Why the Democrats are making a big mistake by obsessing over Russia

[spurraider21]

.

[boutons_deux]

Donald Trump’s new hardline policy on Cuba is yet another gift to Russia

But most foreign-policy observers think Russia has more to gain if the US restricts ties with Cuba than if it expands them.

Without cash from US tourists and companies, the island will be increasingly dependent on Russia as an economic patron, especially as Venezuela, another stalwart Cuban ally, falls apart.

“If we pull out and return to a policy of isolation, then we leave the field open, not just for the Russians but for

the Chinese, who are also really interested in building influence in Cuba,”

William Leogrande, an American University expert on Latin America, told me last week.

In recent years, Russia has forgiven billions of dollars of Cuban debt and become a major supplier of petroleum once again.

Military cooperation between the two countries, including a Russian base 90 miles from the US mainland, could be next on the agenda.

“A close military alliance between Russia and Cuba could have grave security consequences for the United States,” US senator Patrick Leahy warned in an op-ed yesterday. “One obvious way to mitigate Russian influence in our hemisphere is through enhanced engagement with Cuba.”

https://qz.com/1007416/donald-trumps...ift-to-russia/

Pootin's BFF Trash giving Pootin everything he wants.

[RandomGuy]

Seriously?

So you and the Russians knew these 3 states were the lynchpins of the election BEFORE the election.
Get out of town now.

This is hindsight and it is infuriating. Call it BEFORE the election, not after. And it took far more than this to go right for Trump to win. Look at Florida etc... Your argument is rubbish. This election was supposed to be a landslide. Show a pre election post indicating you knew what you stated.

My point was not one of prescience. I doubt that there was any real planning. This stuff was put out there just to mess with us, for the most part, and partly to support a candidate they preferred. I think it was just enough in just the right places to move the needle a bit, and mostly that of luck. Comey's last minute re-opening of the investigation probably didn't help.

Yes, the election was probably going to be one that Hillary was probably going to win. I was surprised as anyone, but know enough that 70% of winning still means the odd 3 in ten losses.

It is impossible, even with hindsight to say what the definitive reason for his victory was, despite what he himself claims. It is complex, which is the point I was trying to make.

It is obvious the Russians were trying to move the needle. How much, and to what effect is likely never to be known, but the narrow margin of victory means that if they did have an effect it is fully within the realm of possibility that it did tip the balance, i.e. they got lucky.

[RandomGuy]

which begs the question... who were the two

One missed the vote, if memory serves, and the other is an idiot.

[RandomGuy]

And I might add they have done exactly the same in Europe.
This is not a military threat, this is a DIRECT threat to the democratic process which they fear and despise.
This is not an insignificant attack on Democracy where I shrug it off with, "we have done worse and move on". We are having this conversation freely without fear of retribution. I really don't think North Americans and Europeans fully appreciate what we are able to do so freely.

+1

The only real question is how to respond.

The only thing the Trump administration appears to be angling for is removing economic sanctions on Russia. One has to wonder why this choice of action is indicated, when common sense would seem to dictate that rewarding them would not be appropriate.

This administration is reinstating restrictions on Cuba, because they view Cuba as hostile, wants to scrap the Iran deal, because they view Iran as hostile, talks about militarily threatening North Korea, because they view NK as hostile, yet nothing about Russia, other than pushing to ease sanctions.

What do you think is so different about Russia to them?

[rjv]

They have one-upped us.

97-2 in the Senate says it all. Putin is a thug plain and simple.

i'm not sure what you mean by 97-2 says it all. i'm inclined to believe you're making a "might makes right" argument. to date, as far as evidence is concerned, the russians have committed less sabotage than the chinese did to the U.S. a few years ago, and we still do not know the full extent to which the NSA has spread out its own cyber attacks across the world. if not for whistle blowers, we'd likely know a lot less.

[TSA]

Disclosure: Donald Trump is the father-in-law of Jared Kushner, the publisher of Observer Media.

And that has all to do with the contents of the article. If you want to argue that the MSM and social media giants were not in the bag for Clinton make your case---lol Kushner doesn't cut it.

[boutons_deux]

And that has all to do with the contents of the article. If you want to argue that the MSM and social media giants were not in the bag for Clinton make your case---lol Kushner doesn't cut it.

