The definition of outrageous | Page 2 | Barking Hard

The definition of outrageous

Mad...I agree. Trump was brought to you by Obama. His rhetoric, his getting into local politics, his vilification of the middle class white man...that all lead to Trump winning. Not to mention the media passes he got every time allowed the 'fake news' to ring true for some.

But that is water under the bridge, we need to address the now...and I have zero faith that either of the candidates have a clue as to how to do that.
 
Mad...I agree. Trump was brought to you by Obama. His rhetoric, his getting into local politics, his vilification of the middle class white man...that all lead to Trump winning. Not to mention the media passes he got every time allowed the 'fake news' to ring true for some.

But that is water under the bridge, we need to address the now...and I have zero faith that either of the candidates have a clue as to how to do that.

I have faith that Trump would continue to withdraw from foreign entanglements if he is reelected. The main problem is that he likely will not be reelected. The other problem is that there are so many neocons in the bureaucracy who sincerely believe that meddling in the affairs of other countries is in our national interest.

The main impediment to a disentanglement policy is that the bureaucracy sincerely believes that they know best and that Presidents should simply follow their lead in international affairs. We saw that in the impeachment hearings with bureaucrats insisting that they should be the ones calling the shots and directing the policies of the United States. And most of them are neocons who believe it is in our national interest to meddle.

This has made Trump's objective of disentangling from foreign entanglements more difficult than it should have been. The purpose of the recent leaks regarding Russia and the Taliban, for example, whether true or not, are specifically designed to prevent successful negotiations with the Taliban allowing us to leave Afghanistan after 19 years.

Hopefully, we are out of Afghanistan before the election in November, regardless if the reports are true or not, because if we aren't out by election day, if Trump loses, we likely won't be out of there for another generation.

And I don't have faith that Trump will do what he needs to do in order to be reelected.

I hope I am wrong because I also want us out of Iraq as well. I think the cleverest move that Trump has made in the Middle East so far was when he basically arranged for Turkey to replace us in Syria in opposition to Russia. The neocons screamed about that one with dire predictions. But what was the result? Turkey now has that burden, not us. It is in their area. They should have the responsibility, not us. And the next thing that needs to happen is for Saudi Arabia to replace us in Iraq in opposition to Iran.

But that will happen only if Trump is reelected. Saudi Arabia is not ready to take over from us. And If Trump is not reelected they never will be. If Biden is elected, there is no doubt but that Biden will insist on taking the high moral ground against Saudi Arabia, insuring that they remain weak and we will have to remain in Iraq for another generation.

I have faith that Trump with his underhanded ways would put us in a much better position in the world if he is elected, but I don't have faith that he will do what he needs to do in order to be reelected.
 
Last edited:
Saudi's

And the next thing that needs to happen is for Saudi Arabia to replace us in Iraq in opposition to Iran.
When do you think that would be ?


But that will happen only if Trump is reelected. Saudi Arabia is not ready to take over from us. And If Trump is not reelected they never will be. If Biden is elected, there is no doubt but that Biden will insist on taking the high moral ground against Saudi Arabia, insuring that they remain weak and we will have to remain in Iraq for another generation.
You can find more Saudi's who hate us and willing to die to prove it. than Saudi's willing to die fighting Iranians. generally the Saudi's have little pride or love of their country. barely more than a Kuwaiti. lol
 
When do you think that would be ?

Well, they have to be armed. It is kind of like the wall, it takes more time when there is opposition like in the congress. Neocons don't like the idea, but really, there is nobody else (other than us, of course). Israel would if they could but they can't. The Saudis is the only option we have to replace us in Iraq.

You can find more Saudi's who hate us and willing to die to prove it. than Saudi's willing to die fighting Iranians. generally the Saudi's have little pride or love of their country. barely more than a Kuwaiti. lol

It doesn't much matter how the Saudis feel about us. All that matters is that Iran is their natural enemy. And the best part is that they are willing to pay for the planes and munitions they need to replace us in Iraq and oppose Iran. The only problem is a congress terribly concerned about the morality of supplying arms to the Saudis. So it will take a while.

My guess is the third year of a second Trump term. You do know that is what Trump has in mind don't you?
 
