|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
B-but there is no proof Russians did it!
On January 02 2017 05:34 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2017 05:29 On_Slaught wrote:On January 02 2017 00:18 farvacola wrote:Russian intelligence and security services have been waging a campaign of harassment and intimidation against U.S. diplomats, embassy staff and their families in Moscow and several other European capitals that has rattled ambassadors and prompted Secretary of State John F. Kerry to ask Vladimir Putin to put a stop to it.
At a recent meeting of U.S. ambassadors from Russia and Europe in Washington, U.S. ambassadors to several European countries complained that Russian intelligence officials were constantly perpetrating acts of harassment against their diplomatic staff that ranged from the weird to the downright scary. Some of the intimidation has been routine: following diplomats or their family members, showing up at their social events uninvited or paying reporters to write negative stories about them.
But many of the recent acts of intimidation by Russian security services have crossed the line into apparent criminality. In a series of secret memos sent back to Washington, described to me by several current and former U.S. officials who have written or read them, diplomats reported that Russian intruders had broken into their homes late at night, only to rearrange the furniture or turn on all the lights and televisions, and then leave. One diplomat reported that an intruder had defecated on his living room carpet.
In Moscow, where the harassment is most pervasive, diplomats reported slashed tires and regular harassment by traffic police. Former ambassador Michael McFaul was hounded by government-paid protesters, and intelligence personnel followed his children to school. The harassment is not new; in the first term of the Obama administration, Russian intelligence personnel broke into the house of the U.S. defense attache in Moscow and killed his dog, according to multiple former officials who read the intelligence reports.
But since the 2014 Russian intervention in Ukraine, which prompted a wide range of U.S. sanctions against Russian officials and businesses close to Putin, harassment and surveillance of U.S. diplomatic staff in Moscow by security personnel and traffic police have increased significantly, State Department press secretary John Kirby confirmed to me.
“Since the return of Putin, Russia has been engaged in an increasingly aggressive gray war across Europe. Now it’s in retaliation for Western sanctions because of Ukraine. The widely reported harassment is another front in the gray war,” said Norm Eisen, U.S. ambassador the Czech Republic from 2011 to 2014. “They are hitting American diplomats literally where they live.”
The State Department has taken several measures in response to the increased level of nefarious activity by the Russian government. All U.S. diplomats headed for Europe now receive increased training on how to handle Russian harassment, and the European affairs bureau run by Assistant Secretary Victoria Nuland has set up regular interagency meetings on tracking and responding to the incidents.
McFaul told me he and his family were regularly followed and the Russian intelligence services wanted his family to know they were being watched. Other embassy officials also suffered routine harassment that increased significantly after the Ukraine-related sanctions. Those diplomats who were trying to report on Russian activities faced the worst of it.
“It was part of a way to put pressure on government officials who were trying to do their reporting jobs. It definitely escalated when I was there. After the invasion of Ukraine, it got much, much worse,” McFaul said. “We were feeling embattled out there in the embassy.”
There was a debate inside the Obama administration about how to respond, and ultimately President Obama made the decision not to respond with similar measures against Russian diplomats, McFaul said.
A spokesman for the Russian Embassy in Washington sent me a long statement both tacitly admitting to the harassment and defending it as a response to what he called U.S. provocations and mistreatment of Russian diplomats in the United States. Russia is harassing U.S. diplomats all over Europe So fucking embarrassing amd infuriating. Why let them play games like this? Yeah, this is literally trolling U.S. diplomats IRL, not sure what a correct response would be.
Dunno maybe have CIA do the same to Russian diplomats? "You shit on our carpet, we shit on yours" policy?
|
On January 02 2017 05:43 Sent. wrote:B-but there is no proof Russians did it! Show nested quote +On January 02 2017 05:34 GoTuNk! wrote:On January 02 2017 05:29 On_Slaught wrote:On January 02 2017 00:18 farvacola wrote:Russian intelligence and security services have been waging a campaign of harassment and intimidation against U.S. diplomats, embassy staff and their families in Moscow and several other European capitals that has rattled ambassadors and prompted Secretary of State John F. Kerry to ask Vladimir Putin to put a stop to it.
At a recent meeting of U.S. ambassadors from Russia and Europe in Washington, U.S. ambassadors to several European countries complained that Russian intelligence officials were constantly perpetrating acts of harassment against their diplomatic staff that ranged from the weird to the downright scary. Some of the intimidation has been routine: following diplomats or their family members, showing up at their social events uninvited or paying reporters to write negative stories about them.
