U.S. Politics

[Xela]

5 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

And people say he's a racist. He lent a plane to a black guy. He was right all along, Trump loves "the blacks".

Some of his best friends are black 

[Davkaus]

Well, if it's good enough for the president...

 

http://deadstate.org/i-no-longer-have-to-be-politically-correct-gop-politician-arrested-after-grabbing-a-woman-in-her-genital-area/

Quote

‘I no longer have to be politically correct’: GOP politician arrested after grabbing a woman in her genital area

A Connecticut Republican politician has been arrested for allegedly grabbing a female in the groin area without her consent.

A local Connecticut Republican politician has been arrested for allegedly grabbing a female in the groin area without her consent.

According to the Wesport Daily Voice, Greenwich Representative Town Meeting board member Christopher von Keyserling was charged with fourth-degree sexual assault and was released on $2,500 bond. He’s due to appear in court on January 25.

In December of 2016, Keyserling engaged in a “political argument” with a woman and allegedly declared, “I love this new world. I no longer have to be politically correct.” As the woman turned to walk away, Keyserling reportedly reach from behind and placed his hand between her legs and pinched on or near her genital area.

From the Daily Voice:

She told him that if he was “proud of that I can’t help you,” after which he called her a lazy, bloodsucking union employee, the warrant said.

She uttered “(expletive deleted) you” and walked into her office, the warrant said. She said he followed her into the office and said he wanted to talk with her co-worker, the warrant said.

When that co-worker walked in, she said she didn’t have time to speak with him and left the office, the warrant said. The 57-year-old woman decided to leave with her co-worker because she didn’t want to be alone with him, the warrant said.

According to the woman, he said, “It would be your word against mine and nobody will believe you.” She added that he had “an evil look in his eyes.”

Keyserling’s lawyer defended his actions as being a simple “jocular” moment with the woman.

 

“In almost 30 years of practicing law in this town, I would say Mr. von Keyserling is the one person I would never suspect of having any inappropriate sexual predilections,” lawyer Phil Russell said to the Greenwich Time. “There was a playful gesture, in front of witnesses. It was too trivial to be considered anything of significance. To call it a sexual assault is not based in reality.”

After reviewing a surveillance video of the incident, police determined that its contents were consistent with the woman’s claims.

 

[TheAuthority]

1 hour ago, villakram said:

That's not anti-EU. He is simply pointing out what the EU factually is on the geo-political stage. European countries on their own carry zero weight but by joining together they have a heft in people&dollar terms the equal of all and hence they are a competitor of the US and China. That the EU is now dominated by Germany is simply 20:20 vision. Now saying that the EU is dead is simply a political point of view, which many have, though there is plenty of room to construct a viable counter narrative. 

Anti Nato: The members of NATO need to pay their fair share and it has become antiquated and strictly speaking could well and maybe should have been disbanded post USSR. They protest in public but behind closed doors they celebrate as NATO has been searching for a nail like crazy since the end of the USSR. In case you haven't been paying attention, turrurururururism is the never-ending nail and now NATO get to play that game too. Yup, sounds anti-NATO to me.

A quid-pro quo involving a reduction in global nuclear arms in exchange for removing sanctions placed on Russia due to their wholly logical response to a US geo-political screw up par excellence! That sounds like a win to me.

 

You seem very pro-Russian.

Quote

European countries on their own carry zero weight but by joining together they have a heft in people&dollar terms the equal of all and hence they are a competitor of the US and China.

Yes, that's one of the reasons for the EU. Why is that bad? You're of course aware that Putin wants the EU broken up.

Quote

Anti Nato: The members of NATO need to pay their fair share

Why?

Quote

In case you haven't been paying attention, turrurururururism is the never-ending nail and now NATO get to play that game too. Yup, sounds anti-NATO to me.

I can't work out what you're trying to say in the 2nd part of your paragraph about NATO & I've tried to read it several times.

Quote

A quid-pro quo involving a reduction in global nuclear arms in exchange for removing sanctions placed on Russia due to their wholly logical response to a US geo-political screw up par excellence! That sounds like a win to me.

Reduction in Nuclear Arms hasn't been an issue for years and is a complete straw man. The reasons there are currently sanctions against Russia are because of it's engagement in far more serious and dangerous warfare against the US.
That of course is "The Cyber" TM your man (& Putins) D. Trump.

