RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Dugger writes: "The President of the United States is the dictator on the use of America's nuclear weapons. What then, as Donald Trump is becoming the Republican Party nominee for President, is the unsettling import of his declaration Russia's authoritarian President Putin and he are 'stablemates' and of Trump's plan in his late thirties for the U.S. and Russia's U.S.S.R. to gang up to make 'the Big Two,' into, in fact, the world monopoly on nuclear weapons?"

Donald Trump. (photo: Nigel Parry/CNN)
Donald Trump. (photo: Nigel Parry/CNN)


Trump on Nuclear Weapons: ‘Right Now in This World’

By Ronnie Dugger, Reader Supported News

20 July 16

 

he President of the United States is the dictator on the use of America’s nuclear weapons. What then, as Donald Trump is becoming the Republican Party nominee for President, is the unsettling import of his declaration that Russia’s authoritarian President Putin and he are “stablemates” and of Trump’s plan in his late thirties for the U.S. and Russia’s U.S.S.R. to gang up to make “the Big Two” into, in fact, the world monopoly on nuclear weapons?

“We’re dealing with people in the world that would use [nuclear weapons], OK?” Trump recently told the New York Times board. “You have many people that would use it right now in this world.” That repeats the same conviction Trump proclaimed as long ago as 1987. If he wins the Presidency would his belief that nations will use nuclear weapons right now in this world make him readier to use ours right now in this world against people and nations he is angrily suspicious of?

What, too, are we to make of the phenomenon who can be our next President thinking in the late 1980s that the deterrence theory, for 71 years the ethical justification for nations having nation-killing nuclear weapons, still works concerning the U.S. and Russia, but does not for lesser nuke-hot countries such as Pakistan and India?

“Nuclear deterrence theory,” which most of us no longer think about, now is, in reality, any one of the nine nuclear-weapons nations telling the others that if you attack us with nuclear weapons we guarantee in professed good faith, and in every way we can say it, that before they explode massmurdering us we will retaliate massively against you with ours in the same hour massmurdering you back, except that the United States and Russia each now, as if insanely, explicitly reserve their equal rights to strike first. This is so mass-death-destined that one must wonder if human civilization itself has become psychotic.

These and other asked, but not answered, questions obtain. Donald Trump’s decades-long, but now publicly-broadcast thinking about nuclear weapons and nuclear war as he storms our halls to elect him President provides us, willy-nilly, the slanted-downward table of a slap-the-pinball machine to play on for the help we need thinking for quite literally ourselves.

Hopefully significant on the fell issue of the use nuclear weapons are Trump’s occasional lapses into near speechlessness when he is thinking and speaking aloud about their astounding and terrifying destructiveness (“it’s unthinkable, the power”); his assertions that he is a nice person; his recognition that the proliferation of the nine national arsenals’ 10,000 or so (including our 4,670) fully active nuclear weapons is the worst problem in the world, worse even than climate change; his public statements that he does not want to be the one to detonate nuclear weapons first and that only as “an absolute last step” would he order the military to fire them off against nations or other targets.

But “I’m never going to rule anything out,” Trump says, and he wants other nations to know that “at a minimum I want them to think maybe we would use them.”

Consider, too, in the endlessly flickering TV images and the din as he is being nominated, his richly-earned reputation among his teeming critics as an alarmist hypernationalist, arrogant, poorly informed, proudly vain of his intuition, self-declared to be himself his own best authority on foreign and therefore military policy (because “I have a very good brain”), impulsive, a fabulizer who does not correct his own numerous falsehoods even as he gradually fudges back his mercurial positions, an attack-bully who mocks and slanders his critics and abides in special hostilities against Mexicans, Muslims, certain nations – Mexico, China, France. On public television Mark Shields recently called Donald Trump “an egomaniac with an inferiority complex.”

One by one this gifted and amusing but ruthless improviser blew aside his 16 competitors in the GOP primaries using a strategy suggestively comparable to deterrence theory, which he disclosed on Fox News last fall: “Anybody who hits me, we’re going to hit them ten times harder.” If he is elected this fall he personally will control “the football,” the codebox for our nuclear weapons codes, which thenafter must be kept physically near him minute by minute, day and night, always subject to his total personal command. Since the 1990s our government, out of the sight and knowledge of the people, has transformed the H-bombs themselves into “smaller bombs so they are more usable.” An American citizen may justly be understood and seen now to be inescapably confronted and trapped, either by failing to vote or when voting next November, inside the unlimitable ethical danger that is the unlimitable destructive power of these very bombs themselves.

Would, if President, Donald Trump, acting as elected in all our names and consciences, fire off some of our H-bombs or now even our unidentifiable because dual-use “conventional” bombs-that-explode-exactly-anywhere-on-earth-in-an-hour, horribly ensuing in the deaths and ruin of 40 million, 200 million, a billion, two billion of us and our civilizations or, after the nuclear winter, the end of all or nearly all the life on earth? Trump, like every American President for the past 60 years, could. Is there a morally and existentially unacceptable likelihood that he would?

That question about our Presidents, although rarely asked, cannot be honestly or safely avoided. It concerns the pre-eminent ethical and mortal burden of our nation and our lives as citizens, even as the uber-military and H-bomb arsenals we pay for and continue to ignore while accepting are one of the few dominating realities in humanity. If Trump is nominated no one of us can morally dare to try to answer the question for another or morally fail to answer it for himself.

Campaigning to beat Trump, Hillary Clinton declares he “shouldn’t have his finger on the button,” is “a loose cannon and loose cannons tend to misfire,” his “very thin skin” would lead us into war. A fellow Democratic senator of Bernie Sanders, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, said she knows Bernie “cares deeply about making sure Donald Trump’s finger is never near the button.”

Senator Susan Collins, the Maine Republican, “jokingly” said to a New Yorker reporter about Trump that “If he says ‘On Day One I’m going to drop a bomb on North Korea’” she would want a chance to respond to him. “I mean, with him you just don’t know.” Among Trump’s smashed candidates in the GOP primary, the formerly top state-level politician Bobby Jindal of Louisiana said Trump is “a madman who must be stopped” and kept away from the nuclear codes; Mario Rubio of Florida called Trump “a lunatic.” The governor of Connecticut, Dan Malloy, a Democrat, asks, “Is this the guy you would trust with the nuclear codes?”

In the pages of the Wall Street Journal last month a lawyer, in an opinion column the Republican Journal chose to print, recalling Trump’s warnings that if he didn’t get the GOP nomination “I think there might be riots!” and that he might run third-party, asked “… does that kind of threat work in international affairs? Incorrectly calling a businessman’s bluff ends the deal. What if the businessman has his finger on the nuclear button?”

Trump’s anger and his tiltings in favor of personal violence (which after all is always personal), his seriously proposing the killing of the mates and children of terrorists, his proposal to mass-deport undocumented Hispanics and bar Muslims or persons from “terrorist countries” from entering the United States, his advocacy not only of waterboarding (which he says ”works”), but also and very openly of much worse forms of torture, have caused much alarm and many startled condemnations.

Endorsed by the National Rifle Association, after the Orlando massacre Trump said on TV that some of the people under vicious attack there should have had guns “strapped to their ankles.” At the podium during a rally in Kansas City he saw a couple of protesters with tomatoes and told the crowd, “Knock the crap out of them. Seriously, just knock the hell out of them. I’ll pay for their legal fees.” Discussing with NBC’s Chuck Todd a protester he described as throwing punches, Trump said that “in the old days … they’d be carried out on a stretcher.”

Last February the board of the Washington Post wrote that Trump had “said of a protester: ‘I’d like to punch him in the face.’… He wants the United States to commit war crimes, including torture and the murder of innocent relatives of terrorists.” When Trump, who is actively celebrating President Putin of Russia as a leader he can work very well with, was asked by a reporter about the murders of journalists in Russia that Putin is suspected of being behind. Trump replied that we do killings here too. Alluding to that fact, the Post continued that Trump “admires Russian dictator Vladimir Putin and sees no difference between Mr. Putin’s victims and people killed in the defense of the United States. He would round up and deport 11 million people, a forced movement on a scale not attempted since Stalin and perhaps Pol Pot.”

A political writer in The New Yorker took an interpretive leap: Donald Trump’s campaign “suggests that he’ll be a stronger leader for being shameless.” One wonders if there might be more convincing explanations.

In the both conservative and moderate intellectually up-scale magazine The Atlantic for June a psychologist, Don P. McAdams, the author of a 2011 book analyzing the psychology of George W. Bush, took on, as the article’s title said, “The Mind of Donald Trump.” Adams attributes to Trump “sky-high extroversion,” “off-the-chart low disagreeableness” despite his closeness to his family and some generosities, and an “emotional core” of anger, lying “at the heart of his charisma,” that permeates his rhetoric, describing Trump as a man who might be “an activist president who has a less than cordial relationship with the truth” and “never thinks twice about the collateral damage he leaves behind.”

Where did the guy come from? He would not talk to Adams. From Adams’ assiduous research his conclusions posited, first, that young Donald received strong praise and encouragement from his well-to-do mother and father, but that, second, this resulted in a narcissist son who cannot get enough admiration.

Donald’s father Fred was the owner and manager of apartment complexes in Brooklyn and Queens. Once, as Fred took his boy along with him to collect rents, Donald asked his dad why after ringing a doorbell he always stood to one side. His father replied, “Because sometimes they shoot right through the door.” Wanting to be “the toughest kid in the neighborhood,” as Trump is quoted, he slugged a second-grade teacher; he went into Manhattan to buy himself a switchblade knife. His father, hemming his son in, sent him at 13 to a military academy. Per Adams from Donald’s written accounts the boy learned from his father, then during his period in the military school where the instructors “beat the shit out of you,” that in this dangerous world you have to fight. Donald himself said of his brother Freddy, who had descended into alcoholism and an early death, “Freddy just wasn’t a killer.” In a 1981 interview in People, a few years before the interviews Donald gave in the ‘80s about his wanting the U.S. to team up with the fellow-giant U.S.S.R. to control the world’s nuclear weapons, Donald Trump said, “Man is the most vicious of all animals, and life is a series of battles ending in victory or defeat.”

In general Trump’s oleaginous “foreign policy” ideas and attitudes call for the U.S. to draw back from multinational institutions; change or oppose trade agreements that he holds cost U.S. factories, jobs, and U.S. trade deficits; punitively raise import tariffs against China and also against U.S. corporations that export jobs to increase their profits by paying dirt-low wages in poor countries; and even more basically, advert as a nation to relating independently and self-interestedly to each nation one at a time. NATO is “obsolete,” he says. His contempt for the United Nations is very cold indeed: “… we get nothing out of the United Nations other than good real estate prices. We get nothing out of the United Nations. They don’t respect us, they don’t do what we want, and yet we disproportionately fund them.”

