The American Apocalypse

[Holman]

Here's a long video lecture by Tim Snyder, expert on European totalitarian regimes and the history of people who've lived under them. He's not the world's most scintillating speaker, but he knows his stuff, and it's very smart. His argument picks up interest and urgency as he goes along.

It's called "What Can European History Teach Us About Trump’s America?"

Don't say you weren't warned.

[Holman]

How we live now: I am reading Orwell to the kids at bedtime.

[El Guapo]

I can't wait to find out how our war with Eastasia is going.

[Smoove_B]

How we live now: I am reading Orwell to the kids at bedtime.

Is it possible Huxley, not Orwell, was right?

[Rip]

Since the election, Democrats have really been down in the Trumps. Despite the tantrums and protests, it strikes me that Democrats must be okay with this state of affairs. Sure, they claim he’s Hitler with a spray tan, and on some level they might even believe this. But short of establishing that half the country are total masochists—the safety word is “MAGA”—why are they doing everything in their power to make sure he runs roughshod over them and wins so much he gets sick of winning? Because that’s what Democrats are doing.

If I wanted to discredit an entire political party, I’d do exactly what Democrats, grassroots and party bosses alike, are doing: whining and making excuses at every opportunity, right up to insisting there must be some fantastical way to overturn a decisive electoral drubbing.

The first step here should be to shut up and do some meaningful self-reflection about why Democrats lost. Yet precious few smart and influential Democrats are actually doing this. To paraphrase Mark Twain, it’s better to remain silent and be thought a loser than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

Even worse, the bellyaching about Trump’s victory has become tired and predictable even as it amounts to little more than wishcasting. Now is the time to be honest, so I implore Democrats, if you catch yourself making any of the following arguments about why Trump shouldn’t be president, check your party before you wreck your party.

http://thefederalist.com/2016/12/14/3-d ... mediately/

The three argument BTW, are.

1. Clinton Won the Popular Vote, Or the Electoral College Is Unfair.

2. James Comey and the FBI Wanted Trump Elected.

3. The Russians Are Coming!

[Combustible Lemur]

Since the election, Democrats have really been down in the Trumps. Despite the tantrums and protests, it strikes me that Democrats must be okay with this state of affairs. Sure, they claim he’s Hitler with a spray tan, and on some level they might even believe this. But short of establishing that half the country are total masochists—the safety word is “MAGA”—why are they doing everything in their power to make sure he runs roughshod over them and wins so much he gets sick of winning? Because that’s what Democrats are doing.

If I wanted to discredit an entire political party, I’d do exactly what Democrats, grassroots and party bosses alike, are doing: whining and making excuses at every opportunity, right up to insisting there must be some fantastical way to overturn a decisive electoral drubbing.

The first step here should be to shut up and do some meaningful self-reflection about why Democrats lost. Yet precious few smart and influential Democrats are actually doing this. To paraphrase Mark Twain, it’s better to remain silent and be thought a loser than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

Even worse, the bellyaching about Trump’s victory has become tired and predictable even as it amounts to little more than wishcasting. Now is the time to be honest, so I implore Democrats, if you catch yourself making any of the following arguments about why Trump shouldn’t be president, check your party before you wreck your party.

http://thefederalist.com/2016/12/14/3-d ... mediately/

The three argument BTW, are.

1. Clinton Won the Popular Vote, Or the Electoral College Is Unfair.

2. James Comey and the FBI Wanted Trump Elected.

3. The Russians Are Coming!

That would be great if

1. Clinton didn't win by the largest popular margin ever while losing. (Not sure what the percentage Tage difference is but it does cast a poor look on the Ec but not the election.

2. Comey was wrong and it damaged the reputation of the FBI and all investigative branches of govt. Though again doesn't affect the actual results.

3. Here, he's actually wrong. I realize the conservative dogma is pretend like bad things don't exist until you can make them disappear or they riot. But, a foreign power potentially tipping the scales for someone who very well might promote personal wealth over national interest is by definition what the EC is for.


All of that considered, the Democrats trying to be the adults in the room has pretty solidly failed them for the passed decade and a half. And we all know that continuing a failed strategy day in and day out is. So perhaps going all GOP and screaming conspiracies until it drowns out the opposition is the answer. (Though the racists thing backfired)

[Enough]

What a dumb article. Trump lost the popular vote by greater margin than any US President, but it's verboten to say such a thing as it hurts the delicate safe place for MAGAs. The Donald is not a free speech zone, stop hurting his feelings. Who cares if Clinton got 48% of the popular vote while Tump's election is being treated like a landslide win with a huge mandate? Not wise to counter that thinking you silly dems! Of course, had the situation been reversed, we know little Rip and big Rip would be in here hootin and hollerin' on the margin.

