patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,260,439 comments by 15,051 users - Ceffer, FarmersWon, Tenpoundbass online now
Today Trump Became President ... again
invite response
2017 Oct 30, 11:49pm 20,156 views 66 comments
by Rew ➕follow (0) 💰tip ignore
« First « Previous Comments 59 - 66 of 66 Search these comments
59
Rew
2017 Nov 1, 2:43pm
Rew
2017 Nov 1, 2:43pm
TwoScoopsMcGee says
While an adversary in the Pacific, China is relatively tethered to the US success as being part of its own ... and vice a versa. Economies are locked in a M.A.D. paradigm of their own.
Russia has no such general constraint, and is far more active in its testing, provocations, and attacking US interest.
One dog is bigger, but well fed, and laying down. The other dog we have repeatedly kicked and starved, and it has recently stood back up ... if it ever really did lay down/shrink from us in the first place.
Kinda like Russia. Even though from a mix of Population, Industrial Might, etc. China is a far bigger threat.
While an adversary in the Pacific, China is relatively tethered to the US success as being part of its own ... and vice a versa. Economies are locked in a M.A.D. paradigm of their own.
Russia has no such general constraint, and is far more active in its testing, provocations, and attacking US interest.
One dog is bigger, but well fed, and laying down. The other dog we have repeatedly kicked and starved, and it has recently stood back up ... if it ever really did lay down/shrink from us in the first place.
60
MisdemeanorRebel
2017 Nov 1, 2:46pm
MisdemeanorRebel
2017 Nov 1, 2:46pm
Rew says
Big Myth: Wars between big trading partners make up a large number of Wars. UK, France and Germany were huge trading partners, as was US and Japan and UK and China.
Rew says
We don't have interests in Central Asia or along the Don River, whatever meddling Int'l Law buffoons say. Those are the graveyards of Armies, and there's no reason to be there.
Helping an ally of 40-50 years isn't a provocation, unless you want the Jihadis to win like Obama did.
While an adversary in the Pacific, China is relatively tethered to the US success as being part of its own ... and vice a versa. Economies are locked in a M.A.D. paradigm of their own.
Big Myth: Wars between big trading partners make up a large number of Wars. UK, France and Germany were huge trading partners, as was US and Japan and UK and China.
Rew says
Russia has no such general constraint, and is far more active in its testing, provocations, and attacking US interest.
We don't have interests in Central Asia or along the Don River, whatever meddling Int'l Law buffoons say. Those are the graveyards of Armies, and there's no reason to be there.
Helping an ally of 40-50 years isn't a provocation, unless you want the Jihadis to win like Obama did.
61
Rew
2017 Nov 1, 3:07pm
Rew
2017 Nov 1, 3:07pm
TwoScoopsMcGee says
I think you mean to say the myth is that trading partners do not go to war. Yes. That it is a myth. What is not true is that economic relations play no effect what so ever. The closer ties and relationships countries have, generally, the more peaceful they are toward one another.
TwoScoopsMcGee says
Slow the time car down TwoScoops. You cannot scrub past recent history so fast. That ally has been our chief rival since the late 40s, and that, not our previous "enemy of my enemy alliance" is what is pertinent and dictating now to our current foreign relations with Russia. The sides drawn up post WWII, with whomever was with the USSR or USA, defined the past 50 years and was the balance of world powers.
That's an impressive selective read of history you have though.
TwoScoopsMcGee says
You don't find being more like Russia domestically a very anti-American stance? I'm not sure what else to call it.
Long live authoritarianism and and an iron fist, eh?
Though their skin color and religion tends to be more aligned with our majority, the Russian government isn't looking to form an alliance with us. Putin seeks revenge, vindication, expansion, scape goats for the economic plight of his people.
Big Myth: Wars between big trading partners make up a large number of Wars. UK, France and Germany were huge trading partners, as was US and Japan and UK and China.
