(04-30-2018 08:04 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(04-30-2018 06:31 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  And to make an analogy, if I want to avoid a fight with someone, and they're acting aggressively towards me, I'm more likely to insight a fight by responding with force than by being passive and trying to calm the situation down.

There are tens of millions of Austrians, Czechs, Poles, Dutch, Belgians, French and others who would disagree.

I don’t mean to suggest this works every time - as I said “more likely” and not “absolutely.”

To counter, who would have preferred that we attacked Russia during the Cuban missle crisis? Or at any point in the Cold War?

It’s almost as if there are benefits to being aggressive in some situations and more diplomatic in others...

(04-30-2018 09:57 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-30-2018 08:04 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(04-30-2018 06:31 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  And to make an analogy, if I want to avoid a fight with someone, and they're acting aggressively towards me, I'm more likely to insight a fight by responding with force than by being passive and trying to calm the situation down.

There are tens of millions of Austrians, Czechs, Poles, Dutch, Belgians, French and others who would disagree.

I don’t mean to suggest this works every time - as I said “more likely” and not “absolutely.”

To counter, who would have preferred that we attacked Russia during the Cuban missle crisis? Or at any point in the Cold War?

It’s almost as if there are benefits to being aggressive in some situations and more diplomatic in others...

Say what? Kennedy's posture during the Cuban missile crisis was much more aggressive than Trump's over Korea. Kennedy delivered an ultimatum and deployed the Navy. Trump is going to negotiate.

(05-01-2018 08:10 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(04-30-2018 09:57 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-30-2018 08:04 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(04-30-2018 06:31 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  And to make an analogy, if I want to avoid a fight with someone, and they're acting aggressively towards me, I'm more likely to insight a fight by responding with force than by being passive and trying to calm the situation down.

There are tens of millions of Austrians, Czechs, Poles, Dutch, Belgians, French and others who would disagree.

I don’t mean to suggest this works every time - as I said “more likely” and not “absolutely.”

To counter, who would have preferred that we attacked Russia during the Cuban missle crisis? Or at any point in the Cold War?

It’s almost as if there are benefits to being aggressive in some situations and more diplomatic in others...

Say what? Kennedy's posture during the Cuban missile crisis was much more aggressive than Trump's over Korea. Kennedy delivered an ultimatum and deployed the Navy. Trump is going to negotiate.

Did I compare Kennedy to Trump?

I was responding to George's reply to my analogy about the use of force to end a problem, when (I assume) George alluded to WWII and the capitulation by Neville Chamberlain and how that was shown to be the incorrect course.

I was providing evidence that the use of force is not always the right answer, as had Kennedy or the Soviets used a weapon during that period of time, the results would have been catastrophic. In the end, each situation is different and there are times for using force and times for not.

But if you want to compare it to Trump, it's a similar situation in which both leaders wanted to present a show of force and act from a place of strength. That very much aligns with Trump's vision of the business and geopolitical world. And Trump is trying to use that as leverage in his negotiations. He often uses his Twitter soapbox to project that strength, and often does it in a manner that is abnormal for other politicians (and just like my use of bellicose, this is an observation, not necessarily a criticism).

(04-30-2018 06:31 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  And to make an analogy, if I want to avoid a fight with someone, and they're acting aggressively towards me, I'm more likely to insight a fight by responding with force than by being passive and trying to calm the situation down.

If the objective is to avoid a fight at any and all costs, then perhaps you are right, although history has not been kind to appeasers. Remember Neville Chamberlain, for one.

But what it the objective is not to avoid a fight at all costs? What if the objective is to achieve some result (de-nuclearizing North Korea, for example) through good faith negotiation? Then perhaps letting the other side know that their BATNA (best alternative to a negotiated settlement) sucks is one way to get them to negotiate in good faith.

We can always avoid a fight by giving in to the other side's demands (for example, the Iran deal). But that is not always the best result (see Sudetenland).

(04-30-2018 06:31 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  And to make an analogy, if I want to avoid a fight with someone, and they're acting aggressively towards me, I'm more likely to insight a fight by responding with force than by being passive and trying to calm the situation down.

If the objective is to avoid a fight at any and all costs, then perhaps you are right, although history has not been kind to appeasers. Remember Neville Chamberlain, for one.

