Forum Settings
       
1 2 Next »
Reply To Thread

The Room Where it HappenedFollow

#27 Jul 30 2020 at 6:47 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,478 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
An incredibly minor infraction of a minor law. By the OMB, not Trump, nor anyone in the White House. I'm just making sure we're in agreement that this violation of the law in no way reflects on Trump, nor should be given any weight with regards to whether he should have been impeached. Right? We agree on that now, right?


The decision to freeze the aid was directed by the president himself
Seems reflective to me. So, we now agree. The law was broken by the direct decision of the president.


Um. No. I already explained this. The law was violated because the reason the OMB stated for the hold was not an allowable reason. But that was *not* the reason the White House gave for the hold. We're literally talking about some paper pusher at a desk in the OMB writing the wrong thing on a piece of paper here. You're making a mountain out of a molehill and then trying to attach it to someone who wasn't even involved in it except peripherally.

Quote:
Nice try. I was careful with my words. I said *vision* for that exact reason. Presidents typically nominate people within their own party. That doesn't translate into "yes" men because each party has their own factions, but they typically share the same vision.


People can share the same broad vision, but have different specific ways of going about it. Both Trump and Bolton believe in strong foreign policy positions, which is in contrast to the Dems who largely want to hand concessions to foreign parties in the hopes that they'll be nice to us back. They are within the same range of that scale. The differences between Trump and Bolton in terms of use of military force as a tool for foreign policy are not as far apart as you might assume. They differed on a few details in terms of appropriate force. Trump didn't have issues with ordering the missile strike on the base in Syria, with the chemical weapons on it, despite there being Russian soldiers on said base. He didn't have a problem ordering the strike that took out that Iranian General who'd been coordinating attacks on US soldiers and allies in Iraq. He drew the line at launching a strike that would kill 100-200 people just for a shot down drone.

Quote:
Hiring Bolton and expecting him not to do what he did would be like hiring DeVois and expecting her to support public education over private education. If his philosophy is "war, war, war, war", then you pick someone else.


Again, the issue with Bolton wasn't so much his specific opinions, but that he was unwilling to allow the president to override him, on a couple occasions trying to force Trump's hand by just kinda ignoring him, doing what he thought was right, and then once it was done, assuming Trump would just have to go along. I think we can both agree that Trump is not someone who like being manipulated like that. Which is not something as simple as "Bolton likes to go for the military option first". Trump knew that, but believed that Bolton would not try to do end-arounds on him. That's what got Bolton fired.

Quote:
Gbaji wrote:
Bolton's dog and pony contribution might have increased books sales
I guess authors, musicians and actors have been doing it wrong all of these years. They should release their material first, then *more* people will buy it once they read it, heard it or saw it?!?!?!


You've never heard of advertising? No one who's been involved in a high profile case has ever written a book about it, right?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#28 Jul 30 2020 at 7:42 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,227 posts
Gbaji wrote:
You're making a mountain out of a molehill and then trying to attach it to someone who wasn't even involved in it except peripherally.

Not at all, but hey, you should tell that to the the nonpartisan group that made the claim. White collar crime is nothing but paper pushing.

Gbaji wrote:
Both Trump and Bolton believe in strong foreign policy positions,
Smiley: lol Is that why he pulled troops out of Germany, Afghanistan, believed Putin over U.S. intelligence, and invited the Taliban to Camp David? Really? President Trump is more liberal on foreign policy than Sec. Clinton.

Gbaji wrote:
That's what got Bolton fired.
Again, 4th National Security Advisor within 4 years, excluding acting NSAs.

Gbaji wrote:
You've never heard of advertising? No one who's been involved in a high profile case has ever written a book about it, right?
Have you ever heard of "spoilers"? You know the stuff that actors have to sign in their NDA?

Him talking with his free will *is* his advertising. Once he is forced to talk, then he has no other choice but to provide spoilers. That's no longer advertising.
#29 Jul 31 2020 at 12:19 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,478 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
You're making a mountain out of a molehill and then trying to attach it to someone who wasn't even involved in it except peripherally.

Not at all, but hey, you should tell that to the the nonpartisan group that made the claim. White collar crime is nothing but paper pushing.


Um. Except that the actual non-partisan group only said that the OMB violated the law when they filled out the forms for extensions. You were the one who extrapolated that into "Trump" violating the law via the hold on the aid package. I quite specifically said that Trump's action was not illegal and you responded with the link to the article. The very article that made it clear that it was the OMB who violated the law, that it was their wording when asked for explanation that was not valid, and that this was not the same wording used by the White House when asked (which was a valid reason and therefore *not* in violation of the law.

It's almost like you just read the headline and didn't bother to read the actual article you linked. Oh wait. No. It's exactly like that.

Quote:
Gbaji wrote:
Both Trump and Bolton believe in strong foreign policy positions,
Smiley: lol Is that why he pulled troops out of Germany, Afghanistan, believed Putin over U.S. intelligence, and invited the Taliban to Camp David? Really? President Trump is more liberal on foreign policy than Sec. Clinton.


Strong foreign policy does not mean "blow everything up". It means that you are willing to use force or more importantly the threat of force to gain policy advantages in negotiations. Trump has absolutely shown a willingness to follow through on threats he's made and launch strikes when he believes they are appropriate and necessary. But as with all things Trump, this is part of a negotiation. He show's he's willing to do something like that, and then he can negotiate with that in his back pocket.