In effect Trump has said in various ways that it will be all right with him and good for the U.S. if Japan and South Korea commit the “nuclear proliferation” the U.S. government so anathematizes when unfriendly nations do it; that is, those two allies of ours should make their own nuclear weapons. Remarkably, Trump added, personally kissing off the possible consequences: “If they do, they do. Good luck. Enjoy yourself, folks.” Japan will do it whether we like it or not, he says, and “I would rather have Japan have some form of defense or even offense against that maniac who runs North Korea.” Obviously a nuclear-weaponized South Korea and Japan would entail China and lock that peninsula and the Pacific aggressor nation in World War II into a third regional nuclear arms race that would be roughly comparable to the ones in furious ferment between first Israel and Iran, now Pakistan and India. Bruce Blair, the co-founder of Global Zero, says this development would risk collapsing the whole nuclear house of cards “and you get a world of nuclear anarchy.” The Wall Street Journal editorialized that “Trump’s Nuclear World” is “a nuclear free-for-all in which atomic weapons will inevitably fall into ever more dubious hands.”

The U.S. maintains around the earth outside the U.S. between 700 to 800 military bases. Getting back more of the monetary costs of our thereby militarily assisting nations we regard as friendly to us is a primary preoccupation in Trump’s ideas. Fred Hiatt, the editorial page editor of The Washington Post, asked him (before the TV-star tycoon announced that he banished the Post from his public rallies and press events), “… does the United States gain anything by having bases?” “Personally I don’t think so,” Trump replied; “… we’re a very poor country now.”

Trump was asked if he would take the United States into war against nuclear-up-arming China to stop its expansion into the South China Sea. “Look,” Trump said, “there’s a question I don‘t want to answer…. I don’t want them to know what I’m thinking.” In a different interview on that topic he said, “I don’t think we are going to start the World War III over what they did [occupying, militarizing, and claiming marine rights to the islands, alleged islands, and 90% of the surfaces of the South China Sea], it affects other countries certainly a lot more than it affects us.” Nevertheless the media-mesmerizing Trump called China’s complex maneuvers in that sea “unbelievable aggression.”

Crack Times reporter David Sanger specified during an interview with Trump that one of the candidate’s heroes, the late General Douglas MacArthur, planned, while he was commanding arrayed U.S. military forces in the Korean War, to explode American nuclear weapons against China, North Korea, and the Chinese and North Korean armies (to stop the which Truman fired MacArthur as the general-in-chief of the war). Sanger was preparing to test Trump, in connection with his admiration of MacArthur, on his position for only detonating H-bombs as a last resort.

The reporter challenged Trump: “General MacArthur wanted to use (nuclear weapons) against the Chinese and the North Koreans, not as a last resort.”

“… well,” Trump fended that off, “you don’t know if he wanted to then, but he certainly said that at least….”

“He certainly asked Harry Truman if he could,” Sanger asserted.

“Was he doing that to negotiate, was he doing that to win?” Trump fenced back. “Perhaps, perhaps … he did play the nuclear card but he didn’t use it…. maybe that’s what got him victory.”

Also during Trump’s interview with the board of the Post, its publisher Frederick Ryan Jr., who may have been struck by the graphic violence of Trump’s rhetoric against ISIS (“bomb the shit out of Isis,” “quickly cut off the head of ISIS”), asked him without preliminaries, “Would you use a battlefield nuclear weapon to take out ISIS?”

“I don’t want to use— I don’t want to start the process of nuclear,” replied the evidently startled prospective commander-in-chief. “Remember,” he hinted, “I’m a counter-puncher,” and he continued trying to back into the outfield with some wandering remarks concerning one of his opponents in the primary campaign.

“This is about ISIS,” Ryan cut in. “You would not use a tactical nuclear weapon against ISIS?”

In the transcript of the meeting some cross-talk is noted then as Trump in effect was refusing to answer the publisher by asking instead to personally meet and shake hands with the seven Post people participating in the event. That happened. Questioned about “human-caused climate change,” Trump said, “I’m not a believer … in man-made climate change.” But then, just before he seemed about to bolt away from the meeting, he unexpectedly opened forth with a passionate and startling outburst about nuclear weapons.

“I think we’re in tremendous peril,” said the phenomenon Donald Trump. “I think our biggest form of climate change we should worry about is nuclear weapons. The biggest risk in the world to me—I know President Obama thought it was climate change—to me the biggest risk is nuclear weapons. That’s—that’s the climate change that is a disaster, and we don’t even know where the weapons are right now. We don’t know who has them. We don’t know who’s trying to get them. The biggest risk for this world or this country is nuclear weapons, the power of nuclear weapons.”

As it happens, perhaps irrelevantly and perhaps not, two of Trump’s more famous backers, the billionaire casino owner Sheldon G. Adelson of Las Vegas and the widely celebrated and politically independent Indiana basketball coach Billy Knight, have attracted attention recently as enthusiastic advocates of exploding nuclear weapons on human populations in modern cities.

Adelson, a passionate champion of Israel, in 2012 gave at least $98 million to 34 Republican campaigns and groups. By himself he constitutes and conducts the sardonically-labeled “Las Vegas primary” in which GOP candidates journey to his Las Vegas Sands angling for some of his abundant money: being this year worth about 27 billion dollars he ranks 22nd among Forbes Magazine’s list of the top 400 U.S. billionaires. When Adelson supported Marco Rubio for President this year, Trump tweeted that the billionaire wanted to make Rubio “his perfect little puppet.” In due course Adelson switched to backing a SuperPAC for Ted Cruz. Trump, now openly raising money instead of saying he would be paying his own way, has said he may need one billion dollars for the rest of his campaign. In mid-May after he basically consolidated his apparent nomination, Trump with his campaign manager then conferred in a private meeting with Mr. and Mrs. Adelson in the St. Regis in Manhattan. According to the apparently well-sourced report in the Times, during that presumably opulent occasion Adelson committed directly to Trump to spend, on the rest of Trump’s campaign alone, about one hundred of Adelson’s roughly 270 hundreds of millions of his dollars.

Posted online in January there was a video in which Adelson, shown “a few years ago” seated and talking with a second man on a stage before a smallish assembled audience, advocated dropping a nuclear bomb on urban Iran unless that country agreed to quit its work relevant to its getting nuclear weapons. Concerning the notorious “Iran deal” with six other nations to limit Iran’s nuclear-materials program, the onstage Adelson asked, “What’s there to negotiate about?” He explained in the video how he would proceed. First, he said, after getting relevant Iranians’ attention, he would explode a nuclear weapon in a desolate Iranian desert, hurting no one. Then he would tell the Iranians to abandon their nuclear weapons or, “See! The next one is in the middle of Teheran.”

Introducing Trump during a series of boisterous rallies in Indiana wherefrom Trump was to achieve his national majority of the GOP convention delegates, one evening Coach Knight climaxed his build-up of his candidate exclaiming that like Harry Truman, “one of the three great American Presidents,” Trump, that man right over there, would have the guts to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki just like Truman did (in 1944 he said, though it was ’45), and Trump would be “the fourth great President of the United States!” At that Donald Trump, filmed for history on TV, suddenly smiled broadly and stepped over to Knight, put a hand on his back, and shook his hand vigorously, emphatically.



Ronnie Dugger won the 2011 George Polk career award in journalism. He founded The Texas Observer, has written biographies of Lyndon Johnson and Ronald Reagan, a book on Hiroshima and one on universities, many articles in The New Yorker, The Nation, Harper’s, The Atlantic, Mother Jones, and other publications, and is now writing a book on new thinking about nuclear war. This is his second of two articles on Trump and nuclear weapons; the first was published last Thursday. This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+25 # dipierro4 2016-07-20 11:24
We don't know if Trump is "crazy like a fox" or just crazy.

But I know that he is one of the two people who might become the next President. The other one, with her talk of Putin as an "evil dictator", already has closed out cooperation between the two great powers. And with perhaps Michèle Flournoy as Sec. of Defense and Victoria Nuland at State, will we be better off than we'd be with Trump?
 
 
+9 # guomashi 2016-07-20 11:48
Clinton has already said she would shoot down Russian planes in Syria.
Clinton, and anyone who believes US would survive such an event are fools.
At least Trump says he will negotiate with Putin.

It is a lose-lose situation, a contest between _maybe_ and _definitely_.

My guess is that Trump would avoid use of nuclear weapons. He is an extreme narcissist. The one thing most important to narcissists is survival.

Clinton is, on the other hand, overly ambitious. The one thing most important to such people is power.

Survival trumps power.
 
 
+12 # harleysch 2016-07-20 14:20
Interesting that Ronnie Duggar makes no mention of Obama moving to modernize the nuclear arsenal in a way that even Obama supporter Dianne Feinstein said makes nuclear war more likely. In addition to pushing for "pin-point" tactical nukes, Obama is playing a chicken game with China in the South China Sea, and placing BMD systems in eastern Europe, with Russia as the only possible target. At the same time Obama is demanding continuing sanctions versus Russia, while putting pressure on NATO nations to beef up forces deployed on the Russian border. Don't forget Obama's support for the neo-Nazi coup in Ukraine.

While I disagree with Duggar's characterizatio n of Putin as "authoritarian" , I must say that more objectionable is his concern that Trump might actually consider forming a partnership with Putin. That certainly would be better than Hillary's characterizatio n of Putin as "Hitler"!!!
 
 
-12 # rocback 2016-07-20 15:37
Obama has dropped the nuclear arsenal to the lowest number of warheads in the last 50 years. As for NATO Troops near the border you forget the Euromaidan's Revolution of Dignity transformed the country by removing a corrupt dictator (who by the way was a client of Donald Trumps hatchet man Paul Manafort) and bringing to power a government committed to anchoring Ukraine firmly within the Euro-Atlantic community.

Since its independence in 1991, Ukraine has struggled to shed its Soviet colonial past and the remaining vestiges of Russian domination. It merely sought to join Europe and the world of free nations.

Russia responded by resorting to war. It officially annexed Crimea, and then de facto invaded portions of eastern Ukraine. Eighteen months later, entire villages and cities have been destroyed, almost 8,000 lives have been lost and another 30,000 have been wounded. More than 1.5 million internal refugees have been displaced Putin claimed the troops that invaded Ukraine were not Russians then was caught and admitted it. Just look at how they got caught cheating in a freaking sport for gods sake! Putin lied about shooting down Malaysia Airlines plane.
 
 
+7 # DogSoldier 2016-07-20 21:20
No, rocback, you're wrong. Putin didn't lie about the Malaysian airliner. We lied, or rather our government lied to us. There's a piece about it right now on RSN. We've have been lied to since the very beginning of this Ukrainian disaster. Our State Dept. and CIA did what they do best, aid and abet regime change through another color revolution. Now we have battalions of armed Neo-Nazis, a shaky government that refuses to abide by the terms of the Minsk Agreement, while the economy is a shambles. Those Neo-Nazi animals are the people that shot down the Malaysian plane, according the Netherlands’ Military Intelligence and Security Service.
 
 
+3 # harleysch 2016-07-21 16:12
In your defense of Obama, you never answered why Sen. Feinstein, a close ally, is warning that Obama's nuclear modernization program makes use of nukes more likely.

On Ukraine, you are obviously deluded, believing the propaganda of the neocons. The issue is not Yanukovic -- it's that Obama and Hillary acted jointly with neocon Nuland to overthrow a democratically elected regime, and replace it with one which depends on openly-admitted neo-Nazi militias (the Bandera group) for security!

Even a Hillary apologist must recognize that Ukraine, along with her role in destroying Libya and pushing regime change in Syria, show that she sees war as business-as-usu al, rather than a last resort.

