[BadKosh]

surgical strikes with drones isn't occupying, or having a large presence. I DO remember the MAD and all the 1960's BS like duck n cover blah blah blah. Tell us again under what circumstances the iron curtain fell.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

I would suggest BadKosh et al familiarize themselves with the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction (M.A.D.). And then perhaps it might occur to them why it is beyond foolish to think that Putin will be influenced by a "forceful demeanor". Crimea has a majority Russian population. At one point it was literally a part of Russia. It is home to the Black Sea Fleet which just so happens to be Russia's only warm water naval port. This makes it critical to Russia's national interest as it is a key mechanism by which its navy can project power. The bottom line is that the Russian government cares a helluva lot more about controlling Crimea ... directly or indirectly ... than the West cares about bringing Ukraine into the fold.

I'm with you on this. Saber-rattling will do no good here. It should be far more in the EU's interest than ours, but they've been rendered entirely feckless. What the US can do (since Clinton made a promise to them not to pursue nukes as we'd have their backs) is to bring financial harm to the Russian oligarchs and they've been talking. This is essentially the only leverage we have.

So it doesn't matter that President Obama threw Mubarak in Egypt under the bus, assassinated bin Laden, killed his top lieutenants in Pakistan & Afghanistan with drone strikes, rolled back Taliban advances in Afghanistan, decimated the "middle management" layer of al Qaeda in Yemen, attacked al-Shabab in Somalia, toppled Qaddafi in Libya ... and yes, refrained (prudently IMO) from military conflict with Assad in Syria. Which overall more than qualifies as "forceful" by anyone not suffering from a severe case of Obama Derangement Syndrome (ODS). The point is that it DOES ... NOT ... MATTER ... to a nuclear-armed military power like Russia when it feels it has a vital national security interest at stake. Or even if it doesn't. Because a large scale, nuclear weapons deterrent is the ultimate trump card when it comes to foreign policy.

You've apparently been getting your news exclusively from .gov sources again. He threw Mubarek in Egypt under the bus sure, leaving behind a region in greater turmoil. Obama in Egypt? Hot mess plain and simple. Assassinated Bin Laden? We can only hope that's what happened. Odd to me that you'd immediately shoot to kill a guy supposedly chock-full of information and immediately dump his body in the sea... I'm more inclined to believe OBL died on kidney dialysis years ago. Why? Because our leadership says otherwise and I don't trust them any more at this point than the guy with the trench coat on the street corner downtown. The Taliban is stronger than ever in Afghanistan and so powerful now that we have an entourage seeking to work with them after we're entirely pulled out of the region. Decimated the "middle management" layer of al Qaeda in Yemen? This is laughable if it weren't so tragically mistaken. They've never had a stronger presence in Yemen than they do today. They are now greater in numbers, more organized, and by all international accounts in full-on resurgence mode. Toppled Qaddafi in Libya? Qaddafi was in compliance, all Obama did was show exactly how untrustworthy the US govt is leaving in his wake of debris a most harsh environment for our consulate to deal with after watching the Brits and others bail out, leading to the death of an Ambassador and three others while stonewalling any attempts to get to the bottom of the debacle; hurting himself both domestically and abroad. And Obama dithered like a dolt in Syria with finger in the air of political winds while Putin took the reigns leading to a policy no one believes has any chance of success. Let's also forget our hopeless policies in Iran which if anything productive at all, will only buy Iran time to weaponize nukes.

Funny how no one is making the argument that if Putin had a more "forceful demeanor" Obama wouldn't haven't done all these things.

OAW

When a foe's actions are failing miserably, you get out of the way. If you think Putin is at all concerned with Barack Obama after giving up our missile defense strategy, the abysmal "reset" PR, the "wait 'til after the election" nonsense, all the missteps I've presented above, and spending every dime of his domestic political capital on the worst idea since chattel slavery -- you've got another "think" coming. There is another form of ODS that has apparently seized control of the Administration loyalists rendering you at this point, little more than a mouthpiece for folly.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

surgical strikes with drones isn't occupying, or having a large presence. I DO remember the MAD and all the 1960's BS like duck n cover blah blah blah. Tell us again under what circumstances the iron curtain fell.

The Soviet Union suffering an economic collapse. It certainly wasn't because of any sort of saber rattling or military confrontation.

