President Trump- The Implications

[erfalf]

Uh, wut?

I use John Oliver as a source of info (because he/his team sources well...he's won the Peabody TWICE) and he's entertaining at doing it.  I read papers, I listen to NPR, I watch PBS.  Believe it or not, I don't watch MSNBC or CNN unless I want to be entertained.  I can't get through anything on Fox (aside from Shep) without feeling the need to retch.

But I understand you source a lot of your information from Conservative news outlets.  If you think I source mine from primarily liberal sources, you'd be wrong.  But that's ok.  I could give two squirts of piss what anyone thinks of me.  I'm far enough along in life that I'd just scream at you to get off my lawn.  

You are gonna need to prove with more than just made up TV show quotes and funny guys, which is basically all I see from you. While you say you read them it rarely shows on here. Just calling it like I see it.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Taking hostages is ok. Two wrongs make a right. Whatever. You are completely focusing on the wrong of one by ignoring the dozens of wrongs by another. Iran is no saint. And I do completely understand what was going on at the time. Foreign policy is not some black and white easy to make decisions arena. In the what have you done for me now industry, what exactly had Iran done to deserve being let off the hook. We use all kinds of methods to keep bad people from doing bad things to us and others. While obviously "stealing is bad", are you positive the money that was "stolen" was legitimately Iran's considering their sordid money laundering history. Iran has been a problem for decades and somehow the rest of their neighbors have figured it out but over here people like you are sympathetic to their "plight", while enjoying the freedom we have had from their hostilities for decades. Wonder how that came to pass. Purely a coincidence I am sure.

And regarding Net Neutrality, I'll just chalk that one up to you having a hissy fit that you were called on your smile.

What are you thinking??   They were fighting a war.  Against us.  That was probably one of the least obnoxious things they could have done.  And they kept them until Reagan paid them to let 'em go.   (How long have we kept Guantanamo open now??)

Well, if ya wanna go the money laundering route...let's talk about our activities from VietNam to Panama to Nicaragua to Iran to Iraq.   Yeah.  Everyone on the planet knows that the money was theirs.  With possibly one or two exceptions by Fake Fox News Minions/Apogologists.


What does this mean?     "Iran has been a problem for decades and somehow the rest of their neighbors have figured it out but over here people like you are sympathetic to their "plight", while enjoying the freedom we have had from their hostilities for decades."

It sounds like you are saying that we have not had affects from their hostility??    You certainly cannot mean that...wanna rephrase?

I am no more sympathetic to their 'plight' than I was to the Shah years - both regimes are sleazy, tin-horn, dictatorships.  The ONLY difference was that the Shah was OUR sleazy, tin-horn dictator, so we liked him.


Net Neutrality - you won't ever get it with your head stuck in the Fake Fox News World.

[erfalf]

What are you thinking??   They were fighting a war.  Against us.  That was probably one of the least obnoxious things they could have done.  And they kept them until Reagan paid them to let 'em go.   (How long have we kept Guantanamo open now??)

Well, if ya wanna go the money laundering route...let's talk about our activities from VietNam to Panama to Nicaragua to Iran to Iraq.   Yeah.  Everyone on the planet knows that the money was theirs.  With possibly one or two exceptions by Fake Fox News Minions/Apogologists.


What does this mean?     "Iran has been a problem for decades and somehow the rest of their neighbors have figured it out but over here people like you are sympathetic to their "plight", while enjoying the freedom we have had from their hostilities for decades."

It sounds like you are saying that we have not had affects from their hostility??    You certainly cannot mean that...wanna rephrase?

I am no more sympathetic to their 'plight' than I was to the Shah years - both regimes are sleazy, tin-horn, dictatorships.  The ONLY difference was that the Shah was OUR sleazy, tin-horn dictator, so we liked him.


Net Neutrality - you won't ever get it with your head stuck in the Fake Fox News World.

I would like to rephrase. We have NOT been able to enjoy freedom from their actions (see 9/11). Sorry for that mistake.

[cannon_fodder]

Since Trump glided down the gilded escalator, certain segments of the population have declared how FAKE John Oliver is, the "lamestream" media, Snopes and any other fact checking website.  The hatred for fact checkers in the Trump era is astounding. But rarely are those accusations or disparagement accompanied by anything but anecdotal examples of errors (and in regards to Snopes and Oliver, I don't think I've even seen those).  You can hate the content, the delivery and the facts... but that doesn't make it any less true.  All data suggests that there are certain sources that are factually more accurate than others, I prefer to rely on those even if the President insists the media is America's biggest enemy.  Facts matter.