But to go back to the matter of Ukraine -- you obviously have no clue as to how the "color revolutions" have been used, by the Bushies, Obama and Hillary, to destabilize nations which reject the failed systems of neo-liberal economics. And Hillary, as Bernie pointed out effectively, is a spokeswoman for the neo-liberal theories (dereg, free trade, etc.) of the Wall Street Uber Alles gang.
 
 
0 # Salus Populi 2016-07-26 08:43
We can add that the thousands of casualties in Eastern Ukraine -- where Yaukovich's power base was -- mostly come from the Neo-Nazi dominated government installed by the U.S., which showed its peaceful intent shortly after the coup -- not "revolution"; even the conservative strategic think tank Stratfor called the coup the most obvious coup in modern history -- by having its Right Sektor and Svoboda Neo-Nazi militia, working under the command of the Interior Department, run by the head of Right Sektor, chase the Russian-speakin g demonstrators at a peaceful gathering in Odessa into the local union building, then barring the doors and setting the building afire, beating to death anyone who managed to get out, while the others were burned alive.

They also have made a habit of painting Swastikas on Synagogues in Eastern Ukraine.

And it was not Putin, but the U.S. that was caught in a lie when claiming that a convoy Russian trucks and soldiers was photographed by our satellites returning from Ukraine, and then was embarrassed when it was proven that the picture was taken within Russia, and not on ts border.

The whole coup plan had as one of its objects to deprive Russia of its sole naval warm-water port at Sevastopol in the Crimea, leased for 35 years from Ukraine when the latter gained independence, and took Crimea, historically Russian from the late eighteenth century until Krushchev re-assigned it to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic ... [cont.]
 
 
0 # Salus Populi 2016-07-26 08:46
[cont.]
as part of a Ukrainian nationalist celebration in 1954, with it by Russia's leave. Under the agreement, Russia was allowed to station up to 25,000 sailors there for the duration of the lease.

When Ukraine's new U.S.-approved coup government -- Nuland personally chose Yatsenyuk to be the new president -- began carrying out pogroms against Russian-speakin g residents of the East and South, and outlawed the use of Russian as an equal language with Ukrainian [which was done in Kazakhstan just prior to firing all Russian-speakin g government workers, as the Slavic majorities in Donetsk and the Donblas region were certainly aware], the Russian Crimeans, not the Russian Duma, initiated a vote for independence and rejoining Russia.

There were, at the time, only 15,000 of the 25,000 allowed sailors stationed at the base in Sevastopol. The West claimed that this constituted Russia's "invasion" of Crimea, but the sailors never left the base, and without their supposedly intimidating presence -- to fellow Russians, be it noted -- the Crimeans, despite a boycott by the minority of Tatars, voted by around 95 per cent to petition Russia to allow them to rejoin. The Duma, the elected Russian parliament, then voted to approve the request; this was referred to by the professional liars in Western governments as Russia's "annexation" following its "illegal invasion" of the Crimea.

Hell hath no fury like a neo-con whose worst-laid and most devious plans have gone astray.
 
 
0 # Salus Populi 2016-07-26 09:02
Of course, the neo-cons are quite expert at "spinning" [that is, lying] things their way, as is Dugger, by the way, when it comes to modern history.

In 1989, when Gorbachev, in talks with Sec. James Baker, agreed to dissolve the Warsaw Pact, which had only been set up in the first place in reaction to the founding of NATO, he agreed to allow NATO to continue its existence, even though its supposed mission of "defending the West" from [non-existent] "Communist aggression" was mooted by the collapse of the "evil empire," on one explicit condition, which Baker agreed to: that NATO would "not expand one inch" to the East, since the Russians, having been invaded from the West three times, were understandably concerned should a purely military alliance, in practice serving as an arm of the foreign policy of a country that not only had close to a thousand military bases scattered all over the globe, but whose guiding doctrine was "full spectrum dominance" of the entire world, advance to Russia's borders.

Baker orally agreed -- this is not in dispute -- but did not sign anything. Within a couple of years, the U.S. had reneged and was busy absorbing Eastern Europe, and even former parts of the USSR itself, into the military alliance.

Since the solemn agreement, the U.S. has added 12 new countries to the alliance, whose mission has now been expanded to include the Middle East, only one of which is not a former Warsaw state or a part of the old USSR.
 
 
-3 # Mako 2016-07-20 14:51
So a single hypothetical in a debate that the US has NOT ever endorsed between 2009 and today, nor has Clinton ever *enacted* in regards to real foreign policy experience and relations with Russia... Is what you're riding on as proof she's worst than Trump.

Nevermind that between 2008-12, she HAD negotiated and met with Russia in regards to Russia's entrance into the WTO, had positive relations and negotiated an arms treaty that drew down nuclear stockpiles between our two countries, and got them on board to work with us regarding Iran.

You fail to mention or factor in the situations that have been at the heart of the issue. Number one being that Clinton never had any issue with Russia, it was Putin and his return to the Presidency in 2012, where she privately intimated her misgivings, given his terrible and aggressive track record. And let's not forget that her tenure as SoS was right AFTER Russia invaded Georgia as well. Given the timing and attempts at positive relations, it was difficult yet she managed to do it.

The fact she has a negative opinion of Putin which many other NATO countries share is not some sort of sin or warmongering. It certainly doesn't mean she wants to war with him.

And you're seriously delusional and unwilling to listen to Trump's own mouth. He's said NUMEROUS TIMES CONSISTENTLY he would never take nukes off the table. He even said everyone having nukes is great, and he'd use them in Europe if necessary.

But Trump isn't crazy. Right.
 
 
+11 # Saberoff 2016-07-20 15:30
Man, are you misled!
 
 
+2 # Mako 2016-07-20 15:51
Then enlighten me and post your evidence.

If you're going to post such a pithy response, then at least back it up.
 
 
+3 # Saberoff 2016-07-20 17:23
Flip phone. I Could go on and on and therein lies the problem. Don't have all day. How bout You look it up - or, perhaps just take it from 85 percent of the posters here on RSN?
 
 
+12 # Saberoff 2016-07-20 17:25
Look up Nuland, and cronyism. It's a start.
 
 
+6 # Saberoff 2016-07-20 17:33
See Radscal post, below... (It starts with "I find Putin..."
 
 
+2 # Mako 2016-07-20 18:07
Already read it and am discussing it.

That isn't a reply to the posts I MADE HERE though. You challenged my comparison of their records and how Trump is a clear and obvious warmongerer and aggressor. Hillary's record as Secretary of State is one where she brought us a treaty with Russia to drawdown our nukes, brought them into the WTO, and good relations with their president.

Trump talks about bombing countries and giving nukes to everyone else. What's with the hypocrisy?
 
 
+6 # economagic 2016-07-20 20:25
So, 'splain me what is so great about Russia being in the WTO. Or the US, for that matter.

Do you understand why the TPP is a major campaign issue that the MSM are burying, and on which Clinton, who was at least tangentially involved in negotiating, now says she opposes because Sanders made an issue of it? And what about TTIP and TISA, which will follow within months?

Are you old enough to remember NAFTA and what was said about it (also CAFTA and the US Korea Trade Agreement)? And are you sufficiently tuned into the arcane world of international trade to know what actually happened because of NAFTA?

The possibility that either Trump OR Clinton would start a nuclear war is pretty low on my list of worries, although either would certainly do so if they thought the situation demanded it and the generals did not intervene.

There are ways other than explosives and radiation to kill people, or peoples. We have been told for decades that the US has been practicing economic colonialism. We now know that it is the transnationals that have been waging that quiet war, and that they are now waging it against US, the people.
 
 
0 # Salus Populi 2016-07-26 15:07
Mako: With regard to "AFTER Russia invaded Georgia as well":

Georgia, with the encouragement of the U.S., invaded South Ossetia [in the middle of the night, with extensive Ossetian casualties; it was preparing to likewise attack Abkhazia, another independent former Okrug], trying to forcibly reincorporate it into Georgia proper [it had declared self-government like several other parts of the former Soviet Caucasian republics], and the Ossetian government asked Russia for help, Russia responded by pushing Georgia back out, and then the Russian troops went home. This then is the "invasion" of Georgia.

Funny, when the U.S. occupies a foreign country, it's always because we were duty bound to come to the aid of the oppressed, but when Russia responds to a request for aid, it's being the big, bad aggressor.

You'd almost think it was Russia that had 800 or so military bases outside its borders, that was using remote-controll ed drones to shoot hellfire missiles into seven different countries, that was the world's largest arms merchant, that had maintained close ties for three-quarters of a century with the most barbaric, backward, oppressive, terrorist country on Earth, and that had expressed its foreign policy, not since rescinded, of "full spectrum dominance" over the planet, with not even any "regional" powers allowed to challenge its might.

But it isn't. It's us.
 
 
-2 # Robbee 2016-07-20 15:10
Quoting guomashi:
Clinton has already said she would shoot down Russian planes in Syria.

- lie!
 
 
+2 # rocback 2016-07-20 15:26
While we joist and argue amount us, a very frightening thing just happened. Donald Trump is one of two major parties nominee. Even though Hillary is ahead at the moment, it's not by much and any "black swan" event could happened to sway this election either way. As bad as the other 16 GOP candidates were on the economy, and even on foreign affairs, at least they were steady enough and thick skinned and knowledgeable enough not to start a nuclear war.

In the meantime people here who would normally not even consider Trump are so bitter about losing they would be willing to screw our country and risk civilizations very existence because they are like petulant children who didn't get their way. Shame on them. They will have blood on their hands.

You people better wake up because with Trump, the nuclear clock just advanced close to midnight.
 
 
+3 # librarian1984 2016-07-20 16:45
Another brilliant analysis by crak'd. hahaha

"While we joist and argue amount us"

Sounds like an Alice in Wonderland poem! You turned on your spell checker, didn't you? haha You still have to read it over, a##wipe! Oh, the demands of trollery!

So the other 16 were okay but DT is the super- hyper- mega-bad guy, yeah? Good to know. Though I wouldn't be so quick to say Cruz wouldn't have started a war. Are you so sure about that? I guess if Cruz won you'd be telling us that HE was the evilest, right?

Oh brock-aaak. As transparent as a window and just as big a pane!

Thanks for telling us what we think and feel, though. Very handy. My bitterness consumes me, is that right? You want us to play that with tears or just facial expressions?

OH! And there's the 'petulant children' showing up. You really do have only about 20 memes, don't you? My kids' Learn 'n' Play is more versatile than you, and I should take your political advice?

Yeah yeah, black swan, check. Do you think you're a spy too? Does mommy put a decoder ring in with your juice box?

Trump IS scary you jacka$$ so get HRC off the mound and put in Senator Sanders. If Trump is so damn scary put in the candidate who can win.

YOU better wake up you tiny-brained wiper of other people's bottoms.
 
 
+4 # librarian1984 2016-07-20 16:50
Bam! Baseball analogy AND MP quote!

(And maybe an Alice in Wonderland poem.)
 
 
+5 # economagic 2016-07-20 20:28
"You turned on your spell checker, didn't you?"

I have an idea: a spell checker with definitions -- guaranteed to lose money for the company that markets it!
 