Soft

Well, they have to be armed. It is kind of like the wall, it takes more time when there is opposition like in the congress. Neocons don't like the idea, but really, there is nobody else (other than us, of course). Israel would if they could but they can't. The Saudis is the only option we have to replace us in Iraq.



It doesn't much matter how the Saudis feel about us. All that matters is that Iran is their natural enemy. And the best part is that they are willing to pay for the planes and munitions they need to replace us in Iraq and oppose Iran. The only problem is a congress terribly concerned about the morality of supplying arms to the Saudis. So it will take a while.

My guess is the third year of a second Trump term. You do know that is what Trump has in mind don't you?

I think you don't understand my words. let me be more blunt. the Saudis are SOFT very Soft.

The Iranians would take them so fast. almost as fast as Iraq took the Kuwaiti's.

My guess is your speaking of the Saudis teaming up with the Israelites. that is already going on.
 
I think you don't understand my words. let me be more blunt. the Saudis are SOFT very Soft.

The Iranians would take them so fast. almost as fast as Iraq took the Kuwaiti's.

My guess is your speaking of the Saudis teaming up with the Israelites. that is already going on.

I don't think the Saudis are as soft has you would suggest. Cutting up a journalist that pissed them off into tiny pieces is not exactly what I would call soft. Neither does what they are doing in Yemen. But in order to effectively oppose the Iranians, they do need arms. Why do you think Trump declared an emergency in order to sell then fighter Jets and send training personnel in the face of Republican opposition in the Congress and Senate?

What he is sending them now is not sufficient for anything except training. But they do need training for when the big guns are shipped that will make them a power in the region.

Is it a gamble? Yes. Is it how we get out of the Middle East? Yes. And consider it from Trump's point of view. Not only do we stop spending trillions in that part of the world for no good end, we actually start getting paid for the munitions and training we provide for our replacements. Sounds good to you? Sounds like a win-win to me.
 
Yemen

I don't think the Saudis are as soft has you would suggest. Cutting up a journalist that pissed them off into tiny pieces is not exactly what I would call soft.
Come on man. that whole affair shows just how inept they are.
Neither does what they are doing in Yemen.
That's my point with our help... it's going poorly at best. they have had enough to beat those stoneagers down long ago. you need to follow this more closely.

We missed our best chance of change in Iran back when we were in Iraq. now it is soo much harder. we just don't have the support here at home.

I'm all for selling the Saudis arms for cash. yet it could end up in the hands of our enemies. tougher choices today.
 
Come on man. that whole affair shows just how inept they are.

That's my point with our help... it's going poorly at best. they have had enough to beat those stoneagers down long ago. you need to follow this more closely.

We missed our best chance of change in Iran back when we were in Iraq. now it is soo much harder. we just don't have the support here at home.

I'm all for selling the Saudis arms for cash. yet it could end up in the hands of our enemies. tougher choices today.

It appears that Trump thinks it will work. Pay no attention to what he says. Just watch what he does. But you could be right that he is wrong in this case. If he is reelected, we will see how it turns out. If he is not reelected, we will never know if it might have worked.
 
Implode

It appears that Trump thinks it will work. Pay no attention to what he says. Just watch what he does. But you could be right that he is wrong in this case. If he is reelected, we will see how it turns out. If he is not reelected, we will never know if it might have worked.
If he loses we are screwed. not to worried. these Turkeys look like they are throwing this. :rip:
they look like a shit show. but I don't get out much lately lol
 
If he loses we are screwed. not to worried. these Turkeys look like they are throwing this. :rip:
they look like a shit show. but I don't get out much lately lol

Law and order has worked in the past.

And in another month, the Coronavirus may not be the issue it is now. The mortality rate keeps dropping and I think it is because the virus is mutating and becoming less dangerous. On June 22, I reported that the ratio of death to new cases has dropped from .072 in April to .050 in May to .021 in June based on 7 day running averages.

https://www.barkinghard.com/forums/threads/294882-The-quot-Book-It-quot-thread!?p=678663#post678663

At the time, I suggested that the possible reasons were as follows:

1. More testing leading to additional asymptomatic cases being discovered.
2. The coronavirus becoming less virulent.
3. Better protection of vulnerable members of society, so fewer of those getting the disease and dying.
4. Better care of patients while in the hospital.