Strong foreign policy is also about creating red lines and then not allowing them to be crossed. Which Trump has also done. In stark contrast to Obama who would say "don't do this, or we'll respond", only to do nothing when the other guy did what he told them not to do. Trump set firm requirements for the Taliban and other fighters in Affghanistan for withdrawal. When they didn't meet them, he didn't withdraw and instead upped operations. They just now finally meet his requirements, so they're moving forward. That's strong policy. Again, contrasted to Obama who just kept an arbitrary date from the previous administration which was always intended to be extended, ignored conditions on the ground, and just used that as an excuse to leave Iraq. Which promptly lead to them being overrun by IS forces and we had to go back in and help them re-take their country.

See. That's strong policy vs weak policy. Obama had incredibly weak foreign policy. He allowed the US to be pushed around because he gave every sign that no matter what they did to us, he would just let it happen. Trump obviously does not agree with Bolton on every specific decision, but that does not remotely make his foreign policy "weak".

Quote:
[
Gbaji wrote:
That's what got Bolton fired.
Again, 4th National Security Advisor within 4 years, excluding acting NSAs.


And? What's your point?

Quote:
Gbaji wrote:
You've never heard of advertising? No one who's been involved in a high profile case has ever written a book about it, right?
Have you ever heard of "spoilers"? You know the stuff that actors have to sign in their NDA?

Him talking with his free will *is* his advertising. Once he is forced to talk, then he has no other choice but to provide spoilers. That's no longer advertising.


That's only true if he actually had anything substantive to say. If all he's got is disagreements on policy and innuendo, then it doesn't matter either way. Again, you are proceeding as though Bolton had "the goods" on Trump, but chose not to use it in testimony during the impeachment trial, but instead to write it in his book to make money off of it. But given that the book has been out for plenty of time now for any such "goods" to have been released, and no one's actually pointed to anything in said book that qualifies, then we can conclude that he never had any such "goods" in the first place.

Which means there was nothing to testify about. Just salacious stuff that might make for good bash fodder, but nothing else. Which is exactly what I've been saying all along. And yes, in that case, if all there is is fluff, then the fluff we would have gotten in his testimony is just fine for whetting the appetite for the "more fluff that wasn't said" stuff in his book.

At the end of the day none of this matters. It's just interesting to me that you seem to think it does.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#30 Jul 31 2020 at 7:52 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,227 posts
Gbaji wrote:
Um. Except that the actual non-partisan group only said that the OMB violated the law when they filled out the forms for extensions.
At the direction of the president. You were acting like it was absurd to question the person that directed the crime. If I only read the headline, I wouldn't have been able to provide you the part that you are ignoring.

Gbaji wrote:
Strong foreign policy does not mean "blow everything up". It means that you are willing to use force or more importantly the threat of force to gain policy advantages in negotiations.

Smiley: lolSmiley: lolSmiley: lol Funny how everyone's opinion on foreign policy just magically changes.

Gbaji wrote:
And? What's your point?
If a position (normally held for four years) is filled with four different people less than four years, then the problem is most likely not with the people being replaced........

Gbaji wrote:
That's only true if he actually had anything substantive to say.
Literally the entire point. There is no benefit for him to testify!!! It would only benefit the White House if they *knew* he didn't have anything damaging. In that sense, it would make the most sense to have him speak. So, either they knew he had something or didn't want to take the chance that he had something, which implies that there is something to be had.

The "goods" were released before the book came out. The difference is that he is not legally bound for strictly telling the truth in a book or interview. Him saying the same thing in the trial has an entirely different meaning. He could go to jail.
#31 Aug 01 2020 at 7:36 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
If a position (normally held for four years) is filled with four different people less than four years, then the problem is most likely not with the people being replaced........

Trump only hires the best people! He's a business genius so he always knows the greatest people to hire!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#32 Aug 04 2020 at 9:36 AM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,839 posts
gbaji wrote:
Strong foreign policy is also about creating red lines and then not allowing them to be crossed. Which Trump has also done. In stark contrast to Obama who would say "don't do this, or we'll respond", only to do nothing when the other guy did what he told them not to do.
In contrast to the "Obama is drone striking the whole Middle East!! OMG!!!


Pick one.
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#33 Aug 04 2020 at 10:56 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Yeah, the stark red lines that totally stopped North Korea's missile program. Or Iran's nuclear program. Or Russia's expansion into the Middle East by way of Syria. Or stopped aggression by the Taliban in Afghanistan. Or... wait, does Trump have any foreign policy victories at all? I mean, I guess there was the time Trump got China to increase US soy imports by 3.5m tonnes... after making it drop by 7m tonnes. That's kind of a victory, right?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#34 Aug 04 2020 at 11:52 AM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,839 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Yeah, the stark red lines that totally stopped North Korea's missile program. Or Iran's nuclear program. Or Russia's expansion into the Middle East by way of Syria. Or stopped aggression by the Taliban in Afghanistan. Or... wait, does Trump have any foreign policy victories at all? I mean, I guess there was the time Trump got China to increase US soy imports by 3.5m tonnes... after making it drop by 7m tonnes. That's kind of a victory, right?
"I broke something, then kinda fixed it. VICTORY!!!"
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

1 2 Next »
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 11 All times are in CST
Kuwoobie, Anonymous Guests (10)