The Putin Summit - God help us.
nan said:
drummerboy said:We have reinighted the cold war (around 2015) and we have two horrible people in charge, Trump and Putin. So, of course it's VERY DANGEROUS! We can't change that. Having them meet and make nice, even if it looks like a Rocky and Bullwinkle cartoon, is preferable to having them threaten each other from afar. Last March both countries were expelling lots of diplomats, over the alleged poisoning of an ex-spy in England. That poisoning had no evidence of being done by Russia but they were immediately blamed and condemned so tensions ramped up. Things can go downhill quickly over the smallest thing.
Can someone tell me how the relations between Russia and the U.S. are at their lowest point in decades, how we got there, and if they seriously think that there's some threat of nuclear war with Russia?
Cause I think that's all nonsense. Relations aren't great - largely because Russia is being kind of a dick lately. But it's not at some sort of crisis level.
Also, how can anyone seriously think that Trump meeting with ANY world leader could possibly be a good thing? He hates Democratically elected leaders, and loves the autocrats.
That's kind of a fundamental problem, in terms of forging an effective foreign policy.
You should research the history. Here's a start:
The Rush to a New Cold War
https://consortiumnews.com/2018/03/30/the-rush-to-a-new-cold-war-2/
Not too dissimilar to Steve Cohen's argument on Tucker Carlson last night: "Do you prefer impeaching Trump or nuclear war with Russia?"
Because of course those are our only choices.
nan said: I'm focusing on our history specifically, not the history of human cruelty which of course goes back to the beginning. Of course confronting Russia might not lead to war. But, it also might lead to war. Nuclear war. I don't think we should be acting based on what Putin does in his country because we clearly don't give a crap about that since we are BFFs with Saudi Arabia who is worse. We are not big humanitarians. Also I don't think hacking the DNC (if he hacked the DNC) is a murderous action. The hacking of the DNC was a good thing because it let us know that our Democratic Party was really a corrupt non-Democratic institution. This is information we should know about and the source does not really matter.
You are all over the map. The "Russia didn't do it and America does it too" isn't the strongest defense I've ever heard.
I disagree with little of what you say about America abusing its power, getting into bed with dark regimes, etc. Your echoing Putin that the hack (glad you finally agree that it was a hack, not a leak) was good because it exposed the DNC as a political (gasp!) organization is a bit odd, though.
Edited for DS: Left out of your swerving rants is any acknowledgment of Russia's darker policies and actions.
ridski said:
The argument reminds me a little of this exchange from one of my favorite films called Withnail & I.
Marwood: Give me a Valium, I'm getting the FEAR!
Danny: [very calmly] You have done something to your brain. You have made it high. If I lay 10 mls of diazepam on you, it will do something else to your brain. You will make it low. Why trust one drug and not the other? That's politics, innit?
Marwood: I'm gonna eat some sugar.
[he goes to the kitchen]
Danny: I recommend you smoke some more grass.
Marwood: No way, no ******* way.
Danny: That is an unfortunate political decision. Reflecting these times.
Withnail: What are you talking about, Danny?
Danny: Politics, man. If you're hanging onto a rising balloon, you're presented with a difficult decision - let go before it's too late or hang on and keep getting higher, posing the question: how long can you keep a grip on the rope? They're selling hippie wigs in Woolworths, man. The greatest decade in the history of mankind is over. And as Presuming Ed here has so consistently pointed out, we have failed to paint it black.
Ahhhhh.....one of the best films ever!
dave23 said:
Fixed.
Wow, that’s service! Though now I feel like a lantern-rubber who’d better be careful about his next two wishes.
DaveSchmidt said:
dave23 said:Wow, that’s service! Though now I feel like a lantern-rubber who’d better be careful about his next two wishes.
Fixed.
this is a family site, so I guess the punchlines to that setup are off limits.
nan said:
The hacking of the DNC was a good thing because it let us know that our Democratic Party was really a corrupt non-Democratic institution. This is information we should know about and the source does not really matter.
No it wasn't "a good thing". They gave out random communications in an effort to affect public opinion in the U.S.
To the extent that all the anti-Hillary people got traction as a result, the plan worked.
ml1 said:
DaveSchmidt said:this is a family site, so I guess the punchlines to that setup are off limits.
dave23 said:Wow, that’s service! Though now I feel like a lantern-rubber who’d better be careful about his next two wishes.
Fixed.
I don’t know what you mean. Dave23 is a very stable genie.
nohero said:
nan said:No it wasn't "a good thing". They gave out random communications in an effort to affect public opinion in the U.S.