Yesterday, the ratio dropped from .011 the day before to .010 based on a 7 day running average of new cases and deaths. Specifically, the 7 day average for new cases was 49,104 and the 7 day average for deaths dropped to 513. the calculated ratio is 513 deaths / 49,104 new cases = .010.

On 6-22-2020, the calculated ratio for 7 day running average was 618 deaths / 29,135 new cases = .021.

The other piece of data available is the number of tests. On June 22, the 7 day running average for testing was 510,169. Yesterday, the 7 day running average for testing was 625,519.

Nationally, in the past 2 weeks:

The number of tests has increased about 22%.

The number of new cases has increased about 68%.

The number of deaths have decreased about 20%.

First, I think it should be clear that while testing probably uncovered a few more new cases than would have otherwise been uncovered, an increase of testing by 22% did not result in a 68% increase in new cases.

Second, between June 22 and July 6, better protection of vulnerable populations did not happen. Perhaps from April to June, we did better--but not after June 22.

Third, hospital care has not improved significantly in the past two weeks.

My conclusion, therefore, is that mutations making the virus both more easily spread and less dangerous have occurred. Assuming that to be the case, here is where I think we are and where we are going:

With a ratio of death / new cases of .010, this means that if one is in reasonably good health and one contracts the disease tomorrow, one has a 99% chance of survival. (One out of a hundred who get the disease will die.)

The number of new cases will likely level off and the number of deaths will continue to drop although at a lower rate. I think the ratio will level off somewhere between .010 and .005 in the next couple of months. This latter number is based on the current ratio of selected states that I following in some detail:

New York, .0270
California, .0092
Texas, .0054
Florida, .0053
Arizona, .0091
Oklahoma, .0043

It is noted that New York has a significant higher ratio of death to new cases than the southern and western states. New York does about the same amount of testing as Texas and Florida, but while they have about as many deaths, they seem to have significantly fewer cases. I tend to suspect that the nature of the virus is responsible for the difference since I can’t think of anything else that could be causing it. Thus I expect the ratio for New York to drop significantly in the near future while I expect the ratios in Texas and Florida to remain about the same. I think the number of deaths will continue on its downward path in all states and the national average will approximate that of Texas and Florida in the next couple of months.

**************************

EDIT: It has occurred to me that for completeness, I ought to include the ratios for the world at large and give an indication of the drift either upward or downward. Therefore I have calculated the data for the world also based on a 7 day running average. For the world, the ratio on June 22 was .0338 based on a 7 day average of 147,489 new cases and 4,984 deaths.

On July 5, the ratio was .0241 based on a 7 day average of 187,881 new cases and 4,556 deaths. My guess is that one of the reasons the world at large has a significantly higher ratio than the US would be hospital care. Or perhaps the virus has not mutated throughout the world at large to the same degree as it has in the USA.

Also, since we have discussed the surge in cases in Australia recently, I would note that they had two deaths yesterday and their mortality ratio increased from .0000 to .0024 as a result based on a 7 day running average of 117 new cases per day as of yesterday and the 2 deaths they suffered yesterday.
 
Last edited:
If he loses we are screwed. not to worried. these Turkeys look like they are throwing this. :rip:
they look like a shit show. but I don't get out much lately lol

On the other hand, Trump did himself no favor with the Bubba Wallace tweet. Suggesting that Wallace apologize was outrageous. Wallace was completely innocent. He was not the one who reported it or nothing. He did everything right and did not deserve to be attacked in that manner.

And defending the Confederate flag in that same tweet was equally asinine and counterproductive.
 
Stop it

On the other hand, Trump did himself no favor with the Bubba Wallace tweet. Suggesting that Wallace apologize was outrageous. Wallace was completely innocent. He was not the one who reported it or nothing. He did everything right and did not deserve to be attacked in that manner.

And defending the Confederate flag in that same tweet was equally asinine and counterproductive.
I can't defend that ! :dickhead:cursin
 
Top Bottom