But what it the objective is not to avoid a fight at all costs? What if the objective is to achieve some result (de-nuclearizing North Korea, for example) through good faith negotiation? Then perhaps letting the other side know that their BATNA (best alternative to a negotiated settlement) sucks is one way to get them to negotiate in good faith.

We can always avoid a fight by giving in to the other side's demands (for example, the Iran deal). But that is not always the best result (see Sudetenland).

(04-30-2018 06:31 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  And to make an analogy, if I want to avoid a fight with someone, and they're acting aggressively towards me, I'm more likely to insight a fight by responding with force than by being passive and trying to calm the situation down.

If the objective is to avoid a fight at any and all costs, then perhaps you are right, although history has not been kind to appeasers. Remember Neville Chamberlain, for one.

But what it the objective is not to avoid a fight at all costs? What if the objective is to achieve some result (de-nuclearizing North Korea, for example) through good faith negotiation? Then perhaps letting the other side know that their BATNA (best alternative to a negotiated agreement) sucks is one way to get them to negotiate in good faith.

We can always avoid a fight by giving in to the other side's demands (for example, the Iran deal). But that is not always the best result (see Sudetenland).

(05-01-2018 08:36 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Did I compare Kennedy to Trump?

No, I did, since you brought up Kennedy. You were contrasting him to Trump.

Quote:I was providing evidence that the use of force is not always the right answer, as had Kennedy or the Soviets used a weapon during that period of time, the results would have been catastrophic. In the end, each situation is different and there are times for using force and times for not.

Exactly. And if Trump had used force in Korea, you'd have a valid point.

Quote:But if you want to compare it to Trump, it's a similar situation in which both leaders wanted to present a show of force and act from a place of strength. That very much aligns with Trump's vision of the business and geopolitical world. And Trump is trying to use that as leverage in his negotiations. He often uses his Twitter soapbox to project that strength, and often does it in a manner that is abnormal for other politicians (and just like my use of bellicose, this is an observation, not necessarily a criticism).

Ok, so what's your objection?

(05-01-2018 08:48 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(05-01-2018 08:36 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Did I compare Kennedy to Trump?

No, I did, since you brought up Kennedy. You were contrasting him to Trump.

Quote:I was providing evidence that the use of force is not always the right answer, as had Kennedy or the Soviets used a weapon during that period of time, the results would have been catastrophic. In the end, each situation is different and there are times for using force and times for not.

Exactly. And if Trump had used force in Korea, you'd have a valid point.

Quote:But if you want to compare it to Trump, it's a similar situation in which both leaders wanted to present a show of force and act from a place of strength. That very much aligns with Trump's vision of the business and geopolitical world. And Trump is trying to use that as leverage in his negotiations. He often uses his Twitter soapbox to project that strength, and often does it in a manner that is abnormal for other politicians (and just like my use of bellicose, this is an observation, not necessarily a criticism).

Ok, so what's your objection?

Have you not been reading my posts? Or do you think someone is incapable of being able to disagree with the methods someone uses to achieve results, but still appreciate that those methods got said result?

It's as if you think I can only view Trump through a lens of him being wrong 100% of the time. I've repeatedly stated that, should tangible change come from these meetings, Trump will deserve credit for helping garner that change. And that will likely be due, at least partly, to his completely different approach to foreign policy that is more bombastic and bellicose than his predecessors.

This all started because the conservatives on this board were putting forth a rather silly notion that liberals won't give credit to Trump for real foreign policy gains with North Korea if they happen. I pushed back on that because both I, the liberals I talk to, and the news I read, appear to indicate that many liberals are already getting ahead of that assertion, and basically stating the opposite - that Trump, despite using methods/tones/posturing they disagree with, appears to have started to affect change.

(04-30-2018 05:00 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  It's a pretty good analysis that a new approach that many others shied away from because of the potential risks (actually starting a nuclear war), seems to be working.

He gets it.

Good for him. He usually is the most honest liberal around.

We have a new sheriff in town and both Lad and Kim know it.

Whether you call it saber rattling or bellicose is immaterial. The best way to stop a bully is to stand up to him. THAT is the new approach.

His only problem is thinking the NYT is a bastion of journalism, only seeking the truth. They are not, they are opinion shapers, and the opinions they want people to have is that Trump is bad, evil, dangerous, whatever, but he should be gone.