At the risk of getting back on topic...

My issue with the N. Korea situation is fairly simple:  stop over selling it.  N. Korea has said they were going to denuclearize many times before, Trump (and by extension we) are going to look like morons if all this political theater and declarations of awesome falls apart.  Please, just say things like "hopeful," "cautiously optimistic," and "good first step."  No need to declare undying love for Kim and pretend this is the greatest bestest deal the world has ever seen.  The text is a grandiose declaration of an intent to do somethings sometime, with a country like N. Korea its a start, but if you declare its undying awesomeness you are setting us up for failure.

Also, I'm not happy we gave up something for essentially nothing, but if that needed to happen to get things moving, so be it, because we can always go back (but too bad we surprised our ally with it). And I'm concerned that our President's two favorite world leaders appear to be Kim Jung Un and Vladimir Putin (while we feud with most of our allies).  I understand the hypocrisy involved in the right.  I get all that.

But meeting with the North and making progress is a good thing. I don't think Trump's actions particular to North Korea have hurt our strategic position on North Korea. If it goes bad and we act rationally, we fall back to the status quo, Trump looks like a fool, and we deal with some mild irritation from S. Korea and Japan. 

[heironymouspasparagus]

I would like to rephrase. We have NOT been able to enjoy freedom from their actions (see 9/11). Sorry for that mistake.

Which we know - and knew at the time - they had nothing to do with.   It was Saudi Arabians.  Our best buddies.  Next to Israel.

 

[erfalf]

Yes I am perfectly fine with taking extreme measures (stealing in your mind) to protect ourselves from a proven lying regime. Call me callous all you want.

I suppose the 80's were quiet (after all the hostages were finally released that is).

But Clinton fired it up again in the 90's calling them a state sponsor of terror. I'm sure it was just a whim stupid move on his part though. Only to be reiterated year after year after year, with ever increasing sanctions. Bush game them a shot then some alleged bombings by Iran squashed that attempt. They've been either flirting with nukes since or they are already well on their way (depending on who you believe).

Also consider things are so bad their now, they are on the verge of another revolution. So yes I think we should have been more hesitant.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Since Trump glided down the gilded escalator, certain segments of the population have declared how FAKE John Oliver is, the "lamestream" media, Snopes and any other fact checking website.  The hatred for fact checkers in the Trump era is astounding. But rarely are those accusations or disparagement accompanied by anything but anecdotal examples of errors (and in regards to Snopes and Oliver, I don't think I've even seen those).  You can hate the content, the delivery and the facts... but that doesn't make it any less true.  All data suggests that there are certain sources that are factually more accurate than others, I prefer to rely on those even if the President insists the media is America's biggest enemy.  Facts matter.

At the risk of getting back on topic...

My issue with the N. Korea situation is fairly simple:  stop over selling it.  N. Korea has said they were going to denuclearize many times before, Trump (and by extension we) are going to look like morons if all this political theater and declarations of awesome falls apart.  Please, just say things like "hopeful," "cautiously optimistic," and "good first step."  No need to declare undying love for Kim and pretend this is the greatest bestest deal the world has ever seen.  The text is a grandiose declaration of an intent to do somethings sometime, with a country like N. Korea its a start, but if you declare its undying awesomeness you are setting us up for failure.

Also, I'm not happy we gave up something for essentially nothing, but if that needed to happen to get things moving, so be it, because we can always go back (but too bad we surprised our ally with it). And I'm concerned that our President's two favorite world leaders appear to be Kim Jung Un and Vladimir Putin (while we feud with most of our allies).  I understand the hypocrisy involved in the right.  I get all that.

But meeting with the North and making progress is a good thing. I don't think Trump's actions particular to North Korea have hurt our strategic position on North Korea. If it goes bad and we act rationally, we fall back to the status quo, Trump looks like a fool, and we deal with some mild irritation from S. Korea and Japan. 

Yep!

