Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 179: My Recollection of Flair Existing Keeps Changing

(+) Yeah! (+)

I'm not sure if Trump is aware of the WWI debt owed by many countries to the US. As of 1932, when most countries stopped paying, the debt owed by Great Britain and France alone was about $9 billion. At 5% interest per year since then, that comes out to about $600 billion now. I think Trump should demand payment.
---

NFUN posted...

red sox 777 posted...

Crimea belongs to Russia. Just because a certain USSR leader was Ukrainian and decided to give it to Ukraine when he was in power and there was no sign the USSR would end does not make it Ukrainian.

it literally does

Why does Nikita Khruschev's will matter more than Vladimir Putin's? Or the people of Crimea?
---

Yeah great idea, let's turn our increasingly marginalized allies into outright enemies
---

If not for the United States, Great Britain and France would have lost both world wars to Germany. They could at least do us the courtesy of repaying the money they borrowed.
---

Someone really should bring this up with the president. I think he probably doesn't know that we are owed somewhere north of $1 trillion from our "allies" after 86 years of compounded interest. Finland was the only country that repaid its WWI debt to the US.
---

Who was it that tried to say everybody's problem with red sox was just that they didn't read his posts, again
---

Red Sox is like that scene in A Beautiful Mind where Russell Crowe has that huge wall of things connected by string, except all the things that Red Sox is connecting are drawn in crayon.
---

StealThisSheen posted...

Who was it that tried to say everybody's problem with red sox was just that they didn't read his posts, again

It appears that the problem was that I didn't read his posts
---

Seriously though, why shouldn't we demand payment for the WWI debt? Were not contracts agreed? Wasn't American money sent to these European countries? Did they not receive the money? Did they not use the money to help them win the war? Didn't they receive the benefit of the bargain? Haven't we honored all of our obligations to them? Didn't we provide more assistance during and after WWII, as a gift with nothing demanded in return? Haven't we paid for their defense from the Soviet Union/Russia for the last 70 years, again, receiving nothing in return?

Why shouldn't we get back what we lent?
---

red sox 777 posted...

Why does Nikita Khruschev's will matter more than Vladimir Putin's? Or the people of Crimea?

this might be the first post you've ever made that implies popular will should actually be respected lol
---

If you think the US didn't gain from its investment in the western world order you might want to pop open a history book
---

Kenri posted...

red sox 777 posted...

Why does Nikita Khruschev's will matter more than Vladimir Putin's? Or the people of Crimea?

this might be the first post you've ever made that implies popular will should actually be respected lol

On second thought Putin didn't give Crimea an electoral college before conducting the referendum. Guess it isn't valid after all.
---

charmander6000 posted...

Crimea has always been an interesting area, even before 2014 a majority of the country wanted to (re)join Russia. Of course that doesn't mean Russia can just go in and take it.

Well they did, and our President believes they were right to do so.
---

Would you demand gifts given by your father be returned after he died?
---

Surprised no one posted this photo. Its so incredible

https://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2018/06/donald-trump-angela-merkel-g7-summit.jpg
---

red sox 777 posted...

Or the people of Crimea?

saying "the people of crimea" wanted crimea to get back to russia is pretty misleading (and makes it sound like you just take vlado's bullshit at face value). plenty of people of crimea didn't want this at all (hence the conflicts in the region).
---

red sox 777 posted...

Someone really should bring this up with the president. I think he probably doesn't know that we are owed somewhere north of $1 trillion from our "allies" after 86 years of compounded interest. Finland was the only country that repaid its WWI debt to the US.

you're fine with the continent i live in going bankrupt?

also, why did you put "allies" in quotation marks? you see europe as an enemy of the US?
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

red sox 777 posted...

Or the people of Crimea?

saying "the people of crimea" wanted crimea to get back to russia is pretty misleading (and makes it sound like you just take vlado's bullshit at face value). plenty of people of crimea didn't want this at all (hence the conflicts in the region).

If you don't trust the referendum on rejoining Russia, look at the last Ukrainian presidential election. Ukraine was far more polarized than the US.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

red sox 777 posted...

Someone really should bring this up with the president. I think he probably doesn't know that we are owed somewhere north of $1 trillion from our "allies" after 86 years of compounded interest. Finland was the only country that repaid its WWI debt to the US.

you're fine with the continent i live in going bankrupt?

also, why did you put "allies" in quotation marks? you see europe as an enemy of the US?

