What are the Great Things President Joe Biden Has Done While President
Yes, the forums are dramedy. The forums can be quite enjoyable.
If no one else is going to point out the conceitedness of assuming someone doesn't understand what conceit means, I will.
And to follow that up with a full on novel of words is also highly entertaining.
As to vaccinated versus unvaccinated, using CDC data (gee, who would have thought to look there?), during April 4–December 25, 2021, a total of 6,812,040 COVID-19 cases among unvaccinated persons and 2,866,517 cases among fully vaccinated persons were reported among persons aged ≥18 years in 25 U.S. jurisdictions that reported data.For those that like to use actual data for their arguments and not opinion, I might be.
" As to vaccinated versus unvaccinated "In regard to what, infection rate, death? This was not part of the conversation. I don't think anyone that is in this back and forth is against vaccines in any respect.
And in regard to the CDC, I offered a couple of links to the CDC to prove my point that everyone can spread Omicron. Guess you may not have caught that post. And actually, I think I can speak for others on this point --- you rarely offer sources. Now me -- I am the queen of sources --- one only needs to have a look-see at my comments.Valeant - I guess Sharlee will never understand that by simply saying "my point that everyone can spread Omicron. " leads to a false impression that, regarding the spread of the virus, it doesn't make any difference whether you are vaccinated or not. The CDC absolutely says the vaccinated are less likely to spread the disease. It makes a major difference by lumping the vaccinated and unvaccinated into one word "everyone", which implies equivalency.
You never said; what is the difference in terms of probability of spreading the disease? 50% vs 49%?
All the forms of government information about COVID have deteriorated into spreading fear rather than giving full, accurate information, including the CDC. So what is the actual difference - something beyond "It is greater!".I don't know what you are reading, Wilderness, but it certainly isn't what I wrote.
And your blanket condemnation of gov't information is also very telling.Was reading your post to Valeant where you say "The CDC absolutely says the vaccinated are less likely to spread the disease."
The question is how much less? 1%? 50%? Given that Omicron appears to attack vaccinated and unvaccinated almost equally, what is the difference in the probability of passing it on? Is the difference in population (3-1 vaccinated) a part of that calculation? From the CDC, not from you; you have already made it clear that you think there is a vast difference but you have given nothing in the form of support for that opinion.
The condemnation should be telling. Anyone that blindly accepts anything they are told by government is an idiot and incompetent to make decisions. All of it is suspect, very nearly all of it originates from political desires to control and very nearly all of it comes from partisan politics attempting to convince a gullible public that the left, or the right, has all the answers. Hardly any of it comes with the "whole story", presenting only what that political party wants you to hear. None of it is intended to provide sufficient information for individuals to make an informed decision.Well hell, I was going to butt into this `all are equal' tangent, but you already nailed it.
However, (you know I always have one), I wouldn't have bolded "All." All is a dangerous conditioner. My first thoughts were; yeah, but, and I thought about possible exceptions to your "All."
Since I'm too lazy on this Sunday morning to ponder `deep' stuff, I'm gonna think about today's NFL playoff games. ;-)
My gut still worries about agreeing with "All," but you've been on a roll in this thread, so, `'yeah, what he said . . . '
GAYes, of course all is an exaggeration. There has to be a piece of information somewhere that is the "truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth", even out of the swamp.
But it is exceedingly rare to see such a strange event, and I will stand by that statement.
Don't bother with the playoffs today - the only one that matter this week was yesterday.
"The CDC absolutely says the vaccinated are less likely to spread the disease."
I have not located this statement in regard to Omicron, and that is what was being discussed early on. I was aware they made that claim about COVID/Delta. However, in regard to Omicron, The CDC clearly states --
"Spread CDC
The Omicron variant likely will spread more easily than the original SARS-CoV-2 virus and how easily Omicron spreads compared to Delta remains unknown. CDC expects that anyone with Omicron infection can spread the virus to others, even if they are vaccinated or don’t have symptoms."
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nc … riant.html
At one point the CDC did make the claim that if one was vaccinated they had a lesser chance of spreading it. But Omicron is much different in its composition, it can be passed by both Vaccinated and unvaccinated, this was a sticking point I was having with ECO . The fact is both vac's and unvac's can spread Omicron. The CDC has not placed how easily Omicron spreads compared to Delta. The numbers speak loudly that we all can spread Omicron quickly, and easily.
Currently, 95% of cases are Omicron. The other strain at this point is irrelevant. It will be interesting to see if our vaccination in any respect cut down on us spreading Omicron. In my view, my own experience with everyone at my Christmas Eve dinner becoming ill within hours of each other tells me the Vaccine worked to give 27 people mild symptoms, but it is also clear we spread it with ease. No one went uninfected, all were mildly ill, some had no symptoms.
I realize some took offense to me sharing this experience, claiming it downplayed the virus. This was not my purpose. My purpose was to share my own unique experience with Omicron. No more no less. I would hate to remove even a bit of fear from those that fear Omicron. LOL
Again no source --- You need to post a link to the CDC in regards to The CDC absolutely says the vaccinated are less likely to spread the disease. This would appear to be misinformation...
CDC --- Spread
The Omicron variant likely will spread more easily than the original SARS-CoV-2 virus and how easily Omicron spreads compared to Delta remains unknown. CDC expects that anyone with Omicron infection can spread the virus to others, even if they are vaccinated or don’t have symptoms.
Once again CDC source https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nc … riant.htmlWhy not fact check my claim yourself. Simple search of how many cases for vaccinated versus unvaccinated. It's not rocket science.
But here is the link: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/ … mm7104e2_w
And what that data confirms is that the vaccinated are about a third less likely to be infected by the various forms of virus from April to December. They have been saying the vaccinated are more protected from the virus for a long time now. The data prove the claim.From your link:
"Weekly COVID-19 cases (April 4–December 25, 2021) and associated deaths (April 4–December 4, 2021) by vaccination status, including additional and booster doses starting October 3, were reported from 25 state and local health departments..."
I don't know about you, but it is that single bolded word that makes me wonder. It is my impression, from many COVID cases I know of, that few vaccinated people are reporting it. The symptoms do not justify even a doctor's care, let alone hospitalization, and they just stay home for a few days. As many have no symptoms at all the problem is exacerbated even more.
If that is even half as true as I expect it is then the statement from the CDC is almost worthless, even in determining how many people got the disease let alone how many passed it on. It would do you well to read what is presented with a questioning attitude rather than simply assuming that because it is "official" it is gospel truth and that you are not being misled by incorrect, OR by partial information.So they have no symptoms, but they know they have Covid? Your logic makes zero sense. And you do realize that many unvaccinated can also have asymptomatic Covid cases, right?
Your impressions often tend to be very wrong, so if that's what you are relying on and applying that universally for some sort of proof, I think I'll stick to the reported data. And even assuming some of the recent cases fit that impression, it doesn't change the four million difference in cases enough to validate the original point.
So, as always, you are arguing for the sake of arguing without invalidating the conclusion. In other words, conversing with you continues to be a waste of time.I most certainly did NOT say that symptom free people know they have COVID. On the contrary, the point is that they have it but nobody knows it, including the CDC. Therefore, when the CDC reports the number of people with COVID it is badly understated, particularly for vaccinated people as it is primarily that group that has very mild symptoms. Not 100% (before you complain about that, too) but quite a high percentage.
I'm sure it is indeed a waste of time for you; you have your opinion and aren't interested in hearing anything that does not agree with it. The consistent refusal to even consider that you don't have all the information is not a concern; all that matters is information that reinforces your opinion. Not even the CDC's acknowledgement that they do not have complete information about the number of COVID cases is of concern as that might indicate your opinion is wrong.You cannot even understand the point that I made. That both vaccinated and unvaccinated can have asymptomatic cases so both groups' numbers would rise. Thereby, the original separation of data would continue to reinforce the original point that was made. Instead, you only wish to haggle over words instead of acknowledging a contrary opinion.
Then, as always, you attempt to frame someone else's train of thought in such an incorrect manner in a poor attempt to be offensive. It's where conversations with you always end up and why you're a waste to engage."That both vaccinated and unvaccinated can have asymptomatic cases so both groups' numbers would rise."
But I did address that. From my post: "Therefore, when the CDC reports the number of people with COVID it is badly understated, particularly for vaccinated people as it is primarily that group that has very mild symptoms." Perhaps you should learn to read with a fine eye to understanding.
As near as I can tell, your opinion is that CDC reports are accurate and true, without consideration for the reality we see. Without consideration for the known errors that they acknowledge is built into their reports, you still insist that they are near perfect.
So yes, your "train of thought" is almost certainly false to fact, and although my reply was probably a little offensive that is in direct response to your own offensive comments. "So, as always, you are arguing for the sake of arguing without invalidating the conclusion. In other words, conversing with you continues to be a waste of time."'As near as I can tell, your opinion is that CDC reports are accurate and true, without consideration for the reality we see. Without consideration for the known errors that they acknowledge is built into their reports, you still insist that they are near perfect.'
Like I said, you do not understand my point at all. My argument is that even if there is undercounting, it would affect both vaccinated and unvaccinated since both have cases that would be mistaken for the common cold or asymptomatic.
Thereby, the disparity in cases still proves the point - which is something you cannot accept. You are arguing for something that does not disprove the point. So you are just arguing for the sake of arguing, trying to distract from the fact that you cannot accept the original point, and wasting everyone's time."My argument is that even if there is undercounting, it would affect both vaccinated and unvaccinated since both have cases that would be mistaken for the common cold or asymptomatic. "
Then you are assuming that the probability of getting COVID without symptoms, or with minor symptoms, are equal for the vaccinated and unvaccinated. The information that I see out there is that this is totally false; that vaccinations goes a long, long way to minimizing symptoms if you DO get the disease. Indeed, the thrust of arguments for vaccination are more towards ameliorating reactions and symptoms than preventing the disease today with the Omicron variant being so infectious. From what I'm reading the current vaccines don't do much at all towards preventing getting the Omicron variant...just helping to make it easy to live with if (when) you DO get it.
This can be seen in statistics for hospitalizations and deaths; the vaccinated (even though double the percentage of the population than unvaccinated) seldom need a hospital and seldom die from COVID. The bad cases are almost entirely in the unvaccinated crowd.As always, a false assumption that ignores the actual data. What I am arguing is that the undercounting based on the rates of vaccinated and unvaccinated asymptomatic cases still would not undercut the original argument based on the significant difference (4 million cases) in the reported data.
And your data for believing that the Omicron variant produces no more asymptomatic cases (or minor symptoms not worthy of even a doctor let alone a hospital) than the Delta variant or the original SARS virus? I don't think the CDC, or any other health experts will agree, but what are you basing your statement on?
My data went from April to December, as I stated, to show that those vaccinated were less likely to transmit the various forms of the virus from that time period. You seem to want to ignore the stated time frame of the data to try and apply it to omicron transmission rates.
What is the point of this discussion. What does it mean if Wilderness is right and what does it mean if you are right. In my view, you both are, but to what end.
Other than a measure, over time, of how bad infections are, which is important in its own right, what else does knowing the absolute number of reported cases get us?
To me, the more relevant numbers are hospitalization rates and death rates, both of which are relatively accurate.
Val, Your logic is right on and would be factual as stats show. However, ECO seems to feel if one is vaccinated they are apt to not spread Omicron as readily as the unvaccinated. He claimed I was spreading misinformation.
At this point, the CDC says differently. What would appear is once again due to Omicron being newish, there is still a lot they do not know, but at this point have put out this info --- CDC expects that anyone with Omicron infection can spread the virus to others, even if they are vaccinated or don’t have symptoms.
I would guess it is time for me to just say, I have done all I can to prevent the spread myself, and will continue to do so. I have been a good citizen and as a nurse when asked by my state to come out of retirement a couple of days a week in the first months of COVID I did.
I as many here hoped more would step up and be vaccinated. I spoke endlessly with acquaintances about the benefits being vaccinated would bring us all. I did say at this point I have reevaluated the situation
currently, and will move on, still trying to keep others and me safe with mitigations.
Not sure how so many have a problem with my decision.
I in no way wanted to offend you."However, ECO seems to feel if one is vaccinated they are apt to not spread Omicron as readily as the unvaccinated. He claimed I was spreading misinformation." - [I[The issue is your response to my true claim. You write At this point, the CDC says differently., and that is misinformation. Even your follow-on doesn't support your claim that the CDC says differently (meaning, they no longer know if the unvaccinated and vaccinated transmit Omicron at the same rate). You quoted "CDC expects that anyone with Omicron infection can spread the virus to others, even if they are vaccinated or don’t have symptoms". That in NO WAY indicates whether the unvaccinated continue to be 2/3rds (using Valeant's data) more likely to spread the virus or not. It simply states the obvious and did not comment on whether vaccinated or the unvaccinated more easily spread Omicron.
You need to be more current when you speak about COVID. And I am still waiting for you to produce a link to substantiate your comment. You are all over the place. Provide a current source where the CDC claims the vaccinated have a lesser chance of spreading Omicron. Otherwise, you can't with confidence say being vaccinated will result in a person's ability to have a decreased ability to spread Omicron. Unless you feel the CDC has put out misleading info because they state they just have not come to a conclusion on whether vaccinated people have a lesser ability to spread it. They have stated --
Spread
"The Omicron variant likely will spread more easily than the original SARS-CoV-2 virus and how easily Omicron spreads compared to Delta remains unknown. CDC expects that anyone with Omicron infection can spread the virus to others, even if they are vaccinated or don’t have symptoms". https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nc … riant.html
As you might note they do not say vaccinated persons have a better chance not to spread Omicron.
But, at this point, I must just say believe what you please, hell don't let the CDC get in your way. I think I will go with their info.
I am still waiting for the CDC link to confirm your view --- The CDC absolutely says the vaccinated are less likely to spread the disease.
If you provide this link it could work to clarify and prove your statement factual.I provided it and you imply that the CDC wasn't talking about Omicron.
Being the queen of links and the queen of sources are two separate things. Especially if you cannot process the information in those links much like you could not understand those were Covid case totals from April to December between vaccinated and unvaccinated as it clearly states in the paragraph I copied from the CDC website.
Those totals go to the misinformation being stated here that claims that a vaccine does nothing to prevent the spread. The totals are very clear proof that those vaccinated are less susceptible to the virus.
And the claim that the vaccine was untested is also false as the scientists had the vaccine created even before the first case arrived in the United States and had ten months of testing.
This is the kind of misinformation that is not opinion but either ignorance or outright lying that we see all the time at this site.
I just had a long-awaited, only with the help of a fertility specialist, grandbaby two weeks ago. And I can tell you this: it was no fun in a hospital full of Covid patients and unvaccinated nurses. If you won't get vaccinated to save your own life, do it for children who have no protection. Even a mild case for you would not be a mild case for a newborn. Can you understand that?
Congratulations!!!
And your message is on point.
I actually think most religions say something about caring about someone other than yourself.
I suspect Evangelicals may not be one of those. It is my observations that the liberal wing of most religions give freely. But, for conservative religions, it often comes with strings.
Also chiming in on the semiconductor chip issue:
Before the coronavirus pandemic even arrived in 2020, Then President Donald Trump’s trade policies cut into the number of semiconductors available in the United States. In 2018, as part of his trade war with China, Mr. Trump imposed 25% tariffs on $34 billion worth of Chinese imports, including semiconductors. Those tariffs are still in effect, and chip imports from China have fallen by half as the price has gone up.
China now accounts for only about 5% of imported semiconductors, according to research firm Panjiva. But imports from other countries have not gone up to offset the lost supply from China.
Another Trump policy may have caused even more damage. In 2019, the Trump administration banned the sale of American-made components, including semiconductors, to the Chinese telecom giant Huawei, in an effort to disenfranchise the maker of networking gear and smartphones. That had several undesirable consequences. For one, it created a disincentive to make chips in the United States because producers couldn’t sell them to one of the world’s largest customers. Huawei begin to get chips from suppliers in Japan and South Korea that weren’t subject to the ban. China also boosted its own production of chips, and it began hoarding them, in case the U.S. action intensified. The U.S. semiconductor industry says Mr. Trump's actions cost U.S. firms millions in sales.
“The Trump administration had a clumsy approach to a complex supply chain,” trade economist Chad Bown of the Petersen Institute for International Economics wrote recently in Foreign Affairs. “The fiasco contributed to the current shortages, hurting American businesses and workers. Now, the Biden administration must pick up the pieces."
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/how-trum … 26179.htmlThe US economic recovery from the depths of the Covid pandemic continued strong last year. The best in almost 40 YEARS!
https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/27/economy/ … index.htmlDespite the brief deceleration in third-quarter GDP, economic growth throughout 2021 had been robust as vaccinations picked up across the country and stay-in-place behaviors began to abate. For the full-year 2021, GDP grew at a 5.7% rate, marking the fastest since 1984. And this marked a sharp reversal from the contraction seen in the economy in 2020, when GDP shrank by 3.4%.
U.S. gdp growth rate for 2020 was -3.49%, a 5.65% decline from 2019.
U.S. gdp growth rate for 2019 was 2.16%, a 0.84% decline from 2018.
U.S. gdp growth rate for 2018 was 3.00%, a 0.66% increase from 2017.
U.S. gdp growth rate for 2017 was 2.33%, a 0.62% increase from 2016.ICYMI: President Biden directs $100 million from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to lower energy bills for working families
Why not? Most of the bill wasn't about rebuilding crumbling infrastructure anyway - why not use it as just another wealth redistribution wealth program as well?
Still lying about what's in the bill I see. This is what we see here at this site. We provide all you far-right posters with the information. You stop talking about your falsehoods for a month, and then go right back to trying to repeat them like we didn't prove you wrong the first time. Is it stubbornness or just a desire to spread misinformation that motivates you?
Just depends on what one views as infrastructure.
CNN --- "Does only 7% of Biden's infrastructure plan go toward US infrastructure?
CLAIM
A day after Biden's announcement, an email from the Republican National Committee claimed "Joe Biden's 'infrastructure' plan is not really about infrastructure, it is another multi-trillion dollar far left wish list," echoing similar complaints made about the Covid-19 relief package, the American Rescue Plan.
According to the GOP, "Only 7% of the bill's spending is for what Americans traditionally think of as infrastructure."
CONCLUSION
The GOP claim that just 7% of the bill's spending applies to infrastructure is misleading. That being said, the debate over what technically counts as infrastructure is a real one, and much of the bill's spending falls outside even the broadest of definitions."
"Biden's plan includes $621 billion for transportation, $400 billion for homecare service, $300 billion for manufacturing and $180 billion for research and development.
Under their "traditional" definition of infrastructure, the GOP email limits what counts as infrastructure spending to include the $115 billion the plan allocates for modernizing highways, roads and main streets, $25 billion to airports and $17 billion for inland waterways, ports and ferries.
However, Biden's plan also calls for $85 billion to modernize public transit, $80 billion for Amtrak, $50 billion to safeguard critical infrastructure and $20 billion to improve road safety. The GOP email does not provide an explanation for why those investments are not considered part of infrastructure.
If we include the aforementioned $235 billion additional funding for transportation infrastructure, plus the $126 billion for building housing units, the $112 billion to build public schools and improve community college facilities, the $111 billion for water infrastructure, the $100 billion for digital infrastructure and the $100 billion for power infrastructure, infrastructure accounts for about 30% of the $2.65 trillion plan as announced by the White House.
The Republicans could have fairly argued that a majority of the funds aren't going directly to infrastructure projects but the 7% number relies on a the GOP's own narrow definition of infrastructure.
https://edition.cnn.com/factsfirst/poli … 9a9e857582'...infrastructure accounts for about 30% of the $2.65 trillion plan as announced by the White House.'
This just shows that you're on the same uneducated plane of existence as the bill that was passed, the one were are talking about, was not $2.65 trillion. Please get current on what is in the actual bill so you can reasonably join in the discussion.Even If you use the 1900 definition of infrastructure, the Republicans, as usual, are wrong. But, unlike the backward looking Conservatives, the rest of us realize the world moves on and definitions must change with it.
"Is it stubbornness or just a desire to spread misinformation that motivates you?"
Neither - it is a willingness to look at truth and accept it for what it is whether good or bad. Unfortunately you are not a part of that group.Right, because when I listed everything in the bill for you, you stopped replying. Yeah, if you call that a look at the truth, I would call it dodging the truth.
But I'll entertain you on this one. Go ahead and post what was passed. You made the claim, back it up with facts."it is a willingness to look at truth and accept it for what it is whether good or bad. " - Then I recommend you try it sometime like the rest of us do. It might be illuminating
And those family's will need it, with the rising prices. The poor will suffer the worst.
That is why President Biden is doing it. I can't believe you are praising him.
Obama had his moment with Osama bin Laden
Trump had his moment with Bagdadi (one of his very few good accomplishments)
Now Biden has his moment with Abu Ibrahim al-Hashimi al-Qurayshi
https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/03/politics … index.htmlWOW!!! President Biden oversees a whopping 467,000 jobs ADDED to the economy!!!
https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/04/economy/ … index.html
So many people rejoined the job market that it forced the unemployment rate up to 4%.The economy in 12 charts:
GOOD Indicators:
* US Payroll keeps growing at a stead pace
* Unemployment rate still near all time lows
* GDP keeps growing setting records each month
* Debt-to-GDP ratio keeps falling from Trump's high
* 30-year mortgage rate increased again in February, a leading indicator of a strengthening economy
* Housing starts increased as of Dec 1, for the 2nd month in a row
*The S&P/Case-Shiller US national home price index, a measure of America's wealth, sets yet another new record
NEUTRAL Indicators:
* 10-year Treasury rate remains relatively unchanged
* Inventory-to-sales ratio remains relatively unchanged
* S&P 500 falls from over inflated highs.
BAD Indicators:
* Consumer spending declined a little in November and December
* CPI, as of Dec 1, 2021, is still increasing
Since there are two BAD indicators, Trump Republicans and those with BDS will declare a failed economy. The rest of us will take note that 8 indicators were GOOD and 2 were neutral telling us the economy is STRONG.
https://www.cnn.com/business/economic-g … rketribbonScott: This is from the NY Times 2/2/2022
Why are so many part-time workers struggling to find full-time work during a labor shortage?
Wait it out
Brenda Garcia, who works at a Chipotle in Queens, has a problem that may sound surprising in today’s tight labor market. She is a part-time employee who wants more work, but the restaurant keeps assigning her less than 20 hours a week.
“It’s not enough for me,” Garcia told my colleague Noam Scheiber. “They’re not giving me a stable job.”
Garcia is one of millions of Americans who want an established, full-time work schedule and are struggling to find it, as Noam explains in a Times article. As a result, these part-timers struggle with not only low pay but also uncertain shifts that can change at the last minute, disrupting the rest of their lives. The workers can obviously quit, but they often find that the other jobs available to them have similar problems.
How could this be when the country is in the midst of a labor shortage in which employers are struggling to fill jobs? Because executives at many companies have decided that part-time work is too important to abandon just because the labor market is temporarily tight.
Part-time work allows companies to hold down labor costs in two crucial ways. First, companies can reduce their benefit costs because part-time workers often do not receive health care and retirement benefits. Second, companies can change staffing levels quickly, to meet demand on a given day or week, rather than having workers sit idle during slower periods.
“It’s very deeply embedded in employers’ business models,” Noam — who covers workers and the workplace from Chicago — told me. “They’re incredibly reluctant to give it up, even if it means enduring labor shortages and elevated turnover in the short and intermediate term. Basically, they think it makes more economic sense to wait out the current shortages than to fundamentally change their labor model.”
That may well be a rational decision for individual businesses. The shift toward flexible, part-time and often outsourced work is a major reason that corporate profits have risen in recent decades. After-tax corporate profits have accounted for more than 7 percent of national income in recent years, up from an average of 5.6 percent from the 1950s through the 1970s, according to the Commerce Department.
If employers shift away from part-time work during a tight labor market like today’s, they worry they will be stuck with higher labor costs for years. “Employers will typically try everything else first — raising wages, offering bonuses and other financial incentives, giving part-timers more hours temporarily,” Noam explains. “All these measures are reversible, and presumably will be reversed once the labor shortages subside.”
Striking workers at King Soopers in Glendale, Colo.Michael Ciaglo/Getty Images
The power dynamic
Companies have been able to insist on so much part-time work largely because they have more negotiating power over workers than in the past. The corporate sector is more consolidated than it was decades ago, leaving the average employer with more resources and the average worker with fewer alternatives in any given industry.
Workers, for their part, are much less likely to belong to a union than in the past. And union members make more money than similar nonunion workers, as an extensive study of the U.S. economy by economists at Princeton and Columbia has found. Unions effectively shift some of a company’s revenue from profits to wages. Shrinking unions, in turn, have contributed to growing economic inequality.
One way that unions tend to lift wages is by putting pressure on companies to hire people full time — and threatening to strike if the companies refuse.
Last month, unionized workers at King Soopers, a supermarket chain mostly in the Denver area and owned by Kroger, went on strike. They made the growth of part-time work a central issue. In the strike’s settlement, Kroger agreed to contract language that will likely lead it to add 1,000 or more full-time jobs over the next three years. A majority of jobs at King Soopers are still part-time, but the settlement has changed the balance.
“Without a labor union that could organize a strike and provide strike pay, it’s hard to see how most workers could pressure their employers to make a similar change,” Noam said.
In the short term, a tight labor market will lift wages for many American workers. If it were to persist for years — which is unlikely — it might alter the balance of power between workers and employers. But the more plausible way that balance could change is through government policy.
The House has passed a bill called the PRO Act that would make it easier for workers to form unions, and President Biden supports it. Among other things, the bill would bar companies from requiring employees to attend anti-union meetings and would impose financial penalties on companies that fire workers for trying to organize a union.
The bill seems stalled in the Senate, where Republicans oppose it. Democrats may try to pass some of the bill’s provisions along party lines in coming months.
The bottom line
The increasing inequality of the U.S. economy over the past half-century is unlikely to end because of a temporarily tight labor market. “Labor shortages may be a necessary condition for changing the nature of these jobs,” Noam says, “but they’re generally not a sufficient condition.”
Sharlee: " I think in your zeal to make Biden look like a hypocrite, you didn't stop to realize that getting the courts to stop the leases was his plan in the first place."
I could have believed that if I did not see him add many more oil leases to the auction in Nov 2021.
I see it as a win for the environmentalist that took the case to court. They stopped not only Trump's oil leases he left, but all the once Biden added. But guess you can overlook that. I look at it as a cheap grift that went bad, as do most of Biden's grifts. He always ends up getting caught.
"he may have gone along with the leases knowing they would not be approved? All well and good --- he added his own ton of oil leases to the auction.
Oh well, I think in the end he once again will be blamed for the fact oil prices are going up, and I feel will hit a record high. We have lost money from sales of natural gas, and that depletes the US coffers. He is like a wrecking ball.
Sorry, we just don't see eye to eye on this one. I feel Biden is not only a hypocrite but a teller of 'tall tales". Things just never go his way, funny you are not seeing that, he has really bad luck, karma, whatever you want to call it."I could have believed that if I did not see him add many more oil leases to the auction in Nov 2021." - So, once again you are asking President Biden to break the law. Very Trump Republican of you.
Are you actually saying, Biden, did not issue many oil permits on his own? He has issued and outpaced Trump. Plus he had the ability to cancel Trump's auctions if he saw fit. He did not and added more. What are you not understanding? https://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireSto … e-78803956
"BILLINGS, Mont. -- Approvals for companies to drill for oil and gas on U.S. public lands are on pace this year to reach their highest level since George W. Bush was president, underscoring President Joe Biden’s reluctance to more forcefully curb petroleum production in the face of industry and Republican resistance.
The Interior Department approved about 2,500 permits to drill on public and tribal lands in the first six months of the year, according to an Associated Press analysis of government data. That includes more than 2,100 drilling approvals since Biden took office January 20.
New Mexico and Wyoming had the largest number of approvals. Montana, Colorado and Utah had hundreds each.
Biden campaigned last year on pledges to end new drilling on federal lands to rein in climate-changing emissions. His pick to oversee those lands, Interior Secretary Deb Haaland, adamantly opposed drilling on federal lands while in Congress and co-sponsored the liberal Green New Deal.
But the steps taken by the administration to date on fossil fuels are more modest, including a temporary suspension on new oil and gas leases on federal lands that a judge blocked last month, blocked petroleum sales in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and cancellation of the Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada.
Because vast fossil fuel reserves already are under lease, those actions did nothing to slow drilling on public lands and waters that account for about a quarter of U.S. oil production.
Further complicating Biden’s climate agenda is a recent rise in gasoline prices to $3 a gallon ($0.79 a liter) or more in many parts of the country. Any attempt to limit petroleum production could push gasoline prices even higher and risk souring economic recovery from the pandemic.
“He’s walking the tightrope,” said energy industry analyst Parker Fawcett with S&P Global Platts, noting that Keystone and ANWR came without huge political costs because they were aimed at future projects.
“Those easy wins don't necessarily have huge impacts on the market today,” Fawcett said. “He is definitely backing off taking drastic action that would rock the market. ... What you’re going to see is U.S. oil production is going to continue to rebound.”
Haaland has sought to tamp down Republican concern over potential constraints on the industry. She said during a House Natural Resources Committee hearing last month that there was no "plan right now for a permanent ban.”
“Gas and oil production will continue well into the future and we believe that is the reality of our economy and the world we're living in,” Haaland told Colorado Republican Rep. Doug Lamborn.
Interior officials declined further comment on permits issued under Biden.
Under former President Donald Trump, a staunch industry supporter, the Interior Department reduced the time it takes to review drilling applications from a year or more in some cases, to just a few months.
Companies rushed to lock in drilling rights before the new administration. And in December, Trump’s last full month in office, agency officials approved more than 800 permits — far more than any prior month during his presidency.
The pace dropped when Biden first took office, under a temporary order that elevated permit reviews to senior administration officials. Approvals have since rebounded to a level that exceeds monthly numbers seen through most of Trump’s presidency.
The data obtained by AP from a government database is subject to change because of delays in transmitting data from Interior field offices to headquarters.
If the recent trends continue, the Interior Department could issue close to 6,000 permits by the end of the year. The last time so many were issued was fiscal year 2008, amid an oil boom driven by crude prices that reached an all-time high of $140 per barrel that June.
Decisions on about 4,700 drilling applications remained pending as of June 1, which means approvals are likely to continue at a heavy pace as officials work through a backlog left over from the Trump administration, said Fawcett, the industry analyst.
Environmentalists who share the administration’s goals on climate have expressed growing frustration as prospects for a ban on drilling fade. They contend the administration could take executive action that would stop further permits but has caved to Republican pressure.
“Every indication is they have no plans of actually fulfilling their campaign promise,” said Mitch Jones, policy director for the environmental group Food & Water Watch. “The result of that will be continued and increasing development of fossil fuels on public lands, which means more climate change.”
Economists and other experts have been skeptical about how much impact a permit ban would have. Companies simply could shift onto private and state lands and keep drilling, said University of Chicago deputy dean Ryan Kellogg.
The administration's defenders say it's being pragmatic in the face of a Senate split 50-50 between Democrats and Republicans and questions over whether the government could legally stop drilling on leases already sold to companies.
That's meant forgoing a drilling ban in hopes of getting bipartisan support for a huge infrastructure package that includes clean energy incentives and other measures to address global warming.
“It's the long game. ... You've got to appease some of those oil and gas state senators,” said Jim Lyons, who was deputy assistant Interior secretary under Barack Obama and is now an environmental consultant. “It means jobs back home for thousands of workers. You can't just pull the plug overnight.”
