[Straight face] But Russia is really really good at cyber security especially the testing side of things.....
Maybe we could invite Russia, China and the Norks to test our stuff for us...
Security experts have poured scorn on plans by US president Donald Trump to work more closely with Russia on cybersecurity. After the summit in Helsinki on Monday, both Trump and Russian president Vladimir Putin deflected questions related to the US intelligence community's assessment that Russia attempted to interfer in the …
>So kapersky is back in business ?
No, as that means no cut for the US government (sales tax, corporation tax etc.),
just that the US spooks want to have the same access to Kaspersky as the Russians and Israeli's (remember it was an Israeli outfit that hacked into Kaspersky and 'detected' evidence of other on-going hacking...)
-- cheap hamburger is to a hungry Rottweiler.
Given that "We [the Trump Organization] are seeing a lot of money flowing in from Russia", given that Trump has promised since 2011 to release his tax returns (yes, even before he was a candidate) and has broken all of those promises, given that his "debt-loving" method of real estate dealing has in the past several years given way to a "cash-dealing" method which is unusual in that crowd, I think he has a hidden source of big money. It's Russia.
The autocratic, corrupt, and oligarchic nature of Russian business means that Putin, as top autocrat, can, to a great degree, control the behavior of Russian banks and big-money lenders. If he requires a group of lenders to call in payment on a loan of 500 million, as a "favor" to him, then they will probably do it. Or end up poisoned, imprisoned, or both at once.
And so: Trump did the Helsinki roll-over for Putin because he has to please the Russian gang boss. He attacked NATO for the same reason: he is, under the sheets, pwned by Putin. Why would he say the EU is America's foe? Because he has to show Putin he will cooperate, and deliver whatever he can to aid Putin.
Just guesswork. But if Trump's tax returns were carefully vetted, and all the shell companies and offshore LLCs were unraveled, I'll bet there would be a bunch of threads leading to Russian financial oligarchs. That's Putin's leverage.
And offering Putin "cooperation" with US digital security agencies would be a lovely bit of treason.
I don't think Trump is controlled by anybody. Including Trump. I think he just says the first thing that comes into his head. Which can make you popular for a bit as a "straight talker" - particularly against politicians who are trying to use measured language and hold consistent positions, who can be made to look shifty.
But in foreign policy none of that really works. Foreign policy is often about tiny details of nuance and repeating the same position consistently for years on end, to convince other actors to move towards your position.
Given how little of his own money Trump has in any of his ventures, which are all legally separated, if someone calls in a loan on a big project - he can just let it go bust and let the creditors suffer all the pain. If Trump owes you $100m, you're in trouble, not him. As he can just abandon the project, leaving you holding the baby.
Whether he took direct help from Russian hackers during the election is another matter.
However, in practise, Trump has said he wants closer relations with Russia but has so far failed to get them. Sanctions are slightly tougher than when he took office - and the very fact that Russia were so unsuble in their election meddling means that Trump will find it incredibly hard to move closer to Russia. Even if he really wants to. Which personally I doubt. I rather suspect he said nice things about Putin because it pissed off Clinton and made a nice point of difference between them. Which a small side order of seeing himself as a big scary alpha male like old Vlad.
I don't think there's much of a Putin masterplan either. Like Trump he seems to be all about short-term tactics. The idea isn't to get a specific person into power. It's to justify Putin's dictatorship by trying to show that democracy is equally bad. But Churchill was right. Democracy is the worst system, except for all the others.
Putin has a big problem, namely that of a declining population. He has a a master plan to reverse this trend. One of the ways round it is via acquisitions such as Crimea. This population issue is much grater than that of the West. Merkel tried to solve her manpower issue with open borders, Putin prefers having larger borders. If in doubt look around the borders of Russia with the exception of perhaps China, there's meddling going on.
I suspect Trump's meeting had on the one hand North Korea in mind as the principal prize or on the other perhaps it was an attempt to thwart a new Ribentrof/Molotov agreement, this time an economic one. Heaven knows what was promised in return; a new Yalta.
>new Ribentrof/Molotov agreement,
Read some history, pal. You'll find that the Russians spent a lot of time and effort trying to build up an alliance against Nazi Germany but were thwarted at every turn. Their foreign minister resigned, was replaced by Molotov and the Germans, who were very hot to get it done to meet their September deadline, were hot to conclude that a non-aggression pact so they could invade the West without worrying about the Red Army sweeping in from the East. (They need not have worried anyway; as it turned out the Winter Wars between Russian and Finland exposed systemic weaknesses in the Red Army which the German planners were able to exploit.)
But who needs facts when a lifetime of propaganda teaches you everything you need to know.
(It also might be a good idea to quickly look up what the Crimea is and how it relates to the rest of Russia.)
(BTW -- I'm don't work for the Kremlin. I'm American and I doubt they could afford me.)
They started by both invading and shredding Poland...after that Russia invaded Finland, and also the Baltic States, plus part of Romania something often forgotten.... not very different from Nazis, isn't it?
Meanwhile the 1930s were busy times for Stalin - the Great Purge. Not exactly someone you would like as your friend, unless forced by events.
Germany started invading Austria, Czechoslovakia and Poland - not the West. That was much riskier. It could be that France and Britain thought that Germany could attack Russia as well, so the two dictatorships would wear out each other.
Actually, there were also talks for a German-Soviet alliance against Britain and France... the situation was very fluid in 1939-1940 - because there were no "natural allies" among Germany, Russia and Britain/France. Russian and Japan struck a deal as well, which Stalin broke only after the atomic bombs made clear USA was going to end the war "too quickly".
The weakness of the Red Army during the Winter in Finland was also due to the employment of Ukrainian soldiers or the like who weren't trained to fight in so extreme conditions - the reason was they shared less cultural links with the Finnish, less risks of "fraternization" with the enemy.
@martinusher "Read some history, pal. You'll find that the Russians spent a lot of time and effort trying to build up an alliance against Nazi Germany but were thwarted at every turn."
No, you read some history - I did a history degree on inter war period. The Soviet Union was happily working with both Weimar and Nazi era Germany on military technology both before and after the remilitarisation of the Rhineland openly broke the terms of the Versailles treaty. It was this cooperation along with the Molotov Ribbentrop pact that convinced Stalin he had a long breathing space before any Nazi aggression was going to come his way, and was why he was paralysed by disbelief in the initial stages of Operation Barbarossa.
Litvinov - Motolov's predecessor as foreign minister - didn't resign. He was essentially shunted sideways into another job since his Jewish ethnicity was a barrier to Stalin's hope for further accomodations with Nazi Germany.
I. A. Spartacus --
You may be right. Trump is certainly the most highly-placed scatterbrain in the world right now. What comes out of his mouth may indeed be nothing more than verbalization of the shiny-lights cast by his disco-ball mind. He may have shifting hunches, and no coherent strategy whatsoever.
But his obsequious behavior toward Russia seems to be one pattern. His attacks on Western economic and military alliances which oppose Russian influence seem to be another pattern. I'm not sure why he is behaving this way; it seems politically risky and, of course, strategically stupid. To me, unexplained patterns bespeak hidden purposes.
I respectfully disagree with your characterization of Putin as wanting in long-term strategy, though. I think he is very good at playing a long game. He's managed to rotate between premiership and the presidency for 19 years, longer than most Russian top dogs of the post-Stalin era. I think his strategies for destablizing Western governments were long-planned, have been intelligently and flexibly executed, and will be very hard to counter.
