This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
They also manipulate their currency and militarize international waters. We've been calling them out on it for years, but it's gone nowhere.
I can only speak for myself, but yeah I think there's a pretty clear difference. Most of the flap around Hillary and foreign money had to do with money going to the foundation which nearly all went to charitable causes. She also was taking steps to ensure there wouldn't even be that hint of influence while President. Plus there is no evidence that any foreign money influenced U.S. policy while she was SOS, in part because she was still accountable to the President.
I don't really care if Trump takes a call from them. If they want to start a war over it that's on them.
That is sugar-coating things a bunch. There was a lot of personal gain and power the Clinton's got from the foundation. And if you understand how the foundation operates, saying the money mostly goes to charitable causes is charitable. It is mostly a political organization.
Honestly this mindset worries me. War with China has two outcomes. Our capitulation and loss of power which affects our lives OR a whole lot of destruction and death.
We fought China in a fg sideshow police action and the toll was 50K+ US dead alone.
Not sure.
http://dailycaller.com/2016/12/15/judge-napolitano-drops-a-bomb-u-s-intelligence-was-behind-hacks-not-russia/#ixzz4SvtlMIgB
Well, yes. And a good example of why I wish we'd stop referring to retired judges as "judge."
Hey, as long as the world knows that the other guy started the war over something minor and preventable, then all the lost lives will be worth it.
He's probably just jealous that all his other nutjob Fox friends are getting cushy government positions and wants one himself.
- Note, this is a RT by the South Carolina Trump campaign feed, Trump himself deleted this.
It's almost as annoying as calling a chef "chef." It's like dude, you cook food. It isn't that hard. Yes Chef! No Chef! Just sounds like somebody begging for validation.
Hmmm...one's an act of aggression started by a foreign power to hurt the US...the other was caused by us. Otherwise...perfect analogy.
His tweets read like a nine year old got the keys to a telegraph office, and decided to insult his cousin across country.
It's a false equivalency first of all. He said it must be challenging keeping up with Trump's constant position shifts, which you changed to foreign government influence. Secondly, Hillary? She has nothing to do with what the poster said. It's all Trump's show now. Kicking her around still, that's an irrelevant crutch.
Because we don't have an agreement, backed by decades of consistent U.S. foreign policy to let Russia hack our political organizations and release illegally obtained information?
Yes, yes, yes. But all I was seeing above was how we should be petrified of doing anything that might provoke a war with major power.
I have to disagree with you here GB, of all the things Trump has done post election I'm most behind his efforts to adjust our relationship with China. They have walked all over us for years and our approach with them has been horrible.
Probably. This thread moves pretty fast. But I was just talking about the responses to jonessed's "that's on them" post, which mostly seem to be variants of "But war with China would be bad."
And the same media outlets said China wasn't afraid to "fight a war" with us when we ran naval ships through their faux island fortresses.
There was quite a bit of discussion days ago on the Taiwan call in this thread, and the foreign policy implications of the call itself - the background, why it's bad, etc. War with China would almost certainly not be because China decided to bomb the United States. Rather, it would be because the Chinese invade Taiwan to remind it of its place and we defend Taiwan, on Taiwanese and Chinese soil, because of our existing relationship with Taiwan. If the Chinese attack Taiwan, and we intervene, war is not "on them." It's at least in part on us, at least in part on Taiwan, and in part on China.
I think maybe you missed the joke here. It's about the logic of "if China wants to start a war it's on them," not so much about the underlying policy. The opening to parody that logic was just too to pass up.
What military action do you think Russia will take in retaliation for the hacking allegations that is as likely as China invading Taiwan?
