Total Posts:46|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

My Boy Jim Carville Lighting Sh!t Up

YYW
Posts: 36,375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2016 2:24:20 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
http://www.realclearpolitics.com...

Carville finally said what we've all known since the middle of the summer: Russian intelligence is actively manipulating this election, and supporting Trump.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2016 2:29:43 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
Before the end of the week, I predict that Comey will step down.

I also predict that there will be information which reaches the press about Trump's connections with Russia.
Tsar of DDO
slo1
Posts: 4,359
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2016 2:20:54 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
There is definitely a stinky fish somewhere. Said he knows Putin well in this video from 2013. Suddenly he doesn't know them and he fears them due to a WWII threat.

http://www.msnbc.com...
YYW
Posts: 36,375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2016 4:18:32 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/2/2016 2:20:54 AM, slo1 wrote:
There is definitely a stinky fish somewhere. Said he knows Putin well in this video from 2013. Suddenly he doesn't know them and he fears them due to a WWII threat.

http://www.msnbc.com...

You're 100% right.
Tsar of DDO
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,036
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2016 5:17:53 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/1/2016 2:24:20 AM, YYW wrote:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com...

Carville finally said what we've all known since the middle of the summer: Russian intelligence is actively manipulating this election, and supporting Trump.

Why though? This is the question I keep asking myself whenever I encounter this notion that they are manipulating the election in his favor - why? Is it because Putin knows Hillary will be tougher on him than Trump would, and to what extent? Would good relations with Russia under a Trump presidency really be a bad thing?

As a side inquiry, what do you see our relations with Russia being like 2 years from now under a Hillary presidency compared to a Trump presidency?
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
YYW
Posts: 36,375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2016 3:43:25 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/2/2016 5:17:53 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 11/1/2016 2:24:20 AM, YYW wrote:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com...

Carville finally said what we've all known since the middle of the summer: Russian intelligence is actively manipulating this election, and supporting Trump.

Why though? This is the question I keep asking myself whenever I encounter this notion that they are manipulating the election in his favor - why?

Putin has three interests: an immediate, a short term, and a long term interest for the purpose of advancing Russia's geopolitical goals with respect to the United States.

The immediate interest is to cause chaos and discord in the United States by undermining American's faith in the electoral process. This is important to Putin because the reason America is so internally stable is because we, unlike most countries, transition power even in the most heated elections, in a peaceful way. That peaceful transition is critical to our democratic functioning, because it reflects Americans' broader commitment to country over party. However, by shifting americans' commitment to party over country (which was facilitated by emphasizing identity politics over patriotism, as Trump and the Republican party has successfully been engaging in for some time), while additionally creating a popular perception that "the system is rigged," Americans will come to believe that their democracy *has already* crumbled, and faith in the institutions that hold us together is no longer justified. This is a very effective counter intel-strategy which, ironically, we have done to other countries in the past. Now, it's being used against us. Whether Trump realizes it or not (and I think he does, but people disagree about this), Trump is actively undermining the democracy by the way he is running his campaign. He is also laying the groundwork for post-election chaos in the form of popular uprising when Hillary wins, because he's--implicitly--making the election's legitimacy contingent upon his victory.

The short term goal is NOT to allow Hillary Clinton to be elected. Putin understands that Hillary Clinton has a command of geopolitics that is rivaled only perhaps by her husband and Barack Obama. She also, in Putin's estimation, presents an existential threat to Putin's goals of forming a supra-national trading bloc to rival the EU and NAFTA, thereby increasing Russia's regional and global influence. Essentially, that trade bloc (which would be inclusive, specifically of Ukraine, but generally of all former USSR countries, and perhaps others) is Putin's strategy to restoring Russia's superpower status. Restoring Russia's superpower status is very important to Putin, because he believes that the USSR's fall was (aside from the greatest historical geopolitical tragedy ever), a blight of the Russian people and Russian culture. He actively resents the United States, whose policies he attributes to the USSR's implosion. So, his goal is to pursue historical vindication as much as it is to increase Russian economic and political power.

The short term goal, described above, is the strategy for pursing Putin's long term objectives. Putin understands that Hillary Clinton's trade policies with Western Europe and Central Europe would make his goal of restoring Russia's superpower status nothing more than a fantasy. He also believes this about Obama, whom Putin regards with all the level of contempt that any person would be capable of mustering. Putin knows that Hillary Clinton, however, would be worse for Russia even than Obama because Clinton is vastly more aggressive whereas Obama is more tactful and measured. For example, Clinton has few reservations about US sanctions impacting Central European allies who trade with Russia, whereas Obama has a lot of concern about that and is therefore pulling his punches. Beyond sanctions, Clinton was an architect in the Ukrainian aid/trade deal in 2014 that preceded Ukraine's Orange Revolution. The Orange Revolution, as many know now, was an instance where Russia perceived NATO's presence in what he perceives to be his back yard (read: Ukraine). As mentioned above, for historical, economic, and political reasons... any supra-national trans siberian economic bloc must include Ukraine. But, Ukraine was drifting closer to Western Europe and by implication away from NATO. This was unacceptable to Putin, and remains unacceptable. His fear (not just concern, but fear) is that Hillary will do more things like this, or reinvigorate that deal, to bring Ukraine into the West's sphere to Russia's exclusion.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2016 4:05:06 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
Is it because Putin knows Hillary will be tougher on him than Trump would, and to what extent? Would good relations with Russia under a Trump presidency really be a bad thing?

In my previous post, I explained what Putin perceives the stakes of the US election to be, in relation to Hillary Clinton's election. Obviously, Trump would do nothing of the sort. Trump would do what Chamberlain did to Hitler: appease, and try to contain. Putin knows this, and Putin courts this. The reason Trump would allow Putin to run free in Ukraine (and pretty much everywhere else in the world), is because Trump doesn't care about Ukraine or any post soviet country, or America's interests there. This is very naive (if not outrightly stupid) because of the real economic and political concerns that the United States has in those regions, relating as much to the importation and market management of oil and raw materials, to fighting terrorism and the like.