In fact, Biden was breaking a Federal Law. --- A federal judge on Thursday invalidated the largest offshore oil and gas lease sale in the nation's history, ruling that the Biden administration violated federal law by relying on a seriously flawed analysis of the climate change impact of drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.Jan 28, 2022"Are you actually saying, Biden, did not issue many oil permits on his own?" - YES, I am saying that. BUT FOR your side suing President Biden to make those sales, he wouldn't have done it as his Executive Order prohibiting it PROVES. But, we all know FACTS do not matter to your side, only denigrating Biden for no reason at all.
I have a one-line answer to the question raised in this forum and that is Joe Biden is the Bahadur Shah of the United States and he's going to preside over the destruction of his nation. It could start in Ukraine. In a conventional war, the West will be defeated and in a nuclear war, they will be destroyed leaving China as the sole power. Thank you Biden, say the Chinese.
This Administration, along with the pentagon leadership that is either delusional or in cognitive decline with our president, directing this course of action, is dooming our nation, its citizens, to a woeful existence if they start a war with Russia.
It has clearly been their goal to isolate Russia and then overthrow Putin since he took control, this started long ago focusing on it's allies... Iraq, Syria, Libya, have all felt the wrath of America for being former allies to the USSR... Iran was a focus as well but China long ago told DC that to invade Iran would be considered a declaration of war against China.
The majority of oil and natural gas that Iran produces goes to China and they have long secured that supply.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/20 … n-germany/
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/02/01 … raine-news
This is a very simple situation to understand.
Consider Putin's statement regarding America's desire for war with Russia:
“Ukraine is simply a tool to achieve this goal. They could draw us into some kind of armed conflict and force their allies in Europe to impose the very tough sanctions that are being talked about in the United States today,” he noted. “Or they could draw Ukraine into NATO, set up strike weapons systems there and encourage some people to resolve the issue of Donbass or Crimea by force, and still draw us into an armed conflict.”
Putin continued, “Let us imagine that Ukraine is a NATO member and is stuffed with weapons and there are state-of-the-art missile systems just like in Poland and Romania. Who will stop it from unleashing operations in Crimea, let alone Donbass? Let us imagine that Ukraine is a NATO member and ventures such a combat operation. Do we have to fight with the NATO bloc? Has anyone thought anything about it? It seems not.”
The most likely scenario would involve Ukraine being rapidly brought under the ‘umbrella’ of NATO protection, with ‘battlegroups’ like those deployed into eastern Europe being formed on Ukrainian soil as a ‘trip-wire’ force, and modern air defenses combined with forward-deployed NATO aircraft put in place to secure Ukrainian airspace.
Once this umbrella has been established, Ukraine would feel emboldened to begin a hybrid conflict against what it terms the Russian occupation of Crimea, employing unconventional warfare capability it has acquired since 2015 at the hands of the CIA to initiate an insurgency designed specifically to “kill Russians.”
The idea that Russia would sit idly by while a guerilla war in Crimea was being implemented from Ukraine is ludicrous; if confronted with such a scenario, Russia would more than likely use its own unconventional capabilities in retaliation. Ukraine, of course, would cry foul, and NATO would be confronted with its mandatory obligation for collective defense under Article 5. In short, NATO would be at war with Russia.
As I have said before, our military leadership is delusional, dealing with serious cognitive decline (as Biden does) if they think America can take on a Russian military in a conventional war that is being backed by China, even if only with economic and equipment support... try reviewing what happened to us in Korea when China stepped in, and now consider that China has military equipment equal to anything we have.
America’s decade of disaster in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria has resulted in a military no longer capable of defeating a peer-level opponent on the battlefield.
This reality was highlighted in a study conducted by the US Army’s 173rd Airborne Brigade, the central American component of NATO’s Rapid Deployment Force, in 2017. The study found that US military forces in Europe were underequipped, undermanned, and inadequately organized to confront military aggression from Russia.
The lack of viable air defense and electronic warfare capability, when combined with an over-reliance on satellite communications and GPS navigation systems, would result in the piecemeal destruction of the US Army in rapid order should they face off against a Russian military that was organized, trained, and equipped to specifically defeat a US/NATO threat.
A Russia that would have the endless supply/support of China.
Any war with Russia would find American forces slaughtered in large numbers. Back in the 1980s, we routinely trained to accept losses of 30-40 percent and continue the fight, because that was the reality of modern combat against a Soviet threat. Back then, we were able to effectively match the Soviets in terms of force size, structure, and capability... in short, we could give as good, or better, than we got.
That wouldn’t be the case in any European war against Russia today. The US will lose most of its forces before they are able to close with any Russian adversary, due to deep artillery fires. Even when they close with the enemy, the advantage the US enjoyed against Iraqi and Taliban insurgents and ISIS terrorists is a thing of the past. Our tactics are no longer up to par when there is close combat, it will be extraordinarily violent, and the US will, more times than not, come out on the losing side.
Our military no longer has the mental fortitude to handle mass amounts of casualties and push on, its leadership today is more worried about LGTBQ rights and women being equally represented throughout, including in our various special forces. The philosophy of every American life is precious, and that all efforts will be made to evacuate the wounded would not hold up in a years long conflict against an opponent better trained, more determined, and equally well equipped with technology.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kfe6d6MzeLMFor those willing to consider it, I present a fair evaluation of the current military reality regarding Russia, the Ukraine, China.
And for those who live in the alternate reality presented by Biden, CNN, etc. your comment is apt and I would expect little else.
You called this a "fair" evaluation later on in this thread. So I came back to point out exactly where you were not "fair" or even correct in your evaluation.
1. "This Administration, along with the pentagon leadership that is either delusional or in cognitive decline " - To say something so ridiculous implies your cognition is in question, let alone your "fairness" or correctness
2. "is dooming our nation, its citizens, to a woeful existence if they start a war with Russia." - That may be the case if PUTIN starts the war but otherwise it is clearly NOT the case since America is NOT STARTING a war (other in your mind)
3. "It has clearly been their goal to isolate Russia and then overthrow Putin since he took control" - Clearly a misinterpretation of the actual facts. America DID NOT start pushing back on Putin until he started getting aggressive. Please present the truth.
4. I am not sure Hussein and Russian were allies, but I do agree we should never invaded that country, only isolate it. Contrary to your false assumptions, we did not invade Syria nor did we invade Libya. Libya was not an ally of Russia, in fact Russia thought Gaddafi should step down. Given Assad and Putin are both murderers, I suppose they are allies as well.
5. "Iran was a focus as well but China long ago told DC that to invade Iran would be considered a declaration of war against China." - That sounds like something else you made up to fit your pro-dictator narrative
6. "Consider Putin's statement regarding America's desire for war with Russia:" - You and Traitor Trump apparently believe our enemies more than you believe America. Why is that? What is your real agenda here?
7. "utin continued, “Let us imagine that Ukraine is a NATO member and is stuffed with weapons and there are state-of-the-art missile systems just like in Poland and Romania. Who will stop it from unleashing operations in Crimea, let alone Donbass?" - So by relying on Putin to make your points you are saying Ukraine has no right to gain back the territory Putin stole from them. Very pro-Russian of you.
See - nothing "fair" or correct about your comments.Just because you are a bean counter for the government does not mean you understand one thing about military tactics and geopolitics.
It was interesting to read MG Singh's recent take on this matter, a individual with a wealth of military experience to pull from, and he had this to say:
"In a conventional war, the Anglo-Saxon powers will be fighting by proxy of Ukraine. In 10 out of 10 cases they will be defeated. It is a different matter that Russia may not be able to hold onto it and there will be guerrilla warfare etc. but initially, the Russian army will win. The cost will be heavy but I do not think it to be crippling because of the factor of China, which is behind Russia. The West will impose sanctions but it will not have much of an effect. They have tried it earlier and nothing has happened."
He understands as well as I do, America (and whatever allies it has that would support such a foolish venture) is in a no win situation in Ukraine, and only those fools in DC who long ago started America on this trek to gain control of the Ukraine and encircle Russia cannot see this.
Any effort to shift more troops and support into the Ukraine any effort to have them become a member of NATO at this time, while Putin is alive, is a CONSCIOUS effort to goad Russia into a war... America is the aggressor in this situation, that is the reality.
If the situation were reversed and Russia helped install new leadership in Mexico and was trying to get Mexico to join in an alliance and were putting troops in Mexico, how would America react?
If America does not stand down and allow the Ukraine to stay in the realm of Russia's influence/dominance one other thing MG Singh said will come to fruition:
"Russia and America will be eclipsed as global powers and the only power that will be left behind will be China.
Something I am sure would please Xi Jinping to no end.Any effort to shift more troops and support into the Ukraine any effort to have them become a member of NATO at this time, while Putin is alive, is a CONSCIOUS effort to goad Russia into a war... America is the aggressor in this situation, that is the reality.
If the situation were reversed and Russia helped install new leadership in Mexico and was trying to get Mexico to join in an alliance and were putting troops in Mexico, how would America react?
------
I agree with that assessment. That how I am seeing things right now.So, the fact that the Ukrainians wanted to do the same thing regarding their King George puppet that our founders did (where we welcomed and required the help of France) means nothing to either of you? It doesn't play into your calculations? It certainly does mine.
Even if that were true, and I by no means am saying that is the case, no.
The only thing that matters is the economic and tactical realities and what the repercussions would be.
All that BS about bringing them their freedom is just that... total and complete BS used as an excuse to start a war.
It was BS when used for our actions against Iraq, Libya, Vietnam, etc.
Anything we do in the Ukraine is a power play, nothing more. It is an idiotic one that will not benefit America. People living in the past, delusional and irrational people are pushing for this effort.
If it is about "liberating" people... lets start with North Korea or Iran, they have it far worse than Ukrainians, right?
If this is about helping people and doing the right thing, shouldn't we be freeing Outer Mongolia and bringing the fight to China?
How about Saudi Arabia, they all but enslave their women, why not topple that regime and set up a democracy there?
Lets stop with the BS... we are focused on Ukraine because OUR leadership the AMERICAN war machine is looking to start a war with Russia. Period.Russian propagandists couldn't do a better job then you are. Your reading of the world situation comes straight out of Trump's and Putin's play book.
I don't see how we are really prepared to confront Putin in his backyard?We may disagree on the point that there has to be limits on the reach of American military power.
While, I think Putin is smart enough not to let this get beyond his ability to handle matters, I might be timid in accepting the fact that pax-Americana is not the reality in the world today.
How far are you prepared to take this crisis, Esoteric? Putin is protecting his perimeter, do we really want another war over it?
Real-politik recognizes that we cannot rescue every damsel in distress. If we insist on resistance, this needs to be a United Nations-NATO action with all allies on board at a minimum.
America had its "Monroe Doctrine" what does Putin have?The thing is, Putin has nothing to fear from Europe or America - we pose zero military threat to him. He knows that. He knows that neither Europe nor America has made ANY overt or covert move to acquire Russian territory - none what so ever.
In my view, to say that we have is simple Neville Chamberlain-type appeasement of an murderous aggressor.
The ONLY aggressor in this scenario is Putin, who like Trump, doesn't often think very deep before taking action. He, again like Trump, is an opportunist and transactional type of dictator. Other than wanting their land back, the Ukraine poses no threat to Russia yet Russia as put over 150,000 troops to the North, East, and South of Ukraine. We have put nothing on the border of Russia have we?
I don't want to be England prior to WW II and let Putin march over first Ukraine, then Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania before setting his sights again on Poland, Rumania, and Bulgaria. And don't believe he doesn't have them on his planning board. Putin has not hidden the fact that he wants to reconstitute the old Soviet Union.
Yet people like Ken clearly want to "appease" Putin for some reason. Hopefully, you do not want to either.
"Real-politik recognizes that we cannot rescue every damsel in distress." - To go back to my analogy, isn't that what Chamberlain said about Austria and Checkoslavakia before Hitler started WW II?
"Putin is protecting his perimeter, " - I have to ask - from whom? Doesn't Ukraine have the right to associate with whatever nation its deems is in its own national interest? Or is Putin supposed to have a veto over that? Isn't it more likely he is using that excuse as a pretext to reacquire land lost in the Cold War?Let me ask, you, Esoteric, as practically, the West has posed no military threat on Putin's designs for the former Warsaw Pact nations, what do we do?
Putin does not deserve to be brought down to the level of Trump as Trump is far less sophisticated. And, he was far too dumb to think on any geostretegic level.
I have heard of Putin's desire to reassembly the old Soviet Union, he has to wage war on several countries to realize his dream. Is he willing to take the risk of counting on continued indifference from the West?
I don't want to appease, Putin. But, I am looking for effective counters to Putin and his aggressive actions, what are they?
Well, the difference from 1938 to today is the existence of mutually assured destruction. Total war today means total global annihilation. And in the face of that, we all need to step lightly and carefully consider our moves.
If the League of Nations was more than a paper tiger and acted with a United intent to confront Hitler in his violation of Versailles, he could have been halted while he was relatively weak.
Is the Western Alliance, NATO and the blue helmets prepared to send troops in? With a global resolve, at least from the West, Putin might stand down. But every partner need to be on the same page.
I don't want a unilateral military confrontation with Putin that I doubt that we could win, just based on sheer logistics.
While, I may lie a bit to your Left in regards to foreign policy and American geostrategy, I am a student of history and appreciate your examples of Chamberlain and appeasement. But where do we throw down the gauntlet this time withou risking letting the dredging genie back out of the bottle?One has to accept America's responsibility in all this.
When one looks at what has led us to this point, it is clear who the antagonist is, and who is merely reacting defensively.
First, the official narrative about the events in late 2013 and early 2014 in
Kiev, of the spontaneous and peaceful “revolution” by the great freedom loving people, that forced the corrupt Ukrainian President to flee the country, is false. It is just one more example of America's meddling covert regime-change operations.
It's curious how little was mentioned of Clinton's visits, or how John McCain and the Assistant Secretary of State (Victoria Nuland) repeatedly attended political protests in the Ukraine. On a side note, Nuland is also the wife of Robert Kagan.
I wonder how Americans would feel if Russian officials were performing similar stunts at anti-U.S. rallies in Mexico?
NED or National Endowment of Democracy is a U.S. taxpayer-funded group that specializes in … ahem … regime change. It’s chief, Carl Gershman, wrote in a Washington Post op-ed in 2013 that “Ukraine is the biggest prize.”
Michael McFaul, former U.S. Ambassador to Russia, 2012–2014 wrote an op-ed in WaPo in 2014 where he asked, “Did Americans meddle in the internal affairs of Ukraine?” Then he answered it, “Yes.”
Victoria Nuland also admitted during a speech in 2014 that the U.S. had spent $5 BILLION since the 1990s to spread “democracy” in Ukraine.
There is plenty more, but in short, to advance geopolitical goals, U.S./E.U. officials engineered protests and chaos and drove a democratically elected president out of the country. Then, without an election, a billionaire and an IMF guy were handpicked by the West to become the President and the Prime Minister of Ukraine.
Democracy in action!
Ukraine is split in half and stuck in a frozen civil war; its debt-to-GDP ratio has doubled; pensions, social services and minimum wages have been slashed; they suffer from hysterical Russophobia and crippling sanctions.
The U.S. has pushed Russia deep into China’s orbit. And now the two countries have promised one another mutual support... regarding the Ukraine and Tiawan... brilliant!More Russian script. How much are they paying you or are you a Russian mole?
If you want to understand why Russia is doing what it is doing, it is a good idea to understand how they see things and why.
From their perspective it has been a one way street of aggression and interference.But their (Putin) perspective isn't reality. It is fabricated to fit his endgame of domination.
I respect your arguments in regard to this issue as well.
There has to be a middle ground between intimidating and meddling in Russian affairs and not allowing them to think that they can run off with the store. With Putin, I am not sure that I know where that line can be drawn. So, as a result, it is better to be prepared for all possible contingencies.
Putin uses a lot of the stunts that Hitler used to annex the Sudetenland portion of Czechoslovakia. He needs to understand that a perimeter must be established curbing any further aggressive actions against other nations.I don't believe this is the case at all.
I take into account what Putin has had to endure during the last 20 years.
Consider what has gone on, from here on I will use to the term "WE" to describe a variety of organizations, politicians, covert operations and military actions within the last 20 years:
WE interfered with elections (or instigated revolts) in the Ukraine, Georgia, Russia and Kyrgyzstan.
WE invaded, overthrew or attempted to overthrow regimes in Libya, Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan.
WE incorporated former USSR nations into NATO, bringing NATO troops and weapons right up to Russia's border.
In the face of this, if you were Putin, what exactly would you do?
How would you feel about a country that declares you a menace, a threat to the world, an interloper in their elections... a country that tells its people you are the 'Boogey Man' ... that compares you to Hitler?
And consider, that this country that is labeling you a threat, is the very one that has been destroying nations, your former allies, one that you know is driven by a Military Industrial Complex that has no desire for peace and has desired your destruction for decades.Ahhh, poor Putin, that murdering dictator. We should feel sorry as he is such a nice peaceful man. ROFL.
Where do we throw down the gauntlet? I guess when he actually crosses the border with a large force. If Ken is right, there is nothing stopping Putin until he gets to Germany at which time I suspect the world goes nuclear.
What to we do in the meantime? What we are doing now. We don't poke the bear in the eye by putting troops into Ukraine but stocking them with potent, lethal defensive arms and a lot of them. Moving troops, in ever increasing numbers to our Eastern European allies in NATO who have Article 5 protection. And sanction Putin into oblivion (and China if necessary).
When do we start sanctioning? I don't know and leave that to those on the ground to decide, they have a lot more intelligence than I have (the other was just common sense to me). There are those, both to the Left and Right of either of us who want to go big now. I don't know if that is a great idea. There are others like Ken who want to hand over Ukraine now.
Putin is a youngish man and has a lot of time to complete his bullying of the world (Ken says it is America who is doing the bullying of poor defenseless Russia, lol) and even though he acts without deep thought, he has proven to be a patient man. If he were a thoughtful man, he would take notice of how we treated Japan and Germany after WW II, to everybody's benefit. (That said, I think Clinton blew it with his rather highhanded approach to a defeated Soviet Union. He should have looked at history as well, but didn't, much to America's detriment.)
Kennedy risked nuclear war with the Cuban missile crisis. Putin is already stocking up Cuba and Venezuela as I write. But I have to ask, is that when we want to wait to forcefully respond to Putin, at death's door?Relative to your "gauntlet," is the question of what are we throwing the gauntlet down for? I think the only valid reason would be one of national security. So what are our national security concerns? Other than your prophesized stopping of Russian aggression I don't see any. (of course that carries the caveat that I probably wouldn't recognize one if it was staring me in the face)
On the other hand . . . what if Putin's claims, (as one school of thought goes), are just what he says; Russia doesn't want to be ringed by NATO nations? Following this line of thought has a lot of support from past American actions, and, consideration of what Putin would gain from conquering Ukraine. What would he gain?
I am leaning toward that last school of thought. So I don't think we should even be waving a gauntlet, much less throwing one down.
GAHere is a political map of Ukraine showing the surrounding countries. Biden has stationed his troops on the Eastern Borders of Ukraine in Poland and Romania. There are also troops in Germany.
https://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/ … al-map.htm
Here is everything you wanted to know about where Putin has put his troops and their makeup.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/ … -explainer
I see all of this as nothing but a big chase game, with everything to lose and nothing to gain. Both sides have mega high technology weapons that can destroy the other side. I don't think it would be conventional warfare, like WWII.I must say this back and forth confrontation scares me. It is clear Russia and China are ready to support one another, and this should not be ignored. I for one would be against any form of altercation with Russia unless they threatened our sovereignty. In no respect would I support sending our troops in unless Russia was committing atrocities. For many decades we have looked the other way in that regard.
I read that Biden has threatened to shut down his big gift Nord Stream 2.
I don't think Putin is the kind of leader that backs down or willing to lose face under any circumstances
My big question --- what are the other NATO countries doing? I read that the US sent in 3000 troops. Any troops from any other NATO country being sent?.So you want to put off any "altercation" until they are invading our shores? Is that your solution?
As to "sending" troops. Do you forget where the rest of NATO (besides Canada) is? They ARE the front line, they don't have to send troops anywhere (well, maybe France does, they are a little more West than the rest of them)
Now that I am done being snarky - yes, the other NATO countries have troops in Eastern Europe.
Besides America there are
- Four countries with troops in Estonia
- Ten countries with troops in Latvia
- Seven countries with troops in Lithuania
- Three countries with troops in Poland
- NATO is thinking of putting forward forces in Slovakia
- It looks like France is sending troops to Romania."So you want to put off any "altercation" until they are invading our shores? Is that your solution?"
I was not going to reply --- but this was so crazy hyperbolic, I needed to bring attention to this statement.
Which shore will the Russians be jumping into the water, wading in on?
Lauderdale beach or one of the many beaches in the Hamptons?
At any rate, I will stick with my original sentiment --- I am scared due to having a very inept president handling this crisis. I will let others strategize, this one is far beyond my scope. However, the conversation is interesting, and I appreciate that it is a very current topic.Look at the facts as he presented them:
What would you think of that, if you were Russia?
Russia basically ceded all those nations their sovereignty back, when the USSR collapsed in 1990/91.
U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University.
Yet here we are today, arming Ukraine, interfering with their elections, pouring billions of dollars into buying key political pro-western support.
Its sad that there are those that cannot see that the forces that led us to topple Iraq and Libya are no different than those that are intent to topple Putin and make Russia into a 'banana republic".
The difference being neither Iraq or Libya had nukes, nor the support of China.
Many hundreds of thousands will die, many millions will suffer if conflict begins... Ukraine will be worse for it than Iraq, Libya, or any nation that has suffered wartime destruction since WWII.
The Ukraine is just a pawn, a puppet state, and the people pulling the strings to instigate this war couldn't care less about the horror and misery they are about to unleash... the American Military Industrial Complex is on the march again.You do a lot of 'what if' imagining/fearmongering on this site. Ever notice that?
The markets are going to collapse.
China is going to take over the world.
We're going to war with Russia.I would ask myself "why are they there? Is it because I have amassed a large army to the East ready to attack toward them?" If Putin is HONEST in his answer, he will know why those DEFENSIVE forces are there to protect against his OFFENSIVE forces. Makes sense to me, but not to Russian sympathizers.
Pulling strings - yes Putin is certainly trying to do that. Thanks for point that out.Ken, it very much looks like the American Military Industrial Complex is on the march again. And what scares me most is who is leading the charge... Like I said I am fearful of what could happen if Russia moves in on Ukraine.
I think the people of Ukraine would suffer greatly. One thing that has been clear over many decades, the US does not consider or care what these wars do to those caught up in them. That goes for our American soldiers.And the Ukrainians will fight like hell trying to kick murdering Putin's butt. Unlike several on this forum seem to want them to, the Ukrainians do not want to live under Russian domination again.
Actually, Ukraine is hardly a "pawn" even though Putin and his pro-Russian supporters in the West want to treat it like one. Instead, it is a sovereign nation with millions of independent minded citizens who want nothing to do with murdering Putin.
Yet you weren't scared with a traitor like Trump. Makes no sense to me.
To be honest I never had any fear of any form of foreign conflict when Trump was president. He kept Putin in his place. I have a great fear of foreign conflict with a man that needs help getting the right shoe on the right foot in the morning making decisions.
Trump could walk and chew gum --- Biden can't literally do neither even on a good day.
Trump had an innate ability to solve problems, and not create them. I felt secure and safe under his watch in regard to foreign conflict.
I don't think you realized these attributes in regard to Trump, you were too busy keeping up deciphering his words, and his deeds slipped under the radar. CNN has kept you very busy for some years now...But, Sharlee, Trump is so corrupt and unfit in so many other areas that any advantage that you want to cede to him in the form of leadership is well overshadowed by his negatives.
Cred, You should know my style of addressing a comment by now. As I have come to know yours and respect it as one I so appreciate.
In my comment, I was strictly sharing one aspect of Trump's presidency. How I felt in regards to feeling fairly safe with much of his foreign policies. (Keywords much of). I find conversing here on HP a bit different than other forums. I feel making an attempt to stay on the subject good way to share a very direct view.
Now, to address your line of thought --- Trump clearly had several glaring negatives that I found problems with. I could make a long list. However, I also was pleased with some of his attributes. I could also make a list of those. However, is all of this not water under the bridge? We have new problems, a new president, and I will honestly say thus far his foreign policies do scare me. (I witnessed how he in my view mishandled the Afganastan pull out). So, yes I have some concerns about Biden's decision-making skills.
I have shared that at this point in our history, I hope Trump does not run. Trump's negatives could be something that would further the turmoil, and further the divide we are currently living under.Yes, indeed.
I believe one of the reasons why Trump is discussed is to keep focus off Biden's mishandling of things, I do not want to see Trump run again, but I don't want a continuation of Biden either. He has to go.I agree without COVID and Trump, Biden and his cast of characters would have to talk about some pretty serious problems.
I also agree, I couldn't vote for Biden or really for any Dem. I have zero respect for the Democratic party or its ideologies.Sharlee: I don't think the word respect fits the bill. It's trust. I don't trust Trump or the part of the republican party he has coopted. He is still very much in the news with his saying he will pardon the insurrectionist of Jan.6.
In my book, it has to do with Trust and where one perceives the truth is. When the Trumpers say Jan. 6 was "legitimate political discourse". They are fat a** lying and they know it.
However, half of the country still believes Trump's big lie and probably the GOP lie about Jan. 6. Therefore Trump is still very concerning for me as well as the Putin conflict. As you say about Biden, "he can't walk and chew gum at the same time", but I can and so can many democrats. We have to keep our eyes on two balls, Trump and Putin."I also agree, I couldn't vote for Biden or really for any Dem. I have zero respect for the Democratic party or its ideologies." - That is fair, SO LONG as you apply the same standards to the anti-democratic Trump Republicans.
To switch gears here, it was just announced we have inflation surging to 7.5% ... which of course, I am sure is a conservative estimate.
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/02/10/january … ected.html
On a percentage basis, fuel oil rose the most in January, surging 9.5% as part of a 46.5% year-over-year increase.
I know we have discussed the issue of rising energy costs in the past, but this is getting to obscene levels, I can only imagine how bad it will get after mid-term elections, when all their tricks and efforts to slow the rise in energy costs have run their course.Obscene levels are what happened under the Republican Nixon-Ford administration. But then, anything before 2000 doesn't count with you, does it?
But, nevertheless, you are right, inflation is higher than it has been for a very long time. (I suspect there was a time you complained about the Fed keeping the brakes on too hard to keep inflation at ahistoric low levels. You wanted the Fed to loosen up so that inflation could rise.)
What is more, you are going to complain when the Fed raises interest rates to combat inflation.
What is also correct is that virtually EVERY OTHER measure of the economy is positive, something your side refuses to recognize at all.
Your side also wants to:
- falsely blame President Biden for the inflation numbers.
- By doing so, you are saying it is HIS fault that Trump did such a spectacularly poor job of controlling the pandemic.
- That it was Biden who made China disrupt all of those supply chains. - -- - That it was Biden who forced all of those Americans to retire and not return to the job.
- You will probably blame Biden for the Canadian truckers protest which will drive up inflation even more.
- You will certainly blame Biden for the American truckers protest of the Super Bowl, which will also drive up inflation.
- You are already blaming Biden for the Trump Republicans' refusal to get vaccinated which also puts upward pressure on inflation.
Bottom line, your side will blame Biden for anything and everything rather than be honest and blame the appropriate reasons.Every other measure is positive? Really? You can say that as wages (real wages, after inflation) are falling all over the country? You can claim every measure is positive as people cannot buy what they did a year ago, even after a big salary increase?
Yes, it is a part of inflation, but the fact remains that we cannot purchase what we did. And that is not positive!
I can respect where you're coming from. It is evident that many are very fearful of the support Trump is still receiving from some of the people. I must say, I have never seen anything like this kind of blind loyalty.
It is my hope both parties back fresh new candidates in 2024.
"He kept Putin in his place." - ROFL again. Don't you mean Putin kept his puppet in place. You forget, Trump favors Russia over America - he said so on the world stage in Helsinki.
Again you are wrong about Trump - he has an innate ability to create problems. I can think of only ONE problem he had a hand in solving - developing a vaccine fast. That is it!
There were no good deeds to slip under any radar. He was, as Adam Kinzinger said, the worst president in the history of the United States. Which is backed up by almost all, if not all, presidential scholars.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historica … ted_States
https://www.usnews.com/news/special-rep … presidents
https://bestlifeonline.com/news-worst-president/
Only people that are part of the Trump cult think Trump was any good.
Once upon a time, Republicans looked at Russia as the enemy. But with Trump, I guess that is no longer true. They are someone to copy.
WOW!With Trump, Russia did not tweak our noses...But with an old feeble confused man as president, they can't resist.
I certainly agreed with GA sentiment, yes 100%. WE never had any [problems with Russia under Trump he sanctioned the hell out of them.
Let's see who gave them that pipeline? Trump no not a chance, it was Biden to male nice. Unfortunately, Russia doesn't feel like playing nice and most likely doesn't respect such weakness.
Always back to Trump... Strange obsession.
Thinking defensively, it is not a matter of what Putin says that he wants but more what remains an open opportunity for him take.
A compromise may be to have those former Warsaw Pact nations that are part of NATO today agree to a demilitarized status in return for Putin's agreement not to attack them.
So, Putin gets the buffer he wants without our having to deal with the matter of his attacking NATO member states.
Kennedy insisted that offensive weapons from the Soviet Block be removed from Cuba, that was done in spite of the fact that Cuba remained aligned with the Soviet Union. Everybody was happy, it worked then, there is no reason that it can't work now.Yep, so it seems to us laymen.
Now we have to ask if the U.S. will be cornered into some `face-saving' compromise, (that's us worried about saving face), which is less than tasty. My cynical view thinks there might be a lot of pride and hubris floating around that will muck up efforts for any other solution.
GAI am sorry Credence, that is called Hitler-type of appeasement in my book. A bully is never satisfied with a partial victory. He WILL be back for the rest in time.
I am sure that is exactly how Russia looks at this scenario... America (the bully) is never satisfied, it goes from destroying or overthrowing one country after another.
How many countries has Russia invaded in the last 20 years?
The Ukraine? One could argue they have a right to resume sovereignty over the Ukraine, if one reviews the history of Russia and Ukraine.
How many countries has America invaded or used military action against in the last 20 years?
Libya
Syria
Afghanistan
Iraq
And little known efforts in 2003 in Georgia and Djibouti when US combat and support forces were deployed to Georgia and Djibouti to help in enhancing their "counterterrorist" capabilities.So you want to compare lists, eh?
This is who Russia/Soviet Union invaded or provided military support to?
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania
Poland
Austria
Hungary
Romania
Bulgaria
Checkoslavakia
Georgia
Afghanistan
Syria
Albania
Ukraine
Crimea
Belarus
East Germany
Cuba
Venezuela
Azerbaijan
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
Moldova
Tajikistan
Turkmenistan
Uzbekistan
Yugoslavia
I am sure I have missed a few that suffered from your friends aggression!
"ne could argue they have a right to resume sovereignty over the Ukraine, if one reviews the history of Russia and Ukraine." - No, only a Russian sympathizer or operative could argue that. Certainly the Ukrainians don't.
You do know, don't you, that were you in Russia taking a pro-American stance like this, you would be in jail or dead.We are talking the last 20 years, not ancient history, not Soviet Union.
