Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 jmurph wrote:
Wait, so we are pointing to a 9 year old video to show that the Democrats position now may say something different about international relations and claim it is hypocrisy? So should we also post Reagan videos talking about the evil empire? What about Bush saying Islam is not our enemy?

Or maybe time marches on and different candidates take different views....

Democrats opposed anti-Russia statements from both Reagan and Romney. Democrats seem worried about Russia only recently and only because President Trump won the election.

As for Bush saying that Islam is not our enemy, are you suggesting that it is?

 feeder wrote:
Grey Goose is French vodka. FRENCH!

...fething can't even pretend to be a commie right....

It's pretty good stuff, though.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
You literally just said "Russia is a problem that needs to be taken seriously. Democrats are wrong for investigating connections between the POTUS and Russia."

No, I did not. I said that Russia is a problem that needs to be taken seriously, however Democrats would rather make baseless charges against Trump and his appointees for political reasons.

But here's the thing, Russia isn't our greatest geopoltical "enemy". They are an enemy, but a rather insignificant one when compared to China.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
But here's the thing, Russia isn't our greatest geopoltical "enemy". They are an enemy, but a rather insignificant one when compared to China.

We have strong mutually beneficial economic ties with China. We have no such ties with Russia and most of Russia's economic interests conflict with ours, hence why we're on opposite sides in Syria over the proposed Qatari pipeline that would seriously erode the Gazprom pipeline's market share.

I for one welcome our Oriental overlords, unless they stop making our Kingdom Death and Malifaux figures, then it'll be war. International relations be damned, I want my Kickstarter toys.

 Breotan wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
You literally just said "Russia is a problem that needs to be taken seriously. Democrats are wrong for investigating connections between the POTUS and Russia."

No, I did not. I said that Russia is a problem that needs to be taken seriously, however Democrats would rather make baseless charges against Trump and his appointees for political reasons.

There seems to be an awful lot of evidence for those charges to be baseless. I'll note that politicians on both sides of the isle are calling for investigation.

I see we now have 2 people on this forum pointing to Obama being wrong about Russia while also hand waving away the Trump administration's links to Russia. I don't see how you can take both sides of this position: if Obama really was wrong about Russia, as you posit, it seems like you should be really, really upset about some of what has happened, but no, no big deal.

One of the things that always surprises me about this place is how willing some people are to surrender their intellectual vanity in pursuit of their partisanship - otherwise smart people taking up incredible silly positions that require them to publicly appear to be dumb as hell. It's truly remarkable, really.

 Breotan wrote:

 jmurph wrote:
Wait, so we are pointing to a 9 year old video to show that the Democrats position now may say something different about international relations and claim it is hypocrisy? So should we also post Reagan videos talking about the evil empire? What about Bush saying Islam is not our enemy?

Or maybe time marches on and different candidates take different views....

Democrats opposed anti-Russia statements from both Reagan and Romney. Democrats seem worried about Russia only recently and only because President Trump won the election.

As for Bush saying that Islam is not our enemy, are you suggesting that it is?

"Only recently" as in since their de facto invasion of Ukraine and their annexation of the Crimea? Yeah, that seems about right. Funny how that kind of action draws a dramatic and markedly different response from the global community.
Also, sorry, but digging up political views, for any kind of relevance, from during the Reagan(Cold War) era is just ridiculous. Partisan whataboutism sinking to desperate, new lows.

Apparently it's pointing out hypocrisy, Ds making fun of Romney but now damning Trump.

I really don't see it, but that's the only way I can rationalize otherwise intelligent people getting on board with the Trump-Putin love train.

 feeder wrote:
Apparently it's pointing out hypocrisy, Ds making fun of Romney but now damning Trump.

I really don't see it, but that's the only way I can rationalize otherwise intelligent people getting on board with the Trump-Putin love train.

It's a partisan muppet train, that conveniently overlooks the dramatic change in Russian behavior in 2012 versus their actions more relevant to today and it doesn't have any wheels.

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 feeder wrote:
Apparently it's pointing out hypocrisy, Ds making fun of Romney but now damning Trump.

I really don't see it, but that's the only way I can rationalize otherwise intelligent people getting on board with the Trump-Putin love train.