What I find most difficult about the way the issue of "US relations with Russia" are cast, is how incredibly stupid the rhetoric is surrounding the issue. People hear "wouldn't it be nice if we got along with Russia?" and then end their analysis as if somehow we can all come together and sing cum-by-ya, and the impact will be one of mutual good will. This is largely because most Americans (and even the Republican nominee) are not sophisticated enough to appreciate the gravity of what "getting along with Russia" would entail. Essentially, getting along with Russia means giving them what they want... which is backing off in Central Europe entirely, to the extent that Putin could form his supra-national economic bloc (i.e. reinvigorate in form what was once understood to be the USSR).

Ostensibly, this sounds highly speculative and irrational because for most Americans the Cold War is a relic of the past that has been relegated to the annals of our history. The Cold War and the ideological and cultural differences it entailed, however, never ended for Russians. The reasons should be obvious: for the same reason the South never stopped fighting the Civil War, in the United States. (As an aside, the comparative scholarship comparing the American South to the USSR is riveting, but another conversation for another day.) Myopically, Americans fail to appreciate the deep seeded resentment that the USSR's collapse led to in almost all Russians who were old enough to be alive and thinking in 1991, or who have parents who witnessed the USSR's collapse. Those sentiments have been exacerbated by the extent to which Putin's disastrous economic policies have caused what some Russians have characterized as "economic armageddon" ...the results of which are comprehensively misattributed to the United States due the very effective propaganda of the Kremlin... as well as the fact that Putin has killed, jailed, or imprisoned any journalist who operates in Russia that questions the "party line" that the US and Western Europe are to blame for all of Russia's many problems.

I say that all to make clear the following: understanding Russia's intentions in relation to the United States makes clear that any notion of "getting along" with Russia is an illusory suggestion, because to get along with them would be to existentially endanger the United States and our allies abroad. There is literally nothing we can do in Russia to get along with them other than do what we can to get Putin out of power... which we are very much doing, and which Putin furthermore has every estimation that Hillary will continue.

While there are other things that the US is doing in relation to Putin, the sanctions we have imposed on Russia for its illegal 19th century land grab in Crimea and total violation of Ukraine's territorial integrity post-Orange Revolution in Eastern Ukraine, is to create internal distress in Russia that is sufficient to bring about a popular resistance to Putin's rule. Basically, the goal is to make it so bad that Russians start to question their basic assumptions about Putin's ability to lead. How the sanctions have accomplished that, or are accomplishing that, is the subject of another post (though there is a litany of analysis of it from Foreign Affairs Mag., Foreign Policy, and dozens of other reputable sources), but the point is that Putin understands that that's what Obama is doing and Hillary will do.

Why this is necessary should be clear: Vladimir Putin is a threat to global stability and US interests at home and abroad. Russia can never be allowed to become a super power. They have no regard for human rights, they regularly abuse their people, Russia has instituted laws and policies that actively oppress women, LGBTs, all religious minorities, and essentially anyone who is non-Slavic. Likewise, Russia's affinity to sell weapons to regimes which are hostile to the United States presents a clear and present threat to the United States' geopolitical interests far beyond mere bilateral US-Russian relations.

Trump, in his rhetoric, has made clear that he would engage in actions which undermine every facet of America's protecting our interests abroad. His policies would undermine NATO, the United Nations, and every defense pact we have around the world; particularly, with respect to Northern Europe, Central Europe, the South Pacific, Japan, India, and throughout Africa. That is of course to say nothing of South America. Thus, whereas Hillary would do none of those things, it is Putin's calculation (which is is correct on, btw.; he accurately has assessed the situation) that Trump's presidency actively risks America's future status as a superpower. That is exactly what Putin wants, for the aforesaid reasons. That is another component of Putin's long term interest in the outcome of this election. It is also why he is ONLY interfering in THIS election, and why in particular he never bothered with Romney. Romney understood the stakes with our relationship with Russia (read: was competent), whereas Trump is too manifestly stupid and short sighted to realize what game Putin is playing. Putin is playing for keeps, as he always has. He is not a man to let opportunity go to waste.
Tsar of DDO
Vaarka
Posts: 7,636
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2016 4:08:08 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/1/2016 2:29:43 AM, YYW wrote:
Before the end of the week, I predict that Comey will step down.
Who's Comey?

I also predict that there will be information which reaches the press about Trump's connections with Russia.
You're probably thinking right now "haha I'm a genius". Well you're not -Valkrin

inferno: "I don't know, are you attracted to women?"
ButterCatX: "No, Vaarka is mine!"

All hail scum Vaarka, wielder of the bastard sword, smiter of nations, destroyer of spiders -VOT

"Vaarka, I've been thinking about this for a long time now," (pulls out small box made of macaroni) "W-will you be my noodle buddy?" -Kirigaya
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,320
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2016 4:17:51 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/2/2016 4:08:08 PM, Vaarka wrote:
At 11/1/2016 2:29:43 AM, YYW wrote:
Before the end of the week, I predict that Comey will step down.
Who's Comey?

FBI Director
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
YYW
Posts: 36,375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2016 4:20:34 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
As a side inquiry, what do you see our relations with Russia being like 2 years from now under a Hillary presidency compared to a Trump presidency?

Things will get worse in either case; but HOW they get worse will vary considerably from one candidate to the other. Likewise, the extent of how badly it gets worse is going to depend on internal politics in the United States. If the Republican Party is ever so stupid enough to nominate a pro-Russia candidate like they have here, Putin will capitalize on that in every conceivable sense. If the Republican party comes to its senses and nominates a respectable person in the future (like Mitt Romney, who would have made an excellent president), the the potential for Russian interference is lessened.

