I'm offended that in the age of VR, Donald Trump bought a $50,000 walk-in golf simulator with no depth perception.
How hard would it be to strap some serious tech to that fucker and include a headset? Heck, considering a golf simulator can cheat on graphics and render billboards over polygonal textures since you're motionless, it wouldn't even take massive GPU like what hamstrings current VR tech. I mean, all you really have to render is the golf club itself so you don't swing it into a wall

This post was edited by Goomshill on Feb 13 2019 02:28pm

a few things come to mind:

- he could have asked / pushed for any of the sanctions himself instead of opposing them to the best of his ability.
- he could have made an actual policy statement on russia concerning skripal (after all, the uk is technically still your closest ally) that sends a REAL signal to russia - instead of being upset about the tamest possible response.
- he could have gone for a proper and unconditional support of the ukraine and against russian expansionism
- he could have made an effort to draw attention to the dictatorial tendencies and undemocratic ways of putin, instead of being an apologist on his behalf, even throwing his own country under the bus ('you think we are so innocent?' when confronted with the fact that putin's political and public opponents have a tendency to disappear / die / end up in prison on bogus charges)
- he could at the very least have ensured that russia would NOT be able to meddle with future elections - but he was distinctly passive on that front as well
- he could have pressured or at the very least asked (after all, he's a "master negotiator") russia for ANY concessions for leaving syria instead of simply handing it over unconditionally

let's not forget that unlike china, russia is only a military adversary - economically they don't have shit on america and severe pressure in that sector hits them incredibly hard.

so again, the 'trump is tough on russia' talking point almost exclusively refers to policies that were basically (or even technically) inevitable for him to implement, he has shown no desire or initiative to proactively oppose putin or strengthen his opposition in any meaningful way.

your ancestor joseph, best friend of adolf didn’t do anything remotely close to that

God bless America

I wonder why CNN no cover

- how would "an actual policy statement on russia after skripal" look like in your opinion?
- I am glad that neither Trump nor the rest of the american foreign policy establishment is unconditionally siding with the corrupt, desolate mafia state that is the Ukraine.
- those economic sanctions that hit them incredibly hard - which details are you thinking of? because there are actually already significant sanctions in place since the invasion of Crimea almost 5 years ago, and they are not actually bothering the Russians all too much. these sanctions have not kept them from continuing their operations in the eastern Ukraine, they have not kept them from solidifying their annexation of Crimea, they have not kept them from ramping up their military operations in Syria.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Feb 13 2019 06:03pm

it's interesting to see that the approach you chose here is trying to 'corner' me on making some detailed policy proposals for the united states of america - it almost looks like you just don't want to discuss my main point that trump has NOT been 'tough on russia' at all - at least where he wasn't forced to.

that being said, 'unconditionally' was too strong of a term, congratulations for picking that up. i should have phrased it 'he could have taken appropriate action against russian expansionism instead of a token gesture of support carefully designed not to have any actual impact' - but then you'd be asking me how many tons of equipment exactly should have been sent - because if you're not willing to give a concrete answer to that, you are not allowed to point out how bs the 'tough on russia' claim is, correct?

seriously, did you ever even attempt to look at this objectively and figure out if the claim is fair or not, or did you immediately look for a way to pivot and 'discredit' anyone claiming the narrative is bogus when you actually look at it?

Lol, hold on for a second. IceMage posted a detailed list of the things Trump had done on Russia, and it was you who claimed that those things either didnt "count" or were too weak. So it is clearly on you to prove why his responses were too weak and/or inadequate.

All I did was point out that several of your arguments were expecting the impossible from Trump. I'm not trying to "corner" you at all, I'm just giving my opinion, which is that your arguments on why you consider Trump to be specifically weak on Russia are not convincing.


For example, those "token gestures of support [for the Ukraine] carefully designed not to have any actual impact" - do you even realize that it was Obama who came up with these? Since Trump took office, there has not been a significant change of the situation in the eastern Ukraine or the Crimea, so it makes perfect sense for Trump to continue the stance of his predecessor on that front. And as others have already mentioned, it was the Trump administration which ultimately decided to arm the Ukraine, an action Obama never took.


Btw, just for the record: I'm actually with you on some points. For example, I consider the way his cabinet and the Senate had to whip him into enacting the sanctions to be one of the low points of his foreign policy so far. Nonetheless I think that there is not much more his administration could have done to rein in Russia without risking a proper escalation, and I agree with IceMage that his administration actually did more than Obama's - even though I agree with you in that a lot of these moves were made in spite and not because of Trump.

yet funnily you completely ignored the point i made about election security for example, another field that trump was completely inactive in - despite the consensus of all his intelligence agencies about russia's meddling attempts. even his own appointee admitted at some point that trump did not show ANY initiative, push for additional measures, let alone allocate funds to make sure that doesn't happen again.

also, to state that trump defying congress and speaking out against sanctions proves he's not 'tough on russia' ('too weak' isn't even the description i chose, i pointed out that he did it against his obvious and publicly expressed will) does NOT have to be backed up by concrete sanctions that i'd consider 'tough' - maybe actually pushing for them and supporting those efforts rather than opposing them would have given that narrative at least SOME credibility...



well i would certainly agree with the sentiment that this ADMINISTRATION implemented measures that were tougher on russia than others, but you will find that's not the point of my disagreement. as you (just like me previously) rightfully pointed out, many of those happened AGAINST trump's will - and if you look back a couple of pages you'll see that i directly highlighted the framing that "TRUMP has been tough on russia" - the popular talking point that i (and apparently you too) just disagree with. the facts just don't support that...

This post was edited by fender on Feb 13 2019 07:02pm

about election security: in a climate where the narrative of widespread russian meddling on his behalf is actively weaponized against him by his political and media opponents, it is very understandable to me that he is not particularly inclined to take any action which would acknowledge and legitimize this narrative.