The hacking of the DNC was a good thing because it let us know that our Democratic Party was really a corrupt non-Democratic institution. This is information we should know about and the source does not really matter.
To the extent that all the anti-Hillary people got traction as a result, the plan worked.
Also, Nan, while it may be good policy, party organizations are under no obligation to be democratic and open. They could still select candidates in the smoke-filled back room if that is what they wanted to do.
the fact that all prominent Democrats cleared the field for Clinton made it obvious from day 1 who the party's favored candidate was. So it's not like it should have been news to anyone that there was documentation of it.
but as tjohn points out, it's the party's prerogative to try to nominate the preferred candidate. I happen to think it was a terrible choice, and a more vigorous competition in the primaries would have been better. But it was their choice, and I hope it isn't one they make again in 2020.
washingtonpost.com: A Cancer Lives Among Us, Kathleen Parker
nan said:
drummerboy said:We have reinighted the cold war (around 2015) and we have two horrible people in charge, Trump and Putin. So, of course it's VERY DANGEROUS! We can't change that. Having them meet and make nice, even if it looks like a Rocky and Bullwinkle cartoon, is preferable to having them threaten each other from afar. Last March both countries were expelling lots of diplomats, over the alleged poisoning of an ex-spy in England. That poisoning had no evidence of being done by Russia but they were immediately blamed and condemned so tensions ramped up. Things can go downhill quickly over the smallest thing.
Can someone tell me how the relations between Russia and the U.S. are at their lowest point in decades, how we got there, and if they seriously think that there's some threat of nuclear war with Russia?
Cause I think that's all nonsense. Relations aren't great - largely because Russia is being kind of a dick lately. But it's not at some sort of crisis level.
Also, how can anyone seriously think that Trump meeting with ANY world leader could possibly be a good thing? He hates Democratically elected leaders, and loves the autocrats.
That's kind of a fundamental problem, in terms of forging an effective foreign policy.
You should research the history. Here's a start:
The Rush to a New Cold War
https://consortiumnews.com/2018/03/30/the-rush-to-a-new-cold-war-2/
oy - this is why I don't directly ask you questions. You don't answer them.
And just for the record, it's not preferable that they meet, because Trump is an idiotic, know-nothing buffoon, and Putin is not!
They met for two hours on their own, with Trump doing no prep and with no agenda and no record of the conversation. Trump comes out of it and says Putin's idea of "working" with Muller is great.
AYFKM? Have you ever seen anyone get so punked?
So, look what happened. They met and it was a freaking disaster. Or are you of the opinion that it was just hunky-dory?
Today Trump said that Russia is no longer targeting the U.S., contradicting Dan Coats, Director of National Intelligence. I assume that's what Putin told him in their two hour private meeting (I'm not joking.)
ridski said:
terp said:I think that when someone says that the CIA and FBI and NSA are not benevolent entities and that they lie all the time, it’s apt to question why they think we should believe the statements of one group of former members of those organizations over the statements of others.
It is interesting that those who said the Intelligence community got us into an illegitimate war in Iraq that killed hundreds of thousands of people are now saying questioning them is treason.
I stop reading at this point to recall that the late Great Dick Gregory taught us that an Ex-CIA agent is a CIA agent who got caught.
ridski said:
nan said:Not too dissimilar to Steve Cohen's argument on Tucker Carlson last night: "Do you prefer impeaching Trump or nuclear war with Russia?"
drummerboy said:We have reinighted the cold war (around 2015) and we have two horrible people in charge, Trump and Putin. So, of course it's VERY DANGEROUS! We can't change that. Having them meet and make nice, even if it looks like a Rocky and Bullwinkle cartoon, is preferable to having them threaten each other from afar. Last March both countries were expelling lots of diplomats, over the alleged poisoning of an ex-spy in England. That poisoning had no evidence of being done by Russia but they were immediately blamed and condemned so tensions ramped up. Things can go downhill quickly over the smallest thing.
Can someone tell me how the relations between Russia and the U.S. are at their lowest point in decades, how we got there, and if they seriously think that there's some threat of nuclear war with Russia?
Cause I think that's all nonsense. Relations aren't great - largely because Russia is being kind of a dick lately. But it's not at some sort of crisis level.
Also, how can anyone seriously think that Trump meeting with ANY world leader could possibly be a good thing? He hates Democratically elected leaders, and loves the autocrats.
That's kind of a fundamental problem, in terms of forging an effective foreign policy.
You should research the history. Here's a start:
The Rush to a New Cold War
https://consortiumnews.com/2018/03/30/the-rush-to-a-new-cold-war-2/
Because of course those are our only choices.