OAW

[OAW]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I'm with you on this. Saber-rattling will do no good here. It should be far more in the EU's interest than ours, but they've been rendered entirely feckless. What the US can do (since Clinton made a promise to them not to pursue nukes as we'd have their backs) is to bring financial harm to the Russian oligarchs and they've been talking. This is essentially the only leverage we have.

Let's just focus on this part where we agree b/c I'm not going down "the OBL killing was a hoax" rabbit hole. But you are correct, the US can do nothing here except cost the Russian oligarchs some money. Our trade with Russia is approx. $40 billion a year. Russia's trade with the EU is 10 times that. So they are holding all the cards. The problem is that powerful EU countries like Germany get about 30-40% of their energy from Russia so they are loathe to do much more than a good stern tongue-lashing. The Russian parliament is already drawing up legislation for tit-for-tat sanctions against the EU and the US. The bottom line here is that the US and the EU are in no position to bring Putin to heel. The US simply doesn't have the leverage and the EU can't without cutting off its own nose to spite its face. Only the Russian oligarchs can make this happen ... and they'd have to come after him collectively. We see what happens when they get out of pocket individually and challenge Putin. Just saying ...

OAW

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Let's just focus on this part where we agree b/c I'm not going down "the OBL killing was a hoax" rabbit hole.

Fair enough.

But you are correct, the US can do nothing here except cost the Russian oligarchs some money. Our trade with Russia is approx. $40 billion a year. Russia's trade with the EU is 10 times that. So they are holding all the cards. The problem is that powerful EU countries like Germany get about 30-40% of their energy from Russia so they are loathe to do much more than a good stern tongue-lashing. The Russian parliament is already drawing up legislation for tit-for-tat sanctions against the EU and the US. The bottom line here is that the US and the EU are in no position to bring Putin to heel. The US simply doesn't have the leverage and the EU can't without cutting off its own nose to spite its face. Only the Russian oligarchs can make this happen ... and they'd have to come after him collectively. We see what happens when they get out of pocket individually and challenge Putin. Just saying ...

OAW

Good points, all.

I also agree that "weak" isn't necessarily the correct word for Obama's leadership, but perhaps for different reasons. There might not be a great word for it other than ineffective; he's swinging violently at flies, but there are 3 bullies with billy-clubs comin' up behind him.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I don't understand why BadKosh, and apparently you don't understand what I'm asking...

I'm not asking why you don't trust him, you've both made that abundantly clear for a number of years now. I'm asking why you feel comfortable with him being forceful with Russia given that you don't trust him.

Is this clear now?

What I'm saying is that if Obama would not put campaign priorities in front of everything, perhaps the people talking in his ear are the people that attained their rank or position by being the best our nation has to offer.

Instead, we feel Obama's marketing department is the ultimate authority an we're in this very mess with no leverage at all because of that. Stop the bleeding and rearrange your priorities because the results we're getting are dismal.

Does that follow?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

What I'm saying is that if Obama would not put campaign priorities in front of everything, perhaps the people talking in his ear are the people that attained their rank or position by being the best our nation has to offer.

Instead, we feel Obama's marketing department is the ultimate authority an we're in this very mess with no leverage at all because of that. Stop the bleeding and rearrange your priorities because the results we're getting are dismal.

Does that follow?

I guess, but it gives us very little to discuss, because it is sort of like arguments about athletes performing a certain way based on their body language on TV. We are outside the loop, we don't know what goes on behind the scenes aligns with our constructed narratives, so this is just speculative.

This doesn't mean it is wrong either, just not something we'll ever really know for certain.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I guess, but it gives us very little to discuss, because it is sort of like arguments about athletes performing a certain way based on their body language on TV. We are outside the loop, we don't know what goes on behind the scenes aligns with our constructed narratives, so this is just speculative.

This doesn't mean it is wrong either, just not something we'll ever really know for certain.

So... what then? Drop it? Not discuss it? We couldn't possibly hope to know if we're right or wrong, so it's best that we avoid (enter any discussion on any policy ever determined outside your immediate living room).

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

So... what then? Drop it? Not discuss it? We couldn't possibly hope to know if we're right or wrong, so it's best that we avoid (enter any discussion on any policy ever determined outside your immediate living room).

I didn't say that. To return to my post, a few posts ago:

I'm not asking why you don't trust him, you've both made that abundantly clear for a number of years now. I'm asking why you feel comfortable with him being forceful with Russia given that you don't trust him.