As far as money goes, yes -- Trump's lawyers and accountants have shielded his personal fortune from the business reversals of Trump Organization. However, he may fear:
1. Adding another critical financial reversal to his record. "Six bankruptcies -- call that a deal-maker? Call that a successful businessman? Hah!" Those financial failures sting his ego. Look at the way he pretends they were somehow successes.
2. If Putin had the Russian bankers call in such a debt, it would inevitably become public. Revelation that an American President is massively in debt to an enemy of America may actually start turning Trump's supporters against him. It may even make McConnell and the Republican machine repudiate the President. He may fear that more than the losing money.
So maybe I'm seeing shadows, or misinterpreting the patterns which do exist. It's a show worth watching, though! All the clowns are there.
Trump is certainly the most highly-placed scatterbrain in the world right now. What comes out of his mouth may indeed be nothing more than verbalization of the shiny-lights cast by his disco-ball mind. He may have shifting hunches, and no coherent strategy whatsoever.
I think this overestimates Trump. Because he looks like a person and makes noises like a person we assume that, well, he's a person, even if he's a bit disorganised in his thinking. I don't think he is: I think he was a person once upon a time, but now I don't think there's anything really left. He's just a twitching bundle of responses to whatever stimulus comes in with no guiding intelligence at all: a behaviourist's parody of a person. For a while he (who I should really call 'it' I suppose) can persuade you that there's a person in there, but eventually, like Eliza or Parry, you realise that there's no-one actually there: all that there is is this stuttering mass of responses to stimuli. I mean, really, what does this mean?
Look, having nuclear—my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart —you know, if you’re a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, OK, [...]
I think the answer's obvious: it doesn't mean anything, it's just some Markov chain which has trained itself on the decaying remains of the thing that used to be Donald Trump, that used to be a human being, but is now not even a very good simulation of one. There's nothing actually in there at all.
Yes, indeed. But like Pavlov's legendary dogs, Trump responds predictably to certain stimuli. That's why there are patterns in his behavior. Irrational, yes. Random, no.
I really did come up with that twaddle about Russian loans on my own. Just now I read George Will's column in the Washington Post in re Trump's subservience to Putin:
"The most innocent inference is that for decades he [Trump] has depended on an American weakness, susceptibility to the tacky charisma of wealth, which would evaporate when his tax returns revealed that he has always lied about his wealth, too. A more ominous explanation might be that his redundantly demonstrated incompetence as a businessman tumbled him into unsavory financial dependencies on Russians. A still more sinister explanation might be that the Russians have something else, something worse, to keep him compliant."
(George Will is one of the few real conservatives left in the American media. It saddens me to see writers like Mark Thiessen grovelling before the neo-fascist reactionary right as if before a serious political philosophy. But I digress. Sorry.)
Jeff Merkley, US Senator from Oregon, opines that it is not money but sex tapes: "It's the standard strategy of Russia when people visit there who are important, to try to get compromising information on them, to set them up with hookers, to tape everything that goes on in their room. So it's likely that they have that." Reffy
I don't agree, because Trump is notoriously dismissive of his own amoral sexual predation. His record of cheating on all his wives with whatever large-bosomed female took his fancy is well known. Frankly, if a tape of Russian prostitutes pissing on a hotel bed were made public, I imagine that most Trump supporters would say "Yeah! You ROCK, Donald! Make America wet again!" And they'd go home and tell their wives to pee on their pillows.
So I don't think that's why Trump grovels before Putin.
Finally, to all those farther down the thread who note that while Putin shot down civilian air liners, annexed Crimea, allied himself with Assad the Butcher, and had various individuals inside Russian and outside it assassinated, America is not exactly a spotless paragon of virtue: well, duh!
That's not the point. The Point is: work toward a Good Orderly Direction. Discourage bad things; encourage good things. When leaders are fuckwits, take notice. When Pol Pot says "we must purge the weak by killing them all" then take notice, yes? When the Prez of the USA pleasures a tyrant, whether it's a tinpot like Duarte or a cunning megalomaniac like Kim Jong-un or a cold psychopath like Putin, then that Prez is a fuckwit. He deserves as much censure as we can heap upon his nasty head.
That's my say. Tough day at work, but I have 10 working days left until retirement. And my passport is current. If it's Kristalnacht in the USA, I may still make it out. :)
"I think this overestimates Trump. Because he looks like a person and makes noises like a person we assume that, well, he's a person, even if he's a bit disorganised in his thinking. "
I do sometimes wonder if there a zip hidden under his wig and maybe he farts a lot more than expected.
You do not have to guess. Trump's tax avoidance scheme was available on the internet before the election: he made such enormous losses that he has not had to pay tax for years. If you have plenty of time ask you search engine for "Trump Russia money laundering". There will be enough results to keep you reading for days then you can try: "ZTE Indonesia theme park".
He attacked NATO for the same reason: he is, under the sheets, pwned by Putin. Why would he say the EU is America's foe?
Because the USA has a big trade deficit with the EU. The EU ensures that this is perpetuated by locking US firms out of the EU market on regulatory grounds. On food this is a bit of a piss take considering that EU firms sell horsemeat as beef, sell sausages infected with hepatitis and eggs containing dangerous levels of fipronil. Yet American food is supposedly dangerous and needs to be kept out of the wonderfully safe and well regulated EU market because it might not be as safe.
And this is just covering what's been mentioned in the news recently. Shall we note here that the EU managed to screw up regulation of vehicles leading to the EU having a crisis over illegally high (and dangerous) levels of emissions and thereby pollution, which was turned up by the US regulators who if one were to beleive the EU party line are dangerously lax and in the pocket of those companies. Things don't quite add up there, do they?
Another reason the USA might consider the EU to be taking the piss is that the USA is obliged by treaty through NATO to militarily defend what are primarily EU nations, quite a few of which then massively neglect their military establishment (cough, germany, cough) while making a killing out of one sided trade with the USA and then saying that they treat NATO spending of 2% of GDP as a target they will work towards, but then only plan to increase spending to 1.5% of GDP over the course of the next decade despite sitting on a record budget surplus. And you wonder why Trump gets rather confrontational with Ms Merkel?
These points might have something to do with why Trump thinks the EU is taking the piss and considers it an enemy.
What are you on about? The US has a food poisoning rate of 14.7%
"CDC estimates that each year 48 million people get sick from a foodborne illness, 128,000 are hospitalized, and 3,000 die."
The UK rate is just ~1.6% of the population.
That the UK and EU have better food safety than the US is a simple fact.
Drawing an equivalence between official standards and 'horsemeat as meat' which was a criminal act is dumb especially as it was caught and traced due to the testing regime.
Which of course is one of the things which the Brexit elites would love to remove if given a chance.
"a few of which then massively neglect their military establishment (cough, germany, cough) while making a killing out of one sided trade with the USA and then saying that they treat NATO spending of 2% of GDP as a target they will work towards..."
Maybe Germany is able to get by with spending a smaller proportion of GDP on defence than the US because it doesn't feel the need to have a military base and two wars in every continent?
@ Insert sadsack pun here
"Maybe Germany is able to get by with spending a smaller proportion of GDP on defence than the US because it doesn't feel the need to have a military base and two wars in every continent?"
Germany couldnt deliver pilots and planes to fight ISIS. Only the war minister managed to arrive at the destination. They also dont seem to have many working ones either- http://www.dw.com/en/only-4-of-germanys-128-eurofighter-jets-combat-ready-report/a-43611873
Germany spent their money on other things which is why they really dont want the US protection to leave.
