At 1/23/18 10:51 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: Dems and the progressives just can't get a break lol. Lost the election, all GOP Congress a SCOTUS seat, and a fractured DNC due to election shenanigans inside the DNC and ideology, and when it just started looking like they could state down they blinked on major legislation! Best part is the majority of the Dems who voted to start up are up for reelection this year and jumped the line.

When will they learn?

Considering that Dems seem almost sane in comparison to Republicans these days, I don't think they have much to worry about. Trump, and far right Republicans, are scaring away moderate and independents, who are the ones who decide election outcomes. It's why Moore lost in a such a red state. And a lot of Republicans are deciding to retire after all their incompetence, and stupid shit, they did - even Paul Ryan (if rumors are true) seems to be wavering on whether he wants to stay in congress, with all the far right loonies there.

The whole DACA thing was silly. Yeah, it made the Dems look weak caving in like they did, (as Trump gloats and does a few victory lamps from his bed to his tvs), but they never had much of a bargaining chip to begin with. Ultimately, though, the refusal to do anything about DACA will hurt Republicans more than Democrats in the end.

At 1/23/18 02:49 PM, EdyKel wrote

The whole DACA thing was silly. Yeah, it made the Dems look weak caving in like they did, (as Trump gloats and does a few victory lamps from his bed to his tvs), but they never had much of a bargaining chip to begin with. Ultimately, though, the refusal to do anything about DACA will hurt Republicans more than Democrats in the end.

the whole thing about this is, it looks like a power move (to me) as a litmus test for the upcoming mid terms for everyone in Congress thats up for reelection.

At 1/23/18 03:03 PM, Sause wrote: Also Tony above, you’re overblowing the Gorsuch appointment. All Trump did was re-balance the courts. That’s pretty much just putting the car in park.

but if Dems had it their way they would have gotten Garland that would have really balanced it, adding Gorsuch just filled the seat with the same player on the same team.

At 1/23/18 03:00 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:

At 1/23/18 02:49 PM, EdyKel wrote

The whole DACA thing was silly. Yeah, it made the Dems look weak caving in like they did, (as Trump gloats and does a few victory lamps from his bed to his tvs), but they never had much of a bargaining chip to begin with. Ultimately, though, the refusal to do anything about DACA will hurt Republicans more than Democrats in the end.

the whole thing about this is, it looks like a power move (to me) as a litmus test for the upcoming mid terms for everyone in Congress thats up for reelection.

If you go by rumors, Trump supposedly decided to reject the deal he had made with Dems over the boarder wall for DACA so he could keep the immigration issue a viable talking point for his reelection campaign. He will try to blame Democrats for not funding his wall, while using the above propaganda to paint Dems as complicit in the murder of Americans by illegals by their rejection of that wall. Of course, When you get stories about people who have been living in the US for 30-40 years, and live respectable lives, being jailed, or deported back to countries where they don't speak the language, by ICE, it sorta undermines the narrative about illegals being murderers.

At 1/23/18 03:07 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:

At 1/23/18 03:03 PM, Sause wrote: Also Tony above, you’re overblowing the Gorsuch appointment. All Trump did was re-balance the courts. That’s pretty much just putting the car in park.

but if Dems had it their way they would have gotten Garland that would have really balanced it, adding Gorsuch just filled the seat with the same player on the same team.

Agreed. More than anything, Garland would have been a moderate, slightly to the left, but still a moderate, not a flaming partisan Rubber stamper like Gorsuch.

And considering there are 3 more years with Trump, with some really old liberal justices who might retire in that time, anymore far right justices will just cement the power in favor of Conservative causes, which will just lead to an apparent court bias that anyone can see, and lead to further distrust of the system.

At 1/23/18 03:03 PM, Sause wrote:

That was my point exactly Gario.

Well, you're half right - I agree with you that Dems are acting like incompetant fools atm, but not in the following statement.

You’re used to Republicans caving and going into fetal position if they meet any opposition.

