U.S. Politics: One NothingBurger with 100% Mos-Cow, Side of Orange Slices and a Banana Daiquiri, Please

[Red Tiger]

1 hour ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Drama queen much? It's not quite the armageddon you make it out to be.

Really, what is this terrible fear people have of Putin? Putin's focus has primarily been, and remains, to bring his country back from the brink of the collapse it faced at the turn of the millenium, and having it take its place as a great power in the world. Not as the dominant power, but as a great power, in a multipolar world alongside the likes of the US, Germany, Britain, France and increasingly the likes of China and India as well.

This bogeyman image of him liberals hold up as something to scare us with is ridiculous. The US and Russia together can achieve far more than if they try and hamper each other's efforts.

EDIT

Not just liberals, I have to add. Also senile old farts like John Mccain, and conservative warhawks stuck in a long gone paradigm of the capitalist West vs the Communist USSR. Communism is dead. And that was the main threat Russia presented to us.

Im sorry but aren't you conservative folk supposed to be the people who oppose dictatorships?

This guy silences the press, kills people who speak out, manipulates votes and has no checks on his power whatsoever.

[DMC]

7 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Is this a joke?  Today's American conservatives rely heavily on magical thinking.  They aren't realists in the least.  

Well, I suppose it wasn't a joke per se, but yes - tongue was firmly directed towards cheek.

[Free Northman Reborn]

If Russia had a Western style leader and style of government in place from the nineties onwards it would no longer be a country today, but a shadow of its former self. A failed state living on Western handouts. It was on the brink of falling apart when Putin took over.

I have to ask the question. Not to absolve Putin of whatever his critics find so reprehensible, but to understand their motivations. Why is Xi Jinping not similarly reviled by these Western critics? China is authoritarian, does not have a free press, forcibly annexed territories like Tibet, supports rogue states like North Korea, exercises aggressive territorial ambitions in the South China Sea against the interests of Western allies, and is, like Russia, a nuclear armed permanent member of the United Nations Security Council.

Why is it not viewed in the same way as Putin's Russia is by these "crusaders for freedom?"

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

3 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

If Russia had a Western style leader and style of government in place from the nineties onwards it would no longer be a country today, but a shadow of its former self. A failed state living on Western handouts. It was on the brink of falling apart when Putin took over.

I have to ask the question. Not to absolve Putin of whatever his critics find so reprehensible, but to understand their motivations. Why is Xi Jinping not similarly reviled by these Western critics? China is authoritarian, does not have a free press, forcibly annexed territories like Tibet, supports rogue states like North Korea, exercises aggressive territorial ambitions in the South China Sea against the interests of Western allies, and is, like Russia, a nuclear armed permanent member of the United Nations Security Council.

Why is it not viewed in the same way as Putin's Russia is by these "crusaders for freedom?"

Because our POTUS is not holding up Xi Jinping or any other Chinese leader as being some shining example of leadership that he aspires to be.

[Red Tiger]

59 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

If Russia had a Western style leader and style of government in place from the nineties onwards it would no longer be a country today, but a shadow of its former self. A failed state living on Western handouts. It was on the brink of falling apart when Putin took over.

I have to ask the question. Not to absolve Putin of whatever his critics find so reprehensible, but to understand their motivations. Why is Xi Jinping not similarly reviled by these Western critics? China is authoritarian, does not have a free press, forcibly annexed territories like Tibet, supports rogue states like North Korea, exercises aggressive territorial ambitions in the South China Sea against the interests of Western allies, and is, like Russia, a nuclear armed permanent member of the United Nations Security Council.

Why is it not viewed in the same way as Putin's Russia is by these "crusaders for freedom?"

1. China gets criticized for being fascist as hell all the time, I don't know where you get your news from. The irony here is that Trump likes to talk more about the jobs lost than them actually embodying everything America supposedly hates.

2. Xi Jinping is not nearly as prominent in the news as Putin is. He is not as well-known, because he doesn't reach out to the West as often as Putin does. The minute he does, you will hear plenty.