"Germany couldnt deliver pilots and planes to fight ISIS. Only the war minister managed to arrive at the destination. ... Germany spent their money on other things which is why they really dont want the US protection to leave."
From a friend I hear Germany has many fine young men who have done a year's military training voluntarily. However, they have all gone back to Turkey to do it. They're the second, third generation of ethnic Turkish people in Germany to whom, for some strange reason, Germany doesn't want to give German nationality. I am sure they are saving Germany money in this way.
For a long time many were happy Germany no longer had very strong military forces, and a Constitution forbidding military operations abroad. In turn Germany took advantage of it.
Just now it looks US became a military-obsessed nation. You've seen it in the NFL quarrel about kneeing players being "disrespectful" of the flag and armed forces, something you would expect in Nazi Germany or Soviet Union (and Putin's Russia), not in a country where the First Amendment should protect freedom of speech.
Well, given that the Germans have, I believe, 4 subs only and none can go to sea; only 1or 2 ships that can sail, less than 10% of their fighter jets that can fly; perhaps they really are starving their military and expecting the US to defend them while promising (with a smirk) to do better next time.
The US doesan't expect EU members to match its military spending, they spend at least 2 x as a % of GDP, but they do quite reasonably expect the Europeans to invest and maintain some capability if they expect the US to cooperate on joint defense in Europe. And with a few exceptions, they are not meeting their agreed 2% level and haven't for a long time. The results are that most EU countries are not capable of deploying adequate forces to defend themselves.
Why should the US continue to support them if they will not at least spend the agreed amounts and have a functioning military ?
Conversely, why should the Europeans raise their military spending, when Trump shows just as much contempt for those who do meet or exceed their 2% threshold as those who don't? And is willing to change the rules at whim?
What's the point of trying to please such a man? Might as well just ignore him, it's a lot cheaper - and will win a lot more votes - and the outcome is the same in the end.
I actually agree, raising military spending in a lot of European countries may be justified. Just figure out first what sort of threats do protect against.
And yes, Germany is both politically and legally restricted in what they can do militarily. Their constitution was largely US written, and after 1945 military adventures were highly unpopular - and still are.
" Germans have, I believe, 4 subs only and none can go to sea; only 1or 2 ships that can sail, less than 10% of their fighter jets that can fly;"
You believe? Or do you have actual citations for this?
With the end of the Cold War, the Germans have cut back on military spending, yes. There is a problem with organisation of repairs and spare parts. However, this is not a permanent situation, as once the repairs are done...well then they are all back in operation surely? they don't, however, have the US obsession with the cult of the military.
"Because the USA has a big trade deficit with the EU"
So what? How does that make the EU an enemy?
"These points might have something to do with why Trump thinks the EU is taking the piss and considers it an enemy."
I suspect those are indeed the reasons why, in Trump's pointy little head, he thinks the EU is an enemy. But he's disastrously wrong. What he's doing is making enemies of all our friends, and making our actual enemies more powerful.
"Because the USA has a big trade deficit with the EU. The EU ensures that this is perpetuated by locking US firms out of the EU market on regulatory grounds."
So the US firms who do import goods into the EU are somehow dodging regulations? Or are they just, you know, complying with the local market regs?
You are aware that the US also has standards, and won't let you import goods if they don't meet them?
The US is also one of the main actors when it comes to using regulation to engage in protectionist activities. Ignoring the massive subsidies to the agriculture and dairy industries, they'll quite happily slap tariffs on goods (milk, lamb) when it suits them to protect their own markets.
I'm also very curious how one goes about having a trade surplus whilst also having the world's reserve currency*. Considering that if you start dicking around with the petrodollar then you'll end up at the end of the rope with your country being "liberated".
* other than have the other industrial powers smash themselves to pieces and have the "winners" be in hock to you for 60 years
"quite a few of which then massively neglect their military establishment "
That would be Germany right? The one with a constitution that has quite strict rules on what the German forces can do when deployed outside of NATO? Where the parliament has to agree to the mission and sets a time limit on it?
It's almost like Germany is following rules laid down to ensure it never becomes a military empire. Craziness.
On the other hand, there doesn't seem to be any benefit to being part of the US GWOT. Do Britain and France* (who are OK operating under US rules of engagement) get treated differently than the Germans? Do they fuck. Special relationship my ass, Trump's people didn't even have the phone number for the PM, glad to see they know what's important....
* you can make as many dumb jokes about French military victories etc, but in many cases when US troops are in the shit, it's French planes and PBI who are the cavalry.
"It's almost like Germany is following rules laid down to ensure it never becomes a military empire. Craziness."
I wonder who it was who had such a big hand in laying down those rules and when? Might it have been the USA? Same applies to why there is such a large US military presence in Japan (which Trump also railed against the cost of until someone told him the Japanese pay the USA for said military presence.)
"On food this is a bit of a piss take considering that EU firms"
Only you take the wrong examples. All you cite are cases of miss behaving of certain designated firms, and their actions have been stopped and punished as sons as they have been known.
You cannot compare the foul play of one company with the practices accepted at country level like bleaching poultry, feeding GMO to ignoring customers, hormones in meat, OJ with nearly no orange in it, honey that does no come from bees, etc.
"Another reason the USA might consider the EU to be taking the piss is that the USA is obliged by treaty through NATO to militarily defend what are primarily EU nations, quite a few of which then massively neglect their military establishment"
How much were the lives lost in the NATO mission to Afganistan worth then?
How much was each of the 400 UK lives worth?
How much was each of the 60 odd Germans lives worth? the canadians.. the french, the aussies? even the danish took some
And the wounded/injured?
Then look me in the eye and wittle on about how NATO countries dont contribute..
There is no doubt we (US) have some issues with our European allies in NATO and the EU. But, the only real allies of a democracy are other democracies. The only NATO country to invoke the mutual defense part of the NATO treaty is the US and our allies helped out in Afghanistan. Most of the complaints lodged with the WTO over unfair trading practices were from the US, and we won most of them. While our European allies could and should be spending more for the defense of Europe don't forget one reason our defense budget is larger is our global commitments outside of Europe. Dictatorships such as Russia, North Korea, China, etc regularly kill their own citizens, at home and in third countries and will never help us in any fashion. What ever happened to Teddy Roosevelt's dictum of speaking softly but carrying a big stick. It seems we are now led by a loud-mouthed, crude, semi-literate bully who likes to push around his friends who he knows (or hopes)won't turn on him and kiss ass to brutal dictators.
Perhaps you could elaborate a bit about this "only country":
"The only NATO country to invoke the mutual defense part of the NATO treaty is the US".
I get this:
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security. "
I agree very much with "we are now led by a loud-mouthed, crude, semi-literate bully".
As for NATO I don't think they are all that unhappy internally. Trump is a bypassing disturbance they have to cope with for the time being.
The amount of money spent on defence in Europe is actually quite "impressive" but that topic is for somebody else to write about.
"The EU ensures that this is perpetuated by locking US firms out of the EU market on regulatory grounds."
There's nothing stopping US food producers and exporters dealing with the EU other than their own reluctance to meet the regulatory standards. There are certain EU foodstuffs banned in the US or manufactured here to US standards so they can be safely exported.
Pretty much all of the rest of your post is highlighting illegal practices under EU laws and regulations for which the perpetrators were found out and punished.