I think you mean to say the myth is that trading partners do not go to war. Yes. That it is a myth. What is not true is that economic relations play no effect what so ever. The closer ties and relationships countries have, generally, the more peaceful they are toward one another.
TwoScoopsMcGee says
Helping an ally of 40-50 years ...
Slow the time car down TwoScoops. You cannot scrub past recent history so fast. That ally has been our chief rival since the late 40s, and that, not our previous "enemy of my enemy alliance" is what is pertinent and dictating now to our current foreign relations with Russia. The sides drawn up post WWII, with whomever was with the USSR or USA, defined the past 50 years and was the balance of world powers.
That's an impressive selective read of history you have though.
TwoScoopsMcGee says
unless you want the Jihadis to win like Obama did.
You don't find being more like Russia domestically a very anti-American stance? I'm not sure what else to call it.
Long live authoritarianism and and an iron fist, eh?
Though their skin color and religion tends to be more aligned with our majority, the Russian government isn't looking to form an alliance with us. Putin seeks revenge, vindication, expansion, scape goats for the economic plight of his people.
62
Rew
2017 Nov 2, 1:29pm
@curious2 ... a link to the naval reports doesn't actually show what you think. The reports are not in conflict with what I think about these collisions. As I stated, the Navy didn't suddenly forget how it is supposed to be operating. Or to put it more plainly, you are not answering the next "why": why were watch standards not followed? Complacency and lack of preparedness are ways of saying what?
I think it will be helpful for you to continue to watch the solutions the Navy implements, as that should help you see what the actual problems were. Many of them were already implemented by Mabus, but have not taken effect yet in the fleet. It is a slow cure.
Rew
2017 Nov 2, 1:29pm
curious2 saysthe Russian government isn't looking to form.... Putin seeks....
@Rew, you might really like PBS Frontline's latest report on that topic, but contrast it with Oliver Stone's interviews if you have time.
Rew saysYou think suddenly the Navy forgot how to steer the boats?
Since you have asked me a direct question, here is what I think:
"USS FITZGERALD
The collision between Fitzgerald and Crystal was avoidable and resulted from an accumulation of smaller errors over time, ultimately resulting in a lack of adherence...
@curious2 ... a link to the naval reports doesn't actually show what you think. The reports are not in conflict with what I think about these collisions. As I stated, the Navy didn't suddenly forget how it is supposed to be operating. Or to put it more plainly, you are not answering the next "why": why were watch standards not followed? Complacency and lack of preparedness are ways of saying what?
I think it will be helpful for you to continue to watch the solutions the Navy implements, as that should help you see what the actual problems were. Many of them were already implemented by Mabus, but have not taken effect yet in the fleet. It is a slow cure.
63
MisdemeanorRebel
2017 Nov 2, 1:55pm
MisdemeanorRebel
2017 Nov 2, 1:55pm
Rew says
Yes. Trading Partners are enthusiastic belligerents with each other. As for closer ties/relationships, see Greek City States or Medieval Europe.
Rew says
Our opposition to Russia, including invading it with Expeditionary Forces, was entirely Ideological. There is literally no reason to oppose Russia, unless you're a Georgetown IR Theorist who thinks the US could and, worse, should, muck about in Central Asia and the Steppes, where we have little to no national interest.
What we should be doing in weakening Germany, that we fought two world wars with, that is slowly dominating Europe economically and thus politically, paying billions for non-European refugees while under-contributing to NATO. Strangely enough it only took a few years after WW2 before they joined an Alliance with us.
A US-Russian Alliance would almost monopolize nuclear weapons and create an immense pool of resources controlled by both nations, and geographically dominate the Earth.
A stronger China puts the Pacific in jeopardy, we must stop transferring technology and outsourcing manufacturing there.
Rew says
Tell me about democracy in Qatar, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, etc. etc. Indonesia and Malaysia aren't that great either. Singapore is a one-party state literally run by a single extended family. Yet all have (More or Less) cooperative relationships with the USA.
