PDA

View Full Version : What Is the Democrat Strategy for Russia?



Ethereal
03-06-2017, 05:26 PM
In keeping with the Democrat obsession with Russia, I thought I would ask them: What is your goal with regards to Russia and what is your strategy for achieving that goal?

I mean, all Democrats have been talking about for months now is Russia this and Russia that, telling everyone that Russia is a grave threat to America and that we should all be acting hysterical like Democrats. If that is the case, the Democrats must have a well thought out plan for how to deal with this grievous threat.

So what is it? What are we trying to achieve and how will we achieve it? My guess is that any answer, assuming any are actually ventured, will be so vague as to contain virtually no specifics. It will just be some boilerplate about "stopping aggression" or "national security" and even then they won't be able to explain how to achieve it.

In other words, my question is largely rhetorical. I do not believe Democrats have any goal or strategy with regards to Russia other than to use Russia as a constant distraction from their own pathetic electoral results and internal corruption and that their inability to describe or explain such a strategy will prove as much.

Let the games begin!

Ethereal
03-06-2017, 06:20 PM
The response has been overwhelming!

Peter1469
03-06-2017, 06:23 PM
The dem leadership is using Russia as a wedge issue.

Ethereal
03-06-2017, 06:34 PM
The dem leadership is using Russia as a wedge issue.

Indeed, and the more they avoid this thread, the more it proves us right.

Mister D
03-06-2017, 07:15 PM
In keeping with the Democrat obsession with Russia, I thought I would ask them: What is your goal with regards to Russia and what is your strategy for achieving that goal?

I mean, all Democrats have been talking about for months now is Russia this and Russia that, telling everyone that Russia is a grave threat to America and that we should all be acting hysterical like Democrats. If that is the case, the Democrats must have a well thought out plan for how to deal with this grievous threat.

So what is it? What are we trying to achieve and how will we achieve it? My guess is that any answer, assuming any are actually ventured, will be so vague as to contain virtually no specifics. It will just be some boilerplate about "stopping aggression" or "national security" and even then they won't be able to explain how to achieve it.

In other words, my question is largely rhetorical. I do not believe Democrats have any goal or strategy with regards to Russia other than to use Russia as a constant distraction from their own pathetic electoral results and internal corruption and that their inability to describe or explain such a strategy will prove as much.

Let the games begin!
Ouch

rcfieldz
03-06-2017, 07:25 PM
Get the picture?
https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--e0r99iPD--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/tu1agmxsqrs8w4tgdm4z.jpg

Ravens Fan
03-06-2017, 07:26 PM
I don't think it is fair to grill people on a subject they clearly have been given no talking points on.

Mister D
03-06-2017, 07:36 PM
I don't think it is fair to grill people on a subject they clearly have been given no talking points on.
In fairness to Ethereal, I'm sure they're frantically searching the Interwebz for them now.

Archer0915
03-06-2017, 07:38 PM
Several threads recently are void of our leftist friends. Why? Because they have nothing that really sounds that far off from what the rightists want to do. It is so divided that to agree with or even not scream in protest to something that comes from the right is a sin that will send them to liberal hell.

Green Arrow
03-06-2017, 08:16 PM
What, no responses yet? I'm on the edge of my seat in anticipation.

Mister D
03-06-2017, 08:22 PM
What, no responses yet? I'm on the edge of my seat in anticipation.
He correctly anticipated that he would get vague responses about "national security" and "aggression" with no description or explanation of an actual policy aim. What can they do now? Do exactly what he said they would do?

This was pretty devastating.

texan
03-06-2017, 08:52 PM
The dem leadership is using Russia as a wedge issue.

Its high time they admitted Romney was/is correct and Obama was wrong. Of course the nation figured this out looking at the polling 2 years later.

Green Arrow
03-06-2017, 09:03 PM
Its high time they admitted Romney was/is correct and Obama was wrong. Of course the nation figured this out looking at the polling 2 years later.

You've clearly completely missed the point.

Romney was wrong then. Democrats are wrong now.

Casper
03-06-2017, 09:10 PM
In keeping with the Democrat obsession with Russia, I thought I would ask them: What is your goal with regards to Russia and what is your strategy for achieving that goal?

I mean, all Democrats have been talking about for months now is Russia this and Russia that, telling everyone that Russia is a grave threat to America and that we should all be acting hysterical like Democrats. If that is the case, the Democrats must have a well thought out plan for how to deal with this grievous threat.

So what is it? What are we trying to achieve and how will we achieve it? My guess is that any answer, assuming any are actually ventured, will be so vague as to contain virtually no specifics. It will just be some boilerplate about "stopping aggression" or "national security" and even then they won't be able to explain how to achieve it.

In other words, my question is largely rhetorical. I do not believe Democrats have any goal or strategy with regards to Russia other than to use Russia as a constant distraction from their own pathetic electoral results and internal corruption and that their inability to describe or explain such a strategy will prove as much.

Let the games begin!
Psst, the Dems are not in power so their strategy does not matter, remember Trump and the Republicans won it all. The important question is what is the strategy or the Republicans and of the trump, are they the same strategy, or is this going to become an issue?

decedent
03-06-2017, 09:17 PM
Sanctions against Russia should continue, for obvious reasons. I know the OP wants a more emotional reaction...

