Opinions/Editorials
See other Opinions/Editorials Articles
Title: The irrational hysteria over Trump and Putin
Source:
American Thinker
URL Source: http://.americanthinker.com/blog/20 ... eria_over_trump_and_putin.html
Published: Jul 17, 2018
Author: Steve McCann
Post Date: 2018-07-17 16:30:22 by nolu chan
Keywords: None
Views: 10454
Comments: 48
The irrational hysteria over Trump and Putin By Steve McCann I spent a good part of yesterday watching the vast army of those incapable of generating an original thought – namely, the majority of talking heads on radio and television as well as politicians in both parties, droning on about the disaster that was the Trump-Putin press conference in Helsinki. Once the first narrative was proffered by one of this gaggle, the rest dutifully repeated the talking points as if they were ventriloquist dummies. The bottom line: Trump is a buffoon inalterably subservient to the puppet master, thus betraying his country. Having watched the press conference, I did not come away this inane version of events. I come to this subject matter of Donald Trump as someone, during the primary season of 2016, who was unalterably opposed to him, going so far as to write an article, "Why I cannot vote for Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton." However, in November, when standing in the voting booth, staring at the ballot and the prospect of a Hillary Clinton presidency, I voted for Trump. I am still bothered by some of his mannerisms and, at times, his buffoonish governing style as well as his refusal to address out-of-control spending. But, on the whole I am gratified that he has successfully pursued a predominantly conservative agenda at home and an America First agenda overseas, despite the constant ankle-biting by the mainstream media and the Washington Establishment's determined use of its considerable arsenal to marginalize and ultimately obliterate his presidency. Regarding the Helsinki press conference and his performance, I come to that issue from the perspective of someone who has experienced firsthand the horrors and the travails of those who survived the most devastating war in human history and the travails extant in the immediate aftermath. I do not wish to see, in my lifetime or in the future, the world again subject to a conflict of that magnitude, made possible by a careless remark or insult or the egocentricity of a megalomaniac. There is no question that Russia and China are this nation's primary geopolitical foes. While the current Russian Federation is not as powerful as its predecessor, the Soviet Union, it is, nonetheless, a formidable adversary, particularly with Putin at the helm. There is little doubt that the Russians spied on the United States and attempted to sow the seeds of discontent during the 2016 election. Almost as soon as the old Soviet Union was born in the 1920s, it, as national policy, cast a wide net of espionage and destabilization throughout Europe and America. America responded slowly and did not fully reciprocate with its own espionage activities until after World War II and the dawning of the Cold War. This chess match is now approaching its 90th anniversary. However, it was the Obama cabal, including the hierarchy of the intelligence services, together with the now left-wing Democratic Party in alliance with the mainstream media that changed the understanding and rules of the game. In a planned and well executed strategy highlighted by shouting from the rooftops about fictitious collusion with Russia by the Trump campaign, the old rules were discarded as the special counsel, Robert Mueller, has been forced, in order to justify his existence, to criminally indict numerous Russian nationals who will never stand trial in the United States. This derisible tactic is not only unprecedented in the international spy and destabilization game, but foolish beyond measure, as similar retaliation for American spying is now on the table. Listening to the reaction of the rabble to Trump's performance at the Helsinki press conference, one would assume that the only acceptable course for him to take was to verbally punch Putin in the nose. Why are those so eager to see Trump humiliated and undermined so willing to denigrate and provoke this nation's historical rival? What purpose would it have served to gratuitously insult Putin in front of the entire world? Is destroying Trump of such paramount importance that the potential of Russian retaliation could escalate into further reprisals on both sides leading to a possible lethal conflict as Putin is first and foremost a nationalist and not the most stable of international leaders? Could Trump have chosen his words better regarding his confidence in the American intelligence community? Yes. But after nearly 18 months of unrelenting leaks and harassment, this same group, led by Robert Mueller, has made it exceedingly difficult to govern, and his annoyance and frustration bubbled out. It should not have, but, nonetheless, it is understandable, as 14 months of Mueller's investigations has revealed no criminal activity by the Trump campaign despite desperately seeking collusion under every rock. Unlike so many others, I do not want any president of the United States to gratuitously and publicly insult an adversary, be it Russia or China, but instead to hammer out difficult issues in private. Over the history of mankind, too many conflicts and resultant casualties have occurred because of the egocentricity of the leaders over minor issues. Regardless of the hysteria, the Russian attempt to sow chaos during the 2016 election season is a minor issue, as the attempt was not only largely unsuccessful, but amateurishly executed. Thank you, Donald Trump, for not succumbing to the rabble and instead leaving the door open for candid communication with Russia when and if a major crisis rears its ugly head.