The NATO bit is a bit of a red herring too. The US was a prime mover behind the creation of NATO because the US needed a European buffer zone to contain the USSR. NATO, to the US of the day, was all about protecting the US and minimising the spread of communism. Trump was especially creative with the figures when he claimed the US was paying 90% of the NATO bill, but was right to some extent that some EU countries are not putting in the full whack. Trump just exaggerated for effect as he is wont to do on many, many occasions, to the extent that he's had to back pedal many, many times.
'The USA is obliged by treaty through NATO to militarily defend what are primarily EU nations,.."
Do you really think they are doing this out of the kindness of their hearts? Of course not, they're doing it for strategic and financial reasons. Europe should call their bluff.
I like this theory but it has a fatal flaw. If Trump's financial affairs are complicated (which I assume they are) then there's essentially no chance that Trump understands them, because he's dumb as shit. So the theory that Russia/Putin has, via lots of obscure strings, control over Trump fails because Trump would not know he can control him. Whatever Putin has over Trump must be simple enough that Trump can understand it. So either he has something really straightforward, or he does not have anything and Trump is just blundering around like a kind of stupid veersion of Boris Johnson (which means: pretty fucking stupid).
Or, even scarier, he isn't being blackmailed, but is honestly ideologically aligned with Putin. I think there's substantial reason to suspect this, given that there isn't a tyrant that Trump hasn't expressed admiration for, and there isn't a free nation that he hasn't expressed contempt for.
The ex prep-school bully boy seem to like people who are
a) Successful bullies and in (apparent) total control of their countries. Deep down he knows he's not in control of America, no matter what he tells his supporters and assorted sycophants.
b)They have nice heads of hair. Check out Fat Boy Kim's. Immaculate. And Putin. Not a comb over in sight.
"is honestly ideologically aligned with Putin.". Perhaps not quite, but Putin is in Russia what Trump would like to be in the USA. Ideology, what's that. Look at the guy, full control, will never lose in any election he takes part in for as long as he cares to, very rich, and look at how they love him on telly, look at his numbers. And he likes me and he will like me to win again.
Trump has massive debts to assorted Russians.
What else do you need?
A variety of mega-bankruptcies would not look good for the POTUS,
as well as exposing him to considerable expensive civil litigation.
No need for pee-girls, Putin has effectively neutered Trump.
One thing Trump wants is a Trump Tower in Moscow. He's been trying to get this built for many years. It is why he held Miss Universe in Moscow.
If the pee-tape, or something like it, exists, it's probably something Trump would be happy about because he knows Moscow won't let him build the tower unless they have something on him.
(Even though Trump himself wouldn't build the tower, he'd be paid a lot of money to put his name on it.)
I genuinely fear for Putin's health. His sides must be splitting and his face ache from grinning.
I don't think he's capable of laughing. He's basically a psychopath as a result of his upbringing and his KGB training. He harbours grudges against "the West" for the collapse of the Soviet Union and the experience of his family during WWII - brothers and uncles killed fighting, father - an NKVD liquidator tasked with killing and destroying as the Red Army retreated - badly wounded and maternal grandmother probably executed. Seen in that light, his proxy war in Ukraine, annexation of Crimea and constant f*cking about in other countries makes a lot more sense.
The whole DNC hack was done while Obama was in the White House. Along with Russia gaining Crimea. Oh, and don't forget the red line in the sand fiasco.
Meddling was done between Hillary and the Russians... remember Uranium One?
This is just the democrats yelling louder and without pause--accusing others so people don't talk about the transgressions done while they were in power.
If Trump walked on water, the democrats would scream it's because he doesn't know how to swim.
Yet, so many people buy into their BS and catch Trump Derangement Syndrome, and lose all focus on reality.
So we have either Trump Derangement Syndrome or the Trump Cult? Oh wait, there is a thing called reality in the middle. You are correct in that Obama was President when the Russians hacked the DNC and otherwise interfered in our election to help Trump. And, if the Justice Department had publicly said anything about it before the election there would have been hell to pay for trying to sway the election. Obama was President when Russia took Crimea and facilitated the breakup of Ukraine. He was also President as the US helped forge a coalition of democracies to impose sanctions against Russia. As for the red line in the sand fiasco, it was a disgrace. It was also completely the fault of the Republican controlled Congress who refused to even debate the matter for fear of having to go on the record. Obama was right in that such a military move needed Congressional approval due to the War Powers Act; but, the Republicans failed in their responsibility.
If you can say that Trump has never lied since becoming President, that his performance in Helsinki and the NATO summit before that was nothing short of disgraceful, etc, then you are as delusional as he is.
"This is just the democrats yelling louder and without pause--accusing others so people don't talk about the transgressions done while they were in power."
I take it you mean the Democrat 5th columnists hiding in plain site as members of the Republican party who were condemning Trumps Russia remarks?
I think you missed the joke - Trump doesn't likely know where Helsinki is, and he's been very reticent about his visit to Russia even being caught out for lying about the night he spent there (he claimed he didn't, but lots of evidence such as the flight logs prove otherwise).
Putin is a professional politician and intelligence professional.
It is, and for a long time has been, his job to hide, distort, or obfuscate events.
Trump's ego lets him believe that all other leaders will simply crumble before his divisionary and dictatorial leadership style.
Didn't trump say something like "between us we hold 90% of nuclear weapons in the world, of course we will be honest with each other" while entirely ignorant of WHY they both hold that many weapons...
It is, and for a long time has been, his job to hide, distort, or obfuscate events.
There is non-stop hysteria in the media over here where he is blamed to be the ROOT of all evil. Well, he is not (and he cannot be unless he is omnipotent and omnipresent).
He is however the ROOT of all cover-up. It does not matter if something is done by the Russian state or by the mob as in the 1996 murder of a banker with Novichok or the people investigating the Three Whales corruption scandal (or trying to get a piece of the action) glowing in the dark after some Polonium tea. The order will always be to cover it up and STATE resources will be deployed to cover it up. Even when it was not done by the state (this is something the west continuously fails to grok).
Brightly glowing in the dark Russian MPs who even google shows you Litvinenko's picture when you search for them (search on Google for Yuri Schekochihin) apparently have "allergic reaction" and multiple autopsies do not show any radioactivity in their remains. Open (and shut) cases of directors of labs and nuclear institutes selling exotic poisons and radioactive material to the mob are classified and shut using the RF equivalent of royal prerogative. And so on. And so on. And so on.
While it was a mantra in KGB, GRU, etc to "never show dirty laundry in public" since the days when they were all ChK, the way it is done in Russia today is frankly off the scale even by the ChK standards.
"of course we will be honest with each other"
It's truly astounding that Trump, perhaps the most overt and blatant liar in US Presidential history, has this horrible weakness of actually believing what other leaders say just because they say it "strength".
Well, with all of NATO being either personal foes or parts of the "greatest Foe"
Well, when Canada is a personal enemy and European Union is the greatest foe, you have to look for "friends" somewhere...."
And the crazy thing there is you're NOT talking about Russia!
But surely Canada are the real enemy!
From the exorbitant price of proper maple syrup destroying the great American pancake stack to Celine Dion and Justin Bieber - Canada is trying to undermine the USA at every turn. As Trump said, those bastards even burned the White House.
Isn't it obvious that the politeness is just camouflage?
Well, we'll discuss the tariffs on dairy products when you folks down south restrict the use of broad spectrum antibiotics and steroids in dairy cattle, and possibly reduce the 120% tariffs on raw paper pulp. Lets not get into the 25 to 30% export duties on processed gasoline, made from Canadian crude oil....
FL noted, "...270% import duties on US milk to Canada..."