But many of the recent acts of intimidation by Russian security services have crossed the line into apparent criminality. In a series of secret memos sent back to Washington, described to me by several current and former U.S. officials who have written or read them, diplomats reported that Russian intruders had broken into their homes late at night, only to rearrange the furniture or turn on all the lights and televisions, and then leave. One diplomat reported that an intruder had defecated on his living room carpet.
In Moscow, where the harassment is most pervasive, diplomats reported slashed tires and regular harassment by traffic police. Former ambassador Michael McFaul was hounded by government-paid protesters, and intelligence personnel followed his children to school. The harassment is not new; in the first term of the Obama administration, Russian intelligence personnel broke into the house of the U.S. defense attache in Moscow and killed his dog, according to multiple former officials who read the intelligence reports.
But since the 2014 Russian intervention in Ukraine, which prompted a wide range of U.S. sanctions against Russian officials and businesses close to Putin, harassment and surveillance of U.S. diplomatic staff in Moscow by security personnel and traffic police have increased significantly, State Department press secretary John Kirby confirmed to me.
“Since the return of Putin, Russia has been engaged in an increasingly aggressive gray war across Europe. Now it’s in retaliation for Western sanctions because of Ukraine. The widely reported harassment is another front in the gray war,” said Norm Eisen, U.S. ambassador the Czech Republic from 2011 to 2014. “They are hitting American diplomats literally where they live.”
The State Department has taken several measures in response to the increased level of nefarious activity by the Russian government. All U.S. diplomats headed for Europe now receive increased training on how to handle Russian harassment, and the European affairs bureau run by Assistant Secretary Victoria Nuland has set up regular interagency meetings on tracking and responding to the incidents.
McFaul told me he and his family were regularly followed and the Russian intelligence services wanted his family to know they were being watched. Other embassy officials also suffered routine harassment that increased significantly after the Ukraine-related sanctions. Those diplomats who were trying to report on Russian activities faced the worst of it.
“It was part of a way to put pressure on government officials who were trying to do their reporting jobs. It definitely escalated when I was there. After the invasion of Ukraine, it got much, much worse,” McFaul said. “We were feeling embattled out there in the embassy.”
There was a debate inside the Obama administration about how to respond, and ultimately President Obama made the decision not to respond with similar measures against Russian diplomats, McFaul said.
A spokesman for the Russian Embassy in Washington sent me a long statement both tacitly admitting to the harassment and defending it as a response to what he called U.S. provocations and mistreatment of Russian diplomats in the United States. Russia is harassing U.S. diplomats all over Europe So fucking embarrassing amd infuriating. Why let them play games like this? Yeah, this is literally trolling U.S. diplomats IRL, not sure what a correct response would be. Dunno maybe have CIA do the same to Russian diplomats? "You shit on our carpet, we shit on yours" policy?
That would be hilarious. And make Putin memes acting girly, that would show the Russians!
(The killing the dog was def over the top  )
|
On January 02 2017 05:11 CatharsisUT wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2017 12:42 LegalLord wrote:
Clinton may very well be the least self-aware presidential loser that I can remember in the US. Her inability to own up to the weaknesses that led to her defeat is mind-blowing. Who cares? I mean, she's done in US politics now, so what does it matter? I am confused about why you seem more upset about Hillary's lack of introspection than any of the demonstrably nuts things the actual President-elect continues to do.
People keep saying this, but I'm not sure it's true.
I mean, even if she's done as a candidate, she's still going to be a lobbyist of some kind.
|
On January 02 2017 05:51 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2017 05:11 CatharsisUT wrote:On January 01 2017 12:42 LegalLord wrote:
Clinton may very well be the least self-aware presidential loser that I can remember in the US. Her inability to own up to the weaknesses that led to her defeat is mind-blowing. Who cares? I mean, she's done in US politics now, so what does it matter? I am confused about why you seem more upset about Hillary's lack of introspection than any of the demonstrably nuts things the actual President-elect continues to do. People keep saying this, but I'm not sure it's true. I mean, even if she's done as a candidate, she's still going to be a lobbyist of some kind.
