OMGImInPattaya

37 minutes ago, Grouse said:

EU economy exceeds 20 Trillion USD on PPP basis.

 

So what?

 

Can't we all just play nicely?

Isn't that what I said...other countries getter richer is a win-win. It's that other poster who keeps falling flat on his face rooting for the fall of America.

Just now, ilostmypassword said:

Do you understand that this cuts both ways?

And Wow! That 19 trillion is certainly a real big number! But it's also only about 17 percent of gross world product. As measured by PPP China's economy is already by itself bigger than the USA's. And so is the EU's.

You seem to be living in the 1960's.

U.S. Role In Global Economy Declines Nearly 50%

With the exception of a few brief periods, America’s contribution to the global economy has been falling. In 1960, U.S. GDP represented 40% of global GDP. By 2014, America’s economic contribution had been cut in half. 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikepatton/2016/02/29/u-s-role-in-global-economy-declines-nearly-50/#6e9af6f85e9e

 

I know you suffer from an accute case of America Derangement Syndrome but try not to make you look so stupid. Yes, America's share of the global economy has gone down over time, but it's not that America has become poorer or economically enfeabled as you would like, but because the world economy has grown and other countries have become richer (mostly through trade with America by the way). The American economy has grown as well and it's a win-win for all sides.

14 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Well, we'll see if your prediction pans out.  Somehow, I think that with virtually every major economic power in the world ranged against it, the USA is not in so much of a position to threaten others. China alone, by some measures already is a greater economic power than the USA. Throw in the EU, Russia, and India, and the USA starts to look positively feeble by comparison. The USA may be a military hyperpower, but economically not so much. Sorry if that burns you.

On the other hand, perhaps the widespread admiration and respect that Donald Trump commands among the nations of the world will sway them his way.

It doesn't burn me at all. The USA has a 19 TRILLION dollar economy...what are the corresponding figures for Russia, China, India, the EU, and the soon to be liberated UK?

If you were a bank or company, for they are the ones who actually conduct business and trade, do you think you would rather have access to a 19T dollar economy or one the size of the tiny state of Maryland (Iranian GDP about 400 billion dollars...Maryland state GSP about 380 billion)?

28 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

 

 

First off it's not a treaty.  And secondly, if the US backs out, it's going to be alone. What people like you don't realize is the amazing achievement it was for the Obama administration to get players like China and Russia to agree to the sanctions regime. Not going to happen again. And the EU is not going to put up with it either.  Nor will the UK, in or out of the EU. In fact, pretty much the entire world, with the exception of a few peace promoting Sunni regimes like Saudi Arabia and the UAE, will not be enforcing sanctions.

Yes, you are correct it's not a treaty, because the slippery Obama knew he could never get it past the Senate, so it's an "Agreement" or whatever. The point I made is still correct...namely that it has provisions for parties to withdraw to which the United States is complying with. So the statement that the U.S. is not living up to the agreement is false.

One word from the US Treasury that companies or banks doing business with Iran will be subject to American sanctions will stop any business dealings in their tracks. Yep...that's what it means to be a hyperpower.

Looks suspiciously like an American M1 Abrams...another cheap Chinese knock-off?

5 hours ago, retarius said:

This is a lost cause the US is going to attack Iran. The provocation is merely a prelude to the action....the calm before the storm. I think this will cost the US dear.....not in terms of military defeat, but in terms of prestige. The naked aggression of the US comes across loud and clear as does the bad faith negotiating and failure to live up to the treaties they sign. The moral authority of the US is in the dustbin as it is, this will bury its reputation deep in the dustbin.

The United States has lived up to the treaty, which has provisions for withdrawl like all treaties. And just because a treaty exists doesn't mean ipso facto that it's a good one.

45 minutes ago, Kiwiken said:

America will be alone in its rejection of the Iran Deal. The other Parties are satisfied.

There're satisfied in that Chamberlain sort of way...we have an agreement so lets bury our heads in the sand to Tehran's violations.

1 minute ago, Chang_paarp said:

 

This could mean that the police were more thorough at checking the room than the hotel cleaners.