Steven Cohen had a lot more to say, including how we should not be listening to Brennan the war criminal. We should listen to Steven Cohen.
nohero said:
nan said:No it wasn't "a good thing". They gave out random communications in an effort to affect public opinion in the U.S.
The hacking of the DNC was a good thing because it let us know that our Democratic Party was really a corrupt non-Democratic institution. This is information we should know about and the source does not really matter.
To the extent that all the anti-Hillary people got traction as a result, the plan worked.
Does anyone study history. I've known that the "Democratic Party was really a corrupt non-Democratic institution" since I was in Chicago in August, 1968.
But as the inveterate gambler said "I know the cards are marked, but it's the only game in town".
dave23 said:
nan said: I'm focusing on our history specifically, not the history of human cruelty which of course goes back to the beginning. Of course confronting Russia might not lead to war. But, it also might lead to war. Nuclear war. I don't think we should be acting based on what Putin does in his country because we clearly don't give a crap about that since we are BFFs with Saudi Arabia who is worse. We are not big humanitarians. Also I don't think hacking the DNC (if he hacked the DNC) is a murderous action. The hacking of the DNC was a good thing because it let us know that our Democratic Party was really a corrupt non-Democratic institution. This is information we should know about and the source does not really matter.You are all over the map. The "Russia didn't do it and America does it too" isn't the strongest defense I've ever heard.
I disagree with little of what you say about America abusing its power, getting into bed with dark regimes, etc. Your echoing Putin that the hack (glad you finally agree that it was a hack, not a leak) was good because it exposed the DNC as a political (gasp!) organization is a bit odd, though.
Edited for DS: Left out of your swerving rants is any acknowledgment of Russia's darker policies and actions.
I am not a supporter of Putin, an authoritarian leader. But, don't tell me we should should stop meeting with him because of his brutality, since we are BFFs with Saudi Arabia, who are worse. What am I supposed to do about Putin's bad treatment of his people--I can't even deal with Trump's right now. I just want to avoid nuclear war which would be worse than anything Trump or Putin is doing to the citizens of the US and Russia.
As for Wikileaks, I don't understand how the people who are outraged and screaming treason because they think Russia interfered with our election and are also outraged that someone exposed Hillary Clinton and the DNC, who also interfered with our election. And that interference has more proof than the alleged Russian hack (or leak if that's what it was). Really are you arguing that we should not know that the DNC picks the candidates ahead of time and tries to screw the opposition? How do we have any chance of ever fixing our election system problems (which are mostly caused by us, not Russia) if we don't know about what is really going on?
nan said:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/07/17/stephen_f_cohen_do_you_prefer_impeaching_trump_or_avoiding_nuclear_war_with_russia.htmSteven Cohen had a lot more to say, including how we should not be listening to Brennan the war criminal. We should listen to Steven Cohen.
Stephen Cohen has been saying that the U.S. is facing the greatest threat from Russia since the Cuban missile crisis for years now. He even warned that just accusing Russia of hacking would be enough to set Russia off.
Nan - do you want to hear Mueller's report at all? Or have you already discredited him completely and anything he does reveal will be tainted and not to be believed?
nohero said:
nan said:No it wasn't "a good thing". They gave out random communications in an effort to affect public opinion in the U.S.
The hacking of the DNC was a good thing because it let us know that our Democratic Party was really a corrupt non-Democratic institution. This is information we should know about and the source does not really matter.
To the extent that all the anti-Hillary people got traction as a result, the plan worked.
So you are pissed that Putin tries to interfere in our elections, but fine when Hillary does that and you don't even want to know about it. Sheesh.
nan said:
ridski said:Steven Cohen had a lot more to say, including how we should not be listening to Brennan the war criminal. We should listen to Steven Cohen.
nan said:Not too dissimilar to Steve Cohen's argument on Tucker Carlson last night: "Do you prefer impeaching Trump or nuclear war with Russia?"
drummerboy said:We have reinighted the cold war (around 2015) and we have two horrible people in charge, Trump and Putin. So, of course it's VERY DANGEROUS! We can't change that. Having them meet and make nice, even if it looks like a Rocky and Bullwinkle cartoon, is preferable to having them threaten each other from afar. Last March both countries were expelling lots of diplomats, over the alleged poisoning of an ex-spy in England. That poisoning had no evidence of being done by Russia but they were immediately blamed and condemned so tensions ramped up. Things can go downhill quickly over the smallest thing.
Can someone tell me how the relations between Russia and the U.S. are at their lowest point in decades, how we got there, and if they seriously think that there's some threat of nuclear war with Russia?
Cause I think that's all nonsense. Relations aren't great - largely because Russia is being kind of a dick lately. But it's not at some sort of crisis level.