[DMC]

4 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

If Russia had a Western style leader and style of government in place from the nineties onwards it would no longer be a country today, but a shadow of its former self. A failed state living on Western handouts. It was on the brink of falling apart when Putin took over.

That's a ludicrous and groundless counterfactual.  Plus, wtf does "Western style of leader/government" even mean?  Separation of powers?  Common decency?

6 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

I have to ask the question. Not to absolve Putin of whatever his critics find so reprehensible, but to understand their motivations. Why is Xi Jinping not similarly reviled by these Western critics?

(1) Because Xi Jinping has not taken public and direct action against our interests, and (2) because he is not setting himself up as a target by behaving in such a way to invite criticism, and (3) what @Manhole Eunuchsbane said.

[Free Northman Reborn]

Being the lone voice on an overwhelmingly liberal forum invetiably results in one having to respond to a dozen counter arguments whenever you so much as click submit on a post that states your point of view. Which means either you spend your whole day in a futile effort to try and address them all, or you summarize your position and accept that it will be drowned out by the majority.

Before I therefore rest my case for the time being, acknowledging that I won't convince you all, or even any of you for that matter. let me say that the last few posts aren't being honest, even with themselves. The Putin scaremongering predates Trump's rise to power by years, if not by a decade or more. So the idea that his rumored meddling in the election process is a primary cause of this anti-Russia sentiment doesn't hold water, I'm afraid.

And the supposed outrage at how he "supposedly" treats his own people is also strange, given that there are many countries in the world that treat their citizens far worse who don't seem to generate the same type of militant outrage. In fact, it is pretty clear that a significant majority of Russians support Putin.

As for the threat he supposedly poses to the United States. I'm sorry. But I fail to see which of the US strategic interests are so heavily endangered by Russia. Do they threaten the US economic dominance of the world? No, but China does, and in fact presents an ever increasing threat on that front, as Trump rightly pointed out during his campaign.

Does Putin threaten the US militarily? I'd argue that China's failure to stop supporting North Korea presents a much greater physical threat to the United States than Russia's support of Assad or other regional power games do. And in fact, there are plenty of strategic reasons to believe that Putin's treatment of the Syria issue is actually the approach the US should be following too, if it was looking after its own interests which primarily focus on destroying militant Islam.

The Russian threat is overblown. There are far bigger threats to the US in this world.

[DMC]

8 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

<snip>

I empathize with you taking an obviously unpopular position that will generate wholesale pushback, but that's part of the fun of it, right?  Otherwise you wouldn't have said anything in the first place.  You asked why Putin garners more attention than other leaders, and were given clear and logical reasons why.  You said the threat of Russia is overblown and is not the primary concern confronting US interests, and I agreed.

Now you say "Putin scaremongering predates Trump's rise to power by years, if not by a decade or more. So the idea that his rumored meddling in the election process is a primary cause of this anti-Russia sentiment doesn't hold water, I'm afraid."  You're right in that Putin has been a problem since well before Trump, but you have no point here.  The US government and media has covered Putin throughout his despotic reign.  It's why McCain saying "I looked into Putin's eyes and saw KGB" on Meet the Press a decade ago is common knowledge to political observers.  And meddling with our election process did elevate the attention and criticism of Putin, for entirely the right reasons.  I'd be more sympathetic to your plight of the sole voice being drowned out if your arguments had any merit or reason.

[Red Tiger]

1 hour ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Being the lone voice on an overwhelmingly liberal forum

Hyperbole bullshit

1 hour ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Before I therefore rest my case for the time being, acknowledging that I won't convince you all, or even any of you for that matter. let me say that the last few posts aren't being honest, even with themselves. The Putin scaremongering predates Trump's rise to power by years, if not by a decade or more. So the idea that his rumored meddling in the election process is a primary cause of this anti-Russia sentiment doesn't hold water, I'm afraid.

Oh so you have ESP now?