This is literally 100% untrue - ever since the Tea party has utilized their uncompromising strategies, Republicans slowly became the party that literally never compromised, even when it made sense to (like, for example, how Rand Paul didn't vote for this current measure because it gives too much to Democrats). The examples above (if you look into them) are examples of this sort of unworkable obstinance working against Republicans (which is the opposite of what you think it is).

But a Democrat doing it? All they know is push, push, push for more.

Holy shit, does the Overton Window and the Neo-liberal philosophy of incrimentalism have a few things to say about how off your statement is, here.

That’s why I don’t think their nature has changed. I think they are doing a tactical stand down because they were getting word from media friends that the public was starting to perceive the shutdown as their baby.

This is very true - I'll fully admit you're correct here.

It's also quite incorrect on their part, since standing down makes it look like they acknowledge that the shut down is their fault (when Republicans hold all of the power - not being able to get an additional 10 Democrats to vote on it is on THEIR heads). If Democrats grew a sack and publically defended their position they could've easily held American opinion in their favor, but now they're both reviled by conservatives convinced that they're at fault for the shut down and progressives that believe they caved to Republicans with little to show for it. It's the worst outcome possible, if I'm to be frank.

The Trump whitehouse, cogressional republicans and other spokespersons working in concert with one another, staying on a similar message, and keeping the “Schumer Shutdown” spin on the story is likely what have the DNC some pause: actual backbone from the RNC.

The RNC reframed the debate, as usual. This is not surprising - they have been masters of this technique for as long as I've kept an eye on politics, and it's their modus operandi. They're so good at it that you somehow think Democrats have always been stubborn obstructionists because of the Republican methods of framing.

It’s the Dems that usually never flinch or waver. A united front from the right wing of government is something they don’t know how to deal with, in my view.

I have no idea where you get this view from. From Obama wasting the Democratic supermajority negotiating his healthcare bill from a public option to a Republican mandate system (he didn't need the votes, this was pointless), to Democrats dicking around with the Supreme court pick when it was Obama's right to select, to ignoring states passing unconstitutional voting suppression laws, to voting consistently for economically conservative bills, to Democrat's habit of circlejerking every time they reach a bipartisan consensus (especially on very conesrvative bills) ... Again, you seem to be taken in by Republicans' ability to reframe any and every issue to make Democrats seem like unmoveable monsters.

I have to commend them for that, to be honest, in a I-can't-stand-you-but-you're-really-good-at-what-you-do sort of way.

Also Tony above, you’re overblowing the Gorsuch appointment. All Trump did was re-balance the courts. That’s pretty much just putting the car in park.

A dead horse if I've ever seen one, but that Gorsuch appointment was unconstitutional (it was Obama's right, not Trump's). That is a whole other can of worms, though, and I would probably derail the hell out of this thread if I elaborated.

At 1/23/18 03:33 PM, EdyKel wrote: If you go by rumors,

I just go by what I see the two sides trying using this as Midterm fodder and it blew up in their faces guess we have to wait three weeks to see if it concludes or continues.

Agreed. More than anything, Garland would have been a moderate, slightly to the left, but still a moderate, not a flaming partisan Rubber stamper like Gorsuch.

yup he would have been moderate, but instead we went with maintaining the status quo.

And considering there are 3 more years with Trump, with some really old liberal justices who might retire in that time, anymore far right justices will just cement the power in favor of Conservative causes, which will just lead to an apparent court bias that anyone can see, and lead to further distrust of the system.

Ginsburg and Kennedy are both in their 80s and Ginsburg does have a medical history and unless Dems take the Senate this midterm any POSSIBLE deaths or retirements can be set in by the nuclear option.

At 1/23/18 05:23 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: Ginsburg and Kennedy are both in their 80s and Ginsburg does have a medical history and unless Dems take the Senate this midterm any POSSIBLE deaths or retirements can be set in by the nuclear option.

IIRC, isn't Kennedy seriously thinking of retiring?

