The Trump Presidency – 2016

[Lathum]

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I'm not complaining and there is some satisfaction in hearing the often used phrase turned on its creators, but TBH I'm surprised and don't really understand why the protests.

Sure people are upset but I would think Iranians would understand the context it was a mistake due to heightened tensions, we're sorry and responsible parties will be held accountable.

Or is this just good timing and a good excuse to continue to vent from prior months?

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/11/middl...ane/index.html

mostly the last, there was thoughyts that Iran was using the attack to distract from the fact that sanctions are biting, so much so that fuel subsidies and the like are being

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Lathum

I swear, it is like groundhog day.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I'm not complaining and there is some satisfaction in hearing the often used phrase turned on its creators, but TBH I'm surprised and don't really understand why the protests.

Sure people are upset but I would think Iranians would understand the context it was a mistake due to heightened tensions, we're sorry and responsible parties will be held accountable.

Or is this just good timing and a good excuse to continue to vent from prior months?

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/11/middl...ane/index.html

I read somewhere the people are fed up with Iran's military spending. They do fund a lot of insurgents all across the Middle East. Having the military lie about shooting down the aircraft just adds to the ant-military attitude.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

1. Articles I've read gives Kushner credit. I am sure Trump had input and veto over whatever Kushner came up with but unless there is evidence elsewhere, I think we should assume its Kusher's but influenced by Trump. My guess is if Trump was the main writer, it wouldn't read as reasonable, it would read "racist" to me. This is obviously open to debate.

Yes, it comes back to the main point. Was it based on racist motives (e.g. superior race, hatred) or more on what skills do we want to bring into the country. I think the latter.


2. I'm not sure I understand "only evidence of racism you are willing to accept when it comes to this immigration proposal"?

This discussion began when I said we should encourage more higher educated to immigrate. It then evolved into the merit-based immigration proposal. You and I then discussed whether specifically merit-based immigration proposal was racist vs discriminatory.

There are other aspects such as the Muslim ban or the Wall. And I'll be glad to discuss those with you, but I was just focused on this merit-based proposal.


3. Possibly, I think its arguable if it reduces the number of high skilled occupations slots available to natives. As Galariel stated, specifically for his technical area of security, there's not enough STEM supply to meet demand.

Re: the comment on keeping these jobs for native Americans. I'm going to assume you are saying that is what Trump says (vs Kushner). There's no way anyone can defend what Trump says because we all know he jumps around and there are contradictions & inconsistencies. We have to keep to what we know of Kushner's merit based immigration proposal.


Yes, I agree. One of my comments early in this discussion is below. The merit-based immigration proposal is not as holistic/comprehensive as I would have liked. With that said, anything is better than nothing re: attracting foreign talent IMO (my earlier post on China said I would love to do a brain drain from China to US).

4. I googled on this and I believe you are referring to Trump saying undocumented immigrants are "animals". He has obviously said many other things and I can't defend his (or Miller's statements).

That in itself does not invalidate the worthiness of merit-based immigration (vs family based) as other countries do this also (e.g. Canada, UK and Australia as examples).



This is likely true. Trump is campaigning against illegal immigration and he knows that resonates with his base. However, you are comparing that with Kushner's "legal" immigration policy which is more merit-based vs family based.



So 2 questions to you

1) Do you believe Kushner's merit-base immigration policy and moving away from more family-base is racist per ADL definitions? I believe you have said you don't know but if you had to pick yes or no based on all the discussion we had and links presented, your best guess ... is it more racist or is it more discriminatory/prejudicial?

2) What immigration policies, not related to this merit-based discussion we are having, do you believe is racist?

Of the top of my head, I can think of 2 possibles. They are (1) Muslim ban (currently more travel than immigration I think but we can assume it extends to immigration) or (2) the illegal immigration south of the border. Is there anything else policy wise (vs one of Trump's flippant statements).

I have numbered your response so that I can address them one by one.

