Page 1 of 2 12>
Topic Options
#1221286 - Mon Aug 01 2016 02:25 AM Trump - stooge of Russia
First Amongst Daves
Offline Banned from the DCMBs since 2002.

Registered: Wed Jan 23 2002
Posts: 15152
There was an interesting piece in the English language (and apparently independent) edition of the Moscow Times which analysed all of the media's examination of Trump's interaction with Putin, and dismissed it as Putin playing games with the American press.

I wish I could find it - I read it in Facebook and can't find the web edition.

Trump's calling upon Russia to hack Clinton's emails is being dismissed by Republicans as "sarcasm". http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/07/...-sarcastic.html

This article - http://www.latimes.com/la-ol-opinion-newsletter-donald-trump-russia-20160730-snap-htmlstory.html describes Trump as being the most pro-Russian of any Presidential candidate, and this article http://q13fox.com/2016/07/31/donald-trumps-ties-to-russia-explained/ details Trump's enthusiasm and repeated business efforts to get into Russia.

 Quote:

Trump has more than once criticized NATO, the chief obstacle to Russian designs, as obsolete and has said he wouldnít necessarily come to the aid of the North Atlantic Treaty Organizationís members if they are attacked by Russia.


Very recently, Trump seemed to give tacit approval of the Russian invasion of the Crimea (which suggests that Trump is not aware that Crimea is part of the Ukraine and has been forcibly annexed by Russia):

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/07/31/politics/donald-trump-russia-ukraine-crimea-putin/

Another interesting read:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/30/donald-trump-paul-manafort-ukraine-russia-putin-ties

You guys are Republicans. Ronald Reagan's great triumph was the economic defeat of the Soviet Union. Dwight Eisenhower must be rolling in his grave. Are you bothered that the Republican candidate seems keen on a policy of appeasement to Russia and abandonment of NATO?

This is a question taken out of the context of the election or anything else Trump has or has not done. It is a straightforward issue: do you support a pro-Russian presidential candidate?

Pimping my site, again.

http://www.worldcomicbookreview.com


Top
#1221290 - Mon Aug 01 2016 04:12 AM Re: Trump - stooge of Russia [Re: First Amongst Daves]
Wonder Boy
Online   content brutally Kamphausened

Registered: Wed Sep 12 2001
Posts: 18208
Loc: A glorious bold new America
First off, I don't see that Trump has urged abandonment of NATO. Trump made a comment that the U.S. for decades has been paying a disproportionate amount of the cost of NATO, and that only 5 nations in NATO have been paying their agreed-to share of the military cost of NATO. Trump did not call for the disbandment of NATO, he said that the U.S. has a huge public debt and is not flush with cash the way we were decades ago, and therefore we should put pressure on other NATO nations to pay what they agreed to pay, and ONLY UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, where they are not doing their part, did Trump say the U.S. should use the threat reciprocally not honoring its commitments unless other nations honor theirs with us.

Second, as hardline a Reagan conservative as Pat Buchanan said much the same things in his 2007 book Day of Reckoning, that the U.S. missed an opportunity after 1991 to make a peaceful ally of Russia, missed by expanding NATO into former Warsaw Pact nations, and into nations of the former Soviet Union itself! Missed by not respecting Russia's sphere of influence.
Buchanan said that this was inherently threatening to Russia, and it invaded their sphere of influence in an intolerable (to them) way. Just as the U.S. would be enraged and hostile if Russia similarly intervened in, say, Mexico or Canada on our border. That we should respect their sphere of influence.
Buchanan also said we should have, after 1991, re-negotiated or completely scrapped our NATO, SEATO, and other mutual defense pacts, as they became outdated at the end of the Cold War. That from that point forward, we should have the option to intervene if it is the smart thing to do, but not be obligated to be engaged in a war by an obsolete treaty, when there is no longer a global communist threat.

