|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On February 22 2017 05:08 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2017 05:00 Plansix wrote:On February 22 2017 04:56 Ghostcom wrote:On February 22 2017 04:44 Plansix wrote:On February 22 2017 04:39 Ghostcom wrote:On February 22 2017 04:38 Gorsameth wrote:On February 22 2017 04:36 Ghostcom wrote:On February 22 2017 04:24 Gorsameth wrote:On February 22 2017 04:22 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 22 2017 04:19 Bleak wrote:
Thanks America, for electing Trump. This next 4 years is going to be so fun to watch. Every day I check the news and Trump says/does something which cracks me up. He never fails to deliver! The Idiocracy has come true. Irony coming from a country that elected Erdogan? Though, I guess to be fair, Erdogan generally isn't an idiot, per se. Erdogan is what Trump wants to be. Someone who turned a Democratic country into a Dictatorship. I must have missed a press meeting. Trump wants to always be right. He wants no one to question what he does. Did you miss his attacks on the Judiciary for questioning the legality of his Executive Orders? Are you actually serious in your belief that Trump wants to turn USA into a dictatorship? A lot of people see that in Bannon and his crew. It isn’t hard. Their open distain for government and civil servants. Expressing a desire to destroy the system. Nationalist tendencies and deep dislike of the press. People are not willing to risk saying it isn’t possible, that they would never try. Its 2017, anything is possible. On February 22 2017 04:42 Ghostcom wrote:On February 22 2017 04:40 Plansix wrote:On February 22 2017 04:38 Gorsameth wrote:On February 22 2017 04:36 Ghostcom wrote:On February 22 2017 04:24 Gorsameth wrote:On February 22 2017 04:22 WolfintheSheep wrote:
[quote]
Irony coming from a country that elected Erdogan?
Though, I guess to be fair, Erdogan generally isn't an idiot, per se. Erdogan is what Trump wants to be. Someone who turned a Democratic country into a Dictatorship. I must have missed a press meeting. Trump wants to always be right. He wants no one to question what he does. Did you miss his attacks on the Judiciary for questioning the legality of his Executive Orders? Or his goon Miller claiming the judges were not respecting the power of the president? I didn't miss any of that. Now do you seriously believe that this is equatable to an Erdogan'esque dictatorship? Please remember that we are able to have this discussion in the first place, when giving your answer. No. That doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t worry about it, however. Don’t confuse discussions about the authoritarian tendencies of Trump with a full blown fear of him turning the US into a dictatorship. People are just talking about it. Oh Plansix, never change. You’re the one who came in there asking a whole bunch of leading questions. “Do you really believe he could turn the US in to a dictatorship?” You might as well have said “Can you give me a reason to call you stupid?” It would have been more direct. I’ve seen a lot of things in US politics since the 1980, but nothing like Trump and his clowns. Eh, every question you don't like has a tendency to be dismissed as a leading question. Seems like a defense of holding contradictory opinions in my experience.
Most that start out with “Do you really believe BLANK?” are not ones that are started in good faith, in my experience. Especially on the internet.
I have had plenty of fine discussions with people on this site. But there are just as many people out there, including myself from time to time, in a mad dash to correct someone when they posted something they consider wrong. That is the more common interaction.
|
On February 22 2017 04:58 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2017 04:52 Danglars wrote:On February 22 2017 04:44 LegalLord wrote:
Wouldn't be surprised if people here supported a military coup to depose Trump. For a lot of folks, their hatred of Trump burns brighter than a thousand suns. The operative word is everything is justified because Trump is that bad. Deep state activities, judicial activism in foreign affairs, the media as opposition party (but let's face it: Dems we're doing such a bad job that it was easy for them to shine in that role). But, you know, we're stuck in blame and counter-blame at who's the fascists and who's breaking apart the country. Cooperation with a foreign adversary is a bigger issue than all of those. As is openly encouraging a foreign adversary to conduct cyber crime against one's campaign opponent. But hey...the media is bad.
