Trump

[Neil Frarey]

Re: How many corporations are members of the UN?

OK, so tell me how many corporations are members of the UN, or have vetoes with the UN Security Council, etc.

Sad to say, I don't think it matters all that much anymore.

Personal speaking I detest war and have spoken out on the subject, a lot. I'm not a pacifist, and every male in my family (both sides) have served in some form or another going back generations & generations ... I just think war is obsolete and barely serves a purpose only in the crudest form possible.

I think Tillerson's jaunt over to Russia was more about two major shareholders coexisting without resorting to a proxy war and the posturing that is yet to come.

[Nigel Hanrahan]

Re: How many corporations are members of the UN?

Sad to say, I don't think it matters all that much anymore.

Personal speaking I detest war and have spoken out on the subject, a lot. I'm not a pacifist, and every male in my family (both sides) have served in some form or another going back generations & generations ... I just think war is obsolete and barely serves a purpose only in the crudest form possible.

So do you think that private armies would manage conflict in the world better than the inter-governmental system we have now? I just don't think your throw away remark about the uselessness of government stands up on this issue. cheers.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Trump

Paul Bonham's posts are hilarious, especially when he rises to the level of calling people names such as "dufus"! Who uses that word anymore?

Without Paul Bonham this forum would be completely vanilla.

Hilarious!

[Mavros Whissell]

Re: Trump

Thanks to Vlad and Bob.

Thank you Paul for reading. Here are my counter-arguments to your thoughts. I put your text in bold/italics first and only then my response, so it is less confusing (I hope):

Thanks Mavros for a well-reasoned set of arguments -- that is such a rarity on ChessTalk.

So first of all, I'd like to address your point about mathematics. The only secret need be between Trump and Putin. If indeed they are in cahoots and have been that way long before Trump took office, then this new development simply goes down like this: Putin contacts Trump through secure channel and suggests the whole gas attack / missile launch / standoff scenario. He explains to Trump: this will eradicate all investigations into our connections. Trump says ok, let's do it, and I'll even come out and talk about how disturbed I was by seeing gassed babies -- win, win. No one else is involved in this secret. Putin gives the order to Assad, "Launch a gas attack such and such time, such and such place." What's Assad going to do, say no? He is Putin's yes man.

Well again you are relying on a heavy amount of “beating the odds”. Neither Trump or Putin is ever alone, I’m willing to wager. And any type of secure connection one dreams about can be hacked, if it really existed. Take for example when Trump announced to absolutely no one that he would call a meeting. And by no one this meant including his personal secretary. Sure enough, the meeting details were leaked and ended up being out of his administration before Trump had a chance to say anything. There is no “alone time” when you are president.

All political decisions are about risk. Putin does this because he sees genuine risk that the connections between him and Trump are going to be found out (assuming this connection exists). I've seen reports that the FBI has discovered records of ties between Trump associates and Russian operatives, but all rumours at this point. Anyway, Putin makes this decision because he sees the risk as being less than the risk of the investigations. Simple as that. Trading one risk for a lesser risk. That's how political decisions get made.

I will rely on my earlier remarks. I strongly believe if someone could have nailed Trump to a wall, they would have done so by now. I’m sure you will find that analogy compelling. There is just no concrete evidence, and supposition and fake news are a way to distance a potentially changing population’s views and beliefs from leaving a happy norm of complacency.

Now about your question: are people who use gas attacks rational? Oh yes, absolutely possible. Logic and rationality are not exclusive to the pure of heart. I'm sure you've heard the term "evil genius". But I think you might be misunderstanding my point about Assad launching a gas attack at this time. For him to do it without orders from Putin seems far-fetched. There was so little to gain versus so much to lose. But still, it could have happened that way. Perhaps Assad felt absolutely sure Trump would not respond with anything substantial, and thought he could kill a lot of rebels in that area. We simply don't know.

This is not impossible, but there are other important factors we need to remember here.

