notion of not wanting to support a losing side. Once Ukraine began to look like they had a chance to prevail in this conflict everyone including us jumped on that bandwagon. Something we have seen throughout history.
Yes we will have to disagree.

But you didn't know that then, that it would increase as a danger. It would have been seen as a greater danger then, than after the attack, not knowing the conventional forces would be ineffective.

Not risking nuclear war, because you see it as a distinct possibility at the time, and a real risk for every citizen of the US and/or other nations in NATO is not cowardice in my mind. And their was the real risk especially for other countries in Nato, of life threatening energy insecurity.

Russia may not be able to afford to cut off all European countries because China and India will slack off on their buying of energy now, or even insist on buying it at lower prices than they have been. If that is so, then the risk of this was as great or greater than it is now.
 

Gmoney4WW

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Jul 4, 2007
22,368
8,321
113
Yes we will have to disagree.

But you didn't know that then, that it would increase as a danger. It would have been seen as a greater danger then, than after the attack, not knowing the conventional forces would be ineffective.

Not risking nuclear war, because you see it as a distinct possibility at the time, and a real risk for every citizen of the US and/or other nations in NATO is not cowardice in my mind. And their was the real risk especially for other countries in Nato, of life threatening energy insecurity.

Russia may not be able to afford to cut off all European countries because China and India will slack off on their buying of energy now, or even insist on buying it at lower prices than they have been. If that is so, then the risk of this was as great or greater than it is now.
Any argument using the words greater now, cannot be used in an argument that is comparing what they knew then. They were trying to pear into the future without hindsight. At the time, they only knew the mystery of Russia's unrevealed abilities and willingness. They have now been revealed, but had not then.
 

noble cane

I.T.S. Athletic Director
Feb 25, 2002
8,759
2,618
113
War and our initial reaction prior to it were inevitable given our reaction to the seizure of the Crimea... what was it we sent?.. blankets and MRE's?...
 

Gmoney4WW

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Jul 4, 2007
22,368
8,321
113
So can Trumps legal team delay it even more, by appealing the appeal that the DOJ made, with a higher court???(SC) Him trying to get a reversal?

I find the ruling appropriate, and think Trump is still protected, with the nonclassified documents being left to the special master, to determine if they are under executive or client privilege.

Anything that meets those designations by the special master will give Trump the protection that he deserves as President and Civilian.(with a capital C)
 

Gmoney4WW

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Jul 4, 2007
22,368
8,321
113
So who thinks Ginni Thomas' testimony to the Jan 6 committee will be 100% honest. She's been so conditioned, that I don't think she even knows when she's being honest.
 

watu05

I.T.S. Senior
Mar 19, 2021
1,011
172
63
The Thomases must have a very estranaged relatonship if we are supposed to believe that Ginni and Clarence do not discuss politics and that their views of the legality of the election do not influence each other. That Justice Thomas would not recuse himself from any case having to do with the election and still whine about the SCOTUS loss of credibility only underscores that he is a big contributor to that loss of credibility.
 

noble cane

I.T.S. Athletic Director
Feb 25, 2002
8,759
2,618
113
The Thomases must have a very estranaged relatonship if we are supposed to believe that Ginni and Clarence do not discuss politics and that their views of the legality of the election do not influence each other. That Justice Thomas would not recuse himself from any case having to do with the election and still whine about the SCOTUS loss of credibility only underscores that he is a big contributor to that loss of credibility.
Its as easy as believing that the Big Guy didnt talk to his son about his overseas deals and profit from his influence peddling...
 

Gmoney4WW

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Jul 4, 2007
22,368
8,321
113
The Thomases must have a very estranaged relatonship if we are supposed to believe that Ginni and Clarence do not discuss politics and that their views of the legality of the election do not influence each other. That Justice Thomas would not recuse himself from any case having to do with the election and still whine about the SCOTUS loss of credibility only underscores that he is a big contributor to that loss of credibility.
Hey if Kellyane & George can do it.
 