The FBI case is troubling. I don't think many truly believe it's the sole reason he won, but is it a factor? Duh, of course. Is it worth talking about how an immensely powerful intel gathering organization leaks half-baked information to the press that has direct bearing on elections? Of course it is if we still give a shit about our country. And you know, I think for a lot of the Trumpsters I know, actually that's just it. They are ready to throw a match and watch this fucker burn. It's post modernism at it's worst. Of my intelligent friends who voted for Trump, nearly all of them express this sentiment. They know he sucks and is the worst candidate, but won't he be fun to watch (and they all believe we are fucked regardless of who we elect so why not go for the more entertaining one?). A lot of Trump voters pulled that lever not out of policy considerations but more like it was directly connected to a live wire to make Americans (especially the evil Hilary supporters) twist and convulse in seizures. Oh so entertaining.

And even after mentioning Manafort's Russian mobster connections as legit, Hemingway lets us know it's still a really bad idea for the Democratic party to discuss Russian ties to the Trump admin? What a steaming hairy bunch of bullshit pie. This man is really a singular idiot of the highest order. But then Trump apparently has convinced millions of Republicans to start trusting the Russians much more...

There's been similar movement on the Putin question. In the summer of 2014, both Democrats and Republicans held negative views of the Russian president. His net negative rating with Democrats was 54 points; with Republicans, it was 66 points. At the time, the mainstream Republican foreign policy opinion was that a wily, aggressive Putin was rolling over U.S. interests in Europe. There was some punditry about Putin as a greater leader than President Obama, but it did not shift views of Putin himself.

Trump's campaign did so. There's been a 56-point positive shift among Republicans in their views of Putin; his net negative rating is now just 10 points. While Clinton voters view Putin negatively by 72 points, Trump voters do so by a slim 16-point margin.

That is a huge change of opinion seemingly overnight, I'd say the Russians got their money's worth. So maybe it's a bad idea electorally for Democrats to go after the Russia issue. But it still might be the right thing to do, no? I'm just so glad that mr. genius pants Hemingway is there to dispense this sage advice. He's really looking out for the dems interests lol.

[Rip]

Since the election, Democrats have really been down in the Trumps. Despite the tantrums and protests, it strikes me that Democrats must be okay with this state of affairs. Sure, they claim he’s Hitler with a spray tan, and on some level they might even believe this. But short of establishing that half the country are total masochists—the safety word is “MAGA”—why are they doing everything in their power to make sure he runs roughshod over them and wins so much he gets sick of winning? Because that’s what Democrats are doing.

If I wanted to discredit an entire political party, I’d do exactly what Democrats, grassroots and party bosses alike, are doing: whining and making excuses at every opportunity, right up to insisting there must be some fantastical way to overturn a decisive electoral drubbing.

The first step here should be to shut up and do some meaningful self-reflection about why Democrats lost. Yet precious few smart and influential Democrats are actually doing this. To paraphrase Mark Twain, it’s better to remain silent and be thought a loser than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

Even worse, the bellyaching about Trump’s victory has become tired and predictable even as it amounts to little more than wishcasting. Now is the time to be honest, so I implore Democrats, if you catch yourself making any of the following arguments about why Trump shouldn’t be president, check your party before you wreck your party.

http://thefederalist.com/2016/12/14/3-d ... mediately/

The three argument BTW, are.

1. Clinton Won the Popular Vote, Or the Electoral College Is Unfair.

2. James Comey and the FBI Wanted Trump Elected.

3. The Russians Are Coming!

That would be great if

1. Clinton didn't win by the largest popular margin ever while losing. (Not sure what the percentage Tage difference is but it does cast a poor look on the Ec but not the election.

2. Comey was wrong and it damaged the reputation of the FBI and all investigative branches of govt. Though again doesn't affect the actual results.

3. Here, he's actually wrong. I realize the conservative dogma is pretend like bad things don't exist until you can make them disappear or they riot. But, a foreign power potentially tipping the scales for someone who very well might promote personal wealth over national interest is by definition what the EC is for.


All of that considered, the Democrats trying to be the adults in the room has pretty solidly failed them for the passed decade and a half. And we all know that continuing a failed strategy day in and day out is. So perhaps going all GOP and screaming conspiracies until it drowns out the opposition is the answer. (Though the racists thing backfired)

Don't forget that these years of trying to kissyface with the Russians by the Democrats for all these years and failing to take a hard line on their aggressiveness is what emboldened Russia to these actions, assuming of course it turns out they did anything.

[Enough]

Since the election, Democrats have really been down in the Trumps. Despite the tantrums and protests, it strikes me that Democrats must be okay with this state of affairs. Sure, they claim he’s Hitler with a spray tan, and on some level they might even believe this. But short of establishing that half the country are total masochists—the safety word is “MAGA”—why are they doing everything in their power to make sure he runs roughshod over them and wins so much he gets sick of winning? Because that’s what Democrats are doing.