Milk in Canada averages Cdn$4.80 per 4L jug. Milk in USA reportedly averages US$3.50 per US gallon, which was Cdn$4.86 per 4L equivalent last time I checked. In other words, the average retail price is about the same. If you wish to nit-pick, milk is actually ever so slightly *cheaper* in Canada.
The Canadian managed supply system for milk doesn't require the subsidies that are endemic to the US milk system. Probably better purity too, based on what I've seen (happier cows, etc.).
USA should make more cheese, and export that to the world.
"FL noted, "...270% import duties on US milk to Canada...".
The problem is that the USA produces a huge amount of milk in a very industrialized manner, and a lot more than they use. They would like to dump that on Canada but the Canadians know this would harm/kill their dairy industry and refuse to take it.
The kind and intelligent advice for the Americans is that they should produce less and avoid the problem.
There are those, including Brits, these days, who believe that trade agreements are quick and easy. In reality there are an immense amount of conflicts between similar industries between countries. A lot of giving and taking.
The Canadians, as far as I understand, do have this option regarding said milk.
For Brexit Brits who desperately need a trade agreement a sap, it is, as a matter of fact quite easy. Just have countries write one for you and then all Britain has to do is to sign it. Easy peasy, just ask Fox.
PS. Perhaps one should add that also the Canadians could perhaps produce milk in an equally industrialized manner but that would not solve the American problem.
And now for a Canadian who can tell us about import duties Americans put on Canadian products.
Re Canada - America - EU trade:
The most recent trade agreement between Canada and EU stalled because Canada slaughters horses, including racehorses and American mustangs which the Americans ship over the border, and sends the meat to Belgium for human consumption; but Belgium was insisting that the horses had to be certified free of any medications for three months prior to slaughter.
USA should make more cheese, and export that to the world.
Gawd no. Cheddar is a crime against dairy to start off with, American cheddar doubly so.
The issue with Eu, Canada, etc is an issue of applying Trump's theories about how to negotiate from a position of power as described in the "art of the deal". He _WANTS_ to offer you a deal which "you will pray he does not alter any further" and accept nicely because you have no choice. THAT stops working when the small guys unionize into a bigger grouping. The bully can no longer negotiate from a position of force.
This is exactly why he hates Eu, NAFTA, etc and considers his mission their destruction (deploying all applicable USA resources to do so).
This is also exactly why Eu should fight back including ejecting from the Eu his low-pay prostitutes if need be (we all know which countries I am referring to).
Cheddar is a crime against dairy to start off with, American cheddar doubly so.
There are many fine US-produced cheddars, if you like that sort of thing. And other kinds of cheeses.
"American cheese" is actually a "process cheese food", and not cheese at all. It's barely a food - more a sort of food-grade filler. So it's irrelevant to the OP's point about exports.
These politicians criticizing president Trump his efforts to make the world a less dangerous and more peaceful place have hidden agenda's, either directly acting on behalf of the weapons industry or other objectives requiring to inject fear into the masses for anything but terrorists from the Middle-East or China.
Facts support the assessment the latter two are our real enemies, and not Russia. As a kid from the Cold war, I grew up with fear for Russia only to see Russia never did anything bad.
We better support the crusade of president Trump for peace and stability in this world, and not the puppets of the billionaires who just want to create enemies and keep the world at war so they can flourish on the blood of others. It won't be those billionaires or even senator McCain who get evaporated by nuclear bombs if we follow their lead, but normal people will pay the price of useless war mongering in the middle of Europe.
If by nothing bad you mean not unleashing Nuclear war, you may be right.
But invasions, either direct, or state backed, The harassment and arrest of people that disagree with the state, a few private assassinations, state backed hacking and spying to the point where it is hardly secret..
You may have a point, but I lost it at the "nothing bad happened" bit.
Up to 1990, the Russians did nothing that was in breach of the Yalta agreement, where the liberators of Europe divided Europe between the USA and Russia. In 1945 both the USA and England knew quite well who they were dealing with when they put their signatures besides the one Stalin had put down.
Russia is what it is, and far away from Swiss democracy, but it is better than it was before.
Nothing we can do about it, except try to live in peace with them.
"Russia is what it is, and far away from Swiss democracy, but it is better than it was before."
No it isn't. Putin is far more dangerous than Gorbachev and Yeltsin ever were - at least they seemed to play by the rules. That Putin changed the Russian constitution to allow him to have more than two terms of presidential office should tell you everything you need to know.
"Putin is far more dangerous than Gorbachev and Yeltsin ever were - at least they seemed to play by the rules. That Putin changed the Russian constitution to allow him to have more than two terms of presidential office should tell you everything you need to know."
This is woefully and embarrassingly wrong. Gorbachev ordered peaceful protests in Riga and Baku to be violently suppressed with many deaths.
Yeltsin collaborated with the US to distort elections with literal duffel bags of cash, and had tanks shell a mostly democratically elected assembly that objected to his programme.
Putin did not change the constitution to allow him to serve more than two terms. The constitution prohibited anyone from serving two consecutive terms - and that has not changed.
Putin is emulating Augustus. Like Augustus, he takes on an office, then releases it when constitutionally required. But in any office, he holds absolute power.
Putin is a bastard, but a magnificant bastard. And Trump is an oaf.
 the Roman emperor, not the month
That Putin changed the Russian constitution to allow him to have more than two terms of presidential office should tell you everything you need to know.
You sir are full of hot air (or methane). Go and read it before lying in writing in public. THEIR CONSTITUTION DAY ONE SAID TWO CONSECUTIVE TERMS. There was NEVER a limit on non-consecutive in it. There was NEVER a moment when it was changed for that. Text is the same when it was first voted.
This is exactly the difference between the games played in other ex-soviet republics and Russia. They all changed their constitutions to allow the dictators to rule. Putin simply gamed it by swapping with Medvedev for a term. As obviously rigged, appalling and ugly as it can be it is perfectly legit and fully obeys the letter of their constitution as it was written day one. So he actually never broke it.
Going back to your other conjecture about playing by the rules. He himself not just "plays by the rules", he has created a cult of "playing by the rules". It is something they brainwash kids with now. The biggest damage that can be done to him propaganda-wise is to show that he has broken his word or a rule under which he has signed with actual documental and evidential proof. The west fails this every time because our idiots are fecking incompetent to even follow what their propaganda machine is doing and what are the obvious weaknesses.
Though, he has actually shot himself in the foot now by losing 15% of his rating by doing exactly that - breaking a rule he set in his early days on the pension age. ONE "not by the rules" proven and with a record cost him 15%. That in itself is remarkable - if one of our idiots turncoats on one of their promises or signatures they will hardly lose a percent. He lost 15%!!! This tells you everything you need to know about the cult of the "abide by your word" he has cultivated.
Going back to Brezhnev, Gromyko, etc - they broke any rule they liked any time they liked. I can run you down a historical timeline, but their signatures were almost as valuable as a signature of an American president (not worth the toilet paper it is on).
Up to 1990, the Russians did nothing that was in breach of the Yalta agreement
Seems your username of "naive" is quite apt. The USSR imposed "communism" on almost the whole of Eastern Europe, blockaded Berlin, suppressed popular uprisings in Hungary and Czechoslovakia, tried to undermine Tito when he proved a bit more free willed, f*cked about in Scandinavian politics and more. All in breach of the Yalta agreements.
So you think you are not naive, but you equate modern Russia with the past Soviet Union, essentially refusing an entire nation the ability to change, even when there is plenty of evidence to show that Putin was never involved in those times or crimes, nor were many currently living Russians?