Why would Comey choose the NYT for his leaks? Any old journalist would have done.

This is why Trump won. Americans were tired of "business as usual", not only economically, but in foreign affairs. Hillary was the "business as usual" candidate, the heir to Obama. What changes did she promise?

High level politicians in the Democratic party are quaking in their boots now. What if Trump actually accomplishes something before they can lever him out of office or tarnish his image to the point he is a wounded goose? They don't care about peace in Korea or the economic welfare of Americans. They care about winning seats in Congress in 2018 and the White House in 2020. Period.

(05-01-2018 09:39 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-30-2018 05:00 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  It's a pretty good analysis that a new approach that many others shied away from because of the potential risks (actually starting a nuclear war), seems to be working.

He gets it.

Good for him. He usually is the most honest liberal around.

We have a new sheriff in town and both Lad and Kim know it.

Whether you call it saber rattling or bellicose is immaterial. The best way to stop a bully is to stand up to him. THAT is the new approach.

His only problem is thinking the NYT is a bastion of journalism, only seeking the truth. They are not, they are opinion shapers, and the opinions they want people to have is that Trump is bad, evil, dangerous, whatever, but he should be gone.

Why would Comey choose the NYT for his leaks? Any old journalist would have done.

This is why Trump won. Americans were tired of "business as usual", not only economically, but in foreign affairs. Hillary was the "business as usual" candidate, the heir to Obama. What changes did she promise?

High level politicians in the Democratic party are quaking in their boots now. What if Trump actually accomplishes something before they can lever him out of office or tarnish his image to the point he is a wounded goose? They don't care about peace in Korea or the economic welfare of Americans. They care about winning seats in Congress in 2018 and the White House in 2020. Period.

This is true. In this case it is working, but let's not go so far as to say that a single point should equate to a trend.

I do think the takeaway, though, is that the opinion that posturing or force is always wrong is not right.

Back to the witch hunt. And Lad, any idea why the NYT is the targeted and preferred recipient of leaks from anti-Trump people? I have an idea why.

leaked questions

(05-01-2018 09:52 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Back to the witch hunt. And Lad, any idea why the NYT is the targeted and preferred recipient of leaks from anti-Trump people? I have an idea why.

leaked questions

Why was the Washington Post the preferred leak for Watergate?

Two reasons. At the NYTimes you have some of the best reporters with lots of sources that trust them to be confidential with their information. You also have a well-established and trusted newspaper that has credibility is where people will go with information. Because those papers will follow up on leads and make sure (99.9% of the time) that they are true. As much as people love to beat the drum of fake news, the top papers do real reporting and do it well.

Case in point, the Post was able to figure out that a woman was intentionally trying to mislead them about her accusations against Roy Moore, likely in connection to Project Veritas (https://www.washingtonpost.com/investiga...irect=on).

Had the Post not employed good reporters that follow up on their leads/sources, and truly just acted as purveyors of fake news, they never would have found that this woman was trying to mislead them.

(05-01-2018 10:05 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-01-2018 09:52 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Back to the witch hunt. And Lad, any idea why the NYT is the targeted and preferred recipient of leaks from anti-Trump people? I have an idea why.

leaked questions

Why was the Washington Post the preferred leak for Watergate?

Two reasons. At the NYTimes you have some of the best reporters with lots of sources that trust them to be confidential with their information. You also have a well-established and trusted newspaper that has credibility is where people will go with information. Because those papers will follow up on leads and make sure (99.9% of the time) that they are true. As much as people love to beat the drum of fake news, the top papers do real reporting and do it well.

Case in point, the Post was able to figure out that a woman was intentionally trying to mislead them about her accusations against Roy Moore, likely in connection to Project Veritas (https://www.washingtonpost.com/investiga...irect=on).

Had the Post not employed good reporters that follow up on their leads/sources, and truly just acted as purveyors of fake news, they never would have found that this woman was trying to mislead them.

So Mueller, Comey, and Democrats of all kinds prefer the NYT for its honesty and integrity? Got it.

(05-01-2018 10:12 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-01-2018 10:05 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-01-2018 09:52 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Back to the witch hunt. And Lad, any idea why the NYT is the targeted and preferred recipient of leaks from anti-Trump people? I have an idea why.

leaked questions

Why was the Washington Post the preferred leak for Watergate?