I think we should have been making a sales pitch to Un for a long time, showing him how well he could be doing - there is no physical or resource constraint preventing them from being more like SK.  It's all in the politics.  China, Vietnam, are two examples literally next door that could be shown to him.  And  he personally would benefit even more than he does now from increased wealth in the country!  We just have lousy pitch men.  And that includes the Big Cheetohboski!!

[erfalf]

Which we know - and knew at the time - they had nothing to do with.   It was Saudi Arabians.  Our best buddies.  Next to Israel.

So please let me know what I am supposed to believe. You or the Iranian leadership saying it was them.

Not saying the Suadi's were innocent. Obviously Iran only admitted to playing a part. But they sure didn't do anything to stop it. Best buds huh?


"It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so." comes to mind when talking with you

[erfalf]

Since Trump glided down the gilded escalator, certain segments of the population have declared how FAKE John Oliver is, the "lamestream" media, Snopes and any other fact checking website.  The hatred for fact checkers in the Trump era is astounding. But rarely are those accusations or disparagement accompanied by anything but anecdotal examples of errors (and in regards to Snopes and Oliver, I don't think I've even seen those).  You can hate the content, the delivery and the facts... but that doesn't make it any less true.  All data suggests that there are certain sources that are factually more accurate than others, I prefer to rely on those even if the President insists the media is America's biggest enemy.  Facts matter.

At the risk of getting back on topic...

My issue with the N. Korea situation is fairly simple:  stop over selling it.  N. Korea has said they were going to denuclearize many times before, Trump (and by extension we) are going to look like morons if all this political theater and declarations of awesome falls apart.  Please, just say things like "hopeful," "cautiously optimistic," and "good first step."  No need to declare undying love for Kim and pretend this is the greatest bestest deal the world has ever seen.  The text is a grandiose declaration of an intent to do somethings sometime, with a country like N. Korea its a start, but if you declare its undying awesomeness you are setting us up for failure.

Also, I'm not happy we gave up something for essentially nothing, but if that needed to happen to get things moving, so be it, because we can always go back (but too bad we surprised our ally with it). And I'm concerned that our President's two favorite world leaders appear to be Kim Jung Un and Vladimir Putin (while we feud with most of our allies).  I understand the hypocrisy involved in the right.  I get all that.

But meeting with the North and making progress is a good thing. I don't think Trump's actions particular to North Korea have hurt our strategic position on North Korea. If it goes bad and we act rationally, we fall back to the status quo, Trump looks like a fool, and we deal with some mild irritation from S. Korea and Japan. 

My only complaint is that he and all the other Stewart wannabees basically only tell the side of the story that gets the laughs. It's not a lie so much as just not everything you need to know to understand the story. But that's all a great many people get.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Yes I am perfectly fine with taking extreme measures (stealing in your mind) to protect ourselves from a proven lying regime. Call me callous all you want.

I suppose the 80's were quiet (after all the hostages were finally released that is).

But Clinton fired it up again in the 90's calling them a state sponsor of terror. I'm sure it was just a whim stupid move on his part though. Only to be reiterated year after year after year, with ever increasing sanctions. Bush game them a shot then some alleged bombings by Iran squashed that attempt. They've been either flirting with nukes since or they are already well on their way (depending on who you believe).

Also consider things are so bad their now, they are on the verge of another revolution. So yes I think we should have been more hesitant.

Not in my mind - it is stealing - in US law as well as all the international treaty law we are signatories to.  You seem to be confused that my thoughts are based on just what I want to be real, when in fact, there are laws in place that prohibit much of what we do.  Like they say in show business, you can't make this stuff up, so why even try - just point out the realities!    But we do them anyway, because in FACT, we are NOT a country that believes in or exercises rule of law.  Unless one is poor, then the whole force and weight of the law is brought to bear.  Think torture during the Baby Bush years.  Among so many other examples.  

Astounding how you can still justify it.  But you are just the same as 35 - 40 % of Americans, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.


Making nukes ain't that tough - look at who has them - they probably do.  Why weren't we so outraged about Israel getting nukes??   Double standard much??

Iran is squeezed, but they aren't hurting like you might want them to.  Find some Iranians, make friendly, and talk to them about what is going on back home for them and their family.  Most are unhappy with the regime, but how do you throw off the yoke of tyranny?   It ain't as simple as we like to imagine.   That's why it happens so seldom.