It's a partisan muppet train, that conveniently overlooks the dramatic change in Russian behavior in 2012 versus their actions more relevant to today and it doesn't have any wheels.

I agree, but to be entirely fair; in hindsight it does look like Obama underestimated Russia. And IMO he was a weak President in foreign policy overall. The logocal breakdown is that the Trump-Russia connections are very concerning and should not be shrugged aside.

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 feeder wrote:
Apparently it's pointing out hypocrisy, Ds making fun of Romney but now damning Trump.

I really don't see it, but that's the only way I can rationalize otherwise intelligent people getting on board with the Trump-Putin love train.

It's a partisan muppet train that conveniently overlooks Russian behavior in 2012 versus today and doesn't have any wheels.

First, I'm not on any Trump-Putin love train. I'm also not on the Trump H8 Train. If anything I'm in the train station waiting for President Trump and the Republicans to actually do something meaningful before I decide what train I need to buy my ticket for. Opposing the Democrats isn't buying a ticket on any Trump love train and suggesting so is just deflecting.

What I am doing is calling out the Democrats' behavior. You brought up Russian "adventurism" but left out the tepid response by the US when the President Obama was in office. When Russia invaded Georgia, President Bush imposed sanctions which President Obama rescinded a year later. In fact, you might remember Hillary Clinton and the "reset button" prop. President Obama's policy with Russia was to draw red (dotted) lines in the sands of Syria and then forget that he had done so. Now that Trump is President, it's time for Democrats to make a stand against Russia by using debunked document dumps and attacking everyone in the Trump administration as being Manchurian Candidate inspired operatives.

As for allegations, I say, prove it. If the Democrats can't then let it be clear to everyone that all they're doing is posturing for the 2018 mid-term elections. The sad thing is, even liberal/mainstream news agencies haven't found any proof that would support a single allegation that the Democrats have made.

I believe Russia is a serious concern for our national security. Congress and our President need to take Russia seriously, stop with frivolous unsubstantiated allegations and sniping at people's reputations, and start with serious foreign policy efforts to mitigate Russia's agenda in the world. I've yet to see anything serious from either side regarding Russia.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 feeder wrote:
Apparently it's pointing out hypocrisy, Ds making fun of Romney but now damning Trump.

I really don't see it, but that's the only way I can rationalize otherwise intelligent people getting on board with the Trump-Putin love train.

It's a partisan muppet train, that conveniently overlooks the dramatic change in Russian behavior in 2012 versus their actions more relevant to today and it doesn't have any wheels.

I agree, but to be entirely fair; in hindsight it does look like Obama underestimated Russia. And IMO he was a weak President in foreign policy overall. The logocal breakdown is that the Trump-Russia connections are very concerning and should not be shrugged aside.

Who's shrugging anything aside? I'm one of the most vocal proponents of getting to the bottom of this Trump/Russian morass.

Hindsight is judging Obama with today's glasses. Obama's primary mission, when he took office in the aftermath of 2008/9, was to focus exclusively on the domestic front and do everything possible to assist in the abatement of the economic collapse and orchestrate a recovery plan. Who gave a feth about Russia during the collapse? That's right, nobody. When Russia started not playing nice, the US...Obama...and others leveled sanctions that slammed the Russian economy rather dramatically.

On the state of the Russian economy post 2014 sanctions: "According to Herman Gref from Sberbank, the contraction of Russian economy is "not a crisis but rather a new reality" to which it has to adapt, primarily due to the low oil prices. He also presented a number of metrics demonstrating the change - the GDP has fallen by 3.7%, income - by 4.3%, salaries - by 9.3% and inflation reached 12.9%. However, during December 2015 it was reported by the Moscow Times that the number of people living at or below the poverty line, "those with monthly incomes of less than 9,662 rubles ($140)" increased by more than 2.3 million people. During 2014-2015 a quarter of banks in Russia left the market, the expenses of Russian bank guarantee fund reached 1 trillion roubles plus additional government funds for recapitalisation of banks reached 1.9 trillion roubles."

And on the way out the door, after overwhelming evidence of Russian "interference" in the election became apparent, wave 2 of sanctions were levelled.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Breotan wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 feeder wrote:
Apparently it's pointing out hypocrisy, Ds making fun of Romney but now damning Trump.