The McCarthyism, not even based in ideology, is getting both dull and shrill.
I think you mean to say the myth is that trading partners do not go to war. Yes. That it is a myth. What is not true is that economic relations play no effect what so ever. The closer ties and relationships countries have, generally, the more peaceful they are toward one another.
Yes. Trading Partners are enthusiastic belligerents with each other. As for closer ties/relationships, see Greek City States or Medieval Europe.
Rew says
Slow the time car down TwoScoops. You cannot scrub past recent history so fast. That ally has been our chief rival since the late 40s, and that, not our previous "enemy of my enemy alliance" is what is pertinent and dictating now to our current foreign relations with Russia. The sides drawn up post WWII, with whomever was with the USSR or USA, defined the past 50 years and was the balance of world powers.
Our opposition to Russia, including invading it with Expeditionary Forces, was entirely Ideological. There is literally no reason to oppose Russia, unless you're a Georgetown IR Theorist who thinks the US could and, worse, should, muck about in Central Asia and the Steppes, where we have little to no national interest.
What we should be doing in weakening Germany, that we fought two world wars with, that is slowly dominating Europe economically and thus politically, paying billions for non-European refugees while under-contributing to NATO. Strangely enough it only took a few years after WW2 before they joined an Alliance with us.
A US-Russian Alliance would almost monopolize nuclear weapons and create an immense pool of resources controlled by both nations, and geographically dominate the Earth.
A stronger China puts the Pacific in jeopardy, we must stop transferring technology and outsourcing manufacturing there.
Rew says
You don't find being more like Russia domestically a very anti-American stance? I'm not sure what else to call it.
Tell me about democracy in Qatar, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, etc. etc. Indonesia and Malaysia aren't that great either. Singapore is a one-party state literally run by a single extended family. Yet all have (More or Less) cooperative relationships with the USA.
The McCarthyism, not even based in ideology, is getting both dull and shrill.
64
Rew
2017 Nov 2, 4:49pm
Rew
2017 Nov 2, 4:49pm
TwoScoopsMcGee says
You are targeting the new de-facto leader of the free world and Western Europe. Makes sense if you want Russia to gain and likely re-capture, if not in name in influence, many of its former satellite nations.
Russia is opposing us in every manner they can, and has been, since post WWII. They are chief nation state rivals in trade in Eastern Europe, Mid-East, and Asia. There moving to re-take satellites that revolted and kicked them out.
I am amazed that what used to be the most hawkish anti-Russian political party, in the US, now "gets wood" for Putin.
TwoScoopsMcGee says
The advantage of going from an ability to destroy the world 50 times over to 110 times over, doesn't seem to be a profitable gain, and your statement completely ignores China, India, Pakistan, France, UK ... etc.. Where a single weapon is as dangerous as 10, and 10+ nations have them, "monopolization" is a fantasy.
TwoScoopsMcGee says
Somewhat agree. It matters in methods used for this.
TwoScoopsMcGee says
Your original statement is a desire to counter this: TwoScoopsMcGee says
TwoScoopsMcGee says
There is a strong desire for authoritarianism over freedom in some of my countrymen, which is disturbing, but I'm not worried about my fellow Americans suddenly turning communist. There is an unwillingness to admit Russia has opposed and attacked us in very blatant ways the past 2-3 years. You are not even making a good counter debate in that "America was asking for it" with some of our own actions and provocations.
This new found Russian love seems strongly centered in one political ideology, alone. It actually is an ideological based love, and it forgives what Russia is doing very quickly for its own convenience: that of nativist fear.
What we should be doing in weakening Germany, that we fought two world wars with, that is slowly dominating Europe economically and thus politically
You are targeting the new de-facto leader of the free world and Western Europe. Makes sense if you want Russia to gain and likely re-capture, if not in name in influence, many of its former satellite nations.