A) During Obama’s administration, several military leaders were strongly pushing for Obama to respond to Syria. Obama and his administration denied these initiatives to respond militarily. Trump on the other hand is taking action, against his own earlier policy. I think he has learned something new, and this choice reflects the US government is strongly influenced by government funded institutes. These institutes carry their message from president to president. This is not Trump being angry or playing people for fools. This is Trump agreeing with his military advisors.

B) Remember this is not the first gas attack in Syria. With UN support, Obama apparently forced the Assad regime to remove all its chemical weapons. The US even had their hands on these weapons aboard a naval vessel. Therefore, we KNOW Assad will use chemical weapons. We KNOW he can gain access to them. We have past evidence. He is very much a lunatic. I consider it a very severe form of insanity to use of torturous weapons of death on any population. Assad has proved he can stomach such abhorrent attacks. A cold calculated evil genius would get rid of his opposition in the most efficient way possible. Assad is just a ruthless dictator. He is no genius. Remember that before the nazis changed to conducting the worst mass killings of all time, they were shooting Jews one by one. This had the effect of greatly disturbing trained soldiers. It can disturb anyone. You should be worried Assad is not disturbed by Sarin.
C) Remember Syria is not just denying they conducted the attack – they are denying they have any chemical weapons at all. The chance that all chemical weapons were disposed of with the aid of the US is incredibly unlikely, however Ms. Rice wants to spin the story. In the past, we KNOW Assad used chemical weapons. We KNOW he can gain access to them.

I really liked your second paragraph. It ties in to something Nikki Haley said about Trump reversing course on Assad: "He's the President now". The problem is, this can be used for ANYTHING. Trump could change course on ALL his campaign promises, and we the people are supposed to be told, well, he's President now and found out a lot of things.
This is the great weakness of democracy. We vote for something, and then we get "He's the President now". The entire primaries and campaign are dismissed like swatting a fly.

This type of argument is really dubious, as it is a very large extrapolation based on a single point of data. Yes, the president changed his mind on the military issue in Syria. But look at Obama Care, or bringing jobs back, or his immigration policy. I think you may worry about a carte blanche for Trump, but largely he has stayed true to his campaign policies. That is because the data behind these other issues does not change when he becomes president. Decisions based on taxes, immigration, and health care are all largely based on public data. Military operations are not. I don’t think you are acknowledging the evidence here.

Now, where do we go from here? Sid Belzberg and many others believe Trump did the right thing. But hold on -- Trump played the morality card. He talked about being disturbed by seeing gassed babies. Perhaps genuine, but I have my doubts. Trump was never disturbed by grabbing women's pussies or denying payments to contractors just because he could get away with it to his own benefit. Once immoral, always immoral, with very very rare exceptions.

Very obtuse thinking. All people are immoral to some degree. No one is perfect. If this type of locker room talk is the worst dirt they can find on Trump, it’s a joke. I know because it’s easy to say this type of stuff to try and look cool. If you haven’t said something along these lines, then maybe you were never a male teen with raging hormones, or a rich guy who is too used to saying what’s on his mind. And that’s what he was doing. Was it stupid? Yes! Was it enough to draw a connection to immorality that could link him to gas attacks? Absolutely not. That is not a normal or reasonable train of thought/connection at all. I am going to assume that comes from your distaste for Trump rather than any other reason. I think he can be an idiot with his words, but a lot of his actions are really good.

Well, the problem is that Trump now is trapped by having played the morality card. Now he can't dismiss barrel bomb attacks by Assad. I'm sure you know about barrel bombs, Mavros, or can google about them. It's not much different in terms of "misery index" from gas attacks. Assad has used barrel bomb attacks over 1,000 times in six years. So it stands to reason he's going to continue to use them. Can Trump ignore future barrel bomb attacks and not be seen as WEAK? Once you play the morality card, you have to STICK BY IT. Otherwise, you are seen as a phony

You missed a very important point here.