I really don't see it, but that's the only way I can rationalize otherwise intelligent people getting on board with the Trump-Putin love train.

It's a partisan muppet train that conveniently overlooks Russian behavior in 2012 versus today and doesn't have any wheels.

First, I'm not on any Trump-Putin love train. I'm also not on the Trump H8 Train. If anything I'm in the train station waiting for President Trump and the Republicans to actually do something meaningful before I decide what train I need to buy my ticket for. Opposing the Democrats isn't buying a ticket on any Trump love train and suggesting so is just deflecting.

What I am doing is calling out the Democrats' behavior. You brought up Russian "adventurism" but left out the tepid response by the US when the President Obama was in office. When Russia invaded Georgia, President Bush imposed sanctions which President Obama rescinded a year later. In fact, you might remember Hillary Clinton and the "reset button" prop. President Obama's policy with Russia was to draw red (dotted) lines in the sands of Syria and then forget that he had done so. Now that Trump is President, it's time for Democrats to make a stand against Russia by using debunked document dumps and attacking everyone in the Trump administration as being Manchurian Candidate inspired operatives.

As for allegations, I say, prove it. If the Democrats can't then let it be clear to everyone that all they're doing is posturing for the 2018 mid-term elections. The sad thing is, even liberal/mainstream news agencies haven't found any proof that would support a single allegation that the Democrats have made.

I believe Russia is a serious concern for our national security. Congress and our President need to take Russia seriously, stop with frivolous unsubstantiated allegations and sniping at people's reputations, and start with serious foreign policy efforts to mitigate Russia's agenda in the world. I've yet to see anything serious from either side regarding Russia.

I love it when someone yells "deflecting" while the majority of his/her post talks about a) Clinton, b) Obama, c) Bush...do you read what you post? We're here and now. Trump, both on a personal and administrative level, has bothersome ties to Russia that are going to be, and need to be, thoroughly investigated. As far as "I've yet to see anything serious from either side regarding Russia." Can I just ask, what constitutes "serious" to you? Flynn lying to Veep, not serious? Trump, Jr. taking speaking fee for talking before Pro-Russian Syrian group? Overwhelming chorus of NatSec bodies stating Russia "interfered" with POTUS election to the benefit of one candidate...TRUMP!? Sessions worming his way around answering direct question from a U.S. Senator regarding contact with Russia? The theme here is unavoidable, the straws keep getting piled on that camel's back and it's not fictitious. Bringing these to light and keeping them there is not "posturing", so don't try and take the "I believe Russia is a serious concern for our national security." stance while saying that allegations are "frivolous". Let's get an independent body to investigate this THOROUGHLY and let the chips fall as they should. This should have been put into motion the fething SECOND NatSec released their findings on Russian POTUS election tampering.

Are we really going to insist on drawing a false equivalence between Obama making foreign policy choices that you disagree with in his official capacity as president, and Trump's administration having hidden and questionably legal ties to Russia and then lying about them?

 Peregrine wrote:
Are we really going to insist on drawing a false equivalence between Obama making foreign policy choices that you disagree with in his official capacity as president, and Trump's administration having hidden and questionably legal ties to Russia and then lying about them?

The false equivalence is just a required "go to" for some. It's become such a crutch for so many of their arguments that it's like a natural appendage for them at this point.

Now I'm off to the gym for continued New Year's resolution adherence...two full months so far, I can't believe I'm still doing this.

 Breotan wrote:
however Democrats would rather make baseless charges against Trump and his appointees for political reasons.

When even republican critters are saying that we need to investigate this, I'd say we're beyond baseless charges.... I will however, concede that many Democrats are taking things a step or two too far.

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 feeder wrote:
Apparently it's pointing out hypocrisy, Ds making fun of Romney but now damning Trump.

I really don't see it, but that's the only way I can rationalize otherwise intelligent people getting on board with the Trump-Putin love train.

It's a partisan muppet train, that conveniently overlooks the dramatic change in Russian behavior in 2012 versus their actions more relevant to today and it doesn't have any wheels.

I agree, but to be entirely fair; in hindsight it does look like Obama underestimated Russia. And IMO he was a weak President in foreign policy overall. The logocal breakdown is that the Trump-Russia connections are very concerning and should not be shrugged aside.

