I would like to have understood your response to this point. But I don’t.
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
All kidding aside, on this board the key things to pay attention to are:
Overuse of asking for cites,
Fixation on the use of a particular word, such as asking for precise definitions and then quibbling with them,
If someone provides ten points in favor of an idea or whatever, proceeding to nitpick the hell out of one in order to “disprove” the other nine,
Altering the basics of the debate or moving the goalposts of a standard of proof, forcing others to essentially go back to square one,
An extreme focus on the process of a debate, rather than the main point (e.g., if someone says the sky is blue, the troll/sealioner will focus discussion individually/serially on the words, meaning, and standard of proof for “sky,” “is,” and “blue” rather than coming out with a competing argument that the sky is a different color.
This is definitely a phenomenon that is hard to see at first because it is subtle, but once you notice it, it becomes obvious. One question to keep in mind is, “Is this poster just making others do a lot of work/citing/arguing without contributing a similar degree of effort?”
I did not concede that Putin is weakening NATO. I agreed that Putin would want to make NATO less attractive. Now, if you want to make the argument this weakens NATO a great deal, fine. To me, that’s weak. That’s what I meant by something more substantial. For instance, countries actually pulling out. But I’m fine with your interpretation. Just don’t make up stuff and pretend I said it.
Okay, thanks I suppose, but I don’t think of myself as being “good” doing that, just honest. I’m not sure if you think I think Trump is stupid or not from that, but believe me, I know he is.
Thanks for the clarification. For the record, I didn’t really think you would think Trump essentially fine with nuclear war just so he could get a hotel built, it just came off that way.
When I said drad dog had created a CT in my comment, okay, that was too far. It wasn’t a full on CT, but it I would suggest it was a pretty good start. The whole “brothers in power” thing. In any case, I withdraw the CT theory.
To clarify, I responded to the first part of that sentence, and not the “weakening weakening” part, because I don’t know what you mean. Does it mean “really weakening NATO” or what? But your use of the word “honestly” suggests to me you think I’m being less than truthful. I don’t do that sort of thing.
I can’t help but think this is a snark directed to me. Please correct me if I’m wrong. Anyway, Trump can certainly be an asset of Russia even if he is not being blackmailed.
I would not say Trump has weakened it for the simple reason that I don’t know if NATO has been weakened. But I am also not saying he hasn’t weakened it. I simply don’t know the strength of NATO relative to when Trump took office. As they say, that’s way above my pay grade. But if it has been weakened, it’s a big deal. Obviously, the more it’s been weakened, the bigger the deal.
Remember that list of things Trump has said and done with respect to NATO that you conceded were things Putin wanted because they made NATO membership less attractive? Well making NATO membership less attractive weakens NATO.
I don’t think Putin needs to blackmail Trump (although he might be) to get him to do what he wants. He may just be using a combination of flattery and promises in their conversations. Trump knows absolutely nothing about geopolitical affairs. Putin does. He’s probably convinced Trump that he is not a bad guy at all, that he just wants to “whatever is necessary to find a peaceful solution to these problems.” That a Russian military presence in the Middle East “is a good thing” and that he and Trump will work together for the good of all mankind. Maybe they will get a Noble Prize together like Sadat and Begin. And, as an added bonus, Trump will be able to do hundreds of millions of dollars of business in Russia.
Either one of those things would be enough for Trump to do whatever Putin wants.