At 1/24/18 10:32 AM, RydiaLockheart wrote: IIRC, isn't Kennedy seriously thinking of retiring?

he's super wish washy on it says he wants, then makes a "big announcement" and makes it some sort of meta joke laughing at people speculation, he's hired a full staff. so its up in the air really.

At 1/24/18 05:06 PM, Sause wrote: Maybe something changed his mind?

I for one wouldn't let my successor be chosen by Donald Trump.

Kennedy is 81, GInsburg is 84 with various health issues, ad talks about Sotomayor and her diabetes which is laughable since that can be easily maintained.

Hypothetical: Kennedy retires three months a replacement is confirmed then another two or three then Ginsburg dies from natural or medical causes? or this happens in reverse? I mean Congress is still in GOP control and Trump does have two plus (months added) more years to nominate, it could happen this year it could happen next, or in staggered chunks.

he just sneezed, someone decipher what he is actually saying

Military parade ordered by Trump.

When it becomes a thing, will there please be someone that puts the pricetag on it? Waste doesn't even begin to describe this, not to mention it's something weaker militaries do in order to look more powerful than they actually are. We don't need this; we're the most powerful goddamn army on the planet, and everyone already knows that.

Whatever. Not even close to the worst thing done this week, but politically this is INCREDIBLY easy to capitalize on politically (painting an authoritarian manoeuvre as it is, explore the gigantic waste of resources, etc.). Let's see how Democrats waste this chance once again!

At 2/7/18 01:07 PM, Sause wrote: Unique perspective from a British friend of mine on another forum,

“It always puzzled me that the regular US citizens have a major appreciation for the US military, but never had a single big parade during Memorial Day, or even just a general appreciation point and parade for people to be able to watch on TV from the Nation's Capital.

Heck, the UK has both the Remembrance Sunday procession down Whitehall and the Trooping of the colour, which usually has a military procession from Buckingham Palace to the Horse Guards Parade Grounds via The Mall. Never mind the world famous (and globally minded) Edinburgh Tattoo, which includes combined military marches down through the streets of Edinburgh several times a day.

Even on top of all that we've got Armed Forces Day (has been going since 2008 ) who's main site and parade rotates every year, with the Picturesque Seaside town of Llandudno having the honour of the official parade this year.”

Aaaaand the typical overreaction, hyperventilating “literally shaking” is brewing.

This can only backfire.

Not really. There several reason why the US does not do this type of stuff. First, it's not part of a tradition, or symbolic, like it is in the UK. Secondly, Americans don't like this type of stuff, for various reason, mostly because it's not considered patriotic, but a sign of authoritarianism in the land of freedom. It's in bad taste, and it's worrisome, especially in the age of Trump. It's one thing for parades with veterans, and soldiers, and aerial jet flights over games, but it's a whole different matter when the government wants it to send a clear aggressive message here and abroad.

At 2/7/18 02:18 PM, Sause wrote:

At 2/7/18 01:51 PM, EdyKel wrote: Not really. There several reason why the US does not do this type of stuff. First, it's not part of a tradition, or symbolic, like it is in the UK. Secondly, Americans don't like this type of stuff, for various reason, mostly because it's not considered patriotic, but a sign of authoritarianism in the land of freedom. It's in bad taste, and it's worrisome, especially in the age of Trump. It's one thing for parades with veterans, and soldiers, and aerial jet flights over games, but it's a whole different matter when the government wants it to send a clear aggressive message here and abroad.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armed_Forces_Day

of the 62 nations, the word "parade" comes up 35 times if you ctrl+f. Tell me, do you think nations like the UK, Italy, Spain, France, et. al. Europe are authoritarian dictatorships? Yes or no? Because you just implied anybody who has a military parade is a brutal dictatorship.