I know how difficult, expensive & complex it is to maintain the (relatively) tiny nuclear arms that the US still has. I would imagine if Russia tried to fire any of theirs at anyone then at least 50% would either blow up on the ground or just be non-responsive. No-one in Russia is going to risk trying to fire their nuclear arsenal anytime soon because they simply haven't maintained it.

VK I know you like the Intercept and Greenwald is entertaining but also he'e pretty evasive as to what his actual agenda is. Especially considering he's so outspoken against Western Democracy. I'm honestly trying to figure out where you are coming from with most of this stuff. 

I have asked you before and you didn't answer, but are you paid by any entity to post pro-Russian propaganda online? Either on VT or anywhere else?

 

Edited January 16, 2017 by TheAuthority
Formatting

[Awol]

 

@TheAuthority Just on the nuclear point I'm afraid your info is a bit off.

Russia has about 7000 nuclear weapons, the US a few hundred less. Between them they account for over 90% of the global stock of nuclear weapons. 

Both countries are investing hugely in upgrading their nuclear arsenals and delivery systems, while the Russians have also changed their doctrine to fully integrate tactical nuclear weapons (as opposed to city killing ICBMs) into their regular war fighting plans. That means the Kremlin views nuclear as a legitimate tool of conventional war, a very scary prospect.

I'm not 100% sure but I think Russia has also moved tactical nukes back into Kaliningrad along with new highly capable ballistic missiles like the Iskander. 

In short nukes are very much back as a thing and reducing stockpiles is a very important goal. 

On NATO the alliance commitment for each country to spend a minimum of 2% of GDP is important because it is basically subs for club membership. Only 5 members currently meet that, including the US by a comfortable margin and the UK through some creative accounting.

The unwillingness of most members to pay what they should has been a major US gripe for two decades, Trump has simply called out the European members and asked why the US is subsidizing their common defence - a very fair question. 

[HanoiVillan]

1 hour ago, Awol said:

The unwillingness of most members to pay what they should has been a major US gripe for two decades, Trump has simply called out the European members and asked why the US is subsidizing their common defence - a very fair question. 

It is indeed a fair question, though I think it hasn't really been much of a gripe . . . The US has just kept fronting up the cheques. It seems to me that it's only really Trump who has openly and repeatedly questioned why other members don't meet their commitments. 

Edited January 17, 2017 by HanoiVillan

[tonyh29]

8 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

It is indeed a fair question, though I think it hasn't really been much of a gripe . . . The US has just kept fronting up the cheques. It seems to me that it's only really Trump who has openly and repeatedly questioned why other members don't meet their commitments. 

To quote Obama

 “We need to stay nimble, and make sure our forces are interoperable, and invest in new capabilities like cyber defense and missile defense. And that’s why every NATO member should be contributing its full share — 2 percent of GDP — toward our common security, something that doesn’t always happen. And I’ll be honest, sometimes Europe has been complacent about its own defense.”

[HanoiVillan]

1 minute ago, tonyh29 said:

To quote Obama

 

 

And how much pressure did he apply? 

As close to zilch as possible. 

[tonyh29]

Just now, HanoiVillan said:

And how much pressure did he apply? 

As close to zilch as possible. 

That wasn't what you said though

 

14 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

It is indeed a fair question, though I think it hasn't really been much of a gripe . . . The US has just kept fronting up the cheques. It seems to me that it's only really Trump who has openly and repeatedly questioned why other members don't meet their commitments.

 

[HanoiVillan]

1 minute ago, tonyh29 said:

That wasn't what you said though

 

 

Well, to be fair, you haven't proven 'repeatedly' have you. 

EDIT: I actually can't be arsed to argue about it. My point is, Trump is making much more of a fuss about the 2% figure than people have done before. If you don't agree, fair do's, I'm not looking to spend all night googling. 

Edited January 17, 2017 by HanoiVillan

[tonyh29]

22 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Well, to be fair, you haven't proven 'repeatedly' have you. 

EDIT: I actually can't be arsed to argue about it. My point is, Trump is making much more of a fuss about the 2% figure than people have done before. If you don't agree, fair do's, I'm not looking to spend all night googling.

But it appears you want me to

The article I did quote refers to Obama has been saying it for years , fair enough I can see it's not worth pursuing so you probably won't be interested to know that Hilary Clinton and Bernie Sanders both also made similar comments about NATO and countries not paying their way , as did George Bush in 2006 ...  

there are lots of things to beat Trump over but it seems comments on  NATO spending and relocating car plants aren't two of them

 

 

 

Edited January 17, 2017 by tonyh29

[snowychap]

23 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

there are lots of things to beat Trump over but it seems comments on  NATO spending and relocating car plants aren't two of them

[snowychap]

To present US/NATO/The west versus Putin's Russia as some sort of silly cold war politics is both stupid and grim.