In your exceptionalist mind, do you see America as the rightful heir to Earth, a god-blessed peoples perhaps? A gift of a Nation unto Nations?
So would you like all of America's past and present evils to be tallied? I think not, I think you would (in the style of Trump) claim it was all historic fake news, that America has never done anything wrong. Well you couldn't be more wrong.
America is exceptional only in the sheer amount of death and destruction it has brought to the World. Truly, no other nation in history has had, or will likely have again, a military so large it dwarfs all other nations combined (this btw is what Hitler was after). Not even The British Empire had as much in terms of manpower and military equipment, and they too were not about making the World fit for us, just how much they could subjugate for profit. America has killed more people than any other nation, period, and sadly most of that has, and is, occurring under our 'watch'
So trying to Impose 'Democracy' (and not even the real version, but a bastardization of Democracy) on The World, by Force of Arms and Economics, by Lies and Deceit, is fine if America, or The UK, or NATO (The Collective West and their 3-4 letter agencies like the CIA) do it, but How dare any other nation not bend to the utter will of Washington and London?
Might is NOT right, if you want to argue that it is, then stop moaning that Russia, China or any other nation is evil because they also believe the same thing you do....it's absurd and hypocritical.
Do yourself a favour, get a world map, and your favourite colour/color markers (washable/permanent to your choice), then start marking all the countries where America has Military bases (that are known about in the public sphere), then with a different colour/color, mark all the countries where America has gained significant economic footing.
When doing this you can also do it by date (if you have enough care of truth to justify the effort).
When you've done that, do the same for Russia and China, then look at the results.
When I did it 10 years ago (and ongoing now in my mind, I've been doing it for so long), that clearly showed me not just who was where, but was so clear, that I have not been wrong in my predictions of who will do what to whom since then. If you seek the truth of the matter, that will tell you the truth about who has designs on what. Simple, effective, and no fake news or spurious theories, just facts about who is where, and doing what.
It's so simple a child could do it, and gain a better understanding of the real world, than any number of complex hybridized theories currently circulating the planet.
Oh yes, when it comes to naivety, try always looking in the mirror before attributing that to others. It would be so nice to believe that The West is Altruistic to a fault, but that is neither the history we have, nor the truth of the current reality. Every nation on Earth is guilty of atrocities, and we are all blood-guilty because of our support of it. There is only ONE Nation on Earth currently in the very advanced staged of World Domination, and it (America) has even publicly stated that fact, when America announced her commitment to total full-spectrum Dominance in every theatre.
Russia, China, Iran, etc., are all nations too, and as such, have as much right to self-defence and self determination as ANY human being is considered to have (in this case the emphasis is on SELF-DEFENCE).
“Crusade” - which reminds 1.5 billion people of so-called “Christians” going to the Middle East to try and slaughter the locals. (They also went to then Constantinople and killed the Christians there, and often got themselves slaughtered by whoever’s land they crossed, which is often forgotten).
@gnasher729 you clearly have a deep understanding of the events over several hundred years that have evaded historians working with the primary sources. Please enlighten the world and take us out of our darkness.
Then you could then expound on the Mendicant Inquisition...
I like how Trump is excluded the the collection of other billionaires.
He alone, of all the billionaires, is good and true, I guess. Maybe because of his even temperament? His fair treatment of workers? His wise choices of cabinet members?
Maybe such blind regard is worthwhile because he stands by his sycophants, and never, ever, throws them to the wolves once they're no longer useful to him.
"criticizing president Trump his efforts to make the world a less dangerous and more peaceful place"
I don't believe that's what Trump is trying to do at all. I think he doesn't give two shits about making the world a less dangerous and more peaceful place. I think he only cares about enriching himself and boosting his own ego.
I honestly believe that Trump is looking to start a war somewhere. It's good for business, and tends to rally the citizens behind the President. I believe he wants to to be a sizeable war, but not a world war. However, he's playing with fire (not to mention behaving like a sociopath).
'"Without a doubt there are many issues within the cyber context that the US and Russia could work together on to improve," she said. "These include cyber operations in wartime, attacks on critical infrastructure, and cyber-enabled intellectual property theft among others.'
Does she mean "improve" as in making sure that USA and Russia are better at performing cyber operations in wartime, attacks on critical infrastructure, and cyber-enabled intellectual property theft?
No. I think she means making some sort of equivalent of the Geneva conventions on warfare. So banning cyber attacks on things like power stations and water infrastructure.
Of course, Putin is currently trying to undermine the international order on chemical weapons usage, so good luck with that. But in an ideal world it would be good if we could come up with some kind of rules on how far we go with cyber attacks. As in most of these types of cases, it doesn't so much happen because of morality, as fear of it being done back to you.
If chemical weapons could be mostly kept out of WWII, the most destructive war in history, it should equally be possible to come to some basic agreements on use of cyber weapons on basic civilian infrastructure in peacetime.
The Germans had developed nerve gas before WWII. It's one thing protecting civilians from gas that degrades relatively quickly and does most of its damage via breathing. But nerve toxins can be just as lethal if absorbed through the skin. Apparently they believed that they were behind in gas development, because they'd missed so much time when banned from having chemical weapons after WWI.
But anyway it's a lot easier to protect trained troops in relatively small discrete areas. But by WWII the tech existed to drop gas from the air on civilian targets. The disruption and casualty rates would have been catastrophic.
WP, like land mines and cluster munitions have been seriously restricted. But we can't even hold the line against gas and nerve agents, that have been considered unacceptable since WWI, so what chance of that working.
Allegedly the Russians have even been using un-guided bombs in Syria, so that they can plausibly blame deliberate bombing of civilian targets on the Syrian airforce.
As for mines, cluster munitions and WP - they can be used in ways that limit the effects on civilians, and are still incredibly useful. Which makes outright banning them much harder. WP is still allowed to generate smoke, cluster bombs are great for runway denial and minefields for perimeter defence. But as I say, if the Russian government can't even restrain itself from using radiological and nerve weapons in civilian areas in fucking peacetime - they have a security council veto, so there'll be little improvement.
To all of those who either want Trump to be stupid or compromised, he's not.
He's just a classic abuser who goes through life constantly keeping the people around him on their toes by a combination of bullying and sweet-talking.
His approach to politics, administration, and foreign policy can be neatly summed up by:
Trump probably has a higher IQ than most people would give him credit for, but he is entirely intellectually incurious and never mind playing chess he wouldn't make the effort to pay attention to win a game of tic-tac-toe because he would just bully the winner if he lost.
Unfortunately in America right now we have to major political parties (national level and many if not most states) that couldn't pour water out of a boot right now if you told them the directions are printed on the heel, and while the right wing has gone bat shit crazy, and the left wing looked at it and said, "You think Republicans are bat shit crazy? Hold my beer and watch this."
Expect things to get crazier.
ISTM that the "fox in the henhouse" analogy in the article is just as true from both sides. From Russia's POV America is the fox and Russia's cyber-security is the henhouse. Your enemy's security measures tells you a lot about their probable attack strategies (because people tend to ensure that they have a defence against their own methods of attack).
Today I Donald J Trump proclaim that Vladimir Putin was NOT born in St Petersburg Russia as CNN claim, but in St Petersburg Florida and is totally eligible to run as the next President of the USA. He is a great American, the best American and will truely be the best possible president to make Rus^H^H^H America great again.