1. White House policy writing maybe completely different from high level military policy writing, but based on conversations had and experienced working for people who have worked in the White House, I am going to go with it. If I wrote command level policy when I worked at headquarters in the military, nobody gave a damn who actually wrote it. Yes I did the research. Yes, I submitted what I thought the policy should be. Yes I knew the policy inside and out. Yes, I was the point of contact for everything that had to do with the policy. But make no mistake about it, The policy was based on the vision, needs and wants of the person whose name was going to be signed at the end of the policy. Since that person had influence and veto over what I wrote in the policy, then the policy was the policy for the entire organization including myself. That is a long way of saying this is an Trump administration policy not Jared Kushner's policy. It makes no sense to try and separate the two IMO.

2. I will save this one for the end.

3. The prevalent stand on immigration from this administration has been to limit foreign born workers from coming in and taking jobs away from hard working Americans. This includes the STEM jobs. At no point have I heard the administration mention the supply and demand gap when they talk about restricting immigration. This proposal actually increases that.

4. You asked me for an example and I gave you one. Once again, it does not invalidate the worthiness of merit based immigration as a concept. IT DOES call into question the worthiness of THIS merit based immigration proposal IMO. I am not familiar with the specifics of the Canadian or the Australian systems so I will leave that to those more knowledgeable to discuss.

Now to answer your questions.

1. I don't understand why you are uncomfortable with my answer of "I don't know". It seems like a valid response to a proposal that has not completely fleshed out yet. I have not dismissed out of hand. I have presented ways and circumstances the concept could be racist based on a comment suggesting racist motives can lead to good policy. However based on all the information and because I believe it is more about keeping particular races out more than anything else, I would say it is more racist. I also don't believe that Stephen Miller whose (reportedly) sole purpose for being in the White House is immigration policy is just sitting off somewhere twiddling his thumbs while all this is going on.


2. This one is easy

a) The original Muslim ban- significant as this showed what the administration actually want to do.

b) Rescinding DACA- 94% Latino, another coincidence?

c) Attempts to rescind birthright citizenship.

d) The rule that bars protection for immigrants who failed to apply for asylum in at least one country they passed through before crossing into the United States. This is a violation of U.S. and International laws inspired by the world's treatment of the Holocaust survivors.

Now to address your second response.

What I meant is if the only evidence you are willing to accept to the possibility that the proposal is racist is based exclusively on those sort of 1950's and 1960's style racist proclamations, then you are doing a disservice to the ADL and the good work they are doing. They actually went about describing racism in great detail from a historical perspective to the modern day. Why are you ignoring that information? That stuff matters. As the social construct of race changes, so does racism.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

I read somewhere the people are fed up with Iran's military spending. They do fund a lot of insurgents all across the Middle East. Having the military lie about shooting down the aircraft just adds to the ant-military attitude.

It probably was exacerbated by Iranian government denials vs saying "we are investigating, wait and see".

I think the timeline was early Wed morning EST when it happened and the Iranians fessed up to it on Fri EST. That to me doesn't seem like an unreasonable time to pass before declaring it was a shootdown.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

I have numbered your response so that I can address them one by one.

1. White House policy writing maybe completely different from high level military policy writing, but based on conversations had and experienced working for people who have worked in the White House, I am going to go with it. If I wrote command level policy when I worked at headquarters in the military, nobody gave a damn who actually wrote it. Yes I did the research. Yes, I submitted what I thought the policy should be. Yes I knew the policy inside and out. Yes, I was the point of contact for everything that had to do with the policy. But make no mistake about it, The policy was based on the vision, needs and wants of the person whose name was going to be signed at the end of the policy. Since that person had influence and veto over what I wrote in the policy, then the policy was the policy for the entire organization including myself. That is a long way of saying this is an Trump administration policy not Jared Kushner's policy. It makes no sense to try and separate the two IMO.

2. I will save this one for the end.

3. The prevalent stand on immigration from this administration has been to limit foreign born workers from coming in and taking jobs away from hard working Americans. This includes the STEM jobs. At no point have I heard the administration mention the supply and demand gap when they talk about restricting immigration. This proposal actually increases that.