If I wanted to discredit an entire political party, I’d do exactly what Democrats, grassroots and party bosses alike, are doing: whining and making excuses at every opportunity, right up to insisting there must be some fantastical way to overturn a decisive electoral drubbing.

The first step here should be to shut up and do some meaningful self-reflection about why Democrats lost. Yet precious few smart and influential Democrats are actually doing this. To paraphrase Mark Twain, it’s better to remain silent and be thought a loser than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

Even worse, the bellyaching about Trump’s victory has become tired and predictable even as it amounts to little more than wishcasting. Now is the time to be honest, so I implore Democrats, if you catch yourself making any of the following arguments about why Trump shouldn’t be president, check your party before you wreck your party.

http://thefederalist.com/2016/12/14/3-d ... mediately/

The three argument BTW, are.

1. Clinton Won the Popular Vote, Or the Electoral College Is Unfair.

2. James Comey and the FBI Wanted Trump Elected.

3. The Russians Are Coming!

That would be great if

1. Clinton didn't win by the largest popular margin ever while losing. (Not sure what the percentage Tage difference is but it does cast a poor look on the Ec but not the election.

2. Comey was wrong and it damaged the reputation of the FBI and all investigative branches of govt. Though again doesn't affect the actual results.

3. Here, he's actually wrong. I realize the conservative dogma is pretend like bad things don't exist until you can make them disappear or they riot. But, a foreign power potentially tipping the scales for someone who very well might promote personal wealth over national interest is by definition what the EC is for.


All of that considered, the Democrats trying to be the adults in the room has pretty solidly failed them for the passed decade and a half. And we all know that continuing a failed strategy day in and day out is. So perhaps going all GOP and screaming conspiracies until it drowns out the opposition is the answer. (Though the racists thing backfired)

Don't forget that these years of trying to kissyface with the Russians by the Democrats for all these years and failing to take a hard line on their aggressiveness is what emboldened Russia to these actions, assuming of course it turns out they did anything.

So let's reward that action you point to and pivot towards friendship with Syria and Russia, woo hoo! I should have jumped on that Trump train, you guys are flippin' genius at statesmanship.

[Holman]

During Obama's first term it was crucial to re-engage with Russia after years of neglect by the Bush administration. There was the possibility of moving forward, and on some areas (including securing nuclear and other weapons from falling into terrorist hands) there was actual progress. Medvedev was at least partially interested in bringing Russia back into cooperation with the West, and the economic realities meant that it would be possible for us to do it on Western terms.

Putin's hard turn to the right seems to have surprised Medvedev as much as everyone else. Putin set about remaking Russia in ways we no longer went along with, and things broke down.

What's happening now is that Trump is perfectly comfortable going along. This isn't standing up to Putin; it's bowing down.

[Montag]

During Obama's first term it was crucial to re-engage with Russia after years of neglect by the Bush administration. There was the possibility of moving forward, and on some areas (including securing nuclear and other weapons from falling into terrorist hands) there was actual progress. Medvedev was at least partially interested in bringing Russia back into cooperation with the West, and the economic realities meant that it would be possible for us to do it on Western terms.

Putin's hard turn to the right seems to have surprised Medvedev as much as everyone else. Putin set about remaking Russia in ways we no longer went along with, and things broke down.

What's happening now is that Trump is perfectly comfortable going along. This isn't standing up to Putin; it's bowing down.

I thought Bush was initially warm to Russia but it fell apart after Georgia. Russia had not improved in the time of the reset - evidence Crimea. I am not a fan of being cozy with Russia right now, but we do need to be engaged to keep things from escalating. We will see if there is another annexation in the 2 - 3 year time frame.

[Kraken]

We will see if there is another annexation in the 2 - 3 year time frame.

That's going to depend mainly on how tied down they are in Syria. If Trump ends US support for the rebellion there and signals Putin that NATO won't interfere in Eastern Europe, then Putin will be free to do whatever the hell he wants. Which raises the question, what does he want? Ukraine?

[Max Peck]

We will see if there is another annexation in the 2 - 3 year time frame.

That's going to depend mainly on how tied down they are in Syria. If Trump ends US support for the rebellion there and signals Putin that NATO won't interfere in Eastern Europe, then Putin will be free to do whatever the hell he wants. Which raises the question, what does he want? Ukraine?

Putin wants revenge and respect, and hacking the U.S. is his way of getting it

The recent spate of embarrassing emails and other records stolen by Russian hackers is President Vladimir Putin’s splashy response to years of what he sees as U.S. efforts to weaken and shame him on the world stage and with his own people, according to Russia experts here and in the U.S. intelligence world and academia.