Edited January 17, 2017 by snowychap

[villakram]

6 hours ago, TheAuthority said:

You seem very pro-Russian.

Yes, that's one of the reasons for the EU. Why is that bad? You're of course aware that Putin wants the EU broken up.

Why?

I can't work out what you're trying to say in the 2nd part of your paragraph about NATO & I've tried to read it several times.

Reduction in Nuclear Arms hasn't been an issue for years and is a complete straw man. The reasons there are currently sanctions against Russia are because of it's engagement in far more serious and dangerous warfare against the US.
That of course is "The Cyber" TM your man (& Putins) D. Trump.

I know how difficult, expensive & complex it is to maintain the (relatively) tiny nuclear arms that the US still has. I would imagine if Russia tried to fire any of theirs at anyone then at least 50% would either blow up on the ground or just be non-responsive. No-one in Russia is going to risk trying to fire their nuclear arsenal anytime soon because they simply haven't maintained it.

VK I know you like the Intercept and Greenwald is entertaining but also he'e pretty evasive as to what his actual agenda is. Especially considering he's so outspoken against Western Democracy. I'm honestly trying to figure out where you are coming from with most of this stuff. 

I have asked you before and you didn't answer, but are you paid by any entity to post pro-Russian propaganda online? Either on VT or anywhere else?

 

Being aware of both sides of the geo-political agenda is pro-Russian. OK.

Glen Greenwald is anti-democracy. OK.

I am a paid Russian activist. OK

That you are unaware of the existential crisis NATO has been in for the past 25 years is one thing. Please pay some attention to what has actually happened, e.g., Yugoslavia, Afghanistan etc. They are dying for some reason to still exist. Have you paid any attention to their glee at the prospect of a re-surgent Russia in the past few years? Yes, those same people are aghast at Trump coming along and pulling this from their grasp. But there are those who see the prospect of NATO as an anti-terrorist organization as an amazing life prolonging opportunity for that organization. Think of the color revolutions and various terrorist uprisings that would require their intervention, for democracy of course. And finally allowing them to move outside their classical theatre of operations on a more formal footing the the adhoc nature of the Afghan adventure.

Please read the knowledgable comment by Awol above. Tactical nukes are in play now. This is a very bad development. Additionally the Russians are developing super sonic multi-entry warheads that will be able to defeat the proposed missile shield of the US. A device designed to allow US first strike capability. Nuclear weapons will also be deployed in orbit, if this has not happened on a clandestine basis already. All of these are very very bad things and Obama was and is a disgrace in this regard vs his rhetoric.

Finally. Are you a Paedophile?

Edited January 17, 2017 by villakram
The question carries a deeper message. Educate thyself.

[OutByEaster?]

8 hours ago, Awol said:

On NATO the alliance commitment for each country to spend a minimum of 2% of GDP is important because it is basically subs for club membership. Only 5 members currently meet that, including the US by a comfortable margin and the UK through some creative accounting.

The unwillingness of most members to pay what they should has been a major US gripe for two decades, Trump has simply called out the European members and asked why the US is subsidizing their common defence - a very fair question. 

It's similar in a way to asking Mexicans to pay for their own wall. This is the US insisting that other nations help foot the bill to further US interests and to spend more money with those lovely folks in the US defence industry that keep lobbying them to get to other countries to spend more money on planes and bombs. It's the US pointing at the smaller kids in the playground and saying "You boy, dinner money!".

 

[Keyblade]

11 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

Late last night I was channel hopping and stumbled across an episode of some American Celebrity Apprentice thing, with Trump.

One of the contestants was a really tall black guy with lip rings and a nose ring thing (maybe called Denis?). Anyway, in the chit chat it became apparent that for some reason Trump had let the guy use or borrow his jet. The conversation went something along the lines of:

Trump: So hey yeah, so I let you use the jet. What you think?

'Dennis': Yeah, it was good. 

Trump: Yeah you can get anything you want with a plane like that, yes?

Dennis: Yeah, ha ha.

Trump: Yeah, you know what I mean. Anything you want. He knows.

 

I'm beginning to think this Trump character might be a wrong 'un.