I think you are misunderstanding something that is quite obvious. We have parades with military personnel, and veterans, all the time in this country. Nothing wrong with that. And, like other countries, we do celebrate our armed forces, but WE DO NOT USE THEM TO DEMONSTRATE THE POWER OF THEM IN ORDER TO SEND A CLEAR MESSAGE HERE AND TO OTHER COUNTRIES ABOUT US - and most other countries don't do that either, unless they are ruled by dictators who want to send that type of Message. Trump is not doing this out of patriotism to the country, or celebration of our Armed forces, he's going to waste millions of tax payer money to improve his image with this stint, to make him look strong, and send that message to the country and the rest of the world. That's the only reason he's doing it - which is a terrible reason. It doesn't celebrate our troops, it's a message from him about himself. That is what people are having a problem with. That's what you are not seeing.

Look, guys, it's en vogue to shit on everything Trump does, just like we did with Bush. But you are seriously losing your minds.

Also Edy do you think it is politically expedient to lay down in front of tanks who may not see you? yes or no.

How should I know. But the picture you posted was from China, where the tanks actually stopped, and tried to get around him. Of course it didn't really change things that much there, but that's not the point here. It's mostly to criticize, and mock, the reasons for why Trump wants to do it, which is what the American people are good at doing with our politicians. It's our god given right, here.

At 2/7/18 12:43 AM, Gario wrote: When it becomes a thing, will there please be someone that puts the pricetag on it?

would you like the price in sausage Mcmuffins or in loaves of bread?

;)

At 2/7/18 08:47 PM, SolidPantsSnake wrote:

At 2/7/18 03:20 PM, EdyKel wrote: That's what you are not seeing.

All i see is a big stretch. It was the Paris parade that gave him the idea. You seem have no problem with macron doing the same thing but because Trump wants it then it's instantly bad.

We are not France. We don't have the same type of traditions as they do. And as I said to Sause, the meaning behind Trump's would be entirely different from the ones in the countries she listed. The meaning would be more like the ones you see in Russia, or other authoritarian governments, where they send a clear message to the world of "fuck you" while celebrating the strength of the current leader. They are not about the service of our troops, or a celebration of independence from an authoritarian rule, which the Bastille parade in France is about. That's the fucking difference.

At 2/7/18 08:47 PM, SolidPantsSnake wrote:

All i see is a big stretch. It was the Paris parade that gave him the idea. You seem have no problem with macron doing the same thing but because Trump wants it then it's instantly bad.

Personally, this parade is more personal embarrassment than anything. You perform a military parade to make your army look more impressive than it is - that's why smaller military forces do them. We are not in a state where this is necessary, so by making such a display and imitating weaker countries it makes us look pathetic like them. It's like photoshopping your dick to make it look bigger when you already have by far the biggest dick - what does that tell you about how insecure the person is?

Yes, this is also a waste of dollars, it's something many authoritarians do to intimidate other nations, yadda yadda, but to drag our military down to the level of showboating makes us look pathetic and insecure. Strong militaries like ours do not need to do this.

By the way, yes, France did this. That's because they have a comparatively pathetic military to ours - they NEED to showboat if they're to impress a nation like ours. They needed to photoshop their dick to even get our attention, there.

At 2/7/18 10:07 PM, SolidPantsSnake wrote:

At 2/7/18 09:52 PM, EdyKel wrote: That's the fucking difference.

The only difference is Trump wants it so now you are slinging buzzwords like authoritarian around like a 20 something tumblerina. Hysteria pure hysteria.

I would not have supported it under any president. I don't see the value of it. And Trump is very authoritarian, not to mention narcissistic. If you haven't figured that out by now, then it's explains why you spent more time going after Antifa, than Neo Nazis, while claiming you are Jewish. You are just fucked up over this shit, defending what shouldn't be defended.

Military parade in Europe = traditional celebration of independence, or freedom, from authoritarianism.

In US = not ok because Trump wants to use it to cerebrate his military strength, and say fuck you to everyone who doesn't agree with him, on the taxpayer dime, while claiming to be concerned about government spending.

At 2/7/18 11:25 PM, SolidPantsSnake wrote:

LOL you're pro Palestine you don't give a shit about the Jews get real. You have defended Hamas a terrorist organization and tried to shut down any discussion about antifa another terrorist group though they are ants compared to Hamas.