Gas weapons are prohibited under international law, but Barrel bombs have no such restriction! That is why Assad uses barrel bombs frequently. That is also why Trump was able to respond to the gas attack. When the time came for unilateral action and he did so, the UN could not later on easily question his motive. They would have to deal with the fact Assad had violated international law, so there was a reason to attack.

And in my heart of hearts, that is what I truly believe Trump is. A con artist, a phony, a selfish narcissist -- when someone tells you what they are through their actions, believe them. He has not been changed by the Presidency -- the Presidency only reinforces his traits.

But there is a sucker born every minute, and I think that goes double in America.

My conspiracy theory could be wrong. If it is, then we are in real trouble because then the apparent growing tension in Syria is for real, not just theater. So then we have America about to confront Iran, Russia, and North Korea all at once. And the wild card is.... China.

Right now, the evidence is strongly against the point of view you presented. Mainstream media have contributed to this obtuse thinking. Remember many of the senators and house reps are lawyers. Their jobs are to not to present the truth, but advocate for their clients.

I am not entirely certain why Trump uses the inflammatory rhetoric he does. I just know it is polarizing. It can stop people like you from having the chance to be open-minded to him. Instead, the left goes way left. The right goes hard right, reassured that finally someone is standing up to the demons that are political correctness, the decay of Judeo-Christian Society, drugs coming from Mexico, and even Russia’s political pressures. Just to name a few!

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Trump

Well again you are relying on a heavy amount of “beating the odds”.

No, I disagree that it is a "heavy amount" of what you call beating the odds, and what I called political risk. I do admit my theory may be totally wrong, BUT I do also insist there is a good chance it is spot on. And I explained why: Putin & Trump together decided that the RISK of being caught in this conspiracy was less than the risk of being caught in their collusion during the election. And I don't know where you get this idea that Putin and Trump have to tell other people in their respective administrations about this plan. They simply don't. Once it's agreed on just between the two of them, Putin simply ORDERS Assad to launch a gas attack. Assad is not going to question it. He is totally subservient to the Russians. Trump even alluded to this in an interview today, he said Assad was on the way out, all but done, and he was saved by Putin.

Yes, this does rely on Trump being ok with a gas attack in order to save his pompous ass. I fully believe Trump to be capable of that. When he demonstrates that he can grab a woman's pussy without her permission, can stiff contractors whose very livelihoods depends on getting paid for their work, can deny leasing properties to people simply because of their race, then I believe he can approve a gas attack. I am not sold that it takes a "special" kind of insanity for that, OR if it does, then I think Trump and Putin both have that kind of insanity just as much as Assad does. You can't argue against Putin having it, because Putin is most definitely in on the gas attacks.

You and I can agree to disagree on this point, that's fine. I have previously here on ChessTalk equated Donald Trump's moral standing to that of Charles Manson. I believe wholeheartedly that Trump is an extremely evil entity. He can be convincing otherwise, talking about being upset about seeing gassed babies, but I for one am not buying it. Trump was aching for the Presidency decades ago. He isn't going to allow that he finally gets there and then within weeks is tossed out on his ass because of his connections to Putin. He is capable of ANYTHING to prevent that.

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

I further think Trump and Putin go back a LONG ways, connected by money. This would explain Putin being able to broach a gas attack idea to Trump. They know each other.

Remember those rumors about Putin having a videotape of Trump having Russian prostitutes perform so-called "golden showers" on him? I believe that is very very possible. It's no different than Trump supporters believing that Hillary Clinton deliberately allowed the deaths of U.S. personnel in Benghazi, and deliberately covered up the real story by claiming it was about a video. That basically says Hillary is of the same level of insanity as Assad gassing his own people. Are you one of those believers? Doesn't matter if you are or you aren't, millions of people ARE.

Putin has something on Trump, and Trump can't even release his tax returns because those would reveal, or COULD reveal under intense scrutiny, the money connections between the two.


Ok, on to another point....

I wrote: "This is the great weakness of democracy. We vote for something, and then we get 'He's the President now'. The entire primaries and campaign are dismissed like swatting a fly" and you replied: "This type of argument is really dubious, as it is a very large extrapolation based on a single point of data."

