What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Eddie Teach]

Funny, Wiki doesn't appear to know about that DoW, they say the Swedes managed to stay neutral throughout.

[Razgovory]

The USA spending its precious diplomatic capital to fight unjust resolution on the crucial issues of our time: breast-feeding.

The only rationale I can think of here would be that they tried to protect economic interests of American baby food companies? Thought the threats do seem a tad extreme. Also gives Russia an easily avoidable little PR win.

I wonder if Trump just thought it was gross.

[The Brain]

Funny, Wiki doesn't appear to know about that DoW, they say the Swedes managed to stay neutral throughout.

You seem confused.

[Eddie Teach]

I am no expert on Swedish history.

[Tamas]

I am no expert on Swedish history.

What he meant was that the US didn't enter the war on their own accord  either. The Japanese and the Germans attacked them.

Therefore, he stipulates, an American has no moral high ground to condemn the Swedes for not starting a war with Germany on their own accord.

[Jacob]

President Donald Trump reportedly treats Russian President Vladimir Putin as a confidant while bullying and ignoring other world leaders.

Trump consults Putin on international policy and the two commiserate over American forces they believe to be acting against them, according to The Washington Post.

"The president thinks he can be friends with Putin," former national security adviser H.R. McMaster said, according to US officials cited by the Post. "I don't know why, or why he would want to be."

Putin, meanwhile, appears to be playing to Trump's likes and dislikes, often showering the US president with praise and flattery. The Post reported that the Russian leader also often strikes a chord with Trump by focusing on some of his key grievances.

For instance, he and Trump commiserated about how the "fake news" and the "deep state" are working against them, a senior US official told The Post.

"It's not us," Putin reportedly told Trump. "It's the subordinates fighting against our friendship."

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-putin-confidant-nato-helsinki-summit-2018-7

In November and again in March, Trump invited Putin to the White House for a summit against the advice of aides, who argued that the chances of progress on substantive issues was slim.

For Trump, the meeting was the point. In an interview with Fox News last month, Trump speculated that he and Putin could potentially hash out solutions to Syria and Ukraine over dinner.

"I could say: 'Would you do me a favor? Would you get out of ­Syria,' " Trump said. " 'Would you do me a favor? Would you get out of Ukraine.' "

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ahead-of-nato-and-putin-summits-trumps-unorthodox-diplomacy-rattles-allies/2018/07/06/16c7aa4e-7006-11e8-bd50-b80389a4e569_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.d4ada29c2904

[grumbler]

Our path to war with Germany was the same as America's: a German DoW against us.

Precisely.  Hitler recognized the US as an enemy of Naziism, and declared war on it.  He recognized Sweden as a friend of Naziism, and so did not declare war on it. 

Same path, but opposite behaviors as neutrals resulted in the opposite outcomes regarding Hitler's favor.

[grumbler]

Funny, Wiki doesn't appear to know about that DoW, they say the Swedes managed to stay neutral throughout.

Indeed, they seem to be proud that their pro-Nazi neutrality didn't risk a German DoW.

[grumbler]

What he meant was that the US didn't enter the war on their own accord  either. The Japanese and the Germans attacked them.

Therefore, he stipulates, an American has no moral high ground to condemn the Swedes for not starting a war with Germany on their own accord.

He is wrong, though; US actions as an anti-Nazi neutral enraged Hitler to the point that he declared war on the US.  The US was in the war; mission accomplished, and moral high ground occupied.

Sweden cravenly acted as a pro-Nazi neutral (they even allowed the Germans to send troops through their country) and so never came close to the moral high ground that results from pissing Hitler off.

[Razgovory]

I can say one thing for sure, I certainly wouldn't want to go through prisoner's dilemma with Trump.

[Jacob]

I can say one thing for sure, I certainly wouldn't want to go through prisoner's dilemma with Trump.

It's pretty easy imo. You sell him out. Guy is super untrustworthy.

[DGuller]

I hope some prison will have a Trump dilemma soon.

[Razgovory]

I can say one thing for sure, I certainly wouldn't want to go through prisoner's dilemma with Trump.

It's pretty easy imo. You sell him out. Guy is super untrustworthy.

He's the guy you know will fuck over everyone.

[DGuller]

I can say one thing for sure, I certainly wouldn't want to go through prisoner's dilemma with Trump.

It's pretty easy imo. You sell him out. Guy is super untrustworthy.

He's the guy you know will fuck over everyone.

No, he's the guy you just know will fuck over everyone except you.

[dps]

What he meant was that the US didn't enter the war on their own accord  either. The Japanese and the Germans attacked them.

Therefore, he stipulates, an American has no moral high ground to condemn the Swedes for not starting a war with Germany on their own accord.

He is wrong, though; US actions as an anti-Nazi neutral enraged Hitler to the point that he declared war on the US.  The US was in the war; mission accomplished, and moral high ground occupied.

Sweden cravenly acted as a pro-Nazi neutral (they even allowed the Germans to send troops through their country) and so never came close to the moral high ground that results from pissing Hitler off.

The US had effectively been fighting an undeclared naval war against the Nazis for most of 1941 anyway.  I don't think there was much question that the US and Germany were going to end up officially at war pretty soon;  the only question was of timing.