Mister D
03-06-2017, 09:18 PM
Psst, the Dems are not in power so their strategy does not matter, remember Trump and the Republicans won it all. The important question is what is the strategy or the Republicans and of the trump, are they the same strategy, or is this going to become an issue?
That was pretty lame. One of the lamest attempts at evasion I've seen in a while.

resister
03-06-2017, 09:19 PM
Sanctions against Russia should continue, for obvious reasons. I know the OP wants a more emotional reaction...
Please do tell! No rehtoricals, elucidate what you mean, cite any proof.

Ethereal
03-06-2017, 09:19 PM
Psst, the Dems are not in power so their strategy does not matter, remember Trump and the Republicans won it all. The important question is what is the strategy or the Republicans and of the trump, are they the same strategy, or is this going to become an issue?
So it doesn't matter whether or not a major political party has a goal or a strategy in relation to US-Russian relations because they're not as powerful as the other major party. Setting the bar pretty low, aren't we?

Ethereal
03-06-2017, 09:20 PM
Sanctions against Russia should continue, for obvious reasons. I know the OP wants a more emotional reaction...
Okay, that's a strategy, albeit a thin one, but what is it meant to achieve?

resister
03-06-2017, 09:21 PM
That was pretty lame. One of the lamest attempts at evasion I've seen in a while.
Classic strategy, change subject, but keep it similar just change the point!

Mister D
03-06-2017, 09:29 PM
So it doesn't matter whether or not a major political party has a goal or a strategy in relation to US-Russian relations because they're not as powerful as the other major party. Setting the bar pretty low, aren't we?

So wait...we face a grave threat from Russia and the Democrats have no goal or policy or strategy worth discussing?

Casper
03-06-2017, 09:35 PM
So wait...we face a grave threat from Russia and the Democrats have no goal or policy or strategy worth discussing?
Are the Repubs planning on asking their opinion? Good Greif, you have what you wanted, now own it.

Ethereal
03-06-2017, 09:36 PM
So wait...we face a grave threat from Russia and the Democrats have no goal or policy or strategy worth discussing?

Apparently so.

Ethereal
03-06-2017, 09:37 PM
Are the Repubs planning on asking their opinion? Good Greif, you have what you wanted, now own it.
No specific goals or strategy with regards to Russia. Very confidence inspiring.

Mister D
03-06-2017, 09:37 PM
Are the Repubs planning on asking their opinion? Good Greif, you have what you wanted, now own it.
You are being asked for your opinion right now. Apparently, you don't have one which makes sense because this is all a transparent partisan attack on Trump.

Ethereal
03-06-2017, 09:39 PM
Ask a simple, valid question, get a series of increasingly comical excuses... or so the saying goes.

Mister D
03-06-2017, 09:43 PM
Ask a simple, valid question, get a series of increasingly comical excuses... or so the saying goes.

I mean you would think that such a grave foreign threat would receive some attention in terms of policy. I guess not...

Green Arrow
03-06-2017, 09:58 PM
Psst, the Dems are not in power so their strategy does not matter, remember Trump and the Republicans won it all. The important question is what is the strategy or the Republicans and of the trump, are they the same strategy, or is this going to become an issue?

So then let's use a hypothetical. Let's say Hillary won and the Democrats took unprecedented majorities in both the House and the Senate. You have full control of the government.

What should be done today about Russia?

decedent
03-06-2017, 10:02 PM
Please do tell! No rehtoricals, elucidate what you mean, cite any proof.

Because of of sovereignty. Countries can't go around invading other countries for no good reason. (Obviously?)

resister
03-06-2017, 10:06 PM
Because of of sovereignty. Countries can't go around invading other countries for no good reason. (Obviously?)
Tell that to the heads of state sending waves of illegals across our borders. I concur!

Tahuyaman
03-06-2017, 10:09 PM
What Is the Democrat Strategy for Russia?
There isn't a strategy. They just think that they can somehow use this issue to destroy the Trump administration. Not gonna happen.

decedent
03-06-2017, 10:27 PM
Okay, that's a strategy, albeit a thin one, but what is it meant to achieve?

Punishment for seizing Crimea and 8,000 deaths.... among other things. Obama said Europe and the US were ready to impose new sanctions if violence increased. Then came Russian intervention in the general election, which cannot be tolerated. (Obviously?)

Ethereal
03-06-2017, 10:32 PM
Punishment for seizing Crimea and 8,000 deaths.... among other things. Obama said Europe and the US were ready to impose new sanctions if violence increased. Then came Russian intervention in the general election, which cannot be tolerated. (Obviously?)
Punishment as a means of achieving what end? Unless you're promoting punishment as an end in and of itself?

Dr. Who
03-06-2017, 10:35 PM
I think that the rhetoric on both sides is rather histrionic. If the Russians were attempting to influence an election by disseminating dirt about one side, the voters were at least partially better informed. Conversely, if Trump is going to react to every political slight by anyone, pander to media innuendo, and make unsubstantiated accusations, he is revealing his own weaknesses. Neither would have been chosen as candidates for POTUS in a sane world, but the world is no longer sane. It is now the bizarro world where the lies are the truth and the truth are lies. The population is being distracted from reality with a Punch and Judy show and the countdown to world domination by the Oligarchs goes on behind the scenes unabated. Everyone seems to be worried about Rinos and Dinos. Few seem to be aware of Gino - government in name only, the biggest threat to freedom on the planet.

Casper
03-06-2017, 10:35 PM
What Is the Democrat Strategy for Russia?