One thing that is very deeply concerning to me is what is happening in Ukraine right now, which is sort of the big elephant in the room that no one is talking about (likely, because of how at once murky and scary it is). Right now, Canada is training Ukrainian troops. It takes little intellectual effort to figure out why NATO member Canada is doing that. It's not like Trodeau has the wherewithal to take that kind of initiative, after all. Putin knows Obama was behind Canada's ongoing actions in Ukraine. Putin also is doing the same thing in EASTERN Ukraine; Russian troops are actively training EASTERN Ukrainian separatists. This is terrifying, because here we have a super power's puppet, and a demi-super power (Russia) actively marshaling towards a proxy war in Eastern Europe, over Ukraine's future.

Ukraine is just about the most volatile place in the world right now. Putin's official position is that there are no Russian troops in Ukraine. This is a lie that is regularly believed by (stupid) Americans who ignore the body bags that have been coming back to Russia since spetznatz troops descended into Eastern Ukraine in the dark of night and staged an uprising under the pretext of protecting ethnic slavs. There are a lot of very stupid people who are intellectual unable to parse fact from fiction, because they take what Russian leaders say at face value and ignore, for further illustration, the literal presence of Russian troops in Eastern Ukraine; the fact that those troops are not uniformed; the fact that every peace talk has been broken because of hostility from those troops Putin sent there; the fact that they continue to receive material support directly from Russia; and the fact that the only time they come to the negotiation table in the first instance is to buy time to re-arm. It's disgusting.

Now, add to that the chaos that's unfolding in Syria. Syria is, right now, Russia's most important client state. The reason Syria is Russia's most important client state is because every single other client state Russia has in the world will measure the value of their relationship with Russia (and NOT the United States) based on what outcome results therefrom. So, if Assad falls, then it's not just Assad falling: it's every other alliance that Putin has around the world, because they will understand that (1) an alliance with Russia is not a good investment, because Russia cannot protect those countries when they need Russia to do so from both internal and external threats; and (2) an alliance with Russia actively risks war with the United States. That's why Obama was initially so emphatic that Assad had to go, and simultaneously why that meant that Putin had to do something to prevent any leader who thinks like Obama from being elected in the United States again.

That all to say this: the world is becoming a more volatile place in relation to the extent to which Russia has influence in it. That volatility means the permanent souring of US-Russian relations, unless the United States does something catastrophically stupid, like allow Putin to make Russia a superpower once again. Even then, the improvement we have with Russia will only be temporal. As soon as Russia has the means to wage war with the United States, rest assured that that's what will come next.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2016 4:30:58 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
All of that to say this, too...

What I said is pretty much the most candid analysis you're going to get from anyone. Pundits don't have the educational background to offer that kind of insight (read: no background in geopolitics, international relations, etc.), and the politicians aren't going to say that because of how big the stakes are in this potentially nuclear chess game.

If people want to understand what is going on, they have to understand how we got here and what Russia's goals are. They also have to understand how important those goals are to Russia. What I would suggest that people do is look out into the world and figure out what is actually going on, to the best that you can. Don't be stupid and listen to Sergei Lavrov and believe that he's telling the truth when he talks; Lavrov is a seasoned diplomat who is acutely aware of how to use a stated position to advance Russia's interests. Lavrov is not unique in that respect either. Putin is even better than Lavrov.

These are incredibly smart and sophisticated politicians and diplomats who understand how to play the game better than nearly every other person on earth. It would be stupid for any in the United States to under estimate them, but that is exactly what Trump is doing.

Many Americans who delude themselves into thinking that they understand what's going on with respect to our relationship with Russia (and, in particular, those idiots who think that Trump is proposing a viable means to stabilizing our relationship with Russia) just don't have the background, much less the understanding, to see what is in front of them and understand what it means.

They naively and stupidly assume that when Putin talks he is telling the truth; that when anyone from RT or any one of the numerous Russian officials who make regular appearances in American media (e.g. Lavrov) are NOT being duplicitous, and are NOT pushing an agenda. This is astonishingly dim; but the reason it is astonishing to ME is because I know how they operate. People who do not know how the Russian government operates ASSUME good will where it does not exist, nor will it ever exist. Regretfully, many in the United States (including Trump) will not realize how badly they have failed to assess reality until it is too late. (That's the whole point of what Putin and Lavrov are doing, anyway.)
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2016 4:36:45 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
Also, I should note that BOT asked excellent questions. Those are exactly the kinds of questions I hope to see when discussing issues like this.
Tsar of DDO
Vaarka
Posts: 7,636
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2016 5:40:21 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/2/2016 4:17:51 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 11/2/2016 4:08:08 PM, Vaarka wrote:
At 11/1/2016 2:29:43 AM, YYW wrote:
Before the end of the week, I predict that Comey will step down.
Who's Comey?

FBI Director

And why would he step down?
You're probably thinking right now "haha I'm a genius". Well you're not -Valkrin

inferno: "I don't know, are you attracted to women?"
ButterCatX: "No, Vaarka is mine!"

All hail scum Vaarka, wielder of the bastard sword, smiter of nations, destroyer of spiders -VOT

"Vaarka, I've been thinking about this for a long time now," (pulls out small box made of macaroni) "W-will you be my noodle buddy?" -Kirigaya
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,320
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2016 7:09:26 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/2/2016 5:40:21 PM, Vaarka wrote:
At 11/2/2016 4:17:51 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 11/2/2016 4:08:08 PM, Vaarka wrote:
At 11/1/2016 2:29:43 AM, YYW wrote:
Before the end of the week, I predict that Comey will step down.
Who's Comey?

FBI Director

And why would he step down?

He's under a lot of pressure for presumably releasing the information as a political move... essentially issue-framing.
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
Vaarka
Posts: 7,636
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2016 7:10:48 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/2/2016 7:09:26 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 11/2/2016 5:40:21 PM, Vaarka wrote:
At 11/2/2016 4:17:51 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 11/2/2016 4:08:08 PM, Vaarka wrote:
At 11/1/2016 2:29:43 AM, YYW wrote:
Before the end of the week, I predict that Comey will step down.
Who's Comey?

FBI Director

And why would he step down?