Two reasons. At the NYTimes you have some of the best reporters with lots of sources that trust them to be confidential with their information. You also have a well-established and trusted newspaper that has credibility is where people will go with information. Because those papers will follow up on leads and make sure (99.9% of the time) that they are true. As much as people love to beat the drum of fake news, the top papers do real reporting and do it well.

Case in point, the Post was able to figure out that a woman was intentionally trying to mislead them about her accusations against Roy Moore, likely in connection to Project Veritas (https://www.washingtonpost.com/investiga...irect=on).

Had the Post not employed good reporters that follow up on their leads/sources, and truly just acted as purveyors of fake news, they never would have found that this woman was trying to mislead them.

So Mueller, Comey, and Democrats of all kinds prefer the NYT for its honesty and integrity? Got it.

What would be your preferred media organization if you wanted to basically blow the whistle or leak information?

If you look at periodicals, which are doing most of the news breaking, you have the NYTime, Post, and WSJournal. All of them have broken stories regarding Trump - it's not as if the Times has a monopoly on Trump breaking news.

I mean, what answer are you looking for? Something to confirm your own opinion about the NYTimes?

(05-01-2018 10:44 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-01-2018 10:12 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-01-2018 10:05 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-01-2018 09:52 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Back to the witch hunt. And Lad, any idea why the NYT is the targeted and preferred recipient of leaks from anti-Trump people? I have an idea why.

leaked questions

Why was the Washington Post the preferred leak for Watergate?

Two reasons. At the NYTimes you have some of the best reporters with lots of sources that trust them to be confidential with their information. You also have a well-established and trusted newspaper that has credibility is where people will go with information. Because those papers will follow up on leads and make sure (99.9% of the time) that they are true. As much as people love to beat the drum of fake news, the top papers do real reporting and do it well.

Case in point, the Post was able to figure out that a woman was intentionally trying to mislead them about her accusations against Roy Moore, likely in connection to Project Veritas (https://www.washingtonpost.com/investiga...irect=on).

Had the Post not employed good reporters that follow up on their leads/sources, and truly just acted as purveyors of fake news, they never would have found that this woman was trying to mislead them.

So Mueller, Comey, and Democrats of all kinds prefer the NYT for its honesty and integrity? Got it.

What would be your preferred media organization if you wanted to basically blow the whistle or leak information?

If you look at periodicals, which are doing most of the news breaking, you have the NYTime, Post, and WSJournal. All of them have broken stories regarding Trump - it's not as if the Times has a monopoly on Trump breaking news.

I mean, what answer are you looking for? Something to confirm your own opinion about the NYTimes?

If I wanted to "leak" stuff detrimental or demeaning to a person or group,
I would choose to leak it to a paper I knew that also wanted to demean or hurt that person or group. That way I could be more sure that the end result would be publication.

(05-01-2018 02:39 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-01-2018 10:44 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-01-2018 10:12 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-01-2018 10:05 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-01-2018 09:52 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Back to the witch hunt. And Lad, any idea why the NYT is the targeted and preferred recipient of leaks from anti-Trump people? I have an idea why.

leaked questions

Why was the Washington Post the preferred leak for Watergate?

Two reasons. At the NYTimes you have some of the best reporters with lots of sources that trust them to be confidential with their information. You also have a well-established and trusted newspaper that has credibility is where people will go with information. Because those papers will follow up on leads and make sure (99.9% of the time) that they are true. As much as people love to beat the drum of fake news, the top papers do real reporting and do it well.

Case in point, the Post was able to figure out that a woman was intentionally trying to mislead them about her accusations against Roy Moore, likely in connection to Project Veritas (https://www.washingtonpost.com/investiga...irect=on).

Had the Post not employed good reporters that follow up on their leads/sources, and truly just acted as purveyors of fake news, they never would have found that this woman was trying to mislead them.

So Mueller, Comey, and Democrats of all kinds prefer the NYT for its honesty and integrity? Got it.

What would be your preferred media organization if you wanted to basically blow the whistle or leak information?

If you look at periodicals, which are doing most of the news breaking, you have the NYTime, Post, and WSJournal. All of them have broken stories regarding Trump - it's not as if the Times has a monopoly on Trump breaking news.