There isn't a strategy. They just think that they can somehow use this issue to destroy the Trump administration. Not gonna happen.

Yes, reminds me of the Repubs whining on and on about ACA then they release their BS solution, ACA Lite, good grief. Get your own house in order before critiquing your neighbors.

Casper
03-06-2017, 10:37 PM
I think that the rhetoric on both sides is rather histrionic. If the Russians were attempting to influence an election by disseminating dirt about one side, the voters were at least partially better informed. Conversely, if Trump is going to react to every political slight by anyone, pander to media innuendo, and make unsubstantiated accusations, he is revealing his own weaknesses. Neither would have been chosen as candidates for POTUS in a sane world, but the world is no longer sane. It is now the bizarro world where the lies are the truth and the truth are lies. The population is being distracted from reality with a Punch and Judy show and the countdown to world domination by the Oligarchs goes on behind the scenes unabated. Everyone seems to be worried about Rinos and Dinos. Few seem to be unaware of Gino - government in name only, the biggest threat to freedom on the planet.
Ummm, I don't think you are supposed to actually say that in mixed company. You have a safe house?

Casper
03-06-2017, 10:41 PM
Punishment as a means of achieving what end? Unless you're promoting punishment as an end in and of itself?
Oh maybe to make the point that invading other Nations is not acceptable and that there is a price to pay for doing so without just cause. Next time we should bomb the hell out of any Russians that cross another border and shoot down any jets that want to play chicken with our warships, or would you rather just be friends..........

resister
03-06-2017, 10:44 PM
Yes, reminds me of the Repubs whining on and on about ACA then they release their BS solution, ACA Lite, good grief. Get your own house in order before critiquing your neighbors.
Aca was a train wreck. It was fine until Obama fucked with it...the old saying about if it aint broke. Now the adults will fix it. Obamas mission was to destabilize America.

resister
03-06-2017, 10:46 PM
Oh maybe to make the point that invading other Nations is not acceptable and that there is a price to pay for doing so without just cause. Next time we should bomb the hell out of any Russians that cross another border and shoot down any jets that want to play chicken with our warships, or would you rather just be friends..........
Do the same to heads of state that encourage the illegal invasion!

Casper
03-06-2017, 10:52 PM
Aca was a train wreck. It was fine until Obama fucked with it...the old saying about if it aint broke. Now the adults will fix it. Obamas mission was to destabilize America.
True, there are better solutions. They did not fix it and in fact it is in more trouble now than before. Nothing improved. No, that is the mission you were told he had, not my fault you bought it.

resister
03-06-2017, 11:13 PM
True, there are better solutions. They did not fix it and in fact it is in more trouble now than before. Nothing improved. No, that is the mission you were told he had, not my fault you bought it.I watched it for 8 years, he was/is a disgrace, never in my life have I seen a US President go on a world apology tour. Absolutely Disgusting!

Ethereal
03-06-2017, 11:22 PM
Oh maybe to make the point that invading other Nations is not acceptable and that there is a price to pay for doing so without just cause.

And you think sanctions will deter Russia from doing what it perceives to be in its vital interests? I honestly don't see how, especially when we look at the track record of sanctions with regards to countries like Iran and North Korea who are much weaker than Russia. If sanctions were incapable of causing a fundamental realignment of those countries' foreign policy, then what makes you think it will be any different with Russia?


Next time we should bomb the hell out of any Russians that cross another border and shoot down any jets that want to play chicken with our warships, or would you rather just be friends..........

I prefer to minimize the chances of a nuclear apocalypse. I'm odd like that.

Casper
03-06-2017, 11:29 PM
And you think sanctions will deter Russia from doing what it perceives to be in its vital interests? I honestly don't see how, especially when we look at the track record of sanctions with regards to countries like Iran and North Korea who are much weaker than Russia. If sanctions were incapable of causing a fundamental realignment of those countries' foreign policy, then what makes you think it will be any different with Russia?



I prefer to minimize the chances of a nuclear apocalypse. I'm odd like that.

Actually they did have a dramatic effect on Iran and Russia, otherwise they would not want them lifted so badly. North Korea is not even on this planet when it comes to any rules or rational thinking, they should isolated and shunned until the people of NK finally kill the SOB or China does it for them. Soi I guess your answer is to simply ignore their actions and all will be just fine, how did the Brit say it, Peace in our time, right before WWII broke out.

Opps, almost forgot the second part, you do not prevent war by allowing dictators to do what they want, you just end up fighting it on their terms. The choice is to Putin and if we go to war one day it will be because the Republicans think it is necessary.

Bethere
03-06-2017, 11:33 PM
The response has been overwhelming!

Without personal attacks why don't you speculate why that would be the case.

decedent
03-06-2017, 11:46 PM
Punishment as a means of achieving what end? Unless you're promoting punishment as an end in and of itself?

To discourage Russia from further aggression. To discourage any country from invading sovereign nations. The same reasons sanctions have been used in the past.


You seem to be baffled as to why sanctions were imposed on Russia. If they behaved themselves, they wouldn't be in this mess.

Dr. Who
03-06-2017, 11:58 PM
Ummm, I don't think you are supposed to actually say that in mixed company. You have a safe house?