 
-4 # ericlipps 2016-07-20 18:52
Quoting guomashi:
Clinton has already said she would shoot down Russian planes in Syria.
Clinton, and anyone who believes US would survive such an event are fools.
At least Trump says he will negotiate with Putin.

He also says:
http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2016/03/31/donald-trump-sure-might-use-nuclear/
 
 
-2 # rocback 2016-07-20 20:27
Hillary did not say she would shoot down Russian planes. That was Cris Christie.
 
 
+3 # Radscal 2016-07-21 20:08
Do you know what a "no fly zone" over Syria means? That's what HRC wants.
 
 
+10 # jdd 2016-07-20 14:24
Let me get this straight. The author is complaining about the one good thing that can be said about Trump - that he believes he can cooperate with President Putin. As has been noted, to Hillary would already have us at war with Russia over Syria, where she seeks to duplicate her murderous Libya disaster on a larger scale. Comparing its president to Hitler, as did she, is not the way to act is peace.The fact of today's world is that the most crucial bilateral relationship is between the US and Russia, as any war between these two powers will lead to the extinction of mankind. However,the author is incorrect regarding MAD. Were it US policy, there would be much greater caution from this administration, yet Obama wants to pretend, ala George W H bush, that "there is only one superpower in this world." Unlike Russia, which is reacting to US/NATO provocations, the US under Obama, is moving toward positioning itself for a first strike. This is openly discussed by Carter's DOD, as ABMs are being placed in Eastern Europe against a non-existent Iranian nuclear missile threat, NATO is conducting unprecedented maneuvers on Russia's borders, and deploying weapons made for use in a "limited nuclear war," such as deployment B61-12.The answer to this insanity is to accept China's offer to join the "New Silk Road" Eurasian infrastructure development initiative and to cooperate with Putin against terrorism and in other areas of mutual concern, such as space exploration.
 
 
-6 # Mako 2016-07-20 14:55
Hold up. What are NATO's provocations to Russia? Russia was the one that invaded Ukraine after previously annexing Crimea out of nowhere.

And Trump praising Putin as a "strong leader" or rather, a dictator that kills dissidents, journalists, oppresses gay people is okay, yet Hillary just answering a hypothetical, which she said was not necessary, of IF there was a no-fly zone and if she would enforce is wrong? Even though that never happened and she was never aggressive AT ALL against Russia as SoS?

Nevermind the fact that she even negotiated a nuclear weapon DRAW DOWN between our countries? Seriously?

Should she just kiss his ass?
 
 
+16 # Kootenay Coyote 2016-07-20 16:30
'Russia...annex ing Crimea out of nowhere.'

Nowhere? Not 400+ years of history??
 
 
+7 # lfeuille 2016-07-20 19:54
Crimea gave itself back to Russia. Russia didn't take it.
 
 
0 # Salus Populi 2016-07-26 14:57
Mako: Virtually every statement you made in there is false, except the one about the drawdown -- which took place before the neo-cons, infuriated that Putin's statesmanship and diplomacy cost them their dream of invading Syria and murdering the members of its government, decided to push Obama into bellicose confrontation with the second largest nuclear power in the world.

The result was the Neo-Nazi coup in Ukraine, the shoot-down of a Russian plane on its way to offer support to Russia's long-time mid-east treaty partner Syria, the war games in the Black Sea, and so forth.

Remember, according to the SOS under Bush _pere_, NATO, which is a purely military alliance, would not advance "one inch" to the East, if Gorbachev abolished the Warsaw Pact. So it wasn't one inch, it was eleven formerly Warsaw Pact countries, including three of the former constituent republics of the old Soviet Union itself. Imagine the reverse situation, and then tell me it would not have been considered a provocation.
 
 
+17 # Radscal 2016-07-20 14:38
Exactly. HRC has called the President of Russia, "Hitler." In her "important foreign policy speech," she named Russia as our "enemy." And her team on the Democratic Platform Committee actually got threats to Russia and Iran put into the Platform!

Similarly, at the recent NATO Summit in Warsaw, President Obama named Russia as the second biggest threat in the world.

I was relieved to see that the leaders of every other NATO country except Estonia who spoke disagreed with that. They seek to prevent military confrontation, which would destroy their homelands. They seek to work with Russia.

International polls show that most humans see the US as the biggest threat to world peace, and the greatest state sponsor of terror.
 
 
-8 # Mako 2016-07-20 15:18
I hate any statement that violates Godwin's law, but explain to me how Putin is NOT deserving of criticism for annexing Crimea or invading a sovereign state and stealthfully arming/funding a civil war to destablize it?

I'm really lost on that one.

...And how is Russia NOT a threat to NATO stability and peace?

I'll admit however that given our own spotty track record we are definitely not the best regarding world peace and stablizing it, but in the context of Russia antagonizing Europe and undermining NATO... How is that okay?
 
 
+18 # Radscal 2016-07-20 15:49
I find Putin a despicable person and leader in many ways.

But, he saved Russia from the Milton Friedman plunderers that Yeltsin gave free reign over Russia's resources and industries. For that reason, he is a wildly popular President, whose approval ratings are higher than any USian President could dream of achieving.

You apparently do not know anything true about the Ukraine coup and its results.

After the US-fomented coup by groups including actual nazis, the majority of the population (who had voted for their legitimate government) was ruthlessly attacked by those savages. Scores of peaceful petition-gather ers were burned alive or beaten to death in Odessa alone.

When the people of Crimea voted with some 90% approval to rejoin Russia, they saved themselves from horrible violence. And yes, Crimea had been part of Russia since before there was a United States until Kruschev (a Ukrainian) gave it to Ukraine.

Besides, Russia had a long-term lease on Crimea for its naval bases. Critics of the Crimean vote are literally implying that it would be just fine for China to foment a coup in Cuba, and then annex Guantanamo.

Well, not exactly, since Cuba has been trying to evict the US for decades.

Russia is NOT antagonizing NATO. NATO has built 6 new "fast response" military bases on Russia's borders. And this after Clinton, Bush and Obama broke the agreement with Gorbachev and expanded NATO eastward right up to Russia's borders.
 
 
-11 # Mako 2016-07-20 16:06
I'm aware of Putin's popularity but I'm speaking of his disgraceful actions as a dictator that abuses human rights.

So here's what I understand. The coup happened because Yanukovych sold out to Russia after agreeing, with widespread, and near universal approval, to joining with NATO and using the funds to improve Ukraine since its economy was in terrible shape. By going against that promised deal and siding with the Russian backed eastern Ukraine minority that favored Russia, unrest happened. His supporters and Eastern Ukraine backers tried to repress and crack down on protests of his decision, and then he got overturned.

We urged the forces to come together, while secretly supporting the pro-NATO forces since we did NOT (and neither did most of Eukraine) want them to just become another satellite state like they were under the Soviet Union. That is true, but we did not start the coup. The coup happened because Yanukovych backed out and Russia most likely influenced him.

Instead of negotiating, Russia ran in there militarily, supported the East Eukraine forces, and now we have where it is now.

How valid were those votes from Crimea? And while I understand they're closer, ethnically to Russia, that still was territory of Ukraine at the time. And what about the fact that Russia has used its neighbors as buffer states, and cracked down on human rights wherever they go?

The bases are in NATO territory, and those countries wanted to join, are they not?
 
 
+13 # Radscal 2016-07-20 18:10
There is basically not a single factual thing in that entire post.

In a way, I wish you would actually look at evidence that conflicts with your precious little prejudices. Because the evidence is overwhelming of a US-fomented violent coup of the legitimate government.

And this coup happened the day AFTER President Yanukovych had signed an agreement to abide by EVERY ONE of the sincere opposition leaders' demands.

Here's what the US State Department said when that agreement was signed:

“The United States welcomes the agreement signed today between Ukrainian President Yanukovych and Opposition leaders. The agreement… calling for a de-escalation of the violence, constitutional change, a coalition government, and early elections.”

http://ukraine.usembassy.gov/statements/stat-2212014.html

But the very next day, nazis stormed the government buildings.
 
 
-8 # Mako 2016-07-20 19:04
So I guess every news site I've read is wrong on the chronology of how and when the coup happened? Go ahead and show me YOUR sources. I'm curious why yours is different.

Are you telling me that Yanukovych didn't agree to sign the deal with NATO and then back out after Eastern Ukraine and Russian influence and roil the majority of his populace because of it?

He signed onto that deal, but then proceeded to continue crackdowns on protesters that eventually resulted in people ousting him anyways.

I'm not denying that the forces that opposed him were composed of various entities including far right neo nazis, and we backed them because we didn't want to lose Ukraine's potential joining of NATO. But there's a difference between the US actually CAUSING the coup, versus the US supporting a side of the coup without even providing weapons or fighters.

Russia's military, in clear Russian army uniforms have given them arms, soldiers, and logistic help. While Putin just shrugged and claimed they were there "volunteering" on their own time out of sympathy. That's absurd.

And that leads me to ask... Why is it you give Russia and THEIR external influence in Ukraine a pass in the first place? They're allowed to influence and push a favored agenda yet NATO and the US is not? Should Russia just get to influence and bully any country in that region that goes against its will, regardless of what the people may say?

They aren't their countries anymore, nor do they want to be.
 
 
+8 # Radscal 2016-07-20 19:38
Yes, I'm telling you that the corporate media lied to you.

But even with that, you're still making up stuff that you believe fits your precious little prejudices.

Ukraine was never offered NATO membership. They weren't even offered EU membership. The coup had nothing to do with what you imagine.

Yanukovych (as corrupt a politician as any) was negotiating a new trade deal with the EU. He was about to sign it, when the IMF planted a poison pill into it. It required Ukraine to cut all economic ties with Russia, and to take a huge "loan."

That would have destroyed Ukraine's already weak economy.

Then, Putin offered a new trade agreement that had much better terms for Ukraine. And that's when and why the "pro-democracy Maidan protests" kicked up.

Yanukovych signed the agreement with the leaders of the legitimate protesters on January 21, 2014. On January 22, the nazis stormed the government, beating MPs and journalists.

Here's some of the evidence:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/welcome-to-nulandistan-a-videographic-essay-of-what-the-us-and-eu-have-unleashed-on-ukraine/5381838

http://www.globalresearch.ca/ukraine-protests-carefully-orchestrated-the-role-of-canvas-us-financed-color-revolution-training-group/5369906

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/22090-neocons-and-the-ukraine-coup
 
 
+6 # Radscal 2016-07-20 20:56
Oh, and Putin's new trade deal encouraged Ukraine to continue to trade with the EU.

Perhaps you don't know that Europe gets most of its natural gas from Russia, through Ukraine. Russia didn't want to muck that up.

I bet you also don't know that VP Biden's son was given a cushy job on Ukraine's largest gas company right after the coup.
 
 
+4 # Mako 2016-07-21 01:40
Knew that about natural gas and Russia, didn't know that about Biden.

To continue my comment on what I read on this situation, I researched further into this, and this is one piece of foreign policy I agree with you on, in regards to us not being aggressive or entangling ourselves with Ukraine and the conflict going on there.

Hillary Clinton in her own words from her campaign, states she wants to contain "Russian aggressions" by "partnering with our European allies," and while I don't necessarily disagree with that on the surface, if that involves involvement with Ukraine, I think that'd be a mistake. So I do disagree with her on this and I see your perspective on misgivings regarding this point of her foreign policy.