This was all I was asking.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I didn't say that. To return to my post, a few posts ago:

This was all I was asking.

And he recommended that Obama not consult poll-tested action over Administration staff with unique experience and expertise in the matters at hand at which point you concluded there's little to discuss because it's all speculative... and I added -- as are most things not occurring in our immediate living rooms.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

And he recommended that Obama not consult poll-tested action over Administration staff with unique experience and expertise in the matters at hand at which point you concluded there's little to discuss because it's all speculative... and I added -- as are most things not occurring in our immediate living rooms.

Which doesn't answer my question, but I'm not going to repeat it again, because I think it is not going to be answered. I give up.

[subego]

So... this exists.

[subego]

WRT besson's question, I don't trust Obama not to screw things up, but you deal with dictators with the CinC you have, not the one you want.

It's a math equation. Which is greater, the risk of Obama screwing up or the risk of Putin thinking he can get away with shit.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Which doesn't answer my question, but I'm not going to repeat it again, because I think it is not going to be answered. I give up.

I'm not sure how that could possibly not be a direct answer for your question.

"What do you want him to do if you don't trust him?!"

"I want him to stop campaigning and make decisions in my best interest, not his." I even suggested a way for him to do that (rearranging his priorities).

This answer both provides a reasoning for our distrust in the first place and a way for Obama to earn some of that trust back while accomplishing a goal very much in all of our interest. Whether we trust him or not, as subego said, he's the only CinC we got right now so it'll have to do.



It's a pretty straightforward answer to the question you asked. Maybe you want to refine your question?

I'm not sure where you got the idea that there's nothing to discuss here. There's plenty to discuss. Like ways we can get out of this awful mess of our own doing without throwing the people of Ukraine under the bus?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

WRT besson's question, I don't trust Obama not to screw things up, but you deal with dictators with the CinC you have, not the one you want.

It's a math equation. Which is greater, the risk of Obama screwing up or the risk of Putin thinking he can get away with shit.

Thank you, you are the first person to understand and answer my question! And this from the guy that claims that he chronically misunderstands people... Treat yourself to a cookie!

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I'm not sure how that could possibly not be a direct answer for your question.

"What do you want him to do if you don't trust him?!"

Please find where I asked that question. I didn't.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Please find where I asked that question. I didn't.

Originally Posted by besson3c

What would you have Obama do, and why?

I was asking why it is you want the president to be forceful when you don't trust him.

Apologies if my paraphrasing merged your question and a premise of your response. If my answer somehow misconstrued the question, could you please clarify the question?

[besson3c]

The last question you quoted was the one I wanted answered. Is it unclear?

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

The last question you quoted was the one I wanted answered. Is it unclear?

So how does this:

Originally Posted by Snow-i

"I want him to stop campaigning and make decisions in my best interest, not his." I even suggested a way for him to do that (rearranging his priorities).

Not answer your question?

That's what I want him to do.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

So how does this:


Not answer your question?

That's what I want him to do.

It doesn't answer the question at all. Here it is again:

I was asking why it is you want the president to be forceful when you don't trust him.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3C

I was asking why it is you want the president to be forceful when you don't trust him.

Sort of a bs question, besson. When did Snow-i or even Badkosh for that matter -- advise that Obama use force or "be forceful" against Russia?

[aristotles]

Consider that the US now relies on Russia to get their astronauts into Space.

[BadKosh]

Had Obama been forceful and challenged the aggressive Putin at every turn, This would not have happened. In other news, Obama ruined the trust he started with because of his clueless and stupid 'solutions' to everything. But this is apples and oranges.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Sort of a bs question, besson. When did Snow-i or even Badkosh for that matter -- advise that Obama use force or "be forceful" against Russia?

So Obama is aligning himself with China, while cutting our military and mis-handling most all foreign policies. When Putin calls his bluff he's gonna write a harsh letter to the UN or something. Putin can count on Obama to hide and wring his hands because we see this administration way over its head on yet another facet of running things. Other countries were much more careful when we had strong presidents.

BadKosh obviously doesn't want the military cut, and he wants more than a harsh letter to the UN written.

He's threatening to write a harsh letter or some such sissy type action. Obama is a bigger wimp than even Carter.

He doesn't want the US to be a sissy.

It is because the sissy Obama Admin has powered down our ability to project power that the bad guys all across the globe are doing this. They as a group have hated the US for sticking up for the oppressed for decades and have with their financial influence have watered down our country. We are now stupid, shallow, lazy cowards. We are just another 3rd world country because of the liberals agenda. Look at the history of the liberal infiltration of our country.