I have no problem saying it in mixed company. It's not a conspiracy theory, it's the way the world actually works these days - actually for a long time but particularly since WWII. It's no secret that large corporations provisioned both sides of WWII. It's also the reason that no matter what government is in power certain things never really change. All over the world the actual standard of education is declining in terms of critical thinking. Attention spans, in general, are declining. The arts are declining because it requires creative thinking. Creativity and critical thinking make for a society that questions. Most countries are pushing math and pure literacy i.e. efficient communication, but are not encouraging asking questions. We are creating a materialistic but basically bovine population who only care about what is fed to them by the mainstream media (left or right). So long as we are preoccupied by extraneous political rhetoric, we are not seeing how the world is being changed. Even when it's obvious and documented, most people don't read it or understand the implications. For instance, the US adventures in the ME have nothing whatsoever to do with national security, but are instead about securing the petrodollar and underwriting a US dollar that should have little value given the fractional reserve banking and the printing of unsecured currency. However, with the petrodollar, US currency is guaranteed value that has nothing to do with America's GDP. http://ftmdaily.com/preparing-for-the-collapse-of-the-petrodollar-system/

If the petrodollar collapses, the American standard of living will fall precipitously. The US federal debt is currently $19,878,476,676,904.64. The US is the biggest debtor nation on the planet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_external_debt

Why is that? I don't think it's the social programs (although they do need a significant review) but rather the immense amount of money that is going into the military budget to support a fraudulent system of currency that doesn't benefit the average American citizen but does benefit the banking system, defense contractors and the oil sector.

resister
03-07-2017, 12:06 AM
To discourage any country from invading sovereign nations. The same reasons sanctions have been used in the past.
Can our Glorious President Of the USA Sanction any country whose illegals invade our sovereign borders?

Casper
03-07-2017, 12:44 AM
I have no problem saying it in mixed company. It's not a conspiracy theory, it's the way the world actually works these days - actually for a long time but particularly since WWII. It's no secret that large corporations provisioned both sides of WWII. It's also the reason that no matter what government is in power certain things never really change. All over the world the actual standard of education is declining in terms of critical thinking. Attention spans, in general, are declining. The arts are declining because it requires creative thinking. Creativity and critical thinking make for a society that questions. Most countries are pushing math and pure literacy i.e. efficient communication, but are not encouraging asking questions. We are creating a materialistic but basically bovine population who only care about what is fed to them by the mainstream media (left or right). So long as we are preoccupied by extraneous political rhetoric, we are not seeing how the world is being changed. Even when it's obvious and documented, most people don't read it or understand the implications. For instance, the US adventures in the ME have nothing whatsoever to do with national security, but are instead about securing the petrodollar and underwriting a US dollar that should have little value given the fractional reserve banking and the printing of unsecured currency. However, with the petrodollar, US currency is guaranteed value that has nothing to do with America's GDP. http://ftmdaily.com/preparing-for-the-collapse-of-the-petrodollar-system/

If the petrodollar collapses, the American standard of living will fall precipitously. The US federal debt is currently $19,878,476,676,904.64. The US is the biggest debtor nation on the planet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_external_debt

Why is that? I don't think it's the social programs (although they do need a significant review) but rather the immense amount of money that is going into the military budget to support a fraudulent system of currency that doesn't benefit the average American citizen but does benefit the banking system, defense contractors and the oil sector.
Awww, I will miss you when they come for ya.:wave:

But since you went there I will put it to you simply, you are correct, and the bad news, based on all the facts and the reality of the situation is that there is not a darn thing that is going to change it. We (mankind) made the mess we are in and sadly most do not even know how precarious of a situation we are in and even worse do not want to know. I have studied history all my life and one thing I have learned is mankind rarely learns from his past mistakes and now we are at a point where we do not want it taught to the next generation. Things will eventually change, for better or worse, that is the one constant in the universe, whether or not we will be around to see it is still up for debate, I know I will not see the final outcome but I do not envy the very young and what sort of world they will inherit.
A Storm is Coming, I can only suggest preparing for it the best you can and enjoy the show.

Ethereal
03-07-2017, 12:53 AM
Actually they did have a dramatic effect on Iran and Russia, otherwise they would not want them lifted so badly. North Korea is not even on this planet when it comes to any rules or rational thinking, they should isolated and shunned until the people of NK finally kill the SOB or China does it for them.

Just because they want the sanctions lifted does not mean they've had the kind of effect you intended. It just means they want the sanctions lifted. Iran has withstood western sanctions for decades without any fundamental alterations in their domestic or foreign policies, so why do you think it would be any different with Russia? Do you actually think the Russian state is going to refrain from doing something it considers essential because it fears sanctions?


Soi I guess your answer is to simply ignore their actions and all will be just fine, how did the Brit say it, Peace in our time, right before WWII broke out.

I'm not the one going around endlessly shrieking about the grave threat of Russia, so my "answer" isn't at issue here.


Opps, almost forgot the second part, you do not prevent war by allowing dictators to do what they want, you just end up fighting it on their terms. The choice is to Putin and if we go to war one day it will be because the Republicans think it is necessary.

You thinking bombing Russians and shooting down their planes will prevent a war?

Ethereal
03-07-2017, 12:55 AM
Without personal attacks...

Says the guy with two infractions...


...why don't you speculate why that would be the case.
I already did. I believe Democrats are only using the specter of Russia as a distraction from their poor electoral results and their own corruption. They have no real goals or strategies, so they cannot answer.

