|
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. |
On January 02 2017 10:07 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2017 09:45 Slaughter wrote: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.
How do you view Russia's economy?
|
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. for most of them, there's no good solution. for the ones done outside russia, for the more egregious stuff, find and arrest the perpetrators of course.
also try to get video/evidence proof so that russia has to at least pretend to act against the perpetrators in russia.
to some extent you gotta accept it as just inevitable in dealing with nasty people. sometimes embassies run on a thin staff of essentials, and they don't bring their family with them.
|
On January 02 2017 10:07 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2017 09:45 Slaughter wrote: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.
That helps buy their economy still isn't great. Post election ihe is feeling better, especially since Trump's SoS has personal incentives for wanting to lift sanctions. Putin needs sanctions to be lifted, no matter what the price of oil, especially since it's not a stable thing.
Russia.cant really afford to have sanctions continue for an extended amount of time.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
In general, the problem with the Russian economy can be boiled down to two very broad sets of problems: 1. Because of the 90s collapse and the easy money trap of selling O&G, many businesses have failed to generate an effective production system (why bother when oil brings in easy money for less work?). Sanctions force a more serious approach to solving this problem and some actually want the protectionism of sanctions until about late 2017. 2. Financial sanctions make it difficult to service the $500-700 billion of private debt with less oil money and fewer means of refinancing, leading to widespread credit crunch. Both sanctions and low oil prices contribute to this problem.
Russia does need to fix (2), but it's not desperate to see the issue resolved ASAP either. It can wait a while.
|
On January 02 2017 06:52 GreenHorizons wrote:
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.
Do the facts really support this interpretation of events? Can't find the link right now, but believe I read that most Republican reps actually ran ahead of Trump. This almost has to be the case, since more House votes were cast for R's than D's despite HRC's popular vote win. So, apparently R voters prefer their representatives to Trump.
Second, the idea that the Republican establishment fell in line with Trump also seems incorrect. The support for Trump was late, tepid, or nonexistent from huge portions of the Republican establishment.
On January 02 2017 06:52 GreenHorizons wrote: 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.
I get that the numbers here are to make a point, but it's not a realistic situation to describe 99% disagreement. If that's the case, the check is that you won't get any votes if you only have 1% of positions people like because another party will.
Talk about one party being 60% what you want and the other being 35% what you want, that's a more realistic situation. What's the better response, voting for the party that's closer to your beliefs and trying to change it (a la R's and the Tea Party, where they got a bunch of their people in using primary challenges) or saying screw it, I'm not voting for the 60% until it's 100%. 100% reflection of your personal beliefs from one of two political parties is, obviously, not realistic.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
This time it's 60%, next time it'll be 45%. There is a point at which you have to draw a line and tell the party to go fuck itself. For a lot of leftists Hillary Clinton and DNC collusion crossed that line.
|
Still doesn't explain why taking your ball and going home is smarter than the Tea Party strategy. If you're actually a "leftist" and decided the right answer this year was putting Trump in charge of multiple SC nominations (not to mention his cabinet), well, good luck with that one. No guarantee it gets you a nominee you want in 4 years, but it absolutely ensures damage to your causes in the meantime.
It's an emotional response, not a rational one.
|
Isn't the most obvious support for my view Bernie Sanders himself? The guy is no Democratic party loyalist (obviously), and despite them screwing him in the primary, he looked at the situation and said "holy shit guys, this is the easiest decision of all time."
|
On January 02 2017 12:35 CatharsisUT wrote: Still doesn't explain why taking your ball and going home is smarter than the Tea Party strategy. If you're actually a "leftist" and decided the right answer this year was putting Trump in charge of multiple SC nominations (not to mention his cabinet), well, good luck with that one. No guarantee it gets you a nominee you want in 4 years, but it absolutely ensures damage to your causes in the meantime.
It's an emotional response, not a rational one. it's been quite well documented iirc that voting does not follow rational patterns. sure there's a few rational voters, but mostly they're emotional, especially in aggregate. and the result often hinges on things outside anyone's control.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Take a hit now on principle for a better future. It can be a good choice.
Never once have I heard of an election that wasn't "urgent" and concerned matters that "can't be addressed later so vote for someone you don't really like right now."
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On January 02 2017 12:39 CatharsisUT wrote: Isn't the most obvious support for my view Bernie Sanders himself? The guy is no Democratic party loyalist (obviously), and despite them screwing him in the primary, he looked at the situation and said "holy shit guys, this is the easiest decision of all time." Who cares? He is an establishment politician with his own set of concerns about relevance in a likely Clinton administration. He does what he has to do and so should the voters.
|
Legal, it certainly could, but when you take your ball and go home in politics the rational reaction from political parties is "well, those aren't reliable voters, let's go after someone else." In the US, if the far left decides they're going to be unreliable voters, the Dems are going to move right to pull votes the only place they can get them. That's a more rational leadership move than moving left in the hopes that they will find a candidate pure enough to mollify the unreliable voters from the far left while also not alienating the center.