4. You asked me for an example and I gave you one. Once again, it does not invalidate the worthiness of merit based immigration as a concept. IT DOES call into question the worthiness of THIS merit based immigration proposal IMO. I am not familiar with the specifics of the Canadian or the Australian systems so I will leave that to those more knowledgeable to discuss.

Now to answer your questions.

1. I don't understand why you are uncomfortable with my answer of "I don't know". It seems like a valid response to a proposal that has not completely fleshed out yet. I have not dismissed out of hand. I have presented ways and circumstances the concept could be racist based on a comment suggesting racist motives can lead to good policy. However based on all the information and because I believe it is more about keeping particular races out more than anything else, I would say it is more racist. I also don't believe that Stephen Miller whose (reportedly) sole purpose for being in the White House is immigration policy is just sitting off somewhere twiddling his thumbs while all this is going on.


2. This one is easy

a) The original Muslim ban- significant as this showed what the administration actually want to do.

b) Rescinding DACA- 94% Latino, another coincidence?

c) Attempts to rescind birthright citizenship.

d) The rule that bars protection for immigrants who failed to apply for asylum in at least one country they passed through before crossing into the United States. This is a violation of U.S. and International laws inspired by the world's treatment of the Holocaust survivors.

Now to address your second response.

What I meant is if the only evidence you are willing to accept to the possibility that the proposal is racist is based exclusively on those sort of 1950's and 1960's style racist proclamations, then you are doing a disservice to the ADL and the good work they are doing. They actually went about describing racism in great detail from a historical perspective to the modern day. Why are you ignoring that information? That stuff matters. As the social construct of race changes, so does racism.

Thanks for the direct response. As a couple forum posters has hinted to stop, let's agree to disagree on racist vs discrimination. I think you understand my POV and I understand yours. One thing we agree on is there should be a more balanced and holistic immigration reform that not only includes merit-based but also solution for DACA and guest workers. Appreciate the civil discussion.

[Edward64]

This seems like a pretty good deal so far.

I'm not sure what China gets other than a pause/some rollback in tariffs.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/13/here...this-week.html

On paper, the deal includes a “dramatic expansion of U.S. food, agriculture and seafood product exports” as well as an agreement to end its long-standing practice of forcing or pressuring foreign companies to transfer their technologies to Chinese companies, according to a USTR document.

The USTR has also said the deal reiterates U.S. opposition to currency manipulation and a commitment by China to buy at least $200 billion in U.S. exports over the next two years.

“We have been going through a translation process that I think we said was really a technical issue,” Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin told Fox News on Sunday. “And people can see. This is a very, very extensive agreement.”
:
:
Still, others cautioned against reading too much into the specifics of U.S. purchases instead of the broader, structural changes agreed to by China.

The fact that Beijing is willing to crack down on policies concerning forced technology transfer and lower some obstacles for U.S. companies in China is key, according to attorney Clete Willems, who previously worked at USTR and the White House.

“There’s a lot of talk about specific agricultural sales. But China’s going through and addressing longtime, systemic barriers to U.S. products,” including biotechnology, Willems said.

[JPhillips]

Nothing matters until we see the text of the signed agreement. It's not like they haven't lied about these things in the past.

[JPhillips]

dola

I'm so old I remember when conservatives complained that Obama made everything about him.

And standing with some ROTC guys off to the side was a weird diminishing of the office IMO.

[albionmoonlight]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...f6d_story.html

There's a lot of things to be depressed about regarding the state of our current politics. But the one that I think is the worst is that a hostile country is openly trying to hack our elections, and half the country is fine ignoring it (or even liking it) because, right now, that country is favoring one side over the other.

[Kodos]

Well, Jon has said he would rather side with the Russians than with the Democrats.

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Honestly, I'd rather the Russians know whatever than the (D)s. I know which one I trust farther to get something right / in the best interest of the U.S.