I would still claim however, she would be better than Trump given the fact that I truly don't think she would ever go to the brink and initiate a conflict to bring out the possibility of true nuclear war. That's insane. Which is something Russia can and will do. That's something no Democratic president or our members of the party has ever advocated. There have been mistakes but nothing like that.

Trump meanwhile, has clearly and repeatedly intimated willingness to use nukes, give out nukes, and a willingness to go to war with several other countries. Given that, his hateful racist rhetoric, he's a nonstarter.

I don't think the public or the base would suffer her starting a war. There'd be riots over something that irresponsible, too.
 
 
+4 # Radscal 2016-07-21 02:17
Thank you. There is hope. ;-)

However, there is no "Russian aggression" for which HRC wants to continue the military buildup along Russia's borders which has so much of Europe scared shitless.

NATO just completed their largest "war games" in history, right on Russia's borders! We MUST STOP that genuinely aggressive posturing.

The alleged "aggression" HRC refers to IS Ukraine, and Syria, where Russia is fighting ON OUR (ostensible) SIDE against the terrorists.

And BTW, HRC"s other "enemy" whom she threatens is Iran, which is also fighting ON OUR (ostensible) SIDE against the terrorists.

HRC"s replacement, John Kerry is busily negotiating how to even more effectively coordinate with Russia military action in Syria, and backed off on Obama's former demand that "Assad must go."

HRC is STILL demanding "regime change" in Syria, and got that put into the Democratic Party Platform, along with her threats against Iran.

And stop comparing HRC to Drumpf. I am doing everything I can to prevent either one of those nuts to get near the White House.

Only Sanders is sure to beat Drumpf (assuming votes are tallied with any degree of accuracy).
 
 
+4 # Mako 2016-07-21 02:39
From this point on, I'm not going to refer to the match up between the two candidates. Our debate/argument on that topic is still well underway in another thread. I'd rather focus on this issue here that is new to me and I'm actually mostly in agreement with you here.

I get that we have a sort of competition with Russia in regards to our interest and desire to have the most influence in the region but this type of posturing is not something I like or would prefer to happen.

I think Kerry and his policies of working with Russia regarding those issues we agree are hopeful of what can be carried over into the next administration, and if Hillary wins (which I would clearly favor) she can be talked to, counseled and shown pertinent info that he's privy to that will change her mind and ensure we don't do anything against peace and stability.

She's stated she would prefer "regime change" but the language on Iran doesn't yell out to me as anything that aggressive. It calls war with Iran a "last resort" if they don't follow the deal. And Iran is gonna follow the deal. For both parties, it's mutually beneficial to finally not be in aggression with each other.

Anyways, like I said earlier, thank you for this illuminating info. I learned something tonight that I wasn't fully aware of.
 
 
0 # Radscal 2016-07-21 17:24
Mako. I'm posting higher up because the dialogue boxes are getting so narrow.

OK. Fair enough to keep this discussion on specific foreign policy issues.

Your optimism to be able to change HRC’s decade’s long record on Russia is…. charming?

Of course, when Kerry worked out a cease-fire with Ukraine in 2014, HRC’s appointed Assistant Sec. of State Victoria Nuland publicly rebuked it the very next day, and the cease-fire was delayed until the putsch regime was on the ropes, and pleaded for a stop.

HRC knows full well the truth about Russia, Ukraine, NATO, etc. She knew that before her “Hitler” and “enemy” remarks. I have no delusions that we can “educate” her.

Her demands for “regime change” to which I referred are Syria’s President. Both Obama and SoS Kerry have backed down on that, finally agreeing that no one except the Syrian people have the right to determine who is their President. HRC doesn’t see it that way (probably because Israel doesn’t).

cont.
 
 
+2 # Radscal 2016-07-21 17:27
Iran:

(full disclosure: this is dear to me because people I love are from Iran, and their families still live there. I will do everything ethical and legal in my power to prevent the US (or Israel) from murdering those sweet and beautiful people and "obliterate" their lovely homeland).

Here’s what HRC got put into the Party Platform:

She opens with:

p. 26

“When President Obama assumed office… Iran was racing toward a nuclear weapon…”

This is a straight-up lie. In addition to the UN, both CIA and the Israeli Mossad found no evidence that Iran was pursuing a nuclear weapon since at least 2005, and probably much earlier than that.

p. 29

“We will continue the work of this administration to ensure that Iran never acquires a nuclear weapon and will not hesitate to take military action if Iran violates the agreement.”

There we have HRC assuming the power to UNILATERALLY determine if Iran has violated the agreement, and to respond militarily. Of course, HRC has been threatening to “obliterate” Iran for many years.

There are 6 nations that signed the Iran Deal. Yet she ALONE claims the authority to determine if Iran broke the deal, and to “not hesitate” to attack them on her “hard choices.”

And there is nothing about a "last resort" in there. It's fully her own discretion (or lack thereof if past is prelude).
 
 
+2 # Radscal 2016-07-21 17:44
Iran Part Two:

From the Platform:

“Democrats will also… enforce and, if necessary, strengthen non-nuclear sanctions”

The Agreement calls for an end to the Sanctions. That was the carrot offered to Iran to get them to agree to the severe and intrusive “verification” demands.

Does Iran get to "not hesitate to take military action if [the US] violates the agreement?”

Not only is HRC planing to continue the Sanctions, but she is threatening to make them even worse (and she has called for stricter sanctions continuously since she was a Senator).


This is NOT a Democratic Party Platform. This is THE AIPAC/NeoCon platform.
 
 
+5 # Mako 2016-07-21 01:20
You might find this surprising, but this was actually interesting to me, as I read and watched these videos from RT, and I was not aware of the total perspective of this incident. So first off, thank you for this interesting new info here. I never thought the pro-EU/Anti-Yan ukovych forces were saints but I didn't think it was this much of a shitshow at all. Wow.

So apparently we backed a disreputable side in this conflict because we wanted to ensure at all costs they did not fall under influence of Russia, despite the dirty means they did it.

What was the poison pill the EU put into the deal? And I know the bill didn't give them NATO membership, it was clearly a first step at getting them integrated into the bloc with hopes they modernized, and eventually settled in.

I do still think that Russia clearly had hands in also trying to sway Ukraine here, though. Don't you think it's likely that just as much as we wanted Ukraine to join NATO, Russia wanted to ensure it did not happen?

Anyways, this topic is clearly more complex than I thought and it's not just NATO and the US helping Ukraine not be bullied by Russia like I originally thought. I honestly can't say I agree with how we did this. Granted, I don't think Russia should get to run all those Baltic States but... It's rather messed up getting this enmeshed in an ethnic conflict here.
 
 
+3 # Radscal 2016-07-21 02:37
Again, the skies open; the sun shines through. Hallelujah!

Yes, but we did not just "back" the worst possible elements, the US has been funding, arming and training the nazis in Ukraine since 1945.

Interestingly, CIA just declassified a ton of documents, including a trove that describes exactly that from 1953 the mid 1980s. And of course, they continued, as George Soros brags (but I'll save that truth bomb as I don't want to overwhelm you).

http://www.voltairenet.org/article189895.html

It wasn't so much the EU itself that put that "poison pill" into the treaty. Germany and France opposed it. It was the IMF who required Ukraine to cut economic ties with Russia, and "accept" a huge IMF loan. If you know anything about IMF loans to "3rd World" countries, you know they are designed to impoverish and control them (as they've done through Africa).

And yes, of course Russia tried to influence EVERY Ukrainian government since they declared independence in 1991. Whether they applied more pressure or dealt any more dirty than the US does in Latin America is unlikely. Ukrainians did elect the pro-Russian regime after all.

But sure, of course they want close economic relations with their neighbor. And they absolutely were and are worried about NATO nuclear missiles being placed within 10 minutes of Moscow.

With the new IBM installations we just activated in Romania, those missiles are maybe a half hour away.

Now, who is threatening whom?
 
 
+5 # Radscal 2016-07-20 19:45
Yes, I do accept the evidence that, some months after the "civil war" or what the putsch regime calls "anti-terrorism activities" began slaughtering civilians in the south and east of Ukraine, actual Russian soldiers and equipment went in.

Many hundreds, and probably thousands of innocent civilians had been killed already, and the nazis threatened total genocide of all the "cockroaches" as those racist fiends refer to Ukrainians who aren't pure enough.

Putin provided just enough support to prevent that genocide, but not so much as to excuse NATO to invade.

So, you'd be OK with China fomenting a coup in, say Mexico? Our border with Mexico is about the length of Russia's border with Ukraine.

Did you know that the US and NATO agreed NOT to spread "one inch east" when Russia agreed to allow them to reunite Germany?

Did you know that 14 new countries, east of Germany have joined NATO since?
 
 
+4 # Mako 2016-07-21 02:46
I of course would not agree with such a situation with China and Mexico and given what you showed me, I see now how this sort of comparison is applicable here.

This is definitely a more complex situation than I gave it credit for. On one hand, I see now Russia's position of not wanting NATO that close to their border, but I still think we shouldn't let Russia turn all those Baltic states as his puppets. That just isn't fair either.

But to be fair, them being used as NATO watchdogs isn't either. Just... Damn. What a damn conflict. On another note, I really hate how Putin came back to power as President. Things were NOT this terrible or volatile with Dimitry Medvedev. Really wish he'd have stayed. Meh.
 
 
+2 # Radscal 2016-07-21 17:59
Thank you again for your willingness to learn. It is a complicated situation.

Yeah, I was pretty appalled at Putin's maneuvering to remain in power. And he really was in power when he became Prime Minister and Medvedev was President. He is an autocrat.

His religious convictions are troubling to me, too.

But really, the country he took over was decimated by the US vultures. The vast wealth of the country had been largely plundered. Unemployment skyrocketed. Inflation was approaching triple digits. People were literally starving in the streets.

The average life expectancy dropped by FIVE YEARS between 1991 and 1999!

But of course, Wall Street made out like the bandits they are.

I agree that Russia should have no more influence over the Baltic States than the US has over Central America. Honduras, for instance ;-)

But for the US (and especially HRC) to lecture Putin on "aggression" would be hysterical.... if not so deadly dangerous for all of us.

Peace and Love (I still believe in them).
 
 
+5 # economagic 2016-07-20 20:42
Wait: Are you not aware of the principle that the great investigative journalist I. F. Stone instilled in his students, that "Governments lie"? That it is part of what governments are? That it includes the government of this, "The greatest democracy the world has ever seen"? You, an African-America n I believe?

Or that the people who own the printing presses (or the cable gateways) also lie? Or that all this is the reason we try to teach "critical" thinking (formerly known simply as "thinking") in our better schools?

Listen: None of us was born knowing this stuff. From some of your posts, you apparently came to understand some of it early. I don't know how old you are, but probably younger than I was before I thought I had it straight -- and I'm still not certain that I do.

You seem to be serious, a great deal more so than I initially thought. Pay attention to Radscal. He is a good teacher and he knows what he is talking about. He and I have some points of disagreement, but I have never found him in a serious error, something I can say of only a very few people.
 