I can see your mind is stuck in the 20th century, it is no wonder your views are so distorted.So that is how you win, by cheating? That is just how the Russians (and conservatives) do it, limit the parameters, move the goal posts when they are losing.
Besides, why should we believe an obviously pro-Russian person about what a relevant time period is. Putin was part of that gov't for every one of those invasions. Also, are you claiming that because it is not in the 21st century (of which many were) then it doesn't exist?
You are woefully ignorant of what the Ukrainians want, to say all Ukrainians want "freedom" from Russia is like saying all Americans want what far-left Democrats like yourself want.
To have Ukraine join NATO now is to invite war, it is knowing that the price of letting Ukraine become part of NATO is war.
Anything else is just so much rhetoric and BS, stay out of Ukraine, and we don't have a war with Russia, simple as that.
Putin in his own words explains his/Russia's views well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2Cugn8JZfkI see you pulled a Wilderness by sticking a new word in the argument to change the meaning.
Stay out of Estonia and we don't have a war with Russia
Stay out of Latvia and we don't have a war with Russia
Stay out of Lithuania and we don't have a war with Russia
Stay out of Czechoslovakia and we don't have a war with Russia
Stay out of Poland and we don't have a war with Russia
Stay out of Romania and we don't have a war with Russia
Stay out of Austria and we don't have a war with Russia
Stay out of Germany and we don't have a war with Russia
Stay out of Belgium, Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and Netherlands and we don't have a war with Russia
Stay out of France and we don't have a war with Russia
Stay out of England and we don't have a war with Russia.
Let Russia put nukes in Cuba and we don't have a war with Russia
That will be your answer each time Putin grabs more territory.I think there's a good amount of support among the Ukrainian people for joining NATO. Doesn't this matter?
"In the face of Russian military aggression, Ukrainians remain supportive of both NATO and EU membership,”
https://www.iri.org/resources/iri-ukrai … -covid-19/
Some polls place support even higher.No, it doesn't matter. Ken inserted the word "ALL" in order to bias the answer toward Russia.
It's an excellent idea, one that America will not even consider. So here we are on the brink of war, with America arming the Ukrainians.
While I agree with Esoteric about military preparedness to discourage Putin away from military adventurism, I am open to any diplomacy short of giving away the store if we can make certain that the situation does not deteriorate to where anyone would think of using their respective nuclear arsenals.
Diplomacy is clearly the better option, but it takes two to be serious about it. Right now, only the West seems serious about trying to use diplomacy to get out the pickle murdering Putin has put us in.
If Putin choses not to go the course of diplomacy then the West has only two options: Stand up to him by providing is intended victim all the support we can or let the Soviet Union become a thing again.
I am not of a mind to watch Putin recreate the Soviet Union although it appears some here are.
"Russia doesn't want to be ringed by NATO nations? " - Then shouldn't his response be to play nice with the world rather than trying to conquer it again? Why do you think NATO is there in the first place - to stop Soviet (and now Russian) aggression. We didn't just one day come to the conclusion that let's be the bad guys and create NATO so we can cower Russia.
I find it very ridiculous to even have to point out why NATO exists. Wouldn't it all be so simple today if the Soviet Union had won the Cold War. At least Ken and MG would be happy.
What would he gain? Just as he said, putting the Soviet Empire back together again. Seems obvious to me since that is his STATED goal.I agree, it is ridiculous for you to think you had to point out why NATO exists.
GA
I would probably draw the line at attack against current NATO members that were part of the Warsaw Pact.
If history teaches us anything it is that an aggressor's territorial ambitions are rarely satisfied.
if we allow Putin to run over Czech Republic or Poland as NATO members, why not continue on toward Germany or France? What is to stop him as there is no penalty or risk for him? The safety and isolation provided by the Atlantic in the 1930's simply no longer exists today. Whether we like it or not, we are involved. If the West shows cowardice and tumble like dominoes over Putin's threats, what is to prevent him from taking it all? There has to be a line drawn in the sand.
I agree with you that every tool in the tool box short of open war itself be deployed first as a deterrent. Because technically, aggressive action against any NATO member is aggressive action for us all.
We had a close call in 1962 and I don't want to come to that brink again, if it can be avoided."If history teaches us anything it is that an aggressor's territorial ambitions are rarely satisfied." - And why doesn't that apply to Ukraine? If he sees us as pushovers who allow him to invade a sovereign nation who are trying to believe in our values, why wouldn't he think we wouldn't give him the rest of the Soviet Union as well?
" The safety and isolation provided by the Atlantic in the 1930's simply no longer exists today." - But apparently Trump Republicans (as opposed to Real Republicans) seem to think that is still true. That is why the Republicans on this forum seem to think it is safe to give away our allies to Putin. If it isn't knocking directly on our door, it doesn't exist, seems to be their reasoning.
I agree with your close call statement - I want to keep the threat in Europe rather than let it get to our shores again.
What world are YOU living in?
Lets put some reality and facts into this, shall we?
When Putin assumed the Presidency in 2000, he took pains to court Tony Blair and George W. Bush, he believed he could reason with them as a partner nation, an equal.
He was the first leader to call President Bush and lend him his support after the attacks of Sept. 11, allowing America to build an airbase in Kyrgyzstan so that they could fly bombing missions in Afghanistan.
In return for that good faith effort, Putin was rewarded by America pulling out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, despite Russian protests.
Then in 2003, President Bush circumvented United Nations authorization and invaded Iraq, whom Russia maintained historic and economic ties with.
Then from 2003-2005 a wave of protests (sparked by foreign interference efforts aka CIA) spread across Georgia, Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan, leading to pro-Western governments.
Russia has had to watch as the NATO alliance, moved its forces right up to Russia's western border, one nation at a time, Poland, Estonia, Latvia, etc. Until by 2016 Russia had the combined military forces of the EU and America literally sitting on its doorstep, more tanks, artillery, rockets and jets were along its border just weeks prior to President Trump taking office than had been amassed for Desert Shield.
It is possible, that had Clinton won that election and not Trump, those forces may well have been used to secure Ukraine. Trump as we know, was not the DC insider that Clinton was, and he diverted many efforts meant to continue after Obama, from TPP to the Paris Accord to many things not known.
Three countries in the Middle East had strong ties to Russia… Iraq, Libya, and Syria. These three nations were among the countries who allied with the Soviets during the Cold War.
The regimes in these countries were supported and supplied by the Soviets, this 'responsibility' was later inherited by Russia and continued after the end of the Cold War in the 1990s.
Just what occurred to these three nations, due almost entirely to America's insistence and interference (again see foreign interference and CIA activity)?
All three are war torn, demolished nations.
Throughout history, the Russians have been invaded over, and over, and over again. The latest, was when the Nazi Regime, which had signed a non-aggression treaty with Russia, invaded and slaughtered more than 25 million Russians just years after that treaty was signed.
But Russia has nothing to worry about, America is a peaceful nation, it would do nothing to instigate a war, because, you know, everything America has done to Russia and its allies in the last 30 years is so good natured and helpful.
The demonization of Russia and Putin is being used to justify war and more conflict. Most Americans do not want another war. Why are we headed down that slippery slope?
It's not because of what Russia has done, Russia has not pushed its troops right up to our borders and declared that Mexico wants to be free from America's influence... it is because America is putting troops on Russia's borders and poking the Bear, provoking it."What world are YOU living in?" - Certainly not your world of Russian appeasement and alignment.
You are reading history through Putin's eyes, not the real world's eyes. You speak as if you are reading from a script produced by the SGU. As such, it is ridiculous to waste words with you because you will keep reading from the same Russian (not even Right-wing) script.I don't want to get between you and Ken, but your `Russian propaganda,' (RT and SGU script references), and appeasement thoughts follow a repeated point: Russia's aggression motives.
Do you consider any possibility that the historical facts of our past behavior, (in similar scenarios), could support Ken's thoughts or that the proposed Putin-reasons might be the real ones? Relative to the aggression aspect, is this Ukraine issue a mirror reflection of our Cuba incident? It seems so to me.
GAActually no. As far as I know, we weren't considering putting nukes to attack Russia with in Ukraine? I doubt we even have any in the Baltic states, Poland, Rumania, Hungary, and so forth. I think our nukes go no further Eastward than Germany. So, that analogy doesn't hold.
What does hold is the Soviet Union's desire to impose their system of government on the rest of the world. That is what history shows to be true. And again, Putin has stated he wants his old empire back.
"Just because you are a bean counter for the government does not mean you understand one thing about military tactics and geopolitics." - Nope, that is true. But what does is my 21 years as an infantry and later a combat engineer officer in the Army. In that role, I attended the Basic and Advanced Infantry courses at Ft. Benning along with a few other advance courses. And even as that "bean counter" for the Air Force, they say fit to send me to Air War College. I think I know a ton more about, how did you put it, "military tactics and geopolitics" than you do!
What is your claim to fame??
BTW, a couple of the results of my "bean counting" is the management information system still used today by Air Staff to allocate budget resources and, if they ever do base closures again, the modelling they will use is still based on the original model I developed. Not inconsequential "bean counting" in my opinion. Nor is the estimate I put together for the Slovakian government of the cost to operate a new air force in their successful bid to join NATO. Oh yes. How about the "bean counting" I did in support of a Presidential Directive to establish a U.N. operations center. Yep, just typical, non-geopolitical "bean counting", lol.When looking at this scenario it doesn't take being a mastermind to figure it out.
It is 500 miles from Moscow to Ukraine.
You can drive 500 miles in half a day.
There is no way on Earth that Putin is going to allow NATO (America) to set up shop in the Ukraine.
There is no way short of destroying Russia, as in bombing it back to the stone age, and worse, that America can win a war in the Ukraine, against Russia.
With China backing Russia, we have less chance of winning in this scenario than we did back when we declared an armistice with North Korea... way less of a chance... as in none.
Anyone that thinks engaging in conflict with Russia in the Ukraine will end up benefiting America, or with us coming out better off for it, is delusional, irrational or in cognitive decline.
Biden, with his actions, is proving to be all 3."There is no way on Earth that Putin is going to allow NATO (America) to set up shop in the Ukraine." - Seems to me you are the only one living in that false scenario.
I also since the idea of "allies" has no meaning to you either.Fortunately I wrote an article about this scenario a few years back.
It is titled: Does America Want War with Russia?
You can go read it if you like, it is one of the 50 Hubs I still have published.
This is not a new situation, it is one America has pushed onto Russia for decades now. There was a pause because of Trump in hostilities with Russia, now that Biden is POTUS he is picking up where Obama/Clinton left off.
So, I have given my evaluation of the potential conflict, it is a NO WIN situation. Twenty years ago, ten years ago even, perhaps... before China became a more powerful Industrialized weaponized nation.
As to the corrupt machinations that have led up to this conflict, the article I mention gives an overview of what led us to this point.It has never been a good idea to go to war with Russia, or with anyone else for that matter. For example, I assume you agree we should have stayed out of WW I. Or not gone to war with Germany during WW II and just stuck with those that attacked us - Japan. Am I correct?
But sometimes you have to do what you have to do on principle and simply because it is the right thing to do.
(btw, I don't think you responded to whether you opposed Kennedy's standoff with Khrushchev, would you have conceded there as well?)
I'll take your word for MG's military experience since is bio is silent on it.
If Russia is determined and the West does not put troops on the ground in Ukraine, MG's scenario might well play out that way. But I absolutely disagree with the idea that Russia (or China if they help) will not be hurt very much.
"The West will impose sanctions but it will not have much of an effect. They have tried it earlier and nothing has happened." - the fact that the milquetoast sanctions in the past didn't work doesn't mean cutting Russia off from the world would not. Even if Russia becomes a dependent state of China, they will have a hard time surviving with a viable economy.
One thing I suspect will happen without military intervention is a few order of magnitudes increase in supply of anti-tank and anti-air weapons, say one for each tank and aircraft the Russians possess. Do you think Russia can survive with a devastated air force and tank force? Keep in mind, the Ukrainian civilians are gearing up for a fight now. The more time they have to activate, the more costly an invasion by Russia will be.
The Ukrainians are fighting for their life while the Russians are fighting for a murderer.
BTW, from the tone of your defense of Russia, I would guess you opposed Kennedy's stand-off with Khrushchev back in the day.
As I asked in another forum - what is your alternative - give murdering Putin everything he wants?
For a short moment back to the threads original subject --- What are the Great Things President Joe Biden Has Done While President
( I do realize this thread has become Trump central, but perhaps time to consider the subject it was posted under)
It would appear Biden is not doing great things, in fact, his polls would indicate his agenda or policies are appreciated or liked by the greater majority of Americans. It would well seem his supporters have bailed on him. Polls indicate only 71% of Democrats support him at this point.
How low can Biden's approval rating go?
Reuters -- 56% of Americans disapprove of the president
UPDATED FEB. 3, 2022
Only 71%of Dems support Biden...
https://graphics.reuters.com/USA-BIDEN/ … opagnqapa/
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/bi … al-rating/
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/20 … joe-biden/Not sure you understand the thread's original topic if you're quoting polls....
And 538 only has a 52.8% disapproval with three very heavy far-right polls put in there. Way to take the Ipsos and Rasmussen polling to make your case, which are two of those far-right polls.I offered several polls including the very respected reuters poll which I quoted.
I do think polls correlate with the subject of this thread - What are the Great Things President Joe Biden Has Done While President
The polls certainly reflect the failure of the president's agenda and policies.
In fact, there is no better way to judge if the people feel Biden is doing "Great Things"...
I think Reuters poll says it all. Not pretty, and getting worse.
And Feb 2 2022 Gallop reported this dismal chart. Well appears many now were more satisfied in 2020.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/389309/ame … eport.aspxThat's an amazing chart from just before the pandemic. So basically, most measures dropped significantly by the end of Trump's term. That chart shows what a trainwreck the end of the Trump Administration was and helps explain why so many voted against him.
This chart was posted on Feb 2, 2022, and 2021 reflect Biden's first year in office. AS 2020 reflected Trump's final year in office. 2022 is current stats.
No the pandemic hit in 2019, and Trump was president until Biden walked in 2021. The stats for 2020 were collected while the pandemic was at its worst.
The chart speaks loudly, and anyone that views it can simply ascertain just how poorly Biden is doing, and the lack of satisfaction the American people have in him.Try March 2020 for the pandemic. The first case in the US was in late Jan or early Feb.
While I didn't see Gallup say so, the data needs to be a year apart to be meaningful. Since the the 2022 data was collected in the first part of Jan 2022, that means the 2020 and 2021 must have been collected in the first part of January in those respective years.
To correct your timeline, the first peak was in April 2020. Subsequent peaks were in July 2020, Jan 2021, Apr 2021, Sep 2021, and Jan 2022.
Based on that, it seem Valeant was correct.You're right, the chart shows just how much things fell under Trump 'leadership' and now have to begin to rebound under new management.
And the chart shows what happens when a President ignores warnings about a dangerous lab and does nothing:
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/ … rpt-474322
And like Eso noted, popularity has nothing to do with effectiveness. We will have to wait and see if Biden's policies have been good for the country through time.
Should try posting a chart that has public support for the individual programs being put forward instead.
Biden's stimulus: 70% approval
Freedom to Vote Act: 70% approval
Infrastructure Bill: 62% approval
Build Back Better: Individual pieces are above 60% but the bill is 47% approve-40% disapprove
The American people are behind much of Biden's agenda. Even two-thirds believe the government needs to do more to enact policy to combat climate change."Build Back Better: Individual pieces are above 60% but the bill is 47% approve-40% disapprove"
That would seem to be a problem with nearly everything Biden does. A few parts of his great plans are good, and people approve, but then he wraps them in garbage that no one but a true blue socialist could approve of and consistently lies about the cost of his grandiose future (what politician doesn't?).
"I do think polls correlate with the subject of this thread - What are the Great Things President Joe Biden Has Done While President" - I must agree with you on that to this extent - the polls show how well received his accomplishments are by the public. The polls DO NOT, however, address whether the policies are good or bad.
Because you have taken on the task of showing Biden in a bad light, you must use polls rather than facts to "prove" your point.
Remember, because of a successful propaganda campaign by the Republicans (and Russians), ACA was the most hated policy in America. The Republicans did such a good job of lying about it that it cost the Democrats the Congress. Today, Obamacare is loved by most Americans much to the chagrin of Republicans (who secretly use it a lot).;Perhaps you don't comprehend how polls work. When 71% of Democrats support a Democratic president that indicates he is polling very poorly... However. The current polls show Biden has little to no support from the American people. In fact, I have never seen Democrats poll such little support for one of their own.
Polls are the only way to indicate how a president is doing. And this president has historically low polls.
I know little about how Obamacare is doing, so I won't comment on it.I am a statistician by training - of course I understand how polls work, lol. I am thinking it is you, the layperson, who doesn't.
"When 71% of Democrats support a Democratic president that indicates he is polling very poorly..." - [i]But please educate me, what does that result have to do with the price of tea in China? What does that have to do with whether his policies are good or not. I have asked you that several times now and you keep ignoring it (for obvious reasons).
All your 71% is indicative if us that as of the time poll was taken, is that Biden has pissed off the progressives. Nothing more and nothing less.
You keep saying untrue things like "Biden has "little to no support from the American people" without acknowledging that Trump did worse.
Even though I think Trump is terrible person and worse leader (as well as being dangerously mentally ill), I won't make up a lie like that about him. I am well aware that roughly 70% of Republicans and 40% independents support Trump for some unknown reason. That translates to around 35% to 45% of Americans belong to his cult.
Lets give a real list.
Biden Shut Down the Keystone Pipeline
Biden rejoined the Paris Accords
Biden stopped Wall production and reversed Trump's Border Policies
Biden worked hard to support the UAW (and GM)
Biden rejoined the WHO
Biden made strong efforts to initiate Vaccine Mandates wherever he could
Biden is appointing as many hard Left judges as possible
Biden revoked Trump’s Medicaid work rules
Biden recommitted us to paying for NATO
Biden scrapped Trump’s new citizenship test
Biden pulled us out of Afghanistan
Biden helped get the Infrastructure Bill to pass
Its a matter of where you stand on those issues, and the other things he is trying to do, that determine whether you think he has done well, or not.Again, you are trying peoples opinions as proof whether a policy is good or not. It just doesn't work that way, sorry.
To be relevant, you have to show how a particular policy is bad for America (since it is your goal to show President Biden in a bad light in spite of the facts to the contrary).
For example, you need to show how the American Rescue Plan hurt Americans.
or show how rolling out vaccines way ahead of Trump's plan is bad for Americans.
or show how the bi-partisan infrastructure plan is bad for Americans.
Can you actually prove each of those accomplishments hurt America?
Yeah, and a welcome "sideways" it is. ;-)
GA
Putin is determined to rebuild the Russian empire.
When he became President of Russia 21 years ago, he declared his intention to restore Russian greatness. He described the collapse of the Soviet Union as the greatest tragedy of the 20th Century. Putin has clearly embarked on a project to re-establish a Russian empire in Europe and Eurasia. The question is, will we let him?Your thoughts infer Putin is on the road to invading NATO nations to restore the Russian empire. I don't see that. To do so is automatic war, not a `maybe' war like Ukraine. I don't think that will happen.
If that is right then he must see Ukraine as important enough to risk a "maybe" war. What would he get from conquering Ukraine? What is it about Ukraine that is so important to him? I don't see an answer. Is it political, territorial, or financial, (resources, etc.), gain?
It seems the only pro-aggressive U.S. stance is the boogieman stance you noted. And it seems that to hold such a view demands the view that Putin will invade a NATO nation and start WWIII. I don't see it.
*I have heard thoughts about territorial control of the gas pipeline through Ukraine. *shrug
GAGA: Here is what I have learned.
Here are the forces that are at work in the Russia/Ukraine crisis.
Russia has natural gas pipeline called Nordstream 1 that went across Ukraine from Russia to Germany. Ukraine was being paid a transfer fee for the right to have Russian gas transferred across their country.
Now Putin has built Nordstream 2 which bypasses the Ukraine completely as it goes undersea from Russia to Germany. This has upset Ukraine because it no longer gets the Transfer fee from Russia.
Nord Stream 1 has a total annual capacity of 55 billion m3 (1.9 trillion cu ft) of gas, and the construction of Nord Stream 2 is expected to double this capacity to a total of 110 billion m3 (3.9 trillion cu ft).
The U.S. and its NATO partners are afraid that Putin can use Nordstream 2 as leverage to control those in Europe who need the cheaper gas.
The new chancellor of Germany, is at cross-roads, because he wants to support NATO, but doesn't want to lose out on the gas.
Putin is upset because Russia is ringed with NATO countries and NATO has broken their deal of not advancing closer to the Russia borders. Biden is deploying troops and equipment in Germany, Poland, and Romania,
Without getting inside Putin's brain, no one knows what he is going to do. But the latest, is he only has a few weeks to mount an invasion because of winter weather conditions will not be favorable for an invasion.
So if Putin invades Ukraine, NATO's plan is to shut off Nordstream 2 and cut-off gas to Europe. Ukraine will try to defend itself with its own troops, including the military equipment we have sent there.
I think it will be a low-level conflict because, there is too much to lose on all sides with an all out war. I think Putin would like to overthrow President Zelensky of Ukraine and put somebody in that position that he can trust, like the former president, Proshenko.
Putin may not have as much military poised at the borders, as he would like us to think he does. He is very good at deception. Some of the equipment and troops could even be fake, in the form of inflatable balloons used as decoys. He has done it before and so have we.
Here is the latest from the BBC. There are other links embedded in this article that will give you even more information.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-56720589That sounds like a fair summation Mike. I did look around enough to understand the basics, (I think), and your summation matches up.
I have formed an uninformed opinion. I don't think Putin wants to invade Ukraine. I think this issue is high-stakes posturing to force a diplomatic solution in his interests. If those interests are solely his stopping the closing of the NATO ring, I think they are worth considering.
But, I think Putin will invade Ukraine if forced to back-up his bluff. He would still get the incomplete NATO ring he wants, (if that is what he wants), it would just cost him and Europe a lot more in tragedy and devastation.
GANord 2 is not factoring in to the economics of the situation, it is not a primary source for Germany, yet.
It is the people of Germany and elsewhere that will suffer SHORTAGES of fuel/energy should Nord 1 and Nord 2 be shut down, winter is probably not the best time for there to be shortages of natural gas... who would be hurt more by that Germany or Russia?
I think Ukraine has been led astray into believing that "the West" will stand up for them, I think our interference and our supplying them with weapons is only going to bring them much suffering for trusting in America and its motives... similar to how Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya have suffered because we "aided" them in throwing off their "repressive evil regimes".
I am somewhat dumbfounded by the fact that there could be enough people in the Ukraine thinking it a good idea to side with "the West" when Russia is adamantly saying it will in no circumstances accept their alliance with NATO.
Did they not see how America abandoned Afghanistan?
Did they not see how well off we left Iraq after ridding them of Saddam?
You have to want to see the destruction of your nation if you are Ukraine leadership and think you can join "the West" when Russia now has the backing of China to do "whatever is necessary" in regards to the Ukraine.
If the Ukraine leadership weren't backed by billions in corrupt funding from "the West" they would quickly make amends with Russia and join the Russian trade alliance and swear off joining NATO.
The problem would be solved, Russia would back down, there would be no war.
As excellent, objective, review of the situation as I could find, well worth the watch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2P9AmGcMdM"But, I think Putin will invade Ukraine if forced to back-up his bluff. " - [i]Isn't that at the crux of the issue? Putin wanted to "bluff" his way into bring Ukraine back into the Soviet/Russian orbit.
Ukraine and the West are calling his bluff (although several on this forum would rather let Putin have his way with the world.)
Since we ARE calling his bluff, will Putin be irrational enough to follow through with it. My bet is that if we show ANY sign of weakness, he will attack since Ukraine is not going to buckle under his bullying.
Again, GA, you are trying to treat murdering Putin like he is rational. He is not. He wants the Baltic states back for starters and if you hand over Ukraine to him like several here want the West to do, then it will be much more difficult to stop him from taking back what he thinks is rightfully his.
Well Scott, right from the start we disagree. My impression of Putin is that he is a very rational, savvy, and determined man. We apparently disagree on the strength of the NATO shield relative to whether Putin would challenge the West's treaty commitments. I don't think Putin would invade a NATO nation.
GA
Sorry Faye, Ken doesn't want you using the 20th century - it has no meaning to him.
Faye, do you really believe Putin would risk a world war?
And your sentiment "will we let him" --- what do you mean by that?I've read quite a bit on Putin's history as well as opinion pieces from former diplomats. I'm convinced he wants to rebuild the former Soviet sphere of influence and views this effort as a restoration of Russian greatness. Sort of like a "Make Russia great again" campaign. He has never disguised his bitter feelings about the collapse of the Soviet Union. He said, in his 2005 state of the nation address, “The demise of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century.” This, in my opinion, is a man on a mission.
If anyone has a bigger ego than Mr Trump it would be Putin. I think he may view it as his legacy.
Look at his history over the last decade.
Putin has tried to reestablish a degree of Russian control by force in now-independent countries he believes were unfairly ripped from Russia.
He invaded Georgia and maintains troops in ethnic enclaves there, as well as in a corner of Moldova. Russia now has effective control over Belarus via its Russia-dependent dictator. And Putin just sent 2,200 troops to Kazakhstan to help another Russia-friendly leader pull a coup and massacre hundreds of demonstrators.
And then there is Ukraine, where he invaded in 2014, annexing Crimea and setting up Russian proxies in the Donbas region of eastern Ukraine.
Yet, it is Russia that has massed weapons along the border of Ukraine, against a country that presents no physical threat to them. It is Russia that has moved missiles to Kaliningrad, a Russian province on the Baltic Sea between two NATO nations. It is Putin who is making threatening moves.
By demanding an end to further NATO enlargement and a ban on Ukraine's accession to NATO, Putin, IMO is not seeking to enhance Russia's security. Instead, He is seeking recognition of its right to intervene, including militarily, in countries that they believe remain its colonies.
Do we continue to appease him? Remember what Winston Churchill, said about appeasers: they are the ones who feed crocodiles, hoping they will be eaten last.
How to deal with him? I've recently read a great deal about the Magnitsky Act (It freezes certain Russian officials’ access to the stashes they were keeping in Western banks and real estate) being used to hit Putin and Russian oligarchs where it matters most, blocking access to their ill- gotten money.
Ultimately, I don't think Putin believes he's risking a world war. Putin’s apparent indifference towards Western warnings is understandable. He has been hearing the same empty promises of decisive action, typically accompanied by expressions of grave concern, ever since the Russian invasion of Georgia in 2008.
Just my two sense and some thoughts.Thank you for sharing, a very interesting and informative view. I will admit Putin is somewhat of an enigma in my view. Very hard to predict what he might have up his sleeve.
I don't imagine we will see another card played by him until the Olympics end in China. What that card may be is anyone's guess. I would think he will move in on Ukraine. he does not seem like he is the sort to back down.Faye wrote these true words He (murdering Putin) has been hearing the same empty promises of decisive action, typically accompanied by expressions of grave concern, ever since the Russian invasion of Georgia in 2008. - Bush, then Obama, then Trump let the world down be appeasing Putin and now we see where that has led us - to the brink of a Russian inspired war.
I still don't understand your mindset, Sharlee. You downplay Putin's murderous character by calling him an "enigma". That is almost excusing him. You do the same with Trump. I just don't get it.
But, I do agree, I don't think he will do anything during the Olympics. While he is waiting, the West should be shipping Ukraine thousands upon thousands of anti-air missiles, one for every Ukrainian citizen. That way, when Putin does cross the border, his air force won't last the day.
Then, with all of the anti-tank missiles that have been supplied, the Ukrainians will have a fair shot of kicking his ass.Scott: If you are interested, here is a look at the 10 most deadly weapons systems that Putin could use in an invasion of Ukraine.
https://fb.watch/b474oJRmWB/That reminded me of something else we should be supplying to the Ukrainians, if we aren't already doing so - counter-battery radar and lots of artillery pieces to help defeat Russian artillery.
The Ukrainian air force will never be a match to the Russians, not even close. That is why we need to supply a few hundred thousand Stinger (or more modern) anti-air missiles to neutralize the Russian air force quickly.
My comment to Faye was short and polite because I do respect the time and effort she put forth sharing her well-educated view. I did not respond in depth because I just think predicting what Putin could do or not do would be futile at this juncture. When using the term enigma I felt it suited this current situation, I feel Putin is being very enigmatic at this point.
I don't think anyone can figure out what he will do or won't do.
I did not in any respect mention or feel the need to mention his character in this given conversation. I have strong feelings about his character as most Americans do.
What we know of his character, is that he is not a man that will be toyed with. He is a ruthless leader that leads from strength, and using pure aggression would not be at all out of his character.
I agree on the US should be sending weapons to Ukraine as quickly as possible. I have no idea if this is being done. Hopefully, it is being done with good speed.
Well, he did exactly what you thought he'd do - Ignored every other positive just to complain about the inflationary effects on wages. These right-wingers are nothing if not predictable.
Yes, and he falls back on not reading the words as written and inserts his own.
Yesterday, the Treasury noted that the U.S. budget had a surplus of $119 billion in January. That’s the first budget surplus in more than two years. Tax receipts are up significantly: they grew 21% in January to $465 billion, as higher employment and earnings meant a big jump in payroll taxes and withholdings. At the same time, outlays fell 37%.
Amazing how much can be saved from a President who doesn't golf (and that can be a bipartisan dig at both Obama and Trump).Relative to Trump, Obama didn't know what a golf course looked like, lol.
Yes, it is amazing. How much a President doesn't golf can reduce real income via inflation through ill conceived plans.
That, of course, proves you have no conception of what causes inflation. Please educate yourself.
Come on Val --- Golf? This president has so many problems without outdoor activity. Have you checked the inflation rate or the price per barrel of oil? It is going up weekly, and soon will be over $100 a barrel. My gosh if he golfed we would most likely be rationing food and gas, with every other day brownouts.
Have YOU checked what causes inflation - ever? Hint: It isn't Biden. As I recommended to Wilderness, you really should educate yourself about what causes inflation (or higher oil prices for that matter). You might actually learn something and put the blame where it belongs rather than let your severe case of Biden Derangement Syndrome rule your life.
No, it's Biden... You can fool yourself. From day one the writing was on the wall that he would cause not only inflation but many many problems. As I have been saying as his poor decisions pile up. --- he is ill equipt to be a leader. It is almost hard to comprehend how all could go so badly in such a short time. And one need face it could get worse. Thank God we have a stalemated Congress. This man is a disaster.
And it is clear that I am not alone in my critique of Biden. I sit with the majority. It would be you that have a derangement syndrome, actually it a[pears you have several.
I predict his polls will take a further nose dive this upcoming week. I think many are feeling that he is a very weak leader, and are fearing having this man deal with a foreign conflict with Russia.The ONLY person fooling themselves here is you, Sharlee. Your BDS is so powerful, it has blinded you to reality.
You are correct, you are not alone in falsely thinking Biden or the Democrats can control inflation. There are a lot of people out their who wrongly believe your BDS-driven propaganda.
You know who DOESN'T agree with you? All most all ECONOMISTS.(I must assume there are a few under Trump's spell who won't). Unlike you, they know what causes inflation and it isn't a president nor is it a political party.
I see you are back to trying to use polls to prove facts. Sooner or later I hope you learn that doesn't work either.
As to how people FEEL EMOTIONALLY about President Biden, I suspect you are right. But how people feel today could change tomorrow.