He's under a lot of pressure for presumably releasing the information as a political move... essentially issue-framing.

You mean when the emails were found and released? Wasn't he supposed to do that anyway, regardless of how far into the election it was?

And even if it was a "political move", how is that a "stepping down" worthy thing?
You're probably thinking right now "haha I'm a genius". Well you're not -Valkrin

inferno: "I don't know, are you attracted to women?"
ButterCatX: "No, Vaarka is mine!"

All hail scum Vaarka, wielder of the bastard sword, smiter of nations, destroyer of spiders -VOT

"Vaarka, I've been thinking about this for a long time now," (pulls out small box made of macaroni) "W-will you be my noodle buddy?" -Kirigaya
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,036
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2016 10:32:59 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/2/2016 3:43:25 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/2/2016 5:17:53 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 11/1/2016 2:24:20 AM, YYW wrote:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com...

Carville finally said what we've all known since the middle of the summer: Russian intelligence is actively manipulating this election, and supporting Trump.

Why though? This is the question I keep asking myself whenever I encounter this notion that they are manipulating the election in his favor - why?

Putin has three interests: an immediate, a short term, and a long term interest for the purpose of advancing Russia's geopolitical goals with respect to the United States.

The immediate interest is to cause chaos and discord in the United States by undermining American's faith in the electoral process. This is important to Putin because the reason America is so internally stable is because we, unlike most countries, transition power even in the most heated elections, in a peaceful way. That peaceful transition is critical to our democratic functioning, because it reflects Americans' broader commitment to country over party. However, by shifting americans' commitment to party over country (which was facilitated by emphasizing identity politics over patriotism, as Trump and the Republican party has successfully been engaging in for some time), while additionally creating a popular perception that "the system is rigged," Americans will come to believe that their democracy *has already* crumbled, and faith in the institutions that hold us together is no longer justified. This is a very effective counter intel-strategy which, ironically, we have done to other countries in the past. Now, it's being used against us. Whether Trump realizes it or not (and I think he does, but people disagree about this), Trump is actively undermining the democracy by the way he is running his campaign. He is also laying the groundwork for post-election chaos in the form of popular uprising when Hillary wins, because he's--implicitly--making the election's legitimacy contingent upon his victory.

Ahh, okay, that makes sense. A small portion of American citizens already feel or believe that democracy, in terms of voting and even generally, has been gone for some time now. Many believe that both parties work for the same financiers and Trump's own admission of donating across the aisle in the past somewhat validates that view. With that said, there is the bigger issue of Americans transitioning between powers in a non-volatile manner and I do believe you raise a good point here about shifting our citizens allegiance from country to party - which is certainly an issue as it only serves to divide us further. A house divided quickly crumbles upon itself, so I definitely see your point here.

The short term goal is NOT to allow Hillary Clinton to be elected. Putin understands that Hillary Clinton has a command of geopolitics that is rivaled only perhaps by her husband and Barack Obama. She also, in Putin's estimation, presents an existential threat to Putin's goals of forming a supra-national trading bloc to rival the EU and NAFTA, thereby increasing Russia's regional and global influence. Essentially, that trade bloc (which would be inclusive, specifically of Ukraine, but generally of all former USSR countries, and perhaps others) is Putin's strategy to restoring Russia's superpower status. Restoring Russia's superpower status is very important to Putin, because he believes that the USSR's fall was (aside from the greatest historical geopolitical tragedy ever), a blight of the Russian people and Russian culture. He actively resents the United States, whose policies he attributes to the USSR's implosion. So, his goal is to pursue historical vindication as much as it is to increase Russian economic and political power.

Okay, that makes sense.

The short term goal, described above, is the strategy for pursing Putin's long term objectives. Putin understands that Hillary Clinton's trade policies with Western Europe and Central Europe would make his goal of restoring Russia's superpower status nothing more than a fantasy. He also believes this about Obama, whom Putin regards with all the level of contempt that any person would be capable of mustering. Putin knows that Hillary Clinton, however, would be worse for Russia even than Obama because Clinton is vastly more aggressive whereas Obama is more tactful and measured. For example, Clinton has few reservations about US sanctions impacting Central European allies who trade with Russia, whereas Obama has a lot of concern about that and is therefore pulling his punches. Beyond sanctions, Clinton was an architect in the Ukrainian aid/trade deal in 2014 that preceded Ukraine's Orange Revolution. The Orange Revolution, as many know now, was an instance where Russia perceived NATO's presence in what he perceives to be his back yard (read: Ukraine). As mentioned above, for historical, economic, and political reasons... any supra-national trans siberian economic bloc must include Ukraine. But, Ukraine was drifting closer to Western Europe and by implication away from NATO. This was unacceptable to Putin, and remains unacceptable. His fear (not just concern, but fear) is that Hillary will do more things like this, or reinvigorate that deal, to bring Ukraine into the West's sphere to Russia's exclusion.

Okay, I'm following all of this so far and it makes sense. Essentially Hillary would be far worse for Putin and his plans for reigniting Russia's former glory due to her getting in his way in a much more aggressive manner than Trump would. Got it.

In regard to the overarching issue of them influencing these elections, couldn't the same be said for Hillary and/or the Clinton Foundation? We all know she was fed the debate questions before the actual debates, we know Bill met with Loretta Lynch, we know Debbie Wasserman helped push Bernie out, we know the media and mainstream entertainment shows (late night, daily news shows, commentary shows, etc.) are biased in favor of Hillary... and yet the only "manipulation" coming from Russia would be the numerous and damning wikileaks (supposedly). So why does this really matter when it's coming from both sides? Seems to be more like a voter-proxy war between the Western establishment and Russian intelligence.

For me, I see it coming from both sides and thus don't really see a point in calling out only one side when both are obviously doing shady things.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,750
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2016 11:50:19 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/1/2016 2:24:20 AM, YYW wrote:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com...

Carville finally said what we've all known since the middle of the summer: Russian intelligence is actively manipulating this election, and supporting Trump.