To my dismay I think the party is moving more in a Clinton pseudocentrist direction than a progressive one.
|
On January 02 2017 05:53 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2017 05:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 02 2017 05:11 CatharsisUT wrote:On January 01 2017 12:42 LegalLord wrote:
Clinton may very well be the least self-aware presidential loser that I can remember in the US. Her inability to own up to the weaknesses that led to her defeat is mind-blowing. Who cares? I mean, she's done in US politics now, so what does it matter? I am confused about why you seem more upset about Hillary's lack of introspection than any of the demonstrably nuts things the actual President-elect continues to do. People keep saying this, but I'm not sure it's true. I mean, even if she's done as a candidate, she's still going to be a lobbyist of some kind. To my dismay I think the party is moving more in a Clinton pseudocentrist direction than a progressive one.
They're trying, I honestly can't believe they are so oblivious they actually reused the "Progressive who gets things done" line for Perez.
Might as well have had Hillary just come out and say "If you want me running the DNC, pick Perez!"
|
This page of comments is why the Democrats have such an impossible time winning elections right now. People are so upset that the party closest to their views isn't 100% where they want it to be that they become opponents. Republicans fall in line, and they win elections.
Moreover, are we taking "progressive" in this conversation to mean "anti-trade?" Because if so, that's a flavor of the month position that's not going to be a winner long-term. There's a reason basically every economist out there said Clinton should be the President. If there's something else posters mean by "progressive" it's not clear to me what it is.
|
On January 02 2017 05:58 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2017 05:53 LegalLord wrote:On January 02 2017 05:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 02 2017 05:11 CatharsisUT wrote:On January 01 2017 12:42 LegalLord wrote:
Clinton may very well be the least self-aware presidential loser that I can remember in the US. Her inability to own up to the weaknesses that led to her defeat is mind-blowing. Who cares? I mean, she's done in US politics now, so what does it matter? I am confused about why you seem more upset about Hillary's lack of introspection than any of the demonstrably nuts things the actual President-elect continues to do. People keep saying this, but I'm not sure it's true. I mean, even if she's done as a candidate, she's still going to be a lobbyist of some kind. To my dismay I think the party is moving more in a Clinton pseudocentrist direction than a progressive one. They're trying, I honestly can't believe they are so oblivious they actually reused the "Progressive who gets things done" line for Perez. Might as well have had Hillary just come out and say "If you want me running the DNC, pick Perez!"
At the same time, I have lots of reservations about Ellison and I don't exactly see him as a "champion of what's right." He seems better than DWS and Brazile, which is to say that I doubt there is open evidence of him colluding to undermine a candidate for president or any comparable fault. At the same time I can see that Bernie Sanders was the one who put him on the national spotlight for reasons that do not appear to be that in-depth.
At any rate, the people holding office as Democrats seem to want to rally around a Clintonesque political perspective, with less than enough forethought as to how popular such an approach is. Their response to getting beaten by both Trump and countless local challenges is simply to wait it out.
|
On January 02 2017 05:43 Sent. wrote:B-but there is no proof Russians did it! Show nested quote +On January 02 2017 05:34 GoTuNk! wrote:On January 02 2017 05:29 On_Slaught wrote:On January 02 2017 00:18 farvacola wrote:Russian intelligence and security services have been waging a campaign of harassment and intimidation against U.S. diplomats, embassy staff and their families in Moscow and several other European capitals that has rattled ambassadors and prompted Secretary of State John F. Kerry to ask Vladimir Putin to put a stop to it.
At a recent meeting of U.S. ambassadors from Russia and Europe in Washington, U.S. ambassadors to several European countries complained that Russian intelligence officials were constantly perpetrating acts of harassment against their diplomatic staff that ranged from the weird to the downright scary. Some of the intimidation has been routine: following diplomats or their family members, showing up at their social events uninvited or paying reporters to write negative stories about them.
But many of the recent acts of intimidation by Russian security services have crossed the line into apparent criminality. In a series of secret memos sent back to Washington, described to me by several current and former U.S. officials who have written or read them, diplomats reported that Russian intruders had broken into their homes late at night, only to rearrange the furniture or turn on all the lights and televisions, and then leave. One diplomat reported that an intruder had defecated on his living room carpet.
In Moscow, where the harassment is most pervasive, diplomats reported slashed tires and regular harassment by traffic police. Former ambassador Michael McFaul was hounded by government-paid protesters, and intelligence personnel followed his children to school. The harassment is not new; in the first term of the Obama administration, Russian intelligence personnel broke into the house of the U.S. defense attache in Moscow and killed his dog, according to multiple former officials who read the intelligence reports.
