America's retaliation against Russian hacking.

I think the number is around 35% who still believes that.

I think Putin sees himself as a reincarnation of Niccolas I, the man responsible for the demise of the treikaisebund that ended an unusually long period of peace among European nations with the Crimean War,; and set the stage for 1870 and WWI; and, who created a situation in the Caucasus that led there to the mass extermination of Circassians , which occurred shortly after he died.

I believe Putin's aims and intentions are fairly well understood by our intelligence community; that he has limited leverage in the world; and significant economic vulnerabilities. He will likely pass from the scene within no more than 20 years and we should conduct our relations with those factors in mind. Russia can be a useful partner (perhaps not ally) in some international endeavors and we should not foolishly foreclose on that possibility merely because he embarassed the DNC and the Clinton campaign. We should also not allow our distaste for Putin to poision our cultural connections with the Russian people - as Obama has done. We should also exploit Russia's economic vulnerabilities and the mistrust shown it by most of its eastern European neighbors to limit Putin's adventures - things we have foolishly left undone these past eight years.

As an adolescent I became fascinated with Russian history and literature, an interest that persisted for a long time. Oddly it started with a couple of books I found on the shelf at home, one was a little known novel of Dostoyevski , "The Double" and the other a shorter work called "Notes from underground". At 16 I had never read anything so strange and fascinating, and was too young to understand or see their limitations. In any event I was hooked for a long time and learned a lot from it. There are interesting similarities and contrasts between Russia and the United States, particularly in our respective relations with Central and Western Europe. They are the overlarge barbarians of the East and we the West.

Overall I think Obama's policy was a clear failure and Trump just might do better. We shall see.

I think you are missing the humor, irony and occasional trenchan insights that distinguish Layman here.

What would meet the test, George?

It goes without saying that you'll dismiss anything that comes from a liberal website or blog or news outlet, as well as anything from a Democrat or the Democratic party. You're obviously also dismissing sources like CNN or the New York Times or the Washington Post as part of "the liberal MSM." However, it seems you also don't particularly care for anything coming from the GOP that runs counter to Trump's narrative. You're still reluctant to agree with the assessment that Russia interfered in the elections - a view that seems widely accepted by Republicans on the congressional intelligence committees - and you most certainly disagree with the conclusion of the intelligence services that Russia interfered specifically to sway the election towards Trump.

So if we rule out liberal and mainstream news outlets, liberals, Democrats, Republicans who disagree with Trump and the U.S. intelligence services - what exactly would "meet that test?"

I have never seen humor in layman's posts.

Well the answer lies in the sentence you quoted. Take out the obviously exaggerated and categorical stuff ( "Trump is unfit... ; a pathological liar; interfered with our election: " etc.) and you are left with a very small residue of material that might be worth considering. I find most of the anti Trump material here to be a mixture of categorical nonsense, partisan selective and grossly exaggerated stuff, lacking context and thoughtful consideration of the results obtained and their meaning.

Presidents are human beings, complex creatures filled with contradictions, perceived virtues that become faults in office and the converse. History reveals achievements and failings that usually confound the first impressions of partisans on both sides. Harry Truman was an excellent example of undetected potential and integrity We now know (most of ) what we got with Obama : Trump is an unwritten page.

Contrast the contemporary nonsense about Putin with what I wrote in the post above concerning our relations with that country. There I made a brief effort to state the context in which this stuff should be evaluated - something that is totally absent from the overpartisan and largely meaningless "dialogue" here on the mattter.

Trump presents some unusual contrasts and apparent contradictions that are ignored and unexamined in the ever partisan dialogue here. Indeed in most cases I think any attempt to do so would be a waste of time in a game where scoring points is at issue, not a search for understanding. Some considerations;
=> Obama speaks in generalities about the "right" action or policy , usually in terms of its merits relative so some abstract principle or value. His detailed management of our government apparatus and policy, both foreign and domestic has been a sad series of failures.
=> Trump speaks in very (sometimes almost absurdly) specific and concrete terms with vivid and specific references ( "build a wall..." ) , and he does so often with apparent inconsistently ( though there is an easily detected central tendency in it). Despite that I believe most of his supporters believe they know what he intends to do far better than they knew what they would get from the more elegantly loquatious Obama. His opponents merely seize on the inconsistencies. We shall see....
=> Obama's Cabinet was, Except for Bill Gates (former SECDEF) a collection of weak people entirely (or partly in the case of Hilllary) dependent on him. All behaved consistently as sycophants reflecting the Obama line in everything while the Federal Bureaucracy grew in size and cost, and shrank in competence and effectiveness.
=> Trump has selected a group of rather independent and distinguished people whose competence and stated interests amplify his sometimes inarticulately stated, but clear goals. They have already demonstrated their willingness to differ with him in detail in their testimony to Congress - something that never occurred (except for Gates) with Obama, and Trump has confidently endorsed those actions.