This is awesome. I loved Harry Reid's response as well.

Obama had some good things to say too, while not directly criticizing Comley.


"We don"t operate on incomplete information," Mr. Obama said in an interview with NowThis News, broadcast Wednesday. "We don"t operate on leaks. We operate based on concrete decisions that are made."


I imagine he will step down unless Trump becomes President. Comley attacking Clinton for breaking policy is now him calling the kettle black.
YYW
Posts: 36,375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2016 2:59:52 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/2/2016 10:32:59 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
Okay, I'm following all of this so far and it makes sense. Essentially Hillary would be far worse for Putin and his plans for reigniting Russia's former glory due to her getting in his way in a much more aggressive manner than Trump would. Got it.

Pretty much.

[With] regard to the overarching issue of [the Russians, generally; the KGB and Putin, specifically] influencing these elections, couldn't the same be said for Hillary and/or the Clinton Foundation?

No. The Clinton Foundation does not have even remotely close to the kind of power and influence that the Russian Government, generally, and the KGB/Putin, specifically, have in relation to their abilities to manipulate political outcomes through various means. The Clinton foundation is nothing more than the Clinton's legacy's namesake. Like most things the Clintons involve themselves with, mystery and scandal follow... but that's it. There is nothing evil or insidious going on there.

We all know she was fed the debate questions before the actual debates, we know Bill met with Loretta Lynch, we know Debbie Wasserman helped push Bernie out, we know the media and mainstream entertainment shows (late night, daily news shows, commentary shows, etc.) are biased in favor of Hillary... and yet the only "manipulation" coming from Russia would be the numerous and damning wikileaks (supposedly).

There is, really, nothing damning about Wikileaks. There is some embarrassing trash talk, and that's it. There is no smoking gun, because if there was, we'd have all heard about it by now; Trump's people would have used it at every moment, and there is no doubt that it would have formed the centerpiece of his anti-Hillary efforts.

Clearly, none of that happened. The suggestion that some mystery remains lurking in the shadows is pure fantasy. After all, the fact that the hacks occurred to the extent that they did and the ONLY THING they turned up were some disparaging comments from John Podesta should really give every American 100% confidence in Hillary Clinton because she is who and what she claims to be. A flawed candidate, but a better alternative to Donald Trump.

What the Trump people were looking for were hard and fast economic ties to the Saudis. They found no proof, where they should have found it. Why? Because the Clinton's aren't dirty. They're not corrupt. They're engaged in no scandals other than those which have been artificially fabricated by the Republican party, for the sole purpose of smearing Hillary... which is pretty much the same story that's been going on for the last 20 years. It's old (and pathetic) news.

So why does this really matter when it's coming from both sides? Seems to be more like a voter-proxy war between the Western establishment and Russian intelligence.

Characterizing the US election as a "voter proxy war" is not without merit, but the question of relevance is this: among whom are the battles being fought? Between the right, in the business community (i.e. the Koch brothers, the Waltons, etc.), or the left (i.e. George Soros, Wall Street, and the like) OR between the American political establishment generally (inclusive of both the right and the left) and the Russians?

Right now, it's both. The left is fighting the right; the left is also fighting the Russians. Some on the right know what the Russians are doing and care, other's don't give a sh!t; everybody is worn out. Hillary, in particular, is worn out for having to fight a two front-battle between a psychologically unbalanced Republican candidate who is being fed counter intelligence by the Russian Government, and the Russian Government's numerous tentacles, and, in particular, Russian Intelligence services.

For me, I see it coming from both sides and thus don't really see a point in calling out only one side when both are obviously doing shady things.

Hillary is still playing "fair," though, within the conventional understanding of the word. There is nothing she is doing that Bush, Reagan, H.W. Bush, and every other candidate has done. Trump, though, is running his campaign with the full force and support of a foreign intelligence service. It would not surprise me if some of the money he is using will have come directly from the KGB.
Tsar of DDO
Tree_of_Death
Posts: 775
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2016 3:14:27 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/2/2016 7:10:48 PM, Vaarka wrote:
At 11/2/2016 7:09:26 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 11/2/2016 5:40:21 PM, Vaarka wrote:
At 11/2/2016 4:17:51 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 11/2/2016 4:08:08 PM, Vaarka wrote:
At 11/1/2016 2:29:43 AM, YYW wrote:
Before the end of the week, I predict that Comey will step down.
Who's Comey?

FBI Director

And why would he step down?

He's under a lot of pressure for presumably releasing the information as a political move... essentially issue-framing.

You mean when the emails were found and released? Wasn't he supposed to do that anyway, regardless of how far into the election it was?

And even if it was a "political move", how is that a "stepping down" worthy thing?

People as high-ranking as Comey are supposed to be impartial.
"If life were easy, it wouldn't be difficult."--Kermit the Frog

#Treebrokethechurchbells--DD

"I am after all the purveyor of intellectually dishonest propaganda." --YYW
YYW
Posts: 36,375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2016 3:15:35 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/2/2016 11:50:19 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 11/1/2016 2:24:20 AM, YYW wrote:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com...

Carville finally said what we've all known since the middle of the summer: Russian intelligence is actively manipulating this election, and supporting Trump.

This is awesome. I loved Harry Reid's response as well.

Obama had some good things to say too, while not directly criticizing Comley.


"We don"t operate on incomplete information," Mr. Obama said in an interview with NowThis News, broadcast Wednesday. "We don"t operate on leaks. We operate based on concrete decisions that are made."



I imagine he will step down unless Trump becomes President. Comley attacking Clinton for breaking policy is now him calling the kettle black.

Obama laid into it today, and justifiably so. Harry Reid, though... I like that guy more and more as time goes on.
Tsar of DDO
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,036
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2016 3:16:20 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/2/2016 4:05:06 PM, YYW wrote:
Is it because Putin knows Hillary will be tougher on him than Trump would, and to what extent? Would good relations with Russia under a Trump presidency really be a bad thing?