Whether a policy Biden's proposes is good or bad doesn't change on emotional whims, it is either good, bad, or neutral and it generally stays that way regardless of how people FEEL about it.
The ONLY place where FEELINGS like this matter, is a few months before an election.BTW, I see you didn't answer the question about whether you have ever checked to see what causes inflation. I guess the answer is NO, you haven't.
One thing that will do it is giving out trillions in cash for nothing in return. More cash = more demand (without increased production) = higher prices (called inflation).
Another that will do it is reducing the work force by paying people to stay home. More demand for workers = higher wages (again without production gains) = inflation.
You might retake Econ 101 - I think these things would be covered there.That would be true, Wilderness, IF we were at full capacity. But we weren't and aren't.
Are you still putting forward that will debunked ruse that people were paid to stay home. I figured you would get tired of putting out misinformation.
Well, I already suggested you take Econ 101. Me, I have had Econ 101, 102, 103, 104 as well as obtained a professional certification in Cost and Economic Analysis. I guess you forgot the last time I told you that.
So yes, I know what I am talking about - unlike you.
Come on Shar, stop deflecting to your same stupid talking points. I gave a great shot to laugh along or to admit a positive and you went right back to your hate.
Noting inflation without wage gain. Price of oil, without noting when US oil production was actually cut. Your blind blame games are so tired at this point.
As long as you won't bother acknowledging the surplus, maybe I can get you to admit you're part of a violent cult: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJUUtSh8IyEI'll have to look into that "Read 3x faster ad at the beginning of the piece.
Obviously I am a big Biden fan, but even the best of people have self-destructive blind spots. In President Biden's case, it is Afghanistan. Not only do I believe he screwed the pooch in carrying out his obsession with getting out of there, now he digs himself a deeper hole by defending a clearly flawed (remember, I am retired Army/Air Force) DoD report on what happened with the suicide bombing in Kabul.
Fortunately, he has so many other positives to his credit, it makes up for these disappointments.
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/202 … tr-vpx.cnnJust a thought on one of the many contributors to inflation. I’m trying to understand how or maybe why companies are beating earnings forecasts and in some cases have record profit growth during a time of increased expenses (shipping containers for example). I understand most companies are passing along their increased cost to the consumer, but if a company blames that their costs have increased, so the prices of their goods/services need to increase to cover the cost, then how can they in turn have record profits?
We've all noticed higher prices on groceries and other consumer goods. In December, the U.S. consumer price index rose by 7% year over year.
In response to rising inflation and supply chain issues, some (most) companies have passed along their higher costs to us.
Some economists and even some politicians have raised concerns about the prices of consumer goods, pointing out that although some companies cite inflation or supply chain issues as their rationale for increases, they’re not just breaking even, they’re raking in high profits!
Corporations are using the excuse of inflation to raise prices and make large profits. In turn it's adding to the problem of inflation.You are certainly correct. I have seen several reports lately going into what you just observed - inflation caused by greed.
I have studied a lot about economics but that is one area that I have not looked into closely - I think I will.
One are of greed I did study was its impact on causing recessions and depressions. It is the first of five factors I list in my book which, if all are present, a 2008-type recession is likely to happen.
Here is what I am talking about between the difference in perceptions (poll results) and reality.
Most Americans have come out ahead economically from the pandemic in spite of inflation
This analysis notes that The highest rate of inflation in four decades -- 7.5% on an annual basis in last week's government data -- explains part of the sour mood. Yet that worrisome milestone is directly related to another, more reassuring one: the highest annual economic growth in four decades, with an unemployment rate of just 4%.
economists at the University of California-Berkeley estimate that disposable income for Americans overall increased by 5.3% after inflation from December 2019 to December 2021.
I know you President Biden haters hate to see facts like that, but there you go.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/13/politics … index.htmlInteresting information! And, I agree there is always more than one perspective. Yet, that 5.3% increase does not apply to me with a fixed income, so in essence is kinda' worthless. But, the inflation figure does because I do experience it at the gas pump and grocery store. Alas, isn't that the funny thing about perspectives?
Yes, that would be true. And even if your fixed income is inflation adjusted, it often lags in any case. Your situation would be even more serious if your fixed income is on the low side.
That is what Conservatives often do not understand, not everybody can simply go find a job or demand higher pay yet that seems to be their one-size fits all panacea to any low income situation.
That is where their demand that everybody pay the same flat rate (in order to be "fair") fails dramatically. Those on fixed income or are stuck in low wage jobs simply do not have the room to pay 10% of their income and still live, let alone live well.
Another "funny" thing about perception is that one would think that with well over 50% of Americans doing OK, the polls would reflect that. But they don't. What they reflect is that most Americans live on fixed incomes or receive very low wages (which, btw, many are beating inflation today - finally, although the wages are still very low).Yes, you would think the polls would reflect many are doing better. That is why I always look to see the sample size of a poll, type, and who conducted it. I use five thirty eight as a guide while always seek to see if Pew Research has looked into it. If anything they usually provide the methodology and sample size. Gallup does a good job as well.
What the right on this site seem to be willing to ignore is that Biden is doing exactly what he was elected to do - not be Trump. No texts, no golf, no using the government to line his own pockets, no violations of the law since he was elected.
There's some good (which they completely ignore) and some clear areas of concern. Biden wasn't supposed to be a messiah, he was supposed to be a good man that didn't inspire white supremacists and turn Americans into domestic terrorists. It was a low bar that he has cleared by a mile.
And once Trump gets the nomination in 2024, we will be right back to where we were in 2020. With over half the country voting for anything but Trump's brand of autocracy, lawlessness, and continued inspiration of turning Americans against their fellow Americans.
2020 wasn't an election, it was purely an eviction.Well put, although I would add that he was elected to repair the damage Trump caused to America's credibility, prestige, esteem, and pride as well as the physical damage he did to democracy and the institutions of democracy. He is doing well along those lines but has much more to do.
Under Trump, I was embarrassed to be an American. Under Biden, I am proud again to be one (his terrible decision with Afghanistan not withstanding).Proud of what? My God, we have never looked so ridiculous to the world in my opinion. We have never been so divided, we have never spiraled out of control to this extent in decades. Proud?
And more to come...Actually, we have looked more ridiculous. You like polls, here are the ones that show when we did look the most ridiculous and then ones showing how we have rebounded after Biden's election.
https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2020 … rus-badly/
https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2021 … -to-biden/
Never spiraled out of control to this extent? Are you kidding? It wasn't Biden who had to shut down most of the US economy because he couldn't protect American from a pandemic. It wasn't Biden who took low unemployment rates and doubled them. It wasn't Biden who set record national deficits in just four years. That's some spiraling. As always, take your blinders off.
And what continues to divide us is Trumpism, who lashes out at any bipartisan action the country takes. He calls anyone who votes with Democrats, RINO's. Why does such chaos make you proud?Interesting. Trump was loudly faulted for not doing enough to stop the pandemic while in office; now he is faulted for doing too much.
What continues to divide us is the insistence that each is 100% right, and each side refuses to consider any compromise because they already have all the answers and those answers work for everybody because, after all, they are 100% right.
Coupled, of course, with the insistence that Trump is 100% evil, did and does nothing right and has an incorrect vision of what the country needs...with that same attitude directed towards anyone not on the "Trash Trump" bandwagon. Just a subset of the first, but a very strong and very vocal subset that sets the teeth on edge of those that don't agree.
You make it sound like Trump (and whoever isn't on your bandwagon) are the only ones dividing. He (and they) are not.Yes, I fault his ignorance of the 2018 warnings, which I have posted many times here, for leading to a shutdown of much of our economy. That's not doing too much, but having not done anything that led to a spiral of our economy.
And it's not what's right, but what is popular among the American people. When Republicans cannot get on board with policies that 65%-70% of the American people support, that's not about being right or wrong, it's about denying what the people want.
Even the simplest thing like voting to prevent America from not defaulting on their debt is something Trump rails against, even when it's something clearly bipartisan and in the best interest of the nation.
And as always, you ignore the times when even partisans like Eso and I have noted Trump policies that did work to make an inaccurate claim that there we insist he 'did and does nothing right...'"When Republicans cannot get on board with policies that 65%-70% of the American people support..."
The would seem to indicate that only 30% of the population is conservative (Republican, that is) but we both know better. Must be a lot of Republicans getting jabbed. All those that want to be jabbed got it - the problem is that they also demand that those that do NOT want it be jabbed as well. Control of others, that's the liberal mantra.
You want to prevent America from defaulting, stop spending like madmen. Raise taxes to pay the debt. But DO NOT simply borrow more so you can have a higher debt.
Yes, ESO found one policy he liked, and I commented on it. How about you? Can you find more than one thing he did right? Perhaps shutting down a great deal of border crossings? Perhaps his attempt to force Congress to stop ignoring the illegal problem within the country, specifically all those kids Obama put into some kind of second class citizenry because Congress didn't it's job then either? Putting honest judges on SCOTUS rather than ones that will vote their conscience or the liberal platform? Was it good policies that lowered black unemployment to the lowest point ever or do you give credit to Obama for that?
Does he get credit for convincing companies to leave their primary products behind and make masks or ventilators? How about bringing businesses, and their jobs, back into the country?
Trump did quite a bit of good things during his short stay; far more than the past few did in their 8 years."he problem is that they also demand that those that do NOT want it be jabbed as well. " - Which simply proves my point - Conservatives don't give a damn about hurting others through their own bad decisions.
I think I said earlier that I will be coming to the point where I agree with Wilderness on this issue. ONCE, the child vaccine is out and responsible parents have had time to get their 6 month to 5 year olds vaccinated then I think all restrictions should come off.
Why? Because no longer will innocents (other than the children of stupid parents) be hurt by the stupidity of those who do not want to get vaccinated. Those who were smart enough to get vaccinated are protected from getting really sick or dying as the result of the selfishness of others.
Right now nearly 2,500 mostly Trump Republicans are dying from Covid. Well, they can just keep dying (to take the Conservative point of view). They had their chance to protect themselves and they chose to commit suicide instead.
"Yes, ESO found one policy he liked, and I commented on it." - Except you made a very false statement with your comment, as I have pointed out a couple of times. Let me put in caps so it MIGHT get through your blood-brain barrier. THERE ARE A [i]FEW THINGS I GIVE TRUMP CREDIT FOR. BUT ONLY A FEW [/i]
Did Trump bring back jobs from overseas? NO. https://www.epi.org/publication/reshori … ring-jobs/
President Donald Trump, after much reluctance, has used the powers of the Defense Production Act to compel companies to manufacture items in short supply that would aid in the U.S. response to the deadly coronavirus. - Sounds like to me that Trump was FORCED to do what you think he did voluntarily. So, no, I don't give him credit for it.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/03/coronav … o-far.html
And putting Conservatives who want to take away a woman's right to choose, voting rights, civil rights and basically move America back to the bad old days on SCOTUS is NOT a good thing and worthy of any sort of credit.
I have a little different view of it which lets Trump off the hook, but only a little bit.
There is no question Trump screwed up royally in reacting to the pandemic. I don't fault him for a slow start in January given nobody REALLY knew what was about to crash on our heads.
But, from February one, Trump only made things worse (other than approving Operation Warpspeed). I do not think there was much choice to the first wave of shutting down the economy - I don't know what else could have been done even had Trump reacted appropriately. BUT, because he did not, everything from July 2020 is on him. It simply did not have to be has bad as it turned out to be in virtually EVERY aspect of the pandemic (again save for the amazingly fast development of a vaccine.)
And even with giving him credit for having vaccines available in Dec 2020, he was ill prepared to get them into peoples arms in sufficient numbers. It took President Biden to do that.'There is no question Trump screwed up royally in reacting to the pandemic.'
By about two years if you ask me...
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/ … rpt-474322
No, what divides us is Trump insisting he won and almost 40% of the country believing the Big Lie and with many to commit MORE violence to defend the LIE.
Yes, it is Trump and his Trump Republicans that is doing 95% of the dividing. No question about it.
I do respect polls to an extent. They are all we have to go on. Your example rings shallow. First, the Pew poll you supplied in regard to Trump did you not the date, and the subject --- June 2020 U.S. Image Plummets Internationally as Most Say Country Has Handled Coronavirus Badly
Yes, your poll from June 2021 shows Joe in a better light. however skip to the present Jan 2022, not so pretty.
Joe Biden began his presidency with positive job ratings and broad public confidence in his ability to deal with a number of major challenges – particularly the public health impact of the coronavirus. He starts his second year with diminished job approval and majorities expressing little or no confidence in him on many of these same issues, the coronavirus included.
" It wasn't Biden who had to shut down most of the US economy because he couldn't protect American from a pandemic. "
Trump shut down the country due to a dire need to protect the country from an unknown enemy. You had a different tune back then. You complained when Trump was pushing to open the country in the summer of 2020. Most of the world followed his lead. and we can be thankful they did. We would have lost many more lives in the first months that COVID hit. I don't need to call you hypocritical your words do the trick.
Biden did nothing in regard to bringing people into the workforce, he paid them to stay home, he create inflation... That's my view, and anyone with a brain can see that the numbers have gotten better due to the flow of cash stopped, and people are returning to the workforce. Believe what you please. That's my take.
I don't care what Trump is doing --- he is not the president. Biden is, and for me --- I could not be more ashamed of American's for voting in a man that was clearly losing cognitive abilities. And a man that in no respect can handle the job of the presidency. What continues to divide us is that perhaps half the country is done with the status quo, and are no longer willing to sit back and see America ruined. And in my view, this will only progress... Many of us do not want a puppet in a suit, being told what to do and say due to just not having the qualifications to do his job.
recent polls are a good way to measure current approval. The old ones matter little.
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/20 … hallenges/
Did you also note the date of your Biden research poll?Sharlee: The problem that I see is half of the country wants a lying con artist for president, so they can be associated with his glitz and glamor, even if they know he is lying. That's part of the con and indicates how successful the con is.
I just watched a Netflix special called Inventing Anna Delvy. It shows how a 29 year old con artist conned here way to high society and the millionaire culture, when she didn't have a penny to her name. I saw so much of Trump in her behavior and demeanor. When a con artist is working their con, the people they are conning just want to be associated with them. They don't care if they are being lied to or not.People, I think that real reason for Trump's popularity comes from a far more sinister aspect of American society.
He is nothing more than a tyrant without the character to come out and just say so. All the talk about his being this novel breath of fresh air in Washington, and being an example of a strong leader is just so much bunk.Trump conned a lot of Good People into believe his con. He also played to the bad in people which brought them to the polls as well. (and there are a whole lot more bad people in America than my apparently naïve view of American character allowed me to believe).
After four years of seeing what Trump actually was, the Good People voted for Biden.
The sad thing is, because of Biden gaffes, missteps, unfortunate events, and very good propaganda from the Right (and yes, Sharlee, the appearance of weakness - he isn't in reality, but certainly comes across that way) those same Good People may elect Trump Republicans again in 2022.
I learned very recently that my wife dumped a guy in her past because he was "too good, too nice".. I always thought those kinds of guys are hard to come by.
Speaking of con artists --- You want a good "con story' Here is one that has backfired.
"Durham probe has 'accelerated,' with more people 'cooperating,' coming before a grand jury"
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/durham … grand-jury
We will finally get to the full truth on the Democratic grift of a century.
I am so glad Durham has handled this investigation in a respectful manner and prevented leaks. Justice will prevail. And actually, Trump will be exonerated on all Russia Russia Russia scams.
The DNC and the Clinton are going to be outed and hopefully punished to prevent this kind of corruption from happening again.
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/dur … ite-house/
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics … li=BBnbcA1
https://news.yahoo.com/durham-motion-al … 12108.html
https://nypost.com/2022/02/13/rep-jorda … ut-spying/
https://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-cl … 1644852226
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl … rvers.html
https://mynbc15.com/news/nation-world/t … el-susmann
Trump blasted the media claiming they were not covering this breaking story... he was wrong, they are jumping on it... All but CNN.Sharlee: I'm nor going to read all those right wing links. That's ridiculous and time consuming. Here is CNN's side of the story, hot off the press.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/14/politics … index.html
Trump and his legal team are doing just what con artists do. When con artists are attacked, they will attack the attackers to distract and save their own a**es. That's what Trump is doing.
He is still pulling the big lie con. He will not give up, because in his sick ego, he has to win, even if he has to fool himself and his people into believing he won.Okay Mike, now that there takes the cake . . . Using CNN as the benchmark for dismissing "right wing links.'
Plus, you included MSN.com as a right-wing link. Surely you can see the irony?
GAGA: I'm not using it as a benchmark. That was just a mistake including MSN. I became overwhelmed with all of her links.
But, here is what Sharlee said about CNN;
"Trump blasted the media claiming they were not covering this breaking story... he was wrong, they are jumping on it... All but CNN."
I posted the CNN article to show Sharlee, that CNN has skin in the game as well and has their own opinion and sources.
As far as irony goes, it's O.K. to investigate Hillary, even though she is long gone but not O.K. to investigate Trump because people in this forum say we should concentrate on Biden instead.Hold on now, you are leaving me behind. All that `is it true or isn't it true'stuff about the claim being made, and the stuff about Hillary and investigations is beyond the point of my comment.
You dismissed the reporting of "right wing" links, (inferring a lack of trustworthiness), and then offered a CNN reporting as proof. For my point, it doesn't matter which links were more accurate it was simply the irony of offering a Left-wing source to discredit a Right-wing source.
No worries, I'm not looking for a `who's source is more truthful' argument. I was just cruising through when I saw the comparison.
GA
CNN is late to the game. They released nothing until late today on the story...In fact, the story is miss dated Feb 15. I found nothing published by CNN, and I don't watch their cable network, so not sure if they addressed it on air.
My comment is all about the Durham investigation, not about what you feel Trump has done, but in this case what was done to Trump. This new information is damming and shows just what the Clinton campaign and their flunkies hoped to pull off. In my view, this is a disgusting scandal and shows to what lengths the Democrats and Clinton campaigns would go to smear Trump, and try to win the election.
And I was careful to post a couple of Left-leaning outlets, although not many were covering the story this morning, but have since decided they would. It will be one of the biggest stories I would think of the decade. It's such a shame our politicians are so slimy.
Yahoo MSN
Wall Street Journal
NBC
And more outlets are picking up on the story in the last few hours
.https://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-really-was-spied-on-2016-clinton-campaign-john-durham-court-filing-11644878973
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justic … -rcna16123
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 … ed-mainst/
https://www.independent.co.uk/topic/john-durham
It did not surprise me that they would hold out and put fingers in their ears... But this story is loud and provides demonstrative evidence of wrongdoing... Just can't be ignored.
I had faith in our justice system and Durham, and I am pleased to see he is unearthing the facts, and providing Americans the truth of what crimes were committed during Russiagate, and who was involved in the scam."It will be one of the biggest stories I would think of the decade. " - You)keep me in stitches, thank you. I haven't laughed this loud in a long time. We have (are) lived through the last five years of the single most corrupt presidency in American history and you find THIS (a very weak case indeed) to be the "biggest story"? I have to hand it to you for your depth of disillusion.
Durham hasn't "unearthed" diddly-squat other than some minor (and possibly untrue) lies to the FBI where the main witness in one of them is UNSURE of his own memory, lol."some minor (and possibly untrue) lies to the FBI "
Hmm . . . You should give Flynn a call. You could commiserate with him about the size of his lie to the FBI.
GAI have a feeling you laugh a lot. And not sure it is always appropriate to any given situation. And, did I miss something, is this breaking news not exposing the dishonesty of a corrupt political party spy on and working to smear a duly elected president? My God wake up. Facts are being brought forth to prove that the DNC and Clinton tried to pull off a despicable scam. I am thankful justice is prevailing.
Trump, has not been indicted for any crime. Maybe time to see your big wish will never come true.
Not sure how anyone with a tad of intelligence could not see the problem that this nut job has caused for America. She started an ugly ball of lies that are still being tossed around today, and those lies turned into many more lies about Trump. It would be you that will be the brunt of laughter in the end. That is my prediction.
Not sure why this is funny. I don't think most American's would find this kind of corruption funny. It's disgusting and embarrassing. This investigation will most likely produce more crimes and involve many people. It's not funny, it's a disgrace. and IMO it is the very root that caused the hate we live with now.
AGIAN when faced with facts, you offer a silly reply.So Sussman got access, through his normal contacts, to data that confirmed that someone near Trump's Administration was using Russian made communications equipment.
I think you are right, this will produce more crimes and involve many people. That you want to persecute the people who uncovered an administration in secret communications with a hostile foreign government is the disgusting and embarrassing part of all of this.
“As a result of the hacks of EOP and [Democratic National Committee] servers in 2015 and 2016, respectively, there were serious and legitimate national security concerns about Russian attempts to infiltrate the 2016 election,” the spokesperson said. “Upon identifying DNS queries from Russian-made Yota phones in proximity to the Trump campaign and the EOP, respected cyber-security researchers were deeply concerned about the anomalies they found in the data and prepared a report of their findings, which was subsequently shared with the CIA.”
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justic … -rcna16123How do you jump from "someone near Trump's Administration" (meaning someone within a city block?) to "an administration in secret communications with a hostile foreign government"?
Do you just assume it because it wasn't taped by that administration and made public within the hour? Do you expect every campaign to make public all their communications, or just Trump's?Thank you for your light-hearted sarcasm and humor.
"So Sussman got access, through his normal contacts, to data that confirmed that someone near Trump's Administration was using Russian made communications equipment." - Facts don't matter to Trump Republicans. Only changing, twisting, distorting, and abusing the facts to fit a predetermined narrative does.
Sussman is as good as in jail or perhaps he makes a deal... And many will follow his lead... or sit in jail. Remember this, I would have to hate to dig it up in the future to quote my prediction.
So you looked at the 'evidence' and came to the conclusion that Sussman is guilty.
We have done the same thing with Trump's many crimes. His business has already been indicted. The Georgia election call is about as obvious a crime as you can have. And his election lies have been proven false, so since January 6 was a rally to support those lies, it's pretty clear he has culpability for the injuries sustained on that day. Add to that the fraud of submitting false elector paperwork organized by his personal lawyer, and he is in a world of hurt.Val: I have learned when con artists are attacked, they act the part of the victim, but attack back. Trump is under pressure from the investigative committee, so he and his minions have come up with this false story about Hillary spying on Trump.
From what I can see, they have no substantial evidence to support their allegations, but it makes for a great distraction to try and get the heat off of Trump.I see Shar completely ignored my link from Sussman's initial indictment. This current news story is basically a rehashing of the initial indictment as this information seemed present in there already. Which is why I called it already used red meat that did exactly what Fox News wanted, distract their viewers from all the heat on Trump.
Has Trump been indicted and awaiting a trial? Keep fooling yourself. Like I said remember I predict he ends up in jail or folds. Not worth discussing that this is no conspiracy there is pure evidence of him committing crimes. He is going down, and many will follow.
And this is not a "well Trump did this" this is about what was done to Trump. Deflecting is not going to exonerate those that are involved with this mess.
The "big lie" is another conversation. Try to consintrate.The big lie
The Capitol mob
"The attempt to nullify the "people's voice" by certain members of Congress and the President of the United States in direct and clear violation of Constitutional mandates, with an attempt to strongarm the Vice President to be an accessory."
It seems very obvious that the crowd that entered and rioted at the Capitol was there to stop the procedure. However, should or could we consider many many thousands attended that rally, and went home. It was not a majority that marched on the Capitol. Could we not glean that many were not willing to subvert "anything"? We can't assume what all feel, just the ones that broke the law.
And should we not be concerned more about the true unrest generally in our society?
Now, I see a team effort to deflect... Cute This was about the very current news that new evidence has been found to support the case against Sussman ---
"John Durham, the federal prosecutor, who has been probing the allegation of Donald Trump's "collusion" with Russia, revealed that former United States secretary of state Hillary Clinton' campaign had paid a tech company to "infiltrate" Trump Tower, Sputnik reported. The report also claimed that the tech company also infiltrated the White House servers in order to falsify a "narrative". A new motion filed by Durham on Friday is looking at the possible clash of interest in regard to former Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussman, who was charged with making false statements to a federal agent (a charge Sussman pleaded not guilty to), reported Sputnik.
Irrespective of the motion filed by Durham, Sussman claimed he was not doing work "for any client" in September 2016. On the other hand, Durham argued he "had congregated and reported the allegations to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) on behalf of at least two specific clients-- Tech Executive 1 and Internet Company 1. According to the federal prosecutor, Sussman repeatedly billed the Clinton Campaign for his work regarding the purported ties between the Trump campaign and Russia's Alfa Bank."
I would think this is very pertinent news to discuss. It certainly is not going away due to deflection. We will soon be witnessing his trial.
However, that said, you have every right to continue all that is Trump.
Made my point on this current story, will leave it to others to ruminate on all that is Trump.
"Sussman is as good as in jail or perhaps he makes a deal.." - Yet you become very hypocritical and take great umbrage when we say the same about Trump who has tons more evidence of his crimes. Can you please be consistent?
I understood from the news tonight that Sussman has been indicted. What has Trump been indicted for? Or even formally charged in a courtroom for?
So you ARE saying Al Capone is innocent of murder. Interesting (and weird).
Back to first grade with you, and learn to read!
Here, let me be clearer since you obviously don't get it. So you ARE saying Al Capone is innocent of murder since he was never indicted AND convicted of it? That is the analogy to your ridiculous claim about Trump.
I mean come on! Bringing up Al Capone is very weird. Your propensity for dramatic analogies is outrageous.
I really didn't think I would have to spell it out to you because your mind is more flexible than Wilderness', but, it is an apt analogy, which is probably why you don't like it.
You and Wilderness say Trump isn't guilty of ANY of the crimes and other misdeeds he is being investigated for BECAUSE he has not been indicted AND convicted. HOW is that different from Al Capone never being convicted of murder. You have to apply the same logic to both situations.
SO, either you don't think Al Capone was a murderer because he was never convicted - which is inline with your view of Trump, or you do think he was a murder which then makes you a hypocrite relative to Trump."You and Wilderness say Trump isn't guilty of ANY of the crimes and other misdeeds he is being investigated for BECAUSE he has not been indicted AND convicted."
This is the factual truth. Trump is not a murdering gangster, and it is slander to refer to him in that light. As always you are dramatizing.
If Trump has not been charged with any violent or white-collar crimes.
He has in no respect colluded with Russia or been easy on Russia.
You have things half-ass backward. It's clear we will learn a lot when Sussman is brought to trial. In fact, I feel confident we will get to hear the entire corrupt Clinton scam that has rolled right along and caused such hate in this country of a man that has literally done nothing to deserve all the hate. You should be ashamed of yourself to go on and on in regard to unproven allegations.
I in no respect feel like a hypocrite, in fact, I feel I have kept a level head, and let facts and truth guide me through these past few years where hate has been stoked, and many have fallen captive to.
All we need now, Esoteric, are a couple, maybe three or four Elliott Ness types to stand up.
That would be nice. Too bad Mueller was so apolitical.
Wilderness: This is why Trump has not been charged or indicted...yet.
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/t … cna1268429
This is why the Trump Organization is going to trial.
https://www.businessinsider.com/judge-r … uit-2022-2No did not miss it --- I got such a kick from this statement in the NBC article you posted.
"The prosecution must also prove criminal intent, which can be challenging when the target heads a large organization. In fact, the typical defense offered by tax evaders — "my accountants prepared my returns and I just signed them" — hasn't gone unnoticed by Trump, who has already pointed out that his tax returns were prepared by "among the biggest and most prestigious law and accounting firms in the U.S." It could be a heavy lift to convict a former president of any kind of business fraud when he has surrounded himself with lawyers and accountants."
I just can't imagine a billionaire sitting down at a PC using Turbo tax... Or H+R Block. Of course, trump relied on lawyers and accountants to handle his taxes and loans.
If Trump or his organization has committed crimes I would hope these so-called crimes would not be so hard to uncover. This kind of harassment is unAmerican, and clearly a witch hunt. One that will go absolutely nowhere. But hold on to your hopes, there is still a tioletgate you can hope will take him down. Gosh, maybe time to take account of all he has been accused of, and realize he is just being hounded.Sharlee:
Trump is like a mafia chief. He is untouchable at this point, but as all his lieutenants and his organization goes down, he will be the last one to go down. He has to be held accountable for trying to con Raffensperger for more votes and Jan. 6.
He has conned half of this country, but the other half wants him to be held accountable for his crimes. His so called "witch hunt" is part of the con to make him look like the victim.How about this --- if he is arrested for a crime, I will be very much interested to see him have a trial, and I will totally respect the outcome. I just have no concept how some can become so enthralled with being told about trump committing crime after crime, and just not realizing its unproven hype. Nothing but allegations. It's like some are very much brainwashed into another reality.
We have a wonderful system of law enforcement. Please consider if Trump has committed any crimes he would be charged accordingly.
It is very clear to me our very society is in trouble due to this kind of mindset being adopted by many. It's like a ravenous mob out to hang a person without a crime or any evidence of a crime. This is dangerous.
Hey man, whatever. I am very glad I have not fallen into this craziness. It would be hard to live with such turmoil and hate.
Do you have so little trust in our law enforcement community
as a whole?
Can you not see the foolishness of the article you posted from NBC? You deflected away from my comment. Don't you find it a bit comical that this article gives such a lame reason that Trump can escape tax problems because he has accountants and lawyers? Don't many American's use accountants to do their taxes? Should I be indited for a tax problem if my accountant makes a mistake? Should you? This is very comical to me.
Lots of vague excuses why Trump can't be indicted. The question I have is should he be indited due to the mistake of an accountant? Would such a case not be tossed. It's pure harassment to continue this tax BS witch hunt. I myself like Tioletgate. He flushed papers in the toilet, and one source claimed he ate some documents... MY God, when with this all stop. You see where it all began, and spun out of control. Russiagate. At least we may get some answers on that mess soon.
I have faith we will because I do trust our justice system, and yes it has taken a while but the big picture is coming into the light of day. And we will see corruption will be a punished with good factual evidence. And if innocent we will still see our system work...Sharlee: You don't believe that trying to change presidential election results is a crime? If it is not identified as a crime, then others can do it as well. Is that justice? I trust our law enforcement community. I just don't trust Trump and his community.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- … SKBN2992C9
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2 … d-and-abet" You don't believe that trying to change presidential election results is a crime? " - No, because it is the Trump Republican thing to do if you lose lol.
Do you believe people should be arrested before they are investigated? It certainly seems that way from what you write.
You must not follow the real news much - rich people get off ALL the time because they are rich (look at O.J. Simpson) and can hire expensive lawyers and accountants.
That said, Trump may be in big doo-doo now because his accounting firm figured out he had been lying to them all of this time and 1) dumped him and 2) are cooperating with the prosecution.
I find it strange that a supposed conservative finds following the evidence unAmerican harassments. I guess you think that Roger Stone (who was found guilty) was harassed, or
State Senator David Burkette or
Los Angeles Councilman Mitchell Englander (R) was sentenced to one year and one day in prison for obstructing a probe into his alleged corruption. or
State Representative John Green (R) convicted of fraud. or
the list gets very long of politicians convicted of crimes which the investigation of prior to conviction YOU consider harassment. Generally, conservatives don't think that way.
Hounded? A funny term to use for somebody who is being investigated for what normal people would already be in jail for.
Yes --- 100% correct. Some just can't realize that fact.
I guess you missed this the first time I posted it.
This is why Trump has not been charged or indicted...yet.