No, it is not a single point of data. It is the very history of American Presidential politics. The term "flip-flop" is used again and again in American politics, because it happens over and over and over, ad finitum ad nauseum. And the excuse is always the equivalent of "Well, he's the President now". So I'm going to ignore your argument there, it's undeniably false, maybe just due to ignorance of American political history.

And by the way, Mavros, you risk ridicule saying Trump has remained true to his promises and policies. Just today Trump reversed his campaign statements on NATO. NATO is "obsolete", Trump claimed all during the campaign. Today he walked that back completely. You mentioned Obamacare: Trump was caught so many times on election campaign video saying "On day 1, we repeal and replace Obamacare". Then when Ryan's replacement plan faltered, Trump comes on and says "I never said repeal and replace in the first 64 days". He can lie without blinking an eye. Another clue to his true evil. I'm sorry, Mavros, but you are really looking silly with that argument.

I strongly believe if someone could have nailed Trump to a wall, they would have done so by now.

Oh boy.... Well, let's bring up Hillary again, shall we? There's a whole mess of people who wanted her nailed to a wall -- "Lock her up!" -- and guess what happened? She beat the Benghazi Commission, she beat the FBI on emails, and she even beat Trump in the eyes of most reporters in the campaign debates (but of course, that last one is very subjective).

You seem to be particularly naive. You also mention that any secure connection can be hacked, seeming to indicate that any and all secure connections ARE being hacked. No, that is absolutely not the case. Can you bring up any example of a communication between a U.S. President and a Russian President over a secure connection being hacked? I rest my case on that point.

And let's not forget: Trump has BILLIONS OF DOLLARS at his disposal. Do you really believe he hasn't paid hush money to anyone?

If this type of locker room talk is the worst dirt they can find on Trump, it’s a joke.

I'm sorry, Mavros, but "locker room talk" is NOT what Trump engaged in. He admitted to sexual assault. By dismissing that as locker room talk, you risk being seen as a misogynist. Now before you get all uptight over that argument, consider the following: many well-known male athletes came out and said at the time this issue first came up that they had NEVER, in all their high school, collegiate, and pro careers, heard such "locker room talk" about grabbing women's pussies or anything even close to that. So your argument about a "male teen with raging hormones" is turned on its head.

What, are courts of law supposed to dismiss cases of actual rape because the male had raging hormones? I mean, if we dismiss talk about rape, we might as well be dismissing ACTUAL rape. Please, Mavros, don't go there.

Secondly, Mavros, I recently made a post here and used the word "midget" in reference to dwarves. Guess who came out on the attack against me? None other than Vlad Drkulec, who like you, dismisses Trump's pussy-grabbing quote as locker room talk. So let's get this straight.... according to Drkulec, it is ok to talk about grabbing women's pussies... but to call a dwarf a "midget", well, that is absolute heresy!

Please don't make the same mistake of stepping in shit like Vlad did there.



I'm going to conclude by saying that these issues we're discussing aren't about left versus right, Democrat versus Republican. They are about good versus evil. The reason I believe my conspiracy theory could be real is because I believe evil can have that much of a grip on men and women alike. Trump could be so evil that he could be FAKING being affected by seeing gassed babies.

Terrible, if it's true. But remember, they were Muslim babies, and Trump hates Muslims.

And guess what? If my conspiracy theory is correct, the conspiracy is WORKING!

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/0...s-syria-237164

Sabrina Singh, a spokeswoman for the Democratic opposition research group American Bridge, said Trump’s allies are “grasping at straws.”

"If this whole effort was launched to try and create distance between Trump and Russia — as his allies are suggesting — then the president is an even more disgusting person than we previously thought,” Singh said. “And that's saying a lot.”

The key thing we should all remember is DO NOT BE NAIVE.

Absolute power can corrupt absolutely!

[Ben Daswani]

Re: Trump

PB biggest failing is that he is not the original and pure archetype of which Paul is a weak and watered down version.