In my previous post, I explained what Putin perceives the stakes of the US election to be, in relation to Hillary Clinton's election. Obviously, Trump would do nothing of the sort. Trump would do what Chamberlain did to Hitler: appease, and try to contain. Putin knows this, and Putin courts this. The reason Trump would allow Putin to run free in Ukraine (and pretty much everywhere else in the world), is because Trump doesn't care about Ukraine or any post soviet country, or America's interests there. This is very naive (if not outrightly stupid) because of the real economic and political concerns that the United States has in those regions, relating as much to the importation and market management of oil and raw materials, to fighting terrorism and the like.

What I find most difficult about the way the issue of "US relations with Russia" are cast, is how incredibly stupid the rhetoric is surrounding the issue. People hear "wouldn't it be nice if we got along with Russia?" and then end their analysis as if somehow we can all come together and sing cum-by-ya, and the impact will be one of mutual good will. This is largely because most Americans (and even the Republican nominee) are not sophisticated enough to appreciate the gravity of what "getting along with Russia" would entail. Essentially, getting along with Russia means giving them what they want... which is backing off in Central Europe entirely, to the extent that Putin could form his supra-national economic bloc (i.e. reinvigorate in form what was once understood to be the USSR).

That's a good point. We simply can't afford to let him form such a bloc and if Trump's non-action would cause the rise of that then that is certainly an issue. However, this would potentially alter the entire global flow of economies, wouldn't Trump (or, at the very least, his advisers) foresee such a thing and take preventative measures as well?

Also, if we continue to corner the bear, wouldn't it strike at some point regardless? My impression of the big picture here is that we are ultimately just biding our time until he does something so ridiculous on the global stage that there will be no more allies standing behind him. So is the real task here just making sure he doesn't grow powerful enough to withstand isolation or gain traction with strong potential allies? If so, I'm assuming the ultimate point here is that Hillary would perform that duty better than Trump, but it's hard to believe that Trump doesn't see this or at-least have people around him capable of seeing this.

Ostensibly, this sounds highly speculative and irrational because for most Americans the Cold War is a relic of the past that has been relegated to the annals of our history. The Cold War and the ideological and cultural differences it entailed, however, never ended for Russians. The reasons should be obvious: for the same reason the South never stopped fighting the Civil War, in the United States. (As an aside, the comparative scholarship comparing the American South to the USSR is riveting, but another conversation for another day.) Myopically, Americans fail to appreciate the deep seeded resentment that the USSR's collapse led to in almost all Russians who were old enough to be alive and thinking in 1991, or who have parents who witnessed the USSR's collapse. Those sentiments have been exacerbated by the extent to which Putin's disastrous economic policies have caused what some Russians have characterized as "economic armageddon" ...the results of which are comprehensively misattributed to the United States due the very effective propaganda of the Kremlin... as well as the fact that Putin has killed, jailed, or imprisoned any journalist who operates in Russia that questions the "party line" that the US and Western Europe are to blame for all of Russia's many problems.

I don't think it's that hard to believe or understand what you're saying, and I think most Americans would as well if it was presented as clearly as it is here.

I'm fully aware of his mishandling of the economy, basically hijacking every industry/big business and claiming it for the state... I certainly don't admire him as a leader, but this is also why it's so difficult for me to accept that Trump is actively playing a role in Putin's grand game. It's just too obvious once the information is presented clearly.

I say that all to make clear the following: understanding Russia's intentions in relation to the United States makes clear that any notion of "getting along" with Russia is an illusory suggestion, because to get along with them would be to existentially endanger the United States and our allies abroad. There is literally nothing we can do in Russia to get along with them other than do what we can to get Putin out of power... which we are very much doing, and which Putin furthermore has every estimation that Hillary will continue.

While there are other things that the US is doing in relation to Putin, the sanctions we have imposed on Russia for its illegal 19th century land grab in Crimea and total violation of Ukraine's territorial integrity post-Orange Revolution in Eastern Ukraine, is to create internal distress in Russia that is sufficient to bring about a popular resistance to Putin's rule. Basically, the goal is to make it so bad that Russians start to question their basic assumptions about Putin's ability to lead. How the sanctions have accomplished that, or are accomplishing that, is the subject of another post (though there is a litany of analysis of it from Foreign Affairs Mag., Foreign Policy, and dozens of other reputable sources), but the point is that Putin understands that that's what Obama is doing and Hillary will do.

Okay, so there's clearly a motive.

Why this is necessary should be clear: Vladimir Putin is a threat to global stability and US interests at home and abroad. Russia can never be allowed to become a super power. They have no regard for human rights, they regularly abuse their people, Russia has instituted laws and policies that actively oppress women, LGBTs, all religious minorities, and essentially anyone who is non-Slavic. Likewise, Russia's affinity to sell weapons to regimes which are hostile to the United States presents a clear and present threat to the United States' geopolitical interests far beyond mere bilateral US-Russian relations.

Trump, in his rhetoric, has made clear that he would engage in actions which undermine every facet of America's protecting our interests abroad. His policies would undermine NATO, the United Nations, and every defense pact we have around the world; particularly, with respect to Northern Europe, Central Europe, the South Pacific, Japan, India, and throughout Africa. That is of course to say nothing of South America. Thus, whereas Hillary would do none of those things, it is Putin's calculation (which is is correct on, btw.; he accurately has assessed the situation) that Trump's presidency actively risks America's future status as a superpower. That is exactly what Putin wants, for the aforesaid reasons. That is another component of Putin's long term interest in the outcome of this election. It is also why he is ONLY interfering in THIS election, and why in particular he never bothered with Romney. Romney understood the stakes with our relationship with Russia (read: was competent), whereas Trump is too manifestly stupid and short sighted to realize what game Putin is playing. Putin is playing for keeps, as he always has. He is not a man to let opportunity go to waste.