Yes it could...but what are we always told...that the most simple explanation is usually the correct one, right?

The worst timing in the world...really Donna...your powers of non-perception are truly amazing. This sorta explains why the Democrat Party imploded under her leadership.

If it's anything like the U.S., one would have to go throught the immigration and nationalization process like anyone else...starting at the back of the line.

4 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

There was one shooter.  No question about that.  There was not someone else in the room.  Please don't put wind in the sails of conspiracy theorists, as right-wingers are prone to do.  The phone charger, whether true or not, is a non-issue.

And you know all this how? I guess the Gulf of Tonkin incident actually happened and there were WMDs in Iraq as well.

5 minutes ago, Grouse said:

What kind of air defence has NK got? Wouldn't surprise me if Putin didn't offer some new toys just for devilment!

That would be good...nothing our military likes better than testing an adversary's defensive weapons in live-fire situations.

5 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Obviously a real sleaze ball. He should come to Thailand ?. I'll bet he could get an Elite card!

It would go nice with his election "Women's Card."

There are so many questions about the official story of what happened in Las Vegas. There are questions if there was more than one shooter or if the shooter had someone else in the room at the time of the shooting. The timeline of events doesn't hold up to scrutiny. The police also have reported finding a mobile phone charger in the room that did not match any of the phones found herein. Was it left behind by an accomplice or other person involved in the shooting? Why was there the hour long delay in breeching the room...to allow one or more of the shooters to escape? Also, we're expected to believe Paddock was all hyped-up about something (still unexplained) that he was willing to kill all those people with automatic weapons fire and then he comitted suicide (when he wasn't yet under any police fire/assault). Wouldn't it make more sense, as he seemed to want to cause maximum chaos, injury, and death, that he would also take on the police at his door? He had the time to setup a defensive perimeter with the room furniture and had ample weapons and ammo we're told. It would have been a chance to possibly wound or kill a couple more people before he was finally taken down. Was he in fact killed by someone who then made an escape?  These are just some of the questions that need to be answered.

Practice targeting run?

3 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

Trump fans are trying to whip this up into a Democratic-Party-bashing orgy.  It's an old white guy who probably fiddled around with some pretty young women.  He happens to be a donor to the Dem party, as are tens of millions of other folks.  

Yep...nothing to see here. The Democrat Party and the mainstream media went ape-shitz over Trump's words in the Access Hollywood video but the ACTIONS of this creap should be ignored.

The latest is that prosecuters are investigating possible rape charges against this sick perv.

2 hours ago, Credo said:

It seems that you want to play politics with this.   I am not sure why, since Weinstein is not a politician.   Of course, that won't stop you, so let's take a look at how YOUR President's situation was handled as opposed to Weinstein.   

 

Weinstein was removed from the country, very, very early once the allegations were made public.   His wife has since said she would leave him.   So basically, he is now a powerless person.   YOUR President on the other hand continued to deny, deflect, threaten and in other ways intimidate his accusers; and there are quite a few.

 

It's important that people like Weinstein and YOUR President be removed from power is because once they have no more power, their influence quickly wanes over accusers.   The accusers are at a distinct disadvantage as long as the predator remains in power.   

 

Once Weinstein was removed from HIS company, more victims came forward, some with serious allegations and others with information that go toward establishing a profile of how he operated with his victims.   In short, some of the information simply corroborates the more serious victims.

 

Why do they wait to come forward?   Because as long as Weinstein is in power, he has the ability to negatively affect the careers of many actresses.   He's out, and they are free to talk.

 

One the Pervert-in-Chief is out, I suspect the same thing will happen, except he probably has more serious legal problems to deal with first.   

 

 

I knowof no credible reports of any sexual intimidation or harassment by the President and there are NO reports that he has ever paid legal settlements or "hush money" to women who have claimed harassment or sued him in court.