Lots of people calculated media coverage of Trash was worth $1B+

If a lot of it was negative it's his fault for being racist, bigoted, xenophobic, LYING, slandering, condescending, bullying, misogyntic, etc, etc

Repug fabricated email BS, pootin/assange Leaks were covered extensively and hurt Hillary badly but she still wiped toilet floor with Trash's fake hair by 3M votes

[TSA]

Lots of people calculated media coverage of Trash was worth $1B+

If a lot of it was negative it's his fault for being racist, bigoted, xenophobic, LYING, slandering, condescending, bullying, misogyntic, etc, etc

Repug fabricated email BS, pootin/assange Leaks were covered extensively and hurt Hillary badly but she still wiped toilet floor with Trash's fake hair by 3M votes

Trump's negative coverage was his fault, but Hillary's negative coverage due to federal laws being broken concerning her handling of classified material was Repug fabricated


You are such a ing hack

[Reck]

Trump's negative coverage was his fault, but Hillary's negative coverage due to federal laws being broken concerning her handling of classified material was Repug fabricated


You are such a ing hack

They're interchangeable at this point. Hillary, Trump. Both are useless POS who cant get out of their own way.

Surely you can agree to that at least.

[rjv]

They're interchangeable at this point. Hillary, Trump. Both are useless POS who cant get out of their own way.

Surely you can agree to that at least.

indeed. reminders of just how bad our options were this past november.

[pgardn]

i'm not sure what you mean by 97-2 says it all. i'm inclined to believe you're making a "might makes right" argument. to date, as far as evidence is concerned, the russians have committed less sabotage than the chinese did to the U.S. a few years ago, and we still do not know the full extent to which the NSA has spread out its own cyber attacks across the world. if not for whistle blowers, we'd likely know a lot less.

It says there is agreement which is extraordinarily rare these days. "Might" is the wrong term IMO. The Chinese sabatoge on mostly private business and intell is completely different than attempting to undermine a lynchpin of a democracy like elections. I don't think people fully appreciate the attempts of authoritarian societies to undermine the faith in democratic ideals.

And... You and I know and are allowed to discuss the NSA, Snowden etc... We KNOW about it! Try this outside of Western democracies. Honestly, people need to travel to Eastern Europe including Russia for a contrast. It's absolutely shocking.

[boutons_deux]

Pence Summons Republican Swamp Monster




Mike Pence has lawyered up with a guy

who has a history of helping Republican leaders under serious criminal investigations, like Nixon, and Reagan,

which means he’s a of a lot better than Trump’s lawyer, and way more connected in Washington.

https://wonkette.com/618737/pence-su...i-june-16-2017

[boutons_deux]

Why Trash and entourage ADORE Pootin/Russia (or maybe they all be bought, like standard issue Repugs )

From Russia With Blood

Lavish London mansions. A hand-painted Rolls-Royce. And eight dead friends. For the British fixer Scot Young, working for Vladimir Putin's most vocal critic meant stunning perks – but also constant danger.

His gruesome death is one of 14 that US spy agencies have linked to Russia – but the UK police shut down every last case.

A bombs cache of do ents today reveals the full story of a ring of death on British soil that the government has ignored.

?https://www.buzzfeed.com/heidiblake/from-russia-with-blood-14-suspected-hits-on-british-soil?utm_term=.ee0R7QMNN#.ftl4VA5pp

[rjv]

It says there is agreement which is extraordinarily rare these days. "Might" is the wrong term IMO. The Chinese sabatoge on mostly private business and intell is completely different than attempting to undermine a lynchpin of a democracy like elections. I don't think people fully appreciate the attempts of authoritarian societies to undermine the faith in democratic ideals.

And... You and I know and are allowed to discuss the NSA, Snowden etc... We KNOW about it! Try this outside of Western democracies. Honestly, people need to travel to Eastern Europe including Russia for a contrast. It's absolutely shocking.

rare, but not shocking in that it's a matter of foreign policy which is the one domain on which there has been general bipartisan agreement for over a decade now, and even longer when it comes to the matter of Russia. In fact, it is this consensus which led to the Patriot Act, mass surveillance and the growing police state within the U.S., and to such an extent that it threatens your ability to categorically declare that Western democracies are autonomous havens. Let's not forget what happened to Snowden or how the FBI has infiltrated the Black Lives Matter movement or even the Occupy movement a few years ago (much as it infiltrated such groups in the 60's). And I have to assert that the U.S. has perfected the art of undermining democracies in other regions of the world. We have 800 military bases around the world and have interfered in (along with Russia) 117 sovereign elections since 1947 and that's not including our tacit support of other coups (such as Honduras when Clinton was Secretary of State). I would ask you this: what would the U.S. position be if Russia had a military presence, along with a Russian friendly government in both Canada and Mexico, and this came about despite promises by Russia that they would not take part in such boundary aggression?