Got it. Seems to me, if anything, that Trump is unaware of his role in Putin's game, but that lack of awareness just seems too unbelievable.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
Kynikos
Posts: 53
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2016 3:36:06 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/3/2016 2:59:52 AM, YYW wrote:
There is, really, nothing damning about Wikileaks. There is some embarrassing trash talk, and that's it. There is no smoking gun, because if there was, we'd have all heard about it by now; Trump's people would have used it at every moment, and there is no doubt that it would have formed the centerpiece of his anti-Hillary efforts.
No. You should read some of them, beyond what makes it to the headlines.

Some are exaggerated. But there's much beyond "trash talk": http://www.mostdamagingwikileaks.com...

the ONLY THING they turned up were some disparaging comments from John Podesta
Not even close. And everyone who has followed them closely knows it.
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,036
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2016 3:46:33 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/3/2016 2:59:52 AM, YYW wrote:
At 11/2/2016 10:32:59 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
Okay, I'm following all of this so far and it makes sense. Essentially Hillary would be far worse for Putin and his plans for reigniting Russia's former glory due to her getting in his way in a much more aggressive manner than Trump would. Got it.

Pretty much.

[With] regard to the overarching issue of [the Russians, generally; the KGB and Putin, specifically] influencing these elections, couldn't the same be said for Hillary and/or the Clinton Foundation?

No. The Clinton Foundation does not have even remotely close to the kind of power and influence that the Russian Government, generally, and the KGB/Putin, specifically, have in relation to their abilities to manipulate political outcomes through various means.

What means do they have? I mean, I *could* see it, but at the same time it just sounds so far-fetched. What power do they have that our own media outlets don't? What tools do they have at their disposal that would effectively outweigh the tools of our own establishment?

The Clinton foundation is nothing more than the Clinton's legacy's namesake. Like most things the Clintons involve themselves with, mystery and scandal follow... but that's it. There is nothing evil or insidious going on there.

Well yeah, I'm certainly not going to take it to extreme levels and say they are outright evil or conducting insidious activities, but the pay-to-play schemes seem to be an MO for the Clintons and they have the perfect washing machine to do it through.

We all know she was fed the debate questions before the actual debates, we know Bill met with Loretta Lynch, we know Debbie Wasserman helped push Bernie out, we know the media and mainstream entertainment shows (late night, daily news shows, commentary shows, etc.) are biased in favor of Hillary... and yet the only "manipulation" coming from Russia would be the numerous and damning wikileaks (supposedly).

There is, really, nothing damning about Wikileaks. There is some embarrassing trash talk, and that's it. There is no smoking gun, because if there was, we'd have all heard about it by now; Trump's people would have used it at every moment, and there is no doubt that it would have formed the centerpiece of his anti-Hillary efforts.

I don't know, I think there's been several valid and concerning revelations that have come to light through the various waves of wikileaks, such as the Donna Brazile controversy, but the issue - really - is that there's not much credibility to them. That's also the defense Hillary has taken against them, the lack of credibility of both the information presented and the sources presenting the information. That, to me, seems to be the sole reason some of the information revealed hasn't had much of an impact. Additionally, but much less of a factor, is also the coverage these leaks actually receive in our own media outlets. We tend to discuss that which is presented to us, but if something isn't brought to our attention we can't ever discuss it.

Clearly, none of that happened. The suggestion that some mystery remains lurking in the shadows is pure fantasy. After all, the fact that the hacks occurred to the extent that they did and the ONLY THING they turned up were some disparaging comments from John Podesta should really give every American 100% confidence in Hillary Clinton because she is who and what she claims to be. A flawed candidate, but a better alternative to Donald Trump.

Ehh, now we're entering muddy waters. It'd be real easy to pull up a 5 min YouTube clip/compilation of Hillary contradicting herself or acting in manners that are opposite of what she says or claims. So while I see your point, I don't think it's one that automatically pushes Trump beneath her.

What the Trump people were looking for were hard and fast economic ties to the Saudis. They found no proof, where they should have found it. Why? Because the Clinton's aren't dirty. They're not corrupt. They're engaged in no scandals other than those which have been artificially fabricated by the Republican party, for the sole purpose of smearing Hillary... which is pretty much the same story that's been going on for the last 20 years. It's old (and pathetic) news.

The real challenge with that is the fact that the Clinton Foundation has no real obligation to publicly reveal who gives them money due to them being a nonprofit. Even if they tell a government agency, for whatever reason, that information stays classified. Here's a pretty interesting document though that checks out alot of this stuff: https://drive.google.com...

And here is her own foundation listing the generous donation made by Saudi Arabia: https://www.clintonfoundation.org...

So why does this really matter when it's coming from both sides? Seems to be more like a voter-proxy war between the Western establishment and Russian intelligence.

Characterizing the US election as a "voter proxy war" is not without merit, but the question of relevance is this: among whom are the battles being fought? Between the right, in the business community (i.e. the Koch brothers, the Waltons, etc.), or the left (i.e. George Soros, Wall Street, and the like) OR between the American political establishment generally (inclusive of both the right and the left) and the Russians?

Right now, it's both.

I agree.

The left is fighting the right; the left is also fighting the Russians. Some on the right know what the Russians are doing and care, other's don't give a sh!t; everybody is worn out. Hillary, in particular, is worn out for having to fight a two front-battle between a psychologically unbalanced Republican candidate who is being fed counter intelligence by the Russian Government, and the Russian Government's numerous tentacles, and, in particular, Russian Intelligence services.

For me, I see it coming from both sides and thus don't really see a point in calling out only one side when both are obviously doing shady things.

Hillary is still playing "fair," though, within the conventional understanding of the word. There is nothing she is doing that Bush, Reagan, H.W. Bush, and every other candidate has done. Trump, though, is running his campaign with the full force and support of a foreign intelligence service. It would not surprise me if some of the money he is using will have come directly from the KGB.