More tough talk about a sissy admin.

This president has been so weak that Putin started up the cold war again because he could. Obama, by showing such weakness has sent a message to them that we won't do anything. He let it happen by his weak foreign policy and other non-actions or mis-actions. Its too late to do something now. A more aggressive and forceful posture from the beginning would have helped, not bowing and scraping to all the rest of the worlds leaders.

More talk about Obama needing to not be weak, and says that a more aggressive and forceful posture from the beginning would have helped.

[besson3c]

Here is the question again:

Why it is you want the president to be forceful when you don't trust him?

[BadKosh]

You still don't get the vagueness of your question as phrased. Why is "trust" being discussed? Trust is earned and wasted. Obama blew any trust most people in the US had for him. That is obama vs citizens.

His weak stance and bowing to all the foreign leaders advertised his 'Justin Bieber-ness'. Putin realized this about 11 seconds into Barrys 1st term. Putin has been taking advantage ever since, small steps all the time. Had he been more pro America and contained Putin he might have more people who would respect him.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

You still don't get the vagueness of your question as phrased. Why is "trust" being discussed? Trust is earned and wasted. Obama blew any trust most people in the US had for him. That is obama vs citizens.

His weak stance and bowing to all the foreign leaders advertised his 'Justin Bieber-ness'. Putin realized this about 11 seconds into Barrys 1st term. Putin has been taking advantage ever since, small steps all the time. Had he been more pro America and contained Putin he might have more people who would respect him.

Nothing could be more clear than the fact that you don't trust him.

Why would you have wanted him to have taken a more forceful tone with Putin if you don't trust him?

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Nothing could be more clear than the fact that you don't trust him.

Why would you have wanted him to have taken a more forceful tone with Putin if you don't trust him?

What an absurd question. It's not like we have another president carrying out alternate foreign policy to keep our interests moving forward.

Why? Besson? Because we don't have another choice. The alternative is the status quo which is just about the worst possible course of action. We would like to see Obama earn some of that "trust" back and we've outlined a way for him to do that.

The issue here isn't that the American people don't trust Obama. The issue is that none of the world leaders do, and that's what we're seeing today.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Here is the question again:

Why it is you want the president to be forceful when you don't trust him?

I trust my gardener to take care of the azaleas, but not to do my laundry.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

What an absurd question. It's not like we have another president carrying out alternate foreign policy to keep our interests moving forward.

Why? Besson? Because we don't have another choice. The alternative is the status quo which is just about the worst possible course of action. We would like to see Obama earn some of that "trust" back and we've outlined a way for him to do that.

The issue here isn't that the American people don't trust Obama. The issue is that none of the world leaders do, and that's what we're seeing today.

It's not an absurd question.

Many left-wing individuals here are suggesting that Obama not take an aggressive tone with Putin, while some right-wing individuals are advocating that aggressive tone, which makes no sense to me. If these individuals don't trust the president with health care or anything else, why would they trust him with taking that aggressive tone and possibly leading into some sort of war?

If your response is that you'd rather have Obama take that aggressive tone simply because you feel it needs to happen, although you'd much prefer that there was another president to carry out these actions, that's fine, but then the obvious follow-up question is why you feel this aggression needs to happen?

This came about by BadKosh seeming to be against any "sissy" actions, which I took to mean non-aggressive actions - the sort of actions that potentially lead to war. Does he speak for you too?

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

It's not an absurd question.

Many left-wing individuals here are suggesting that Obama not take an aggressive tone with Putin, while some right-wing individuals are advocating that aggressive tone, which makes no sense to me. If these individuals don't trust the president with health care or anything else, why would they trust him with taking that aggressive tone and possibly leading into some sort of war?

If your response is that you'd rather have Obama take that aggressive tone simply because you feel it needs to happen, although you'd much prefer that there was another president to carry out these actions, that's fine, but then the obvious follow-up question is why you feel this aggression needs to happen?

This came about by BadKosh seeming to be against any "sissy" actions, which I took to mean non-aggressive actions - the sort of actions that potentially lead to war. Does he speak for you too?

OK lets try this method........