Just keep those allegations going. 'Cooperation' is about as fake news as these things get. But we'd actually need a media that reports the news to find it out ... also, one you'd read.
|
On February 22 2017 05:02 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2017 05:00 Plansix wrote:On February 22 2017 04:56 Ghostcom wrote:On February 22 2017 04:44 Plansix wrote:On February 22 2017 04:39 Ghostcom wrote:On February 22 2017 04:38 Gorsameth wrote:On February 22 2017 04:36 Ghostcom wrote:On February 22 2017 04:24 Gorsameth wrote:On February 22 2017 04:22 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 22 2017 04:19 Bleak wrote:
Thanks America, for electing Trump. This next 4 years is going to be so fun to watch. Every day I check the news and Trump says/does something which cracks me up. He never fails to deliver! The Idiocracy has come true. Irony coming from a country that elected Erdogan? Though, I guess to be fair, Erdogan generally isn't an idiot, per se. Erdogan is what Trump wants to be. Someone who turned a Democratic country into a Dictatorship. I must have missed a press meeting. Trump wants to always be right. He wants no one to question what he does. Did you miss his attacks on the Judiciary for questioning the legality of his Executive Orders? Are you actually serious in your belief that Trump wants to turn USA into a dictatorship? A lot of people see that in Bannon and his crew. It isn’t hard. Their open distain for government and civil servants. Expressing a desire to destroy the system. Nationalist tendencies and deep dislike of the press. People are not willing to risk saying it isn’t possible, that they would never try. Its 2017, anything is possible. On February 22 2017 04:42 Ghostcom wrote:On February 22 2017 04:40 Plansix wrote:On February 22 2017 04:38 Gorsameth wrote:On February 22 2017 04:36 Ghostcom wrote:On February 22 2017 04:24 Gorsameth wrote:On February 22 2017 04:22 WolfintheSheep wrote:
[quote]
Irony coming from a country that elected Erdogan?
Though, I guess to be fair, Erdogan generally isn't an idiot, per se. Erdogan is what Trump wants to be. Someone who turned a Democratic country into a Dictatorship. I must have missed a press meeting. Trump wants to always be right. He wants no one to question what he does. Did you miss his attacks on the Judiciary for questioning the legality of his Executive Orders? Or his goon Miller claiming the judges were not respecting the power of the president? I didn't miss any of that. Now do you seriously believe that this is equatable to an Erdogan'esque dictatorship? Please remember that we are able to have this discussion in the first place, when giving your answer. No. That doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t worry about it, however. Don’t confuse discussions about the authoritarian tendencies of Trump with a full blown fear of him turning the US into a dictatorship. People are just talking about it. Oh Plansix, never change. You’re the one who came in there asking a whole bunch of leading questions. “Do you really believe he could turn the US in to a dictatorship?” You might as well have said “Can you give me a reason to call you stupid?” It would have been more direct. I’ve seen a lot of things in US politics since the 1980, but nothing like Trump and his clowns. Read the thread again. Gorsameth made an outrageous claim with no support. I asked explorative questions, but as usual you are dishonest in your posting.
Based on the actions of Trump. Both in attacking the judicial branch for doing their job of curtailing power, his administrations statements that the Judiciary should stop trying to interfere with what Trump does and his frequent praise of Putin as "a strong and popular leader".
No I don't consider my statement outrageous.
Trump admires dictators and does not want his actions questioned (which is only really so in a dictatorship).
|
On February 22 2017 04:52 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2017 04:44 LegalLord wrote:
Wouldn't be surprised if people here supported a military coup to depose Trump. For a lot of folks, their hatred of Trump burns brighter than a thousand suns. The operative word is everything is justified because Trump is that bad. Deep state activities, judicial activism in foreign affairs, the media as opposition party (but let's face it: Dems we're doing such a bad job that it was easy for them to shine in that role). But, you know, we're stuck in blame and counter-blame at who's the fascists and who's breaking apart the country.
Literally zero people in this thread have advocated for violently removing Trump. At least from what I've read. People even mock the tweets from the violent anti-Trump side. Stop trying to hide your anti-Democratic sentiment in made-up hypotheticals.
For all the grief against Trump, Trump is still a relatively known quantity now - of being simplistic, anti-negative Trump, and stupid. A military coup is completely unpredictable - who will take the reins afterwards, what happens to the government. Only extreme anti-government folk want that, none of whom appear to be here.