1 hour ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

And the supposed outrage at how he "supposedly" treats his own people is also strange, given that there are many countries in the world that treat their citizens far worse who don't seem to generate the same type of militant outrage. In fact, it is pretty clear that a significant majority of Russians support Putin.

Right, cause getting 60-70% of the vote several times is completely normal.

 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

29 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

The Russian threat is overblown. There are far bigger threats to the US in this world.

In regards to recent circumstances? I have to disagree. There are few things more influential to the course of this country than a presidential election, and Russia clearly played a part in getting this embarrassment elected.

[Kalbear]

Yep, it's clear that Trump is going for conservative interests, which is why the Senate overwhelmingly voted by a 97-2 margin...for more Russian sanctions. Curse those liberals like Graham! Curse those warhawks like Collins!

Quote

The Russian threat is overblown. There are far bigger threats to the US in this world.

That's almost certainly true. It's also almost certainly meaningless. 

North Korea is a signficantly more unstable government, and we should do what we can to oppose them. That does not mean we should do nice things for Russia, or ignore it when Russia does active espionage against the US. 

China is significantly more powerful than Russia in virtually every way, and we should do what we can to make deals with them which benefit us. (China is also significantly more useful to make deals with than Russia). That does not mean we should do nice things for Russia.

Really, one of the most telling arguments that you make, @Free Northman Reborn, is that the current US stance towards Russia benefits Russia greatly. That's true! Letting Russia play in Europe to their hearts' content, letting them bully other countries, letting them support Iran and Syria and get their own puppets in the Middle East - this is all super beneficial to Russian interests. But it's not at all beneficial to the US. Russia is a weak, fairly single-based economy with poor trade and not a lot of cheap, useful labor. It has a decent military which has proven time and again that it is not at all particularly good to ally with in military doctrine or design (Russian military is fine with civilian casualties which would make the US blanch openly). Furthermore, the US allying with Russia closes the door on a number of other relationships that are stronger overall - the EU, China, much of OPEC, Israel. 

This is where the argument really falls apart for you. Ignoring an active espionage act against the US has some pretty big consequences to the US as a whole, but it is certainly doable; we've done it in the past with Israel, as an example. But what is the gain? Making the relationship 'better' isn't a pragmatic goal at all, nor does it provide any outcome. US policy should always be to set its own goal and then seek out how to get there, and 'improving relations' isn't a good goal to set. Yet it seems to be the one that Trump is going for, despite massive bipartisan resistance and no actual value in doing so.

[Mexal]

45 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

<snip>

The one thing you ignore here though is that anti-Russia sentiment was mostly pushed by Conservatives up until Putin interfered in our election. That elevated the anti-Russia sentiment on the left, made it a bit more bipartisan and is a direct contradiction to the way that our current president views them. That's all part of the issue on both sides. The rhetoric for or against Putin is entirely in line with the political views rather then what Putin has actually done, what he represents and what he will continue to do. Conservatives used him as a boogyman and now that Russia has helped them take power, he's now perfectly fine. Democrats didn't really give a shit about him, thought what he could do was minimal due to their economy and that they would eventually collapse on himself but then he went and interfered in our election and now he's the boogyman. It's frustrating to see Conservatives give up their long held belief for power and it's frustrating for Democrats to only care after they've been wronged while showing zero foresight.

As for the Russia threat itself, I think you underestimate it. In 2016, they made an active attempt to subvert our democracy and hurt Clinton by swaying the public with disinformation (this includes the hacking, releasing and creation of stories from the emails). By doing this, they helped get Trump elected (definitely not a sole reason, too many other variables but they contributed). The consequences of those actions? Nothing. What do you think they'll do in 2018? The same thing but better because they will have learned from their mistakes and our current President, at best, doesn't give a shit and at worst, wants them to because it guarantees his power. What happens in 2020? The same thing but worse for the same reasons. And by worse, I don't just mean disinformation but active ops against our election systems and voter roles. Why? Because it's really obvious which states matter, it's really easy to get into them and our current government doesn't even acknowledge that Russia did anything so they're doing fuck all to ensure it doesn't happen again.