NOTHING can be done about this now.
it could have been prevented IF our president was what was advertised by the assclown media and shallow, gullible stooges who voted him into office without actually knowing anything about him or examining his 'record'. Obama allowed this to happen. It was this bowing and scraping demeanor and his beginner stumbles that tipped off Putin YEARS AGO. Obama, from the start of his admin let Putin know he was a gutless coward. This was his ongoing big mistake.

The trust we don't have for Obama is a secondary issue. He has ALSO let us down with the stupid wasteful priorities, corruption, failing to address the corruptions and LYING to the voters for 2 terms about OweBamaCare. We have no trust for him NOW. We regret his cowardly actions SINCE HIS TERM STARTED.

Would YOU vote for Hillary, knowing she gave Bubba a pass on the womanizing?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

OK lets try this method........

NOTHING can be done about this now.
it could have been prevented IF our president was what was advertised by the assclown media and shallow, gullible stooges who voted him into office without actually knowing anything about him or examining his 'record'. Obama allowed this to happen. It was this bowing and scraping demeanor and his beginner stumbles that tipped off Putin YEARS AGO. Obama, from the start of his admin let Putin know he was a gutless coward. This was his ongoing big mistake.

The trust we don't have for Obama is a secondary issue. He has ALSO let us down with the stupid wasteful priorities, corruption, failing to address the corruptions and LYING to the voters for 2 terms about OweBamaCare. We have no trust for him NOW. We regret his cowardly actions SINCE HIS TERM STARTED.

Would YOU vote for Hillary, knowing she gave Bubba a pass on the womanizing?

BadKosh, if there is anything that is clear in this universe, it is how you feel about Obama, trust me.

Thanks for clarifying that your sissy remarks were about what could have/should have been. There is little point in getting into hypotheticals, and I'm not particularly interested in being dragged into other conversation with you, so let's leave it here.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

It's not an absurd question.

Many left-wing individuals here are suggesting that Obama not take an aggressive tone with Putin, while some right-wing individuals are advocating that aggressive tone, which makes no sense to me.

Does everything have to be through leftwing/rightwing glasses to you? Can't you just take my words at face value?

If these individuals don't trust the president with health care or anything else, why would they trust him with taking that aggressive tone and possibly leading into some sort of war?

What the hell are you talking about? When did anyone say lets go to war?

If your response is that you'd rather have Obama take that aggressive tone simply because you feel it needs to happen,

Did you even read my posts? I only had to quote myself twice in addition to the original statement. I would like Obama to put national interests in front of his campaign interests.

although you'd much prefer that there was another president to carry out these actions, that's fine, but then the obvious follow-up question is why you feel this aggression needs to happen?

Can you please try reading my posts again, and responding to those?

This came about by BadKosh seeming to be against any "sissy" actions, which I took to mean non-aggressive actions - the sort of actions that potentially lead to war. Does he speak for you too?

BadKosh will have to clarify that for you. My interpretation is that "sissy" means that Obama is unwilling to make tough choices that benefit the nation if his Campaign managers don't clear it first. No, BadKosh does not speak for me.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

BadKosh, if there is anything that is clear in this universe, it is how you feel about Obama, trust me.

Thanks for clarifying that your sissy remarks were about what could have/should have been. There is little point in getting into hypotheticals, and I'm not particularly interested in being dragged into other conversation with you, so let's leave it here.

You still haven't grasped the concepts of how leadership works. You have assumed that Obama could do something now about a situation that started years ago. You further assume that "Trust" has something to do with this situation specifically, but not an issue that addresses his entire time in office. I asked you If you would vote for Hillary knowing she gave Bubba a pass on his affairs and general womanizing. This is a similar type question to the one you asked. Obama has proven he is not trustworthy, and most all his actions and decisions have been questionable. Your liberal filter is getting in the way of good problem identification and solutions.

[Chongo]

This is what it's all about, getting the EU by the gas cajones.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Nothing could be more clear than the fact that you don't trust him.

Do you?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Do you?

I honestly don't know which politicians (or monied interests) should be trusted. It is very hard to separate between any politician's intentions and trying to be productive in an unproductive system. A politician might be naturally virtuous and having good intentions but having to operate in a pretty messed up environment makes it hard to see them that way.

I would default to assuming that no politicians are trustworthy, including Obama. Some might have good intentions, including Obama, but good intentions don't seem to be very valuable in politics.

Is there any monied interest you trust?

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I honestly don't know which politicians (or monied interests) should be trusted. It is very hard to separate between any politician's intentions and trying to be productive in an unproductive system. A politician might be naturally virtuous and having good intentions but having to operate in a pretty messed up environment makes it hard to see them that way.