Gmoney4WW

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Jul 4, 2007
22,368
8,321
113
I don’t believe he ever had any intention of leaving NATO. He was frustrated at the European members long continued refusal to contribute for to the organization…and rightly so.
"Concerns over Trump’s behavior on the world stage began nearly as soon as he took office. More than simply a passing grudge, Trump’s desire to withdraw the United States from NATO was in fact a sustained effort that was “much more serious than people realized,” one senior White House official said – an outcome that could have dramatically altered the current war in Ukraine."

That's not an empty threat to Nato, to get them to contribute. That's a real and considered effort likely shared only with White House staff and all Trump's buddies.(Which is really really secure.)

And on another scary but unrelated matter:

"Trump’s demands on his team included outlandish requests like abolishing the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals after it blocked one of his immigration policies.

“Let’s just cancel it,” he told Nielsen, according to the book. He told Nielsen if such a move required legislation, “then draft a bill to ‘get rid of the f–king judges’ and have it sent to Congress as soon as possible.”
 

Gmoney4WW

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Jul 4, 2007
22,368
8,321
113
This is not the fact that I should be obsessing over.

Corey Lewandowski has decided to testify against Trump.(I assume, in the Jan 6 investigation.) I didn't even concern myself with which investigation when I read this item.

Lewandowski is deciding to testify, to get rid of a misdemeanor charge. And that is not the fact that caught my obsession. He hit on a on a major GOP donor's wife. And he hit on her aggressively enough to warrant a misdemeanor assault & battery. Still not to the point that is obsessing me.

Her name is Trashelle Odom.

Who would name their kid Trashelle, or what insane person would go by that moniker, by choice.
 

Gmoney4WW

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Jul 4, 2007
22,368
8,321
113
Oops, I'm more than a little sloshed. I skimmed the article and way missed on it. He didn't agree to testify against trump. But he did make a deal to get out of double double, toil and trouble, with Miss Trashelle. Funny night in drunk history.
 

Gmoney4WW

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Jul 4, 2007
22,368
8,321
113
Sorry for last night. Reading through my posts, it was funny how I drunkenly read that article. It's still amusing in the light of day time sobriety that she goes by that name. My apologies for misreading that article. Just now hazily remembered posting something.
 

lawpoke87

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Dec 17, 2002
26,259
5,624
113
Sorry for last night. Reading through my posts, it was funny how I drunkenly read that article. It's still amusing in the light of day time sobriety that she goes by that name. My apologies for misreading that article. Just now hazily remembered posting something.
Never apologize for posting a story of some dude hitting on a married guy’s wife name Trashelle. Apparently hitting on actually became “hitting on” after reading your post.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gmoney4WW

JesseTU

I.T.S. Head Coach
Gold Member
Jan 9, 2007
7,352
1,496
113
Aston,

The Biden Admin as well as our NATO Allie’s withheld arms from Ukraine even as Putin was declaring his intent to invade and building troop numbers at the border. We refused Ukrainian pleas for said arms even after the invasion begun. Biden and NATO certainly gave Russia an advantage as well and this was during a time when Putin’s intent was known. I don’t claim to know the reasons for any of these actions (Biden, EU, Trump) but they all seemed to be intended to weaken Ukraine’s ability to repel a Putin invasion.

That's not accurate.

Putin never declared an intention to invade Ukraine. He repeatedly and loudly denied it up until it was underway, even as Biden was publicly saying invasion was imminent. The Biden admin continued the arms transfers to Ukraine as planned and required by Congress. There was an element of cold-war style diplomacy to the plan: don't provide arms to Ukraine that could strike into Russia or could be used offensively. Once diplomacy failed, that policy was revised and continues to be revised with guidance from US military strategists.