I mean, what answer are you looking for? Something to confirm your own opinion about the NYTimes?

If I wanted to "leak" stuff detrimental or demeaning to a person or group,
I would choose to leak it to a paper I knew that also wanted to demean or hurt that person or group. That way I could be more sure that the end result would be publication.

Do you have a NY Times cite for your supposition?

(05-01-2018 05:04 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-01-2018 02:39 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-01-2018 10:44 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-01-2018 10:12 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-01-2018 10:05 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Why was the Washington Post the preferred leak for Watergate?

Two reasons. At the NYTimes you have some of the best reporters with lots of sources that trust them to be confidential with their information. You also have a well-established and trusted newspaper that has credibility is where people will go with information. Because those papers will follow up on leads and make sure (99.9% of the time) that they are true. As much as people love to beat the drum of fake news, the top papers do real reporting and do it well.

Case in point, the Post was able to figure out that a woman was intentionally trying to mislead them about her accusations against Roy Moore, likely in connection to Project Veritas (https://www.washingtonpost.com/investiga...irect=on).

Had the Post not employed good reporters that follow up on their leads/sources, and truly just acted as purveyors of fake news, they never would have found that this woman was trying to mislead them.

So Mueller, Comey, and Democrats of all kinds prefer the NYT for its honesty and integrity? Got it.

What would be your preferred media organization if you wanted to basically blow the whistle or leak information?

If you look at periodicals, which are doing most of the news breaking, you have the NYTime, Post, and WSJournal. All of them have broken stories regarding Trump - it's not as if the Times has a monopoly on Trump breaking news.

I mean, what answer are you looking for? Something to confirm your own opinion about the NYTimes?

If I wanted to "leak" stuff detrimental or demeaning to a person or group,
I would choose to leak it to a paper I knew that also wanted to demean or hurt that person or group. That way I could be more sure that the end result would be publication.

Do you have a NY Times cite for your supposition?

All the news that's fit to print.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/...li=BBnb7Kz

http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/23/now-th...logan-too/

All this discussion of "important" stuff like North Korea is great, but WTF is up with Trump raiding his own (fake?) doctor's office to get his medical records?

I think exactly no one is surprised to find out Trump dictated that weird letter his doctor produced during the campaign.

You know, about that exam that revealed "only positive results"...

"his physical strength and stamina are extraordinary."

"If elected, Mr. Trump, I can state unequivocally, will be the healthiest individual ever elected to the presidency"

Between that and his nutso call in to Fox and Friends which seemed to make even them a little uncomfortable, good grief. How can anyone take this guy seriously?

(05-02-2018 03:57 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  All this discussion of "important" stuff like North Korea is great, but WTF is up with Trump raiding his own (fake?) doctor's office to get his medical records?

I think exactly no one is surprised to find out Trump dictated that weird letter his doctor produced during the campaign.

You know, about that exam that revealed "only positive results"...

"his physical strength and stamina are extraordinary."

"If elected, Mr. Trump, I can state unequivocally, will be the healthiest individual ever elected to the presidency"

Between that and his nutso call in to Fox and Friends which seemed to make even them a little uncomfortable, good grief. How can anyone take this guy seriously?

Not sure why you think the North Korea stuff is unimportant (thus the quotes), but I wish the hounds would back off and let him work.

I haven't followed the doctor stuff, so I am not sure why you question whether or not his doctor is fake. Is it because witches use witch doctors?

But I do have a question for any doctors or lawyers out there. Who do the medical records belong to, the patient or the doctor?

(05-02-2018 03:57 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  All this discussion of "important" stuff like North Korea is great, but WTF is up with Trump raiding his own (fake?) doctor's office to get his medical records?
I think exactly no one is surprised to find out Trump dictated that weird letter his doctor produced during the campaign.
You know, about that exam that revealed "only positive results"...
"his physical strength and stamina are extraordinary."
"If elected, Mr. Trump, I can state unequivocally, will be the healthiest individual ever elected to the presidency"
Between that and his nutso call in to Fox and Friends which seemed to make even them a little uncomfortable, good grief. How can anyone take this guy seriously?

So are you saying that Trump’s relationship with this doctor is more important on the world stage than Korean peace talks? Seriously?