I would default to assuming that no politicians are trustworthy, including Obama. Some might have good intentions, including Obama, but good intentions don't seem to be very valuable in politics.

Is there any monied interest you trust?

Vague.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I honestly don't know which politicians (or monied interests) should be trusted. It is very hard to separate between any politician's intentions and trying to be productive in an unproductive system. A politician might be naturally virtuous and having good intentions but having to operate in a pretty messed up environment makes it hard to see them that way.

I would default to assuming that no politicians are trustworthy, including Obama. Some might have good intentions, including Obama, but good intentions don't seem to be very valuable in politics.

Is there any monied interest you trust?

Well that leaves us with nothing to talk about since we don't really know who has good intentions and who doesn't.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Well that leaves us with nothing to talk about since we don't really know who has good intentions and who doesn't.

Exactly right, I was just answering the question.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Exactly right, I was just answering the question.

You do know I was sarcastically poking fun at you, right?

I'm at a loss, man. If it doesn't fit your narrative, it can't be so.

Do you think Obama's foreign policy decisions have had a net positive impact of US interest abroad? Do you think the current situation, or at least our position in it, was avoidable?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

You do know I was sarcastically poking fun at you, right?

I'm at a loss, man. If it doesn't fit your narrative, it can't be so.

Do you think Obama's foreign policy decisions have had a net positive impact of US interest abroad? Do you think the current situation, or at least our position in it, was avoidable?

I don't really want to have this conversation, sorry.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I don't really want to have this conversation, sorry.

Then why in the world are you still coming back to this thread?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Is there any monied interest you trust?

I'm glad you asked. Yes, there are monied interests that I'd trust; namely any of those that rely more on profitability for their survival than government bail-outs, a lopsided legislative and regulatory environment, and a tax structure that supports only the monoliths pushing enormous volumes.

Why? Because those interested in money for survival will generally want happy employees who represent their wares effectively, happy customers who speak highly of their wares, and responsible community involvement to bolster their presence in a marketplace.

[besson3c]

Do you trust Walmart, for example?

[BadKosh]

What do you define as 'Trust'?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Do you trust Walmart, for example?

I trust that Walmart will provide cheap shit to those who need shit cheap. I believe their presence is bloated by a lopsided regulatory environment that continues to hurt them least. However, I don't believe the answer is to "sock it to 'em" by dispatching untrustworthy politicians, but to hurt us all less by decreasing their role in our lives in general; less regulation and less involvement until we can get our arms of oversight around their activities.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I trust that Walmart will provide cheap necromancy to those who need necromancy cheap. I believe their presence is bloated by a lopsided regulatory environment that continues to hurt them least. However, I don't believe the answer is to "sock it to 'em" by dispatching untrustworthy politicians, but to hurt us all less by decreasing their role in our lives in general; less regulation and less involvement until we can get our arms of oversight around their activities.

This makes sense, especially the "until we can get our arms of oversight around their activities". Sometimes conservatives seem to convey to me that complete, no-holds-barred sort of corporate existence is the ultimate goal.

The problem is, I don't think we can get to that "until" part until we break up the shacking up between corporations and government, nor the proper handing of regulation.

How do we get this sort of money out of politics, do you think?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

This makes sense, especially the "until we can get our arms of oversight around their activities". Sometimes conservatives seem to convey to me that complete, no-holds-barred sort of corporate existence is the ultimate goal.

No, it's a realization that ultimately, a no-holds-barred sort of corporate existence is the goal of government and can only occur through untrustworthy politicians. It removes the inherent checks of the free market and places the burden of that accountability upon those who engage a wink-nod relationship with the corporation. We do not need more parties, or more politicians, or more ways for government to mitigate symptoms of the dysfunction they created, we need an undo option.

The problem is, I don't think we can get to that "until" part until we break up the shacking up between corporations and government, nor the proper handing of regulation.

How do we get this sort of money out of politics, do you think?

I'm optimistic that ideas to flatten the tax code and chisel away the most injurious regulatory codes upon smaller competition and startups will become more politically tenable and make available some of their inherent checks. We'd be well-served to let the market correct itself, letting up on QE, quit manipulating interest rates, and quit with the legislative modifications contingent upon election cycles; the business community cannot keep up with this and as our employers, this causes problems across the board.

[auto_immune]