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/t … cna1268429
This is why the Trump Organization is going to trial.
https://www.businessinsider.com/judge-r … uit-2022-2
In my view, there is enough evidence due to prove he lied to the FBI. Bank records show this, and Dyram has claimed Sussman was paid by The Clinton campaign and the DNC. he told the FBI when he pedaled his lies about Trump colluding that he was not representing anyone.
The obvious difference between Trump and Sussman ---
1. Sussman has been indicted and awaits trial. He clearly promoted the FBI to investigate all his crazy claims, which the FBI found no evidence of any truth to his allegations.
2. Trump has not been indicted for any crime, only accused of drummed up crimes such as the crap Sussman was pushing for the Clinton Campaign. -- When someone commits a crime there is usually evidence of a crime.
You seem to accuse Trump of a crime, and then look to prove the crime. I would think after all these many years of one witch hunt after another you would realize it is just very unfair, actually unAmerican.
I am very consistent. Not even sure where you see any inconsistencies in my posts. I have always pointed out to you Trump has not been indicted for anything, zero.
As I said -- I predict Sussman will do time if he does not make a deal to talk. I really do not think he will fall on his sword. You can hold me to this one. The writing is on the wall. I think we will get the entire ugly truth out of this pansy, with all the evidence, on all that were involved. He is a lawyer, he has his ass covered.
If your story wasn't exaggerated, twisted, and distorted out of all proportion, you might be right. But it is, which is why it is so funny.
I offered many links that offer facts as they are known to this point. Not sure why you feel these reports are exaggerated? I have not twisted anything just provide what is being reported. So, maybe you might take up your complaint with the journalists that are reporting the facts.
It is amazing how you can skirt around facts, yet believe all kinds of conspiracies reports, as well as reports that hold only accusations. There is a condition that promotes that form of thinking you know.
I am very sure we will finally get answers, and people charged with their crimes in regard to Russiagate. It will be a pleasure to say "hey told ya so"...
"Trump shut down the country " - [i]I will argue that Trump had virtually nothing to do with shutting down the economy (sorry Valeant), it was the states. For one very short period Trump went along with it, and then, in April, I think, started pushing to open the economy back up while discouraging mask wearing and social distancing. In other words, he wanted more people to get sick and die so his buddies can make money. Fortunately, many of his buddies were smarter than him and kept their plants closed if they couldn't protect their workers.
Of COURSE we have looked more ridiculous, from 2016 to 2021. You are right, we have never been so divided (in modern times) because of Trump!
I know being friends with our allies again is nothing to be proud of for Trumpers - he spent a lot of time and effort making enemies of our former friends, why let that go to waste, eh?.
I known that being respected by our allies again is nothing to be proud of for you
I know one should be ashamed of the American Rescue Plan
I know we all should rue the day that Biden set out and accomplished providing enough vaccines for everyone in America to be vaccinated - In record time.
I know it was just so horrible he got a bi-partisan infrastructure plan past.
I know it must upset you terribly that most Americans are better off then they were before the pandemic IN SPITE of inflation.
Yeah, you are right, nothing to be proud of.
I just find it comical how accepting Trump supporters are that someone using Russian communication equipment in Trump's Administration is fine, but those that discovered it and reported that to the CIA are the traitors.
#ToodumbtoseetherealtraitorsYep, it certainly seems that way, doesn't it.
The ugly ball of lies as you call them began when Trump asked the Russia government to find Hillary's e-mails. They continued when his campaign coordinated with Wikileaks on the release of those hacks. And they culminated with Trump's campaign chairman coordinating with members of Russian Intelligence to target those releases and propaganda in certain areas of the country.
Those facts were all proven by multiple Congressional reports. You cannot sit there and claim Trump's campaign is the bastion of innocence.
And some low-level lawyer engaged in putting together a report about that hostile foreign government using communications near the Trump campaign. Then the Mueller Report detailing the hundreds of contacts between the campaign and Russians, as well as confirming Manafort coordinating with Russian Intelligence.
And we have you here chastising those trying to protect national security and distracting from the fact that Trump's campaign colluded with a hostile foreign government to win the 2016 election.Here is what I found out about the alleged spying by Hillary Clinton.
"John Durham, appointed by then-Attorney General William Barr in 2020 to probe the origins of the FBI’s investigation of Russian election interference, said “Tech Executive-1,” not named in the filing but first identified by The New York Times as Rodney Joffe, used his access to domain name system, or DNS, data to compile information about which computers and servers the White House servers were communicating with.
Trump and his allies said the disclosure was proof that Trump was under surveillance while he was in office. “They were spying on the sitting president of the United States,” Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, told Fox News on Sunday. “And it goes right to the Clinton campaign.” In a statement Monday, Trump said the alleged spying was “the biggest story of our time, bigger than Watergate.”
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justic … -rcna16123
Special counsel John Durham charged lawyer Michael Sussman over a statement during a Sept. 19, 2016 meeting between Sussmann and the then-FBI general counsel, James Baker, at which Sussman told Baker about suspicions relating to alleged secret communications between the Trump campaign and Russia. The suspicions were later determined to be unfounded.
According to the indictment, "During the meeting, Sussmann lied about the capacity in which he was providing the allegations to the FBI. Specifically, Sussmann stated falsely that he was not doing his work on the aforementioned allegations ‘for any client,’ which led the FBI General Counsel to understand that Sussmann was acting as a good citizen merely passing along information, not as a paid advocate or political operative."
"In fact, Sussmann acted on behalf of specific clients, namely a U.S. Technology Industry Executive, a U.S. Internet Company and the Hillary Clinton Presidential Campaign.”
The indictment says the lie was material because it misled the FBI “about the political nature of his work.”
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justic … n-n1279353
Anyone who has ever worked on computers knows how to use DOS commands to check networks for communications between computers. It's easy to convert DNS (Domain Name Service) to IP addresses.. "And they culminated with Trump's campaign chairman coordinating with members of Russian Intelligence to target those releases and propaganda in certain areas of the country." This is misinformation... Mistruth
Again I provide facts on Manford
"Manafort was charged with various financial crimes including tax evasion, bank fraud, and money laundering. There were 18 criminal charges including 5 falsifications of income tax returns, 4 failures to file foreign bank account reports, 4 counts of bank fraud, and 5 counts of bank fraud conspiracy." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trials_of … onspiracy.
"Trump asked the Russia government to find Hillary's e-mails. They continued when his campaign coordinated with Wikileaks on the release of those hacks"
Both lines from Trump said in jest. Drew big laughs from the crowds. He is a very funny man. great sense of humor. It was CNN that twisted his words chewed them up and vomited them up for sheep food. This kind of disgusting news reporting is what has only a few that need that sheep food still watching. The Muller report lead to Zero but was more fodder for the hate machine... For sheep. Was Trump indicted?
Muller found no collusion with Russia. And he sure did try hard... But zero
You are all over the place. Did this new evidence shock your system?You are too uneducated to even converse with. Go read the Senate report and stop relying on sources that only fit your narratives. You list only half the information and ignore the most relevant.
I do not believe I referred to you as uneducated? Please point out a quote. I have read the new information that initiated Durham to add his motion. It is very clear. And I can see you comprehend it differently than I.
"The filing alleges that Sussmann "had assembled and conveyed the allegations to the FBI on behalf of at least two specific clients, including a technology executive (Tech Executive 1) at a U.S.-based internet company (Internet Company 1) and the Clinton campaign."
Sussmann’s "billing records reflect" that he "repeatedly billed the Clinton Campaign for his work on the Russian Bank-1 allegations," according to Durham’s filing." "Sussmann’s "billing records reflect" that he "repeatedly billed the Clinton Campaign for his work on the Russian Bank-1 allegations," according to Durham’s filing."
This is my full understanding of the NEW motion. I consider it damming, and enough to prove Sussman lied to the FBI to protect
who was paying him?
I offered many sources all were almost identical. I feel they are all reliable sources, and let me point out all had the same information that would include CNN and MSN , as well as CBS. AS I have also pointed out in my first comment where I left a source article, CNN had not as of yet covered the news. I have read their article and have no problem with using them as a source in regard to Durham's new motion.
Do you feel it is an attribute to call someone unintelligent just because they don't agree with you? Your character is showing. As a rule, you revert to personal insults when your opinion is not respected by others.'Do you feel it is an attribute to call someone unintelligent just because they don't agree with you? Your character is showing. As a rule, you revert to personal insults when your opinion is not respected by others.'
This isn't about agreement, this is about your complete ignorance of the vital information pertaining to Manafort that was in the Senate's report that was put out after Mueller. That you only refer to the Mueller Report and not the Senate material is where I see ignorance.
This is a trend with you. You lean only on half truths to try and make a false case. Then call other people's information mistruth and misinformation when you speak from a place of ignorance and omission, even when given that information multiple times in these forums.I see understand your view. I offered you a list of what Manaford was charged with. and your statement is just not factual.
"And they culminated with Trump's campaign chairman coordinating with members of Russian Intelligence to target those releases and propaganda in certain areas of the country." This is misinformation.
Perhaps you can offer proof of this statement. Was this proven with evidence or conjecture?
I don't like opinions formed on the basis of incomplete information.
It would seem you do accept half-truths. I also note you did not quote me calling you unintelligent. That is because I didn't.
I am afraid you need to back up "And they culminated with Trump's campaign chairman coordinating with members of Russian Intelligence to target those releases and propaganda in certain areas of the country."Did Manafort pass internal polling data to members of Russian Intelligence?
Absolutely. Read the bipartisan Senate report.
Internal polling data is used to target campaign messaging. This is not rocket science to understand how campaign polling data is used. Or maybe it is to you.
And going back to Durham, this is your latest salvo of Fox News monkey poop that you're flinging all over this site.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vLFRWd2VQY
And I called you uneducated. As in, you have not studied the topic enough to understand what you are leaving out. Like a crucial Senate Report that states exactly how Manafort coordinated with members of Russian Intelligence.
And yet, here you are . . . conversing. Insultingly so, but still conversing.
GAThank you, Captain Obvious.
But expanding on the point I made earlier...there really wasn't any change to the original indictment of Sussman. Just Durham mischaracterizing what happened in a second meeting between Sussman and the FBI.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2022/2 … th-penalty
The only goal for Durham's filing seems to be to trigger right wing anger by people unable to understand what was filed. And in that, he succeeded.
Trump's accounting firm has "quietly" dropped him like a hot potato because his financial records were total bunk.
The more I look, the more it appears that all the outrages have been interconnected
The big lie
The Capitol mob
The attempt to nullify the "people's voice" by certain members of congress and the President of the United States in direct and clear violation of Constitutional mandates, with an attempt to strongarm the Vice President to be an accessory.
These are not isolated incidents, but coordinated plans by one evil man with a set of henchmen that he would have quickly disposed of if they become a liability or otherwise cease to be useful.I highly doubt Wilderness' news sources also reported that the indictment does not meet usual DOJ standards for indictments and is expected to be tossed out. Not surprising.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/special-cou … l-sussmann
'Even taken on its own terms, the document is one of the very weakest federal criminal indictments I have ever seen in more than 25 years covering federal investigations and prosecutions. It depends in its entirety on the testimony of a single witness who is on the record, under oath, saying something rather different from what the indictment alleges.'Do you feel FBI witnesses, will make weak witnesses? Do you feel, banking records will be weak evidence? Do you think many involved won't collapse on one another? Do you think such a high-profile case will not end up in punishment of Sussman? Do you think Sussman will make himself a deal?
Witnesses?
I guess you suck at reading. It's one witness that contradicted what Durham alleges in other testimony under oath."Do you feel FBI witnesses, will make weak witnesses? " - DECEPTION. We are referring to Baker who has already impeached himself. YOU are falsely saying we are referring to ALL FBI witnesses. Why do you try to deceive like that?
What has banking records have to do with it. Is Sussmann accused of bank fraud? No, he is accused of lying about NOT being associated with Clinton and her group.
No, since others much smarter than I am say that Durham has a very weak case, I'll take their word for it. Based on what I know at the moment, I would take this to a jury trial with high hopes of winning.I refer to Baker and other agents that have been questioned or will be questioned. I feel any and all FBI agents will be honest.
THE INDITMENT
"4. During the meeting, SUSSMANN lied about the capacity m which he was
providing the allegations to the FBI. Specifically, SUSSMANN stated falsely that he was not
doing his work on the aforementioned allegations "for any client," which led the FBI General
Counsel to understand that SUSSMANN was acting as a good citizen merely passing along
information, not as a paid advocate or political operative. In fact, and as alleged in further detail
below, this statement was intentionally false and misleading because, in assembling and conveying
these allegations, SUSSMANN acted on behalf of specific clients, namely, (i) a U.S. technology
industry executive ("Tech Executive-I") at a U.S. Internet company ("Internet Company-I"), and
(ii) the Hillary Clinton Presidential Campaign (the "Clinton Campaign"). "
https://www.justice.gov/sco/press-relea … 1/download
Bank records show who paid him ---
The DNC and the Clinton Campaign.
I will put my money on Durham... Not CNN's flunkies.
Sussman is toast, and so are those that he most likely will rat on. I am so pleased to see justice take its the proper course." I feel any and all FBI agents will be honest." - LOL How about that FBI agent who pled guilty to altering an email since you set yourself up for failure by doing a Wilderness and writing "any and all"? How about Comey or his deputy? Do they fit has honest FBI agents in your opinion? (they do in mine, by the way)
All your copy and paste did was prove our point, while lying to the FBI (if that is what he really did) is a big deal, it is not the be all and end all of political crimes as you make it out to be. It is NOT the crime of the century, lol.
Here is Durham's case according to Sussmann's lawyer:
[i]“The Special Counsel has brought a false statement charge on the basis of a purported oral statement made over five years ago for which there is only a single witness, Mr. Baker; for which there is no recording; and for which there are no contemporaneous notes by anyone who was actually in the meeting," his lawyers said.
This is new:
Lawyers for Democratic lawyer Michael Sussmann asked a federal court to dismiss the false statements charge against their client, arguing Sussmann did not lie to the FBI when passing along Trump-Russia collusion claims and, even if he did, the lie was "immaterial."
"Mr. Sussmann did not make any false statement to the FBI," Sussmann's defense team claimed. "But in any event, the false statement alleged in the indictment is immaterial as a matter of law. Furthermore, allowing this case to go forward would risk criminalizing ordinary conduct, raise First Amendment concerns, dissuade honest citizens from coming forward with tips, and chill the advocacy of lawyers who interact with the government."
Then there is this - s part of its effort to push for an early May 2022 trial date instead of the late July 2022 trial date preferred by prosecutors, Sussmann’s team claimed on Monday that last week, Durham’s team handed over documents about Baker’s statements about the 2016 meeting that it said “directly contradict the Special Counsel’s allegation that Mr. Sussmann affirmatively told Mr. Baker that he was not meeting with him on behalf of any clients.” The team pointed to excerpts of interviews Baker gave to DOJ inspector general Michael Horowitz’s investigators in 2019 and to Durham’s team in 2020.Sharlee: And the plot thickens...
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics … li=BBnb7KzI think it very appropriate that the Trump children be deposed due to their intricate connection with Trump's businesses. I also feel Trump himself should cooperate. At this point, it appears they will be forced to cooperate. I don't like corporate crime any more than Sussman's lying to the FBI.
I think in the end if wrongdoing suitable punishment should be
rendered. We certainly have many irons in the fire in regards to investigations. Makes me sad to see what kind of corruption prevails.I wonder if they will attempt to break Eric's record of pleading the 5th (which Trump has said he thinks is an admission of guilt) more than 500 times.
As to Sussman. Durham must actually prove Sussman said the words to Baker that Durham 'claims' he said. That will be hard if in truth there were no notes or recordings made. It is a He said, He said situation and as I understand it, Baker isn't going to testify that he is "certain" that was what Sussman said. In fact, it looks like Baker told PBS (or somebody) a somewhat different story than what Durham alleges. (Durham later said, upon hearing that, that his witness may not have remembered correctly, too many years had passed, lol. The bank records you bring up are not relevant if they can't establish what was said in the first place.Very common to plead the 5th. It keeps one from saying something that can be misconstrued in a deposition. Most attorneys make it very simple and tell clients to plead the 5th. Especially with all the disingenuous media, we have today, that make it a point to report statements out of context to supply sheep nourishment.
Your conjecture on Sussman and Baker in my view is your own attempt to misconstrue words. Baker will testify in the Sussman trial. I will not speculate on what he will say under oath. I will say I feel he will be very cautious and not put himself in Sussman's chair. So, I think he will be truthful.
I have not seen any actual statements from Baker to indicate -- as you have shared " In fact, it looks like Baker told PBS (or somebody) a somewhat different story than what Durham alleges".
I have not seen any statement from James Baker on this matter. Hopefully, you can back your ' it looks like the statement"... Otherwise I will assume it is innuendo, speculation on some media outlet.
Baker is a pro, and I very much doubt he will lie to save anyone ass. Now that is my view.
In my view --- say Sussman will go down and take others with him.Sharlee: This is the very latest from The Point, by Chris Cilliza
Right-wing media outlets and Republican politicians, including Trump, are citing Durham’s court filing to accuse Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign of spying on Trump because of the use of the data.
But Durham’s court filing doesn’t allege that the pro-Clinton researchers’ use of internet data meant that there was any eavesdropping on content of communications.
Durham has used the Sussmann case to more broadly draw attention to the role of unsavory political opposition research in the 2016 election.
Sussmann is charged with making a false statement to the FBI about his representation of the Democrats, when he shared data that pro-Clinton researchers believed linked Trump Organization servers to a Russian bank in 2016.
The five-year statute of limitations appears to have passed for Durham to accuse Sussmann of any wrongdoing related to his meeting with the CIA. Passing along information from researchers to intelligence officials for further investigation is not uncommon and isn’t necessarily a crime.
The new details were included in a more mundane request to have Sussmann agree to waive any conflict-of-interest issues that could arise because his lawyers have represented others connected to the investigation in the past.
Sussmann is set to go to trial in a few months, and the case is largely expected to be based on the testimony of former FBI General Counsel James Baker, who has made shaky statements in testimony over the past few years about his memory of his interactions with Sussmann.
This story has been updated with additional details and reaction.Federal judge rules that Trump can be sued over the Capitol riot and does not have absolute immunity
https://www.businessinsider.com/judge-r … iot-2022-2
Watch Trump work his con job on these reporters.
https://youtu.be/QMQ_uuMLVXEYour comment very much offers all I have come to understand as what is current, and yes it appears Trump has made assumptions that are not proven thus far. It would seem he is assuming all will lead to Hillary Clinton,.
I suspect so, but it won't and boy will he be disappointed.
I post this about Trump because I loved the title. Since I already knew what it was going to say, I didn't read it myself.
It starts out Donald Trump's terrible, horrible, no good, very bad week in court.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/19/politics … index.html
The most important quote (OK, I read a little) was -
In the 112-page opinion, US District Judge Amit Mehta said that Trump could face trial for his conduct around last year's insurrection.
My guess is that that will light a fire under DOJ to get moving with the indictments. We have a ton of prosecutors who say there is a case to be made and now you have judges saying the same thing. (Although I suspect Mehta might have to recuse himself if he gets the case.I am not sure if Durham will build a case leading to the DNC and Clinton. I think he might. In regard to Trump being indicted for any crime other than perhaps a civil crime in New York, I don't think he will be indicted for anything to do with Jan 6th, only because it would be hard to prosecute such a case. Just my view.
"The ruling, by D.C. district judge Amit Mehta, finds that the allegations in the suits, if true, could "establish a plausible conspiracy involving President Trump" and those who carried out the Jan. 6 attack."
If true could... That is one big if...Is it though....
Who created the big lie that the election was stolen?
Who repeated and continues to repeat that lie?
Whose campaign organized the Jan. 6 rally?
Who told people to march on the Capitol at the time of the certification, despite no plan or permit to do so?
Every one of those actions led to the results of the insurrection. It's all very plausible once you answer each of those questions honestly.Trump certainly does share his view of what he feels was perpetrated in the election. But in all reality, he has the right to express his view, does he not? It may make us uncomfortable, and we may not believe him.
He certainly continues to share the view that he feels the election was rigged.
He did organize the Jan 6th Rally and was the main speaker, where he shared his view with all that were present.
One does not need a permit to peacefully protest at the Capitol. (We do know the protest did not remain peaceful, and the capitol was breached unlawfully. We also have Trump telling the people to march to the Capitol peacefully.
I would imagine any person that rioted on that day is responsible for their own actions, and those that broke the law should be charged, and punished.
I am not sure one can be punished for their personal views, and sharing them?
I think Congress will come to the conclusion Trump was responsible for inciting the Jan 6th riot. However, I don't think it is a prosecutable case.
I see your point, and I feel many share your view, it's a very logical view. But it stands to be seen if Trump could be prosecuted for the riot that occurred.Actually, you do need a permit to peacefully protest at the Capitol. And Trump did say once to go peacefully, then told the crowd on over 20 occasions to fight. It's not just personal views when they are backed by the actions of organizing, inciting, and then directing his followers with lies to the Capitol.
Looked at it another way...
Would any of the people who attacked the Capitol been there were it not for Trump's lies?
Would they have been there had Trump organized a rally for them?
Would they have been at the Capitol if they had stayed at the Ellipse as planned before Trump unilaterally changed that plan?
Would the crowd have fought if Trump had not told them to on 20 occasions in his speech?
None of those things would have happened without Trump's actions, and not simply his fabricated views on the 2020 election."Would they have been at the Capitol if they had stayed at the Ellipse as planned before Trump unilaterally changed that plan?" - I forgot about that one
Actually, there were four permits issued to protest at the capitol on Jan 6. And I stand corrected. One does need a permit to protest on Federal property. I should have remembered that from the "Summer of Love".
https://news.yahoo.com/capitol-police-s … 11832.html
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ja … ol-grounds
The word fight was used frequently in Trump's speech. The word fight has many meanings, all depends on the context the word is used, and the demeanor of the person using the word. The word is frequently used in political speeches.
I can't say if the people that obtained permits would have been prone to be in the Capitol on Jan 6. I think many did march to the Capitol due to Trump asking them to --- but mind you many abided by Trump's words and marched peacefully to the Capitol and did not riot, but left the Capitol peacefully.
I think some went to the rally with the purpose of causing problems, a riot. There were agitators in the crowd. They came to fight... And they did, which has resulted in hundreds being arrested.
To prove Trump planned the attack at the Capitol would take more than his words at a rally, one would need some form of a coordinated plan, and evidence of some form of instructions.
Like I said it is a foregone conclusion that Congress will accuse Trump of planning the attack, but an indictment -- I can't see that happening. The Democrats have slandered him up and down with crimes, I don't think it even phases Trump or his supporters.
He most likely will run in 2024, and who knows might win.
And yes, Trump is and will continue to say the 2020 election was rigged. I am not sure anyone can stop him.The claim that it is necessary to prove Trump planned the attack I disagree with. Someone can commit a crime in the spur of the moment. Changing the plan of the Stop the Steal rally from the ellipse to the Capitol in the spur of the moment shows recklessness.
If Capitol Police were aware that the intent was for that size of crowd to shift to the Capitol, perhaps they would have had more security in place and could have prevented the attack. As it was, only a few small groups, of no more than 50 in each protest, had been approved for the Capitol grounds. Trump sending his massive crowd there in the spur of the moment without informing police they would be coming created a dangerous situation that led to injuries."The claim that it is necessary to prove Trump planned the attack I disagree with."
Of course it is - Trump is automatically guilty of anything you can think up simply because you don't like him. That you say that and immediately attempt to justify your claim of guilt in the Capital Riot is rather amusing.Wilderness: It's no different than you not liking liberals and blaming them for everything that is wrong with this country.
Wilderness doesn't blame liberals for everything wrong in the country, far from it.
The main reason why there is so much focus on insurrection and finding Trump guilty of it is to bar him from running for the Presidency a second time.
According to the Insurrection Act statute:
Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
That is why ultimately they will see this pushed through. It is very probable by the end of Biden's four years, he will be the most unpopular President in history.
I know many would argue that Trump was the most unpopular, but I think that extends only to those who control the MSM, the DC insiders, and most Academia.
I don't think it extends to most Americans, I don't think they care about how base and insulting he is, they only care about what they can see in their pocketbooks and what restrictions they have on their freedoms.
So the threat of Trump in 2024 is real."I know many would argue that Trump was the most unpopular, but I think that extends to those who control the MSN, the D. Insiders, and most Academia.
I dont' think it extends to most Americans, I spoke think they care about how base and insulting he is, they only care about what they can see in their pocketbooks and what restrictions they have on their freedoms."
----------
I give credence to academia in the evaluations of the vast majority of professional historians as to which presidents were more or less effective, I certainly not going to defer that to the opinion of some guy that drives a truck for a living.
As for most Americans, I ask you to just speak for yourself. Biden got the majority of votes in the last election. Only conservatives seem to insist on separating the form from the substance. And it depends on who is being insulted, doesn't it. For this American, as for many others we would not consider our dismay for this man, Trump, a minority position.You miss the point entirely.
It doesn't matter how much you and those you closely associate with politically, despise the man.
I doesn't matter what I think of him either.
Let me spell out the reality...
IF our economy is in worse shape in 2023 than it is now...
IF we are still dealing with mandates, lockdowns, etc. come 2023...
Biden will not win re-election... and Trump may very well be more popular than he ever was.
That is history repeating... that is human nature.
So how do you avoid that situation from occurring?
Find him guilty of insurrection.
Continue to block him from Social Media, continue to ban his supporters, continue to have CNN and its ilk put out negative story after negative story.
I do not see a return to Trump.
It only happens if we are in very, very, dark times... and Biden has lost all control of the economy and the nation. Which, scarily, he has moved us far closer to than I could have ever imagined 3 years ago.As for the economic being in the doldrums, Biden has been in office a little over a year. It is premature of you to speak of his entire term as an example in a future tense that you really do not know about.
Trump is his own worse enemy. His popupularity may well hinge on whether he can stay out of prison or not be fined into the Stone Age. If Biden fails, going back to the Republicans and the Right, from MY point of view, is certainly not the answer.Yes, but I am not talking about your point of view. Or mine for that matter.
I am projecting out, considering "what if".Ken, besides Gabbard, what is your political choice for making correction from the dreaded course you say we are traveling on?
I don't see one currently. I don't see an alternative on the horizon, I think what occurred during 2020 has put on us a course that may not be alterable.
Much hinges now on Russia and China, these are two nations that would choose to go to war rather than face insurrection at home... which is what a collapse of their economies would bring.
As bad as our economy may be, China's is in greater peril, and internally they are already going to extremes.
Severe though limited conflict may be inevitable.
I think this conflict with Russia was in the plans years ago, Trump being elected merely delayed it.
I don't think China's military aspirations had been anticipated, but I should note, that if China takes Taiwan it will control 90% of the world's ability to produce semiconductors... Taiwan is responsible for about 70% of those made and China over 20%.
Without semiconductors America's ability to sustain any sort of longterm conflict will be extremely limited, every single vehicle, missile, radio, radar, requires chips.Then China and Russia are to take a scorched earth approach, that must ultimately plunge the world into a thermonuclear nightmare. Limited conflict as have been shown by America's failure to subdue what we thought were weaker opponents. There is the danger that things could slip and we go "full Monte". If things escalate why should they tie their hands as an alternative to total victory?
No one is willing to go to war against China over Taiwan, so what other choice is there in the face of the fact that semiconductors basically run our modern world. So much like the Japanese that Attacked America partially over a stranglehold and embargo of needed oil and raw materials for its war machine. Will History have to repeat itself?Most likely.
Watch and read the links I left in the Russia Ukraine thread, if you haven't already. You know America has done as much to provoke and ensure the hostility towards Russia in Ukraine exists as anyone, they have gone a long way to making this occur.
Ukraine was an integral partner of Russia, half the Nation speaks primarily Russian, half the nation has family in Russia. Our involvement in Ukraine is even more interfering, arrogant, insulting, insinuating than if Russia were doing the exact same thing in Canada.
Canada and the USA do not have nearly the inter-relations that Ukraine and Russia do. Half the leaders of Russia, or the USSR, came from the Ukraine... Ukraine is Russia. That is the perspective of many, not all, in the Ukraine. Or it was until a couple decades back.
If Florida decided it wanted to secede from the US... would the US allow it?
This is far more complex ... same with Taiwan... than we (our MSM) make it out to be.
Our MSM tries to villainize Putin and Russia, while our efforts (from the IMF to the CIA) is to interfere with Ukraine - Russian relations... America is just as culpable for anything and everything that happens in the Ukraine as anyone.Ken: Do you think Putin would invade the separatist regions and destroy them if he wanted to make them part of Russia? Why don't we just let him have Donetsk and Luhansk? What good are they to us?
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60468237I assume that was sarcasm to Ken's Russian propaganda.
Others seem to share your view....
https://www.yahoo.com/news/letters-edit … 28974.htmlVal and Scott: I just wanted to see what Ken's reply would be.
We did let them take Donetsk and Luhansk. We have no way of stopping them now do we? We have no way to stop them from invading Ukraine but our empty words.
Russia is a power we no longer can recon with. Unless we want to war with them. This seems so very obvious. And we certainly do not want to go to war with Russia/China.
You would put academia, in their insulated conclaves of liberal thought, above the individuals that talk daily to dozens if not hundreds of people in all walks of life, both conservative and liberal, to determine who has a better idea of the thoughts of the people in general? I would disagree with that. Academia has no more idea of what the people think than Biden or Pelosi does.
I want to ask you a question, Wilderness, do you want a trained educated dentist to remove your cavity or someone other than a dentist from among those "hundreds of people" from all walks of life?
Presidential evaluations are not a popularity test, in all the aspects that are used to evaluate the effectiveness of an administration, Trump's reaches the bottom.I really wish that were true, Credence, I really do - and maybe in time he will get there. Right now he stands next to the bottom or one above that.
James Buchanan whose policies led to the Civil War almost always ranks last. (unless Trump starts a new one).
Andrew Johnson whose presidency led to the end of reconstruction and the oppression of blacks all over again - he often ranks second to last.
Vying for third and fourth (with Trump) to last is Millard Fillmore who signed the Fugitive Slave Act.
In some polls Trump ranks below Johnson and Fillmore. I have only seen one where Trump was last.I can't debate that, Esoteric. The antebellum presidents after James K. Polk and before Lincoln were basically a waste of flesh. Even If Trump does not find himself rock bottom, he is close enough. By default, he is considered by the scholars as the worse President of the 20th Century and for the latter half of the 19th Century, if one could except Andrew Johnson. Imagine being rated lower than Warren Harding or Nixon, who at least displayed above average statesmanship before being ensnarled in Watergate? For Trump, that in itself is a record that can't give a great deal of comfort over being rated rock bottom.
Your latest stupid denial of reality in leaving out critical words from someone's post and then falsely deflecting instead of dealing with what is known about January 6. Again, when you're this ridiculous, avoid my posts.
"To prove Trump planned the attack at the Capitol would take more than his words at a rally, " - [i]Yes, you are right. It takes a combination of his words and violence happening shortly after those words are spoken. All the evidence shows he gave a speech designed to incite, you can see that from the crowds reaction. And clearly, over a 1,000 people acted on those words and caused an insurrection.
The Brandenburg tests are obviously met; you have the speech and you have the action What the prosecutor must do, to complete the circle, prove the words Trump used were enough such that a reasonable person can draw the link between the words and the action.
But, that is not ALL that the prosecutor will have. He will have six months of angry rhetoric from Trump stoking the flames that led to Jan 6. They will have Trump's invitation to come to D.C. to Stop the Steel and have a WILD time at the Capitol. So it won't be just ONE set of words that the prosecution has, it is a whole litany of speeches and writings.