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by Kodos

Well, Jon has said he would rather side with the Russians than with the Democrats.

Yes definition of a traitor .

[Edward64]

Latest Pew research on world opinion on Trump and US.

Pretty much boils down to most surveyed do not like or have confidence in Trump but in general, they still like the US.

Trump Ratings Remain Low Around the World, While Views of U.S. Stay Mostly Favorable | Pew Research Center



Younger folks like the US better than older folks.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Kodos

Well, Jon has said he would rather side with the Russians than with the Democrats.

Jon was radical before being radical was cool.

[JPhillips]

Lev Parnas' attorney has now released two short videos of photos of Parnas with Trump, his family, Giuliani, and others. The second one has We are Family as a soundtrack.

[RainMaker]

Also released text messages that seem to imply they were going to kill the Ukraine ambassador.

[Edward64]

Speaking of Rudy, he's kept a low profile recently.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Speaking of Rudy, he's kept a low profile recently.

He's been preparing for his role in Trump's trial

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Also released text messages that seem to imply they were going to kill the Ukraine ambassador.

At a minimum it makes Trump's she'll go through some things line to the Ukraine President look more ominous. If he was involved in any surveillance or threats to an ambassador, he has to be removed.

Too bad the GOP doesn't care.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

At a minimum it makes Trump's she'll go through some things line to the Ukraine President look more ominous. If he was involved in any surveillance or threats to an ambassador, he has to be removed.

Too bad the GOP doesn't care.

When you see something like this it makes you wonder just how bad the things we don't know yet about this administration are.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Galaril

Yes definition of a traitor .

Except it's not, at all. Last I checked we weren't at war with Russia.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Edward64

most surveyed do not like or have confidence in Trump but in general, they still like the US.

Which makes no sense since we're the ones who put Trump in power. Polls like this amuse me, much like the slice of Americans who simultaneously believe foreign aid is too high and don't want that amount reduced.

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Except it's not, at all. Last I checked we weren't at war with Russia.

Not a shooting war.

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Except it's not, at all. Last I checked we weren't at war with Russia.

Well officially yes ....in reality we absolutely are and more than anytime since 1990.

[Qwikshot]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Except it's not, at all. Last I checked we weren't at war with Russia.

Do you not know what a Cold War is?

The Russian government resigned today to give Putin full power, I’m sure Trump got hard at the thought of doing the same here.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Lev Parnas' attorney has now released two short videos of photos of Parnas with Trump, his family, Giuliani, and others. The second one has We are Family as a soundtrack.

Lev Parnas and his attorney will be on Maddow tonight at 9pm which should make for a very interesting interview

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Qwikshot

Do you not know what a Cold War is?

I'm assuming this isn't a serious question. When someone says traitor, that's a serious thing to say and it means something. One cannot commit treason without an actual declared war for them to join in or aid the enemy in. Russia is a geopolitical rival. They're not an enemy. There's a huge difference between the two, and our current conflicts of interest with them moreover are not remotely as serious as they were during the Cold 'not really a war'.

[Izulde]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

our current conflicts of interest with them moreover are not remotely as serious as they were during the Cold 'not really a war'.

If anything, they're *more* serious now.

The Cold War operated in a bipolar world, and MAD pretty much guaranteed the fears of nuclear war ending humanity were vastly overblown. It was actually a very safe time period globally speaking.

The current international climate - with nuclear proliferation, a multipolar axis of superpowers, and frankly unstable international relations (and Trump advancing that chaos), is far more dangerous and prone to extinction-level conflicts.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

Lev Parnas and his attorney will be on Maddow tonight at 9pm which should make for a very interesting interview

Not sure why his attorney is doing this. I'm sure there is some broader plan, but I was under the impression you get your client to shut up.

The Hyde stuff is crazy. Apparently he had a restraining order on him in DC for stalking someone too. In a normal world, stalking and threatening to have an Ambassador murdered would land you in jail but these are not normal times.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Izulde

If anything, they're *more* serious now.