Who's shrugging anything aside?

Breotan and others who seem to think there is no substance to the Trump-Russia connection. Don't get me wrong--I agree with you that Trump's administration should be investigated and advocating for such is hardly a Democratic witch hunt. I was simply pointing out that Obama/Dems have indeed handled Russia poorly in the past, its not like they have a great record. I still feel its ridiculously partisan to simultaneously claim that the Democrats were wrong in being too light on Russia but also are wrong in correcting their mistake--if Democrats were not calling for an investigation right now I'm sure the same people would be talking about how terrible it was that they weren't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
however Democrats would rather make baseless charges against Trump and his appointees for political reasons.

When even republican critters are saying that we need to investigate this, I'd say we're beyond baseless charges.... I will however, concede that many Democrats are taking things a step or two too far.

This is a better way of saying what I was trying to say.

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 feeder wrote:
Apparently it's pointing out hypocrisy, Ds making fun of Romney but now damning Trump.

I really don't see it, but that's the only way I can rationalize otherwise intelligent people getting on board with the Trump-Putin love train.

It's a partisan muppet train, that conveniently overlooks the dramatic change in Russian behavior in 2012 versus their actions more relevant to today and it doesn't have any wheels.

Sir , you forget yourself! Even in the most intense of debates, the most strident and caustic of verbal fisticuffs, using the muppets as an insult is a blow too low for America.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Breotan and others who seem to think there is no substance to the Trump-Russia connection.

Is that what I am saying? Or am I saying that the newspapers & Democrat critics need to pony up with some factual evidence of wrongdoing? I'm pretty sure I'm saying the latter.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I still feel its ridiculously partisan to simultaneously claim that the Democrats were wrong in being too light on Russia but also are wrong in correcting their mistake...

I don't believe the Democrats are correcting their mistake. With examples such as Al Franklin using the discredited document dump as source material their efforts do look more like a witch hunt than honest interest in national security. Other Democrats being shocked and aghast at Senator Sessions meeting Russians also strikes a sour note when they are themselves shown to be doing exactly the same thing, if not moreso.

Allegations are meaningless unless you have some sort of facts backing them up. The Democrats have yet to produce any.

 Breotan wrote:
I for one welcome our Oriental overlords, unless they stop making our Kingdom Death and Malifaux figures, then it'll be war. International relations be damned, I want my Kickstarter toys.

Before we get too hasty here, I really want to put in a plug for chinese food, cant live without it!

In other news Trump has proposed cutting the NOAA's budget by 18%, at a time when we need it most (for both climate change research, and large weather event early warning).

Make our country great again, by letting it be destroyed.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
In other news Trump has proposed cutting the NOAA's budget by 18%, at a time when we need it most (for both climate change research, and large weather event early warning).

Make our country great again, by letting it be destroyed.

Hey, when you want have a (completely pointless) increase in the military budget you have to make sacrifices somewhere!

 Ouze wrote:
I see we now have 2 people on this forum pointing to Obama being wrong about Russia while also hand waving away the Trump administration's links to Russia.

All I'm saying that it's time to pony up and provide some proof of what is being alleged. So far that hasn't happened.

As for President Trump's ties to Russia, which ones are worrisome to you? Why? How do you believe those ties will harm American and what do you believe Congress needs to do about them? Oh, and while we're on the subject, exactly which of those ties are as troubling or more so than President Obama reassuring President Medvedev about issues such as missile defense after the election of 2012? If I were to search your post history, would I find evidence of you being as outraged about that as you appear to be about President Trump's ties to Russia?

 Ouze wrote:
I don't see how you can take both sides of this position: if Obama really was wrong about Russia, as you posit, it seems like you should be really, really upset about some of what has happened, but no, no big deal.

Because I'm not taking both sides of this position. After the document dump being proven a fabrication, election hacking not having actually happened, and the power grid not actually having been hacked, I simply want more than people making allegations. The only thing Russia seems to actually have been behind is the WikiLeaks stuff and that wound up being a "bunch of nothing" that didn't sway anyone. If you want to accuse President Trump of being a Siberian Candidate, then you should at least prove it. Short of that, an actual fact or two would be nice.