American Thinker
July 17, 2018
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 27.
#1. To: nolu chan (#0)
"resident Donald Trump says he meant the opposite when he said in Helsinki that he doesn't see why Russia would have interfered in the 2016 U.S. elections. Back at the White House on Tuesday, the president told reporters that he said he meant he doesn't see why Russia "wouldn't" be responsible. He also said he accepts the American intelligence community's conclusion that Russia interfered in the election, but he denied that his campaign had colluded in the effort." https://www.yahoo.com/news/latest-trump- white-house-putin-summit-163902954--politics.html Was Trump being irrational... or just Trump? Not that those are self-evidently mutually exclusive features of the Tweeter In Chief.
https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/784535760418603012?lang=en Hillary Clinton, May 2013 speech to the Brazilian bank Banco Itau, [05162013 Remarks to Banco Itau.doc, p.28]
Notice how the Marxist crowd wasn't wearing their red uniforms for Obama's speech? Even the collective wardrobe is scripted.
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/7874 From:Roy.Spence@gsdm.com IRS was hacked. I think the State Department was hacked. Sony hacked. Banks hacked. As we try and close the Benghazi Chapter and the email drip drip. Is there ever a moment in Time not to Defend the decision but layout the fact....HRC servers were not hacked. Know this is a naive thought but just thinking. Sent from my iPhone
Putin looks pretty current. Don't you agree? The decision to nationalize this library was made by the first Soviet government, whose composition was 80-85 percent Jewish," Putin said June 13 during a visit to Moscow’s Jewish Museum and Tolerance Center.
LOL.
))) Still too inept to effectively use the Google. You appear to make pretty, if absurd, graphics with Google sketchup, even featuring a triangle with a side longer than the hypotenuse. You are a genius.
Do the math, Donkey Breath. https://libertysflame.com/cgi- bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=53025&Disp=186#C186
))) Still too inept to effectively use the Google. You appear to make pretty, if absurd, graphics with Google sketchup, even featuring a triangle with a side longer than the hypotenuse. You are a genius. https://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=53025&Disp=176#C176 It came along quite well. Anything that travels 1950 feet in 1.06 seconds travels an average velocity of 2122.64 feet per second. The formula is distance divided by time. How are you coming along with your bullet going splat at ~520 feet ground distance from Mandalay Bay? How did you work out that negative 33º angle? Side a represents the vertical height of Paddock's vantage point. At the 32nd floor, and at 10.9 feet per floor, (32-1) x 10.9 = 338 feet. The VxH specified shooting angle was -33°. This should probably be expressed as a positive angle of declination. Not all ballistic calculators will even accept a negative angle value, but specify 0 to 90 degrees. For another calculator, see: http://gundata.org/blog/post/223-ballistics-chart/ It appears that VxH drew an imaginary horizontal line d at a vertical height of 338 feet from the ground, and an imaginary 338 foot line e down to the ground, bringing into view a rectangle with a mirror image triangle to that above. VxH guessed 33º as the acute angle formed at the junction of sides c and imaginary side d at point B. VxH guessed very wrongly. With a specified shooting angle of 33º at the junction of lines c and d, the angle made by sides c and b would also be 33º, and angle ß, made by sides a and c would be 57º. (The right angle at point A is 90º. The other two angles must add up to 90º.) With side a being 338 feet, side b would be 520.4743578 feet, and side c would be 620.5944 feet. As may be seen, disregarding gravity, if the bullet flew downward at the specified 33º from a height of 338 feet, it would fly a straight line of sight path into the ground at ~520 feet from the Mandalay Bay at ground level. Calculating the bullet velocity after that point may be difficult, even with secret Klingon math. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - https://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=53025&Disp=181#C181 Yep. You're almost right - I've been meaning to take another look at the angle with a model in Google Sketchup... which says At 1290' from a height of 338' is -14.7 Damn, you are more screwed up than I thought. Now you are presenting a triangle with side a being 338 feet, side b being 1290 feet 7 inches (1290.5833 ft), and an hypotenuse of 1009 ft 4 in. I positively can't remember the last triangle I saw where the hypotenuse was shorter than one of the sides. Your Klingon math is magic, and Google Sketchup is a miracle worker. If side a is 338 ft, and the angle of elevation of 14.7º rises to that height of 338 ft, side b will be 1264.283557 feet. So, the hypotenuse is impossible, and side b is whack by 26 feet. If the angle of elevation is 14.7 degrees, and the range is 1290' 7", then the height would be 345.0311072 feet and each floor would be over 11 feet. Put down Google sketch and pick up a scientific calculator and do some trigonometry. You can actually get correct results with trig. You are supposed to be dazzling me with your math skills, not some shit like Google Sketchup. Google Sketchup? Really?
Do the math, Donkey Breath. https://libertysflame.com/cgi- bin/readart.cgi? ArtNum=53025&Disp=186#C186
Any right triangle must have sides and angles where the Sine, Cosine, Tangent, C-Tangent, Secand, and Co-secant correctly compute. If side a is 338 ft, and the angle of elevation of 14.7º rises to that height of 338 ft, side b will be 1264.283557 feet. So, the hypotenuse is impossible, and side b is whack by 26 feet. Please do demonstrate the trigonometry behind your childish Google Sketchup nonsense. Do the math. I will get you started. Sine Cosine Tangent Co-tangent Secant Co-Secant You appear to make pretty, if absurd, graphics with Google sketchup, even featuring a triangle with a side longer than the hypotenuse. You are a genius. https://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=53025&Disp=176#C176 It came along quite well. Anything that travels 1950 feet in 1.06 seconds travels an average velocity of 2122.64 feet per second. The formula is distance divided by time. How are you coming along with your bullet going splat at ~520 feet ground distance from Mandalay Bay? How did you work out that negative 33º angle? Side a represents the vertical height of Paddock's vantage point. At the 32nd floor, and at 10.9 feet per floor, (32-1) x 10.9 = 338 feet. The VxH specified shooting angle was -33°. This should probably be expressed as a positive angle of declination. Not all ballistic calculators will even accept a negative angle value, but specify 0 to 90 degrees. For another calculator, see: http://gundata.org/blog/post/223-ballistics-chart/ It appears that VxH drew an imaginary horizontal line d at a vertical height of 338 feet from the ground, and an imaginary 338 foot line e down to the ground, bringing into view a rectangle with a mirror image triangle to that above. VxH guessed 33º as the acute angle formed at the junction of sides c and imaginary side d at point B. VxH guessed very wrongly. With a specified shooting angle of 33º at the junction of lines c and d, the angle made by sides c and b would also be 33º, and angle ß, made by sides a and c would be 57º. (The right angle at point A is 90º. The other two angles must add up to 90º.) With side a being 338 feet, side b would be 520.4743578 feet, and side c would be 620.5944 feet. As may be seen, disregarding gravity, if the bullet flew downward at the specified 33º from a height of 338 feet, it would fly a straight line of sight path into the ground at ~520 feet from the Mandalay Bay at ground level. Calculating the bullet velocity after that point may be difficult, even with secret Klingon math. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - https://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=53025&Disp=181#C181 Yep. You're almost right - I've been meaning to take another look at the angle with a model in Google Sketchup... which says At 1290' from a height of 338' is -14.7 Damn, you are more screwed up than I thought. Now you are presenting a triangle with side a being 338 feet, side b being 1290 feet 7 inches (1290.5833 ft), and an hypotenuse of 1009 ft 4 in. I positively can't remember the last triangle I saw where the hypotenuse was shorter than one of the sides. Your Klingon math is magic, and Google Sketchup is a miracle worker. If side a is 338 ft, and the angle of elevation of 14.7º rises to that height of 338 ft, side b will be 1264.283557 feet. So, the hypotenuse is impossible, and side b is whack by 26 feet. If the angle of elevation is 14.7 degrees, and the range is 1290' 7", then the height would be 345.0311072 feet and each floor would be over 11 feet. Put down Google sketch and pick up a scientific calculator and do some trigonometry. You can actually get correct results with trig. You are supposed to be dazzling me with your math skills, not some shit like Google Sketchup. Google Sketchup? Really?
