Putin orders Trump to move US troops out of Germany. Trump again does as he is told by his master.

[ChibiMofo]

Again he does exactly as Putin would want. Exactly how a traitor who reports to the Russian leader would behave. And the world gets even more unsafe. You can google all the times Trump has praised our enemy, and how many times Trump has worked against US and Western interests (such as exiting arms treaties that Russia did not want to be a party to anymore but also did not want to leave unilaterally). Putin recently passed a law that makes his undisputed leader (and not subject to elections) until 2036. And Trump has made it clear he won't leave the Oval Office after losing to Biden.

When are the rest of you going to wake up to what a serious threat to world security these two thugs are?

 

[notimp]

Shouldnt be as simple..

Having US troops in the region is a security, economic and prestige factor. US currently quarrels with Germany over trade and security payment issues (basically the Mafia thing of "you've gotta pay up - if yous like your security.. ). The trade part of the issue mostly is related to germany importing most of its fossile energy needs from russia in the future (new pipeline.. ) instead of in large parts through liquified gas shipped in from the US (russia option is more economical), and germany f.e. also not going with the US doctrine of keeping out chinese 5G vendor Huawaii in constructing their future grids. (== relying on US vendors for that stuff which are more expensive, and less technologically advanced.. )

So US 'mad at germany'.

As a result they move troops out of country (again - economic factor for the region), but they should mostly move them to poland instead (closer to russia.. ), which currently plays 'we also have great autocrat in power, like Trump, and we likes to do everything the US wants to if they come with their moneys'.

As a result this is an additional political strain on the EU (poland is currently becoming more and more autocratic, which doesnt fit well with the EU model - but which f.e. the US likes (more 'realiable' partner) ).

 

[Taleweaver]

Putin recently passed a law that makes his undisputed leader (and not subject to elections) until 2036.

To be fair, he held a referendum, asking the population whether they'd agree.

...but he also sabotaged any opposition or alternative, meaning that voting no was pretty much a moot point.

When are the rest of you going to wake up to what a serious threat to world security these two thugs are?

Okay, I've gotta take offense, here. Russia (or rather: Putin) is on my radar since the annexation of the Ukranian Krim...six years ago, now. The EU proved ineffective to thwart that action, as did other superpowers.
The creepy part is more in what Putin really wants. Unlike Trump, he won't shout it from the rooftops and go at it in the most ineffective way possible. The country is more an oligarchy than anything else (screw those communist stereotypes: it's businessmen with close ties to the government that now effectively rule the place)...but what does he want from the world? I honestly don't know.

Trump wishes he's on the same level as Putin. As you said: he's just a dumb hand puppet. And that 'dumb' is actually a good thing or we'd have a world war on our asses. As it is, it's "just" a second civil war that'll rip the USA to pieces. Not good news in any way, but better than the alternative.

 

[Xzi]

No surprise here, Trump won't even broach the topic of Russian bounties on US troops, which I'd argue is a much more serious offense. Either he owes a fuckton of money to Putin, Putin has some very damaging kompromat on him, or both. He looks like a whipped puppy every time they're in a room together.

 

[notimp]

To be fair, he held a referendum, asking the population whether they'd agree.

...but he also sabotaged any opposition or alternative, meaning that voting no was pretty much a moot point.

And there were strange statistical anomalies in the voting count..

https://abcnews.go.com/Internationa...-unprecedented-ballot-fraud/story?id=71609348

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

The EU proved ineffective to thwart that action, as did other superpowers.

Well over night thousands of paratroopers appear in unmarked uniforms in ukraine cities, while russia denies official involvement. ("Must be rogue activist military units.")

Your move.

Also - on the other side of the argument the treaty documents proposed at the time would have cut off russia from access to part of their black sea fleet (at one of the only icefree (throughout the year) habors they have). So... Yeah, lets say 'some reaction' was to be expected.

People in the diplomatic field didnt expect an action as harsh (and as openly undemocratic).

 

[UltraDolphinRevolution]

They should all leave Germany. Ramstein Airbase executes people without a trial and causes great collateral damage in human life.

 

[notimp]

They should all leave Germany. Ramstein Airbase executes people without a trial and causes great collateral damage in human life.