But since the 2014 Russian intervention in Ukraine, which prompted a wide range of U.S. sanctions against Russian officials and businesses close to Putin, harassment and surveillance of U.S. diplomatic staff in Moscow by security personnel and traffic police have increased significantly, State Department press secretary John Kirby confirmed to me.
“Since the return of Putin, Russia has been engaged in an increasingly aggressive gray war across Europe. Now it’s in retaliation for Western sanctions because of Ukraine. The widely reported harassment is another front in the gray war,” said Norm Eisen, U.S. ambassador the Czech Republic from 2011 to 2014. “They are hitting American diplomats literally where they live.”
The State Department has taken several measures in response to the increased level of nefarious activity by the Russian government. All U.S. diplomats headed for Europe now receive increased training on how to handle Russian harassment, and the European affairs bureau run by Assistant Secretary Victoria Nuland has set up regular interagency meetings on tracking and responding to the incidents.
McFaul told me he and his family were regularly followed and the Russian intelligence services wanted his family to know they were being watched. Other embassy officials also suffered routine harassment that increased significantly after the Ukraine-related sanctions. Those diplomats who were trying to report on Russian activities faced the worst of it.
“It was part of a way to put pressure on government officials who were trying to do their reporting jobs. It definitely escalated when I was there. After the invasion of Ukraine, it got much, much worse,” McFaul said. “We were feeling embattled out there in the embassy.”
There was a debate inside the Obama administration about how to respond, and ultimately President Obama made the decision not to respond with similar measures against Russian diplomats, McFaul said.
A spokesman for the Russian Embassy in Washington sent me a long statement both tacitly admitting to the harassment and defending it as a response to what he called U.S. provocations and mistreatment of Russian diplomats in the United States. Russia is harassing U.S. diplomats all over Europe So fucking embarrassing amd infuriating. Why let them play games like this? Yeah, this is literally trolling U.S. diplomats IRL, not sure what a correct response would be. Dunno maybe have CIA do the same to Russian diplomats? "You shit on our carpet, we shit on yours" policy?
Eye for an Eye just leaves the entire world blind.
|
On January 02 2017 06:02 CatharsisUT wrote:
This page of comments is why the Democrats have such an impossible time winning elections right now. People are so upset that the party closest to their views isn't 100% where they want it to be that they become opponents. Republicans fall in line, and they win elections.
Moreover, are we taking "progressive" in this conversation to mean "anti-trade?" Because if so, that's a flavor of the month position that's not going to be a winner long-term. There's a reason basically every economist out there said Clinton should be the President. If there's something else posters mean by "progressive" it's not clear to me what it is.
You might want to check with Republicans (particularly conservatives) on how they feel "falling in line" with the establishment has worked for them.
Worth noting, this particular election was Republicans "falling in line" with their voters, instead of the other way around, as Hillary's team was attempting.
|
The RNC certainly strikes me as more competent and professional than the DNC, if nothing else I will give them that.
|
On January 02 2017 06:20 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2017 06:02 CatharsisUT wrote:
This page of comments is why the Democrats have such an impossible time winning elections right now. People are so upset that the party closest to their views isn't 100% where they want it to be that they become opponents. Republicans fall in line, and they win elections.
Moreover, are we taking "progressive" in this conversation to mean "anti-trade?" Because if so, that's a flavor of the month position that's not going to be a winner long-term. There's a reason basically every economist out there said Clinton should be the President. If there's something else posters mean by "progressive" it's not clear to me what it is. You might want to check with Republicans (particularly conservatives) on how they feel "falling in line" with the establishment has worked for them. Worth noting, this particular election was Republicans "falling in line" with their voters, instead of the other way around, as Hillary's team was attempting.
I'm not sure what you mean by your first sentence. However they complain they continue to do it.
I'd debate your second point. Most Republican primary voters didn't vote for Trump, they just ultimately decided he was better than the alternative. It also seems he mobilized a lot of people who either previously voted for Obama or didn't vote. I wouldn't characterize Trump's rise as a reflection of the policy beliefs of the historical Republican party voters. I think we'll also all have a hard time disassociating the Trump personality effect with actual policy beliefs. I knew many Republicans who were hard-core free traders jumping on board the protectionism bandwagon along with Trump. Is that a real deeply-help view, or was it their team's opinion this year so they were on board? It goes to my overall point, which is that the Republican base may complain but ultimately they show up and vote for the guy with the R.
|
On January 02 2017 06:25 LegalLord wrote:
The RNC certainly strikes me as more competent and professional than the DNC, if nothing else I will give them that.