Ethereal
03-07-2017, 01:01 AM
To discourage Russia from further aggression. To discourage any country from invading sovereign nations. The same reasons sanctions have been used in the past.

It's funny you should mention past uses of sanctions, since they seem to indicate that sanctions don't actually change how a state behaves - at least, not on any fundamental level. For example, Iran and North Korea, countries who are much weaker than Russia, have withstood western sanctions for decades without any significant change in behavior or posture. If anything, the sanctions caused them to become even more belligerent and militant towards the west. So what reason is there to believe it will be any different with Russia, who is far more powerful than Iran and North Korea combined?


You seem to be baffled as to why sanctions were imposed on Russia. If they behaved themselves, they wouldn't be in this mess.

I know exactly why they were imposed. I'm just wondering what you think they have accomplished or will accomplish when the historical evidence seems to indicate they will have a negligible effect on the calculus of the Russian state.

Dr. Who
03-07-2017, 01:01 AM
Awww, I will miss you when they come for ya.:wave:

But since you went there I will put it to you simply, you are correct, and the bad news, based on all the facts and the reality of the situation is that there is not a darn thing that is going to change it. We (mankind) made the mess we are in and sadly most do not even know how precarious of a situation we are in and even worse do not want to know. I have studied history all my life and one thing I have learned is mankind rarely learns from his past mistakes and now we are at a point where we do not want it taught to the next generation. Things will eventually change, for better or worse, that is the one constant in the universe, whether or not we will be around to see it is still up for debate, I know I will not see the final outcome but I do not envy the very young and what sort of world they will inherit.
A Storm is Coming, I can only suggest preparing for it the best you can and enjoy the show.

Meh, I think that I won't see the revolution. It's probably 20 or more years into the future and I will be 62 on my next birthday. However, I plan to retire to the country and make my home as self-sufficient as possible. Definitely off the energy grid.

Ethereal
03-07-2017, 01:03 AM
Awww, I will miss you when they come for ya.:wave:

But since you went there I will put it to you simply, you are correct, and the bad news, based on all the facts and the reality of the situation is that there is not a darn thing that is going to change it. We (mankind) made the mess we are in and sadly most do not even know how precarious of a situation we are in and even worse do not want to know. I have studied history all my life and one thing I have learned is mankind rarely learns from his past mistakes and now we are at a point where we do not want it taught to the next generation. Things will eventually change, for better or worse, that is the one constant in the universe, whether or not we will be around to see it is still up for debate, I know I will not see the final outcome but I do not envy the very young and what sort of world they will inherit.
A Storm is Coming, I can only suggest preparing for it the best you can and enjoy the show.
My, what an ironic series of statements!

Casper
03-07-2017, 01:30 AM
Meh, I think that I won't see the revolution. It's probably 20 or more years into the future and I will be 62 on my next birthday. However, I plan to retire to the country and make my home as self-sufficient as possible. Definitely off the energy grid.
I seriously doubt we have that long, and not sure it is only Revolution we have to worry about, just one of many bad things that could happen. Already moved out to the country, been preparing for years, not quit off the grid yet but can supply enough power for the basic needs, solar/wind/biofuel source, we grow much of our own veges, fruits, and nuts, have chickens and rabbits and live next to a lake, so no worries on food and the neighbors have goats, cattle, and hogs. Armed up a lot since moving out here, one has to be able to hold on to what they have, plus I have always been a "gun nut" and outdoors kinda guy so that comes naturally. I have had several friends follow the same path, seems many people are starting to see the writing on the wall and realize living in a big city is not a great idea if the stuff hits the fan. I have a whole year on ya, youngster, :grin:, but it is never too late to start looking for the special place. You will love the evenings when all you hear is mother nature, no drone of traffic, just nature, good for the soul.

Casper
03-07-2017, 01:31 AM
My, what an ironic series of statements!
Did have something to say?

MMC
03-07-2017, 07:28 AM
There you have it.....the Demos have no policy, and Ethereal is correct Sanctioning Russia isn't a policy.

Maybe they were thinking of sending Hillary back over there with a reset button.

Casper
03-07-2017, 08:24 AM
There you have it.....the Demos have no policy, and Ethereal is correct Sanctioning Russia isn't a policy.

Maybe they were thinking of sending Hillary back over there with a reset button.
And there ya have it, the Repubs who in charge of everything are in bed with the Russians and will lift the sanctions based on their policy of appeasement. Ronald Reagan would roll over in his grave if he saw the "new" republicans spread their legs for the Russians.

MMC
03-07-2017, 08:31 AM
And there ya have it, the Repubs who in charge of everything are in bed with the Russians and will lift the sanctions based on their policy of appeasement. Ronald Reagan would roll over in his grave if he saw the "new" republicans spread their legs for the Russians.
:rollseyes: That's why Trump is upping an arms race with Russia. Let me know when you get tuned back in with reality.

Casper
03-07-2017, 08:35 AM
:rollseyes: That's why Trump is upping an arms race with Russia. Let me know when you get tuned back in with reality.

Trump is up arming because that is what people wanted to hear, didn't you guys all point out that the military is worn out and needs the refurb, now it because he wants to face off with Russia? Do stick to one story or another changing the goal posts is obvious to everyone. I see you think the sanctions were a bad thing and Russia is now a good friend, whatever "reality" it is you are living in it is not on this planet.