I don't support terrorism of any sort, son. I know that it's hard for you to understand that I rather have a peaceful solution to the Palestinian/Israel issue. But the whole thing has been one sided, with Israel creating more problems with their expansionist policy, while using the victim card. That is pretty obvious. And my issue with Israel has always been about their policy, not the Jewish people. I know that's hard for you to understand, since you deem any criticism of their policy as anti-Semitic, which is getting old.

Take your unearned sense of moral superiority and stick it buddy. You have no convictions at all unless they are somehow convenient in your argument at the moment.

That doesn't mean a whole lot coming from you.

Honestly i don't care if the parade happens or doesn't happen your reasons are just beyond ridiculous. You sound like a maniac, and they are not even your own arguments or opinions to boot. You don't know how to think for yourself you need to read a crappy opinion piece before you can even have your own opinion like some trendy little follower.

And you always defend Trump, even the stupid shit he says and does, out of party loyalty, and pettiness for the other side, which speaks more volumes than anything you will say about me. You don't even have an argument for defending the reason Trump wants to have a military parade. At this point, you are just trolling.

You can have the last word.

At 2/8/18 01:01 AM, SolidPantsSnake wrote: I did other countries have them and it is no issue.

Missing the point. The intent behind such actions definitely does matter.

At 2/9/18 09:14 AM, SolidPantsSnake wrote: Well in other news the shutdown ended not too long ago. Budget is approved and the democrats caved again. Daca is not included in the bill is what i'm hearing.

So did Republicans on deficit spending.

At 2/9/18 12:28 PM, Sause wrote: http://m.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/february_2018/50_think_senior_law_enforcement_officials_broke_the_law_to_block_trump_presidency

So 50% of the people voting on this poll are wrong - if 50% of people state 2+2=5 that doesn't show that 2+2=5, there. It does show that the Nunes memo was a highly effective piece of propoganda, though. Combined with the primary source of news for Republicans stating in no uncertain terms that the Nunes report definitively proves the FBI performed actions to take Trump down without cause, of course Republicans believe the FBI broke the law when they didn't.

That's how state guided media works.

At 2/9/18 01:05 PM, Gario wrote:

At 2/9/18 12:28 PM, Sause wrote: http://m.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/february_2018/50_think_senior_law_enforcement_officials_broke_the_law_to_block_trump_presidency

So 50% of the people voting on this poll are wrong - if 50% of people state 2+2=5 that doesn't show that 2+2=5, there. It does show that the Nunes memo was a highly effective piece of propoganda, though. Combined with the primary source of news for Republicans stating in no uncertain terms that the Nunes report definitively proves the FBI performed actions to take Trump down without cause, of course Republicans believe the FBI broke the law when they didn't.

That's how state guided media works.

That's almost how many people believe there were WMDs in Iraq, and almost the same amount of people who don't believe Obama was born in the US.

At 2/9/18 10:58 AM, EdyKel wrote: So did Republicans on deficit spending.

It's the very definition of bi-partisanship these days: Everybody loses, and nobody's core voters will be very happy with them. The Dems seem determined to lose that mid-term advantage they had only a couple months ago.

At 2/9/18 05:24 PM, SolidPantsSnake wrote:

At 2/9/18 02:22 PM, EdyKel wrote:

At 2/9/18 01:05 PM, Gario wrote:

At 2/9/18 12:28 PM, Sause wrote: http://m.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/february_2018/50_think_senior_law_enforcement_officials_broke_the_law_to_block_trump_presidency

So 50% of the people voting on this poll are wrong - if 50% of people state 2+2=5 that doesn't show that 2+2=5, there. It does show that the Nunes memo was a highly effective piece of propoganda, though. Combined with the primary source of news for Republicans stating in no uncertain terms that the Nunes report definitively proves the FBI performed actions to take Trump down without cause, of course Republicans believe the FBI broke the law when they didn't.

That's how state guided media works.