In my opinion, if DOJ has the balls to indict Trump, he will be found guilty."Trump's invitation to come to D.C. to Stop the Steel and have a WILD time at the Capitol."
Trump tweeted on Dec. 20. “Big protest in DC on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!” Made no mention of a wild time. Hard to determine what he meant by "will be wild". He could have meant it as used in an informal way which could indicate he was being very enthusiastic or excited about the protest. The word wild has many different meanings. How does one prove what he meant when he said: "will be wild"?
I have watched most of Trump's rallies and speeches. I can't say I ever picked up him trying to incite any form of violence. He defiantly has shared his feelings that the election was rigged time after time, he does not waiver on that in any respect. But does that prove he sought to cause a riot? I don't think so. I think the DOJ won't mess with a case that is all conjecture, no evidence to be had. Hey who knows, could happen.Did you ever hear of paraphrasing? Guess not. His words that he tweed are worse sounding than mine.
If you haven't seen him trying to incite, then you have the same mind-set as he does. For example, racists don't see themselves as racists but they are, nevertheless. Do you see the analogy?
He lied, he knows he lied, he knows his lie makes people very angry - THAT is what a court will consider.
They will show videos of him lying to the crowd where the crowds reaction is visible anger - I have seen it and you have seen it, you just don't recognize it because you are in agreement with their sentiments even though you don't believe the lie.
They will show many videos of scenes like that, including the one on Jan 6. I watched AND heard that crowd get incensed and angry before they rushed off to the Capitol to be with Trump.
Oh, by the way. You make a HUGE deal about is one faint swipe at being peaceful. He also said something like "I will be with you". But he LIED there as well, because he headed into the White House to watch what he wrought on TV.
How can you justify in your own mind him being truthful using the word "peaceful" and lying about being with them? To me, that doesn't compute. I am not sure how it does with you.
There is mounds of evidence, everybody but Trump Republicans knows so. You just can't admit it. The only reason I can think of now (especially after Judge Metah said he thought there is enough evidence to go forward when he kept Trump part of the insurrection civil suit) is their fear of the reaction indicting Trump would cause.
If they do (and should), I have no doubt that there will be blood on the streets by Trump Republicans that will make the insurrection look like child's play.Sharlee: Here is the last part of Trump's transcript on Jan. 6. The reason the judge feels that he can be indicted is because of his use of the collective "we" that shows he is in it along with those he is inciting.
He says, " So I hope Mike has the courage to do what he has to do. And I hope he doesn't listen to the RINOs and the stupid people that he's listening to."
Just like a mafia boss who orders a hit on someone. They don't don't say I want you to kill this person. They even built a gallows for Pence, if he didn't have the courage to do what he has to do. Here is that part of the transcript where he works his con job. At the bottom of this comment is the link to the entire transcript.
"So I hope Mike has the courage to do what he has to do. And I hope he doesn't listen to the RINOs and the stupid people that he's listening to.
It is also widely understood that the voter rolls are crammed full of non-citizens, felons and people who have moved out of state and individuals who are otherwise ineligible to vote. Yet Democrats oppose every effort to clean up their voter rolls. They don't want to clean them up. They're loaded.
And how many people here know other people, that when there are hundreds of thousands and then millions of ballots got sent out, got three, four, five, six, and I heard one, who got seven ballots. And then they say you didn't quite make it, sir.
We won in a landslide. This was a landslide. They said it's not American to challenge the election. This the most corrupt election in the history, maybe of the world.
You know, you could go third-world countries, but I don't think they had hundreds of thousands of votes and they don't have voters for them. I mean no matter where you go, nobody would think this.
In fact, it's so egregious, it's so bad that a lot of people don't even believe it. It's so crazy that people don't even believe it. It can't be true. So they don't believe it.
This is not just a matter of domestic politics — this is a matter of national security.
So today, in addition to challenging the certification of the election, I'm calling on Congress and the state legislatures to quickly pass sweeping election reforms, and you better do it before we have no country left.
Today is not the end, it's just the beginning.
With your help over the last four years, we built the greatest political movement in the history of our country and nobody even challenges that.
I say that over and over, and I never get challenged by the fakeness, and they challenge almost everything we say.
But our fight against the big donors, big media, big tech, and others is just getting started. This is the greatest in history. There's never been a movement like that.
You look back there all the way to the Washington Monument. It's hard to believe.
We must stop the steal and then we must ensure that such outrageous election fraud never happens again, can never be allowed to happen again.
But we're going forward. We'll take care of going forward. We've got to take care of going back. Don't let them talk. OK, well, we promised. I've had a lot of people. Sir, you're at 96% for four years. I said I'm not interested right now. I'm interested in right there.
With your help, we will finally pass powerful requirements for voter ID. You need an ID to cash a check. You need an ID to go to a bank, to buy alcohol, to drive a car. Every person should need to show an ID in order to cast your most important thing, a vote.
We will also require proof of American citizenship in order to vote in American elections. We just had a good victory in court on that one, actually.
We will ban ballot harvesting and prohibit the use of unsecured drop boxes to commit rampant fraud. These drop boxes are fraudulent. Therefore, they get disapp — they disappear, and then all of a sudden they show up. It's fraudulent.
We will stop the practice of universal unsolicited mail-in balloting.
We will clean up the voter rolls that ensure that every single person who casts a vote is a citizen of our country, a resident of the state in which they vote and their vote is cast in a lawful and honest manner.
We will restore the vital civic tradition of in-person voting on Election Day so that voters can be fully informed when they make their choice.
We will finally hold big tech accountable. And if these people had courage and guts, they would get rid of Section 230, something that no other company, no other person in America, in the world has.
All of these tech monopolies are going to abuse their power and interfere in our elections, and it has to be stopped. And the Republicans have to get a lot tougher, and so should the Democrats. They should be regulated, investigated, and brought to justice under the fullest extent of the law. They're totally breaking the law.
Together, we will drain the Washington swamp and we will clean up the corruption in our nation's capital. We have done a big job on it, but you think it's easy. It's a dirty business. It's a dirty business. You have a lot of bad people out there.
Despite everything we've been through, looking out all over this country and seeing fantastic crowds. Although this, I think, is our all-time record. I think you have 250,000 people. 250,000.
Looking out at all the amazing patriots here today, I have never been more confident in our nation's future. Well, I have to say, we have to be a little bit careful. That's a nice statement, but we have to be a little careful with that statement.
If we allow this group of people to illegally take over our country because it's illegal when the votes are illegal when the way they got there is illegal when the states that vote are given false and fraudulent information.
We are the greatest country on Earth and we are headed and were headed in the right direction.
You know, the wall is built. We're doing record numbers at the wall. Now, they want to take down the wall. Let's let everyone flow in. Let's let everybody flow in. We did a great job in the wall. Remember, the wall, they said it could never be done. One of the largest infrastructure projects we've ever had in this country, and it's had a tremendous impact, that we got rid of catch and release. We got rid of all of this stuff that we had to live with.
But now, the caravans, I think Biden's getting in, the caravans are forming again. They want to come in again and rip off our country. Can't let it happen.
As this enormous crowd shows, we have truth and justice on our side. We have a deep and enduring love for America in our hearts. We love our country.
We have overwhelming pride in this great country and we have it deep in our souls. Together, we are determined to defend and preserve government of the people, by the people and for the people.
Our brightest days are before us. Our greatest achievements, still away.
I think one of our great achievements will be election security. Because nobody until I came along had any idea how corrupt our elections were.
And again, most people would stand there at 9 o'clock in the evening and say I want to thank you very much, and they go off to some other life. But I said something's wrong here, something is really wrong, can have happened.
And we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore.
Our exciting adventures and boldest endeavors have not yet begun. My fellow Americans, for our movement, for our children, and for our beloved country.
And I say this despite all that's happened. The best is yet to come.
So we're going to, we're going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue. I love Pennsylvania Avenue. And we're going to the Capitol, and we're going to try and give.
The Democrats are hopeless — they never vote for anything. Not even one vote. But we're going to try and give our Republicans, the weak ones because the strong ones don't need any of our help. We're going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country.
So let's walk down Pennsylvania Avenue.
I want to thank you all. God bless you and God Bless America.
Thank you all for being here. This is incredible. Thank you very much. Thank you."
Here is the link to the entire transcript.
https://www.npr.org/2021/02/10/96639684 … ment-trialI have watched the rally three times, I have read the transcript several times. We have gone back and forth on disputing the context of Trump's words.
I must ask what is the context you derive from judge Amit Mehta's statement in regard to the possibility of indicting Trump.
"Trump’s statements to his supporters before the riot “is the essence of CIVIL conspiracy,” Judge Amit Mehta wrote in a 112-page opinion because Trump spoke about himself and rallygoers working “towards a common goal” of fighting and walking down Pennsylvania Avenue.
“The President’s January 6 Rally Speech can reasonably be viewed as a call for collective action,” Mehta said.
A civil conspiracy is a form of a conspiracy involving an agreement between two or more parties to deprive a third party of legal rights or deceive a third party to obtain an illegal objective.
I don't feel this kind of case can be proved. A Civil conspiracy case would require some form of concrete evidence of an agreement with Trump and those that proceeded to riot. Just my view. As the judge said this is a one-of-a-kind case. But residence as a rule --- rules in a court of law.Deleted
Sharlee:
"A civil conspiracy is a form of a conspiracy involving an agreement between two or more parties to deprive a third party of legal rights or deceive a third party to obtain an illegal objective."
This is what Judge Mehta said:
"Mehta also noted that Trump was not acting in his capacity as president when he held the rally and told his supporters to march to the Capitol.
After all, the President's actions here do not relate to his duties of faithfully executing the laws, conducting foreign affairs, commanding the armed forces, or managing the Executive Branch," the ruling said. "They entirely concern his efforts to remain in office for a second term. These are unofficial acts, so the separation-of-powers concerns that justify the President's broad immunity are not present here."
The judge also said that the allegations in the civil lawsuits against Trump are enough to establish "a plausible ... conspiracy involving President Trump." That conspiracy includes the far-right groups Proud Boys and Oath Keepers and others who stormed the Capitol on January 6, Mehta added.
He highlighted that a "civil conspiracy" does not require an express agreement between those involved.
"A tacit agreement — one that is 'implied or indicated ... but not actually expressed' — is enough," the ruling said. "The key is that the conspirators share the same general conspiratorial objective, or a single plan the essential nature and general scope of which is known to all conspirators."
He was building up to this call for action - We must stop the steal and then we must ensure that such outrageous election fraud never happens again, can never be allowed to happen again.. AND they DID "stop the steal" for awhile. His henchmen stopped the transfer of power by violent means which is, by definition, an insurrection!
Then he said something very weird - But we're going forward. We'll take care of going forward. We've got to take care of going back. Don't let them talk. OK, well, we promised. I've had a lot of people. - I WONDER what that gibberish meant? Sun must of been getting to him, he sounds delirious.
He even had something to make Conservatives proud - regulate big business - They should be regulated, investigated, and brought to justice under the fullest extent of the law.
Again, after stoking the anger he turns to violent language with And we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore.
Followed by So we're going to, we're going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue. I love Pennsylvania Avenue. And we're going to the Capitol, and we're going to try and give. - Where a short time later, they ransacked the Capitol and stopped the peaceful transfer of power via violence.
" But in all reality, he has the right to express his view, does he not?" - NO, he does not when the view is a {b]Big Lie[/b] AND it leads to violence. The law that covers that situation is called "incitement". You are NOT allowed to incite other people to acts of violence, that goes way beyond the First Amendment. Don't you agree?
"One does not need a permit to peacefully protest at the Capitol. " - Actually, you do - and they had one
"We also have Trump telling the people to march to the Capitol peacefully." - And we all know, including the judge, that that was "lip service" to try to avoid a charge of incitement. It has worked with Trump Republicans who keep bringing this single example of nonsense up.
That judge (and many of the others) seem to disagree with you about it not being prosecutable. Also, it isn't Congress who will find Trump responsible, it will be the overwhelming mountain of evidence that will."But in all reality, he has the right to express his view, does he not?" - NO, he does not when the view is a {b]Big Lie[/b] AND it leads to violence. "
We as individuals are ultimately allowed to share views; we as individuals ultimately have the right to support someone's view or reject it for our own individual beliefs. The majority of Americans are IMO do notrespectTrump's view of what he feels happened in the election. Some very much respect his view and believe he is correct.
I have said this over and over, His demeanor in my view on that day did not seem to be of inciting a riot. I am very sure many would disagree with my thought in regards to prosecuting such a case. I will stick with --- it would be a very hard case to prove. I don't think it will be an issue, I think the Democrats will lose Congress as well as the White House.
I have seen no evidence other than the Congress relying on Trump's words, as well as some others that have views on what they many have felt Trump was thinking on Jan 6th.
What physical evidence is there? All subjective, based on personal views and conjecture, as it was in both of his impeachments.
They are certain true. But as you say, "proving" it may be difficult. That is two entirely different things.
Although you never said, for obvious reasons, Al Capone was not a murderer, we (and presumably you) all know he was - even though nobody ever "proved" it. Trump is no different.
That is what is wrong with your "no proof" defense of Trump's actions."even though nobody ever "proved" it. Trump is no different." Who in the hell do you feel Trump murdered? My God what a crazy thing to say.
I did say Al Capone was a Murderer. I also said I found your analogy dramatic. Trump is not a murderer. I feel it very hyperbolic to use such an anology. Borders on-off the rocker...
Apparently you didn't understand what I wrote. What you were supposed to understand is that your man, TRUMP, has said more than once he thinks pleading the 5th is an admission of guilt. That is your hero who thinks that, not me.
I couldn't find a statement either, so I rely on Sussman's attorney's report.
The indictment against Sussmann centers on a September 2016 meeting between him and Baker in which Sussmann pushed debunked allegations of a secret backchannel between Russia’s Alfa Bank and the Trump Organization. Durham contends that while Sussmann told Baker he was not working for any particular client, Sussmann was secretly doing the bidding of Hillary Clinton’s campaign and billing his services to her, as well as working on behalf of technology executive Rodney Joffe.[i]
To that -
[i]Sussmann denies misleading the FBI and pleaded not guilty, and his lawyers argued on Monday that testimony newly handed over from Baker to Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz in 2019 and to Durham in 2020 contradicts the indictment.
More to the point
“It was only last week — nearly two and a half months after Mr. Sussmann’s indictment, and in the face of persistent demands by Mr. Sussmann’s counsel — that the Special Counsel for the first time disclosed some (but not all) of Mr. Baker’s statements about the September 19, 2016 meeting, ... “And a number of those statements directly contradict the Special Counsel’s allegation that Mr. Sussmann affirmatively told Mr. Baker that he was not meeting with him on behalf of any clients.”
Durham specifically claims that Sussmann “did willfully and knowingly make a materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statement or representation” to the FBI when he stated to Baker “that he was not acting on behalf of any client”...
Yet Sussmann's counsel points out that in the testimony handed over to him Baker says “Baker testified that Mr. Sussmann had expressly said he was meeting with him on behalf of his clients” when meeting with Horowitz’s investigators.
Now tell me why again you think Durham has a strong case?
President Biden TRIED to save lives my making vaccines and testing mandatory in larger businesses, but Conservatives decided it was better for people (mostly Trump Republicans) to die from the virus by either shooting the mandates down in court or not getting vaccinate. b]
Now we are finding out that the latest Omicron variant, Ba-2, is MUCH more transmissible than Omicron and may be as deadly as Delta.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/17/health/b … index.html
The 7-day moving average is down to around 145,000 new cases a day and Trump Republican deaths are running around 2,100 a day. The highest case count topped out at about 821,000 new cases a day and 2,600 deaths a day.
If the new variant takes hold like the Omicron variant did, then there are enough unvaccinated Trump Republicans out there to push new cases to over a million a day (fortunately that won't last that long because there are only about 60 million idiots out there) and deaths back up to 3,500 a day - just in time for the midterms.Every time someone on the right brings up inflation, we should just post the link to this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMIYrrqAx4U
Remind us again what elected members of the right are doing to help alleviate the problem. Nothing. That's what. Their only goal seems to be standing in the way of solutions to the issue and then to complain about how nothing is being solved. If you need to blame someone, look in the mirror.Will they even see a reflection since REAL Republicans have gone missing.
My take on this is that all this would not have happened if Donald Trump had been president. I have always maintained that Biden is a poor diplomat with no priorities and he's shifting focus from the Pacific to Europe was the blunder of all time.
Yep, Trump was great friends with Putin and did him a favor by taking us out of NATO.
His poor history in Washington preceded him. Always rode coattails followed like a puppy behind anyone he thought would pull him along.
I would want folks to tell me how this dunce of a man, Donald J. Trump, would have done things better. What are his credentials for being the great negotiator or diplomat? I did not see any indication of that while he was President.
The way he was sucking up to Putin and dissing NATO, he may have well agreed to have the US attack Ukraine in partnership with Russia.....Almost?
"I went in yesterday and there was a television screen, and I said, 'This is genius.' Putin declares a big portion of the Ukraine, of Ukraine, Putin declares it as independent. Oh, that's wonderful," Trump said in an interview on "The Clay Travis & Buck Sexton Show."
The ex-President added: "So Putin is now saying, 'It's independent,' a large section of Ukraine. I said, 'How smart is that?' And he's going to go in and be a peacekeeper. That's the strongest peace force," Trump said. "We could use that on our southern border. That's the strongest peace force I've ever seen. ... Here's a guy who's very savvy. ... I know him very well. Very, very well."Yes, Trump is a 5th columnist to the extreme, He, Basically is a tyrant admiring the handiwork of other tyrants around the world. A person best described as a"useful idiot".
Who would have the nerve to make some sort of hero out of him?
There is no telling how far Putin will go, or even if the threat of a larger war or thermonuclear exchange will deter him.
Trump, in his neverending stupidly and shallow thinking compares what is going on in Europe right now with immigration issues at our Southern Border.
We may very well be at 'the brink', with no way back this time.Oh lordy, lordy, Islandmom. you have drug me into a Trump discussion. I had a thought about this, and since it is you I held on to it.
You tied your response to Cred's "dunce" comment, so I will make a leap and assume, (dangerous, I know), it is intended as a slam against Pres. Trump.
Would your quote be such a slam if what it said was true?
As I watch the media's military `experts' explain what is happening, (or being prepped to happen), They are essentially saying the same thing. Of course, they aren't using words like "brilliant" and "genius" because they are too flattering, but they are using words like smart and effective and militarily sound.
They are saying the same things in just more palatable terms. Is Trump's quote wrong? Or is it just a case of him saying what no one else is honest enough to say?
Relative to a judgment of probable success and critique of methods I too would say Putin is doing this thing in a very very smart way. I don't hear our military experts saying any differently.
GAPutin is a ruthless ex-KGB spy who normalised assassination as a modern-day tool of state policy.
He is a criminal, incompetent president and enemy of his own people.
Russia under Putin’s grim leadership has grown notorious for cronyism and corruption on a vast scale, repression of domestic opponents and free speech, and military aggression and disruption abroad.
He deserves not a bit of the right-wing praise being lavished upon him. Although we shouldn’t be surprised. After all, Trump has been praising Putin and making excuses for his murderous ways for many years.
In an interview with MSNBC's Joe Scarborough Mr. Trump stated “Well, I think that our country does plenty of killing, too, Joe. I’ve always felt fine about Putin. He’s a strong leader. He’s a powerful leader.”
In 2017, when Trump’s friend and TV host Bill O’Reilly said to Trump of Putin, “But he’s a killer.”
Trump said, “There are a lot of killers. You think our country’s so innocent?”
I'm in agreement with deceased senator John McCain's statement. McCain said that “no prior president has ever abased himself more abjectly before a tyrant.”.
He added, “The damage inflicted by President Trump’s naiveté, egotism, false equivalence, and sympathy for autocrats is difficult to calculate. … “President Trump proved not only unable, but unwilling to stand up to Putin (and) made a conscious choice to defend a tyrant against the fair questions of a free press, and to grant Putin an uncontested platform to spew propaganda and lies to the world.”
He called him a thug who seeks to undermine American national security interests at every turn. I agree. I'm appalled by the statements of praise and adulation of Putin coming from The Trump section of the right wing. It feels very unamerican, very undemocratic.
As I finish up writing this the Russians have just launched cyber attacks on Ukrainian government sites knocking them out.
Should I marvel at the Russian technical skill? Or be appalled that We are on the precipice of The worst European conflict since world war II?It seems that because Putin is a bad man, (I agree he is a murdering tyrant), the consensus is that he is an incompetent idiot. The facts on the ground show him far from being incompetent or an idiot.
I would start with a point I think is a `fact': Neither the U.S. nor its NATO allies are willing to directly confront Russia's military forces in Ukraine because it would be the start of WW III. I am certain this "fact" was a consideration in Putin's plans.
Then I look at another `fact;: I am certain that even the most severe sanctions were anticipated in his planning. I am already hearing news of the nearly $1 trillion, (in dollar value), war chest of cash that Putin has accumulated as part of his preparation for this take-over of Ukraine. Combine that with recent China/Russia news bits and I think Putin has the sanction thing covered.
And one last `fact': There is nothing we can do about this invasion, except to scream bad man and try to punish him by taking away his allowance.
So, if our military planned a similar invasion with similar external circumstances, but called it a peacekeeping mission Americans would probably be praising `our guys' for a brilliant military plan.
This seems like the reality that if your, (generic "your" of course), mother is ugly or your uncle is crazy it's okay for you to say so but not for anyone else to say it.
Contrary to popular sentiment I think Putin's plans for Ukraine are extremely well thought out and masterfully, (oops, too complimentary?), implemented. And none of that thought carries any intended inferences that praise Putin as a person or leader.
As for your quoted Trump criticisms, are they untrue, or just unAmerican to say? And, relative to whether you should marvel at his skills I would say hell no, you, (we, everyone), should have expected them.
I think the characterizations of stupid and incompetent are a boomerang toss—they come back to the claimants.
GAThis praise is being played in Russia. At the worst, It gives the appearance of support for Putin to those in his country. At the least it sends mixed messages and undermines our current administrations response. Ultimately Trump and his followers are simply choosing to make support for Ukraine just another partisan issue. Again to the detriment of our own country.
Our current administration has had very little response. They have undermined themselves. Anyone can see Russia has the upper hand, and actually will from here out.
This entire mess has nothing to do with Trump...
He is no longer president. The fact is Russia is a very powerful country, and there is little that can be done short of WAR to stop them. Time to face that fact. Seems ridiculous to even be discussing this aggression by Putin. All the words in the world from Biden will do nothing to stop Putin. His words make us look ridiculous. His threats have no teeth.
All the huffing and indignation puffing makes our nation look downright ridiculous. In my view, In the end, Putin will take Ukraine, and the US will appear the weakest we have ever appeared.
So, is he a genius, is his plan genius? It looks to me as of now like he is a good strategist, and a strong leader. Not pleasant to digest, but that's my take.There is little response short of a major war that is possible for Biden at this point. Biden has and will exact all the sanctions possible within this situation against Russia and Putin.
Putin's actions in the Ukraine might well be a mere dress rehearsal for larger objectives. Do you not think that the former Soviet Republics that are now NATO members are not nervous about another such "militarily genius" sort of incursion on their territories? Will Poland be the "last straw" as it was some 85 years ago?
America's political right is not any better, admiring autocratic leaders and policies that they would more than happy to see implemented here. All the bread crumbs meet at a single point.
Putin is a killer, autocrat and a tyrant, there is nothing to admire about that just because Trump says so.
So, if Russia is to have the "upper hand" from here on out, you had better prepare your bomb shelter. You condemn America and the West to fold up like a lawn chair in the face of aggression.
Putin sends us a Trojan Horse with Trump inside. The Right wants to dispense with democracy in favor of an oligarchal, theocratic, racist based tyranny. That will be the beginning of the end for the American experiment in self government.I agree we Biden has little he can do, as I have shared here in different comments. In my view, we have no cards to play, other than war. I am against starting a war over Ukraine. And I am very sure as you put it this is a mere dress rehearsal for larger objectives. I will predict that all day and Nato should be nervous they have been shown to actually have little to no power to stop Putin.
If Putin in the future pushes into NATO countries the US will have the decision war with Russia or back away. This scenario is very much possible in the future.
"Putin is killer, autocrat, and a tyrant, there is nothing to admire about that just because Trump says so."
You took my statement out of context. Note in my comment I refer to a specific administration. I feel Russia will have an upper hand with this President. That is just my view. I speak of here and now. I can say this crisis or none like it developed under Trump. Will China be next? I feel it will... I feel Biden is a weak president and these tyrants see the opportunity to strike, why wouldn't they? Is that not a realistic possibility in your view? We as a nation are floundering in my view under Biden. I have said this before, we need to see two strong NEW candidates in our next election. otherwise, I feel we are at the beginning of the end.
Our current administration has had very little response. They have undermined themselves. Anyone can see Russia has the upper hand, and actually will from here out."
I don't think anyone needs to be reminded of what Putin is, and what he is capable of doing. It would appear Trump was referring to Putin's plan to take Ukraine and felt it was a good one. And no I don't agree with his demeanor in regards to this crisis. However, GA offered a good point, many military pundits are saying the same in a more palatable way.
I am a realist, and at this juncture (keywords at this juncture) I don't think we have any cards to play. You have read too much into my comment. I am referring to this crisis. I am very aware we are a powerful nation with nuclear weapons, but so is Russia... I realize we have wonderful cyber abilities, so does Russia.
At this point, Trump is not the president, and he may never be the president again. I guess that is up to the American people.Putin, had the "upper hand" with the last President, as well.
The only option is sanctions, as was mentioned before. Putin, unlike Trump is resourceful and calculating, having probably considered all the risks beforehand.
Trump image of strength was just an illusion. I see prudence, persuasion within a democratic society as signs of strength, not a loud mouth and the mere flexing of muscles associated with autocrats and tyrants.Did aggression happen under the last President? Putin did pull this same game with Obama did he not?
Is strength not often an illusion? I see pure confusion in the way this administration handled this crisis.
Cred, not sure why we are playing the compare game. I certainly have not made any assumptions as to how Trump would have handled this crisis. All I said we did not have this kind of crisis when Trump was in the White House.
I have no idea how he would have handled this kind of crisis. And neither does anyone else.The divisions in our country have only grown. That's why we have this issue now. We literally have politicians and right wing media led by Tucker Carlson cheerleading for Putin and undermining our democracy. These conditions that we are seeing now were cultivated during the Trump administration. When you have recent polls saying Americans have more faith in Putin's leadership ability than their own president we have a problem. We have an authoritarian movement developing here. More and more Americans are becoming anti-democratic.
I can only share my thoughts on concerns. I can't say you are incorrect about the division we have in America. However, I don't feel it started when Trump walked into the White House. I feel it started under Obama, many Americans felt such dissatisfaction with the direction the country was headed, this dissatisfaction put many in search of someone that was not a politician. Many hoped to see more transparency, a Government that puts Americana first before worrying about the problems of the entire world.
Not looking for a bigger but smaller Government. Trump followers are not looking to move away from democracy, they are hell-bent on keeping it as we know it.
"When you have recent polls saying Americans have more faith in Putin's leadership ability than their own president "
I have not seen that poll. As you might have realized I don't have confidence in Biden, I felt very negative about him through all of his many years in Washington. So, I do have a bias that spans time. I felt he was a poor candidate, and had little confidence he could do the job.
I don't think Americans are willing to give up on democracy. You do
realize Republicans feel it the Democrats that hope to do away with democracy as we know it? Hence the divide.
This crisis has nothing to do with Trump, Biden is the president, and he has created each and every one of the problems we currently are experiencing.
I am not sure what Tucker Carlson said, I do know that much of the media is pretty much saying the same, many are saying Putin's plan was well thought out, and very ingenious.
We have more problems to worry about than Tucker. We look the weakest we have ever looked on the world stage, as does NATO. All the blaming and indignation do not change anything. This was a serious crisis, and we huffed and puffed, but it did not stop Putin. This is sobering is it not? This President needs to be removed, the country is faltering under his watch. And to me, this is much more dangerous than what any of our talk jocks spout.Sharlee: What would you rather have Biden do other than sanctions along with NATO and the UN? What is the alternative that he would have available to him other than war with Putin?
Trump used fire and fury with Kim when he was testing his missiles. . Do you think fire and fury would work with Putin? I know Biden has sent many types of military equipment to Ukraine. Perhaps they will able to defend themselves against Putin's aggression. I just heard that the Ukraine forces have shot down three of Putin's aircraft and one helicopter.I have shared my thoughts on what I feel about what could have been done in this situation. I will give the shortest answer in my history here on this forum. Short of war, Biden has no cards to play. It would take very severe sanctions from Europe, and that did not or will it happen. I do not blame Biden for this situation, this crisis. I blame him for many other problems that are occurring in the US. However, this current problem with Russia has been coming on for many years, we have a long line if we want to place blame.
Fire and fury would not work with Putin in my view. Russia is far too powerful to poke at. I feel Biden has done the right thing by supplying weapons. This kind of aggression is unacceptable, and I just hope Putin stops at Ukraine.
This is where we have ended up... Sad is it not?
This usually stems from having a leader that most consider incompetent.
In this case that leader is Biden.
"I feel Russia will have an upper hand with this President. That is just my view. I speak of here and now. I can say this crisis or none like it developed under Trump. Will China be next".
You have to excuse me if a comparison is not what is implied in your statement here. Just because the crisis did not develop under Trump does not mean that it couldn't have.Yes, it certainly could have developed under Trump. But one must ask why didn't it? Why now? It's hard not to ask that question, without starting to start the comparison game. So, I don't think we need to presume either way. Water under the bridge.
At this point, we need to regroup and strengthen NATO resolve. Perhaps we need to start by not purchasing oil from Russia. Cut off the income Russia derives from oil. I have noted this sanction has not been considered. Russia has several pipelines, not sure why the media only refers to Nord Stream 2. This should have been considered months ago.
Well I certainly respect the right to your position. You don't believe that the current sanctions were a good move? And that impending sanctions may have an effect? Should we have just for gone sanctions all together? President Biden did say that these initial sanctions were only the first round. I feel as if going after the oligarchs was the smartest move.
I feel the President Biden is doing all that he can do based on the fact that Ukraine is not a member of NATO. Let's say that they were though, would you be supporting our troops going into defend Ukraine at this point?. It looks extremely likely that this will happen in the near future as Putin inches toward Our NATO allies. Laying All politics aside I am very very disheartened to see grandmothers and grandfathers in Ukraine taking up arms ready to fight when we spent so much time and money in Afghanistan for those who drop their arms and ran.
You stated "Putin will take Ukraine, and the US will appear the weakest we have ever appeared." Does that mean that you would have supported a military intervention by the US? I'm just a little confused by this statement. NATO is stronger than ever and I believe that's positive. Short of that, What do you think Biden could have done to deter Putin?
I don't think the "huffing and puffing" makes our nation look ridiculous. I think the fact that Many in our nation believe outright lies and vehemently defend the liars. If anything, Putin has capitalized on the chaos created by Mr Trump's continual quest to divide with his lies.
You are right, Putin may very well take Ukraine but that puts him right up to NATO borders. Like I said previously about appeasement.. keep feeding that crocodile, maybe you'll be the last one killed.