This one seems pretty clear.
|
On January 02 2017 06:02 CatharsisUT wrote:
This page of comments is why the Democrats have such an impossible time winning elections right now. People are so upset that the party closest to their views isn't 100% where they want it to be that they become opponents. Republicans fall in line, and they win elections.
Moreover, are we taking "progressive" in this conversation to mean "anti-trade?" Because if so, that's a flavor of the month position that's not going to be a winner long-term. There's a reason basically every economist out there said Clinton should be the President. If there's something else posters mean by "progressive" it's not clear to me what it is.
Let me propose the unsaid counter-opinion: Democrats are upset that the party closest to their views doesn't care about their views, won't change to better represent them ever, and only care about them getting in line with their votes. In effect, you're too dumb to not back the electable, get in line! Is it politically unobjectionable to win every election on a platform that approaches a bare 1% more tolerable than the opponent? Why care about principles and representative democracy if you've already surrendered yourself to political expediency at any cost? If you straw man the "not 100% where they want it to be," why not confess adherence to "swallow the 99% I don't like for the 1% I do" (and if not, which is the hill you want to die on with the progression towards an unrepresentative party only committed to beating team B?)
|
On January 02 2017 06:35 CatharsisUT wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2017 06:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 02 2017 06:02 CatharsisUT wrote:
This page of comments is why the Democrats have such an impossible time winning elections right now. People are so upset that the party closest to their views isn't 100% where they want it to be that they become opponents. Republicans fall in line, and they win elections.
Moreover, are we taking "progressive" in this conversation to mean "anti-trade?" Because if so, that's a flavor of the month position that's not going to be a winner long-term. There's a reason basically every economist out there said Clinton should be the President. If there's something else posters mean by "progressive" it's not clear to me what it is. You might want to check with Republicans (particularly conservatives) on how they feel "falling in line" with the establishment has worked for them. Worth noting, this particular election was Republicans "falling in line" with their voters, instead of the other way around, as Hillary's team was attempting. I'm not sure what you mean by your first sentence. However they complain they continue to do it. I'd debate your second point. Most Republican primary voters didn't vote for Trump, they just ultimately decided he was better than the alternative. It also seems he mobilized a lot of people who either previously voted for Obama or didn't vote. I wouldn't characterize Trump's rise as a reflection of the policy beliefs of the historical Republican party voters. I think we'll also all have a hard time disassociating the Trump personality effect with actual policy beliefs. I knew many Republicans who were hard-core free traders jumping on board the protectionism bandwagon along with Trump. Is that a real deeply-help view, or was it their team's opinion this year so they were on board? It goes to my overall point, which is that the Republican base may complain but ultimately they show up and vote for the guy with the R.
Basically this, and it connects to the first point.
Republicans, especially conservatives, feel like their reps don't represent their opinions either. Trump was a manifestation of that backlash. They'd rather vote for someone they disagree with on tons of stuff than bow to their party overlords. The party overlords had the sense to recognize it in time, as opposed to Hillary's camp which fought it tooth and nail.
On January 02 2017 06:43 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2017 06:02 CatharsisUT wrote:
This page of comments is why the Democrats have such an impossible time winning elections right now. People are so upset that the party closest to their views isn't 100% where they want it to be that they become opponents. Republicans fall in line, and they win elections.
Moreover, are we taking "progressive" in this conversation to mean "anti-trade?" Because if so, that's a flavor of the month position that's not going to be a winner long-term. There's a reason basically every economist out there said Clinton should be the President. If there's something else posters mean by "progressive" it's not clear to me what it is. Let me propose the unsaid counter-opinion: Democrats are upset that the party closest to their views doesn't care about their views, won't change to better represent them ever, and only care about them getting in line with their votes. In effect, you're too dumb to not back the electable, get in line! Is it politically unobjectionable to win every election on a platform that approaches a bare 1% more tolerable than the opponent? Why care about principles and representative democracy if you've already surrendered yourself to political expediency at any cost? If you straw man the "not 100% where they want it to be," why not confess adherence to "swallow the 99% I don't like for the 1% I do" (and if not, which is the hill you want to die on with the progression towards an unrepresentative party only committed to beating team B?)
Bottom line being the thinking used by folks like Cartharsis has poor checks against both parties being 99% not what voters want and just making that 1% on either side closer to their demos than the other guys.