The Cold War operated in a bipolar world, and MAD pretty much guaranteed the fears of nuclear war ending humanity were vastly overblown. It was actually a very safe time period globally speaking.

The current international climate - with nuclear proliferation, a multipolar axis of superpowers, and frankly unstable international relations (and Trump advancing that chaos), is far more dangerous and prone to extinction-level conflicts.

If it weren't for the inaction of one Soviet Colonel, we'd all have died in the eighties.

[SirFozzie]

And before that, a Vice Admiral saved the world in the Cuban Missile Crisis;

Vasily Arkhipov (vice admiral - Wikipedia)

[Thomkal]

So Devin Nunes now remembers that he did speak to Parnas after all...

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I'm assuming this isn't a serious question. When someone says traitor, that's a serious thing to say and it means something. One cannot commit treason without an actual declared war for them to join in or aid the enemy in. Russia is a geopolitical rival. They're not an enemy. There's a huge difference between the two, and our current conflicts of interest with them moreover are not remotely as serious as they were during the Cold 'not really a war'.

You sir are either a naive fool or so into the far right koolaid you are gone you are disingenuous. Does not matter to me why. I stick by what I said and will expand it to include Trump, General Flynn, Giuliani, Trump Jr., Mulvaney, Pompeo; Stephen Miller and maybe a Republican Senator like Nunez.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Izulde

If anything, they're *more* serious now.

The Cold War operated in a bipolar world, and MAD pretty much guaranteed the fears of nuclear war ending humanity were vastly overblown. It was actually a very safe time period globally speaking.

The current international climate - with nuclear proliferation, a multipolar axis of superpowers, and frankly unstable international relations (and Trump advancing that chaos), is far more dangerous and prone to extinction-level conflicts.

Late Boomer here. Respectfully disagree, the current conflicts, serious as they are ... are not as serious as the Cold War. When Gorbachev came, it got better but pre-Gorbachev it was a scary world.

I've said we are at "war" with China economically and technological wise. Even with that, I still say the old Cold War was worse because of the finality of nukes and we have time to counter the China threat.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Which makes no sense since we're the ones who put Trump in power. Polls like this amuse me, much like the slice of Americans who simultaneously believe foreign aid is too high and don't want that amount reduced.

Its because of the "goodwill" that US has created over the years. This is above and beyond politics, we are not being judged just on Trump.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Late Boomer here. Respectfully disagree, the current conflicts, serious as they are ... are not as serious as the Cold War. When Gorbachev came, it got better but pre-Gorbachev it was a scary world.

I've said we are at "war" with China economically and technological wise. Even with that, I still say the old Cold War was worse because of the finality of nukes and we have time to counter the China threat.

The threat of nuclear war is much lower, to the point of being non-existent, but we're under attack in different ways. The current leadership of Russia would prefer us to be wiped off the map and many are still bitter of the Cold War. Rather than sitting on the opposite side of the globe with a finger hovering over the nuke button Russia is now attacking our democracy, spreading misinformation that costs us economically and in lives, and trying to escalate tension between us our enemies.

Russia isn't the direct military threat they were during the cold war, but the actual danger is Putin knows that and also knows how to use their relatively limited resources to arguably have a greater influence on our country than they did during the cold war.

I've said it here before and I'll continue to say, Russia is definitely our greatest enemy and I believe anyone that doesn't see them as such is naive. China is mostly trying to expand its economic influence around the globe to boost itself. Russia doesn't have means or resources to boost itself so it's trying to bring everyone else down to its level.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Atocep

The threat of nuclear war is much lower, to the point of being non-existent, but we're under attack in different ways. The current leadership of Russia would prefer us to be wiped off the map and many are still bitter of the Cold War. Rather than sitting on the opposite side of the globe with a finger hovering over the nuke button Russia is now attacking our democracy, spreading misinformation that costs us economically and in lives, and trying to escalate tension between us our enemies.