MMC
03-07-2017, 08:38 AM
Trump is up arming because that is what people wanted to hear, didn't you guys all point out that the military is worn out and needs the refurb, now it because he wants to face off with Russia? Do stick to one story or another changing the goal posts is obvious to everyone. I see you think the sanctions were a bad thing and Russia is now a good friend, whatever "reality" it is you are living in it is not on this planet.


Uhm....that does include upping Nukes. Like I said. Let me know when you tune back into reality.

suds00
03-07-2017, 10:47 AM
the democrats aren't holding confidential talks with the russians.

Private Pickle
03-07-2017, 10:51 AM
the democrats aren't holding confidential talks with the russians.
Just the Iranians?

Subdermal
03-07-2017, 11:49 AM
Just the Iranians?

Bam.

lol

Subdermal
03-07-2017, 11:50 AM
And there ya have it, the Repubs who in charge of everything are in bed with the Russians and will lift the sanctions based on their policy of appeasement. Ronald Reagan would roll over in his grave if he saw the "new" republicans spread their legs for the Russians.

According to Bo's thread, the Russians are "reveling in the discord and chaos".

So it seems that the group "in bed" with the Russians are the ones sowing said discord and chaos.


And you clearly know nothing about Reagan. Reagan went out of his way to befriend Gorbachev, and normalize relationships. He won the Cold War with kind and firm diplomacy.

I'm not hearing "kind and firm diplomacy" from the left. Let's remember that Dem nominee Hillary Clinton called Putin "Hitler" during the campaign.

Ethereal
03-07-2017, 12:00 PM
And there ya have it, the Repubs who in charge of everything are in bed with the Russians and will lift the sanctions based on their policy of appeasement. Ronald Reagan would roll over in his grave if he saw the "new" republicans spread their legs for the Russians.
Ronald Reagan helped end the cold war by cultivating a genuine friendship with Gorbachev, the leader of the Soviet Union. If Reagan were alive today, Democrats would be accusing him of secretly allying with the Soviets and trying to sell out the country.

Casper
03-07-2017, 12:04 PM
According to Bo's thread, the Russians are "reveling in the discord and chaos".

So it seems that the group "in bed" with the Russians are the ones sowing said discord and chaos.


And you clearly know nothing about Reagan. Reagan went out of his way to befriend Gorbachev, and normalize relationships. He won the Cold War with kind and firm diplomacy.

I'm not hearing "kind and firm diplomacy" from the left. Let's remember that Dem nominee Hillary Clinton called Putin "Hitler" during the campaign.
Nice spin, but it is not the Dems that are wanting to lift sanctions on Russia.

Just so ya know, the Dems are not in power and cannot implement any policy, so any policy that is put in place is trumps policy.


I know Reagan enough to know that neither he or Bush Senior, heck or even Junior, trusted the Russians and for good reason, they cannot be trusted, especially when they are run by a KGB agent.

Ethereal
03-07-2017, 12:05 PM
Did have something to say?
If a "storm" does come, as you predicted, it will be due in large part to the kind of attitude you've displayed in this thread, i.e., hostility and belligerence towards numerous countries, including Russia. You've convinced yourself that a grave threat exists when it's only in your head.

Ethereal
03-07-2017, 12:07 PM
Nice spin, but it is not the Dems that are wanting to lift sanctions on Russia.

Just so ya know, the Dems are not in power and cannot implement any policy, so any policy that is put in place is trumps policy.


I know Reagan enough to know that neither he or Bush Senior, heck or even Junior, trusted the Russians and for good reason, they cannot be trusted, especially when they are run by a KGB agent.
But it is the Democrats shrieking endlessly about the grave threat of Russian aggression. Given that, one would assume they have goals and strategies with regards to said threat. But as this thread is demonstrating, that is hardly the case.

Ethereal
03-07-2017, 12:09 PM
And as long as we're talking about Reagan, why don't we ask his friend and counterpart, Gorbachev, what he thinks of the present situation...


Exclusive: Gorbachev Blames the U.S. for Provoking 'New Cold War' (http://time.com/3630352/mikhail-gorbachev-vladimir-putin-cold-war/)

And he would know, wouldn't he?

MMC
03-07-2017, 12:37 PM
Nice spin, but it is not the Dems that are wanting to lift sanctions on Russia.

Just so ya know, the Dems are not in power and cannot implement any policy, so any policy that is put in place is trumps policy.


I know Reagan enough to know that neither he or Bush Senior, heck or even Junior, trusted the Russians and for good reason, they cannot be trusted, especially when they are run by a KGB agent.

Really.....when did Johnny Quest McCain, Lindsey Graham and Marco Rubio start talking about lifting sanctions off of Russia? Seems to be a whole Slew of Repubs that have been quite vocal about that and not in favor.

Green Arrow
03-07-2017, 02:07 PM
And as long as we're talking about Reagan, why don't we ask his friend and counterpart, Gorbachev, what he thinks of the present situation...



And he would know, wouldn't he?
Gorbachev is correct, as he so often was.

ripmeister
03-07-2017, 02:35 PM
Ronald Reagan helped end the cold war by cultivating a genuine friendship with Gorbachev, the leader of the Soviet Union. If Reagan were alive today, Democrats would be accusing him of secretly allying with the Soviets and trying to sell out the country.
False equivalency. Gorbachev and Putin are apples and oranges.