Russia is opposing us in every manner they can, and has been, since post WWII. They are chief nation state rivals in trade in Eastern Europe, Mid-East, and Asia. There moving to re-take satellites that revolted and kicked them out.
I am amazed that what used to be the most hawkish anti-Russian political party, in the US, now "gets wood" for Putin.
TwoScoopsMcGee says
A US-Russian Alliance would almost monopolize nuclear weapons
The advantage of going from an ability to destroy the world 50 times over to 110 times over, doesn't seem to be a profitable gain, and your statement completely ignores China, India, Pakistan, France, UK ... etc.. Where a single weapon is as dangerous as 10, and 10+ nations have them, "monopolization" is a fantasy.
TwoScoopsMcGee says
A stronger China puts the Pacific in jeopardy, we must stop transferring technology and outsourcing manufacturing there.
Somewhat agree. It matters in methods used for this.
TwoScoopsMcGee says
Tell me about democracy in Qatar, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, etc. etc. Indonesia and Malaysia aren't that great either. Singapore is a one-party state literally run by a single extended family. Yet all have (More or Less) cooperative relationships with the USA.
Your original statement is a desire to counter this: TwoScoopsMcGee says
unless you want the Jihadis to win like Obama did.I infer this to mean being staunchly anti-muslim and anti-immigrant, of which Russia predominantly is. No one seems to be advocating for domestic policies like the other states you mentioned. The human rights of your average Russian is abysmally low. You really don't see Russia/Putin as a model for the US to follow, correct?
TwoScoopsMcGee says
The McCarthyism, not even based in ideology, is getting both dull and shrill.
There is a strong desire for authoritarianism over freedom in some of my countrymen, which is disturbing, but I'm not worried about my fellow Americans suddenly turning communist. There is an unwillingness to admit Russia has opposed and attacked us in very blatant ways the past 2-3 years. You are not even making a good counter debate in that "America was asking for it" with some of our own actions and provocations.
This new found Russian love seems strongly centered in one political ideology, alone. It actually is an ideological based love, and it forgives what Russia is doing very quickly for its own convenience: that of nativist fear.
65
MrMagic
2018 Aug 3, 6:49pm
MrMagic
2018 Aug 3, 6:49pm
Rew says
Where do we even start with that one.... wow....
Rew says
Well, we're at 10 months, has Mueller got anything on Trump yet? Oops, nope.. Trump's still President, imagine that.
Too bad they had to lock up Trump Jr. due to his indictment.
Oh, wait, there haven't been any charges against him.
Now what?
We have a President who fired Comey, is Pro-Russia without a pro-stance on virtually any other country, begrudgingly enforced Russian sanctions because he was forced to, walked away from the Ukraine day 1, his son Jr.'s meeting ... I mean, look ... we don't even NEED hard evidence of collusion. The politics just have to line up enough and Trump is gone.
Where do we even start with that one.... wow....
Rew says
I expect more fun in 3-6 months here from Mueller and crew. I also think if Jr. gets near the sights it is game over for Trump. He will quit.
Well, we're at 10 months, has Mueller got anything on Trump yet? Oops, nope.. Trump's still President, imagine that.
Too bad they had to lock up Trump Jr. due to his indictment.
Oh, wait, there haven't been any charges against him.
Now what?
66
Rew
2018 Aug 3, 8:14pm
Rew
2018 Aug 3, 8:14pm
Rew says
I'm 4 months off and climbing. Bad understanding of historical norms for these types of investigations on my part. Whoops. Additionally the GOP has been Trumpified. I was wrong there too. Very disheartening to see that. Still a few classic true conservatives out there in public roles in gov. and the media members are a delight.
That said, tons of indictments and guilty pleas mounting. That has been really fast just not my "wishful thinking" fast. (If we had traditional GOP conservatives, probably would have cooked 'em down already. Certainly Nixon's GOP would have purged the Trumpistanis already.)
Not sure how good my "love for Jr causing resignation" really is. We shall see. We shall see.