Man, what were you doing in the 90's that you don't recognize Dennis Rodman?

[HanoiVillan]

6 hours ago, tonyh29 said:

But it appears you want me to

The article I did quote refers to Obama has been saying it for years , fair enough I can see it's not worth pursuing so you probably won't be interested to know that Hilary Clinton and Bernie Sanders both also made similar comments about NATO and countries not paying their way , as did George Bush in 2006 ...  

there are lots of things to beat Trump over but it seems comments on  NATO spending and relocating car plants aren't two of them

 

 

 

I actually don't mind if you do or don't!

I wasn't trying to criticise Trump over the issue either, it was meant as an observation, not a criticism. 

EDIT: This is the sort of thing I was referring to:

Donald Trump reiterates he will only help Nato countries that pay 'fair share'

“I want to keep Nato, but I want them to pay,” Trump told a rally in Scranton, Pennsylvania. “I don’t want to be taken advantage of … We’re protecting countries that most of the people in this room have never even heard of and we end up in world war three … Give me a break.

“Now if they live up to their obligations, as they should … and by the way if they do that, they’ll have more spirit in a certain way. But they have to pay.”

[...]

“People aren’t paying their fair share,” he said. “And then the stupid people, they say: ‘But we have a treaty.’ They say: ‘What would happen if Russia or somebody attacks?’ I said: ‘I don’t know; have they paid?’ … ‘Well, they haven’t paid, but we have a treaty.’

“I said: ‘Yeah, they have a treaty too – they have to pay.’ We’re gonna end up in world war three protecting people and these people can pay,” he added.

He added: “They will pay if asked by the right person … Hillary Clinton said: ‘We will protect our allies at all cost.’ Well how the hell can you get money if you’re gonna say that? Now we need money. We have massive, massive deficits.” His comments seemed to suggest he believed that if all Nato countries met their defense commitments this would directly save the US money.'

I don't think that can be glossed as just a continuation of Bush / Obama etc mainstream foreign policy thinking on the subject. But I probably didn't word my initial comment clearly enough. 

Edited January 17, 2017 by HanoiVillan

[StefanAVFC]

if it was just anti nato comments in isolation, an eyelid would not be batted.

but his comments echo those of the Kremlin, and with the Hacking, this dossier on Trump and his willingness to criticise anyone and everyone aside from Putin is all adding up.

[tonyh29]

57 minutes ago, Keyblade said:

Man, what were you doing in the 90's that you don't recognize Dennis Rodman?

He's from Wales , they haven't reached the 90's yet

 

[NurembergVillan]

[Awol]

1 hour ago, OutByEaster? said:

It's similar in a way to asking Mexicans to pay for their own wall. This is the US insisting that other nations help foot the bill to further US interests and to spend more money with those lovely folks in the US defence industry that keep lobbying them to get to other countries to spend more money on planes and bombs. It's the US pointing at the smaller kids in the playground and saying "You boy, dinner money!".

 

The reason post Cold War Europe has managed to afford shiny welfare state's while not taking defence seriously is the absolute US commitment to NATO and the costs that entailed to the US taxpayer.

2% was set as the absolute minimum commitment at a time when the US routinely spent 4-5% of GDP on defence to keep NATO credible. Germany for example has allowed its armed forces to become a hollowed out shell with glacial readiness levels that make them near useless for peer to peer war fighting.

Since '91 all of NATO Europe (including the UK and France but not as severely) have collectively run down our military capabilities, in the bizarrely conceited belief that we'd conquered history and didn't do that sort of thing anymore.

As ever the enemy gets a vote and we've determinedly ignored Russia's re-militarization and modernization under Putin, even after making his position clear by invading Georgia in 2007. 

Concurrently the EU has run an expansionist policy in Russia's traditional backyard of the Balkans, and recently on their doorstep in the Ukraine. 

The myopic hubris of failing to align ends, ways and means has left NATO and the EU facing a resurgent Russia that could overrun the Baltics and beyond if it chose to, before stopping and threatening nuclear retaliation should NATO attempt to reverse the situation. The posh name is 'escalation dominance', the reality is more like Bambi being given a massive wedgie by a hairy arsed bear. 

Trump is pointing out that the emperor has no clothes, trying to achieve by implied threat what Washington has failed to achieve by years of persuasion and shaming. Good for him, it needed to be said, even if it ruffles some very precious European feathers. 

Edited January 17, 2017 by Awol