What does this even mean? That's a rhetorical question, of course; I don't actually care about anything you have to say. I just find it hilarious that you have the audacity to criticize someone else's "ability to express himself in a written form" when you can't even string together a sentence. I find Bonham long-winded, and disagree with his posts more often than not, but God damn, at least he communicates lucidly. You typically write (and reason, but that's a separate issue) like a child.

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: Trump

C) Remember Syria is not just denying they conducted the attack – they are denying they have any chemical weapons at all. The chance that all chemical weapons were disposed of with the aid of the US is incredibly unlikely, however Ms. Rice wants to spin the story. In the past, we KNOW Assad used chemical weapons. We KNOW he can gain access to them.

Susan Rice is a chronic liar who will say anything that Obama sends her out to say.

Right now, the evidence is strongly against the point of view you presented. Mainstream media have contributed to this obtuse thinking. Remember many of the senators and house reps are lawyers. Their jobs are to not to present the truth, but advocate for their clients.

I am not entirely certain why Trump uses the inflammatory rhetoric he does. I just know it is polarizing. It can stop people like you from having the chance to be open-minded to him. Instead, the left goes way left. The right goes hard right, reassured that finally someone is standing up to the demons that are political correctness, the decay of Judeo-Christian Society, drugs coming from Mexico, and even Russia’s political pressures. Just to name a few!

Trump uses inflammatory rhetoric because it helps him get elected by galvanizing his base. I believe that many never Trumpers held their nose at the end and voted for him solely on the issue of the Supreme Court. If Hillary had been allowed to appoint justices it would have been the end of the U.S. as we know it.

Hillary was the worst candidate in generations of American politics. That is all you have to know to understand why she lost to Donald Trump.

[Mavros Whissell]

Re: Trump

Hi Paul,

I would like to thank you for the discussion we are having, but I feel its at an end.

Instead of any evidence, you present your theories.

Instead of attacking the thought process or the opinion, you are starting to attack the person.

I do not see any objectivity in your thought process at all. It is not logical or even based in simple truths.

I will leave it to you to continue with your extrapolation and even slander.

You have completely lost this argument, but I am not foolish enough to be drawn into your world further.

Mavros

[Mavros Whissell]

Re: Trump

Have to agree with you again, Vlad. Galvanizing is a good way to put it. Hillary is a nightmare, but thank God she is not a president. Rice... well the evidence is showing that the truth escapes her.

Mavros

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Trump

Hi Paul,

I would like to thank you for the discussion we are having, but I feel its at an end.

Instead of any evidence, you present your theories.

Instead of attacking the thought process or the opinion, you are starting to attack the person.

I do not see any objectivity in your thought process at all. It is not logical or even based in simple truths.

I will leave it to you to continue with your extrapolation and even slander.

You have completely lost this argument, but I am not foolish enough to be drawn into your world further.

Mavros

Yes, I presented my theory as just that, a theory, and I said it could be wrong. I presented LOTS of evidence, and you are not one to be judging anyone's objectivity when you can dismiss admission of sexual assault as "locker-room talk". Sorry, dude, just no way out of that box.

Nor can you judge anyone for slander given your rantings about Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice (regarding the latter, she appears to be pretty much off the hook: Reports Contradict Trump's Claim Re: Susan Rice).

I had no illusions I was going to draw you into any world except the one you wish was real.

At the beginning of this discussion, you wrote that I raised interesting points, and you even wrote this: "In the end I will agree with you however, that the Trump admin could not have missed the fact that this military action would greatly decrease the scrutiny they are under for Russian conspiracy theories."

Now you say my opinions are not logical nor based on simple truths. You're just another sucker drawn into Trump's giant con. You can't stand it when logic and facts point in a totally different direction from what you want to be true.

Go back to YOUR world of "alternative facts".... and good luck to you after it all blows up in your face. You and Sean Spicer can discuss the Holocaust together!

And given your earlier comments about "raging male hormones" I hope to hell no woman EVER makes the mistake of thinking you respect her.