Putin is seeking revenge and respect, and trying to reassert Russia’s lost superpower status at a time of waning economic clout and an upcoming Russian election, according to interviews with specialists here and in Washington, with a senior U.S. intelligence official, recently retired CIA operations officers in charge of Russia, and the last three national intelligence officers for Russia and Eurasia analysis in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

“He’s saying, if you think you have the chops to do this — well, we do, too!” said Fiona Hill, a national intelligence officer for Russia during the George W. Bush and Obama administrations who is now at the Brookings Institution.

That's from back in September, but nothing has really changed (aside from Putin reaching Charlie Sheen levels of winning).

President Vladi­mir Putin is winning. For now.

The Russian leader is winning because the post-Cold War order he has railed against has been thrown into chaos, and the Kremlin’s fingerprints are widely seen to be all over it.

A year ago, Russia faced a united Europe, an expanded NATO alliance, a paucity of geopolitical allies and the possibility of four more years of poor relations with the United States under a Hillary Clinton presidency.

Today, Putin’s military contingent in Syria just helped the government essentially retake Aleppo. The CIA has concluded that his hackers worked to help elect Donald Trump, who has dismissed commitments to Europe and touted better ties with Russia.

In Washington, London, Berlin and Paris, Soviet-style propaganda is back. It’s been thoroughly updated, though, and comes packaged as fake news, cyberattacks and WikiLeaks. Whether or not the Kremlin is guilty of doing all the things Western accusers say it is, Russia is now considered a master purveyor of geopolitical disorder. And that, for Putin, is a win.

“Of course the Kremlin likes the fact of such an atmosphere of chaos,” Gleb Pavlovsky, a former Putin adviser, said in a recent interview. “Because we are traders of chaos. We sell it, and the more chaos there is in the world, the better it is for the Kremlin.”

But Putin’s successes, if that is what they are, are tactical and temporary, said Fiona Hill, a Brookings Institution scholar and co-author of a biography of the Russian leader. For years, Putin has been the world’s leader in geopolitical disruption, and the United States under President Obama has been a predictable force and therefore an easy target, she said. If Putin really did contribute to Trump’s victory, he may just have handed his crown over to his biggest rival.

“The land of unpredictability and surprise is the land that Putin and the Kremlin have inhabited for the last part of the last 10 years,” Hill said. “But now they’re not alone. Trump is going to be the great disrupter.”

[Defiant]

Update: 1,094 Bias-Related Incidents in the Month Following the Election

A new update from the Southern Poverty Law Center. While the raw numbers will probably continue to go up as more incidents are discovered, the data does suggest that it's leveling off, thankfully.

We’ve also been tracking false reports (13 total), as a handful of high profile incidents have been recently uncovered, including two (I, II) that we had previously counted and have removed for this update.

While it is almost certain that more false reports will be uncovered, and the SPLC will be quick to update our database, the right-wing narrative that this wave of incidents are all hoaxes simply doesn’t stand up to the numbers. Counting all 13 false reports (listed at the bottom of this post), of which only two were counted in our previous reporting, amounts to just over 1 percent of the total number of incidents collected in this update.

Which makes quite a difference from the claims that someone made that:

That is ridiculous, of course not everyone is a hoax. Not even half are hoaxes, but it could be a third or nearly that.

[Grifman]

Don't forget that these years of trying to kissyface with the Russians by the Democrats for all these years and failing to take a hard line on their aggressiveness is what emboldened Russia to these actions, assuming of course it turns out they did anything.

Unlike the Republicans under Bush who didn't try to make kissy face with Putin and who did very little after Russia invaded Georgia?

And I'd like you to tell me what exactly the US should have done that they didn't do after the Ukraine invasion? Other than going to war over this, what else could the US have really done other than the sanctions we have implemented? You talk a tough talk lots of times, Rip but you are awfully short on specifics. So what more should we have done?

[Holman]

And I'd like you to tell me what exactly the US should have done that they didn't do after the Ukraine invasion? Other than going to war over this, what else could the US have really done other than the sanctions we have implemented? You talk a tough talk lots of times, Rip but you are awfully short on specifics. So what more should we have done?

Under Trump it's not even a question of getting tougher. Our NATO allies want the sanctions continued, but I'll be surprised if they're still in place six months from now.

Oligarchs gonna oligarch. Putin and Trump are in the same alliance; it's just not ours.

[Rip]

Don't forget that these years of trying to kissyface with the Russians by the Democrats for all these years and failing to take a hard line on their aggressiveness is what emboldened Russia to these actions, assuming of course it turns out they did anything.

Unlike the Republicans under Bush who didn't try to make kissy face with Putin and who did very little after Russia invaded Georgia?

And I'd like you to tell me what exactly the US should have done that they didn't do after the Ukraine invasion? Other than going to war over this, what else could the US have really done other than the sanctions we have implemented? You talk a tough talk lots of times, Rip but you are awfully short on specifics. So what more should we have done?

Ukraine invasion? When did that happen?

Are you saying the vast bag of American options of responding to an annexation is sanctions or war? Really is that it?