And that's just the election. They can do far worse elsewhere like our national power grid. 13 nuclear power plants were just infiltrated and the main suspect is Russia. Does that not worry you in the least? Because it worries me. If there are no consequences to anything Russia does, whether in the US or in the rest of the world (Ukraine, Syria, Montenegro, etc) then why should they stop? Why wouldn't they ramp it up? They clearly feel they have an advantage and the most powerful country in the world actually welcomes it. Right now, Russia is testing their cyber war on Ukraine and perfecting it.  

I get there are more unstable countries out there like North Korea or Syria. I get there is a never ending war in the Middle East with all the atrocities and that there is terrorism. But in none of those situations has a foreign country hit us at home and hit us where it matters, our democracy. Russia has and they will continue to exasperate the current political climate with disinformation, they will continue to look for ways to penetrate our systems and they will continue to test their methods in third world countries. And unless the US government recognizes this threat and does something to deter it, things will only get worse.

[Free Northman Reborn]

32 minutes ago, Mexal said:

The one thing you ignore here though is that anti-Russia sentiment was mostly pushed by Conservatives up until Putin interfered in our election. That elevated the anti-Russia sentiment on the left, made it a bit more bipartisan and is a direct contradiction to the way that our current president views them. That's all part of the issue on both sides. The rhetoric for or against Putin is entirely in line with the political views rather then what Putin has actually done, what he represents and what he will continue to do. Conservatives used him as a boogyman and now that Russia has helped them take power, he's now perfectly fine. Democrats didn't really give a shit about him, thought what he could do was minimal due to their economy and that they would eventually collapse on himself but then he went and interfered in our election and now he's the boogyman. It's frustrating to see Conservatives give up their long held belief for power and it's frustrating for Democrats to only care after they've been wronged while showing zero foresight.

As for the Russia threat itself, I think you underestimate it. In 2016, they made an active attempt to subvert our democracy and hurt Clinton by swaying the public with disinformation (this includes the hacking, releasing and creation of stories from the emails). By doing this, they helped get Trump elected (definitely not a sole reason, too many other variables but they contributed). The consequences of those actions? Nothing. What do you think they'll do in 2018? The same thing but better because they will have learned from their mistakes and our current President, at best, doesn't give a shit and at worst, wants them to because it guarantees his power. What happens in 2020? The same thing but worse for the same reasons. And by worse, I don't just mean disinformation but active ops against our election systems and voter roles. Why? Because it's really obvious which states matter, it's really easy to get into them and our current government doesn't even acknowledge that Russia did anything so they're doing fuck all to ensure it doesn't happen again.

And that's just the election. They can do far worse elsewhere like our national power grid. 13 nuclear power plants were just infiltrated and the main suspect is Russia. Does that not worry you in the least? Because it worries me. If there are no consequences to anything Russia does, whether in the US or in the rest of the world (Ukraine, Syria, Montenegro, etc) then why should they stop? Why wouldn't they ramp it up? They clearly feel they have an advantage and the most powerful country in the world actually welcomes it. Right now, Russia is testing their cyber war on Ukraine and perfecting it.  

I get there are more unstable countries out there like North Korea or Syria. I get there is a never ending war in the Middle East with all the atrocities and that there is terrorism. But in none of those situations has a foreign country hit us at home and hit us where it matters, our democracy. Russia has and they will continue to exasperate the current political climate with disinformation, they will continue to look for ways to penetrate our systems and they will continue to test their methods in third world countries. And unless the US government recognizes this threat and does something to deter it, things will only get worse.

Interesting post.

In my view, it is based on some emotive, unsubstantiated  opinions. For example, what logical reason would Russia have to hack US nuclear power systems now of all times? Even if they did hack some political party databases during the election (and note I state IF), why would they be the ones continuing with such actions if it is in their interest for the heat to die down on the isssue right now? I call bogus on that claim. Not criticizing you for posting it here, but questioning whoever is making it the claim in the first place. Far more likely to be North Korea, or Iran or some other current enemy of the US.