I expect more fun in 3-6 months here from Mueller and crew. I also think if Jr. gets near the sights it is game over for Trump. He will quit.
I'm 4 months off and climbing. Bad understanding of historical norms for these types of investigations on my part. Whoops. Additionally the GOP has been Trumpified. I was wrong there too. Very disheartening to see that. Still a few classic true conservatives out there in public roles in gov. and the media members are a delight.
That said, tons of indictments and guilty pleas mounting. That has been really fast just not my "wishful thinking" fast. (If we had traditional GOP conservatives, probably would have cooked 'em down already. Certainly Nixon's GOP would have purged the Trumpistanis already.)
Not sure how good my "love for Jr causing resignation" really is. We shall see. We shall see.
« First « Previous Comments 59 - 66 of 66 Search these comments
The 4:37am tweet, before the charges were leveled, and all was made known, was very presidential. Classic. :)
In light of the indictment, and especially the plea, here is what I think some of the sharpest analysis has been so far, and what we can expect to watch in messaging.
Mueller & Team:
They sent a clear message today that there are two roads. The road of non-compliance is a path to indictment and every charge they can find (Manafort). This is the path of pain. The road Papadopoulos chose, via plea deals, leads to light sentencing and much more favorable personal outcomes. The plea deal is by far more significant in many ways as well. It's also interesting that Manafort is a much larger fish than many predicted be an initial charge in something like this. He is very well known. The charges are not collusion, but corruption. Contrast that with Papadopoulos, a low ranking nobody, errand boy, who sang like a canary and is on the Russian collusion track. Mueller is signaling "I think these are connected, and given time, I will connect the dots." Also, if someone like Papadopoulos is dirty, there must be a lot to find in camp Trump. High, low, and everywhere in between it seems like corruption oozes forth from that administration.
Then there are things like this ...
https://www.rawstory.com/2017/10/george-papadopoulos-lied-to-fbi-agents-the-same-day-trump-asked-comey-for-loyalty-pledge/ ... which you just have to chalk up to coincidence, or realize, "Oh, Trump wasn't asking Comey for the pledge of loyalty. It was Pap' all along."
We have a President who fired Comey, is Pro-Russia without a pro-stance on virtually any other country, begrudgingly enforced Russian sanctions because he was forced to, walked away from the Ukraine day 1, his son Jr.'s meeting ... I mean, look ... we don't even NEED hard evidence of collusion. The politics just have to line up enough and Trump is gone. The GOP is counting the favorability ratings, watching the dumpster fire, and waiting for their chance ... and you can see it ...
Watch the messaging close this week:
GOP: The majority will be silent on the indictment and plea. That's significant as that means they are not supporting Trump. Again, they are waiting to see if they can bury him.
"The Base" & Right Wing Media: pretty quiet today as they circled the wagons. I expect a lot more crazy like the "Mueller will charge Hillary" stuff. It is getting beyond tin-foil hat now. Mueller might get a few more smear campaigns against him from this arm as well.
Edit: Nice one from today ...
https://www.mediamatters.org/video/2017/10/31/alex-jones-there-plot-install-robert-mueller-first-king-america/218401
Trump Administration: spin spin spin. It's going to be about getting distance, "Mana-who?". Above all, you will see, "But that isn't about the President. The President isn't charged. That's not collusion."
Dems/Libs/Resistance: smiles, laughing, and looking to stick the dagger in where they can. No real movement on the political scale or investigative track will be had here. This will be inconsequential, like the Trump administration's reaction and actions.
Longer Term:
Trump's multi-dimensional always one step ahead chess (snicker) is getting very simplistic now: is there more embarrassment and pain if I stay or if I go? Can I fire Mueller, as the ultimate gambit? Will the GOP and public call me on it? Can I protect my family more?
I expect more fun in 3-6 months here from Mueller and crew. I also think if Jr. gets near the sights it is game over for Trump. He will quit.