Ironically, we can already see what that looks like with typical voters having little to no influence on policy
|
On January 02 2017 05:39 On_Slaught wrote:
I'm not sure either, but shit like killing the dog? When we KNOW this is Russian sanctioned since nothing happens in Moscow without the Kremlin knowing, then doing nothing, if that is what we are doing, seems inappropriate.
Putin's playing the man. He clearly has utter contempt for Obama and his abilities, and does not fear any serious reprisal. I suspect that Putin will put the brakes on these antics once Trump is president, at least until he gets a better measure of what kind of president that Trump will be.
|
On January 02 2017 05:43 Sent. wrote:
B-but there is no proof Russians did it!
Yeah! Who needs proof? As long as I'm sure it's so then that's good enough for me.
On January 02 2017 06:43 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2017 06:02 CatharsisUT wrote:
This page of comments is why the Democrats have such an impossible time winning elections right now. People are so upset that the party closest to their views isn't 100% where they want it to be that they become opponents. Republicans fall in line, and they win elections.
Moreover, are we taking "progressive" in this conversation to mean "anti-trade?" Because if so, that's a flavor of the month position that's not going to be a winner long-term. There's a reason basically every economist out there said Clinton should be the President. If there's something else posters mean by "progressive" it's not clear to me what it is. Let me propose the unsaid counter-opinion: Democrats are upset that the party closest to their views doesn't care about their views, won't change to better represent them ever, and only care about them getting in line with their votes. In effect, you're too dumb to not back the electable, get in line! Is it politically unobjectionable to win every election on a platform that approaches a bare 1% more tolerable than the opponent? Why care about principles and representative democracy if you've already surrendered yourself to political expediency at any cost? If you straw man the "not 100% where they want it to be," why not confess adherence to "swallow the 99% I don't like for the 1% I do" (and if not, which is the hill you want to die on with the progression towards an unrepresentative party only committed to beating team B?)
Arguably the inability to appeal to the progressive left was the most significant reason for this upset. Hillary lost where Sanders was popular.
|
On January 02 2017 08:17 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2017 05:39 On_Slaught wrote:
I'm not sure either, but shit like killing the dog? When we KNOW this is Russian sanctioned since nothing happens in Moscow without the Kremlin knowing, then doing nothing, if that is what we are doing, seems inappropriate. Putin's playing the man. He clearly has utter contempt for Obama and his abilities, and does not fear any serious reprisal. I suspect that Putin will put the brakes on these antics once Trump is president, at least until he gets a better measure of what kind of president that Trump will be.
OR its Putin getting desperate. Not like this actually does anything besides being a dick to some diplomats. Meanwhile his economy is a big sinking ship and he is grasping at straws. Yea he wants trunp in office, because Obama was choking him out slowly.
|
Anyone get the feeling that Gingrich is starting to break rank with Trump? Today he says that Trump's administration might lose its nerve, previously he said a lot of stuff that wasn't very much in line with Trump's own stances.
|
On January 02 2017 08:17 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2017 05:39 On_Slaught wrote:
I'm not sure either, but shit like killing the dog? When we KNOW this is Russian sanctioned since nothing happens in Moscow without the Kremlin knowing, then doing nothing, if that is what we are doing, seems inappropriate. Putin's playing the man. He clearly has utter contempt for Obama and his abilities, and does not fear any serious reprisal. I suspect that Putin will put the brakes on these antics once Trump is president, at least until he gets a better measure of what kind of president that Trump will be.
wait, which one is it now, the most recent sanctions from Obama that Trump calls uncalled for are too soft or too harsh?
|
On January 02 2017 09:45 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2017 08:17 xDaunt wrote:On January 02 2017 05:39 On_Slaught wrote:
I'm not sure either, but shit like killing the dog? When we KNOW this is Russian sanctioned since nothing happens in Moscow without the Kremlin knowing, then doing nothing, if that is what we are doing, seems inappropriate. Putin's playing the man. He clearly has utter contempt for Obama and his abilities, and does not fear any serious reprisal. I suspect that Putin will put the brakes on these antics once Trump is president, at least until he gets a better measure of what kind of president that Trump will be. OR its Putin getting desperate. Not like this actually does anything besides being a dick to some diplomats. Meanwhile his economy is a big sinking ship and he is grasping at straws. Yea he wants trunp in office, because Obama was choking him out slowly.
Why would Putin be desperate? With rebounding oil prices, Russia is set for economic growth next year.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
