Dems now demonize the same policies Obama once championed

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Another excellent piece on Dem hypocrisy by the good Glenn Greenwald:

https://theintercept.com/2017/03/06/democrats-now-demonize-the-same-russia-policies-that-obama-long-championed/

Seriously, I really am tired of the mad Russophobia emanating from the Dems. If only Saudi Arabia were given the same treatment! What's next, the Dems calling for war on Iran?

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Explain this to me EHarding...

Republicans say that the news is sensationalizing Mexican deportations now that Trump is in office but when Obama was actually deporting illegals at higher rates the news didn't cover it.  Does that not undercut the conservative argument that Obama was weak on immigration and we need a wall?  Do you see hypocrisy in this?

-O was quite weak on immigration. He could have been weaker. Nothing complicated.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Wanting to cozy up to the Russian regime was bad when Obama was doing it and it's still bad now that Trump is doing it. One of the fringe benefits of it being such an intense topic of discussion right now is that more-or-less all Democrats and FP-oriented Republicans should try to block any future attempts, at least until after the Putin regime has fallen, so that this sort of thing won't happen again. The pressure from home is probably strong enough to force Trump into hawkish activity, like hopefully strengthening of sanctions, as well.

-What's your beef with RU, again?

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Wanting to cozy up to the Russian regime was bad when Obama was doing it and it's still bad now that Trump is doing it. One of the fringe benefits of it being such an intense topic of discussion right now is that more-or-less all Democrats and FP-oriented Republicans should try to block any future attempts, at least until after the Putin regime has fallen, so that this sort of thing won't happen again. The pressure from home is probably strong enough to force Trump into hawkish activity, like hopefully strengthening of sanctions, as well.

-What's your beef with RU, again?

Vosem's heritage is Jewish-Russian. His username is an Anglo perversion of "восем".

-I know. But I still don't get the point of his yuge beef with RU. Even Sunrise, another prominent neocon Jew on this forum, has wisened up on this topic.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

For the last time, one can support détente with Russia without supporting fondling Putin's you-know-whats when he orders that crimes be committed on U.S. soil. Those two things are not the same policy.

The point is Democrats are not supporting Obama-style detente.

Russia is behaving considerably worse than they did for most of Obama's presidency.

-Russia isn't behaving badly at all, when its actions are looked in context.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Wanting to cozy up to the Russian regime was bad when Obama was doing it and it's still bad now that Trump is doing it. One of the fringe benefits of it being such an intense topic of discussion right now is that more-or-less all Democrats and FP-oriented Republicans should try to block any future attempts, at least until after the Putin regime has fallen, so that this sort of thing won't happen again. The pressure from home is probably strong enough to force Trump into hawkish activity, like hopefully strengthening of sanctions, as well.

-What's your beef with RU, again?

Vosem's heritage is Jewish-Russian. His username is an Anglo perversion of "восем".

-I know. But I still don't get the point of his yuge beef with RU. Even Sunrise, another prominent neocon Jew on this forum, has wisened up on this topic.

My beef is basically that I think governmental consolidation in the Western world (especially the EU, but also things like NATO and NAFTA) is fundamentally a good thing, necessary to maintain an important Western position in the world, and should be the premier foreign-policy goal in the West broadly. There's nothing necessarily anti-Russian here; I'm a big admirer of Russian culture, I have relatives who live in Russia, and I'm proud to speak Russian as my native language. If anything, I think someday far in the future there could be a place for Russia within NATO (Russia is probably too large to enter the EU without fundamentally changing the power dynamics in that organization); over the very long-term, America and Russia have the same foreign-policy enemies in Chinese expansionism and extremist Islam, and cooperation will eventually be necessary. I am not necessarily even against territories that clearly want to be part of the Russian state, like Crimea, Abkhazia, and South Ossetia, (or even Daugavpils) to be integrated one day, so long as it is done in a peaceful, democratic manner, and the countries that lose territory are somehow fairly compensated. But because the Putin regime has made its biggest foreign policy goal the undermining of inter-European institutions, it has to be opposed at every turn. At least Islamism attacks the West as a unified entity; Russia seeks to disunite it. The former is a much more implacable foe, but it is the latter which is more threatening in the immediate term.

Итак, понятно?

-I find both the logic and the premises weak here.

First, the premises. I'm not a fan of the E.U.; I think it has gone too far in the direction of tyranny. I supported Brexit, despite not knowing all the issues behind it, due to the nature of the people opposing it. I find NATO to be little more than an Islamic terrorist organization. It might be useful for defending the civilized (yet, still loser) countries of the Baltics, but it is clearly overextended, and ought to be pulled back from Greece, Turkey, Albania, and Bulgaria, at the very least. But, to prevent it from re-expanding yet again, or serving as an Islamist terrorist entity, as power begets power, I prefer it to be entirely abolished.

Secondly, the logic. I don't agree at all with your assessment of the Putin government. There is no real way Russia can undermine European institutions; the main reason they are weak is that they have undermined themselves. Secondly, I doubt Putin cares about whether the European institutions shoot themselves in the foot or not. Russia did not seriously resist NATO expansion in 2004, however, it strongly resisted it in Ukraine, for good reason -like the Cold War possibility of the Warsaw pact extending to Cuba, the current possibility of NATO extending to Ukraine is a very serious threat. I, like over 70% of Russians, approve of Putin's leadership; I doubt Russia after Putin can do much better than it has under him.

Scarlet, Americans are propagandized with nonsensical Russophobia every day. Do we really need more of that? And I totally oppose your description of me, I am neither even remotely stupid or hackish, and I believe my presence has made this forum a much better place.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

I agree that it should be investigated, but I just think it's highly unlikely that anything like that happened in such an explicit manner.  More likely would be that Trump people saw Putin acting against Clinton, and decided to egg them on....giving Russia more things that they would want, in order for them to continue, without ever cutting an explicit deal.  That's pretty much how campaign finance corruption happens.  You do things that your donors want, and they keep giving you money, without either of you having to actually articulate the corrupt bargain that you're engaging in (because that would get you in trouble).

That's a really good point.

I would still state my wish for the most thorough investigation reasonably possible would be for, if anything sinister was going on, or any situations like you described, to come out in the open and even if it wouldn't be enough to remove him from power, to give voters more information when they go to the polls in 2020. So long as we can get the facts of what really has gone on with all of this out, either Congress or the voters can make informed decisions.

-I would only support such a thing if Trump appoints a special prosecutor to examine the Clinton email server issue, and even them I would be unlikely to support it. It's just fodder for partisan lies.

DevoutCentrist, Yes, it's true the GOP and Dems gradually switched positions on trade between 2008 and 2017, and that was moronic, purely due to hackery and electoral strategy.

Austrian, you understand nothing about American politics. Americans love justice.