Do the math, Donkey Breath. https://libertysflame.com/cgi- bin/readart.cgi? ArtNum=53025&Disp=186#C186
#28. To: VxH (#27)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - As soon as you publish your proof for your mathematical formula c < b. Even a complete jackass, such as yourself, can see from your original play picture, from your #181 to which I linked, that you showed a hypotenuse of 1009' 4". Your original play picture shows part of a circle with a radius of 338'. Your second play picture displays the same radius of the circle as 338' on an up/down line. On a somewhat downward slanting horizontal line, you added a new measurement of the radius of that same circle at 324' 6". How the radius shrinks on one side by 11' 6" is not explained. It's a magic circle, or magic math. 1009' 4" + 338' is 1347' 4". 1009' 4" + 324' 6" is 1333' 10". Keep changing that side radius distance, make believe it was part of the original hypotenuse, until you get your math to work. What the magic circle with the changing radius is doing there is a mystery. The difference between level travel to end point and travel from elevation to end point is c - b, not the vertical distance of the elevation. The 338' up/down radius of the circle indicates the elevation of the shooter, and the circle indicates you had an irresistable impulse to draw a circle and make believe the radius was something other than 338' at another angle. 338' was a stated distance of elevation. 324' 6" appears to be a figure plucked from your ass. Given angles A (14.70°) and C (90.00°) and side a (338') — A = 14.70° a = 338.00 ft A + B + C = 180º b = sin(B) * a / sin(A) c = sin(C) * a
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#2. To: VxH (#1)
#3. To: nolu chan (#2)
#4. To: VxH (#3)
“My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the Hemisphere....”
#7. To: nolu chan (#4)
#10. To: VxH (#7)
Hey bro quick question.
To: john.podesta@gmail.com
Date: 2015-10-16 20:34
Subject: Hey bro quick question.
#14. To: nolu chan (#10)
"I thought about something just now: 
#15. To: VxH (#14)
#18. To: nolu chan (#15)
#22. To: VxH (#18)
LOL
#23. To: nolu chan (#22)
even featuring a triangle with a side longer than the hypotenuse.
#24. To: VxH (#23)
How you coming along with that Average Velocity for the 75 foot segment ending at 1950 ft?
#181. To: VxH, A K A Stone (#179)
VxH guessed 33º as the acute angle formed at the junction of sides c and imaginary side d at point B. VxH guessed very wrongly.
#25. To: nolu chan (#24)
#26. To: VxH (#25)
SOH - opposite/hypotenuse
CAH - adjacent/hypotenuse
TOA - opposite/adjacent
CAO - adjacent/opposite
SHA - hypotenuse/adjacent
SHO - hypotenuse/opposite
How you coming along with that Average Velocity for the 75 foot segment ending at 1950 ft?
#181. To: VxH, A K A Stone (#179)
VxH guessed 33º as the acute angle formed at the junction of sides c and imaginary side d at point B. VxH guessed very wrongly.
#27. To: nolu chan (#26)
Replies to Comment # 27. You do the math.
side B and angles b and c may be readily calculated —
just not to the values you give them.
B = ?º
C = 90.00°
b = ? ft
c = ? ft
A + B = 90º
B = 90-Aº
B = 75.30º
End Trace Mode for Comment # 27.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]