To assert a direct and indisputable connection between the situation in Crimea and anything the United States or its European allies have done is difficult. As many of Putin’s apologists point out, Russia has always considered control of Ukraine a strategic priority. The chaos in Kiev and the fall of Moscow’s puppet, ousted president Viktor Yanukovych, was bound to trigger a Russian response. Options to forestall Putin’s invasion—whether by inviting Ukraine into NATO or threatening the use of force to defend Crimea—were never seriously considered.


Yet to admit that the West was powerless to prevent the invasion is not the same thing as to claim that decisions made by the United States played no role in Putin’s thinking. The Obama administration’s appeasement of Putin as he sought to reassert Russian power doubtless helped to convince him he could do as he liked without fear of serious repercussions. From the administration’s abandonment of missile defense in Poland and the Czech Republic, to its farcical attempt to “reset” relations with Russia, to its disastrous retreat on Syria last year, Obama’s weakness has emboldened the Russian leader.

The principal argument against this thesis rests on the fact that Putin invaded Georgia in 2008. If George W. Bush couldn’t stop Russia from overrunning a former component of the Soviet Union, why should Obama even try? But this is comparing apples to oranges. In Georgia a shooting war already existed between the Tbilisi government and pro-Russian separatists in a land geographically far removed from the West.

The better question to ask is why Putin did not take Crimea sooner. During Ukraine’s Orange Revolution in 2004 and 2005, nationalist protests toppled a pro-Moscow government led by the same Victor Yanukovych whose ouster prompted this year’s invasion. Why did Putin hold fast then? The answer is clear: In 2004, he was still unsure about Russia’s ability to project force beyond its borders and the West’s willingness to countenance such an act. Today he suffers neither of those doubts.

President Obama came into office in 2009 determined to change America’s image. The U.S. would no longer be a unilateral cowboy besotted with its own exceptionalism, but instead a multilateral conciliator. Regardless of the dubious merits of such a stance, one key to its implementation was to warm relations with Russia, which had chilled to new post-Cold War lows after the Georgia conflict. Outwardly, the new policy was made manifest in the snubs to erstwhile allies and Hillary Clinton’s comic photo-op with a “reset” button. Inwardly, the administration made a point of casting Russia in key roles on the world stage. For instance, Obama and Clinton made Putin’s consent the lynchpin to the administration’s lackluster efforts to stop the Iranian nuclear program. The Russians have their own reasons for worrying about a nuclear Iran, but their more equivocal approach to the issue acted as a brake on American diplomacy and sanctions, and empowered Putin in a manner no previous U.S. administration had.

But that was nothing compared to the way Russia profited from Obama’s precipitate retreat from his “red line” on the Syrian government’s use of chemical weapons. Bashar al-Assad represents the last vestige of the old Soviet empire’s sphere of influence in the Middle East, and Putin has invested heavily in his survival. Obama’s last-ditch deal to remove the country’s chemical weapons placed the process in Putin’s hands and essentially guaranteed the survival of Assad. The agreement not only signaled a U.S. withdrawal from its obligations in the area but also elevated Putin’s prestige and his sense of invulnerability.

Russia is no longer a rival superpower, but exactly the kind of dictatorship that is always encouraged by Western weakness. The consequences of an America in retreat will be felt around the world, as rogue regimes in Iran and North Korea have already demonstrated. Halting Russian revanchism will require the sort of strong American commitment to which Obama has shown himself allergic. It will also require us to reject the siren song of neo-isolationists, and recommit to maintaining our influence and defending our allies. Though Obama thought he could back away from troublesome arguments scot-free, Vladimir Putin has just reminded him that weakness always comes at a price.

https://spectator.org/58699_could-crime ... prevented/

[malchior]

Imagine that - he didn't actually answer the question asked. That is an impressive blurb but it again doesn't talk to - what was the alternative? It is the usual Obama is weak and encouraged Putin when the reality is that Obama had no strong option. If there is one thing that Putin and Trump have showed us it is that the norms don't stop bad people from succeeding as long as they are willing to face the consequences they know won't happen. Especially in Putin's case because they are unthinkable. Putin knew we weren't going to use force - end of story - because there was absolutely 0% chance we were going to use force. Obama not withstanding. Trump could have been a different story maybe because Putin wouldn't have known if that imbecile would overreact or not.

[Rip]

The answer is obviously to have not emboldened them to think they could do it in the first place. To have kept them thinking, that hey they might just react militarily to such a thing. As noted at the end of the article he set the table to not have any good options left. He had already blown any threat credibility he had by making a red-line in Syria and doing nothing.

Russians are just filling vacuums Obama created. In the end Putin has played him on Crimea, Syria, and Iran. Not bad for a country that isn't a superpower any longer.