Now that would be a scandal! I still view it as both sides playing dirty, and have never really accepted the methods used by previous candidates which plays a role in my own position on the matter, but I can certainly see how being fed Russian intelligence or taking (knowingly or unknowingly) KGB money is a problem. If concrete evidence of that ever came to light, I'd change my tune instantly.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
Vaarka
Posts: 7,636
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2016 12:10:35 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/3/2016 3:14:27 AM, Tree_of_Death wrote:
At 11/2/2016 7:10:48 PM, Vaarka wrote:
At 11/2/2016 7:09:26 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 11/2/2016 5:40:21 PM, Vaarka wrote:
At 11/2/2016 4:17:51 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 11/2/2016 4:08:08 PM, Vaarka wrote:
At 11/1/2016 2:29:43 AM, YYW wrote:
Before the end of the week, I predict that Comey will step down.
Who's Comey?

FBI Director

And why would he step down?

He's under a lot of pressure for presumably releasing the information as a political move... essentially issue-framing.

You mean when the emails were found and released? Wasn't he supposed to do that anyway, regardless of how far into the election it was?

And even if it was a "political move", how is that a "stepping down" worthy thing?

People as high-ranking as Comey are supposed to be impartial.

And what if it was impartial?
You're probably thinking right now "haha I'm a genius". Well you're not -Valkrin

inferno: "I don't know, are you attracted to women?"
ButterCatX: "No, Vaarka is mine!"

All hail scum Vaarka, wielder of the bastard sword, smiter of nations, destroyer of spiders -VOT

"Vaarka, I've been thinking about this for a long time now," (pulls out small box made of macaroni) "W-will you be my noodle buddy?" -Kirigaya
Kynikos
Posts: 53
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2016 9:38:35 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/3/2016 12:10:35 PM, Vaarka wrote:
And what if it was impartial?
Not likely. But not partisan either.

Getting a few bucketloads of resignation letters probably had something to do with it.
Romanii
Posts: 4,861
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2016 10:07:23 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/2/2016 4:20:34 PM, YYW wrote:
That all to say this: the world is becoming a more volatile place in relation to the extent to which Russia has influence in it. That volatility means the permanent souring of US-Russian relations, unless the United States does something catastrophically stupid, like allow Putin to make Russia a superpower once again. Even then, the improvement we have with Russia will only be temporal. As soon as Russia has the means to wage war with the United States, rest assured that that's what will come next.

I have a couple questions...

(1) Why are you so sure that Russia would wage war on the US after becoming a superpower?

(2) Would control over a former USSR trading bloc really allow Russia to become a superpower on par with the United States?

(3) So Putin is looking to achieve his goal through economic policy and diplomacy. By preventing him from doing that, isn't Hillary just going to end up provoking Putin into taking what he wants by force (i.e. causing a war with Russia) ?

(4) Not really related to Russia, but why is it that you went from thinking Trump is a politically savvy genius to thinking that Trump is a moron the instant he chose Mike Pence as his running mate?
YYW
Posts: 36,375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2016 7:55:43 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/4/2016 11:42:59 AM, Romanii wrote:
....

ANSWER MY F*CKING QUESTIONS

nac

When I have time. Patience, young grasshopper.
Tsar of DDO
kevin24018
Posts: 1,938
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2016 8:00:23 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/3/2016 12:10:35 PM, Vaarka wrote:
At 11/3/2016 3:14:27 AM, Tree_of_Death wrote:
At 11/2/2016 7:10:48 PM, Vaarka wrote:
At 11/2/2016 7:09:26 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 11/2/2016 5:40:21 PM, Vaarka wrote:
At 11/2/2016 4:17:51 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 11/2/2016 4:08:08 PM, Vaarka wrote:
At 11/1/2016 2:29:43 AM, YYW wrote:
Before the end of the week, I predict that Comey will step down.
Who's Comey?

FBI Director

And why would he step down?

He's under a lot of pressure for presumably releasing the information as a political move... essentially issue-framing.

You mean when the emails were found and released? Wasn't he supposed to do that anyway, regardless of how far into the election it was?

And even if it was a "political move", how is that a "stepping down" worthy thing?

People as high-ranking as Comey are supposed to be impartial.

And what if it was impartial?

this is a democratic thread, I'm not sure what you are expecting here.
James Carville
media personality who is a prominent figure in the Democratic Party. Carville gained national attention for his work as the lead strategist of the successful presidential campaign of then-Arkansas governor Bill Clinton.
https://en.wikipedia.org...
YYW
Posts: 36,375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2016 10:26:16 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/3/2016 10:07:23 PM, Romanii wrote:

(1) Why are you so sure that Russia would wage war on the US after becoming a superpower?

That's one of many things they could do, but it's more likely that they would wage war on one of the United States' smaller allies. Think "proxy war," or something similar thereto. I think it's likely because Putin believes that the Cold War left unfinished business. Now, were Putin to be killed before that were to happen, the risk would virtually evaporate. The threat is contingent upon Putin's personal survival.

(2) Would control over a former USSR trading bloc really allow Russia to become a superpower on par with the United States?

Yes; if not more powerful, over time. That is why Putin wants it.

(3) So Putin is looking to achieve his goal through economic policy and diplomacy. By preventing him from doing that, isn't Hillary just going to end up provoking Putin into taking what he wants by force (i.e. causing a war with Russia) ?

No. The object is not to corner "the bear" or whatever. It's to contain Russian imperialism, and Russian power projection beyond what is acceptable to the United States. If Russia would simply behave itself, we would not even be here.

(4) Not really related to Russia, but why is it that you went from thinking Trump is a politically savvy genius to thinking that Trump is a moron the instant he chose Mike Pence as his running mate?

I thought Trump was going to take his campaign in an entirely different direction; make a populist-libertarian appeal from a socially liberal platform. He clearly failed to do that, and has made every indication that he has no intention of doing anything of that form. Trump did the stupid thing rather than the smart thing, which is why I lost all respect for him. Pence was the point of no return in relation to his commitment to acting stupidly. Voting for him, by the same token, is an act of unabashed stupidity in light of what horror would descend upon the country were he to be elected.
Tsar of DDO