 
+2 # Radscal 2016-07-20 23:49
I'm almost too embarrassed to comment, but have to say thank you. Especially coming from someone as erudite as yourself, that is high praise, indeed.
 
 
+2 # economagic 2016-07-21 06:02
"Pas de quois" Your knowledge of recent political history is astounding, especially in the details of events like this one. Robert Parry has another article on it as of Wednesday night, and I STILL can't keep straight who did what to whom, when and where -- "Spy vs Spy." Your explanations are clear and coherent and your arguments are rational, and you are constantly learning. I'm sure you know that (John Cleese's monologue on "stupid"!), but it's nice to have it confirmed by colleagues.

In this case you're also doing a great service. Mako started out all f*ck and bluster a week or two ago, but she is intelligent and concerned (aren't we all?), and trying to get her mind around the complexities of national and global politics in our time, which are way more than I can handle.
 
 
+1 # Radscal 2016-07-21 20:45
Double thanks. And yes, I am constantly in learning mode, and am thrilled to have such varied and well-informed colleagues (present company in particular) from which to learn and grow.

And triple yes. The transformation of Mako's communications, and her growth is one of the most beautiful things I've seen online.

BTW: Her? I don't know if it's a feature or a bug, but I rarely picture commenters' physical attributes, unless they describe themselves... and even then, who really knows? ;-)
 
 
+13 # Kootenay Coyote 2016-07-20 16:31
"...explain to me how Putin is NOT deserving of criticism for annexing Crimea or invading a sovereign state and stealthfully arming/funding a civil war to destablize it?"

You mean like Bush in Iraq?
 
 
-7 # Mako 2016-07-20 16:53
Bush does deserve criticism, but he openly invaded Iraq based on lies and against the UN.

That's... Not the same thing.
 
 
+6 # economagic 2016-07-20 20:47
Right, it's not. That's not quite what Putin did. The story Radscal tells appears to be the one that is true, judging from all of the reporting in MSM and alternative media such as those republished on RSN (Intercept, some of the Rolling Stone writers, Democracy Now, several others).
 
 
+7 # lfeuille 2016-07-20 19:58
Not like Bush in Iraq, Crimea wanted to be Russian. Iraq did not want to be invaded.
 
 
+1 # Mako 2016-07-20 20:29
But they don't BELONG to Russia. That's not how it works, or how it was outlined when they became their own country with the fall of the Soviet Union.

Texas wants to be it's own damn country, and I guess we should just let it happen, right?
 
 
+6 # Radscal 2016-07-20 21:02
"Governments are instituted among Men [sic], deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. "

Crimea was part of Russia from the 1700s until the 1950s. And of course, remained in the USSR until 1992. It was only part of a sovereign Ukraine for 2 decades. The majority population is of Russian descent.

When the putsch regime and its nazi thugs began murdering innocent and peaceful civilians, simply because they were of the wrong "race," yes, the Crimean people had every right to secede.
 
 
-11 # Robbee 2016-07-20 15:37
Quoting dipierro4:
We don't know if Trump is "crazy like a fox" or just crazy.

- to me rump would seem more like a stopped clock - who will be right for america and the planet for 2 minutes every 24 hours?

a u.s. prez is so powerful that no matter what evil he tries to do! - he will accidentally do an occasional good!

for example! even if rump kills all mammals on earth! - miccrobes may thrive? - maybe bugs? plants? - polluting the earth will stop? radium will gradually decay? - in 50,000 years earth will grow into as beautiful a paradise as prehistoric earth! - a dinosaur's dream!

to call famous businessmen presidents? - hoover? - bush 1? bush 2? theoretical rump? - "crazy like a fox" seems a stretch!
 
 
-1 # chrisconnolly 2016-07-20 23:15
Trump is crazy like Kim jung ill drunk with the thought of power and the weaponry to dispose of any one who dare's to insult him or even to insinuate to insult him. We are looking at our own Kim Jung Trump. The prospect is frightening as it gets..
 
 
+5 # Johnny 2016-07-20 11:54
Clinton virtually promises to start World War III. Trump probably will not start a world war, but we have to vote against his racism. The only choice is Jill Stein.
 
 
-15 # rocback 2016-07-20 15:59
Hillary is the peace candidate. You have a right to your opinion and say anything you want but actions speak louder than words.

She took leadership in toughening Iran sanctions that ultimately led to the Iranian nuclear deal that got rid of Iran's nuclear program. One year later, every expert agrees it is working. That took us from the potential of nuclear war in the M E. Israel's aggressiveness was stymied by that move. Despite BeBe's obnoxious visit to the Republicans in the House, he was kept in a box by that deal.

She negotiated a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas when rockets were raining down on Israel, making the longest peaceful time in Israel in decades.
 
 
+7 # librarian1984 2016-07-20 16:54
"Hillary is the peace candidates." Freudian slip? Even you admit she has multiple opinions? But let me go back to my initial reaction: hahalolhahalolhah

What exactly do you get out of this crock? Do you own shares in Lockheed or something?

Extra kibble if Hillary's in a good mood? (But when does THAT happen anymore, am I right?)
 
 
0 # Salus Populi 2016-07-26 18:56
Iran was essentially illegally blackmailed into giving up its sovereign right under the NPT to enrich Uranium for peaceful use.

Beginning in 2007, every couple of years the various intelligence agencies, including several in the U.S., Israel's Mossad, the UN Military Commission's, SDECE, SISMI and others, issued their own findings.

Not a single one of them claimed Iran was enriching Uranium to make a bomb. Not one.

Indeed, from 2007 on, the general consensus was that Iran had not been interested in a bomb at the very least since 2003, and had made no decision to seek nuclear weapons since.

Just as with Iraq, the criminals who run the "great democracies" lied and claimed otherwise, and used the UN Security Council as a front to enact sanctions, illegal under the UN's own Charter, to "make [Iran's] economy scream," as Kissinger once said of Chile. The sanctions were essentially war engaged in by other means, and since there was no indication that Iran was secretly working on nukes, any more than there had been in the case of Iraq, that war of sanctions was actually aggressive war under the Nuremberg Code, and the presidents of the Western nations that launched it should have faced imprisonment or worse for their criminal activity.

The fact that Iran eventually caved does not mean that it stopped a military nuclear weapons program that didn't exist, just that it agreed to forgo its sovereign rights under the NPT, to which it is a signatory (unlike Israel).
 
 
+30 # Anarchist 23 2016-07-20 12:01
Not a pretty picture from either angle...what is wrong with people? 'Against stupidity, the gods themselves fight in vain.'
 
 
+9 # guomashi 2016-07-20 12:46
Quoting Anarchist 23:
Not a pretty picture from either angle...what is wrong with people? 'Against stupidity, the gods themselves fight in vain.'


The gods are the source of stupidity. They cannot fight what they are: simple minded one-dimensional archetypes. It is precisely that kind of 'divine' thinking which leads us into the mess we are in.
 
 
+17 # Jayceecool 2016-07-20 12:09
Perhaps this is the best argument against the unfettered greed that has created our electoral nightmare? This populist revolt has unleashed a nativist response that endangers us all, not just the 1% that cowers behind their security barriers...
 
 
+16 # ddd-rrr 2016-07-20 12:35
"My cat is smarter than the average Republican...!"
 
 
+1 # Anonymot 2016-07-20 12:45
Elect Clinton and build your bomb shelter. That seems worse to me that all of Trump's certainties and uncertainties combined.

I prefer a 4-year setback in the social area to a war with Russia, China, or Iran that the Clinton handlers are convinced will be over in a week - like Afghanistan or Iraq or Libya or Syria or the Ukraine.

That leaves Stein, Trump or abstaining.
 
 
-7 # Mako 2016-07-20 15:22
So... to clarify, Hillary answering that she'd enforce a hypothetical no-fly zone, which she prefaced with that she did NOT see as necessary given the situation and peaceful resolution...

Is worst than Trump repeatedly intimating his desire to use nuclear weapons, his desire to send boots on the ground to Syria, his desire to bomb Iraq, and desire to wage war on Iran AFTER they have adhered to the peaceful nuclear deal.

And bear in mind Clinton's work as SoS with negotiating the drawdown of nuclear weapons between Russia and the US during Obama's first administration too.

CLEARLY the actions of a warmongerer, right?
 
 
-6 # rocback 2016-07-20 16:23
you left out that Trump said we should give nukes to Saudi Arabia, Japan and S Korea.

"According to Donald Trump, the United States should not try so hard to stop nuclear proliferation. On Sunday night, during a Republican town hall hosted by CNN’s Anderson Cooper, Trump declared that proliferation is “going to happen anyway.” And just a week earlier, Trump told the New York Times, “If Japan had that nuclear threat, I’m not sure that would be a bad thing for us.” Nor would it be so bad, he’s said, if South Korea and Saudi Arabia had nuclear weapons, too."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/04/06/should-more-countries-have-nuclear-weapons-donald-trump-thinks-so/
 
 
0 # Salus Populi 2016-07-26 22:38
This "hypothetical" no-fly zone may or may not turn out, in the minds of the neo-Cons, to be "necessary," but it would certainly be illegal, not to mention unwelcome to the Syrians and welcome to Daesh, since the latter has no air force -- and tried, through gassing its own people, to obtain one in the form of NATO and the U.S. Air Force.

As Noam Chomsky has said again and again, if you want to know how to end terrorism, the first step is to stop engaging in it.

Likewise, if you want other countries to obey international laws and conventions, it wouldn't hurt to stop being the world's premier rogue nation ourselves.

Neither The Donald nor Hillary, nor for that matter Bernie, was willing to commit the U.S. to uphold the laws it expects everyone else to uphold as a matter of course, and given the knee-jerk support of a plurality or even a majority of the U.S. population for anything the government chooses to do to the rest of the world, I think expecting either of the major party scandalits to advance a progressive agenda, upset the Overlords, or strive to make the world a better, more friendly and egalitarian place is a fool's errand.
 
 
+1 # djnova50 2016-07-20 12:52
There is a better choice than Mr. Trump or Mrs. Clinton. "Jill Stein" has been a trending topic on Facebook for at least 4 of the last 7 days. And, over 90,000 new people have liked her Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/drjillstein/

I will not vote for Donald Trump and I will not vote for Hillary Clinton. It doesn't matter to me that she is not Donald Trump. There are quite a few people who are not Donald Trump. Trump could just as easily say that he is not Hillary Clinton.

Jill Stein is neither Hillary Clinton nor Donald Trump. I'm done voting for the lesser of two evils; because, right now, both Hillary and Donald are the LOTE!
 
 
-5 # rocback 2016-07-20 16:24
She got less than 1% of the vote last election. She is on less than half the states ballots. It would be throwing your vote away.
 
 
-2 # ericlipps 2016-07-20 18:56
Quoting djnova50:
There is a better choice than Mr. Trump or Mrs. Clinton. "Jill Stein" has been a trending topic on Facebook for at least 4 of the last 7 days. And, over 90,000 new people have liked her Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/drjillstein/

I will not vote for Donald Trump and I will not vote for Hillary Clinton. It doesn't matter to me that she is not Donald Trump. There are quite a few people who are not Donald Trump. Trump could just as easily say that he is not Hillary Clinton.

Jill Stein is neither Hillary Clinton nor Donald Trump. I'm done voting for the lesser of two evils; because, right now, both Hillary and Donald are the LOTE!