Mister D
03-07-2017, 03:07 PM
False equivalency. Gorbachev and Putin are apples and oranges.
Hmmm...Gorbachev was the representative of the Soviet empire. Putin is the representative of a much weaker Russia. Beyond that what is the difference?

ripmeister
03-07-2017, 04:14 PM
Hmmm...Gorbachev was the representative of the Soviet empire. Putin is the representative of a much weaker Russia. Beyond that what is the difference?
General demeanor, world view and objectives. Are those enough?

Mister D
03-07-2017, 04:23 PM
General demeanor, world view and objectives. Are those enough?
Hopelessly vague and subjective to boot but I knew it would be. No worries.

Ethereal
03-07-2017, 04:49 PM
False equivalency. Gorbachev and Putin are apples and oranges.
Gorbachev seems to think otherwise.

Dr. Who
03-07-2017, 05:54 PM
I seriously doubt we have that long, and not sure it is only Revolution we have to worry about, just one of many bad things that could happen. Already moved out to the country, been preparing for years, not quit off the grid yet but can supply enough power for the basic needs, solar/wind/biofuel source, we grow much of our own veges, fruits, and nuts, have chickens and rabbits and live next to a lake, so no worries on food and the neighbors have goats, cattle, and hogs. Armed up a lot since moving out here, one has to be able to hold on to what they have, plus I have always been a "gun nut" and outdoors kinda guy so that comes naturally. I have had several friends follow the same path, seems many people are starting to see the writing on the wall and realize living in a big city is not a great idea if the stuff hits the fan. I have a whole year on ya, youngster, :grin:, but it is never too late to start looking for the special place. You will love the evenings when all you hear is mother nature, no drone of traffic, just nature, good for the soul.
I'm one of those people who can easily fall asleep to the sound of a thousand crickets, rain hitting the window or a chorus of frogs singing. I grew up close to the country so it's city noises that are more likely to keep me awake, although I've lived in the big city much longer than in near nature. Still, when I was in St. Vincent and the lizards started singing (they sound like crickets), I was out like a light. Others, not so much.

I'd have a problem killing my food. I'll need to live close to a farm and a place to fish. I will probably keep chickens for the eggs.

Subdermal
03-08-2017, 12:31 AM
Nice spin, but it is not the Dems that are wanting to lift sanctions on Russia.

Just so ya know, the Dems are not in power and cannot implement any policy, so any policy that is put in place is trumps policy.


I know Reagan enough to know that neither he or Bush Senior, heck or even Junior, trusted the Russians and for good reason, they cannot be trusted, especially when they are run by a KGB agent.

And you have no reason to believe that the Trump Administration trusts Russia either.

Other than your vivid imagination.

Casper
03-08-2017, 12:45 AM
And you have no reason to believe that the Trump Administration trusts Russia either.

Other than your vivid imagination.

Other than him wanting to lift the sanctions, defending Putin as a great leader, bashing NATO which the only thing that has keep Russia from more "reclaiming" of old territories, and we do not know how deep his connections are but when real investigations get started we may learn far more.
Nope, just me thinking that I do not trust the trump in the least bit. His cabinet find a way to get him to stop Twitting yet, they seem concerned that their leader might be embarrassing himself with false accusations that will lead to more investigations which may lead to who knows, President Pence is one possibility.

NapRover
03-08-2017, 07:58 AM
At the Tavern on Grand in St Paul, MN, you can enjoy delicious walleye dinners as did Gorbachev during one of his visits. The menu proclaimed "Gorby loved it", and on the wall was a pic of Gorby with his birthmark done in the shape of Minnesota!
I wonder what they'd do if Putin ate there...showing him shirtless, spear fishing?

Tahuyaman
03-08-2017, 08:22 AM
The dem leadership is using Russia as a wedge issue.

What are they afraid of? What threat do they think Russia poses to us now that they didn't during the last 20 years or so? It's especially odd as Russia has gained strength over the course of the last eight years of Obama foreign policy.


The Democrats seem to be quite inconsistent with their concerns with Russia.

ripmeister
03-08-2017, 10:48 AM
Hopelessly vague and subjective to boot but I knew it would be. No worries.
Ok, so Perestroika and Glastnost versus a move toward Tsarist Russia? Apples and oranges to me. Yeltsin as the intermediary was a little harder to interpret as to his motivations and goals but Gorby compared to Trumps buddy is like night and day. The attached article sums it up pretty well.

https://www.thenation.com/article/gorbachev-putin/

ripmeister
03-08-2017, 10:49 AM
Gorbachev seems to think otherwise.
I don't know what this is supposed to mean.

ripmeister
03-08-2017, 10:51 AM
Gorbachev seems to think otherwise.
Is this what you are referring to?

http://time.com/4343154/mikhail-gorbachev-the-new-russia/

"We need strong presidential authority. In Russia, it is crucial that people should trust the president and be able to believe him. Yes, Russia needs a strong leader, but not a Führer, not a Stalin."

ripmeister
03-09-2017, 12:46 PM
Mr. D and Ethereal, crickets?

Mister D
03-09-2017, 03:25 PM
Ok, so Perestroika and Glastnost versus a move toward Tsarist Russia? Apples and oranges to me. Yeltsin as the intermediary was a little harder to interpret as to his motivations and goals but Gorby compared to Trumps buddy is like night and day. The attached article sums it up pretty well.

https://www.thenation.com/article/gorbachev-putin/
Tag me if you'd like me to respond. I don't spend all day here.