Edit: And again, this willingness to let the other guys take charge in the name of ideological principle was my original point. Democrats seem to have that willingness, Republicans don't. And Republicans control basically the entire US government. I don't think they're unrelated.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On January 02 2017 12:43 CatharsisUT wrote: Legal, it certainly could, but when you take your ball and go home in politics the rational reaction from political parties is "well, those aren't reliable voters, let's go after someone else." In the US, if the far left decides they're going to be unreliable voters, the Dems are going to move right to pull votes the only place they can get them. That's a more rational leadership move than moving left in the hopes that they will find a candidate pure enough to mollify the unreliable voters from the far left while also not alienating the center. I myself am neither a leftist nor a fan of non-voting or protest voting for a third party candidate. But I don't think that leftists are stupid for not backing Clinton. She is not entitled to their vote - it had to be earned.
Failing that - best of luck forming a different coalition of voters. There are only so many potential voters out there.
|
On January 02 2017 12:43 CatharsisUT wrote: Legal, it certainly could, but when you take your ball and go home in politics the rational reaction from political parties is "well, those aren't reliable voters, let's go after someone else." In the US, if the far left decides they're going to be unreliable voters, the Dems are going to move right to pull votes the only place they can get them. That's a more rational leadership move than moving left in the hopes that they will find a candidate pure enough to mollify the unreliable voters from the far left while also not alienating the center.
Edit: And again, this willingness to let the other guys take charge in the name of ideological principle was my original point. Democrats seem to have that willingness, Republicans don't. And Republicans control basically the entire US government. I don't think they're unrelated. Shit, it's like reading Die Lösung here ... the Democrat voters have lost the trust of the leadership and may only win it back with redoubled efforts. Just re-read the excuses offered from the perspective of the party, and do so slowly.
The party itself is not open to change. Easy solution: Blame the far left for their recalcitrance, continue with Clinton 2.0, fortified with extra personability and moderation. Because isn't it those darn Bernie voters ruining it for everybody?
No, actually. They had some expectation of a fair primary. Not Clinton allies pulling strings from inside the DNC and in the media class. Better stopthe madness now and not let the interest represented slide down: 60% ... 45% "but we're still winning elections!!" 30% "at least we're not the religious right or social conservatives" 15% "Saudis and Wall Street aren't that bad once you get to know them." I'd argue you're better off fracturing the party for guaranteed short term defeat in the hopes of recovering an actual citizens party at the end of the day, and not one so committed to the cloak of viability that they become unviable.
|
On January 02 2017 12:58 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2017 12:43 CatharsisUT wrote: Legal, it certainly could, but when you take your ball and go home in politics the rational reaction from political parties is "well, those aren't reliable voters, let's go after someone else." In the US, if the far left decides they're going to be unreliable voters, the Dems are going to move right to pull votes the only place they can get them. That's a more rational leadership move than moving left in the hopes that they will find a candidate pure enough to mollify the unreliable voters from the far left while also not alienating the center.
Edit: And again, this willingness to let the other guys take charge in the name of ideological principle was my original point. Democrats seem to have that willingness, Republicans don't. And Republicans control basically the entire US government. I don't think they're unrelated. Shit, it's like reading Die Lösung here ... the Democrat voters have lost the trust of the leadership and may only win it back with redoubled efforts. Just re-read the excuses offered from the perspective of the party, and do so slowly. The party itself is not open to change. Easy solution: Blame the far left for their recalcitrance, continue with Clinton 2.0, fortified with extra personability and moderation. Because isn't it those darn Bernie voters ruining it for everybody? No, actually. They had some expectation of a fair primary. Not Clinton allies pulling strings from inside the DNC and in the media class. Better stopthe madness now and not let the interest represented slide down: 60% ... 45% "but we're still winning elections!!" 30% "at least we're not the religious right or social conservatives" 15% "Saudis and Wall Street aren't that bad once you get to know them." I'd argue you're better off fracturing the party for guaranteed short term defeat in the hopes of recovering an actual citizens party at the end of the day, and not one so committed to the cloak of viability that they become unviable. the primary was quite fair; while there were some issues, they're overblown compared to the reality of what happened. at any rate, while the dems do have some thought and work to do. you aren't likely to be a good source of advice on how the dems should be and act, given how harsh your bias is. while sometimes looking from the outside can give a useful perspective, sometimes it's simply too far away to see what's going on at all.
|
On January 02 2017 12:58 Danglars wrote: Better stopthe madness now and not let the interest represented slide down: 60% ... 45% "but we're still winning elections!!" 30% "at least we're not the religious right or social conservatives" 15% "Saudis and Wall Street aren't that bad once you get to know them." I'd argue you're better off fracturing the party for guaranteed short term defeat in the hopes of recovering an actual citizens party at the end of the day, and not one so committed to the cloak of viability that they become unviable.