Barack Obama has certainly mishandled Russia and Ukraine. Unfortunately, some critics want him to compound those errors by escalating progressively from harmless bloviating to empty threats. “To be honest, if we define our interests narrowly, if we applied a coldhearted calculus, we might decide to look the other way,” the president admitted in Brussels. “Our economy is not deeply integrated with Ukraine’s. Our people and our homeland face no direct threat from the invasion of Crimea. Our own borders are not threatened by Russia’s annexation.” Instead of taking these premises to their logical conclusion—that perhaps the United States shouldn’t involve itself too deeply—Obama predictably labeled such a “coldhearted calculus” as “casual indifference.” But many of his Republican critics suffer from a similar inconsistency, illustrated by the seemingly contradictory impulses of their electoral base.

[Combustible Lemur]

The answer is obviously to have not emboldened them to think they could do it in the first place. To have kept them thinking, that hey they might just react militarily to such a thing. As noted at the end of the article he set the table to not have any good options left. He had already blown any threat credibility he had by making a red-line in Syria and doing nothing.

Russians are just filling vacuums Obama created. In the end Putin has played him on Crimea, Syria, and Iran. Not bad for a country that isn't a superpower any longer.

Barack Obama has certainly mishandled Russia and Ukraine. Unfortunately, some critics want him to compound those errors by escalating progressively from harmless bloviating to empty threats. “To be honest, if we define our interests narrowly, if we applied a coldhearted calculus, we might decide to look the other way,” the president admitted in Brussels. “Our economy is not deeply integrated with Ukraine’s. Our people and our homeland face no direct threat from the invasion of Crimea. Our own borders are not threatened by Russia’s annexation.” Instead of taking these premises to their logical conclusion—that perhaps the United States shouldn’t involve itself too deeply—Obama predictably labeled such a “coldhearted calculus” as “casual indifference.” But many of his Republican critics suffer from a similar inconsistency, illustrated by the seemingly contradictory impulses of their electoral base.

I would argue that the bulk of th e problem sits on Bush/Cheney if we hadn't gotten mired in Iraq, which soured the American and international communities on American intervention Obama's options would have been much greater. Particularly if , without distraction, Bush had executed the Afghan war effectively. It was popular war at home, and at least acknowledged elsewhere. If that hadn't turned into Russian quagmire pt.2 perhaps a vacuum wouldn't have been demanded by the American people.

Also, if all this weakness and conciliation is bad in your eyes, why are you supporting a candidate who is ready to hand the rest of Eastern Europe over to Russia?

[malchior]

Even if Bush/Cheney hadn't blundered us into Iraq, I don't think we could threaten any sort of force that would have stopped Crimea. We had one realistic lever and it was sanctions. Russia is a kleptocracy and Putin is at the top of the chain. The only realistic thing we could ever do was put financial pressure on him. Reagan understood this when it was the Soviet Union on the other side but they weren't in the energy game yet so it was more effective for Reagan. Allegedly the financial pressure has been working to some degree but Trump might help him slip the noose. Anyway - the Obama is weak narrative is empty - you can't be strong if you don't have the cards and no one is going to buy the bluff. We have heard this Obama is weak on Russia and Syria thing for years but no one (credible) has any ideas about what else to do. This is just the usual GOP bullshit smear politics at play as usual. When they haven't any ideas (which is often nowadays) they just attack.

[gbasden]

Also, if all this weakness and conciliation is bad in your eyes, why are you supporting a candidate who is ready to hand the rest of Eastern Europe over to Russia?

This is the heart of the Rip enigma. He's in love with Trump who's ready to hand Eastern Europe and the Middle East to Russia on a platter because Putin said nice things about him and probably has compromising video. Meanwhile, Obama is horrible and awful because he didn't instigate a shooting war.

[Rip]

I disagree. Trump isn't about to give anything in Eastern Europe away. It is the globalists trying to give it all away, from the inside. OPen borders and refugee influxes are destroying Europe not Russia.

Russia is just trying to stay relevant in a world that was passing them by until Obama starting folding every hand because he didn't have a pair of aces.

[gbasden]

I disagree. Trump isn't about to give anything in Eastern Europe away. It is the globalists trying to give it all away, from the inside. OPen borders and refugee influxes are destroying Europe not Russia.

Russia is just trying to stay relevant in a world that was passing them by until Obama starting folding every hand because he didn't have a pair of aces.

Oh, sure. Right. That's entirely why the Baltic states are shitting bricks over Trump's win. Trump verbally downplaying NATO I'm sure didn't embolden his master at all. You are seriously spinning.

[Grifman]

Don't forget that these years of trying to kissyface with the Russians by the Democrats for all these years and failing to take a hard line on their aggressiveness is what emboldened Russia to these actions, assuming of course it turns out they did anything.

Unlike the Republicans under Bush who didn't try to make kissy face with Putin and who did very little after Russia invaded Georgia?