[heironymouspasparagus]

My only complaint is that he and all the other Stewart wannabees basically only tell the side of the story that gets the laughs. It's not a lie so much as just not everything you need to know to understand the story. But that's all a great many people get.

Give us examples - those videos are a good place to start.  Exactly what, in specific detail, did he leave out that created any lack of understanding, confusion, or distortion of the facts?    Number the list so we can address point by point.

You must realize you are conflating Oliver with Fake Fox News right now...and getting the whole thing all confused and twisted around in your mind...

[cannon_fodder]

My only complaint is that he and all the other Stewart wannabees basically only tell the side of the story that gets the laughs. It's not a lie so much as just not everything you need to know to understand the story. But that's all a great many people get.

I understand that perspective, but John Oliver regularly gives the other explanation.  It is not as prominent and not as entertaining, he will usually say "to be fair..."  or "it should be noted that XYZ says..."   It is perfunctory, I agree. His mission is not journalism, it is entertainment and probably to inform the choir (who are predisposed to his point of view).  The difference between him and the trend in many conservative outlets is that he does it with real sources and facts and doesn't pretend to be an upstanding news source.

Still, I dare say one is better informed watching an Oliver piece than from most other sources.  A 1 page blurb just can't do justice to many issues, even if they really try.

[patric]

Kim:  " this . is . working . so . good ... "

[Hoss]

I understand that perspective, but John Oliver regularly gives the other explanation.  It is not as prominent and not as entertaining, he will usually say "to be fair..."  or "it should be noted that XYZ says..."   It is perfunctory, I agree. His mission is not journalism, it is entertainment and probably to inform the choir (who are predisposed to his point of view).  The difference between him and the trend in many conservative outlets is that he does it with real sources and facts and doesn't pretend to be an upstanding news source.

Still, I dare say one is better informed watching an Oliver piece than from most other sources.  A 1 page blurb just can't do justice to many issues, even if they really try.

Plus, he does 'main segments' on so many things that are so 'unsexy' to the MSM.  Payday loans, mandatory sentencing, civil forfeiture.  And in a lot of cases (Net neutrality and civil forfeiture are examples) the subject gets brought to the fore and it's likely without the spotlight of his show nothing would have been done.

[heironymouspasparagus]

So please let me know what I am supposed to believe. You or the Iranian leadership saying it was them.

Not saying the Suadi's were innocent. Obviously Iran only admitted to playing a part. But they sure didn't do anything to stop it. Best buds huh?


"It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so." comes to mind when talking with you

The 'playing a part' really does make a big difference.  Yeah, they helped Al Qaeda move without record keeping (stamped passports) - and that is an act.

And my comment earlier - "Which we know - and knew at the time - they had nothing to do with.   It was Saudi Arabians.  Our best buddies.  Next to Israel."  was written too fast, leaving out the rest of what I wanted to add - the qualifier that they only provided transportation services.  I believe the Iranians when they admit it...which they just did.  And I believe the court finding - there was also a $6 billion judgement against Iran by families earlier.  And their is no doubt in my mind that they want to provide as much irritation as possible to us - after all, it was us who supported/enabled Saddam Hussein in his war against Iran that killed a million people.  After all we did to the country and it's people with the Shah - actually it was not just us - there was so much turmoil from the 30's on, Reza's father was dictator for a long time, then Reza, then some turmoil, the a guy named Mosaddegh was Prime Minister for a few years, which is what disturbed us so bad.  So we had another coup to get Reza back in power and keep him there until the 1979 revolution.  

And it absolutely is another one of those "mote in one's eye versus beam in another's".  Where Iran has the mote, Saudi has the beam.  In a world with any kind of justice, the relative punishment for Saudi Arabia would be hundreds of billions and a lot of people in prison for life.  But since Bush insisted on sending ALL the Saudi's in the country home during the 9/11 event, especially the ones in the royal family related to Bin Laden, who may have had pertinent information, and were most likely also involved, when there was a total ban on air travel, guess we will never see that type of justice.


You can do better than that... really??  Reagan??   Another one of those Republican "ends justifies the means, especially when it's illegal..." guys.     Yeah, yeah, yeah...and Oliver North is a 'Great Amerikan Hero"..!!   Reagan's John Haldeman.   Again, you celebrate illegal, immoral, behavior.  



List of other sides to the story...?