Ramstein acts as a relay for US drone signals into the middle east. People in the US hit the switch that kills, signal then is relayed over Ramstein (US base) into wherever the US is fighting a drone war (or doing reconnaissance).

In Germany the discussion on a political level about that issue - informally - goes as follows.

"If we arent doing it, the US will move the relay to Poland (or some other willing state), and we lose "being on good speaking terms" with US personal in our country."

So in their minds it is a 'lose - lose' to push for that practice to be outlawed. The argument always goes along 'it wouldnt stop' lines of debate.

And if you are more into a geostrategic argument, you'd have to make a case for what would happen if "air dominance via drone" would stop (in a certain region). Usually people dont have to, because "US exceptionalism" (US = world police = good) basically still is active as a political principle in most countries on the governmental (foreign policy) level.

It is the political opposition that usually is against it, for exactly as long as they arent in government.

edit: See: https://www.dw.com/en/ramstein-air-...-germans-taking-on-the-us-military/a-40432117

 

[UltraDolphinRevolution]

It participates in the killings. Move the base to Poland. Let the us see how the Catholics will justify atrocities.

 

[notimp]

They literally need any place in the other part of the hemisphere to send a satellite signal from. They'll find it.

Also, one of the first things you learn if you dabble in international politics is that there is the public moral argument, and that it is considered 'domestic politics' almost exclusively.

I dont deny, that those killings are illegal under international law ('extralegal' is the newspeak term), I dont deny, that the amount of civilians killed as 'collateral' is staggering. And I dont deny, that living under a 'drone sky' is a form of psychological torture for entire populations.

I just state, that the argument that is made to prolong it comes from an 'its inevitable' perspective ('lesser evil' to some extent) That argument might be wrong btw, but then its still hard to rectify establishing 'power vacumes'. (Ressource flow must not be interrupted logic.)

 

[Hanafuda]

And Trump has made it clear he won't leave the Oval Office after losing to Biden.

Horseshit.

Maybe I should start a thread called "Joe Biden on video twiddling little girl's breast."

At least that would have more factual backup, and many corroborating examples.

 

[Xzi]

Horseshit.

Trump's already stated that he won't commit to accepting the election results if he loses (same thing he said before the 2016 election). Not to mention he's suggested delaying the election because of how far down in the polls he is currently.

Maybe I should start a thread called "Joe Biden on video twiddling little girl's breast."

At least that would have more factual backup, and many corroborating examples.

I'm not gonna defend Biden, but you should probably avoid cherry-picking negative personality traits that he shares in common with Donald "BFFs with Epstein, best wishes to Ghislane Maxwell" Trump.

 

[Hanafuda]

Trump's already stated that he won't commit to accepting the election results if he loses (same thing he said before the 2016 election). Not to mention he's suggested delaying the election because of how far down in the polls he is currently.

"He won't accept the election results!" scream people who, 4 years later, still haven't accepted the election results.

You've got to beat him first.

I'm not gonna defend Biden

Yes you are.

but you should probably avoid cherry-picking negative personality traits that he shares in common with Donald "BFFs with Epstein, best wishes to Ghislane Maxwell" Trump.

Trump has his picture taken with Epstein a few times, but there's no evidence of him ever visiting 'the island', or flying on Epstein's jet, and he barred Epstein from the Mar-A-Lago resort because of a sexual assault allegation against Epstein there. So you can assume all you want about Trump, but you can't back it up. Just like Chibi up there with his B.S. .... bold claims, no evidence.

Biden on the other hand, lots of videos of him touching young girls.

 

[Xzi]

"He won't accept the election results!" scream people who, 4 years later, still haven't accepted the election results.

Slightly more important that the candidates themselves commit to accepting the election results than it is for some randos. As power-hungry as Hillary was, even she committed to that well before the election.

Yes you are.

No, I'm not. He's slightly right of center and subtly racist. But apparently that's what it takes to achieve "electability" in this dumpster fire of a country.

there's no evidence of him ever ... flying on Epstein's jet

Wrong.

he barred Epstein from the Mar-A-Lago resort because of a sexual assault allegation against Epstein there.