And I'd like you to tell me what exactly the US should have done that they didn't do after the Ukraine invasion? Other than going to war over this, what else could the US have really done other than the sanctions we have implemented? You talk a tough talk lots of times, Rip but you are awfully short on specifics. So what more should we have done?

Ukraine invasion? When did that happen?

Yes, Crimea is a part of Ukraine, and I think the Russians invaded, I don't remember them being invited by the Ukrainian govt. And Russian are fighting in the eastern part of the country, but if you don't like the term "invasion", feel free to use whatever word you want. We won't get hung up on what word to use to describe what Russian had done and is doing in the Ukraine.

Are you saying the vast bag of American options of responding to an annexation is sanctions or war? Really is that it?

No, you tell me, Rip. Don't point to the past and say if we had done X, Russia would not have intervened. That's pure speculation, and there's no proof of that, and it's water under the bridge. Tell me what Obama should have done. You said the US should have handled it differently, so you can't hid behind "we wouldn't have to have done anything if we had stood up to Putin earlier". What should we have specifically done with respect to Ukraine?

You're big on talk, but you rarely give any real answers. Time's now to put up or shut up. If not war, and more than sanctions, then what else? What is this "vast bag of options" you speak of? And show me that they would have made any difference. Inquiring minds want to know. Otherwise your rhetoric is as empty as Trump's.

[Rip]

I disagree. Trump isn't about to give anything in Eastern Europe away. It is the globalists trying to give it all away, from the inside. OPen borders and refugee influxes are destroying Europe not Russia.

Russia is just trying to stay relevant in a world that was passing them by until Obama starting folding every hand because he didn't have a pair of aces.

Oh, sure. Right. That's entirely why the Baltic states are shitting bricks over Trump's win. Trump verbally downplaying NATO I'm sure didn't embolden his master at all. You are seriously spinning.

Shitting bricks? That isn't what the article says, it says they are fearful.

There isn’t panic, but there is fear.

Why shouldn't they be with Democrats telling them we just elected Hitler. When they find out what is actually going to happen they won't be fearful any longer.

[Zarathud]

So we tell them not to be scared and stop being crybabies, so that makes it all better?

[gbasden]

Shitting bricks? That isn't what the article says, it says they are fearful.

1.

Why the people of the Baltic states are fearful of a President Trump - Many feel that Trump’s reluctance to challenge Russian aggression means Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania could face the same fate as Ukraine.

2.

Trump’s campaign comments strike particular fear in Baltics -
Republican nominee refuses to guarantee defense of region and will ‘look at’ easing Moscow sanctions

3.

Baltic States Have Most to Fear from Trump Victory - The Baltic nations rely on a NATO security commitment the Republican candidate has called into question.

There are loads more. They are pretty damned worried.

Why shouldn't they be with Democrats telling them we just elected Hitler. When they find out what is actually going to happen they won't be fearful any longer.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure they are going to continue to be fearful given that a best case scenario is that Trump is a loose cannon who's foreign policy depends on whose tweet he read last. In a worst case scenario, I'm guessing they still have clear memories of what happened the last time a fascist state made friends with Russia.

[Rip]

Shitting bricks? That isn't what the article says, it says they are fearful.

1.

Why the people of the Baltic states are fearful of a President Trump - Many feel that Trump’s reluctance to challenge Russian aggression means Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania could face the same fate as Ukraine.

He hasn't been in power to challenge any Russian aggression. What he will do is nothing but conjecture.

2.

Trump’s campaign comments strike particular fear in Baltics -
Republican nominee refuses to guarantee defense of region and will ‘look at’ easing Moscow sanctions

He will defend them in accordance with our obligations just like any other POTUS would. Ask Obama, he has said as much.

3.

Baltic States Have Most to Fear from Trump Victory - The Baltic nations rely on a NATO security commitment the Republican candidate has called into question.

There are loads more. They are pretty damned worried.

Why shouldn't they be with Democrats telling them we just elected Hitler. When they find out what is actually going to happen they won't be fearful any longer.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure they are going to continue to be fearful given that a best case scenario is that Trump is a loose cannon who's foreign policy depends on whose tweet he read last. In a worst case scenario, I'm guessing they still have clear memories of what happened the last time a fascist state made friends with Russia.

So we are a fascist state now?

Not to mention the ridiculousness of claiming we will be friends now just because Trump is POTUS. Relations may improve but Trump won't turn Russia into a friend any more than Nixon turned China into one.

[raydude]

2.

Trump’s campaign comments strike particular fear in Baltics -
Republican nominee refuses to guarantee defense of region and will ‘look at’ easing Moscow sanctions

He will defend them in accordance with our obligations just like any other POTUS would. Ask Obama, he has said as much.

Why ask Obama? Is he the President-Elect? Meanwhile our President Elect actually said he might abandon NATO's guarantee of mutual defense. There is no disputing that. Why you insist that he would absolutely defend NATO when he says he might not is beyond me. Nothing in what you have said vs. what Trump is actually doing makes me believe you are the Trump mind reader.