That's almost how many people believe there were WMDs in Iraq, and almost the same amount of people who don't believe Obama was born in the US.

About 4/10 overall believed WMDs so yes. About 2/10 overall believed birther so not really.

both surveys had a very similar sample size almost exact.

Close to 400 give or take for WMD believers to 500 for FBI breaking law is close.

About 200 however is less than half so not even half as many believed the birther rumor.

To clarify how I got those estimates since your source provided did not give the overall numbers for birther rumor believers I just went to the original source your article used as their own source.

http://publicmind.fdu.edu/2015/false/

My bad for generalizing it all. @Gario's point still stands, though. These polls are not something that indicates whether something is true or not, just what people think - and there are a lot of false things they believe in.

Looks like no very few people think the military parade is a good idea.

Trump is back on twitter, lashing out at everyone. First, he blames the FBI for the mass shooting last week in Florida, accusing them of focusing too much on Russia, and not enough on every case involving someone who might be a terror risk. And then he lashed out at Obama, blaming him for not doing enough to stop Russia's interference in the election - finally admitting that they did interfere, after a year of claiming they didn't. Then he attacked Oprah Winfrey after her 60 minutes interview with a panel of 14 people, half who voted for Trump, and half who didn't, accusing her of being insecure, and the questions she gave biased - must still be pissed of that people who rather have her president than him. And I think he also attacked the Democrats, to. He had a very busy weekend tweeting at his Mar a Lago retreat, acting anything but presidential.

At 2/20/18 11:23 PM, tyler2513 wrote:

At 2/19/18 09:00 PM, EdyKel wrote: Trump is back on twitter, lashing out at everyone. First, he blames the FBI for the mass shooting last week in Florida, accusing them of focusing too much on Russia, and not enough on every case involving someone who might be a terror risk.

Asides from attributing causation where there isn't necessarily one, would you disagree that the fault lies with the FBI for failing to prevent this mass shooting?

They can't get around due process, or other laws that protect the rights of people, and there are way to many false flags than their are agents to put resources into investigating every case that pops up. Of course, if you think that people should give up other rights, in defense of one, to prevent more of these types of incidents, which seems to be a pretty popular, if unspoken, way of dealing with this issue...

And then he lashed out at Obama, blaming him for not doing enough to stop Russia's interference in the election - finally admitting that they did interfere, after a year of claiming they didn't.

This is a huge change in his narrative, but part of his attack on Obama was that he has been tougher on Russia than Obama had been, but this didn't stop an abundance of collusion stories between Trump and Russia. I definitely agree that he seems to be taking a stronger stance with not only Russia, but just about every adversary to the U.S.

Irony at it's finest. There was a public poll in Russia where more people believed that the US interfered in their election than Russia in the US one. It's all perspective. And, unfortunately, there are many perspectives over Russia interference in this country, because things are so political.

Many people blamed James Comey for Clinton's loss, because he reopened a case that was tied to her, publicly announcing it to congress, a few weeks before the election. Many thought that was interference - but most likely it was either bad judgment, or protecting his ass from Congress if he didn't do it.

Obama really didn't have anything concrete on Russia, and anything he would do in retaliation, or prevention, would be considered interference, at least by conservatives and Trump supporters, who would use it to undermine a Clinton's presidency, had she won - the GOP would most likely be holding many investigation into Obama, and Clinton, actions instead of of Russia. I think Obama knew that, which is why he was tepid in his initial response.

As for Trump being tough on Russia.... lol. Congress had to interfere with Trumps plans to get rid of the Obama sanctions on Russia. Trump wanted better relations with them. And he hasn't really done anything to prevent Russia from interfering in future elections. And, as for those sanction that congress passed last summer, Trump doesn't want to enforce them.

At 2/21/18 10:29 PM, tyler2513 wrote:

At 2/21/18 05:20 PM, EdyKel wrote:

At 2/20/18 11:23 PM, tyler2513 wrote:

Irony at it's finest. There was a public poll in Russia where more people believed that the US interfered in their election than Russia in the US one. It's all perspective. And, unfortunately, there are many perspectives over Russia interference in this country, because things are so political.