I mean sure, it might make sense if you conclude the Democrats are on an irredeemable slippery slope (which is certainly not a given, even if you didn't like Hillary). I'll ask this, though, which group has had more success getting its voice heard and represented, the far left or the Tea Party?
In a political system that ensures a two-party stable state, it's easier to get what you want by becoming a key part of one of the parties rather than holding yourself out as an ideological purist available to be wooed. You don't have to give up your ideals, you just have to have enough influence to carry them out.
|
On January 02 2017 12:43 CatharsisUT wrote: Legal, it certainly could, but when you take your ball and go home in politics the rational reaction from political parties is "well, those aren't reliable voters, let's go after someone else." In the US, if the far left decides they're going to be unreliable voters, the Dems are going to move right to pull votes the only place they can get them. That's a more rational leadership move than moving left in the hopes that they will find a candidate pure enough to mollify the unreliable voters from the far left while also not alienating the center.
Edit: And again, this willingness to let the other guys take charge in the name of ideological principle was my original point. Democrats seem to have that willingness, Republicans don't. And Republicans control basically the entire US government. I don't think they're unrelated. There is such a thing as being too reliable as a voting group. That's been a problem for African american communities.
|
On January 02 2017 13:40 CatharsisUT wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2017 12:58 Danglars wrote: Better stopthe madness now and not let the interest represented slide down: 60% ... 45% "but we're still winning elections!!" 30% "at least we're not the religious right or social conservatives" 15% "Saudis and Wall Street aren't that bad once you get to know them." I'd argue you're better off fracturing the party for guaranteed short term defeat in the hopes of recovering an actual citizens party at the end of the day, and not one so committed to the cloak of viability that they become unviable. I mean sure, it might make sense if you conclude the Democrats are on an irredeemable slippery slope (which is certainly not a given, even if you didn't like Hillary). I'll ask this, though, which group has had more success getting its voice heard and represented, the far left or the Tea Party? In a political system that ensures a two-party stable state, it's easier to get what you want by becoming a key part of one of the parties rather than holding yourself out as an ideological purist available to be wooed. You don't have to give up your ideals, you just have to have enough influence to carry them out.
I'm curious, what are some of the things that leftists want, that the Democratic party doesn't, but is/was willing to concede to them?
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On January 02 2017 14:35 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2017 13:40 CatharsisUT wrote:On January 02 2017 12:58 Danglars wrote: Better stopthe madness now and not let the interest represented slide down: 60% ... 45% "but we're still winning elections!!" 30% "at least we're not the religious right or social conservatives" 15% "Saudis and Wall Street aren't that bad once you get to know them." I'd argue you're better off fracturing the party for guaranteed short term defeat in the hopes of recovering an actual citizens party at the end of the day, and not one so committed to the cloak of viability that they become unviable. I mean sure, it might make sense if you conclude the Democrats are on an irredeemable slippery slope (which is certainly not a given, even if you didn't like Hillary). I'll ask this, though, which group has had more success getting its voice heard and represented, the far left or the Tea Party? In a political system that ensures a two-party stable state, it's easier to get what you want by becoming a key part of one of the parties rather than holding yourself out as an ideological purist available to be wooed. You don't have to give up your ideals, you just have to have enough influence to carry them out. I'm curious, what are some of the things that leftists want, that the Democratic party doesn't, but is/was willing to concede to them? In the words of Hillary's campaign staff, give them fewer superdelegates so they feel like they "won" something from the Party Establishment.
|
On January 02 2017 15:03 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2017 14:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 02 2017 13:40 CatharsisUT wrote:On January 02 2017 12:58 Danglars wrote: Better stopthe madness now and not let the interest represented slide down: 60% ... 45% "but we're still winning elections!!" 30% "at least we're not the religious right or social conservatives" 15% "Saudis and Wall Street aren't that bad once you get to know them." I'd argue you're better off fracturing the party for guaranteed short term defeat in the hopes of recovering an actual citizens party at the end of the day, and not one so committed to the cloak of viability that they become unviable. I mean sure, it might make sense if you conclude the Democrats are on an irredeemable slippery slope (which is certainly not a given, even if you didn't like Hillary). I'll ask this, though, which group has had more success getting its voice heard and represented, the far left or the Tea Party? In a political system that ensures a two-party stable state, it's easier to get what you want by becoming a key part of one of the parties rather than holding yourself out as an ideological purist available to be wooed. You don't have to give up your ideals, you just have to have enough influence to carry them out. I'm curious, what are some of the things that leftists want, that the Democratic party doesn't, but is/was willing to concede to them? In the words of Hillary's campaign staff, give them fewer superdelegates so they feel like they "won" something from the Party Establishment.
In fairness to Hillary's campaign, that email came to them from a former DNC-FL chair, then was forwarded to Podesta.
Interestingly enough, it was forwarded by former Clinton chief of staff, who was and is, leader of government relations at (the non-partisan) Pew Charitable Trusts (yes, that Pew).
|
|
|
|