[Catfish]

Originally Posted by August

Here you go Catfish, the definition of Foe (I have highlighted the parts you omitted:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/foe

Originally Posted by August

See Catfish? You deliberately left out the less martial meanings of the word foe just because you hate Donald Trump. That's pretty much the same crap you see from the Dems via their media shills every day. Now as a private individual you can be as biased as you please but I prefer to hold our news media to a higher standard.

Hmm, but your link tells something different:

"Definition of foe1 : one who has personal enmity for another

• Embrace, embrace, my Sons! be foes no more!
• —Alexander Pope

2 a : an enemy in war
b : adversary, opponent

• a political foe

3 : one who opposes on principle

• a foe of needless expenditures

• a foe of censorship

4 : something prejudicial or injurious"

And here is the meaning as described by the Cambridge dictionary:

"foe noun [ C ]
uk ​ /fəʊ/ us ​ /foʊ/ literary

​an enemy: The two countries have united against their common foe.
They were bitter foes for many years.
Foes of the government will be delighting in its current difficulties.

Thesaurus: synonyms and related words
Enemies & rivals"


So there is a slightly less harsh meaning at the fourth position or so? A rival or a competitor are one thing. But when i call someone a foe it is perfectly clear what that means. Bending, twisting and turning internationally accepted definitions to suit one's agenda is not a good basis for a discussion. Well we are used to it with Bannon's Fox News, which must have been doing damage control overtime in the last days. Funny how they now try to blame all critics on a "personal hate" towards Trump, when the main reason of all critic is obviously his incompetence, manners, and defending the alt-right.
My guess is that Trump just does not think before talking, which is one of his main problems.

I do not condemn him, also some points he makes are not wrong (thinking of defense budget, or foreign trade surplus, but he completely forgets what e.g Europe or other counties pay for computer licences and patents, which easily puts the US ahead regarding the trade surplus). Also he is (intentionally or not) destabilising NATO and international relations.

I do not hate Donald Trump, but what i think of him of being fit for that 'job' is something different. It is not even despise, but he clearly is no match for Putin, the latter had him for breakfast. After the G7 summit, the NATO meeting, the visit in the UK, how he behaved and what he said, by his own words his only friend sits in Moscow?

Certainly, one should never stop talking to each other, influence is bilateral, and people who talk and trade at least hesitate before shooting at each other. It would be also much easier for Germany to trade with Russia than with the US, if you think of geography and borders and let all else aside. That it is how it is is the direct product of NATO and the soviet block post WW2.
So Trump suddenly finds that talking with Russia again is in order, ok, granted.

But right now, with the Crimea, Syriah, Iran, provocations by fly-bys of russian jets, meddling with the US elections and Novitschok in England, a bit reluctance would also have been in order.

Germany had talks with Putin already years ago, with the "Petersburger Dialog" (hope the link works, translation by Google), to support the succession of a civilian society in Russia by means of trade and talks. Norway just joined with the arctic panel (Arctic panel). Just of all the US should know what trade is able to mobilise when it comes to relations, and political and civilian influence, e.g. after WW2. It was not Germany nor any other country that hindered or blocked the US to do something like that, it was just that the US were not interested.

So the relations between Russia and the US are by now better, thanks to Trump. If so, good. It would be even better if that would not come at the price of neglecting and insulting the natural allies of the US.