(July 19, 2018 at 12:38 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(July 18, 2018 at 12:48 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Actions speak louder than words. Can anyone point to a specific policy or action of Trump that has been favorable to Russian interests? Just asking a friendly question, not trying to start an argument.

It took a veto-proof act of congress to impose the latest round of sanctions on Russia, and even then Trump procrastinated for months before imposing them, a delay of great value to Putin. Trump would have reduced sanctions if congress hadn't blocked him. Bolton has fired the White House's homeland security advisor and he's been replaced with someone who isn't a cybersecurity expert; and eliminated the cyber coordinator position. Weakening our NATO alliance. Sowing chaos and discord in the USA.

He hasn't been able to give Putin everything he wants. but he's certainly been trying.

There has been even more that has been incidentally favorable of Russia as well.  Not that Trump means to help Russia, but through his inepttude and because he's predictable and easily manipulated.

For instance, the US tried to put the Kibosh on that Breastfeeding thing.  Guess who stepped in and ended up looking heroic?  Russia.
Trump (predictably) started a trade dispute with Chine.  But because Trump does not understand how negotioations work outisde of his little individual strongarm policies, where he views everything as win or lose, he didn't realize that China would just buy their stuff elsewhere.  There are plenty of other markets for Soybeans!  So, US farmers loose millions in soybean sales, and guess who get's China's business instead?  Russia.

There are many incidents like this already, both big and small.  As well, as American power wanes globally because the US makes more and more isolationist policies and pisses off the world (or at best is just ignored as a joke), guess who's influence will grow?  Russia.


None of these things would be happening without Trump.  A person would have to be willfully blind to miss how much Russia has already gained, and how much it stands to gain in political influence alone, just because of how the rest of the world now views and treats the US.  And Putin is smart, he could see how a lot of this would play out.

(July 19, 2018 at 1:27 pm)Shell B Wrote: I wonder why anyone would want to maintain military readiness against Russia?

Russia exhibit every evidence of wanting to reclaim dominant influence over parts of old czarist empire or soviet sphere and regard domination over these and basic condition for its own security. If Russian gains these, then the central position of Russia in Euroasia would give Russia outsized influence over euroasia compared to its economy. Other powers with much greater economic power, including the US, China and the EU, look at moribund Russian economy and demographics with contempt and do not wish to cede such outsized influence to a country with so little stake in, and ability to contribute to, the world economy.

Russia has invaded 2 countries in the last 10 years. Most of the countries Russia want to assert dominance over are close to Russia. Russia can attack and occupy them with little warning. Russia’s strategic nuclear arsenal means once Russia successfully occupies a country, it would be very risky to throw it out, as the US did in Iraq in 1991. So the only real way to prevent Russia from grabbing the territories it wants by sudden armed invasion is to be fully prepared to meet the invasion as it happens.

This is why preparedness against Russia matters.

(July 19, 2018 at 1:27 pm)Shell B Wrote: I wonder why anyone would want to maintain military readiness against Russia?

Putin views himself as the restorer of the Russian empire and destroyer of it's enemies

Putin views himself primarily as a restorer of Russian security and dominant position within the “near abroad”, which is the traditional Russian sphere of influence and considered to be essential buffers to safeguard russia’s Physical security.

Putin views America and NATO as being out to destroy Russia, not necessarily by beating Russia proper down today, but by depriving Russia of her security buffer such that her long term prospect for sustained security or even survival is fatally undermined.

What Putin is doing is both reaction to and retaliation against what the Clinton and bush administrations, and to a lesser degree Obama’s administration did to Russia through expansion of NATO into former Soviet sphere of influence and election meddling to deprive Russia and Russian speaking population influences in former Soviet republic.

However, the notion that just because we did it to Russia first, did it more often and for much longer, and arguably did it in ways the profoundly harmed russia’s existential security interests (putin’s Installation of trump hasn’t begun harm america’s Existential security interest, only discretionary global influence interests) we ought not to be alarmed is absurd.

Countries don’t survive by giving others blank checks to harm itself in ways it has harmed others.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44892889

Quote:Trump rejects proposal for Russia to interrogate US citizens

Quote:US President Donald Trump has rejected a proposal made by the Russian leader Vladimir Putin that Russia be allowed to question US citizens.

The White House earlier said it would consider it but now says Mr Trump "disagrees" with the suggestion.

I wonder how that phone call went?  "Oh, Uncle Vladdy, I am so sorry.  They just don't love you the way I love you.  Please don't release those bank records you have on me."

(July 19, 2018 at 5:45 pm)Minimalist Wrote: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44892889

Quote:Trump rejects proposal for Russia to interrogate US citizens

Quote:US President Donald Trump has rejected a proposal made by the Russian leader Vladimir Putin that Russia be allowed to question US citizens.

The White House earlier said it would consider it but now says Mr Trump "disagrees" with the suggestion.

I wonder how that phone call went?  "Oh, Uncle Vladdy, I am so sorry.  They just don't love you the way I love you.  Please don't release those bank records you have on me."

That there was even talk of anyone considering the suggestion speaks volumes.

The correct answer would have been an immediate, "Fuck no!" So naturally, that never occurred to Trump.