No one has ever won the White House on Facebook, and no one ever will.
 
 
+8 # Citizen Mike 2016-07-20 13:00
I do not believe Trump can actually be elected even though he has worked hard to build up a personality cult following as did Stalin, Mao, Hitler and Mussolini. He will not draw more than 25%. But if he does by some chance win, I expect the military and the intelligence community would withhold the launch codes from him or change them behind his back and let him think he has them. And a military coup to arrest him in order to protect our democracy from turning into a dictatorship would not surprise me.
 
 
+7 # Radscal 2016-07-20 14:44
Interesting fantasies. Right now HRC and Drumpf are basically tied in the polls.

Considering that the FBI found HRC to be untrustworthy with state secrets, I'd see the state at least as likely to yank her clearance as to prevent Drumpf from having the launch codes.

Unless Sanders is nominated, the best chance we have to avoid horrible consequences is Dr. Stein.
 
 
-8 # rocback 2016-07-20 16:06
Talk about fantasies. Reality will set in soon for you hopefully when in November, you will realize the race is very close and the only way to stop Trump is voting for Hillary.

Sore losers that would risk Trump to get back at Clinton are like petulant children who would cut off their nose to spite their face.

Just look at the issues and take your childish emotion out of it. This is too important for a temper tantrum. I bet the British are wishing for a do over now but they are stuck.
 
 
+9 # librarian1984 2016-07-20 16:58
No one wants to "get back" at HRC. We just want her to GO AWAY.

If she'd take you with her I'll donate a pizza.

YOU are treating this like a game, and I despise you for it, risking a Trump/Pence presidency by putting in the weakest candidate the Dems have ever run.

YOU had better come to this realization FAST or we are going to be dealing with Trump.

Oh, rocbrock! crack'd-block! I found a hypocrite for you! Oh, wait .. hm .. that's awkward.
 
 
-6 # rocback 2016-07-20 17:37
librarian, you must be stalking me. I'm not interested...ev en when you talk dirty to me.
 
 
+3 # librarian1984 2016-07-20 19:13
Why do I bother?

Trump is on you. He is on YOU. Unless you already have the machines rigged HRC is going to lose. And you would rather have HRC lose than Sanders win, wouldn't you?

You are a rotten citizen. Why is Edward Snowden in exile while you stay here, free to tear down this nation for your own petty advantage.
 
 
-5 # ericlipps 2016-07-20 19:02
Quoting librarian1984:
No one wants to "get back" at HRC. We just want her to GO AWAY.

If she'd take you with her I'll donate a pizza.

YOU are treating this like a game, and I despise you for it, risking a Trump/Pence presidency by putting in the weakest candidate the Dems have ever run.

YOU had better come to this realization FAST or we are going to be dealing with Trump.

Oh, rocbrock! crack'd-block! I found a hypocrite for you! Oh, wait .. hm .. that's awkward.

"The weakest candidate the Dems have ever run"?
She was strong enough to beat St. Bernard of Brooklyn. (Yeah, yeah, I know: you probably think she stole every primary she won.)

And if you're looking for weaker Democratic candidates, you could look at Walter Mondale--or, God bless his soul, George McGovern, a far more decent man than Richard Nixon (not that that's a high bar) but a hopeless campaigner from the moment of his nomination. ("A thousand percent," anyone?)
 
 
+8 # Saberoff 2016-07-20 17:09
Your goddamn candidate stole the election from the nation's chosen candidate as sure as hell!
Shut the F up for a change and begin to see the truth about her and the point(s) made here by us, the unconvinced.
Will this worn out, nonsense, bickering go on for-frickin-eve r?!
 
 
-4 # ericlipps 2016-07-20 19:05
Quoting Saberoff:
Your goddamn candidate stole the election from the nation's chosen candidate as sure as hell!
Shut the F up for a change and begin to see the truth about her and the point(s) made here by us, the unconvinced.
Will this worn out, nonsense, bickering go on for-frickin-ever?!

"The nation's chosen candidate"?

Even Bernie wouldn't say that about himself. But too many of his followers seem to think he was "chosen" not as a presidential candidate but rather as a messiah. They worship the water they think he walks on.
 
 
-6 # ericlipps 2016-07-20 18:57
Quoting Radscal:
Interesting fantasies. Right now HRC and Drumpf are basically tied in the polls.

Considering that the FBI found HRC to be untrustworthy with state secrets, I'd see the state at least as likely to yank her clearance as to prevent Drumpf from having the launch codes.

Unless Sanders is nominated, the best chance we have to avoid horrible consequences is Dr. Stein.

Sanders won't be nominated, and Jill Stein hasn't got a prayer of winning. By your logic, that means we should ALL start praying.
 
 
+5 # Radscal 2016-07-20 19:50
In that case, get ready for President Drumpf.

And try to remember as our days turn dark that we tried, over and over again to warn you.
 
 
+7 # jimmyjames 2016-07-20 13:29
I am willing to risk Trump to deny Clinton. She is the enemy I do know, and he is the enemy I do not know. I will vote for Jill Stein and still hope that Bernie will join her. Now THAT I would call a political revolution!!
 
 
+7 # Vardoz 2016-07-20 13:37
I wonder what HRC's views are on the use of using nukes? In our view both Trump an HRC pose a serious threat to our safety. Right now Bernie's legal team are counting the ballots because it is clear that the primary was tampered with and that Bernie actually won. The corporate Media decided that HRC was the winner the day before the California election primary took place. This legal team is the same team that exposed Election fraud by Romney and made sure Obama was put in office. They mean business and so does Bernie.
Watch this recent video to learn more.

https://www.facebook.com/RealProgressive/videos/1609464806049610/?pnref=story
 
 
-9 # rocback 2016-07-20 16:28
She has called nuclear proliferation the biggest threat to humanity ever. In fact, when asked if she agreed with Obamas upgrade of the nuclear arsenal she actually seemed against it and does not agree with Obama:

Rutledge asked the former secretary of state as she left the event on Monday: “Would you oppose plans to spend a trillion dollars on an entire new generation of nuclear weapons systems that will enrich military contractors and set off a new global arms race?”

“Yeah, I’ve heard about that,” she responded. “I’m going to look into that. It doesn’t make sense to me.”
 
 
+5 # Radscal 2016-07-20 18:23
LOL

So, she "heard about that," eh?

It would take an intellect at the level of Sarah Palin to have missed all the front page articles about Obama's $1 trillion nuclear weapons "modernization. "
 
 
-8 # Mako 2016-07-20 18:37
But you're going to ignore the fact she just voiced disagreement with it and just attack her intelligence, right?

All while somehow giving a free pass to Trump. Uh huh..
 
 
+5 # Radscal 2016-07-20 19:53
Try to follow along here land-shark.

HRC claimed to have "heard about" and planned sometime to "look into" something that had been front page news more than a year before.

I'm not saying she's stupid. I'm saying she's a liar. She had to know what HER President had planned and done.

I used to think you were quite bright but misguided. Oh well.
 
 
-2 # rocback 2016-07-20 20:32
Maybe YOU should try to follow along moron.

How do you know when she made that statement Radscal. I didn't put the Monday date on it, did I?

In fact it was shortly after Obama made it. Here is the article and in fact it has a video of her saying it and while I cant tell when it was said they are talking about an April '09 speech of Obamas.

https://theintercept.com/2016/01/07/hillary-clinton-nuclear-weapons/

Nice try though.
 
 
+5 # Radscal 2016-07-20 21:17
Nice try, indeed. It may have been less than a year, but no date is given for that question from Kevin Rutledge.

As that (great) article notes, HRC made that comment after a campaign event in Iowa. It doesn't say when, but it was after she started using a jet, which was July, 2015, and presumably before the caucus in February, 2016.

While, President Obama announced his nuclear "modernization" prior to February, 2015 (as the link in that article notes).

http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2015/02/obamas-trillion-dollar-nuclear-weapons-gamble/104217/

So, instead of my suggestion that she really did know about it, and lied, you prefer that she was ignorant of an issue that she had considered crucially important? OK.

Since she's had plenty of time now to "look into it," do you have a link to her statement about it?
 
 
# Guest 2016-07-20 20:54
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
# Guest 2016-07-20 20:54
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+4 # economagic 2016-07-20 20:54
It was in media as mainstream as "Scientific American" Magazine 3-4 years ago. As the highest ranking member of the president's cabinet she would most certainly have known about it before she left office.
 
 
+3 # kundrol 2016-07-20 14:10
Thanks for the link. I like Lee Camp and have heard a lot about the election fraud lawsuit that's supposedly being filed in Ohio. However, we all know how long it takes for a lawsuit to get through the courts. Years usually. So how is this going to help anything now? A lot of people are convinced that Bernie actually won the primary, or would have if it hadn't been rigged, but how the heck are these lawyers going to prove it in time to stop Shillery?
 
 
+7 # Radscal 2016-07-20 15:57
Unfortunately, true. One of the lawyers on this case said it would take at least a year to resolve the case.

Between this and the ongoing server and Clinton Foundation investigations, if HRC wins, she could well make history. The first couple to BOTH be impeached. And possibly the first president to be removed from the White House in handcuffs.
 
 
-9 # rocback 2016-07-20 16:30
you sound like one of the GOP speakers last night.
 
 
-3 # dascher 2016-07-20 15:04
Nothing Trump says should be taken as a reflection of what he really thinks or even what he was actually thinking at the time. He is unable to compose a meaningful sentence of more than 8 words. He has said that he sometimes 'exagerates' the truth - to explain his having said things that are completely false... which he claims he never does.

Trying to divine what he is thinking is like trying to have a meaningful discussion about 15th Century European Painters with a four-year old child. The only meaning you will find is what you want to find.

He has no idea what a nucular weppon is or what it can do. Depending on whom he's talking to, the day of the week, the time of the year, he'd use them right way, he'd never use them, he'd maybe use them but doesn't want to give away his strategy (his really great brain told him to say that).

This essay is a collosal waste of time and energy to read and must have been a collosal waste of time to write - made obvious by the numerous instances of strange grammar making it look like it was translated from some other language (Thai?) by a machine.
 
 
-6 # Mako 2016-07-20 15:29
...That makes absolutely no sense!

So you're willing to ignore EVERY WARMONGERING CLAIM that Trump has made consistently, because, he's a liar (which is it's OWN problem in and of itself)...

But you're NOT willing to ignore ONE HYPOTHETICAL Hillary stated during a debate, which she even prefaced with saying that she didn't believe was necessary, while TOTALLY ignoring her actual record of SoS and work with Russia which was not aggressive, dangerous, or against peace.

Her work towards nuclear weapon draw down, working together with Russia in joining the WTO, and more... Is totally overshadowed by her one hypothetical...

While Trump's consistent warmongering rhetoric is overshadowed because he's a serial liar..

The cognitive contortions necessary to reach this conclusion are gobsmacking.
 
 
+4 # economagic 2016-07-20 21:25
No, that's not what any of us are saying. We are saying that Clinton waffles a LOT, and also triangulates, a LOT -- like her husband, who revealed his character early in his campaign in 1992 (having little to do with his pants). And we are saying that Trump is an emotion-driven egomaniac who does not actually think about anything but spews out of his mouth whatever comes to his mind, such as it be. Cartoonist Gary Trudeau ("Doonesbury") recently published a list of at least a dozen issues that Trump has stated at different times that he was on both sides of. Just a joke? Trudeau has never dealt in jokes of that kind; the libel laws would not excuse him.