Also, we have no infrastructure to fight a war in Ukraine or former-Soviet Georgia, and therefore we have no business making NATO or other pacts with these nations, any more than Britain had any business offering a war guarranty to Poland in 1939. A war guarranty that unnecessarily began World War II, that in the absence of the guarranty, Poland would have negotiated with Germany. (Germany had for months wanted only to build highway and rail over the Polish Corridor to connect Germany with the separated East Prussia, wanted only the city of Danzig that was 95% German, and would have left the remaining 1.2 million Germans in the Corridor as citizens of Polaand. Hitler actually envisioned Poland as a potential ally to help him invade Russia. Russia was to sole obsession of Hitler, and if Britain and France had not declared war on him, Hitler would have focused all his energy on Russia, and not invaded Denmark, Norway, Netherlands, Belgium and France. If Britain and France has simply stood in the sidelines and let Germany and Russia go after each other, they would still have their empires intact. )

In the U.S., conservatives generally have an isolationist view that the U.S. should maintain a large military as a deterrant to enemy expansionism, but not use it unnecessarily, or be contractually obligated to go to war (as in say, Georgia in 2008) when the state in question has acted in a way that is arguably provocative to Russia, and an escalation is unnecessary.

I fully believe the U.S. (1) should (and should have 2 years ago!) provide arms to the Ukranians so they can deter Russian invasion and defend themselves, and (2) should prepare reserves of U.S. oil and natural gas for potential transport to Poland, Germany and the rest of Europe, so that Russian threats to cut off energy to these nations ceases to be leverage to cow them into submission.
Soft power, vs. hot war.

Hillary Clinton is more of an interventionist, as are the disempowered neo-con wing of the Republicans.

Top
#1221297 - Mon Aug 01 2016 06:14 AM Re: Trump - stooge of Russia [Re: Wonder Boy]
First Amongst Daves
Offline Banned from the DCMBs since 2002.

Registered: Wed Jan 23 2002
Posts: 15152
Cogent and rational answer.

Pimping my site, again.

http://www.worldcomicbookreview.com


Top
#1221301 - Mon Aug 01 2016 06:27 AM Re: Trump - stooge of Russia [Re: First Amongst Daves]
Matter-eater Man
Offline Fair Play!

Registered: Sat Jun 07 2003
Posts: 13859
Trump campaign guts GOPís anti-Russia stance on Ukraine

Fair play!

Top
#1221303 - Mon Aug 01 2016 06:47 AM Re: Trump - stooge of Russia [Re: Matter-eater Man]
Wonder Boy
Online   content brutally Kamphausened

Registered: Wed Sep 12 2001
Posts: 18208
Loc: A glorious bold new America
 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man


Just pointing out from the outset, Obama has not provided ANY aid to Ukraine for the 2 years or so of the ongoing Ukranian conflict. Interesting that you call this "treason" by Trump (hypothetical treason, if elected) but don't hold the same standard to the ACTUAL "treason" by Obama over the last 2 years.


I don't see anything in the Wash Post that contradicts what I said above. The Trump group didn't include language that obligates the U.S. to provide military aid to Ukraine, but still leaves a nonspecific door open to provide Ukraine whatever is deemed "necessary" assistance, which could include military, but does not obligate.

And I'm very sure that if Trump did insist on specific language to provide military aid, the same Washington Post and other lying pro-Hillary liberal media would say "Trump is a warmonger, he's going to start a war!" That they would never do with even the most hawkish remarks by Hillary.

Trump could always provide assistance as soon as the election is over, without it being used to bludgeon him by a one-sided media during the election. (and this article was written BEFORE the Republican convention, so some of this issue may not be the same as what is in this WP hit-piece article).

Also, I'd like to point out that Ukraine is not a NATO member we are obligated to protect. And it's in the center of Eurasia, where Russia has a great logistical advantage.

  • from Do Racists have lower IQ's...

    Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.

    EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.

Top
#1221304 - Mon Aug 01 2016 06:52 AM Re: Trump - stooge of Russia [Re: Wonder Boy]
Matter-eater Man
Offline Fair Play!

Registered: Sat Jun 07 2003
Posts: 13859
Trump made those specific changes though. Why? Furthermore he's lying and trying to hide what he did.

Fair play!