Sure it'd be nice for something to happen so that Trump would have to step down because screw this guy, but those are completely different scenarios and you two should be ashamed to knowingly try and slander the opposition like that.
|
|
|
Hope his friends (presuming he has any) put him on suicide watch, such a rapid fall. Ironically over some comments that people are definitely misinterpreting (though they are still plenty questionable).
Not sure Milo can breath without attention though, so should be interesting what he does with this.
|
On February 22 2017 05:27 GreenHorizons wrote:Hope his friends (presuming he has any) put him on suicide watch, such a rapid fall. Ironically over some comments that people are definitely misinterpreting (though they are still plenty questionable). Not sure Milo can breath without attention though, so should be interesting what he does with this.
It tends to happen to any celebrity who thrive on controversies. Either you burn up in a big scandal or you fade into obscurity.
|
She has just 0 abillity to inspire people, she probably never had. If obama told us one thing, then that inspiring people is paramount.
Hillary didn't even try to fire up people, she tried to be as electable as possible and it hurt her bad.
|
On February 22 2017 05:05 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2017 04:59 ChristianS wrote:On February 22 2017 03:27 LegalLord wrote:On February 22 2017 03:22 Blisse wrote:
Any defense of Hillary just feeds into LL's egotistical blanket denial of "somehow has a core base of supporters who explain away every single one of her mistakes and failures (no easy task)" so really what's the point of going through this like the 30th time. I mean, when her record looks like one of failure after failure, blunder after blunder, and for each of those blunders there is someone there to explain it away (it was the Russians/Republicans/this is normal/she had no choice because the election season was just so uncooperative/no one except everyone could have predicted this is how it would go/etc) it starts to be a rather reasonable blanket dismissal. What do you think it proves that for each criticism of her, there is also someone making an argument in her defense? Isn't that normally how arguments work - there's two sides to every question, and they argue about who's right? Usually when you argue in favor of someone, you aren't spending 90% of the time saying "I know he/she looks bad, but here's why his/her mistakes are nbd." Because generally there's no need to. And no, the poor perception of Hillary isn't just an unfair Republican plot to undermine her. It's easy to blame Russia, or the Republicans, or racists, or whatever else, but it doesn't make it true. I could give further reasons why I would say Bernie was the better choice - but I think I gave more than enough in the earlier post. He was polling better for the general, easily. And yet whether or not he would have won seems even more irrelevant than Hillary, who was so electable she can't lose.
How are you going to claim she won on a bullshit electability argument and then cite those head-to-head polls about the general? Those are useless because they don't consider any of the changes to their messaging they would make in the general. It's like taking a snapshot of a Terran's lategame TvP army and a Zerg's lategame ZvZ army and asking which you think would win. It doesn't matter because they would have made very different armies if they were in a TvZ.
Actually, "it looks bad but here's why it's nbd" is exactly what you usually spend your time doing when you're defending someone. Trump's supporters did it too (listen, I know he said he'd grab her by the pussy, but we don't KNOW she wasn't consenting). I didn't claim her poor perception was just because of a Republican or Russian mudsling operation, although I do think it had to do with people not understanding how to treat an unknown. Between greater transparency on her part and years of media coverage, congressional investigations and hacks from opponents, we knew WAY more about HRC than Trump or Bernie. In all likelihood Trump would have looked way worse if we even had just his tax returns, let alone all his campaign emails. But since he was considerably more opaque people underestimated the degree to which he was also terrible.
I know I'm kinda feeding the troll here, and maybe I should learn to ignore your electability vitriol like everyone else does, but it's bizarre how as Trump gets worse as president, you're merely amused by his destructive actions, while you still take the perceived slight from Democrats choosing HRC over Bernie so incredibly personally.
|
On February 22 2017 05:27 GreenHorizons wrote:Hope his friends (presuming he has any) put him on suicide watch, such a rapid fall. Ironically over some comments that people are definitely misinterpreting (though they are still plenty questionable). Not sure Milo can breath without attention though, so should be interesting what he does with this.
I remember reading an interview where he openly admitted to preferring to have no friends. He was almost proud of it, which made it more depressing. I remember this because I almost felt bad for him for half a second.
|
On February 22 2017 05:33 Velr wrote:
She has just 0 abillity to inspire people, she probably never had. If obama told us one thing, then that inspiring people is paramount.
