Evidence for God from Science

Right???

But I'm not really sure which one to be the most worried about.

Well, I think Trump did good. Better to come together, than having nukes go off around the world in the next decade or so because silly leaders in countries keep being petty with each other. Or, do we really think that isn't possible? I think it's possible, and we've already dodged a few prickly situations that could have turned out much worse.

Trump said something like he'd much rather have a shot at peace and risk his leadership, then doing nothing and nukes being fired at each other in the future which would destroy billions of lives. He would know the pressure -- if a US president is saying that, then you've got to take it seriously. There are those who'd love nothing more than nuking Russia, and damn, we missed out on nuking North Korea. You're just not going to get away with that though, the impact nuking would have on the world. As for Russia, it has stations and subs with nuclear capacity able to hit the US. You do know that right? Trump knew the backlash he'd receive once he started opening up talks with Russia. Diplomacy whether you love it or hate it, it is the best way forward. It also means overlooking sins and making concessions for future betterment.

Many Republicans vy for war, and equally the Democrats. Seeing the reaction of them all, it now makes sense the heavy curtain that was on Trump and why he waited so long to pursue his campaign promise of "getting along better with Russia." But, Trump is clearly nationalistic and will always put US interests first.

My two cents.

Repeatedly tearing down US Law Enforcement.
Initiating a Trade War with our trading partners.
Alienating our North American and European Allies.
Destabilizing NATO.
Publicly supporting Putin over his own Intelligence Agencies.

No wonder Putin worked so hard to get Trump elected.

Do you believe cuckolding is positive for couples too DB?

To be balanced, NATO received countries received valid criticism for not financially paying their fare share. And tariffs and the massive dumping of cheap goods and the trade imbalances are a problem. Engage and talk with Russia, but also call it out on its dirty practices. None of this is simple.

Kurieuo wrote: ↑Fri Jul 20, 2018 4:00 am Do you believe cuckolding is positive for couples too DB?

nope...
And I don't think it is positive for the President of the US either.

Not sure where you were going with that little comment...

We shouldn't confuse rhetoric with actions.
Trump has actually done more crap against Russia than Obama.
https://gop.com/trump-admins-tough-acti ... russia-rsr

DBowling wrote: ↑Fri Jul 20, 2018 5:28 am

Kurieuo wrote: ↑Fri Jul 20, 2018 4:00 am Do you believe cuckolding is positive for couples too DB?

nope...
And I don't think it is positive for the President of the US either.

Not sure where you were going with that little comment...

Just all your statements seem CNN textbook responses, I just assumed you bought into their cuckolding story too.

Take for example, Trump going with Putin over his intelligence agencies. I waited up late and watched the whole press conference live, that never happened. His responses were diplomatic, that's about it. Trump (despite all the crap going on with the FBI) appears to put great trust in US intelligence AND US defense to the point of over doing it (and imo making mistakes I've previously voiced re: Syria). He upped their funding greatly, also greatly supports police forces too right?

Or how about your NATO statement? He pulled up Germany for paying nothing essentially and making deals with Russia for gas. Given he had an upcoming meeting with Putin, Russian media didn't really like it when he asked Eurpoean leaders why they're supporting a nation NATO is meant to provide security to Europe for? And then getting everyone to contribute more NATO -- NATO's going to be much more strong -- and Putin sure as heck doesn't like that. It was also funny seeing Trump answer he's going to compete with Russia for the Eurpean gas market. Putin didn't like that either, he appeared to frown a bit while Trump responded.

A lot of your statements, all of them except perhaps the trade wars thing, are vacuous. Yet, the writing is still on the wall there. It seems to me he's just unsettling these "trading partners" to get a better deal for the US. Whatever that will be, I guess time will tell. I've noticed Trump likes the shake the box, let things settle a little, and then come in with some offer. So, the writing is still on the wall with trading whether it will ultimately be a positive or negative.

Kurieuo wrote: ↑Fri Jul 20, 2018 6:47 am

DBowling wrote: ↑Fri Jul 20, 2018 5:28 am Not sure where you were going with that little comment...