There is no move toward "Tsarist Russia". Anyway, you asserted that comparing good relations with Gorbachev and Putin is apples and oranges because their general demeanor, outlooks and values were so different. Instead of linking to an op ed, could you take the time to actually explain yourself? Thanks.

Mister D
03-09-2017, 03:25 PM
Is this what you are referring to?

http://time.com/4343154/mikhail-gorbachev-the-new-russia/

"We need strong presidential authority. In Russia, it is crucial that people should trust the president and be able to believe him. Yes, Russia needs a strong leader, but not a Führer, not a Stalin."
Putin is not a Stalin or a lol Hitler. Please get a hold of yourself.

Ethereal
03-09-2017, 03:38 PM
Is this what you are referring to?

http://time.com/4343154/mikhail-gorbachev-the-new-russia/

"We need strong presidential authority. In Russia, it is crucial that people should trust the president and be able to believe him. Yes, Russia needs a strong leader, but not a Führer, not a Stalin."

Actually, I was referring to this:


Putin Is 'Strongly Worried' for Russia's Future, Gorbachev Believes (http://www.haaretz.com/world-news/1.758793)

[...]

He defended Russia's action to annex Crimea, pointing out that Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev arbitrarily transferred Crimea from Russian to Ukrainian administrative control in 1954, a decision that mattered little until the Soviet collapse.

He also noted that the annexation followed a popular vote in which the residents of the Black Sea peninsula overwhelmingly backed joining Russia.

"When people say yes, a decision must be made," he said.

[...]

"They have been badgering Russia with accusations and blaming it for everything," Gorbachev said. "And now, there is a backlash to that in Russia. Russia wants to have friendly ties with America, but it's difficult to do that when Russia sees that it's being cheated."

[...]

Asked his opinion of Putin's leadership, Gorbachev said he sees him as a "worthy president," even though he has criticized some of his policies.

[...]

So while it is true that Gorbachev has criticized Putin, he blames the west, not Putin, for the recent escalation in US-Russian tensions. A very important distinction to make given the context of this discussion.

Ethereal
03-09-2017, 04:11 PM
ripmeister, crickets?

:grin:

Ethereal
03-09-2017, 09:59 PM
Putin is not a Stalin or a lol Hitler. Please get a hold of yourself.
I think this is another example of conflating generalized authoritarian tendencies (which Putin certainly possesses) with fascism and other "rightist" political movements.

ripmeister
03-10-2017, 10:26 AM
Putin is not a Stalin or a lol Hitler. Please get a hold of yourself.
I didn't say that, Gorby did.

ripmeister
03-10-2017, 10:29 AM
ripmeister, crickets?

:grin:

LOL! Touche! Just now saw these posts. I'll stick to my original statement of apples and oranges. While Gorby may agree with some policy positions his MO IMO would have been very different. Putin is an autocrat. I don't think Gorby would have gone down that path.

ripmeister
03-10-2017, 10:31 AM
I think this is another example of conflating generalized authoritarian tendencies (which Putin certainly possesses) with fascism and other "rightist" political movements.
As I said. This was a statement by Gorbachev. I don't see Putin as a fascist, rather he is just an authoritarian thug. Gorbachev to my knowledge did not behave in this manner. Hence my apples and oranges comment.

Ethereal
03-12-2017, 06:55 PM
LOL! Touche! Just now saw these posts. I'll stick to my original statement of apples and oranges. While Gorby may agree with some policy positions his MO IMO would have been very different. Putin is an autocrat. I don't think Gorby would have gone down that path.
But it's the policy position that has the most importance in the context of US-Russian relations and the American perception of Putin. Gorbachev has criticized Putin largely with regards to domestic issues. But with regards to key foreign policies of Putin, which are of the most relevance to us as westerners, Gorbachev typically sides strongly with Putin. So it's not fair for someone to bring up how much different Gorbachev supposedly was when they won't listen to his opinion on the very issue we're discussing.

Ethereal
03-12-2017, 06:59 PM
As I said. This was a statement by Gorbachev. I don't see Putin as a fascist, rather he is just an authoritarian thug. Gorbachev to my knowledge did not behave in this manner. Hence my apples and oranges comment.
Gorbachev was the chief executive of the Soviet Union. He was an authoritarian by definition. That he exercised a more friendly disposition towards the west than his predecessors did does not change the fact that his position within Russian society was autocratic and authoritarian. In fact, virtually all chief executives of governments are authoritarian to some degree, including the chief executives of western governments. It's almost as if westerners have a total blind spot when it comes to the autocratic and authoritarian tendencies of western governments.

ripmeister
03-13-2017, 09:22 AM
Gorbachev was the chief executive of the Soviet Union. He was an authoritarian by definition. That he exercised a more friendly disposition towards the west than his predecessors did does not change the fact that his position within Russian society was autocratic and authoritarian. In fact, virtually all chief executives of governments are authoritarian to some degree, including the chief executives of western governments. It's almost as if westerners have a total blind spot when it comes to the autocratic and authoritarian tendencies of western governments.

Ok. You apparently see no to little difference in the character of Putin and Gorbachev, at least that seems to be what you are saying. I simply disagree with your assessment.

Ethereal
03-13-2017, 01:39 PM
Ok. You apparently see no to little difference in the character of Putin and Gorbachev, at least that seems to be what you are saying. I simply disagree with your assessment.
But why do you disagree?