Russia isn't the direct military threat they were during the cold war, but the actual danger is Putin knows that and also knows how to use their relatively limited resources to arguably have a greater influence on our country than they did during the cold war.

I've said it here before and I'll continue to say, Russia is definitely our greatest enemy and I believe anyone that doesn't see them as such is naive. China is mostly trying to expand its economic influence around the globe to boost itself. Russia doesn't have means or resources to boost itself so it's trying to bring everyone else down to its level.

I do believe Russia is trying to do all that you say. However, with new found awareness and being on guard, and Russia not growing as much economically or technology wise, the Russian threat can eventually be blunted.

The reason why I see China as our #1 threat is because they play the long game, they will continue to grow and, if unchecked, they will eventually surpass the Russian threat (if not already) other than militarily.

So if you had to pick either Cold War vs now ... which was/is worse?

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I do believe Russia is trying to do all that you say. However, with new found awareness and being on guard, and Russia not growing as much economically or technology wise, the Russian threat can eventually be blunted.

The reason why I see China as our #1 threat is because they play the long game, they will continue to grow and, if unchecked, they will eventually surpass the Russian threat (if not already) other than militarily.

So if you had to pick either Cold War vs now ... which was/is worse?

I think it's difficult to compare the two. The Cold War impact on the everyday American's lives was more psychological than actual throughout the vast majority of it. What we're seeing now is a direct impact on each and every one of our lives every single day. It's a different kind of threat that could do devastating amounts of damage if they continue to destroy our faith in democratic process.

Without knowing how this particular piece of history ends it's impossible say which is worse. The potential is definitely there for something more damaging than what we saw from the Cold War.

[Atocep]

So the Parnas interview on Maddow destroyed all of Trump's defenses. Yet the headline on Fox News read, "Parnas, in rare interview, undermines House Dems' claims that Trump team surveilled Ukraine ambassador" because he said they were stringing Hyde along and downplayed any real threat that Yovanovitch was under.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by Galaril

You sir are either a naive fool or so into the far right koolaid you are gone you are disingenuous. Does not matter to me why. I stick by what I said and will expand it to include Trump, General Flynn, Giuliani, Trump Jr., Mulvaney, Pompeo; Stephen Miller and maybe a Republican Senator like Nunez.

There's no way Nunes is only a maybe, the level of cover-up he did for trump while the republicans were in control of the house is stunning.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Galaril

You sir are either a naive fool or so into the far right koolaid you are gone you are disingenuous.

The total lack of substantive response to my argument is noted for the record. As far as me being far right, it ought to be enough to note that I didn't vote for Trump and will likely vote Democrat for the first time in my adult life in the coming election. That's how 'far right koolaid' I am.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Izulde

If anything, they're *more* serious now.

The Cold War operated in a bipolar world, and MAD pretty much guaranteed the fears of nuclear war ending humanity were vastly overblown. It was actually a very safe time period globally speaking.

I never thought such a war would 'end humanity' but as to the rest I don't think there's anything you've ever said in my recollection that I disagree with more. Nuclear proliferation is primarily for economic purposes - powerful nations don't negotiate the same with nuclear powers for self-evident reasons.

I think the current geopolitical order is much safer and stabler than it was during the Cold War, a concept borne out by empirical evidence (there are fewer and less destructive wars now). That's not necessarily because we did anything great, the increasing reliance on the global economy has basically made cooperation in at least limited ways a necessity.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Atocep

the actual danger is Putin knows that and also knows how to use their relatively limited resources to arguably have a greater influence on our country than they did during the cold war.

A cursory examination of the major findings from the Venona Project makes this argument quite ill-informed IMO. Throughout the Cold War we were generally very unaware of the high degree to which our government and society had been penetrated by communist agents. The things Russia is doing now are like a child playing with toys in comparison to what was going on at that time of our history.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

A cursory examination of the major findings from the Venona Project makes this argument quite ill-informed IMO. Throughout the Cold War we were generally very unaware of the high degree to which our government and society had been penetrated by communist agents. The things Russia is doing now are like a child playing with toys in comparison to what was going on at that time of our history.