13 hours ago, rudi49jr said:

Thanks, man! Glad I got that off my chest before taking my morning nap. And in case you hadn't noticed: the OP was about Russia and China calling for Trump to show a little restraint vis-a-vis North Korea, and my comment was that Trump is an ignorant boob who doesn't know the first thing about foreign policy or international affairs.

Their "call" has been noted. I would be curious to know what they would be calling for if some nation was threatening to rain-down nuclear weapons on THEIR homelands. 

2 hours ago, Thakkar said:

 

That is an overly cynical view.

 

Anyway, I didn’t say it was futile, I said it *may* be futile and went on to suggest that view is based on my personal diepair over the situation. There are plenty of good people more optimistically working to promote common sense regulations, the effects of which would be to save lives.

 

Ok...then good luck to them...they'll need it.

2 hours ago, heybruce said:

Name some prominent Democrats in office calling for gun confiscation. 

Most of them are calling for a ban on "assault weapons"...there are millions of "assault weapons" in circulation. How do you think they can implement such a ban without confiscating those already in circulation.

52 minutes ago, Thakkar said:

The two advocacy’s are not mutually exclusive. 

 

Gun regulation advocacy may be doomed to failure at the national level, but it works at the local level—in counties, cities and states. 

 

Thankfully, better people than I and Hodges have not given in to despair and continue to advocate for what the majority of Americans want: stricter gun regulations, a federal gun registry, reinstating funding for the CDC to study the effects of guns, and the banning of assault rifles—none of which would contravene the Second Amendment.

 

Others can contribute in their own ways, such as by donations to these advocacy groups, etc.

Of course they're not mutually exclusive but I though you said that one was futile? I was just suggesting a more productive outlet for their efforts. However, I can see the Democrats and other liberal groups' reluctance  to stop beating the drum for gun confiscation as it's surely good for fund raising. 

34 minutes ago, Thakkar said:

Thank you.

 

But I fear you are right about one thing, though perhaps for the wrong reasons. Sadly, and as loath as I am to fall into such despair, change is unlikely.  As Dan Hodges said on Twitter:

“In retrospect Sandy Hook marked the end of the US gun control debate. Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over.”

I am in agreement with you, and by admitting defeat, gun-confiscation advocates can get on with their lives. Maybe they can shift their safety advocacy to something useful like more mental health funding and treatment.

22 minutes ago, Thakkar said:

This “two sides of the same coin” argument doesn’t hold water. It is like a woman saying, “because my husband is charming and handsome, he is also a successful philanderer and I just have to accept that”

 

Bad, unsuccessful, destructive, damaging policies can be changed. Without touching the Second Amendment, gun laws can be changed, and most Americans want those changes that have proved successful again and again in many countries as well as in some Americans States that have stricter gun laws.

 

There is a reason that, at the NRA offices, the plaque quotes only a part of the Second Amendment,  the part about “right to bear arms” and leaves out the part that says, “a well regulated militia”

 

Their mission is to distort the Second Anmendment to serve the business purpose of gun manufacturers. 

Good luck.

5 hours ago, rudi49jr said:

Trump is nothing but a little lost boy. He doesn't know his ass from his elbow when it comes to foreign politics. I just hope there's someone in his entourage who will keep him in check. Tangerine 45 is a disgrace for America and the American presidency. What a joke that guy is, and all the people who keep supporting that boob. Please, impeach him. Or at least take the phone away from that twitter addict.

Not sure what-all this has to do with the op but I hope it made you feel better and get on with your day.

2 hours ago, impulse said:

America's tried all kinds of experiments with gun control.  Cities with the tightest controls are also some of the ones with the highest murder rates.  Chicago, where I was born, is a good example.  And once the government takes away a freedom, it isn't coming back.  So I, for one, am not really in favor of taking the experiment nation wide at the Federal level.

 

Sadly, with the erosion of privacy and other rights under the Patriot Act, most people are more afraid of the government than we are of criminals.

 

That said, the NRA is screwing up defending bump stocks.  There is no valid purpose for bump stocks in civilian, sporting or even military firearms.  They don't do anything for accuracy or safety.  

No, they are kicking the camel's nose out of the tent.