[TSA]

They're interchangeable at this point. Hillary, Trump. Both are useless POS who cant get out of their own way.

Surely you can agree to that at least.

This has literally nothing to do with what I'm discussing

[pgardn]

rare, but not shocking in that it's a matter of foreign policy which is the one domain on which there has been general bipartisan agreement for over a decade now, and even longer when it comes to the matter of Russia. In fact, it is this consensus which led to the Patriot Act, mass surveillance and the growing police state within the U.S., and to such an extent that it threatens your ability to categorically declare that Western democracies are autonomous havens. Let's not forget what happened to Snowden or how the FBI has infiltrated the Black Lives Matter movement or even the Occupy movement a few years ago (much as it infiltrated such groups in the 60's). And I have to assert that the U.S. has perfected the art of undermining democracies in other regions of the world. We have 800 military bases around the world and have interfered in (along with Russia) 117 sovereign elections since 1947 and that's not including our tacit support of other coups (such as Honduras when Clinton was Secretary of State). I would ask you this: what would the U.S. position be if Russia had a military presence, along with a Russian friendly government in both Canada and Mexico, and this came about despite promises by Russia that they would not take part in such boundary aggression?

You keep turning back to the argument "well we have done this" Yes, we have. And WE know about it and actively discuss it and hopefully try to balance it. That is one of the largest issues in democracies, the right of the individual's freedom v. the right to protect a society as a whole. What Snowden did was flat out WRONG and VERY IMPORTANT. We can't have individuals taking it upon themselves to decide what they deem important and put other individuals and possibly the country in danger IMO. That's why we have elected officials and people they hire and attempt to hold to certain agreed upon laws. Did the blonde that took it upon herself to release info ask us if it was ok? If the rules need to be changed, vote to change them. Vote people in who will look into the intelligence conondrum.

The Russian situation is one of their doing during and after WWII. Why don't you go ask the Poles, Germans, Checs how they feel about Russia? Then ask Canadians and Mexicans how much they fear our military. Why don't you ask the Crimeans and Georgians who overtly had Russians walk into their territory and take it? Does Putin even admit he had troops there yet? Contrast that with the fact we have had US presidents, generals, Secretary of State in our COUNTRY OPENLY WRITE ABOUT OUR FORAYS into governmental manipulation and meddling in other countries. Absolutely horrible comparison IMO.

[DarrinS]

9:55 - 13:55

[rjv]

You keep turning back to the argument "well we have done this" Yes, we have. And WE know about it and actively discuss it and hopefully try to balance it. That is one of the largest issues in democracies, the right of the individual's freedom v. the right to protect a society as a whole. What Snowden did was flat out WRONG and VERY IMPORTANT. We can't have individuals taking it upon themselves to decide what they deem important and put other individuals and possibly the country in danger IMO. That's why we have elected officials and people they hire and attempt to hold to certain agreed upon laws. Did the blonde that took it upon herself to release info ask us if it was ok? If the rules need to be changed, vote to change them. Vote people in who will look into the intelligence conondrum.

The Russian situation is one of their doing during and after WWII. Why don't you go ask the Poles, Germans, Checs how they feel about Russia? Then ask Canadians and Mexicans how much they fear our military. Why don't you ask the Crimeans and Georgians who overtly had Russians walk into their territory and take it? Does Putin even admit he had troops there yet? Contrast that with the fact we have had US presidents, generals, Secretary of State in our COUNTRY OPENLY WRITE ABOUT OUR FORAYS into governmental manipulation and meddling in other countries. Absolutely horrible comparison IMO.

Who openly discusses it? The population? What percentage of the population? Is it discussed in congress, with the goal of reform as the catalyst for such conversation? And what Snowden did was wrong from what perspective? From the notion that it violates law? Whistle blowers violate protocol. They step outside agreements because they see a greater law that has been violated. To declare Snowden's actions 'flat out" wrong seems like a strictly legal view because it certainly couldn't be a moral perspective. We do vote to change these rules but the democratic process has been infiltrated by our own country more than it has any other nation or alleged Russian attack. Gerrymandering, dark money, voter ID laws, special interests go a long way towards undermining democracy. And I am not trying to paint the Russians out to be saints. I mentioned, that they along with the U.S., are the two nations the most responsible for the greatest amount of human rights atrocities in this world since the end of WWII. Go ask Latin America, the Middle East, Indonesia and Africa how they regard the United States. We have had some politicians admit to the wrong doings of this nation although when it comes to presidents and their cabinets, that rhetoric is usually perfunctory at best as it is often contradicted by their policies.