Putin isn't a genius. I don't find anything genius or militarily strategic about rolling into a country like Ukraine When you are a power such as Russia, Do you really? It seems like an easy task. He's a bully because circumstances allow him to be so. He's an unhinged political zealot. Listen to his most recent speeches translated. He is angry and incoherent rambling about Lenin.
And please do not take this post as a very personally directed towards you. Everything that you said in your post just lead to me think about all these additional factors."Does that mean that you would have supported a military intervention by the US?"
No, I am totally against a war in Ukraine. I am for aiding them with weapons, and aid.
I feel the current sanctions are weak and have zero bite. In regards to the "oligarchs ", they stand to become more wealthy with Russia taking Ukraine. Much richer...
And you ask what could have Biden done to Putin? As I said little to nothing... We have very little we can actually do but the weak sanctions he has put on Russia. Do you feel Russia did not expect these very sanctions? "NATO is stronger than ever and I believe that's positive"
Why do you feel NATO is strong at this point? In my view, they have never been shown in such weak light. I guess we will need to agree to disagree on this. It is certainly possible at some point Putin could challenge NATO countries, this would be a very disastrous crisis.
Faye, all you have said is your view, I respect your view, and take no offense at you sharing it.That is a good point as to why is NATO stronger? The NATO response force is only 40,000. Russia has how many on Ukraine's borders - 190,000? Do the math . . .
Yes, I am not sure many are being realistic about the strength and actually the weight of NATO. One only needs to view this chart to ascertain who would be fighting a NATO war.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/584 … countries/
Although arguable, I think your first thought is fair, but your closing is the part that is partisan baloney.
My issue of the moment is that I don't see the denial of truths, (the planning and military stuff), as a good position to have.
I thought of a cute analogy that I think illustrates the basics of this discussion:
In the animal world, when it comes to mating and territorial rights, in some spiecie males, (alpha, leader, whatever), fight by facing off and seeing who could posture and bellow or roar the loudest. The loudest won.
Then there are the spiecie males that actually fight to the death to win those rights. In other words, a battle of screamers or fighters.
What kind of battle is this Ukraine issue and which male is the U.S.?
GAPutin wants the Nord Stream II pipeline turned on, so he can sell energy to European countries. But in light of what he is doing in the Ukraine, Germany stopped the certification process of the pipeline.
In my naïve view, most of the countries he wants to sell energy to are members of NATO. All he has to do is become a member of NATO and make nice to those countries and they will turn the pipeline on for him. Ultimately, he will end up selling gas to his enemies in NATO. anyway.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/im … li=BBnb7KzI think Putin was prepared for the stopping of the Nordstream II construction. I am sure that he wants it completed, but I have heard `expert' commentators saying that the bulk of pipeline transfers are in pipelines going through Ukraine.
The thought of Russia becoming a NATO member doesn't seem right. Putin could get those same benefits just by being a non-aggressor.
Also, when you speak of other nations "turning on" the pipelines as a power position then I think you have it backward. Putin has the power; he has the gas and he already has the pipelines. The economic crush will be as hard on the allies even if it is harder on Russia in this aspect.
Your link's point makes sense, except that I think Putin would have known and planned for the probable economic disruption. So we will have to see who yells `Uncle' first.
GAHe has three other pipelines that he sells from. The pipeline you speak of most likely is no concern to Putin. He is still selling oil to Europe as I write this comment, as well as to the US. Do you know how rich Ukraine will make Russia? They are already selling oil to NATO countries.
"Which countries get oil from Russia?
There are four main countries that purchase the majority of Russia's crude oil: The Netherlands, Germany, Poland, and Belarus. In 2017, these four countries accounted for 70% seventy percent of the total export volumes. Other countries who have some of the largest exports in 2020 included Italy, Finland, and Slovakia.5 days ago"
Perhaps this would have been a good sanction all stop purchasing oil from Russia... But that is impossible is it not because these countries need that oil to survive at this point.
Our current administrations response needs to be undermined.
Who is going to suffer because of the "Sanctions" ... average Americans. Who will pay higher costs for gas, energy, food.
As well average Russians, Ukrainians etc.
Do you know who won't suffer?
Biden, Putin, those pushing for sanctions, or worse, war, gas and food prices will have no impact on them.
I don't think anyone that post here is not aware of Putin's history, his character. It appeared to me GA made a good point in regard to Trump's latest statements in regard to Putin's plan to take Ukraine. was very straightforward, he shared his view in his words. He is known for this style of communication.
As GA said -- "As I watch the media's military `experts' explain what is happening, (or being prepped to happen), They are essentially saying the same thing. Of course, they aren't using words like "brilliant" and "genius" because they are too flattering, but they are using words like smart and effective and militarily sound.
They are saying the same things in just more palatable terms. Is Trump's quote wrong? Or is it just a case of him saying what no one else is honest enough to say?"
The context of Trump's statement matched that of our military experts.The 542 drone strikes that Obama authorized killed an estimated 3,797 people, including 324 civilians.
Biden was formally listed in a criminal case in July by Ukraine's government for the crime of firing Ukraine's former Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin. Former Vice President Joe Biden is now a criminal suspect in Ukraine in a case involving his son Hunter and Burisma Holdings, a major Ukrainian natural gas producer.
A New York Times article confirms revelations in Peter Schweizer's bestselling book Secret Empires regarding the $1.5 billion deal Hunter Biden's private equity firm secured from the state-owned Bank of China while his father was Vice President.
President Joe Biden "doesn't know what he's doing with foreign policy" and he's "surrounded by incredibly incompetent advisors,
The blooper — one of several Biden made amid the series of meetings with world leaders prompted laughter at his expense at the start of a roundtable discussion in Cornwall, England.
Yes: 99% (4356 Votes) No: 1% (42 Votes) "This man needs a retirement home and a warm bowl of soup, not access to the nuclear codes," she said. "When he's not making a fool of himself misreading auto-cues"'Biden was formally listed in a criminal case in July by Ukraine's government for the crime of firing Ukraine's former Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin. Former Vice President Joe Biden is now a criminal suspect in Ukraine in a case involving his son Hunter and Burisma Holdings, a major Ukrainian natural gas producer.'
Do you ever get tired of not fact checking the misinformation you are being fed?
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2 … -criminal/
Cmon, GA, you can't be serious.
I can say to have admired Napoleon or even Hitler's actions from military point of view, but what about ethical or political aspects?
Since when does the NATO alliance merely appease aggression from one large nation to a smaller, weaker one because it can be seen as the most expedient from a perpetrators point of view?
Yes, my comment was a slam against FORMER President Donald Trump. He should be keeping his mouth shut and not undermine American foreign policy with his inane utterances.
I don't understand why, when I have heard from many sources that Putin has a desire to recreate the "Soviet Union", everyone seems so quick to want to accommodate Putin?
Will he destroy self determination for the Ukrainians? In his lebensraum type dreams, what would be the fate of the now independent former Soviet satellite states that are currently members of NATO? Why not challenge NATO and risk war that he might believe that he could win?
I would have resisted the idea of playing too deeply in his backyard, but will he be emboldened to move into yours?
I don't know how "smart" it is..
I need to introduce a new molecule into the world of chemistry and physics, "Trump Gas" (noxious oxide) composed of 1 part Trump and 2 parts hot air.
Like Nitrous oxide, once you get a whiff, formerly reasonable and rational people all of the sudden, go bat-@@@@.Birds of a feather flock together. Trump can't accept the fact that he lost an election. Putin can't accept the fact that he lost a country. I think they are both narcistic con artists.
Trump has conned half of this country into believing that he won an election and Putin has conned Russians into believing that Ukraine belongs to Mother Russia.
Russia lost a war. Albeit a cold war, but none the less a war. Now he wants the land of the Soviet Union back.
Trump lost an election. Now he wants to be president again and will do and say anything to gain voters, even sell his own country short to those he can con...and they will love him for it. He is so good at it, they won't even know they have been conned..It sure looks like your comment falls into that "boomerang" basket I mentioned in another response.
"Cmon' Cred, you can't be serious . . . you agreed with what I have been saying in your opening lead, (the proper place for the main thought of what follows). You used the word "admire." Even I didn't go that far.
When you finished that lead-in with your `what about' question you went completely off track—relative to my comments.
I was never talking about ethical or moral evaluations or judgments. That introduction is on you and others that jump on any rational appraisal of the political and military actions, (they are one thing in Putin), as unAmerican conservative, (aka Right-winger), appeasement. But, if y'al address the topic as presented, (again, relative to what I said), your arguments sound more like indignation that anyone would dare say anything good about anything associated with anyone bad than rational pertinent points. When I "praise," (I think I was just talking about the efficiency and efficacy), of the plan and actions. I am not praising the character or motive of the man that gave the orders.
I am repeatedly hearing two points from the various media military experts(?)—CNN and Fox are using their `election-style' screen displays, with almost hourly updates from their military commentators. You will have to check that out yourself because you won't believe it if I tell you. Their bottom line is, (my perception), praise for the military and political actions, (but none used the word "admire" ;-o) ), and resignation that there isn't anything we can do about it, except for the sanctions.
Now, your NATO point. Unless one believes Putin will invade a current NATO nation, it is completely irrelevant to this discussion. I would not be surprised, (sigh, that does not mean I condone or support it), if he took over Ukraine, he can do it with limited military and political expense. (what are we going to do about it, take away some credit cards?), but I do not believe he will ever invade a NATO nation knowing it would immediately involve military conflict with all of the NATO nations. But, even that point is beside the point of the military and political operations.
That's enough for now, the rest of your comment is also along the ethical and moral lines, so I think I got it covered above.
One last thing, relative to that new molecule you want to add. Consider your own response here. With your first statement you agreed with what I said. Then, you gave much greater effort to the rest of your comment's criticisms, condemnations, and rationalizations directed at Trump, et al, of things that weren't even part of the exchange until you introduced them. Maybe that gas might have other parts and other effects.
GAI guess i tend to think that to praise and to admire would have a synomous meaning.
Someone in Trump's position having the ear of so many, needs to think about the political and ethical ramifications of what he says. It's more than about realpolitik, it is about not being the entrails of a Trojan horse against your own country.
In the times that we find ourselves in, I would expect that from a prudent person. But again, Trump and prudence are antonyms. My angst is directed at Trump because he was the one who made the comments.
I don't appease nor approve of tyrants and I don't expect those that are our leaders to do otherwise.
The efficiency and efficacy of Putin's approach could bring much of the continent to the brink. He could use conventional weapons to carry out aggression, one step at a time, forcing NATO to raise the ante.
Why shouldn't Putin want to invade a NATO nation once all the deterrent has been exhausted? The fear of war is what has always allow the tyrant to push things just that much further. We have seen it before. Yet, we have been given a virtual "Mein Kampf" from Putin as to his objectives in the region and we continue to ignore it.What deterrents, (to a NATO nation invasion), will be exhausted?
All of my thoughts on this matter rely on my belief that most certainly the U.S. and the U.K., and most likely all other members, will honor their treaty commitments of assistance to the invaded member. And thus, any invasion would trigger superpower military conflict.
I don't think Putin will force this conflict. Ukraine, (as callous as it sounds), is a `freebie' relative to any NATO kickback. As long as he sticks to Ukraine NATO, is toothless.
Folks portray Putin/Russia as a bully, (perhaps rightly so), as a rationalization that he will someday invade a NATO nation. To that, I would point to who bullies attack? It is always the weaker. Bullies don't mess with the stronger. So if Putin is a bully they are wrong and if he isn't, (and does attack the stronger), then they are still wrong in their rationalizations.
When you, (generic you), speak of the U.S. ignoring or dismissing or allowing Putin's bullying actions then you should also have an idea of what you expect the U.S. to do about it. What would you, (yes, you(), expect the U.S. to do?
On this issue, we are the screamers bud. all we can do is scream out what we are going to do to him. Current appearances are that Putin prepared for our screaming sanctions and they don't mean beans to his plans. He, (and I suspect many Russians), will endure every suffering with national stoicism—and be a stronger nation for it.
If you believe Putin will invade a NATO nation, then we are coming from different perspectives that won't find any common ground.
GAThis gives the rational of Nord Stream 2 and why it is not only an energy source, but also how Putin and the West use it as political leverage to get what they want.
Putin does not want to pay Ukraine 2 Bln per year to transfer gas to Europe via Ukraine. Nord Stream 2 would bypass the Ukraine and route the gas under the Baltic Sea.
https://www.vox.com/22881709/nord-strea … tates-cruzI understand Nordstream II is important to Putin and that he wants it completed. And I think it will be after a suitable amount of [i]`grieving/punishment time after the dust settles from this issue. Europe needs that energy source too badly to forever discard it.
I only meant that I am certain Putin anticipated and planned for this disruption and suffers no loss because of it.
GA
Then we don't have common ground, although I hope your viewpoint prevails if only for the purpose of world peace.
I don't trust Putin. There is nothing we can do but wait him out or be prepared for total war if he crosses the line. Exhausting deterrent means we have no recourse/viable sanctions that would dissuade him from his military objectives in the region.
What we can do for a start is take a United front with our allies and ask responsible leadership within our own nation to not take the role of 5th columnists providing aid and succor to the enemy as a result. I can for ask that.That's a fair position. At least we are in full disagreement. No half-assing around for us.
Not only do I not believe Putin will invade a NATO nation, (certainly not because he's a good guy), I don't believe sanctions—relative to a Ukraine-like situation, are worth the breath it takes to order them.
It would probably be worth the effort to take a look at the history of our sanction use. Has it been successful, or not? That sounds like something right up your alley.
GA
Trump's statements are so much harder to take --- they hit one right in the middle of the forehead, and really piss one-off that he is so blunt and FREE with his speech. No stick to be had up his ------T
Oh hell, a new dimension introduced—sticks up asses. No thanks. ;-)
GAJust my view of Trump's demeanor, and his unfiltered way of communication. Not saying I agree with his style one way or the other. But, I have become very accustomed to his style, and I don't think anyone is going to get him to change his stripes. He is very much uninhibited, hence my stick comment.
I don't doubt Putin is a smart man. But you're just being selective in your eagerness to attack those who criticize Trump. This time, again, choosing one aspect of Trump's comment to fit your narrative.
You later said "So, if our military planned a similar invasion with similar external circumstances, but called it a peacekeeping mission Americans would probably be praising `our guys' for a brilliant military plan."
Probably true. Many Americans are blind when it comes to patriotism. Only, this time, is not "your military" and is not Americans praising "your guys". It is an ex president, praising "the enemy" in a crucial and dangerous moment. You're also ignoring his history as a Putin ("a murdering tyrant") sympathizer.
And I dont believe you're so naïve to think that the timing of his comment wasnt a political strategy of Trump and how a sector of the rightwing media is siding with Putin just to "F" Biden.
But hey, you do you.Damn, I knew I was putting my foot in a Trump-trap. You nailed me . . . almost.
Once again, a comment that was not intended to be in defense of Trump becomes so only because it pointed to the accuracy of the message, (not the vehicle).
I think my only selectivity was to jab at folks that turn everything into more proof that Trump is a bad man, regardless of the truth or facts about whatever the latest Trump thing is.
First, his statement was bad because of the hyperbole: "brilliant" and genius," and then when it was shown to be true—even though in classic Trump style, it was bad because of the timing, the pulpit it was coming from, the Russian propaganda jackpot it gave Putin, the effect it would have on all Trumpers, etc. etc.
I generally agree with all of that, and you are right I did selectively pick one aspect—whether what he said was true, or not. It seems the general consensus is that they were true. And that, is the only point I spoke to.
As seen in this thread, any positive statement concerning Putin or Trump, even if true and supported by the "experts," is read as support and defense for the man named. That's baloney.
Except for the part about being Putin's puppet, I even agree with the rest of your comment.
GAFirst, his statement was bad because of the hyperbole: "brilliant" and genius," and then when it was shown to be true—even though in classic Trump style, it was bad because of the timing, the pulpit it was coming from, the Russian propaganda jackpot it gave Putin, the effect it would have on all Trumpers, etc. etc.
You are wrong. I posted the comment. So for me... First, it was bad because of the "hyperbole" AND the timing AND the pulpit it was coming from AND the Russian propaganda jackpot it gave Putin AND the effect it would have on all Trumpers, etc. etc. Period. No then. You chose one angle, not me.
I think my only selectivity was to jab at folks that turn everything into more proof that Trump is a bad man, regardless of the truth or facts about whatever the latest Trump thing is.
Like I said, "everything"?. To fit your narrative.Well then, maybe you did nail me. But, in my defense, I did start this exchange with this caveat:
"You tied your response to Cred's "dunce" comment, so I will make a leap and assume, (dangerous, I know), it is intended as a slam against Pres. Trump.
Would your quote be such a slam if what it said was true?"
It appears my "assumption" was wrong. I spoke to a point I only assumed you were making.
I hope I don't need stitches.
GA
I am sickened by the dangerous rhetoric of Mr. Trump, His sycophants in the Republican party, Fox News and other right-wing media heaping shameless praise on Putin, parroting Russian talking points. All for what? To serve their ideology of "owning the libs?" Last seen at a Trump rally was a couple wearing a t-shirt probably proclaiming "I'd rather be Russian than a Democrat". Really now?
Putin's goal? To crash American democracy. With the help of Mr. Trump and the movement he's started this may be an eventual reality. Many years ago President Biden warned about this effort in a speech at the Brookings Institution: “President Putin sees such political forces as useful tools to be manipulated, to create cracks in the body politic."
Little did we know that Russia would use our own citizens to reach that goal.
Ronald Reagan must be turning over in his grave.It's sad when you've got a whole bunch of Americans siding with a murderous dictator over their own government. In the old days, stuff like that would be called things like treason.
In the old days that would be called Freedom of Speech.
In today's society, there are many on "the Left" that want to call an opposing opinion treason.You think siding with the guy attacking an ally of ours is merely freedom of speech. I'm glad you no longer serve in our military.
Me too.
But I strongly recommend it to you, as you strongly support this Administration, and you strongly oppose Russia's actions in Ukraine... you should be more than willing.Will has nothing to do with it.
And it's not about strongly supporting this administration so much as being able to recognize fabrications, such as the ones given by Putin, for invading another sovereign nation in violation of international law. It's also called humanity to not want to see innocent people killed when a murderous thug violates those laws and treaties his country agreed to that gave Ukraine its sovereignty.
And if you go around telling people well past the age of service that they should enlist in our military then, again, very glad you no longer serve if those are your brilliant suggestions for a strong country.What do you mean "past the age of service"?
If you have the will, you can find your way over to Ukraine and support them, they have declared no men from age 18 to 60 can leave the Ukraine, stands to reason they will take what help they can get, I don't think age has much to do with being willing to fight for what you believe in, unless you don't believe in it enough to risk your life.
Other people's lives perhaps... just not yours, right?
Must be nice, never having to put skin in the game, never having to back up any of your beliefs... just push them onto other people.
Hey, maybe you can donate your life savings to the Ukrainian cause, do something of significance to stand against a "murderous thug".
The will to act has everything to do with it.Ken: I checked out your About page. If you don't mind me asking, what did you do in the Army?
Enough.
Over a dozen years of service, half of which were spent overseas in one country or another.
Just my opinion here, but often those who clamor for war, those who name call world leaders, those who like to label others who do not agree with their "warmongering" attitude are those furthest from the fighting with no intention of ever putting themselves in harms way.So very true... And makes me wonder if those that clamor to send troops into harm's way ever lost a loved one or had them come home maimed or lived their lives in limbo with the fright of having that knock on the door... Thank you for your service.
Yes, even those who are willing to serve often are unable to deal with the realities of war up close. This was my experience time and again, no amount of training can prepare someone for the chaos war unleashes.
One of the reasons why I supported Tulsi Gabbard was her experience seeing war up close, seeing America's policies and politics in reality in war torn nations.
Her stance on our efforts to "bring Democracy" to others, was of course why her campaign was derailed by her Party, why they wheeled Clinton out to accuse her of being a Russian conspirator and why "the Left" MSM shut her down.
Why is someone like Tulsi Gabbard smeared and silenced... because of opinions like this, as she speaks clearly about what is at stake with this escalating situation with Russia:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GUVkMCTrIcSome can want to stop innocent people being slaughtered by a violation of an international treaty and still have people with 'skin in the game' as Ken says.
My parents were both Navy, including a father who served on a submarine, and both brothers are members of armed forces. But when someone is bombing peaceful cities as is happening in Ukraine, without provocation, much like Hitler did prior to World War II, sometimes it's best to stop them earlier rather than later, even if there is risk.Your point is well taken, and Putin should have been dealt with long ago. He is a monster, and now he is loose and will kill innocent people. Not sure how he can be stopped. He is committing crimes against humanity.
When there is wise leadership, they ensure they attempt every avenue to ensure peace, to avoid conflict with the most powerful Nuclear Armed nation in the world is pursued...long before they have amassed an entire army for invasion.
When there is arrogant, egotistical leadership that is already out of control forcing lockdowns, mandates, martial law on its own people, you get what we are seeing now... And who knows how much more suffering to come.Afraid of one organization, NATO, Putin ignored the principles of another organization, the United Nations, as well as an agreement known as the Budapest Memorandum, signed by Russia and specifically meant to protect Ukraine from invasion.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/vl … li=BBnb7KzKen, I could not agree more with your opinion. At this point, we have a man in the White House that is incapable of making decisions, let alone dealing with Putin. He is listening to his far-left nut jobs. He has created so many problems from day one, and anyone that can't see this fact is ridiculously brainwashed.
He has us on the brink of war with Russia! My God, could it get worse?
I had hopes Americans would be up in arms and ask that "day late buck short Biden" he be removed. He is clearly senile and does not belong in the White House. I mean what does having a president that is cognitively impaired say about Americans? What message does this reflect other Nations? What could China be thinking? Will they see this as the opportune time to also become aggressive, and move in on Taiwan? I would think this is a gimmie...
However, it well seems some Americans are living in a self-imposed fog, and don't even realize the seriousness of the problems this man is causing. Not only for Americans but the world.
I can't wait for 2022 !!!! How about you?So unpatriotic. Spreading your fabrications to undermine our country when, as you say, we're on the brink of war. As if Biden caused this.
You are the brainwashed one by your far-right, Russian-loving media. And don't expect you repeating that propaganda here won't be met with resistance.2022 is not enough... we need it to be 2024 election time, now.
I even started a Forum on just that... there is no question that Biden and Harris must be ushered out of the White House and out of politics ASAP.
I've never been afraid of my own demise, but I do fear for Humanity at this moment, to contemplate that Biden and the lackluster crew he has assembled for his Administration is going to determine whether the world ends in a flurry of mushroom clouds... if you are sane, you are depressed at just the thought of it.
That is the concern, most don't realize how important Tiawan is, and how crippled our advanced technological capabilities may be should China take Taiwan.
China realizes this I'm sure, China realizes that if they take Taiwan, and put restrictions on trade from Korea reaching us as well (they don't need to invade Korea, just lock down the sea trade routes) they will cripple America.How do you stop China from taking back its "renegade province" short of war?
Conservatives always talk tough, but where are the viable solutions short of simply blaming Biden for everything?Sharlee
"He has us on the brink of war with Russia! My God, could it get worse?
I had hopes Americans would be up in arms and ask that "day late buck short Biden" he be removed. He is clearly senile and does not belong in the White House. I mean what does having a president that is cognitively impaired say about Americans? What message does this reflect other Nations? What could China be thinking? Will they see this as the opportune time to also become aggressive, and move in on Taiwan? I would think this is a gimmie..."
I don't know where you are getting your information from, but we are not in this alone. We do have a NATO alliance. We are all in this together. All the NATO members have agreed we are not going to war unless Putin invades a NATO country.
So now you have these new professional skills as a shrink to analyze Biden as being senile and cognitively impaired. Too bad you didn't perform the same analysis on Trump.
Oh I know you don't want us to bring up Trump because he is history. The problem is he is not history and he and his Fox News cohorts are screwing up the tra la las by supporting Putin. Talk about being on the brink of something, they are on the brink of treason.
By the way, you never replied to my article about Putin and his President of the UN. Here it is again.
Afraid of one organization, NATO, Putin ignored the principles of another organization, the United Nations, as well as an agreement known as the Budapest Memorandum, signed by Russia and specifically meant to protect Ukraine from invasion.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/vlSeriously. Aside from Mike, she is one of the most programmed spreader of far-right narratives at this site. And now she's doing Putin's work for him in undermining our country's leaders when there's a chance at war. Disgusting behavior.
I did not see a comment from you addressing me in regard to your article. I checked the thread and you did add the link in question to Ken.
I read the article, and it is clear to me Putin has disregarded theUN and NATO. He has gone rogue and is making his own rules.
"So now you have these new professional skills as a shrink to analyze Biden as being senile and cognitively impaired. Too bad you didn't perform the same analysis on Trump."
In my opinion, Biden is cognitively impaired, and have given my opinion numerous times in regards to Trump's character flaws. I don't find Trump cognitively impaired.
And I heard what Biden shared in regard to NATO would not go to war unless Putin threatened NATO allies.
I certainly am against warring with Russia.At what point would you concede the malignant narcissism that Trump often displays to be more than just character flaws and an actual impairment to his ability to govern?
I would guess I would concede if I witnessed a policy that lead me to believe he was letting narcissism get in the way of making sound decisions. If I felt his Governing was being affected by his narcissism I would certainly see him unfit to Govern. I always felt his problem-solving was very good, and I was always on board with putting America first.
The only real problem I had with Trump's decision-making was how he did not demand more from China in regards to COVIDS origin.
Did any of this occur under our other recent presidents?
Russia saw a weak president, many American's also predicted this mess due to Biden's lack of strength. His policies, his left agenda. They jumped at the chance to become aggressive while the getting was good.On the other hand, maybe Putin believed NATO to be weakened after four years of Trump attacking them and figured he could reach his goals of putting the USSR back together. And what Biden has shown is that under his leadership, NATO is very strong in being in nearly unanimous agreement on crippling economic sanctions
Can't argue that Trump wanted to get out of NATO due to his feeling they were weak, and he felt useless. Trump expressed interest in withdrawing from NATO during his 2016 presidential campaign. However, when he became president, he stated that the United States would protect allies in the event that Article V is invoked. And he also got after countries that were not paying what they had agreed to pay into NATO.
It's clear to me Putin does not feel NATO is a threat at this point. Time will tell if NATO can stop Putin.
Our recent presidents have a long history of appeasement. That's why they didn't face this. You know it's like giving your child a dum dum every time they squawk in the grocery store.
You know his history, Russia's invasion of Georgia in 2008, and the de facto annexation of its two breakaway provinces, was followed by the illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014, the first forceful changing of European borders since World War II. Then there was Moscow's intervening in Syria to prop up murderous dictator Bassar al Assad in 2015, which was followed by Russia's interference in the 2016 U.S. elections. The West has tried to appease Putin for over a decade. And we have nothing to show for it. He hasn’t been satisfied with diplomatic overtures. He isn’t deterred by slaps on the wrist. Putin keeps asking for more.
The only language Putin understands is the solidarity of the Western world.
The American people can surely take a lot of lessons from the Ukrainians. Their strength and love for their country is beyond what I've ever seen in my lifetime in our own country.
I support everything President Biden is doing. Putin is on his fourth US president and was just looking to be appeased once more. It’s far past time to recognize that Putin can’t and shouldn't be appeased. I would even support our troops in Ukraine but that's laughable since a good portion of our country wouldn't even support targeting Russian energy. Some Americans, in my opinion, have become akin to spoiled children unable to withstand any amount of discomfort. Grandma's in Ukraine are learning to fire AK-15s, Ukrainians are walking to the Poland border while We're rallying here about having to wear a mask Yes, a sad situation in deed.
Ken, I don't feel the Democrats have any chance in 2024. Americans are done with all of the crazy BS.
And as I said Biden needs to be removed ASAP... He has put this country in such danger, it's unbelievable. It could get much worse and quickly.
I do realize the consequences of a China takeover of Taiwan. There is not a doubt in my mind that China will move on Taiwan very quickly, due to the many messes we are currently having, and the sheer weakness of our current Government.
It's unbelievable that in one year an administration could cause such turmoil.
My God what next?
In 2020, we had two choices for President, the socio and psychopath Donald Trump or the geriatric Joe Biden. (Trump is just 4 years younger).
I did not have anyone else to choose from. I would take my chances with the elderly over the insane, which Donald Trump is. I would have been more comfortable with any one of those "leftwing nutjobs" over even the whiff of a Rightwinger being placed in charge of anything, at any level.I would be more afraid of Trump and mushroom clouds being unleashed on U.S. states he was sure to lose in 2020 than anything Biden could ever do. Ken's paranoia about markets, China, and now Biden having the nuclear codes makes me worry for his own mental health more than Biden's.
The point is, w need to have a congress realize the country is floundering. It's too late to look back, we need to concentrate on now.
Please consider we are all being played and divided purposely by two powerful political parties.
The country is in trouble like it has never been before. Maybe time to put the blame where it is due. Power-hungry political parties.
Oh, now you want me to try to join Ukraine's military. The suggestions just keep getting more outlandish.
And what skin do you have in the game currently? You're sitting there doing the same thing, pushing your beliefs out from the cushy real estate job you currently hold down on the Florida coast.
The will to act has many forms. I believe speaking out about a violation of international law one form. Calling out right wing propaganda that undermines our nation in a time of war another. Calling out those siding with another nation over your own a third.
And if the danger became great enough or close enough to our country, maybe I will do those things you suggest. For now, I actually do trust our government to act on our behalf. I support them. Not undermine them like so many on the right are currently doing.
It seems the left uses that word a lot... They hope to threaten free speech with harsh labels such as treason... Seems they would by now have realized, no one is listening.
I take it by your response that you heard the statement loud and clear. And yes, I see siding with someone attacking an ally of our country and many think undermining a President in a potential time of war as treasonous. Just ask the Dixie Chicks when Bush was President. Of course, with the double standards of the right these days, maybe they only apply that to others.
Putin is preparing to invade Ukraine again for the same reason as in 2014. He wants to destabilize Ukraine, frighten Ukraine. He wants Ukrainian democracy to fail. He wants the Ukrainian economy to collapse. He wants foreign investors to flee. He wants his neighbors in Belarus, Kazakhstan, even Poland and Hungary to doubt whether democracy will ever be viable, in the longer term, in their countries too. Farther abroad, he wants to put so much strain on Western and democratic institutions, especially the European Union and NATO, that they break up. He wants to keep dictators in power wherever he can, in Syria, Venezuela, and Iran. He wants to undermine America, to shrink American influence, to remove the power of the democracy rhetoric that so many people in his part of the world still associate with America. He wants America itself to fail.
These are big goals, and they might not be achievable. But Putin’s beloved Soviet Union also had big, unachievable goals. Lenin, Stalin, and their successors wanted to create an international revolution, to subjugate the entire world to the Soviet dictatorship of the proletariat. Ultimately, they failed but they did a lot of damage while trying. Putin will also fail, but he too can do a lot of damage while trying. And not only in Ukraine.
I think Putin dreams of discrediting the American democratic system, and he will never have a more reliable ally than Donald Trump and his faction of the Republican party. One of the lessons learned from Mr. Trump’s election in 2016 and one still difficult for some of us to process is just how many of our fellow citizens are predisposed to authoritarianism.Losing three planes and the chopper is no big deal in the war where more than 100 planes are operating. I have been in battle as a fighter pilot and I can tell you this is collateral damage .it has to be accepted. Ukraine doesn't stand a chance and basically because Joe Biden gave some false hopes for which Biden will pay the price with the defeat in 24.