 Ouze wrote:
One of the things that always surprises me about this place is how willing some people are to surrender their intellectual vanity in pursuit of their partisanship - otherwise smart people taking up incredible silly positions that require them to publicly appear to be dumb as hell. It's truly remarkable, really.

Are you saying that asking for proof of anything alleged so far is a silly position? The House and Senate both have oversight committees and I would hope they both do their due diligence in monitoring Russia and take action should something relevant actually be discovered. What happened this past week by the Democrats is brinksmanship, not oversight. How much "intellectual vanity must you have surrendered in pursuit of partisanship to not see that?

Call me when President Trump's administration actually does something for Russia and I'll look to see if it is troubling or not, but I'll not be swayed by false or unsubstantiated allegations.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
In other news Trump has proposed cutting the NOAA's budget by 18%, at a time when we need it most (for both climate change research, and large weather event early warning).

Finally, something bothersome President Trump has actually done other than mouthing off on Twitter. NOAA is an agency that does important work and I don't see how an 18% cut to their budget is useful. I hope the Republicans block this.

Yeah, I'm not taking that bait no matter how much you jiggle it. I've realized, finally, how much of a waste of time it is to argue with some of you. At this point I'm just pointing out how clownshoes some of these positions are, not attempting to get drawn into what I now know is a totally, wholly fruitless endeavor.

I've grown weary of seeing articles like what USA Today ran about "Trump loosens sanctions on Russia spy agency" and the weeklong hate parade that follows only for it to be shown to be untrue by Snopes or some other fact checking group. I'm tired of being expected to ride that merry-go-round by people who only seem to care about how they can justify their hatred of President Trump. I expect people (here on Dakka, or at news agencies, or in Congress, or wherever) to provide some sort of factual, verifiable evidence of what is being alleged before I make any judgement about it. It's what I've been saying these past few pages an I really don't think it's unreasonable, much less a clownshoes position.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
In other news Trump has proposed cutting the NOAA's budget by 18%, at a time when we need it most (for both climate change research, and large weather event early warning).

Make our country great again, by letting it be destroyed.

Hey, when you want have a (completely pointless) increase in the military budget you have to make sacrifices somewhere!

You guys are soooo lame, didnt you know that with a bulldozer blade and wheels that an aircraft carrier can make new highways?!! and with all those extra troops we can pick fruit! once stuffs destroyed its easier to rebuild, just clear away the bodies with your carrierdozer (TM)

 Breotan wrote:
I've grown weary of seeing articles like what USA Today ran about "Trump loosens sanctions on Russia spy agency" and the weeklong hate parade that follows only for it to be shown to be untrue by Snopes or some other fact checking group. I'm tired of being expected to ride that merry-go-round by people who only seem to care about how they can justify their hatred of President Trump. I expect people (here on Dakka, or at news agencies, or in Congress, or wherever) to provide some sort of factual, verifiable evidence of what is being alleged before I make any judgement about it. It's what I've been saying these past few pages an I really don't think it's unreasonable, much less a clownshoes position.

For starters... The DNC was hacked by Russian agents, Michael Flynn didn't resign over nothing, and Sessions lied to congress about speaking with Russia. I'd elaborate but im just not that patient with willful ignorance.

what a difference a year makes eh ?





Trump, 3:47 pm: "I hear by..." (deleted)


Trump, 3:48 pm: "We must fix our education system..."



Trump, 3:49 pm: "I hearby..."



still 3rd time's the charm eh ?


https://twitter.com/mitchellreports/status/837721112884695040

Fmr Deputy CIA Dir David Cohen on Yemen raid: It was not approved by the Obama administration. I was there, I was in all of those meetings.

https://twitter.com/AmbassadorRice/status/837786417682067460

Cohen is correct. It is false that the Yemen raid was approved by the Obama Admin. No specific conop ever presented to WH for that raid.

Seems to be some dispute about the value -- if any -- of the intel seized there too.

But, apparently, it was all the military's plan/idea anyway.



..as long s his dinner was alright though yeah ?

 reds8n wrote:




Trump, 3:49 pm: "I hearby..."



still 3rd time's the charm eh ?

I can't help but feel that there should be some kind of basic literacy requirement for being President.