[pgardn]

Who openly discusses it? The population? What percentage of the population? Is it discussed in congress, with the goal of reform as the catalyst for such conversation? And what Snowden did was wrong from what perspective? From the notion that it violates law? Whistle blowers violate protocol. They step outside agreements because they see a greater law that has been violated. To declare Snowden's actions 'flat out" wrong seems like a strictly legal view because it certainly couldn't be a moral perspective. We do vote to change these rules but the democratic process has been infiltrated by our own country more than it has any other nation or alleged Russian attack. Gerrymandering, dark money, voter ID laws, special interests go a long way towards undermining democracy. And I am not trying to paint the Russians out to be saints. I mentioned, that they along with the U.S., are the two nations the most responsible for the greatest amount of human rights atrocities in this world since the end of WWII. Go ask Latin America, the Middle East, Indonesia and Africa how they regard the United States. We have had some politicians admit to the wrong doings of this nation although when it comes to presidents and their cabinets, that rhetoric is usually perfunctory at best as it is often contradicted by their policies.

We are.

What % of the population? I don't know. The point is we CAN and DO discuss this. If a democratic society does not wish to discuss an issue they have made the choice because the history and perspectives given by our OWN government officials without fear of retribution have made available to us! This IS the point. You think this happens in Russia.

Of course my comment on Snowden is a strictly legal view and I explained why the law exists. I also noted it was VERY important. Thus the conundrum. The country understands the problem and as expected some side more with protecting the whole rather than the individual as expected. Some think there is no reason to keep anything secret. Let corporations give nuclear plans to and equipment to Assad.

All of the problems with Democracies are well known and widely discussed depending on which group is fostering the importance of gerrymandering, dark money, etc... Who ever said democracies are perfect? our founding fathers profoundly discussed this problem. Again you and I have the right to vote and change these problems. And if you feel our democracy is too corrupt, then run yourself by God. The tea party was grass roots. It had an effect that was subverted IMO. WE DO have choices. If you claim some sort of equivalence with Russia in this respect I believe you are dead wrong. And if you don't like the idea of democracy like some because it's very inefficient, then go more totalitarian or just go total chaos. This has and always been a problem with governments. The Greeks and Romans understood the basics of what we are discussing.

[pgardn]

We are.

What % of the population? I don't know. The point is we CAN and DO discuss this. If a democratic society does not wish to discuss an issue they have made the choice because the history and perspectives given by our OWN government officials without fear of retribution have made available to us! This IS the point. You think this happens in Russia.

Of course my comment on Snowden is a strictly legal view and I explained why the law exists. I also noted it was VERY important. Thus the conundrum. The country understands the problem and as expected some side more with protecting the whole rather than the individual as expected. Some think there is no reason to keep anything secret. Go give nuclear plans to and equipment to Assad.

All of the problems with Democracies are well known and widely discussed depending on which group is fostering the importance of gerrymandering, dark money, etc... Who ever said democracies are perfect? our founding fathers profoundly discussed this problem. Again you and I have the right to vote and change these problems. And if you feel our democracy is too corrupt, then run yourself by God. The tea party was grass roots. It had an effect that was subverted IMO. WE DO have choices. If you claim some sort of equivalence with Russia in this respect I believe you are dead wrong. And if you don't like the idea of democracy like some because it's very inefficient, then go more totalitarian or just go total chaos. This has and always been a problem with governments. The Greeks and Romans understood the basics of what we are discussing.

Latin America, Indonesia and others is a good lesson in how democracies can be guided by greedy corporations. This CAN be stopped. If enough Americans deem this important they CAN and HAVE made attempts to stop this. Again, we can do something about this. Maybe if you would replace boots as the spokesperson for this board it would result in lights turning on. And maybe not mention killing cops as retribution for blacks having problems with law enforcement.

[rjv]

We are.

What % of the population? I don't know. The point is we CAN and DO discuss this. If a democratic society does not wish to discuss an issue they have made the choice because the history and perspectives given by our OWN government officials without fear of retribution have made available to us! This IS the point. You think this happens in Russia.

Of course my comment on Snowden is a strictly legal view and I explained why the law exists. I also noted it was VERY important. Thus the conundrum. The country understands the problem and as expected some side more with protecting the whole rather than the individual as expected. Some think there is no reason to keep anything secret. Go give nuclear plans to and equipment to Assad.