In my opinion, Putin isn't the mastermind, genius that some in our own country want to make us believe.
He has invaded Ukraine on a pretext of paranoia and lies. Of late, His rambling, angry and incoherent speeches have revealed his true nature. This is an unbalanced even delusional man.
The latest, last night had him proclaiming: "To anyone who would consider interfering from the outside - if you do, you will face consequences greater than any you have faced in history" he claimed he is 'de-Nazifying' Ukraine .
He also warned warned that any attempt to interfere in the Ukraine conflict would provoke a response 'never seen in history'
This is a man who needs to be dealt with."President Joe Biden on Saturday warned Russian President Vladimir Putin that the consequences of a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, which U.S. officials have said could be imminent, would be "swift and severe," according to a White House description of the conversation." President Biden'
It would seem both have laid down a red line. However, Putin is a very as you said "unbalanced even delusional man". Would you think Biden should back up his words? It would seem Putin is a man that does not say something lightly...
Do you feel anyone could win in a nuclear war? Because this is what we would face if we went to war with Russia. They also have a weapon that we do not have, a weapon that defies radar. We do not have this weapon, China has it. Does that give you a hint to whose side they would be on?
https://www.military.com/equipment/weap … dar.htmlIn my view in this particular crisis, we have no cards to play. And I don't think it wise to just bluster about when we have no hand. to play.
It would be wonderful if Europe would actually help out with sanctions such as stopping all trade, and oil purchases. But, that will not happen.I think NATO is the most unified it's ever been.
"On February 21 and 22, 2022, the United States, the European Union, the United Kingdom, Australia, and Japan issued and/or announced sanctions targeting Russia and the Russia-backed separatist regions of Ukraine known as the Donetsk People’s Republic (“DNR”) and the Luhansk People’s Republic (“LNR”). The United States took the first step by issuing broad jurisdiction-based sanctions on the two regions, similar to the existing sanctions on the Crimea region of Ukraine, and followed up with additional sanctions targeting Russia’s financial system. NATO allies also announced sanctions—including targeted designations by the United Kingdom and a sanctions package by the European Union—and non-NATO allies promised tough sanctions in close coordination." I'm glad to see the unified response. Germany canceling Nordstream was quite a step seeing they were waffling on it weeks before.
But how do we deal with a tyrannical, unhinged dictator who is on the march to destroy democracy wherever he can without causing suffering to our own people, to our own economy? That is of course what would happen globally if NATO decided to hit Russia's energy sector with sanctions. This conflict is already undeniably going to make our countries inflation worse.
I believe that President Biden's address this afternoon will announce another round of sanctions.
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said this morning that the European Union will place “massive and targeted” sanctions on Russia over its aggression in Ukraine, aiming at its financial sector, freezing Russia assets.
Just how far is China willing to go to help Russia? Former NSA advisor Stephen Hadley believes that if Russia were to invade Ukraine, “China will not formally endorse it” because it recognizes the Ukrainian government and largely opposes foreign interventions. As, of this morning the invasion is underway so I suppose we can look for a Chinese response.
In terms of nuclear war, Putin practically threatened the West in his speech this morning. So yes, what now?
I'm very saddened by the pictures coming in from Ukraine already. You are correct, Not sure what cards we have to play but then again I'm not a military strategist. I do want to see our country offer more support to Ukraine in terms of military equipment.
What is the cost for dealing with him?
Total annihilation of human civilization due to Nuclear War?
Or merely having our Power Grid & Internet sabotaged and made inoperable?
Does $10 a gallon at the pump sound good to you?
Is that a price you are willing to pay to interfere in what is practically a Civil War.
You do realize the majority of Ukrainians speak Russian. That over 90% in the Eastern Ukraine have Family ties to Russia.
Where does this attitude of yours come from, that what America does is so right (IE - Iraq) but what any other country does is evil?A civil war? What? You're implying that Russia and Ukraine are the same country, they are not. Ukraine has been an independent country since 1991. Putin has gone into Ukraine, unprovoked and against international law. Sovereign Nations get to determine their own future. Plain and simple.
I do not understand what the significance is of Ukrainian citizens who speak Russian? Or The fact that Russians and Ukrainians have family in either country. This, to me and many others means Russians and Ukrainians do not see each other as the enemy. This is very obvious with the outbreak of Russian protests today against Putin's moves in Ukraine. I think our "genius" has bitten off more than he can chew. He is showing a disconnect with reality, lying about history and apparently doesn't realize it isn't 1939 anymore. His people don't support him, His economy was already bad and about to get much worse putting more strain on his people.
My attitude? we need to do all that we can to support the Ukrainian people in the face of Putin's unprovoked attack.OK, I again ask, what price are you willing to pay?
"We need to do all that we can" - give some detail to that, so that I can understand how committed you are and what you are willing to risk.
This isn't some backwater Nation we are talking about. This is Russia which has the largest Nuclear capability of any nation other than the US, a country that has secured the support of China for these actions against Ukraine.
So, what is your solution?Ken: One doesn't have to have a solution in order to just have support and be patriotic The price she pays is to argue with you. I believe every decision has a price to pay, some or larger than others. Her decision is to support the Ukrainian people.
I will say this. I'm impressed how Putin executed a conventional invasion of Ukraine instead of asymmetrical warfare like we did in Viet Nam and in the Mid-East. At least he knows who his enemy is and is controlling the land mass by starting from three sides of the country and closing in on the capitol.
In asymmetrical warfare, you are fighting pockets of resistance all over the country and no one wears uniforms, so it is difficult to Identify the enemy. That's the way it was in the mid-east.Ultimately Russia cannot hold the Western half of Ukraine... nor do I think its in Putin's plans to do so.
The Eastern half, Including all the Black Sea region, is populated essentially by Russians, they speak Russian, there history is deeply tied to Russia, etc. they can be incorporated fully into Russia.
The Western half has more history with Poland and Lithuania, including a dire history during WWII when they joined with Nazi Germany in spreading their genocide upon the Russian people.
Ukraine isn't unified, it is a joining of two nearly equal halves with two distinct/separate histories, language and cultural backgrounds that have never really built a history as one Nation.
I think Ukraine's fate will be similar to Korea... the difference being, there is already a split there between regions, language, etc. unlike Korea.No, Ukraine is more unified than you are portraying.
the outcomes of Ukraine’s two most recent presidential elections, which have both taken place following the onset of hostilities with Russia. Neither the 2014 nor the 2019 votes produced anything approaching an east-west divide. On both occasions, the winning candidate secured majorities in virtually every single region of the country. This is a strong indication that while political preferences and personal opinions may vary from region to region, Ukrainians are fundamentally united against existential threats to the nation.
There are also ample indications that Ukrainians are increasingly united over the country’s future direction. In the eight years since the outbreak of hostilities with Russia, support for Euro-Atlantic integration has surged while the number of Ukrainians favoring closer ties with Moscow has plummeted to record lows.
A December 2021 poll conducted by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology found that among Ukrainians ready to participate in a referendum, 75.7% would back EU membership and 67.8% would support joining NATO.
Also your attempts to portray Ukraine as being hopelessly divided along linguistic lines are similarly misinformed. While the post-imperial transition from Russian to Ukrainian has frequently been exploited for political purposes, most Ukrainians are bilingual and both languages can be routinely encountered throughout the country on a daily basis.Nor is linguistic choice in any way an indication of political preferences in contemporary Ukraine. While usage of Ukrainian is on the rise nationally, today’s Kyiv remains the largest Russian-speaking city in the world outside of Russia itself, yet nobody would suggest that it is anything other than a bastion of Ukrainian patriotism.
Even in predominantly Russian-speaking regions of Ukraine, opinion polls regularly demonstrate strong public backing for legislation supporting the status of Ukrainian as the country’s official state language. For example, a September 2020 survey conducted by the Democratic Initiatives Foundation and the Razumkov Center found that 65.2% in eastern Ukraine backed the use of Ukrainian in schools, while a similarly convincing majority of 62.7% felt that state officials should speak Ukrainian while conducting their duties.
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/u … d-ukraine/I've done my own research, I didn't just read an article or watch a CNN report to come to my conclusions.
There are always varying factors. Nothing is absolute. You are trying to minimize a shared history, culture, I don't believe that article quite gives enough credence to how such things work, especially in the worst of times.Hmm. CNN report? What? Where was that cited? I mentioned specific metrics from Kyiv International Institute and Razumkov Center. Quite centered in the region As well as respected. What do you believe gives more credence? I mean specifically.
East/west divisions are not what you claim and they've been steadily eroding.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-fr … st-divide/
Ultimately Russia cannot hold the Western half of Ukraine... nor do I think its in Putin's plans to do so.
The Eastern half, Including all the Black Sea region, is populated essentially by Russians, they speak Russian, there history is deeply tied to Russia, etc. they can be incorporated fully into Russia.
The Western half has more history with Poland and Lithuania, including a dire history during WWII when they joined with Nazi Germany in spreading their genocide upon the Russian people.
Ukraine isn't unified it is a joining of two nearly equal halves with two distinct/separate histories, language and cultural backgrounds that have never really built a history as one Nation.
I think Ukraine's fate will be similar to Korea... the difference being, there is already a split there between regions, language, etc. unlike Korea.
Let the international sanctions take hold. They are the strongest ever imposed and will take time. Americans always want to see an immediate result This is going to take months. I believe they'll bring Putin to his knees. Putin’s disastrous decision will reverberate for years to come. Tough international sanctions are coming, and Russia’s economy (and the Russian people) will pay a price. So, too, will the Russian oligarch elite, who will likely find that their ability to jet off to London or the French Riviera or move their money to safe harbors around the world will be severely constrained.
But even worse will be the hit to Moscow’s international reputation. Russia is now a pariah state and its leader persona non grata. There will be no summit meetings with Western leaders in Putin’s future, and certainly no attendance at international conferences. So long as Putin remains in charge, Russia will be on the outside looking in when it comes to being a member in good standing of the international community.
Also, Putin's nostalgia for the old Soviet Union may resonate with older people but younger Russians will see it as an old man's fantasy.
Putin has spent eight years trying, and failing, to dominate Ukraine. I think he's only giving ideas to his own people what their country should actually be like. It's the beginning of the end for him.I think both of those are miscalculations, at best.
But I agree that those thoughts are what the governments of the West are giving to the media, in public.
I think this strengthens our alliance with the EU at a time when they had been leaning increasingly towards China in recent years. Since China supports Russia in this action, the EU will now lean back toward America for protection and support.
India will remain Neutral on this matter, until China invades Taiwan, then they will side with America and the EU in opposition against China, Russia, and those countries that align with them.
Ultimately I expect we will see China, Russia, and those Nations that align with them (Iran, Syria, Georgia, North Korea, half of those in Africa) move off of the Dolar Reserve entirely and create their own Reserve... essentially splitting World Trade and the World Economy in two. This could be one scenario.
I just don't see this move being made by Putin in isolation, there are other moving pieces to this, this is a part of something larger.
But I could be wrong, Putin could be a total idiot and the invasion of Ukraine becomes the catalyst to his downfall. But I wouldn't bet on it.
The entire scenario which is unfolding is the doing of the Anglo-Saxon powers the UK and the USA. NATO is not as united as made out and Germany and France do not wish to fight Russia on behalf of Ukraine. In any case, NATO itself is an obsolete organization now and it has shown that it is powerless in Ukraine.
We must bear in mind that all the other American-sponsored military Pacts like the Baghdad Pact, SEATO, CENTO have long since folded up and NATO was the only one left. It was all right during the 40s and 50s but is now totally out of reality. The plan of the Americans and the British to surround Russia with NATO countries and keep it perpetually weak has failed.
it's all very well to talk that Ukraine needs freedom and all that but must remember that the security of a country is more important otherwise why would the Americans have almost gone to a nuclear war in 1962 on the subject of Cuba. Nobody wants to talk about it and the Americans have committed so many war crimes during the last 77 years like killing 200,000 civilians by atom bombing them when Japan had lost the war just to test the efficacy of the weapon cannot be forgotten.
Those who stay in glass houses should not throw throw throw stones at others. Only the Americans and the British and their allies are talking of sanctions who else is talking of sanctions? out of the big power in the world India, China, Pakistan, or any country in Africa? One needs to be realistic and not rely on rhetoric.Those who support democracy have leveled sanctions. Maybe we Should be looking at sanctions on those who side with, do business or support the criminal invasion of Ukraine by Putin. Innocent people are being murdered and Ukraine right now. I suppose you're either on the side freedom or you're not.
If freedom means instigating populations and people to rise up to create your own hegemony then I will always oppose it. Each Ukrainian killed is because of the thoughtless actions of the Anglo-Saxon powers. Even know if Joe Biden can give security assurance to Russia, the war can be called off but will he do it? he won't.
I think you have a balanced perspective. Nobody likes war least of all the soldiers. The Ukraine crisis could have been easily avoided if Joe Biden had shown some sense. There was no point in trying to needle Russia and expanding NATO Eastwards. Short of nuclear war and destruction of Europe there is no way Putin can be stopped. This is because Europe does not have proper conventional forces and to always rely on a nuclear deterrent has no meaning. In that case, you are living in an IF and BUT because the enemy may not recognize nuclear deterrent and if you use nuclear weapons the small countries simply cease to exist from the map. One should not forget what Nikita Khrushchev said about England -it requires just 5 to 6 H Bombs to wipe England off the map of the world. There was a time when Boris Yeltsin was president of Russia that approach was made to join NATO and I think Clinton refused why because the Americans always wanted to keep Russia as an enemy to perpetuate their hegemony over Europe. I can tell you in Singapore where I am nobody's against Putin and Russia and almost everybody I meet is of the view that it is the American fault. My esteemed colleagues on hub pages may agree or not.
Yes, a clown car of actors paraded out nightly to take advantage of those who don't understand they're watching a contrived production.
Faye: I think that is one of the reasons Putin decided to invade Ukraine. He knows that our country is divided because of the clowns at Fox News and Trump and his cohorts.
Yes!! They are giving Putin something to show Russians to possibly make them believe we support Putin. I do believe the Russian people are more savvy though.
I think he worked hard on that. In Europe too.
I think this has been in the works for quite some time, years.
He's given us a Supreme Court justice who is actually experienced and comes with no sleazy accusations. That's more than can be said for four of the sitting justices nominated by Republican presidents.
I wonder how many want to discuss the Atom bombing and killing of 200,000 defenseless civilians during World War II, the carpet bombing of North Vietnam, the invasion of Iraq, the battle in Afghanistan, and many more. Yes, we must talk off the Russian bombing and forget that the largest number of prisoners in the world in jails are in America.
All agreements and pacts are broken at some stage. Hitler broke his non-aggression pact with Stalin in 1941. The United States under Nixon did not act on Pakistan's request as per their mutual. defence pact for help when the Indian troops were advancing into East Pakistan. Pakistan broke into 2 nations. I am not justifying anything but the facts are that a nation uses the acts and agreement so long as it suits it and then forgets about it. This is not applicable to Russia alone.
Getting back on track to the thread's topic, Biden's administration ramping up energy production while lowering carbon emissions:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/bidens-offsh … 30730.htmlEven some in the GOP can understand the praise for Putin bordering on treason....
https://www.yahoo.com/news/romney-cnn-u … 57437.html
And this segment should disgust every American...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_POI6U3ZmVc"A lot of those people are changing their stripes as they are seeing the response of the world and the political response here in the U.S.," Romney said during an interview on CNN's "State of the Union," when asked about pro-Putin sentiment within the Republican Party."
"But how anybody — how anybody in this country, which loves freedom — can side with Vladimir Putin — which is an oppressor, a dictator, he kills people, he imprisons his political opponents, he has been an adversary of America at every chance he's had — it's unthinkable to me. It's almost treasonous," he continued. "And it just makes me ill to see some of these people do that."
Do you feel those that have made remarks that have stated they feel Putin's plan was well thought out or in some cases called it genius is being treasonous? Is there any room to say they are giving an opinion on Putin as a Strategist plain and simple?
Have we come to the point people are too free with their thoughts?As you have said, this could put us on the brink of war with Russia. The last thing we need is our own citizens giving comfort to our enemies by praising them. Lending aid and comfort through media support does border on treason.
In that second video, you've got people chanting Putin's name. If that doesn't disgust you, it should.I see both views as very viable, I tend to agree at this point we can see the writing is on the wall, and our politicians and pundits need to watch what they say. It's clear we have a fight, and perhaps we can take a page out of the citizens of Ukraine's book. They have united for one cause.
The video is disgusting, but also scary for the fact we have people that are willing to look past Putin's murderous history.Sharlee: I'll finish your sentence for you based on what I saw in the video.
The video is disgusting, but also scary for the fact we have people that are willing to look past Putin's murderous history and support both Trump and Putin.
The tactic du jour : leading their followers into hatred of America. And for what? To score some political points? I'm sickened by the video of them chanting Putin's name. And Mr Trump continually undermining our current administration. Just continued name calling but you notice he never says what he would have done, What he would do. It's always just these vague proclamations of "This wouldn't have happened if I were president" all bluster. No substance. Calling people "dumb" isn't a solution.
Now it is time to make FOX, Trump, Carlson and the entire cast of 5th columnist traitors eat a little crow. The entire world has condemned Putin and his actions in the Ukraine. I like to see the Rightwingers who were so determine to extol Putin's 'genius' spin their way out of this one.
PS: I am more than satisfied that President Biden handled the crisis well, doing all he could and should have done to counter Putin's aggression in the Ukraine. Global public opinion may well stand Putin down even when compared with the threat of massive nuclear arsenals.I hate to say this --- Do you feel it a good thing to corner a man that now threatens to use a nuclear option? I don't care if the world has condemned Putin. Like he ever won a popularity contest. Come on --- your hanging on words. In my opinion, Putin will most likely use the nuclear option in Ukraine, and then tell me about a bunch of bureaucrats' fluffy bloviated words.
Sharlee, in another comment I made on this topic, I did say that if we can get past this immediate crisis it would be well advised to negotiate with Putin to ameliorate his feeling of Russia being surrounded by a hostile West on all sides.
I doubt that he would use the nuclear option as there is not any direct military threat from the West. I don't believe that even he is at that point yet. Russia against the entire world? I don't think that he had that in mind.I feel if he can't move more quickly in taking Ukraine, he will use a nuclear weapon. I don't think he would even blink.
Sharlee: I don't believe Putin will use nuclear weapons in Ukraine or any place else for that matter. Nuclear weapons have one nasty side effect and that is radiation fallout. I don't think he wants to decimate the country he wants to take over with mushroom clouds loaded with radiation...Just look at Nagasaki and Hiroshima in 1945.
I think he might us thermobaric bunker buster bombs that he now has in Ukraine. They are used to demolish underground tunnels and bunkers by super heating their targets and sucking the oxygen out of the targeted area. By the way, we used them in Afghanistan.Not sure of the size of the weapon he would use, but I think if he can't win any other way or if NATO puts troops in Ukraine he will use a nuclear weapon. Just my view. I take Putin at his word.
I don't doubt we have used them in the least or do I doubt Putin will use them.
Hopefully, I am wrong. But this is my prediction if he can overrun them he will nuke them or use chemical weapons. We sure have a horrendous problem, do we not?
Cred, I want to convince you to consider another perspective. One that thinks that Carlson and Hannity, et al. although way off base in their hyperbole and `bloviating', (Ha! remember who's favorite word that was?), are right about the efficacy, (damn, another 25 cents), of Putin's plan.
It is also a perspective that thinks negotiations and the `punishment' of Putin are one of his planned objectives in this campaign.
Here's the scenario:
Putin wants control of most or all of Ukraine's Black Sea access/ownership. He doesn't want to "own" or occupy Ukraine. He wants to own or control the recently discovered Black Sea oil and gas resources. With the annexation of Crimea he took a huge part of Ukraine's territorial waters and with this plan he is going after the rest.
The NATO issue has been a pretext all along. It allowed the world to probably, and initially, see his actions as a legitimate, even if unnecessary, national fear as a reason for his actions. No one would have even considered thinking that if the known objective was the control of Ukraine's gas and oil prospects.
So, I think he will fight until he secures control of the breakaway regions and that coastal territory. Consider his attacks. Even with the massiveness of his military capabilities, his progress has been more `pound and grind' than `shock and awe', (which he certainly had the forces to accomplish).
Add that to the minimal, (please, that is intended as a measure of scale, not to diminish the tragedy that is occurring), civilian damage, so far. He has the military might to bomb the hell out of the cities he supposedly wants. He isn't losing, he is buying time to consolidate the goals I mentioned.
He is allowing world pressure against him to mount, and wrecking Ukraine as he waits. When he gets those goals I mentioned he will let himself appear to be forced to the negotiating table.
He will make demands in exchange for an armistice. He will demand that his 2014 Crimea action be accepted by the world and he will demand that the breakaway regions and the "conquered" coastal lands be recognized as separate from Ukraine.
Because he will have achieved realistic control of those contested areas he will give in on the separation stuff because he will make them "rebel" war zones until the time is right to annex them, a la Crimea.
So, The West's, (aka USA), negotiators will end up demanding Putin's forced withdrawal from Ukraine and denying his separatist, (and NATO) demands—and claim a world victory over a national villain as a huge victory for freedom-loving people. Good triumphed over evil.
So, poor defeated Putin will crawl out of Ukraine with nothing but world condemnation for his actions
And that bud, will be an act. He really will leave, but relative to his goals he will leave a victor. He will have wrecked Ukraine and placed the rebuilding costs on the West. He will have ensured Ukraine will never become a NATO nation. And will have gained the Black Sea control that was his primary objective.
Plus, it seems certain he will also demand that most of the sanctions be canceled once he does withdraw. (his capital surplus will carry them through until then). I think the negotiators will agree to that. They may argue and sue for damages, but that's a multi-decade non-issue for Putin.
Now, that's just one scenario. If you follow through the WW III thread, starting with Chris57's link you will see what changed my mind and the context of that change.
As a caution, don't misinterpret my hopes. I hope it doesn't work out that way, I am not rooting for Putin. But the only hope I can see, and it's a very faint one, is that Ukraine somehow retains at least an equilibrium of control over the breakaway area border regions—denying Putin the future control he anticipates by supporting the rebels until he gets what he wants.
And to add a ps. I wouldn't criticize Pres. Biden's actions either. None of us know what he knows, (the administration), and if my perspective is right he is almost doing all he can: try to smooth public angst, anger and righteousness, and assist Ukraine in all ways plausibly possible, (US troops aren't a plausible action).
GALots of words... I am predicting one outcome --- Putin wins.
That was the most unpatriotic sentence I've read at this site.
You're being overly dramatic. You do realize it is not the US fighting this war? It would seem odd to say I was being unpatriotic. It would seem you feel the US is at war. We are not.
I just offered a realistic view of the situation in the Russia/Ukraine war.
Do you feel Ukraine can win this war with Russia? It is very obvious they will fight to save their country, and this is commendable beyond words. But Russia is so powerful and has a very ruthless leader that will try to win at all costs. I hope we see a true miricle.
Well, Putin is not anything if he is not shrewd. The scanario that you paint sounds much more like an realistic and obtainable objective. This whole affair has been regional anyway, and as you say Putin could virtually wipe the Ukraine off from the map, carpet bombing of cities, etc. I agree, relative to what damage Russia could do, things have been going slow and that has to be interpreted as restraint on Putin's part.
I don't believe that any of the "genius Putin" crowd really understood the end game any more than Biden or the rest of the world. What Putin objectives are are eminently practical and he may well be in enough control to the pursue real-politik goals rather than pipe dreams. He may have a method to his madness and not be as unhinged as I had previously thought.
No, I recognize that you are not giving Putin a carte Blanche, containing Putin and avoid a wider conflict has to be an important goal in itself.I'm glad you can see the possibilities of this scenario. Relative to Pres. Biden and his administration, if this scenario is close, and considering the analytical brainpower available in the various advising organizations, I am sure the president, and the past couple of presidents, have been fully briefed on this.
What they, (Biden/Trump/Obama), really could do is beyond my consideration, but I am feeling a whole lot less critical of Pres. Biden's actions.
GAI will agree that Putin is shrewd, at least in the short-term. He does seem to have gravely miscalculated in the long-term.
In one blow, he repaired all of the damage Trump did NATO by allowing Biden to masterfully cement the alliance back together again.
He seems to totally underestimated how the world would react to his terrorist invasion
He also seems to have totally underestimated the resolve of the Ukrainian people.
The world totally underestimated the ability for Zelenskyy to rise to the occasion.
He totally underestimated what it would take militarily to bring Ukraine quickly to heal.
OK, I take back agreeing that he is shrewd. It seems he was Trump-like stupid and that President Biden rose to the occasion and turned out to be the strong and shrewd one.Welcome back, you have to remember that Rightwingers are always snowflakes under the skin,
We certainly agree, Putin was shrewd in the short term, bringing the world to the brink only because he wanted access ports on the Black Sea. This sounds much more like real politik and less megalomaniac. I don't think that he had anticipated the sheer extent of the world ire against him and his invasion.
With continued reading, I had come to a conclusion why so much of the GOP were singing Putin's praises. It was not about Putin more than about his model of governance, that of an autocratic tyrant. I truly believe that model is what conservatives are looking for in America.
We had Trump in his stated admiration of the North Korean dictator, saying that he, too, would like to rule for life. He also, giving affinity to a killer like Putin, attacked his own agencies without grounds on his behalf.
Then we had Tucker Carlson doing his "exclusive" on behalf of the strong armed, autocrat tyrant in Hungary? Telling us all how he and his society stood firm for "traditional values",(homophobia, misogyny and Racism) thumbing his nose at the rest of cosmopolitan Western Europe.
Then we had January 6, 2021, when the President of the United States and a fascist oriented mob with their very behavior says, "fair contests aside we want our "Trump". Our man wins, regardless of the results of the national election. The truth when presented in every possible way, meant nothing to them. There, is fascism at work and the foundation for the "Big Lie".
Now this thing with Putin.
We are in grave danger as there exists for one political party a desire to create a "1953 Project", a return to a time in America where the white man reigned supreme and everyone else quietly assumed their subordinate roles and kept their mouths shut. It may well act as a cover for wealthy and corporate entities to do as they like with impunity. As dumb as so many working class Republicans are, they don't realize that in the GOP "new order", they will deceived into thinking that they will actually benefit.
I warn conservatives/Rightwingers to expect serious repercussions if they even consider such a thing.No question we are in grave danger so long as Trump Republicans keep getting elected. I have to differentiate between Trump Republicans, who are as you describe, and what I will call modern day Republicans (which are themselves a different species from Real Republicans aka Lincoln Republicans - ywhich I would be if it existed anymore).
Whether they know it or not, Trump Republicans are, in effect, anti-democratic and anti-American. I know they don't see it that way because an authoritarian, White dominated America seems logical to them. But THAT is not what a real America is about. A real America comes up with Marshall plans and orchestrating a world response to a murdering Trump wanna-be (lol).Perhaps this may explain why Trump followers admire him and tend to support him no matter what he does or says.
https://www.union.edu/news/stories/2020 … ward-trumpVery interesting article. I will need to update my hubs on RWA and Social Dominance with this information.
The problem, Esoteric is that the Trump Republicans is a virus that is taking over the party, no more Rockefeller or even Dick Cheney types. If the Trumpers remain some sort of kooky cult outside of the mainstream of Republican politics, I would be relieved. But, that is not what I see here.
Whatever passed in Republican circles as moderate, is long gone.
The "modern day" Republicans are an endangered species that may well have shared the fate of the passenger pigeon....You talk as if the identical thing isn't happening on the other side of the fence, as we watch the likes of AOC and her ilk, or even Pelosi with her power grabs take over the Democrat Party.
What we really need is to scrap both of them, starting fresh. Which will never happen as greedy people, and those that wish to control others, are quite happy with the status quo. And between the two they are a big majority of the country.Yes, you have that correct. This disintegration of a once proud, patriotic Party is unique to the Republican Party.
History clearly shows Parties that go off the deep end like the Republican Party clearly has end up self-destructing themselves and ultimately disappear. I suspect that will happen here. The Republicans that have been expelled by Trumpers will likely join or form another Party, such as the Centrist Party.
I think you would make for an excellent tactician, military or political.
Very well thought out and insightful.
This explains the heavy focus on the south eastern region which is the area that seems the most solidly/completely occupied at this moment.
And the region inland in the north eastern province(s) that is also under occupied control, which had a large natural gas deposit as well. His moves have secured all but the most southernly (and smaller) of those, which were right on the border with Moldova.
This is a much more realistic and attainable goal... I had seen the River as the delineation mark/goal, that is so 20th century tactical thinking, Putin is thinking economic relevance... Russian survival.
This explains a lot.. including the "kid gloves" being used, the amount of force used has been what I would term "minimal" compared to what it could have been. I couldn't understand it, until I read your theory.
The attack on Kyiv was just a feint to focus the attention on defending the Capitol at all costs while the real objectives are secured.
I don't think we should be Putin's threat lightly. If you push him in a corner he's sure to react with something terrible. People will recollect that Japan went into action during World War II and attacked Pearl Harbor after the trade sanctions had crippled Japan. At the moment the only way out is that in case Putin is removed as president by the Russian people, I don't know whether that is possible.
Some Trump-type coward decided they cannot stand the honest truth and facts and with being corrected for their disinformation, misinformation, and lies and had me banned for a few days.
I am very proud of President Biden for the way he has brought NATO and the world together to effectively oppose murdering Putin and his attack on [b]democracy[/i]
I agree with President Zelenskyy when he said something to the effect of opposing murdering Putin isn't just to help Ukraine keep its democracy but it is to make sure the rest of the world keep our democracy as well.
Related Discussions
- 34
Don't Give Trump Credit for the Success of the Biden Economy
by Willowarbor 5 months ago
Trump will inherit "the strongest economy in modern history," "an economy primed for growth," "booming markets and solid growth," an economy that is "pretty damn good," and investments "flowing" to "rural and manufacturing communities."In...
- 137
Inflation, what is up with that?
by Scott Belford 7 months ago
There is good inflation and their is bad inflation. What we experienced from 2009 - 2021 was the good type of inflation, between 1 and 3% a year. What we are experiencing now between 5 and 9% inflation is bad inflation. What we experienced in the 1980s, 10 to 15% inflation is...
- 67
Did Putin Really Cause America's Inflation?
by Sharlee 3 years ago
Biden blames everything but his government spending for the monthly growing inflation. Which now is at 8.5%, a 40-year high. Biden has gone through painstaking efforts to shirk responsibility for the state of America's failing economy, blaming meat conglomerates, oil companies,...
- 46
Biden's Climate War He Is Taking No Prisoners
by Sharlee 10 months ago
For months now gas prices have topped $4 per gallon – The fact is this is more than double what we were paying just two years ago. Electricity costs are soaring as well, and are costing many from 25% to 40% more this summer. Let's face it these energy costs eat up a larger share of our...
- 63
What are the Horrible Things President Joe Biden Has Done?
by Grace Marguerite Williams 3 years ago
There are some who applaud Joe Biden for what he has done FOR America. They believe that Biden is going to make America a better, more humane country. However, there are others who REALLY see what Joe Biden is doing TO America i.e. the Afghanistan fiasco, the continual migrant problem,...
- 1071
Thinking about how to vote in 2024? I Am!
by Tim Mitchell 9 months ago
We all know it will be party-line loyalty for most voters. According to Pew Research, six percent of voters for the 2022 elections crossed party lines. For the mythical independent voter, it is a binary choice for the President. We are fortunate to be able to assess two Presidents based on criteria...