Secondly, on a more general point, does Russia suddenly have the most capable hackers in the world? Would every other adversary in the world not be aiming to take similar actions to further their interests, now and in future?  In fact, is the US not doing similar stuff to influence other countries's political processes by whatever means it has at its disposal?

Perhaps if the US and Russia established closer ties Russia would have less motivation to take such actions.

In the end we just disagree on the pros and cons of allying with various countries. Possibly because we have different world views and different end states in mind. To me the primary reason the USSR was our enemy, was their Communist ideology. Putin himself in a previous interview states that he was quite perplexed that the West did not embrace Russia after the Communist party lost power in Russia. How they govern their nation internally, and how they try to exert themselves as a regional power should not concern the US, when there are so many larger issues on which the two nations can cooperate successfully.

[Larry of the Lawn]

18 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

 How they govern their nation internally, and how they try to exert themselves as a regional power should not concern the US, when there are so many larger issues on which the two nations can cooperate successfully.

Oh yeah?  Does this extend to other states, for example, Saudi Arabia?  This hard-on for Russia is hilarious.

[Free Northman Reborn]

2 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Oh yeah?  Does this extend to other states, for example, Saudi Arabia?  This hard-on for Russia is hilarious.

Yet another example of the lack of consistency, yes. Saudi Arabia should be above Iran on the list of enemies. And yet they are warmly embraced. For some reason.

This particular issue is not a Democrat/Republican divide, I might add. The inconsistency stretches across both parties.

[Red Tiger]

1 hour ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Yet another example of the lack of consistency, yes. Saudi Arabia should be above Iran on the list of enemies. And yet they are warmly embraced. For some reason.

This particular issue is not a Democrat/Republican divide, I might add. The inconsistency stretches across both parties.

By who?

[Free Northman Reborn]

11 minutes ago, Red Tiger said:

By who?

It would help if these brief interactions - already limited by the medium in which we are communicating - are actually genuine attempts to share views. Instead, I assume the above post was supposed to be some kind of trick question or snarky reference to the fact that Trump recently signed another arms deal with Saudi. Well, if you think I'm going to defend that I'm afraid you are in for some disappointment.

I am most certainly not here to defend all of Trump's mistakes - of which there are many. Nor is it my intention to paint the Republicans as saints or heroes that do no wrong. I have views on particular issues. Whoever represents them in the political spectrum is irrelevant. The Russia issue is an example. Much of the Republican party is stuck in this anti-Russia paradigm. Which I think is outdated and ridiculous.

Similarly, sufficient influence has been exercised by various pressure groups to make the US treat Saudi as an ally, when they should be nothing of the sort.

[Dr. Pepper]

I always like when someone asks a basic question, such as "Like who", and a conservative becomes all tongue tied.

[Red Tiger]

1 hour ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

It would help if these brief interactions - already limited by the medium in which we are communicating - are actually genuine attempts to share views. Instead, I assume the above post was supposed to be some kind of trick question or snarky reference to the fact that Trump recently signed another arms deal with Saudi. Well, if you think I'm going to defend that I'm afraid you are in for some disappointment.

This seems fitting for this situation

I only asked you who was "warmly embracing" Saudi Arabia. I wanted to know about these people or countries who were doing this, simple enough information. At this point, I don't care about any of your views.

[Free Northman Reborn]

Just now, Red Tiger said:

This seems fitting for this situation

I only asked you who was "warmly embracing" Saudi Arabia. I wanted to know about these countries who were doing this, simple enough information. At this point, I don't care about any of your views.

I assumed you weren't actually ignorant of the US's historically cozy relationship with Saudi Arabia, hence reading more into your question than what it asked at face value. Guess I overestimated you then. My apologies.

To answer your simple question then with a simple answer: The United States.