Hillary didn't even try to fire up people, she tried to be as electable as possible and it hurt her bad.
it's one of the fundamental problems with democracy, it tends toward selecting people who inspire, rather than a focus on actual results/capabilities. admittedly the latter are harder to measure than the former.
but it often feels like democratic selection pressures favor used car salesman (as per the stereotype).
we really need to do more work to build structures that fix the known problems in democracies. I'm annoyed I don't hear more from our leaders on that.
|
On February 22 2017 04:59 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2017 03:27 LegalLord wrote:On February 22 2017 03:22 Blisse wrote:
Any defense of Hillary just feeds into LL's egotistical blanket denial of "somehow has a core base of supporters who explain away every single one of her mistakes and failures (no easy task)" so really what's the point of going through this like the 30th time. I mean, when her record looks like one of failure after failure, blunder after blunder, and for each of those blunders there is someone there to explain it away (it was the Russians/Republicans/this is normal/she had no choice because the election season was just so uncooperative/no one except everyone could have predicted this is how it would go/etc) it starts to be a rather reasonable blanket dismissal. What do you think it proves that for each criticism of her, there is also someone making an argument in her defense? Isn't that normally how arguments work - there's two sides to every question, and they argue about who's right? For all your fuss about the 'electability' argument, it seems perfectly rational in a primary to consider not just which candidate you like better, but which is more likely to win the general, and based on the information we had at the time it still seems reasonable to think that she was more likely to win.
Not only was it (and it still is) perfectly reasonable to believe HRC would be more electable than Sanders, the real kicker about LegalLord's endless repeat of his trollish electability comment is that it is not even close to being one of the main reasons HRC voters supported her in the primary. He initially made the claim that "electability was the biggest reason people chose Hillary", and I debunked that assertion here -- it's completely false 
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On February 22 2017 05:35 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2017 05:05 LegalLord wrote:On February 22 2017 04:59 ChristianS wrote:On February 22 2017 03:27 LegalLord wrote:On February 22 2017 03:22 Blisse wrote:
Any defense of Hillary just feeds into LL's egotistical blanket denial of "somehow has a core base of supporters who explain away every single one of her mistakes and failures (no easy task)" so really what's the point of going through this like the 30th time. I mean, when her record looks like one of failure after failure, blunder after blunder, and for each of those blunders there is someone there to explain it away (it was the Russians/Republicans/this is normal/she had no choice because the election season was just so uncooperative/no one except everyone could have predicted this is how it would go/etc) it starts to be a rather reasonable blanket dismissal. What do you think it proves that for each criticism of her, there is also someone making an argument in her defense? Isn't that normally how arguments work - there's two sides to every question, and they argue about who's right? Usually when you argue in favor of someone, you aren't spending 90% of the time saying "I know he/she looks bad, but here's why his/her mistakes are nbd." Because generally there's no need to. And no, the poor perception of Hillary isn't just an unfair Republican plot to undermine her. It's easy to blame Russia, or the Republicans, or racists, or whatever else, but it doesn't make it true. I could give further reasons why I would say Bernie was the better choice - but I think I gave more than enough in the earlier post. He was polling better for the general, easily. And yet whether or not he would have won seems even more irrelevant than Hillary, who was so electable she can't lose. How are you going to claim she won on a bullshit electability argument and then cite those head-to-head polls about the general? Those are useless because they don't consider any of the changes to their messaging they would make in the general. It's like taking a snapshot of a Terran's lategame TvP army and a Zerg's lategame ZvZ army and asking which you think would win. It doesn't matter because they would have made very different armies if they were in a TvZ. Actually, "it looks bad but here's why it's nbd" is exactly what you usually spend your time doing when you're defending someone. Trump's supporters did it too (listen, I know he said he'd grab her by the pussy, but we don't KNOW she wasn't consenting). I didn't claim her poor perception was just because of a Republican or Russian mudsling operation, although I do think it had to do with people not understanding how to treat an unknown. Between greater transparency on her part and years of media coverage, congressional investigations and hacks from opponents, we knew WAY more about HRC than Trump or Bernie. In all likelihood Trump would have looked way worse if we even had just his tax returns, let alone all his campaign emails. But since he was considerably more opaque people underestimated the degree to which he was also terrible. I know I'm kinda feeding the troll here, and maybe I should learn to ignore your electability vitriol like everyone else does, but it's bizarre how as Trump gets worse as president, you're merely amused by his destructive actions, while you still take the perceived slight from Democrats choosing HRC over Bernie so incredibly personally.