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: Trump

Have to agree with you again, Vlad. Galvanizing is a good way to put it. Hillary is a nightmare, but thank God she is not a president. Rice... well the evidence is showing that the truth escapes her.

Mavros

Obama may yet live to regret not pardoning Rice when he had that ability.

[Bob Gillanders]

Re: "Press the launch button and all is forgiven."

Y
To Bob Gillanders: I agree with most of what you say about Trump and his associates. I normally do not search for conspiracy theories, but in this case, there is just much of a stench to what is happening. The combination of

(1) a totally foolish gas attack on civilians by Assad, which wins him nothing,
(2) a very mild but impressive-looking reaction from Trump (all about the optics!),
(3) almost no damage of any consequence to the actual air base, it is back fully operational
(4) no news about the Trump - Russia investigations, that is all going to fade away now

adds up to "something's fishy in Denmark".

Hi Paul, you make some good points.
Here is an excellent interview with David Frum on CBC news.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvzATyVvNnM

The Syrian missile attack has given Trump a bump in the polls, as is to be expected.

[Peter McKillop]

Re: Trump

"Great men, great nations, have not been boasters and buffoons, but perceivers of the terror of life, and have manned themselves to face it."

- Ralph Waldo Emerson

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Trump

"Great men, great nations, have not been boasters and buffoons, but perceivers of the terror of life, and have manned themselves to face it."

- Ralph Waldo Emerson

That is quite an interesting quote. The "boasters and buffoons" sounds a lot like Trump, but in the face of everything that is happening on the North Korea front, the "manned themselves to face it" part also sounds like what Trump is doing. At some point, North Korea has to be confronted.

But then I read this: Trump on North Korea: 'I just don't telegraph my moves'

And I realized, Trump is SO narcissistic that he would dare to put millions of lives on the line in order to claim his place in history. Perhaps ditto for Kin Jong-un.

In this North Korea - USA clash, we literally have the confrontation of all the worst aspects of humanity!

We haven't had this in decades. Very unlikely that either side is going to blink. One of them is going to "win", and no matter how long it takes, the win will not be pretty for humanity. Irrespective of lives lost, there will be generational damages to the entire world economy, to all the progress of civilization. Perhaps Mutual Assured Destruction as a policy leads only to..... mutual assured destruction.

China and Russia are getting more and more involved. This is rapidly becoming the biggest story of our lifetimes, bigger by far than 9/11 or ISIS.

[Peter McKillop]

Re: Trump

That is quite an interesting quote. The "boasters and buffoons" sounds a lot like Trump, but in the face of everything that is happening on the North Korea front, the "manned themselves to face it" part also sounds like what Trump is doing. At some point, North Korea has to be confronted.

But then I read this: Trump on North Korea: 'I just don't telegraph my moves'

And I realized, Trump is SO narcissistic that he would dare to put millions of lives on the line in order to claim his place in history. Perhaps ditto for Kin Jong-un.

In this North Korea - USA clash, we literally have the confrontation of all the worst aspects of humanity!

We haven't had this in decades. Very unlikely that either side is going to blink. One of them is going to "win", and no matter how long it takes, the win will not be pretty for humanity. Irrespective of lives lost, there will be generational damages to the entire world economy, to all the progress of civilization. Perhaps Mutual Assured Destruction as a policy leads only to..... mutual assured destruction.

China and Russia are getting more and more involved. This is rapidly becoming the biggest story of our lifetimes, bigger by far than 9/11 or ISIS.

I took 'manned' to mean what it *might* have meant to Emerson, i.e.: prepared themselves to act in a moral, courageous way; to act with integrity. Definitely not Trumpian. :)

I agree with your other comments. The tension that is building here is starting to remind me of the Cuban missile crisis. I was only 11 then but that was old enough to understand what was happening. Some might say that the Cuban situation was different because the U.S. was facing an enemy with ICBMs that could reach the U.S. but I don't think the U.S. can be certain of China's support in this situation. The U.S. couldn't win a conventional war in Korea. What does that leave?