Top
#1221306 - Mon Aug 01 2016 07:03 AM Re: Trump - stooge of Russia [Re: Matter-eater Man]
Wonder Boy
Online   content brutally Kamphausened

Registered: Wed Sep 12 2001
Posts: 18208
Loc: A glorious bold new America
 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
Trump made those specific changes though. Why? Furthermore he's lying and trying to hide what he did.




Ambiguity that leaves him open options to intervene or not in Ukraine is NOT lying. It's simply not tipping his hand so your comrades in the pro-Hillary media can spin it against him.
If Trump specifies no aid to Ukraine, they (and you) portray him as a "traitor" (despite that Obama and Hillary have provided Ukraine no aid.)
If Trump specifies aid in his platform, they (and you) portray him as a warmonger who's going to escalate a conflict in Ukraine, despite that they are not NATO members.

It's a trap, that Trump has chosen not to walk into. This way, he has options after the election, and is not obligated.

  • from Do Racists have lower IQ's...

    Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.

    EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.

Top
#1221311 - Mon Aug 01 2016 10:18 PM Re: Trump - stooge of Russia [Re: Wonder Boy]
First Amongst Daves
Offline Banned from the DCMBs since 2002.

Registered: Wed Jan 23 2002
Posts: 15152
All of this is not very Republican. Rationalising non-intervention or, even more remarkable, non-resistance against Russian territorial expansion would not be something Reagan would have agreed with: look what Reagan did in relation to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, in fighting a proxy war through Afghan insurgents.

Pimping my site, again.

http://www.worldcomicbookreview.com


Top
#1221316 - Tue Aug 02 2016 01:22 PM Re: Trump - stooge of Russia [Re: First Amongst Daves]
the G-man
Offline Officially "too old for this shit"

Registered: Fri May 16 2003
Posts: 43422
Loc: the right
Actually, for what it's worth, I might vote for Gary Johnson. It depends on whether or not the race is close in my state. Living in NY (the bluest of blue states), it is very unlikely that my lone Republican vote will count for president.

Assuming I were to vote Trump, his views on Russia are a factor. However, I've never been a single issue voter. Overall, I find Clinton (who, you may recall, was my Senator) to be an abhorrent and corrupt individual whom I believe would do much more long term damage to the country than Trump.

I would also note that Clinton, for all her bluster, is unlikely to take a Reaganesque stand against Russia, so this particular issue would be a wash in any event.

Top
#1221335 - Wed Aug 03 2016 05:32 AM Re: Trump - stooge of Russia [Re: the G-man]
First Amongst Daves
Offline Banned from the DCMBs since 2002.

Registered: Wed Jan 23 2002
Posts: 15152
 Originally Posted By: the G-man

I would also note that Clinton, for all her bluster, is unlikely to take a Reaganesque stand against Russia, so this particular issue would be a wash in any event.



There is however a major difference between bluster/outrage/non-condoning, versus outright condoning Russian territorial expansion through aggression.

I find it interesting that you would choose to vote libertarian. I would not have picked that. Unable by reason of personal repulsion to vote for Clinton, unwilling to vote for Trump (why?), you're choosing the "none of the above" option who has no chance of getting in? As a protest vote?

Pimping my site, again.

http://www.worldcomicbookreview.com


Top
Page 1 of 2 12>


Hop to:
October
Su M Tu W Th F Sa
1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31
Forum Stats
3008 Members
14 Forums
65534 Topics
1187244 Posts

Max Online: 1242 @ Thu Mar 31 2016 02:41 PM
New Topics
Trump compares Saudi Crown Prince to Kavanaugh
by Matter-eater Man
What collected edition hardcovers would you like to see?
by Wonder Boy
"Pocahantas" takes a DNA test
by Wonder Boy
Did anyone even know there was a new Neal Adams DEADMAN series?
by Wonder Boy
The funniest thing I've seen today
by Wonder Boy
Hurricane Michael devastates Pensacola, FL gulf coast
by Wonder Boy
"Deal with the Devil" stories in comics
by Wonder Boy
Spam!
by iggy
Off topic...
by iggy
I have a switch...
by iggy