Agreed, I would add that during the Cold War, they knew they would not be able to subvert us because the parties by and large agreed on foreign policy. Also, the country definitely had a "Better dead than red" mentality that it does not have now.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

A cursory examination of the major findings from the Venona Project makes this argument quite ill-informed IMO. Throughout the Cold War we were generally very unaware of the high degree to which our government and society had been penetrated by communist agents. The things Russia is doing now are like a child playing with toys in comparison to what was going on at that time of our history.

What we're seeing now is a rise in anti-vaccination driven largely by Russia propaganda that will have a lasting and deadly impact on our country. They've penetrating our voting machines and possibly (likely?) dabbled in vote manipulation. They've stoked racial tensions and driven us to a historical level of partisanship. They've successfully organized both a protest and a counter protest of that same protest on American soil. You can also make a strong argument that they hand selected our current President.

The Verona project ran for 30+ years and it was many years after that the the findings were published and we were able to analyze them. Russia is still in the infancy stages of their current attacks on the U.S. and it's already succeeded in hitting many of their post Cold War goals both within this country and globally. If these are the things we know one can only imagine the things we don't yet. I mean, Putin has been bold enough to blatantly carry out assassinations in the UK and he's been probing our military over the past few years in ways we hadn't seen since the Cold War.

The Cold War ran for 45 years. We're roughly 5 into Putin's current playbook and the potential long game benefits he's already lined up are kind of scary.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Also, the country definitely had a "Better dead than red" mentality that it does not have now.

Yeah, which goes bacK the the original discussion about how some not insignificant percentage of the population favors Russia over democrats and believes there should be a civil war rather than risk democrats running the country, and excitedly approve of our president being played like a puppet by Putin as long as it helps keep democrats out of power. Better dead than red is now better dead than dem.

I don’t actually believe there is a serious threat of people taking up arms outside of a militia here and there, but the number of people who honestly believe democrats are more to fear than Russia, China, any terrorist org are frightening, and that brings us back to our original “traitor” comment.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

So Devin Nunes now remembers that he did speak to Parnas after all...

"Oh, THAT Lev Parnas. Yeah, I spoke to him. It was about golf and football...excuse, me. What? Oh, THAT Ukraine..."

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

The total lack of substantive response to my argument is noted for the record. As far as me being far right, it ought to be enough to note that I didn't vote for Trump and will likely vote Democrat for the first time in my adult life in the coming election. That's how 'far right koolaid' I am.

As this is heading into territory I can’t publicly comment much on. But will respect your request to state what from my point is an obvious linkage. First yes I understand the legal definition of traitor so perhaps my use of the word is the issue.
Let’s start with Webster’s definition of traitor:one who betrays another's trust or is false to an obligation or duty.

Citizens and especially those in official government posts are betraying the nation they swore an oath too. We as citizens pledged allegiance to the flag everyday in school and at every sports event we attend.

Yes it is true we are not in shooting war. That being said I was a combat weapons officer (bombardier) in the late 80s on SAC nuclear bombers with daily role of deterrence flights over the arctic polar cap in. I am now deeply involved with countering nation state attacks that target organizations that hire the large technology firm I am a cyber security advisor and strategist for. I will only say that Russia is extremely active against us as a nation in the cyber threat area. In particular, SCADA focused attacks are a huge concern . SCADA in layman’s terms relates often to control systems in power plants electrical grid systems, water filtration systems, industrial control, systems in critical manufacturing facilities etc. the ongoing attacking of these systems is occurring right now. The Cold War did have threats and espionage and wars thru surrogates but in my honest opinion it generally did not get to the level of attack’s we see today in the cyber realm.
My two cents and will retract my statement calling you a fool or a new con.

[PilotMan]

Today's self aggrandizing headline via WH email is:


Trump's Phase One China Trade Deal Result of Negotiator-in-Chief's Courage