[Isgrimnur]

He lied about putting Hillary in jail, why would rip not expect him to lie about everything else?

[LordMortis]

Don't point to the past and say if we had done X,

It's also annoying as hell. Problem solving is not about wallowing in the past spending effort on laying blame. That attitude drives me crazy. The past as lesson for the future, great! The past as excuses for the future, makes me pissy. It's one of the things I liked about the military. The attitude. Shit happened. Get it right, going forward. It's something I've tried (and too often failed) to emulate in life.

[Ralph-Wiggum]

I just had my first personal encounter with a racist Trump supporter. In New Orleans for a conference and at the hotel gym are two older white dudes wearing Saints shirts (the gym is not just for people staying at the hotel). One of the dudes says to the other "This shows what we can do if we white people stick together. I hope Trump sends them all back to Africa. They can take the NBA with them". He later said something about Jews as well.

I was pretty amazed how openly and loudly they were talking about it, considering there were a number of people, including African Americans, in the gym. I don't know that I've ever heard someone be so blatantly racist in a public setting. Trump can say all he wants about condemning racism, but there's no doubt his election has at least embolden these sorts of people.

[Rip]

I just had my first personal encounter with a racist Trump supporter. In New Orleans for a conference and at the hotel gym are two older white dudes wearing Saints shirts (the gym is not just for people staying at the hotel). One of the dudes says to the other "This shows what we can do if we white people stick together. I hope Trump sends them all back to Africa. They can take the NBA with them". He later said something about Jews as well.

I was pretty amazed how openly and loudly they were talking about it, considering there were a number of people, including African Americans, in the gym. I don't know that I've ever heard someone be so blatantly racist in a public setting. Trump can say all he wants about condemning racism, but there's no doubt his election has at least embolden these sorts of people.

You should have suggested to them that the Saints would suck even worse than they already do were that to happen. Not to mention the crapfest LSU would be.

[$iljanus]

I just had my first personal encounter with a racist Trump supporter. In New Orleans for a conference and at the hotel gym are two older white dudes wearing Saints shirts (the gym is not just for people staying at the hotel). One of the dudes says to the other "This shows what we can do if we white people stick together. I hope Trump sends them all back to Africa. They can take the NBA with them". He later said something about Jews as well.

I was pretty amazed how openly and loudly they were talking about it, considering there were a number of people, including African Americans, in the gym. I don't know that I've ever heard someone be so blatantly racist in a public setting. Trump can say all he wants about condemning racism, but there's no doubt his election has at least embolden these sorts of people.

I wonder if they know about Trump's Jew son in law? But they probably would say something like "Oh he's one of the good ones."

[Holman]

[I assume this is the thread for talking about how Trumpism is changing America rather than about the administration itself.]

In the past few days, as opposition to Trump's Muslim ban has had great visibility and some success in pushing back, I've seen my conservative (generally Christian conservative) FB friends sharing and liking generalized anti-Muslim propaganda: videos claiming that Islam has been terrorist from the beginning, memes about Sharia tyranny in America, "Islam isn't a real religion," etc.

It's creepy as hell. This is the stuff that I've seen before from a couple of openly racist far-right friends-of-friends, but now it seems to be mainstreaming. It's exactly what you would want to see if you were trying to move the country from a War on Terror to a War on Muslims.

[LordMortis]

[I assume this is the thread for talking about how Trumpism is changing America rather than about the administration itself.]

In the past few days, as opposition to Trump's Muslim ban has had great visibility and some success in pushing back, I've seen my conservative (generally Christian conservative) FB friends sharing and liking generalized anti-Muslim propaganda: videos claiming that Islam has been terrorist from the beginning, memes about Sharia tyranny in America, "Islam isn't a real religion," etc.

It's creepy as hell. This is the stuff that I've seen before from a couple of openly racist far-right friends-of-friends, but now it seems to be mainstreaming. It's exactly what you would want to see if you were trying to move the country from a War on Terror to a War on Muslims.

Very soon after Trump won the primaries I saw some Federalist stuff on FB about how the history of the US is a history of the US not being able to deal Islam in rationally that dates to Jefferson and a number for fake news (before fake news was a meme) items with photoshopped images of Dearborn flying ISIS flags that were actually of a Muslim rally in Dearborn pleading to end the violence. I considered their rise pretty dispicable and that was about the time I started mentally blocking propaganda pretty much across the board. It wasn't until a few months later, I discovered how to *plonk* tripe sites. They may very well be getting more brazen through social media but I'm rarely exposed to it.

[Rip]

Such a precious snowflake.

[Andrew Wonser]

[Rip]

Hardly. I don't get deeply offended by anything.

Deeply offended is for snowflakes.