Also, how can anyone seriously think that Trump meeting with ANY world leader could possibly be a good thing? He hates Democratically elected leaders, and loves the autocrats.
That's kind of a fundamental problem, in terms of forging an effective foreign policy.
You should research the history. Here's a start:
The Rush to a New Cold War
https://consortiumnews.com/2018/03/30/the-rush-to-a-new-cold-war-2/
Because of course those are our only choices.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/07/17/stephen_f_cohen_do_you_prefer_impeaching_trump_or_avoiding_nuclear_war_with_russia.htm
"Let me ask you a question, you know D.C., why do these people dislike Putin, the president of post-communist Russia more than they ever seemed to dislike the communist leaders? it is more about us than it is about them."
Who are "these people"? Why does someone who knows Russia as well as he does, and was around during the cold war think that "these people" dislike Putin more than, say, Brezhnev? What is his qualifier for that statement?
Why am I even asking you these questions, you obviously can't answer them. You're getting your news from pundits on television.
tjohn said:
nohero said:Also, Nan, while it may be good policy, party organizations are under no obligation to be democratic and open. They could still select candidates in the smoke-filled back room if that is what they wanted to do.
nan said:No it wasn't "a good thing". They gave out random communications in an effort to affect public opinion in the U.S.
The hacking of the DNC was a good thing because it let us know that our Democratic Party was really a corrupt non-Democratic institution. This is information we should know about and the source does not really matter.
To the extent that all the anti-Hillary people got traction as a result, the plan worked.
And you are fine with that? Having a select group pick the candidates? How's that working in the richest country in the world where half the people are poor? The correct answer to this is that it either needs to stop or we need a viable 3rd party.
cramer said:
nan said:Stephen Cohen has been saying that the U.S. is facing the greatest threat from Russia since the Cuban missile crisis for years now. He even warned that just accusing Russia of hacking would be enough to set Russia off.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/07/17/stephen_f_cohen_do_you_prefer_impeaching_trump_or_avoiding_nuclear_war_with_russia.htmSteven Cohen had a lot more to say, including how we should not be listening to Brennan the war criminal. We should listen to Steven Cohen.
"What Happened to Stephen F. Cohen?"
https://www.chronicle.com/blogs/letters/what-happened-to-stephen-f-cohen/
btw - Our son was getting his masters in Russian studies at NYU when Cohen was there, although he never had him as a professor. (He's also spent a lot of time in Russia.)
nan said:I am not a supporter of Putin, an authoritarian leader. But, don't tell me we should should stop meeting with him because of his brutality, since we are BFFs with Saudi Arabia, who are worse. What am I supposed to do about Putin's bad treatment of his people--I can't even deal with Trump's right now. I just want to avoid nuclear war which would be worse than anything Trump or Putin is doing to the citizens of the US and Russia.
So we ought not confront Russia on its various misdeeds (murdering opposition figures, annexing Crimea, interfering with elections across the world) at all? You really think that sanctioning Russia will lead to nuclear war? I never got the sense that the Magnitsky Act was sending us in that direction.
nan said:
And you are fine with that? Having a select group pick the candidates? How's that working in the richest country in the world where half the people are poor? The correct answer to this is that it either needs to stop or we need a viable 3rd party.
Your arguments are mostly flawed, but I agree that we need more than two parties. Ideally also more than three by the way.
When the so-called "Neo-Cons" came into existence their founding mother , Jeanne Kirkpatrick made a "blame America first" speech in which she attacked Liberals for always blaming this Country for whatever was wrong in the World.
I have remembered that because of Trump's slogan "America First" and his remarks in Helsinki.
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
The U.S. Government, in concert with NATO, needs to formulate an approach for dealing with Russia. Russia, under Putin, is trying to reassemble to old Soviet Empire, and expects bordering countries to be vassal states. We may just need to wait out Putin as we did the USSR. While Russia will never be anybody's lap dog, I cling to the belief that a lot of Russians would rather live in the 21st Century geopolitically and not the last century which is where Putin lives.
Trump, unfortunately, can't seem to articulate much more than middle school insults.
The Russian interference happened. Why people are arguing about this is quite beyond me. Of course, we have a lot of global warming deniers and anti-vaxxers, so why not add this to the list. The more important discussion is what to do about hacking and interference Part of the solution is to construct better cyber defenses. Another part of the solution is to start to develop international norms with regard to hacking. This will be difficult since plausible deniability is so much easier with cybercrime than it is with tangible acts of war.
Again, Trump is the problem. I don't know if he thinks about any of this. He certainly is incapable of formulating a response to Russia or cybercrime.