I wouldn't say she won on that argument, but it is absolutely true that the argument was utterly stupid.
Trump is bad in a lot of ways, and the pussygate issue, among others, should have been disqualifying - but it remains true that the candidate who was advertised for her electability lost to the pussygrabber in chief. So infinite mockery is in order because it's not something that can be let go.
All the chaos Trump is causing isn't purely a function of Hillary being bad; Hillary being bad is just a symptom of the problem. But I see it as the natural result of a certain policy, pursued by elites of the Western world, that ultimately are leading to the fracturing and destruction of the order that they so deeply depend upon. But before we build something better, that old order needs to be destroyed. Hence, chaos is good for now. Bernie isn't really the solution, he was the most competent stopgap of the four. But I guess we get Trump instead.
|
On February 22 2017 05:38 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2017 05:27 GreenHorizons wrote:Hope his friends (presuming he has any) put him on suicide watch, such a rapid fall. Ironically over some comments that people are definitely misinterpreting (though they are still plenty questionable). Not sure Milo can breath without attention though, so should be interesting what he does with this. I remember reading an interview where he openly admitted to preferring to have no friends. He was almost proud of it, which made it more depressing. I remember this because I almost felt bad for him for half a second.
He certainly takes a unique approach to friendship.
|
On February 22 2017 05:20 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2017 04:58 Doodsmack wrote:On February 22 2017 04:52 Danglars wrote:On February 22 2017 04:44 LegalLord wrote:
Wouldn't be surprised if people here supported a military coup to depose Trump. For a lot of folks, their hatred of Trump burns brighter than a thousand suns. The operative word is everything is justified because Trump is that bad. Deep state activities, judicial activism in foreign affairs, the media as opposition party (but let's face it: Dems we're doing such a bad job that it was easy for them to shine in that role). But, you know, we're stuck in blame and counter-blame at who's the fascists and who's breaking apart the country. Cooperation with a foreign adversary is a bigger issue than all of those. As is openly encouraging a foreign adversary to conduct cyber crime against one's campaign opponent. But hey...the media is bad. Just keep those allegations going. 'Cooperation' is about as fake news as these things get. But we'd actually need a media that reports the news to find it out ... also, one you'd read.
I'm sure your allegations have more credibility. If they came out of Trump's mouth, they surely do.
|
On February 22 2017 05:44 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2017 05:33 Velr wrote:
She has just 0 abillity to inspire people, she probably never had. If obama told us one thing, then that inspiring people is paramount.
Hillary didn't even try to fire up people, she tried to be as electable as possible and it hurt her bad. it's one of the fundamental problems with democracy, it tends toward selecting people who inspire, rather than a focus on actual results/capabilities. admittedly the latter are harder to measure than the former. but it often feels like democratic selection pressures favor used car salesman (as per the stereotype). we really need to do more work to build structures that fix the known problems in democracies. I'm annoyed I don't hear more from our leaders on that.
Democracy is hard work, the people who regularly contribute here are barely engaged enough to even make superficial judgments on the merit of folks contributions (myself included). Our politicians intentionally let our population reach a point where a Trump could find success, then everyone looks around like "how could this happen!?!?"
For decades people watched as they saw common folks not be able to even recognize their representatives, and everyone just chuckled along. We should have recognized at least 20 years ago that our democracy was in trouble if we didn't do something massive to correct our comprehension gap regarding civics.