With the advantage of hindsight, we probably should have provided more weapons earlier; but recall many (including most conservatives talking heads) were making fun of Biden for his invasions warnings. An invasion of a major European country hadn't happened in a generation, so there was considerable skepticism. Even those that believed an invasion was forthcoming feared it would be over quickly (so why give weapons systems to Russia?). Had we provided the weapons earlier I have no doubt many of those same talking heads would be saying Russia had to invade to protect itself from US weapons/nazis/nuclear programs/chemical weapons/genocide/nato/butterflies or whatever... and the invasion probably would have gone ahead anyway.
 
  • Like
Reactions: watu05

lawpoke87

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Dec 17, 2002
26,259
5,624
113
That's not accurate.

Putin never declared an intention to invade Ukraine. He repeatedly and loudly denied it up until it was underway, even as Biden was publicly saying invasion was imminent. The Biden admin continued the arms transfers to Ukraine as planned and required by Congress. There was an element of cold-war style diplomacy to the plan: don't provide arms to Ukraine that could strike into Russia or could be used offensively. Once diplomacy failed, that policy was revised and continues to be revised with guidance from US military strategists.

With the advantage of hindsight, we probably should have provided more weapons earlier; but recall many (including most conservatives talking heads) were making fun of Biden for his invasions warnings. An invasion of a major European country hadn't happened in a generation, so there was considerable skepticism. Even those that believed an invasion was forthcoming feared it would be over quickly (so why give weapons systems to Russia?). Had we provided the weapons earlier I have no doubt many of those same talking heads would be saying Russia had to invade to protect itself from US weapons/nazis/nuclear programs/chemical weapons/genocide/nato/butterflies or whatever... and the invasion probably would have gone ahead anyway.
There was very little skepticism about a Putin invasion. Biden was warning in 2021 regarding the likelihood of a Russian invasion. At the same time Ukraine was begging for arms. A request which was largely ignored. Remember, Putin has massed over 100k troops at the Ukrainian border.

Can’t speak as to the anonymous talking heads of which you’re speaking. I stated on numerous occasions my support for sending arms to Ukraine. In the end we sat back and watched the invasion only choosing to send meaningful arms after it appeared we had a chance of arming a winning side. NATO bears at least as much blame (probably more) than the US here. It is what it is.
 

watu05

I.T.S. Senior
Mar 19, 2021
1,011
172
63
The Republican attitude had already been influenced by Trump's efforts to withhold their military aid unless Zelensky made false accusations about Biden's family. That Trump's convicted (and later pardoned) campaign manager Paul Manafort had been the campaign manager for Zelensky's Russian puppet opponent completes the picture.
 

watu05

I.T.S. Senior
Mar 19, 2021
1,011
172
63
Trump case gets worse..

“The clash between reality and image was in the news again tonight when Devlin Barrett and Josh Dawsey of the Washington Post reported that a Mar-a-Lago employee has placed Trump directly at the center of the retention of government documents in defiance of a subpoena. The employee told federal agents that Trump himself supervised the moving of boxes of documents, and that the shift happened after Trump’s team received a subpoena to return any documents bearing classified markings that were still at Mar-a-Lago.

Security camera footage backed up the employee's story.”
 

Gmoney4WW

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Jul 4, 2007
22,368
8,321
113
Only two options left to Trump. Carry on with the case without a Special Master, or delay the case more with an appeal to the Supreme Court.

Guess which option I think he will take.

Hopefully the supreme court will just tell him they won't consider the appeal. He had two judges that he appointed in the 11th court of appeals. The other judge was appointed by George W. No dissenting opinion present.
 

lawpoke87

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Dec 17, 2002
26,259
5,624
113
I haven’t paid much attention (actually zero) to the case over the last few months. Have charges now been filed ?
 

Gmoney4WW

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Jul 4, 2007
22,368
8,321
113
I haven’t paid much attention (actually zero) to the case over the last few months. Have charges now been filed ?
I don't believe so, but the DOJ can get on with the investigation without delay now. As far as I know they were hindered by the Special Master appointment, from filing any charges or doing further investigation. I believe they had to wait on the Special Master until he went over the documents.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lawpoke87

Latest posts