So it's all good if the West shows 'strength and power' by illegally invading other nations under false pretences, nations who clearly don't have the military might of the combined West(American Military/Industrial Complex), not to mention the West's constant interfering in other Nation's elections for decades, or the fact that Politicians are where they are because of their ability to manipulate facts to whatever they want you to believe (but so many of you STILL believe they aren't lying to you).
All I see whenever Russia, or China are mentioned in western Media, is Western MSM-led, jingoistic, anti-life, anti-peace, anti-human, pro-eternal-war, and pro-destruction of our World. So much is made of Western 'Fairness', which is nothing but a cover to be less fair than others, in order to justify taking what is not theirs in the first place, by force.
Simple, logical facts......It is The American-led Military which is surrounding Russia, & China. The US, by far, has the LARGEST, MOST EXTENSIVE reach (caps for emphasis only), IN ALL HISTORY to date, a number which dwarfs ALL of the other World's Military combined (and a lot of dead people to their despicable credit). Of course Russia and China are getting worried. Wouldn't you if the roles were reversed?
America is just Like The Roman Empire of old, except with fresh 'paint', and a MUCH larger Military Industrial base, kept afloat by utterly corrupt Bankers, and Banking Families.
Trump is only different in that he is outside the normal accepted 'circles of power and control' (in his mind), he is a maverick card, played to keep your attention on him, rather than on the hijack of our Historic ruler-ships, principally and on the face of it, by American Corporations, the largest of which is America itself (The US is a For-Profit Registered Corporation itself....as is the UK and others).
You can argue all you want that Putin is this or that, or Trump/May/Merkel/Macron etc., are better or worse, but none of that is stopping the Global Take-over of Earth, not by Aliens, but by those whom we have greedily and lazily given our power to.
It's really simple at the end of the day, and nowhere near as complex as others would have us believe.......if you undeservedly punch me in the face, you'll get it back with interest. If you undeservedly punch me in the face, and are holding a huge threatening-stick too, I'll think twice about punching you back in the face immediately, but you'll still get that 'punch' back in a different, but equally effective way (preferably in a way that disarms you of your large stick). It is no different for our organisations or nations, if a corporation can be a person...a Sociopathic person I might add, then our nations and all our organisations are Persons too (by dint of them being comprised of us persons).
Oddly in many cases, such 'Persons' behave exactly like utterly spoilt, uncivilized, combative children, that actually belies the fact they are compromised of many highly educated and civilized peoples.
If we as peoples believe in Fairness, and the punishing of Theft, Murder, and general Harm-causing as our basic Laws Suggest, then it is time for us to damn well demand, and enforce it in our own institutions and governments, and stop the self-deceptions we are all guilty of.
It seems to me everyone is an 'expert' in calculating how much money and power can be derived from destroying unity, and embracing destructive ideologies, but very few actually spend time working out the fact that there is even more to be gained by co-operation (I mean substantially more to be gained for the entire planet and Humanity). I believe that Vladimir Putin (regardless of his past, or because of it) understands this principle.
Russia/China's only real defence are it's Nukes. If you want so badly to feel what Russian/Chinese Nukes look and feel like in operation, go ahead and have your most cherished dream of an American-only-led World, it will last exactly the amount of time it takes for their Nuke's destructive power to be delivered from there, to a place near you (4mins?...I think less these days). Planet America is not only deeply undesirable, it is the end of this World, same as it would be if it was Planet Russia, or China, or Planet The Kingdom of Bhutan.
If you know your history, then you will know that it has ALWAYS been considered an act of aggression, and a provocative prelude to invasion, when a Nation builds up it troops and weaponry on the borders of another nation. It is in fact still currently ILLEGAL to do so under U.N. Auspices, but hey...America, the UK, and others (following the U.S. Example) have shown that when it suits them, they will ignore International Law, and make up lies, in order to justify what should not be justified under International AND domestic laws, in order to take what is not theirs.
Trump and Putin are not puppet and master, both are under extreme pressure from hidden sources, and are both, it seems to me, trying to wrest power back from those sources. Putin's U.N. speech, clearly showed that he was aware of these powerful sources, and that Russia was going to try and extricate itself from the control of those sources. Trump too, I think is after taking back control from these powerful people, but he is nowhere near the trained and capable a Statesman that Vladimir Putin is, and thinks, and behaves just like you would expect, someone who until now hasn't really needed etiquette, or a comprehensive knowledge of Our World.
Putin and Trump are not Evil people, the evil ones are those who were not elected/accepted to rule, and who regardless, use their money and power, to enslave us all into fear, arguing amongst ourselves for no other purpose than to create division, distraction, and destruction.
I appreciate that there will be many who won't like what I've written, but wouldn't it be a shame if the very nations who espouse freedom of thought, speech, and critical thinking, were the ones who dropped the Torch on it? ... I think that is already happening in the West, and the East is now picking it up, which is a shame, because it would be better for all of us, if we all picked it up that torch together.
"anti-life, anti-peace, anti-human, pro-eternal-war, and pro-destruction of our World"
Mate, we're talking about emails getting leaked from hacked servers. It's funny how some people think US prosecutors should ignore the whole computer intrusion thing in case Russia gets upset and, er, what, nukes the West?
Come on. You're the one bringing up war, almost as if you're terrified of something that will never happen – and if it does, we'll all be too dead to care anyway.
Don't live your life scared. Stand up, call out hackers, look bullies in the eye, and move on.
I'll warrant you are perhaps *not* a native english speaker, and allow the syntactic errors. I agree with much of what you put down in your comment, but I suspect that you may not realize that the small errors in your commentary make you sound tinfoil hattish, even in my context. Perhaps we should fire up the BBQ, have a beer or two and clear up some minor issues in your diatribe.
your suspicions are not only incorrect, but wholly unfounded, unless of course you yourself are a recognised World authority on The English Language. Tin-Foil Hattery you say? I could respond to your potential jibe in a negative manner, but instead I will explain.
Admittedly, at times, I can be a little lazy when it comes to punctuation, but usually it is down to eyesight, not linguistic inability, and in fairness, yes I am prone to constructing thoughts in an not-altogether (grammatically speaking) common way.
However, that said, the beauty of the English language is that it is extraordinarily flexible.
Thank you for your concern about my choice of words, making me look (to you and some others) as if I might be wearing a tin-foil hat. By all means fire up the BBQ, a beer or two sounds good to me, and you are most welcome to call my thoughts a diatribe, I'm not even offended.....sometimes there is such idiocy prevalent in The World, that one feels one must vent....diatribe or not.
I genuinely would like your input though as to where you think I could have explained myself better, but bear in mind that this forum is not exactly what I would consider something to warrant such fine fettling, of what is in reality, a non-thesis, or a non doctorate-level missive. In other words, your input is appreciated, but unless you want to help me put together an argument to take to World Leaders at The U.N. or the like, then really, what you offer could be misconstrued as a veiled insult, and a bit of ego-massaging for yourself.
These days, I think the tin-foil hat wearers are proving more reliable than those who think they have the ultimate command of the English language, which itself is a too-close-to-racist, unter-mensch ideology. That somehow a person's syntactical errors are indicative of a less then 'normal' human intelligence level, or one worthy of ridicule and derogation.
If I were to conclude that you are American because of your name, and that you have a fear (like many others) of exposing your weaknesses (hence why you see anything more than 100 words as a diatribe), you would likely, rightly point out that I am trying to make you appear to be something you are potentially not, based on the most insubstantial evidence of a few minutes reading of a person's missives.