I mean in the sense of, if they are our friends, why are they not paying their debt for 86 years? And it's mostly Britain and France - remember that the Central Powers and countries occupied by them were not really borrowing from the US. And, the moratorium was put in place in the 30s until Germany finished paying its war reparations, which it has now! Time for Britain and France to pay up, and it won't bankrupt them.
---

red sox 777 posted...

Time for Britain and France to pay up, and it won't bankrupt them.

maybe not, but i'm pretty sure they can't just go "hay guys here's $1 trillion lol."
---

Should just transfer their debt to China in place of ours and consider us paid lol. That said, this convo is silly.
---

Also, I will point out that Britain issued a series of domestic bonds during World War I which bore interest-only payments until such time as Britain wanted to finish off the loans. They've been making interest payments on those for the last 100 years, without paying the principal. So it's not like Britain isn't paying any WWI debts - just not the ones owed to the US.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

red sox 777 posted...

Or the people of Crimea?

saying "the people of crimea" wanted crimea to get back to russia is pretty misleading (and makes it sound like you just take vlado's bullshit at face value). plenty of people of crimea didn't want this at all (hence the conflicts in the region).

The UN Development Program had commissioned polls in the region and 60-70% wanted to join Russia from 2009-2011. Sure plenty of people wanted to stay with the Ukraine, but that's a strong majority and that was before the events of 2014 which would have likely pushed more people to side with moving to Russia.
---

As soon as we ask Europe to pay back their WWi debts, China should just come around and say "How about that debt you owe us then?"
---

Europe is gonna pay us back as much as we are going to pay China back.
---

When even corrik is talking more sense than red sox, you know that the red sox defender(s) are full of shit
---

People are defending red sox?
---

In fairness, I talk sense all the time. You only care to acknowledge it when it lines up with your own thoughts.
---

Corrik posted...

In fairness, I talk sense all the time. You only care to acknowledge it when it lines up with your own thoughts.

You are often very thick-skulled and refuse to see any viewpoints besides your own.

redrocket posted...

People are defending red sox?

Yes, see this very topic. It's excruciatingly stupid.

In terms of news and not idiotic hypotheticals, we have this:

https://twitter.com/joshrogin/status/1005814934293360640

.@JenniferJJacobs says Trump and Kim will first meet 1 on 1 with only translators. Does Bolton or Pompeo think that's a good idea? I don't. @ThisWeekABC

Trump meeting Kim with only translators is going to be him trying to set up a bribe of some sort, and it's going to be dumb.
---

Or Kim beats him up
---

To derail the discussion a bit, why do people honestly hate Hillary Clinton so much? Only thing I can think of is people are just sick of her, she's probably a victim of her own overexposure.

Also in her book "What Happened?", she does seem to frame everything from the perspective of women's issues. Though that's what she has been doing all her life so whatever.
---

She has a negative Charisma modifier, essentially
---

LinkMarioSamus posted...

To derail the discussion a bit, why do people honestly hate Hillary Clinton so much? Only thing I can think of is people are just sick of her, she's probably a victim of her own overexposure.

Also in her book "What Happened?", she does seem to frame everything from the perspective of women's issues. Though that's what she has been doing all her life so whatever.

Because she is smug, a career shady politician, flip flopper when convenient, incompetent, put her personal self over her job in her retaliation to Monica lewinski, which shows she blames the wrong party, Monica and not her husband which is typical or poorly logical thinking in irrational people of a relationship (male or female) and that she valued her position and politics more than her dignity. Etc.

Can't stress her total arrogance enough.
---

hillary is part of the typical politician big government machine. Really being sick of her as an individual is like being sick of any of these people. But there was also a bit of not another Bush or Clinton mentality. If youre at all anti-defense or worried about racial issues, she seems like someone you wouldnt want hanging around. She also seems incredibly arrogant.
---

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/10/politics/peter-navarro-justin-trudeau/index.html

Peter Navarro, a trade adviser to President Donald Trump, escalated the White House's rebuke of Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, calling him weak and dishonest on Sunday.

"There's a special place in hell for any foreign leader that engages in bad faith diplomacy with President Donald J. Trump and then tries to stab him in the back on the way out the door," Navarro said on "Fox News Sunday."
He continued, "And that's what bad faith Justin Trudeau did with that stunt press conference. That's what weak, dishonest Justin Trudeau did, and that comes right from Air Force One."