Just all your statements seem CNN textbook responses, I just assumed you bought into their cuckolding story too.

ah... the old factually incorrect personal dig... got it

Take for example, Trump going with Putin over his intelligence agencies. I waited up late and watched the whole press conference live, that never happened.

I don't know how you could have missed it.

Fox News (the Trump News Network) even picked up on it.
As did a number of Republicans.

And Trump's staff had to get Trump to go back and 'clean up' what he said.
I much prefer Trump reading off a script written by his staff over Trump revealing how he honestly feels off the top of his head.

Or how about your NATO statement?

When you start backing off of the US commitment to defending NATO allies that is giving Putin exactly what he wants.

Germany buying immense contractual natural gas, etc. while enriching the coffers of the Russians, who WE are paying the bulk of its protection from - Trump need to reset that ongoing fiasco! Notice, no other president has really addressed this glaringly dysfunctional situation. Not to mention the mayhem those billions will allow Russia to continue. You just don't help your enemies fund themselves.

Exactly, it doesn't make sense Germany making a deal with Russia while expecting the US to cough up 85%+??? funding of NATO which really is about ensuring security for EU against Russia. If it wasn't for the Trump administration holding Germany to the fire and calling out other NATO participating states on such, the US would still be getting screwed over by their good European "friends" in future.

Now the US via Trump has introduced a major wedge. If an EU state buys gas via Russia, then while it may be cheaper than US gas they're basically betraying NATO, so why should the US fund NATO when participating states are sleeping with the "enemy" which NATO is supposedly meant to protect against?

Trump has effectively secured US gas to the European market, or else they can forget about protection they evidently no longer need. Its such a high security issue if EU states depend upon Russia for gas. Srategically, Russia gains much power, for all they need to do is cut of the gas supply in winter, then EU states would be on their knees begging Russia to switch it on. The US loses a major strategic advantage to Russia greatly lessening US national securuty.

The likes of CNN, MSNBC and other mainstream are just pathetically so anti-Trump they much rather see the US come to an end than see Trump succeed. What'd Maher say?; Hope the US has a recession if it means Trump would be ousted? Seriously stupid commentators out there, and the masses swallow it hook, line and sinker.

How incredible it is that no one else has really put this issue of Russian contracts and NATO countries not paying their fair share before them. Of course, it's not merely that Germany isn't buying energy from the U.S., but that the vast sums they are giving the Russians will only feed their ability to make war and trouble - for themselves and the rest of Europe. I mean, how brain-dead can Germany be?

Many people who don't like Trump need to wake up to the fact - that while he's crude, crass and personally / morally often troubling - many of the changes he has implemented, his policies, his instincts have been quite good - certainly vastly better than where Obama, Clinton and the progressive left would have led us. I dislike much about him personally. I don't like all of his initiatives, or his childish tweeting, grandstanding, sophomoric responses, thin skin, and need for constant attention. But when I realize what Hillary and Billy Bob would have brought us - well, I'll take it. Trump's court picks or Hillary's - a no-brainer! Of course I worry about Trump, but that beautiful stallion I'd rather have had available to ride wasn't an option in the voting booth

!

Philip wrote: ↑Sat Jul 21, 2018 12:32 am Trump's court picks or Hillary's - a no-brainer!

Since I was complaining about Trump's moronic foreign policy, I guess it's only fair that I give credit where credit is due.

Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh are excellent picks for the Supreme Court!
And Trump's Supreme Court appointees will likely be the most important legacy of the Trump Presidency.

Just in case you missed it...

To Iranian President Rouhani:
"NEVER, EVER THREATEN THE UNITED STATES AGAIN OR YOU WILL SUFFER CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES OF WHICH FEW THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED BEFORE. WE ARE NO LONGER A COUNTRY THAT WILL STAND FOR YOUR DEMENTED WORDS OF VIOLENCE & DEATH. BE CAUTIOUS!" - Donald J. Trump

What is the seriousness of that threat? on the scale of 0 (empty threat) to 10 (deadly serious) ?

I recall a while back that people described Trump's classic tactic as - to always deliver the maximum possible threat and then back off a little later on in an attempt to get things done his way.