Perhaps once the resort started attracting too much attention. Prior to that, it was used frequently to host Epstein parties, as well as recruit underage girls.

There's plenty more recently-exposed evidence connecting both Bill Clinton and Donald Trump to Epstein too. I say both of them need to be brought to justice, but I'm sure you'd prefer if only one of them was. If not for double-standards, Republicans would have no standards at all.

 

[Hanafuda]

Wrong.

I didn't know about this. So I read about it. One flight, from Miami to New Jersey, with lots of people on board. A party shuttle back to the city. Shouldn't come as much surprise, as they were on good terms in the 90's. But it's not a flight to Epstein's island.

But yeah, technically, turns out I was wrong about that.

Perhaps once the resort started attracting too much attention. Prior to that, it was used frequently to host Epstein parties, as well as recruit underage girls.

There's plenty more recently-exposed evidence connecting both Bill Clinton and Donald Trump to Epstein too. I say both of them need to be brought to justice, but I'm sure you'd prefer if only one of them was. If not for double-standards, Republicans would have no standards at all.

Oh, if Ms. Maxwell has convincing evidence of inappropriate contact between President Trump and underage girls, I certainly will support his impeachment and subsequent prosecution. Otherwise, he's due a presumption of innocence. You're welcome to your opinion of course, but if we're talking about when I would support the President being "brought to justice", well when there's evidence by which he can be convicted of course. But I've already seen lots of convincing evidence for Biden's proclivities for little girls.

 

[notimp]

But it's not a flight to Epstein's island.

You are obsessed with that island arent you? There are stories of Epstein victims being recruited out of Mar a Largo, while having a traineeship there. Enough of a connection? :/

And yes The Donald has attended Epstein parties commenting publicly on him 'liking his women young - ha ha' and what a swell guy he was.

On the 'excusing Maxwell comment' I actually give him a little of the benefit of the doubt of not having meant it, because 'i wish her well' also is a polite way of cutting someone off of your support list. He definitely reminisced on old stories, when both of them did meet at happenings.

Trump refusing to back down - maybe - if he is not elected, you can read up on here:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/transcript-fox-news-sunday-interview-with-president-trump

Search for I don't like to lose.

But then saying how you would handle a loss during a campaign is a no go, so maybe he just wasnt too familiar with the nuances...

 

[Xzi]

You're welcome to your opinion of course, but if we're talking about when I would support the President being "brought to justice", well when there's evidence by which he can be convicted of course. But I've already seen lots of convincing evidence for Biden's proclivities for little girls.

The videos of Biden with little girls make me gag, just like this picture of Donald and Ivanka does, but clearly that type of thing no longer disqualifies a person from running for president. Neither apparently does having multiple close associates convicted of pedophilia and/or child sex trafficking. The Republicans lost all moral authority the second they chose Trump as their candidate, and the Democrats lowered their standards in response to Trump's amoral presidency. So again that brings me back around to the point I was making in the first place: people living in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Obviously if I had my way, both men would be pariahs, and the incumbent Mitt Romney would be running against Bernie Sanders right now. Instead I'm put in the awkward position of having to root for Biden though I won't be voting for him, for the sake of returning to some semblance of sanity and stability, even if there is no return to "normalcy" or morality at this point. Both American capitalism and the two-party system are fundamentally broken, the sooner the majority realizes this, the better.

 

[Taleweaver]

"He won't accept the election results!" scream people who, 4 years later, still haven't accepted the election results.

Every poll (even by fox) have him trailing Biden by a significant margin. Trump, however, brings up imaginary polls in which he's winning and adds that he shouldn't accept any other outcome. I can provide links to both of these claims if you don't believe me, but I think you do. Unless I'm mistaken, you see these two facts as unrelated, and the latter as (perhaps badly communicated) optimism. Because after all, he's got to be optimistic about his chances to stay in the race for the next four years in office... Right?

... But then there's that third fact : his suggestion to delay the election. Can I take your "You've got to beat him first." as a sign that you disagree with this suggestion?