All of the problems with Democracies are well known and widely discussed depending on which group is fostering the importance of gerrymandering, dark money, etc... Who ever said democracies are perfect? our founding fathers profoundly discussed this problem. Again you and I have the right to vote and change these problems. And if you feel our democracy is too corrupt, then run yourself by God. The tea party was grass roots. It had an effect that was subverted IMO. WE DO have choices. If you claim some sort of equivalence with Russia in this respect I believe you are dead wrong. And if you don't like the idea of democracy like some because it's very inefficient, then go more totalitarian or just go total chaos. This has and always been a problem with governments. The Greeks and Romans understood the basics of what we are discussing.

The definition (conceptually, not legally) of "treason" is fluid. There are those who would technically violate a code of Chapter 15 while still having the best interest of the American citizenry at hand. If you are arguing this is an absolute which cannot be compromised, I would counter one cannot reasonably be relativistic in regards to absolutes. Otherwise, we would just have to assume the subject of Snowden to be yet another matter on which the ethic of consequentialism reigns. I, for one, am tired of deferring so often to the merits of pragmatism, an ideology which seems to greatly benefit the neoliberal and neoconservative agendas of Washington. So, yes, I do try to run myself by what you refer to as "God". Utilitarianism is a bankrupt ideology, and this is the moral question at hand: do we want to be accomplices to heresy or oppression? As for the Greeks, they did not invent "democracy" nor did they agree on it. There are many versions of democracy among the Pre-Socratic and Post-Socratic philosophers as there are many different views of democracy today (and not all are inherited from the West). I just don't believe it is as simple as a binary choice between one version of democracy (although we are currently in a corporate oligarchy) and totalitarianism (or some form of entropy).

[pgardn]

The definition (conceptually, not legally) of "treason" is fluid. There are those who would technically violate a code of Chapter 15 while still having the best interest of the American citizenry at hand. If you are arguing this is an absolute which cannot be compromised, I would counter one cannot reasonably be relativistic in regards to absolutes. Otherwise, we would just have to assume the subject of Snowden to be yet another matter on which the ethic of consequentialism reigns. I, for one, am tired of deferring so often to the merits of pragmatism, an ideology which seems to greatly benefit the neoliberal and neoconservative agendas of Washington. So, yes, I do try to run myself by what you refer to as "God". Utilitarianism is a bankrupt ideology, and this is the moral question at hand: do we want to be accomplices to heresy or oppression? As for the Greeks, they did not invent "democracy" nor did they agree on it. There are many versions of democracy among the Pre-Socratic and Post-Socratic philosophers as there are many different views of democracy today (and not all are inherited from the West). I just don't believe it is as simple as a binary choice between one version of democracy (although we are currently in a corporate oligarchy) and totalitarianism (or some form of entropy).

I did not state Greeks invented democracies. And of course democracies have differences. But the fundamentals are the same. So you brought the US into the discussion about the Russian government to provide some sort of equivalence the "look what we do" defense. That, I object to. We are not the same. Our histories are entirely different. They have a history of rule by strongmen, we don't come close to that even if some presidents were able to exert more control than others.

[spurraider21]

9:55 - 13:55

35:38

[pgardn]

The definition (conceptually, not legally) of "treason" is fluid. There are those who would technically violate a code of Chapter 15 while still having the best interest of the American citizenry at hand. If you are arguing this is an absolute which cannot be compromised, I would counter one cannot reasonably be relativistic in regards to absolutes. Otherwise, we would just have to assume the subject of Snowden to be yet another matter on which the ethic of consequentialism reigns. I, for one, am tired of deferring so often to the merits of pragmatism, an ideology which seems to greatly benefit the neoliberal and neoconservative agendas of Washington. So, yes, I do try to run myself by what you refer to as "God". Utilitarianism is a bankrupt ideology, and this is the moral question at hand: do we want to be accomplices to heresy or oppression? As for the Greeks, they did not invent "democracy" nor did they agree on it. There are many versions of democracy among the Pre-Socratic and Post-Socratic philosophers as there are many different views of democracy today (and not all are inherited from the West). I just don't believe it is as simple as a binary choice between one version of democracy (although we are currently in a corporate oligarchy) and totalitarianism (or some form of entropy).

Snowden is not a pragmatic issue. It's a basic issue any democracy has. It is the rights of an individual vs. the rights of the whole. Again, look what his copycat did. There must be a control over what individuals in a society are allowed to make public. In turn there must be a way for legit whistle blowers to have a path to right perceived wrongs. I feel that the aforementioned is a very basic idea that is very difficult to sort through.

I would also say it is very clear our cons ution and laws are firmly implanted in Judeo-Christian beliefs. How they actually work in practice as seen by slavery, the subjugation of women, internment camps... is not always consistent with the rules.