Obama really didn't have anything concrete on Russia, and anything he would do in retaliation, or prevention, would be considered interference, at least by conservatives and Trump supporters, who would use it to undermine a Clinton's presidency, had she won - the GOP would most likely be holding many investigation into Obama, and Clinton, actions instead of of Russia.
I think Obama knew that, which is why he was tepid in his initial response.

Yes I'm sure Obama knows everything.

And yet, Trump, and many others, are using hindsight to blame Obama for not doing enough - even though, Trump, and his supporters, are being vague on what they would have done in his place. But, it's a safe bet that Trump wouldn't have done anything, but tried to hide it - unless he blurts it out when in an interview, or one of his people leaks it in an attempt to save their own ass.

As for Trump being tough on Russia.... lol. Congress had to interfere with Trumps plans to get rid of the Obama sanctions on Russia. Trump wanted better relations with them. And he hasn't really done anything to prevent Russia from interfering in future elections. And, as for those sanction that congress passed last summer, Trump doesn't want to enforce them.

No I didn't mean has Trump's response to peruse possible nationals connected to interference in the election been better than Obama's, I understand during the Obama administration's time in office not as much was known and since Trump's election this has been an issue he needs to be pushed to really peruse, and I think some of that can be attributed to the media saying he's been colluding. By 'tough on Russia' I meant across the board, not 'tough on possible Russian election interference' which unfortunately we now know to be obviously true. Did you hear the headline about the Russian mercenaries killed by U.S airstrikes in Syria? Or about Trump's decision to arm the Ukrainian's to protect their sovereignty against Putin's forces?

If Trump was tough on Russia he would be going through with the sanction against them, instead of not doing it. No, Trump wants to start another cold war - mostly with China. He thinks he can bring the country together, along with prosperity, under fear of foreign countries. It's why he's gung-ho for increased military spending, and domestic law enforcement agencies. All that will do is isolate our country, but lead to higher prices, inflation, and more domestic surveillance, and less rights for the average person. That's what happened in the past with the cold war.

If you actually look at what he's doing it's little different than how Russia currently operate under Putin. The Russian economy relies on arm sales and oil, and that is what Trump want to do here. It's why he's hell bent on on killing off green energy, and helping out the oil Industry. It's It why he is supplying american arms to rebels, and other foreign countries - like Israel and Saudi Arabia. People like Trump, and Putin, want conflict in the world, it's profitable to the right people, and it cements their power - and using nationalism as a tool for those things.

At 2/21/18 10:29 PM, tyler2513 wrote:

Yes I'm sure Obama knows everything.

I mean the reasoning you just shot down is quite literally the exact explanation Obama gave immediately following the election for there not being a public push from his administration over the issue. Both he and Biden approached McConnell saying they wanted to announce their findings in a bipartisan manner to avoid the appearance of partisan impropriety and risk swaying the election one way or the other. McConnell shut them down citing skepticism that any interference occurred which he now acknowledges happened. So if that’s your definition of “everything”, then yeah apparently.

Obama also seized real estate from Russian foreign agents, expelled dozens of Russian emissaries, immediately enacted sanctions following the illegitimate annexation of the Crimean Peninsula and dramatically expanded the list of Russian names on the OFAC sanctions list and best of all, Obama acknowledged Russian interference of the 2016 election a full YEAR before Trump ever did.

How the fuck are you going to sit here with a straight face and say that Trump has been harder on Russia than Obama when he hasn’t even enacted the sanctions that the House and Senate both unanimously passed under his watch while citing that Russia’s defense spending has already been hurt by U.S sanctions as the logic for doing so? And while gutting the state department ergo eliminating American soft power and allied support in what is clearly an international crisis?

Yes, he sure went hard on Putin by only giving him one scoop of ice cream for dessert while Trump got two.

Get the fuck out of here.