Settle down unless you want a Canadian invasion
---

She has held the same position as the majority of Americans on every single issue for decades. When Americans changed their positions on issues, she changed too. This is not credible.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/10/politics/peter-navarro-justin-trudeau/index.html

Peter Navarro, a trade adviser to President Donald Trump, escalated the White House's rebuke of Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, calling him weak and dishonest on Sunday.

"There's a special place in hell for any foreign leader that engages in bad faith diplomacy with President Donald J. Trump and then tries to stab him in the back on the way out the door," Navarro said on "Fox News Sunday."
He continued, "And that's what bad faith Justin Trudeau did with that stunt press conference. That's what weak, dishonest Justin Trudeau did, and that comes right from Air Force One."

Settle down unless you want a Canadian invasion

Canadian coup incoming.
---

I dont get the arrogance thing about Hillary. Shes no more arrogant than any national politician ever.

Thats the part that smells like sexism to a lot of people.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

I dont get the arrogance thing about Hillary. Shes no more arrogant than any national politician ever.

Thats the part that smells like sexism to a lot of people.

Did you like not even watch the debates? Calling people who wouldn't vote her insulting labels? Shitting all over entire sectors of the economy and people's jobs in it by saying she was going to get rid of them point blank? Telling people one thing then in her paid speechs saying the opposite? I believe in one speechs she even said that she can't say certain things to the typical voter that she can here.

Clinton is a snake. Worst main party presidentoal candidate probably in my lifetime. And Kerry was absolutely atrocious so that is saying something.
---

She defended her saying different things in private speeches and public ones by saying she got it from Abe Lincoln. Trump pounced all over that weak answer.
---

Corrik posted...

Telling people one thing then in her paid speechs saying the opposite? I believe in one speechs she even said that she can't say certain things to the typical voter that she can here.

How is that different than literally anyone else?
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Corrik posted...

Telling people one thing then in her paid speechs saying the opposite? I believe in one speechs she even said that she can't say certain things to the typical voter that she can here.

How is that different than literally anyone else?

Most candidates aren't even giving paid speeches.
---

red sox 777 posted...

When Americans changed their positions on issues, she changed too.

why did she lose, then? if she agreed with the majority of americans on the issues she probably would have won.
---

also, trump is like the most arrogant person alive lol
---

Corrik posted...

Trump is a snake. Worst main party presidentoal candidate probably in my lifetime.

ftfy
---

I didnt want to make it a whatabout Trump argument.

Yes Trump is absolutely everything Corrik labeled Hillary as but worse, but thats no defense of Hillary
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Yes Trump is absolutely everything Corrik labeled Hillary as but worse, but thats no defense of Hillary

i'm not defending hillary. i'm saying "she's arrogant" isn't a great explanation for why she lost, given that trump is president.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

Yes Trump is absolutely everything Corrik labeled Hillary as but worse, but thats no defense of Hillary

i'm not defending hillary. i'm saying "she's arrogant" isn't a great explanation for why she lost, given that trump is president.

They asked why Hillary was unlikeable and hateable. Not why she lost.

She lost because she was a worse candidate.
---

I don't know, I haven't run across most of these bad things about Hillary Clinton, and even if they were, how much worse can they really be than Trump?

That said, she does not seem to be good at adjusting to the current social situation. In that book she said that it is important to have a woman as president because the presidents so far being exclusively male means that only one gender gets to have its life experiences reflected on the world stage for America or something. I might even agree, but that's still a rather current society-unfriendly view, insisting that a person's gender is important for a job. And then she also stressed that the goal of feminism is for women to be equal to men, not better. She's probably completely locked out of the loop when it comes to radical feminism.

Honestly, I don't have much trouble understanding why someone would vote for Trump over Clinton. I really don't. I'm more just asking why people hated Hillary so much that what Trump is doing now is preferable to what she would have been doing. No joke: people are literally going around saying they prefer a president who has no idea what he's doing over Hillary. I don't understand what she did to receive this special level of scorn compared to other politicians.
---

With what you said, Clinton had this air of entitlement that because she was a woman she deserved to be president. Her sex didn't matter to her merit. And she didn't seem to ever grasp that.
---