Of course Trump won, both sides have spent 40+ years trying to prepare the public for someone like him. That's why the complaints from Hillary's camp about voters ring so hollow, she was as much a part of what led to Trump as Republicans. Remember, she and her camp intentionally elevated Trump
|
I know it's a dead horse and the argument petered out a while ago but hillary didn't have the statistics behind her to be a winning canidate. It's shitty to say it but being a woman was a net negative and her favorabilities were pretty poor. She lacked a positive message to sell herself and didn't have any defining positive legislative initiatives. She also didn't represent any coalition or electoral positive like being from a swing state and like people say she was a statis quo canidate when she needed progressive voters and when populism was on the rise.
LL keeps harping on her electability beacuse it was a joke then and is a bad joke now. Nothing she did helped her be more electable during the campaign and you can't expect people to just be happy voting for the lessor of two evils.
|
On February 22 2017 05:21 Blisse wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2017 04:52 Danglars wrote:On February 22 2017 04:44 LegalLord wrote:
Wouldn't be surprised if people here supported a military coup to depose Trump. For a lot of folks, their hatred of Trump burns brighter than a thousand suns. The operative word is everything is justified because Trump is that bad. Deep state activities, judicial activism in foreign affairs, the media as opposition party (but let's face it: Dems we're doing such a bad job that it was easy for them to shine in that role). But, you know, we're stuck in blame and counter-blame at who's the fascists and who's breaking apart the country. Literally zero people in this thread have advocated for violently removing Trump. At least from what I've read. People even mock the tweets from the violent anti-Trump side. Stop trying to hide your anti-Democratic sentiment in made-up hypotheticals. For all the grief against Trump, Trump is still a relatively known quantity now - of being simplistic, anti-negative Trump, and stupid. A military coup is completely unpredictable - who will take the reins afterwards, what happens to the government. Only extreme anti-government folk want that, none of whom appear to be here. Sure it'd be nice for something to happen so that Trump would have to step down because screw this guy, but those are completely different scenarios and you two should be ashamed to knowingly try and slander the opposition like that.
And yet the Russian legitimacy arguments keep coming up; these proto-fascism arguments keep coming up. I'm sure you've noticed the impeachment fantasy posts as well. You can see the thrust of these quasi memes. I'm also glad a select few tease the more radical reactionaries in the left. So while I welcome your level-headedness here, I also think you're missing the forest for the trees.
|
On February 22 2017 05:53 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2017 05:44 zlefin wrote:On February 22 2017 05:33 Velr wrote:
She has just 0 abillity to inspire people, she probably never had. If obama told us one thing, then that inspiring people is paramount.
Hillary didn't even try to fire up people, she tried to be as electable as possible and it hurt her bad. it's one of the fundamental problems with democracy, it tends toward selecting people who inspire, rather than a focus on actual results/capabilities. admittedly the latter are harder to measure than the former. but it often feels like democratic selection pressures favor used car salesman (as per the stereotype). we really need to do more work to build structures that fix the known problems in democracies. I'm annoyed I don't hear more from our leaders on that. Democracy is hard work, the people who regularly contribute here are barely engaged enough to even make superficial judgments on the merit of folks contributions (myself included). Our politicians intentionally let our population reach a point where a Trump could find success, then everyone looks around like "how could this happen!?!?" For decades people watched as they saw common folks not be able to even recognize their representatives, and everyone just chuckled along. We should have recognized at least 20 years ago that our democracy was in trouble if we didn't do something massive to correct our comprehension gap regarding civics. Of course Trump won, both sides have spent 40+ years trying to prepare the public for someone like him. That's why the complaints from Hillary's camp about voters ring so hollow, she was as much a part of what led to Trump as Republicans. Remember, she and her camp intentionally elevated Trump
I think you overestimate the degree to which people were historically good at civics.
but indeed democracy is hard work, and most people don't want to put in the effort for it. one of the problems with democracy really, it requires an amount of effort from the public that is not worthwhile to an individual for their own utility.
|
Pence is keeping up the Don't Worry, We Have a Clue Tour.
U.S. Vice President Mike Pence on Monday vowed to stand with the European Union and the NATO military alliance, but was met with some skepticism from leaders shaken by President Donald Trump's more critical comments.
European Union Council President Donald Tusk said he had "open and frank talks" with Pence and that the bloc would watch closely to ensure the U.S. acts on its words of support.
"I heard words which are promising for the future, words which explain a lot about the new approach in Washington," Tusk said.
Source
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