This is a long and complex subject, but I have attempted tobriefly outline what I believe may be a coherent way of evaluating the differences. I see the possibility that Trump will be a focused and decisive, action-oriented President and in that form much needed in a successor to the selo-absorbed Hamlet who proceeded him. I hope that answers your question.

That you have not seen it doesn't surprise me, Cicerone. It is there nevertheless.

It's probably because I put him on ignore some time ago, and didn't see his humor.

Here is a perfect example (from another thread) of the impenetrable nonsense I was referring to;

I been around here, on and off, what with the long-ass suspensions, and ****, for maybe a couple years, George.

One thing that struck me from the very outset, and about which I have commented before, is the almost absolute absence of humor here (at least in the threads I pay attention to).

There is almost no play, no frivolity, no chuckling, no humor The vast majority of posters here come across as "dead serious." I come here mainly to have some fun. Most seem to come here to engage in life-or-death battle.

That's cool though, those types are funny and provide a worthwhile source of amusement, too, in their own way.

It's kinda like you tell a good joke and everyone laughs. Then there's one guy who says he doesn't get it. Then everyone laughs again--at him.

It's the clique-iest deadpan joint that I've found so far on the WWW.

Overt narcissists seem the most popular, and thoughtful introverts seem the least.

I just like to show the Ns just how wrong they are at times. The dorks.

Builda, from my experience, Ozzies are almost invariably fun-loving people with a great sense of humor. Maybe I should move there.

Tasmania is the land of milk and honey, quite literally, and it still has four seasons.

People who think climate change is a myth, ought to come here to see how it's been panning out for 15 years or so.

We're generally fun-loving peep, but the arsehole factor exists here as well. Though we don't often find people willing to gun us down for kicks, and the cops have to write up a report if they unholster their guns.

Well anyone who led me back to Elizabeth Cotten has to be worth a ****. I agree with you about the lack of humor and even a little irony. Actually ole blatham sometines makes efforts at humor, but most are in the context of one of his doctrinaire slams against unbelievers. Very little mutually shared humor about anything under discussion - ever.

Don't underestimate your effect: cheese eater is now part of the A2K lexicon.

Just so alla y'all know:



Lizbeth wrote that tune around 1904, when she was about 12 years old. It's since become a folk standard.

Why are you taking out those statements? How do you determine that a statement like "interfered with our election" is obviously exaggerated?

It seems that you pick and choose certain items that you either want to believe or will categorically refuse to believe, and then work your way backwards in order to find a way to dismiss the source. It's been posted here - reported by a multitude of media outlets, and coming from a number of sources - that there is general agreement within the intelligence community that Russia interfered with the election, and, more specifically, did so in order to sway the election towards Trump. Yet when confronted with this, you will either choose to shoot the messenger ("It's the Washington Post, who's going to believe them!?") or simply sidetrack the conversation into incredibly broad, vague generalities ("Presidents are human beings, complex creatures filled with contradictions, perceived virtues that become faults in office and the converse.")



Which merely means that Trump supporters go through his various statements, and then pick and choose which ones they want to believe, and which ones they will dismiss - with a multitude of justifications, ranging from - early in the primaries and election - "He's just rallying his base with extreme positions, he will obviously walk them back after the primaries/after the Republican convention/during the general election/once he's won the election/once he's in office" to "He's a businessman and just establishing a strong negotiating position, he obviously can't let his opponents know what he really wants" to "He's just provoking those liberals and the mainstream press, what he says is not really his opinion" to "He's just giving the masses very specific, colorful illustrations of broader policy proposals - they're obviously not meant to be taken literally!"

In other words, it seems that Trump supporters completely accept the fact that Trump will state something that obviously has to be untrue. They just believe that they're in on the joke, that he may be leading on all those ignorant liberals and media types and Republican opponents, but they know exactly which statements are false and which ones are true. Because he's plainspoken, and rejects political correctness, and tells it like it is, and is just a blue collar guy who's made it, and he's always, always honest with them.

Opinions on what is supposed to be taken literally and what is obviously hyperbole/being a clever businessman/goading liberals might vary from one supporter to the next. With the general agreement that you have to evaluate whatever Trump says based on whether or not it feels right to you, not based on whether or not it's inconsistent with what he's said previously.

As one journalist aptly put it: "The left takes Trump literally, but not seriously. His supporters take him seriously, but not literally."

By the way, the use of the word "interfered" is stupid in this context. Just another feeble attempt to generate a psuedo-issue.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/world/national-security/obama-orders-review-of-russian-hacking-during-presidential-campaign/2016/12/09/31d6b300-be2a-11e6-94ac-3d324840106c_story.html?client=safari

Lefties always seem surprised that the cheap, sophistical fallacies they use to convince each other of their righteousness don't immediately convince normal people. They don't realize that they destroy themselves, not others.

Normal people understand political interference by a foreign country when all of our intelligence agencies tell us.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/?tid=a_inl-amp