By all means mock, but also be prepared to be mocked back, particularly if your command of the English Language is American, and not actual Queen's English. If you are English, then by all means have at me, after all, if your intent is to make me look less tin-foil hatish, then I would have to conclude that you are genuinely concerned for me....which is, well, quite a brotherly thing to do, even downright friendly :)
That leaves me with a problem however. I am not going to give you my email address, location etc., in public, but if you really feel you can help me (or darn! it you just needed to connect with someone! which is really more likely), then I would take you up on your offer, who knows? could be the start of something truly worthwhile?
Thanks for the riveting counter-arguments, and thought-provoking, nay, mind-changing concepts!
Maybe that is why I 'diatribe' so often, because there are too many cowards, with very short attention spans, and only a very small handful of critical, non-egotistic, thinkers capable of putting forward meaty, counter-arguments (not mired in more MSM laden narratives of someone else's design and desire).
Just because it is there, doesn't mean you have to read it, does it?
I wonder if you read news at all? or if your version of that is to skim the titles, decide you know it all, and move on? Your life may be too short to effectively communicate anything other than a shallow interpretation of events as you see them, mine isn't.
I mean, many articles, including The Register, have long articles. Who are you (or anyone) to decide how long a response should be? This isn't twitter, and neither are you the World Authority on language, or the use of it.
If you are scared of reading long posts...well no-one is forcing you to, and I am not a coward who is frightened of speaking my mind on subjects I find interesting, or even getting voted down for it.
Those who read what I wrote, and upvoted me, may too have felt what I wrote was a bit long, but they clearly read enough, and are not frightened of many words once in a while. You'll notice that I do do, short, medium, and tedious length too!
People who complain about long postings are authoritarian, self-important fools, who have no business reading such long posts, let alone moaning about them (that also includes those who behave like linguistic police). If you don't have the time.....then don't do it!
I'm no troll, no machine, no idiot. If you don't like what I wrote, then argue your point, otherwise keep your shallow, near-wordless, and pointless opinions to yourself.
what evidence has been published to prove interference in the 2016 US election, specifically by employees of the government of Russia?
If no evidence has been published, has any branch of US government officially declared that it has supplied such evidence (which may be classified) to President Trump?
PS. I refer to evidence, not accusations / unsupported claims.
PPS. I'm ignoring the FancyBear / Facebook ads since their identity cannot be proven. IMO an unidentified party having negligible electoral impact isn't convincing, and looks suspiciously like fake evidence planted to support such an accusation against Russia.
In my tin foil mind, too many peoole get sucked into this kind of narrative, i.e. there are three world superpowers fighting to win. That is required for war.
At some level they are all ownes by corporations, ones larger than Russia or Putin, these coeporations have no borders, thet only appear to, and its those same corporations, that want the masses to believe they do, because war is profit. If you knew the world was run by one big corporation that pretty much controls it all (woth even fewer controlling that from the top) you wouldnt bother with this level of politics which is imho further theatre to perpetuate the illusion that anything they tell us about the leadership of us and who is actually RUNNING THE SHOW is REAL!
Why does everyone toss Trump's suggestion in the Trash can here ? The dailybeast article about the missing server that never was missing etc. holds no validity in debunking the complaint by Trump. "Both the DNC and the security firm Crowdstrike, hired to respond to the breach, have said repeatedly over the years that they gave the FBI a copy of all the DNC images back in 2016. The DNC reiterated that Monday in a statement to the Daily Beast."
What matters is that the FBI was halted at the doors of the DNC and that none other than The FBI is supposed to secure the evidence. So yes Crowdstrike would have had to ask persmission at the FBI to make images. Otherwise any ex-infiltrated Russian SVR operative within Crowdstrike could have tweaked these DNC images.
Sullivan, a graduate of political science who attended the Helsinki summit, added: "In an ideal world, Trump and Putin would discuss the possibility of working together to fight cybercrime and hackers."
Errrrr, no; in an ideal world, neither Trump nor Putin would be anywhere near a position of power.
No need to ask the GRU, they already know it was a false flag op. The sheer number of holes, inconsistencies, contradictions, and not to mention the fact that accusations and punishment before proof, are the tools of dictators and liars who are wholly uninterested in Law or Justice, (or even general human decency). Such behaviour is deeply damaging to Law and Democracy.
Not as damaging as the Credulous Saucer Loons who chant "False Flag Operation" any time something bad happens.
You conspiracy theory nutjobs aren't interested in the rule of Law and Democracy. You are only interested in getting your daily dose of blithering confirmation bias over the world wide web.
Go back to your Facebook friends and your YouTube channels and leave the grown-ups in peace.
So to put it in the perspective of a Sanders' supporter - which I was. Which I am:
The Russians have been caught rigging an election by influencing us podunk-ditchwater 'mericans to… I'm unclear here - did they influence us to vote for the Donald or to NOT vote for the Hillary?!? If I recall correctly, about 5000 of my closest friends and I, and a whole bunch of other voters were already decided: a 35 year career politician, whose life goal was to be the 1st woman president, was not someone who had the best interests of her Descamisados at heart. Pardon us for being so stupid that we're going to be influenced by the truth. The rednecks who didn't already know that were already so busy worshipping Trump that they were oblivious. The ones who were already unwilling to vote to a party, well, it just confirmed what we already knew. And the rest were so busy pulling the turnip leaves out of their hair that they voted for her anyway.
Well, no matter. Where was I?
Oh. Yes. So, the big deal is that some Russians rigged an election by exposing an election that had been rigged.
By the Democrats. The Democratic National Committee to be precise. That certainly doesn't sound very Democratic. So was Hillary a part of this? Or did she just provide an unsecure domain for them to hack into? I was unclear here too. Until recently. Hillary was a part of it only to the extent that she did "control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised.” During her 2016 campaign. Before she "won" the Democratic nomination. This according to DNC interim chair, Donna Brazile.
But Elizabeth Warren contends that "that’s a whole lot different from illegally conspiring with Russia." True dat. But, just thinking aloud here: had they been working for the United States government instead of the Russian government, they would've been protected from ratting out the DNC under the Whistleblowers Protection Act of 1989.
Hillary's DNC is coming from the angle of how/why Trump won, when the actual issue they should be trying to find a solution to is how/why Clinton lost.
Though the worst of all this is that this little witch-hunt - that I personally resent putting my tax money toward as much as I resented putting my taxes toward the President's 'fly trouble' during the last 2 years of the Clinton Administration, when Bill couldn't control his L'il Bill - is overshadowing far more critical issues.
Not the least of which is the 10,000 plus immigrant children that are currently in U.S. Concentration Camps - separated from their parents and not even being allowed to have physical contact (hugging) their own siblings, that are being neglected, doped up, abused &/or molested - that their Federally employed Caregivers seem hell-bent on converting into SED (Seriously Emotionally Disturbed) children. Some of these children actually ARE U.S. citizens, some that are not are, nevertheless, North Americans. I live in a rural part of California and I know for a fact that without these people - who are willing to live 2 families to 1 apartment, & work under a blistering sun, for low wages, often in substandard conditions, and owing their soul to the company store - this country, indeed the whole world, would no doubt starve to death. Because, there ain't no white man that's willing to do what they do. So, yeah, "Roses are red, Tacos are enjoyable, don't blame a Mexican if you're unemployable," is true too.
All thru the 2016 presidential campaign - which has helped make us the laughing stock of the world - I kept waiting for someone to say, "Haha, gotcha! You've been Punked!"
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019