(July 19, 2018 at 1:06 pm)Rev. Rye Wrote: That actually makes sense, Anom. Not sure that counts as "vicious retaliation," but it does make it less likely that Russia will try to back its words with nuclear weapons.

Only Gandhi backs his words with nuclear weapons!

On the threat title:
Nyet! Is not traitor! Donald Trump is bigly Soviet person type thing. Is true patriot for making great of Mother Russian Bear! Da.

(July 19, 2018 at 12:35 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote:

(July 19, 2018 at 12:31 pm)Crossless2.0 Wrote: That's a conveniently selective and misleading list, Neo. 

It’s neo.  To him the definition of sweet might as well be the taste of trump’s shit.

President Shithole has Putin's dick so far up his ass Putin's foreskin has been mistaken for Shithole's tongue.

---

(July 19, 2018 at 4:17 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: Putin views himself primarily as a restorer of Russian security and dominant position within the “near abroad”, which is the traditional Russian sphere of influence and considered to be essential buffers to safeguard russia’s Physical security.

Putin views America and NATO as being out to destroy Russia, not necessarily by beating Russia proper down today, but by depriving Russia of her security buffer such that her long term prospect for sustained security or even survival is fatally undermined.

What Putin is doing is both reaction to and retaliation against what the Clinton and bush administrations, and to a lesser degree Obama’s administration did to Russia through expansion of NATO into former Soviet sphere of influence and election meddling to deprive Russia and Russian speaking population influences in former Soviet republic.

However, the notion that just because we did it to Russia first, did it more often and for much longer, and arguably did it in ways the profoundly harmed russia’s existential security interests (putin’s Installation of trump hasn’t begun harm america’s Existential security interest, only discretionary global influence interests) we ought not to be alarmed is absurd.

Countries don’t survive by giving others blank checks to harm itself in ways it has harmed others.

Lets make this clear, it is a tug of war as for the minds of humanity. I certainly would like to see all dictatorships destroyed in a utopia. We don't live in a utopia, I don't want Russia's citizens whom are not part of the government destroyed, but lets not pretend we are not trying to get more of the world to value western pluralism and western journalism.

So when Shithole praises dictators, he isn't saying he wants to change them through offering cooperation, he is saying he wants to be like them.

He has proven this past week by his behavior, this isn't about protecting America, but protecting his own ego and any challenge to his power. His dad was a bully and an authoritarian. His dad taught him to win at all costs, no matter whom he hurt. Shithole looks to authoritarians in admiration. 

In America when we use "authority" it isn't a dictatorship, but through the consent of the governed, with oversight and review and checks on power. 

Shithole thinks "Commander and Chief" means no accountability. The founders would be rolling in their graves.

(July 19, 2018 at 5:45 pm)Minimalist Wrote: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44892889

Quote:Trump rejects proposal for Russia to interrogate US citizens

Quote:US President Donald Trump has rejected a proposal made by the Russian leader Vladimir Putin that Russia be allowed to question US citizens.

The White House earlier said it would consider it but now says Mr Trump "disagrees" with the suggestion.

I wonder how that phone call went?  "Oh, Uncle Vladdy, I am so sorry.  They just don't love you the way I love you.  Please don't release those bank records you have on me."

But uncle vlad, how would I like your boots and your asshole if they are frog marching me to the prison shower?

(July 19, 2018 at 2:14 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:Broken down fighter jets and tanks weaken the alliance, more than internal funding debates.

It is our military readiness that is in question, not NATO's.  The reason for this is actually quite simple.  We keep flying our planes into the ground and deploying soldiers and equipment to pointless "wars"!  The rest of NATO largely avoids that little bit of stupidity.

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2017...aders.html

Quote:Only three of the Army's 58 Brigade Combat Teams are ready to fight; 53 percent of Navy aircraft can't fly; the Air Force is 723 fighter pilots short; and the Marine Corps needs 3,000 more troops.

"We're just flat-out out of money" to address those immediate needs and provide the additional personnel and maintenance funding to plan for the future, Navy Adm. William Moran said Tuesday in summing up the concerns of four-star officers across the services.

And of course, the Pentagon's answer to everything is "give us more money."  No matter how much they get it is never enough.  In that, they are much like churches.

Um actually, if memory serves me correctly, more often than not, the Pentagon for decades has been saying, we have a surplus of weapons we never use. 

The issue for me isn't spending money on our military, but we still need to be selective in doing that. We also have to keep in mind that weapons companies whom make tanks and jets and any weapon, is a GLOBAL industry. Just like the NRA, sell fear, scare the shit out of everyone, just like Daffy pitting Foghorn against the Beagle, you your weapons company increases profits.

I'd say provide more money for intel and cyber security and ally support. But we should not simply blindly expand and all our spending should be case by case and by need only. 

Ony the GOP is claiming we should give the Pentagon more money blindly. The GOP are full of warmongers. Cheney and Haliburton is a prime example of using ideology to justify cronie capitalism.

This is the same GOP that has obstructed Vet's bills funding their health care and want to blindly privatize it for profit. So for decades they have gut funding to the VA then blame dems for a problem they caused.

The long term problem has been Reagan starting the age of deregulation. If we as a nation need something, we SHOULD fund it, but if we don't need it we need to stand up to the corporations and tell them to fuck off.