 

[Taleweaver]

Deleted... Accidental double post (lost/lousy internet connection)

 

[Hanafuda]

Every poll (even by fox) have him trailing Biden by a significant margin. Trump, however, brings up imaginary polls in which he's winning and adds that he shouldn't accept any other outcome. I can provide links to both of these claims if you don't believe me, but I think you do. Unless I'm mistaken, you see these two facts as unrelated, and the latter as (perhaps badly communicated) optimism. Because after all, he's got to be optimistic about his chances to stay in the race for the next four years in office... Right?

... But then there's that third fact : his suggestion to delay the election. Can I take your "You've got to beat him first." as a sign that you disagree with this suggestion?

I don't see Trump behaving much differently than he did in 2016. By that I mean, exactly the type things you mention above, mainly that he dismissed the popular polls as unreliable. On the night before the election, the major news networks were all still talking about a 90%+ chance that Hillary Clinton was going to win. She didn't win. And I know her people just love to talk about how she won the popular vote, but the popular vote doesn't really count for anything. Well, unless a State passes a law that binds their electors to voting for the result of their States' popular vote tally. We do now at least have some clarification from SCOTUS on that, i.e. that electors can be required by their State legislatures to vote for the candidate who won in their state. But it is the electors that choose the next President.

So when I said, "You've got to beat him first," I only meant "don't count chickens before they hatch." Trump may be defeated in this election, but it hasn't happened yet.

As for Trump's mention of the date of the election, I think that was an intentional troll, something that twitter account is prone to. (I have my doubts that Trump himself is the author of those messages ... he has the best people working on it, fabulous people, classy people) He didn't actually propose that the date be changed, he "aired" the idea to get the left wigged out about it. He doesn't have the authority to change anything, which is why I'm sure of that. It is extremely, and I do mean extremely, unlikely that the date of the election will be affected in any way. I only leave open the slight possibility because the reopening of schools nationwide in the next few weeks could lock us all down again, and then what? That would be a terrible mistake, but one thing I've learned in 2020 is that local State government leadership in the US is capable of even bigger mistakes than the Fed.

But if you want to get technical about it for the sake of argument, there is nothing in the Constitution that mandates when the election is held, it is a matter of State law. The real election that matters is the elector's in December, and even that doesn't have a set (by the Constitution) date. The only Constitutionally mandated date is the end/beginning of the next term, i.e. January 20. We have a lot of traditions and local laws in the US that people are just very, very used to, but they're not actually 'set in stone' (or the Constitution).

 

[MMX]

Having US troops in the region is a security, economic and prestige factor.

I'm German and live in Germany. We don't want foreign military in our country. I'm sure your people would be against an US military base too.

...but he also sabotaged any opposition or alternative, meaning that voting no was pretty much a moot point.

what about opposition in EU countries that get constantly painted as neonazi, conspiracist, morons etc. because they're anti-establishment. Merkel is chancellor of germany since 2005 and nobody questions that and she basically fills the same role as Putin.

I don't see Trump behaving much differently than he did in 2016.

yep, Zionist in 2016, Zionist in 2020. He serves a flag but it only has one Star on it

 

[notimp]

Having US troops in the region is a security, economic and prestige factor.

I'm German and live in Germany. We don't want foreign military in our country. I'm sure your people would be against an US military base too.

It is an economic factor, it is a factor for security cooperation. It has stopped to be a prestige factor in germany (but it would be in other countries.). Now fair?

Also, you will have 'foreign military' in your country for as long as their nukes are stationed there.

what about opposition in EU countries that get constantly painted as neonazi, conspiracist, morons etc. because they're anti-establishment. Merkel is chancellor of germany since 2005 and nobody questions that and she basically fills the same role as Putin.

If you are constantly painted 'a nazi' chances are that it isnt because you are opposition. And if you are referencing the AFD (german far right party), it really, really isnt.
see: ( https://www.derstandard.at/story/20...der-afd-bieten-sich-den-behoerden-als?ref=rec (german) )

yep, Zionist in 2016, Zionist in 2020. He serves a flag but it only has one Star on it

Jebus, world is simple much?

So its not that Israel is a standing military and security partner for the US in the middle east? So it is not that they have ongoing security and intelligence cooperation, and that this relationship hasnt been challenged for more than 70 years?

No it is that -one- president hat serves the symbol of that flag, that... because - parareligious symbolism.

You know what, In your case I'll not even ask for 'sources'