Trump is a very dangerous man -- SO dangerous that sane people in the nuclear chain of command (there are some) and elsewhere in the president's entourage (quite a few) would be watching his every move. Clinton is the consummate Washington insider, a longtime member of The Establishment, so trusted implicitly -- by the establishment.

Develop skepticism, especially regarding what you think you know for certain: HOW do you know? I have it on good authority that such is a basic principle of Narcotics Anonymous, though I have been spared that agony myself. Don't take anything for granted. Don't trust any source of information (CERTAINLY including me) until it has proved reliable again and again, and then continue to double check.
 
 
+1 # Mako 2016-07-21 10:17
Dascher's minimization of Trump's clear bad faith, dishonesty, violent rhetoric, warmongering, hatefulness and lack of any healthy policy is what made me say that because giving him credit in any of those topics he stated is a false picture of him. He's not a dealmaker or any sort of skilled negotiator. He lies and refuses to pay people for services he asked for. Despite his lies and stupidity there have been several subjects he's been consistent on and that's his cavalier attitude on nukes, and penchant for violence.

Regarding the rest of your post, don't confuse my enthusiasm and willingness to trust Bernie's judgment and passion for ensuring Trump not get the White House by electing Hillary as not having any skepticism. Hillary isn't perfect and I found one additional subject that I'm in disagreement on with her. But I don't think she's evil, has a desire to kill, or any of the rather negative claims I've seen attribute to her. She's the best, most likely avenue for progressivism to continue making this country better and protecting women, minorities, LGBT, and the general lower to middle classes.

I'm open to new sources of info and am not, as many people so eagerly seem willing to claim, a "shill" or "troll," I just have my own opinions and perspective. Your advice is absolutely right and I'll follow it. Thanks for that thoughtful reply, I appreciate it.
 
 
+7 # Merlin 2016-07-20 15:20
There is no way of “knowing” who’s finger is worse poised over the nuclear button. We can only guess.

That said, we have to make the best choice we can. My choice, as I have made extremely clear here, is Bernie and failing that, Jill Stein.

However, contemplating on tRump, there are two things that I feel are either dismissed, not noticed or not considered seriously. tRump has stated these two things about his approach to life and people.

1. He is a negotiator, and he negotiates to win! His answer here shows that: “Look,” Trump said, “there’s a question I don‘t want to answer…. I don’t want them to know what I’m thinking.” This is exactly what a skilled negotiator does! He never telegraphs his real hand. He leaves on the table the worst option he deems his opponent is afraid of him using, whether he would ever use that option or not. This is what this country has been doing forever.

2. There are essentially two psychological ways to see violence. Offensive, (first strike,) or defensive, (striking back.) tRump says this: “Remember,” he hinted, “I’m a counter-puncher .” This counter-punch philosophy is exactly what nuclear deterrence posits. I won’t start it but…

These things are something to think about when comparing him with a proven war monger who shows an “offensive” philosophy, as shown by her threats to Iran.
 
 
-5 # Mako 2016-07-20 15:38
He's not a negotiator! Trump is a liar! Did you not even read the article from his ghost writer for "Art of the Deal" that said he made up most of that crap about him being some skilled "negotiator" and he regrets it since it's all a lie?

He's a con artist. He has a record of asking for work and then either NOT PAYING for it or paying significantly less due to withholding payment and threatening to sue. That's not negotiating, that's bullying and fraud.

He never telegraphs? Are you freaking nuts? he's emotional and unstable; he reacts to criticism by freaking out, insulting, and threatening. He flings shit. In the primary, he didn't "counterpunch," he threw haymakers to systematically take out every single opponent who got within striking distance of the nomination by hurling baseless lies and smears. There's nothing "counter" about that.

You're spinning Trump as someone he is not, in an effort to rehabilitate his image.

And don't bring up Iran when Trump said to AIPAC he would scrap the deal, and keep Iran from having nuclear power, "by whatever means necessary."

Your failure to address ANY of that is absurd and a total double standard.
 
 
+7 # Radscal 2016-07-20 18:25
He's a Reality TV Star playing a role.

And you fools are going to get him elected president.

The horror. The horror.
 
 
-6 # Mako 2016-07-20 18:40
You're the only one under that illusion when poll after poll has Hillary up an average of +4 and that's even before next week's convention.

Meanwhile Trump has never had more than a +2 lead over his opponent, not to mention that in the polls that he does, they're Republican heavy polls like Rassmusen.

Your radical cynicism and vapors over her being the nominee flies in the face of literally every other person. Because I've NEVER heard of a candidate winning the White House getting 0% of the AA vote, less than 35% of the Hispanic vote, and less than 40% of the female vote. It just doesn't happen. There's not enough old, angry white guys TO make it happen, and Trump isn't even getting as many of those as Romney did.
 
 
+3 # Radscal 2016-07-20 20:00
You keep holding on to that thin, thin margin. Go right ahead and threaten to hold your breath and turn blue until your warmonger in chief is sworn in.

Maybe you'll win. I don't understand why anyone with progressive or liberal values would take that chance, but those who believe HRC, would believe anything.
 
 
-2 # Mako 2016-07-20 20:27
I guess I'm just not a naive voter who expects my candidates to be perfect doves and pristine on EVERY issue, and I don't feel comfortable gambling with people's lives and safety chasing magical 3rd Party unicorns that run the same candidate that failed to get even 10% of the vote last time.
 
 
+4 # Radscal 2016-07-20 21:19
We've been over your BS "purity" test before. Bernie is far from "perfect." I knew that before I supported his run, but being reasonable and pragmatic, I saw (and still see) him as the most electable, most good we could get in the DP.

HRC is not "less than perfect." Her record, and her campaign and platform are decidedly evil.
 
 
+2 # economagic 2016-07-21 06:17
"I guess I'm just not a naive voter who expects my candidates to be perfect doves and pristine on EVERY issue, and I don't feel comfortable gambling with people's lives. . . ."

Yes, exactly. And yet to the extent that you are engaged with your society -- which you clearly are -- you have no choice but to gamble!

Life is built upon choices, and I've been extremely lucky not to have done much damage to myself or others by the bad ones I've made. One of the great realizations of the 20th century was that for most of our choices certainty cannot exist. Our present dilemma over the "lesser evil" is the perfect example. If we're serious, we gather as much information as we can, from sources we trust from experience, then sort it out using our best judgment and take the leap. We will never know which "presumptive candidate" would have been worse because only one (at most!) will assume the office next year.

Western culture has a heritage of black-and-white , either/or thinking, from Aristotle. It has served us well (computers), but also ill. This uncertainty business has been brewing for at least a couple of centuries, and Eastern cultures (India, China, Tibet) had a better handle on it much earlier. But several strands came together in the first half of the 20th century that just smacked Western thinkers in the face. Many still have not come to grips with it, but "certainty" is a human construct, like "perfection," and is but rarely approached in reality.

(continued)
 
 
+3 # economagic 2016-07-21 06:31
(continued)

I hate to do these continuations, but once again you are onto something big. If you want to know more about this important aspect of the human condition, "in your spare time" (and with your OTHER other hand) check out a book titled "Logicomix." It is graphic non-fiction (comic book format) and tells this mind-bogglingly complex story in a very accessible way, with enough information to point the way to deeper layers for persons who are REALLY interested. Best of all, it is 300 pages of gorgeous full-color illustration on glossy paper, for less than $25.

I had come upon most of the key points many years ago, so had become quite comfortable with not knowing, the non-existence of firm answers to most of the really big questions -- after a decade or so of painful struggle. (I REALLY wanted to know those answers!) But when a friend told me about this book 3-4 years ago the several strands all fell into place, confirming from some of the deepest thinkers what I had correctly guessed from the sources I had seen.

Best of all, one need not know ANY of the background, or have any advanced knowledge, to follow the excellent presentation. Put it on your long list; you will not be disappointed.
 
 
+3 # economagic 2016-07-20 21:28
I think Merlin may be overstating the case, but so are you. All I have to say about that.
 
 
+3 # Merlin 2016-07-20 22:37
economagic 2016-07-20 21:28
"I think Merlin may be overstating the case, but so are you. All I have to say about that."

Right on econo! A bit of tongue in cheek "devil's advocate" to get a rise out of the trolls here. (You know me and my teasing! Teasing is an art form and comes in many styles and flavors.) And the usual subject virtually leaped out of the water to snatch the bait.
 
 
+2 # economagic 2016-07-21 06:42
Yes, and so did I! I didn't feel like trying to get in the middle of that last night, but upon re-reading your post I see what you were doing.

And look at how this unfolded: Radscal followed up on Mako's reply and pressed her very hard, leading to her admission of discomfort over "gambling with people's lives and safety." Your first sentence makes the point, but I had not reread it when I pounced upon that discomfort.

Mako is smart, and she picks up new ideas quickly when people have the patience to take her seriously, as you did. She is angry at the situation (evidence of intelligence!) and she wants answers, NOW! I remember that stage well, one reason I was such a lousy student in college, THEN dropped out for the next 25 years.
 
 
+2 # Merlin 2016-07-21 11:25
economagic 2016-07-21 06:42
Yes, econo, you have stated this understanding of the gamble of choice before, and I completely agree with you on that. It is the pursuit of certainty, security and safety (purity is a no value concept here,) that produces belief, and the “religious” structure that follows. Only belief “solves” the feeling of fear that underlies so much of human endeavor. To attack the belief fantasy, that has calmed those fears, results in a “forceful” reaction almost every time.

Until we become comfortable with the feeling of uncertainty and the inevitability of constant change, we suffer on the horns of dilemma. Do we live in fear, or do we live in a fantasy which alleviates the fear. It was that concept that I approached, as I see Mako projecting her need for certainty on to us here…in virtually every response! It is MAKO’s “religious” answer (of HRC) that is being threatened, not our comfort with the concept of change and uncertainty. My “search” concerning tRump above, threatened that feeling of certainty, and the expected strong response followed.

BTW, in case I have not mentioned it, I appreciate your comments, and learn from your thoughts and ideas. Thanks for that.
 
 
+10 # dbrize 2016-07-20 15:44
Curious and telling that in the various machinations concerning what President Trump or Clinton "might" do with nukes and wars, little to nothing is mentioned about that once pre-eminent, now dead letter called the US Constitution.

The old scraps of paper, once regarded with serious purpose, are now ignored whenever they stand in the way of whatever our elitist's wish to do.

Though Lincoln quite clearly suspended it in the 19th century, the unusual circumstances under which he did so have given him a pass.

No such pardon is deserved by it's twentieth century defilers. And let us be clear, the denouement has been bipartisan beginning with FDR's internment proceedings to Truman's slick redefinition of war as "police action" enabling Korea and Viet Nam. From this, future presidents concocted neat little wars of their own like Grenada, Serbia/Bosnia and finally the Constitutional coup de grace, perpetual war for peace under Bush/Obama and whomever follows.

Checks and balances? Don't be silly. Congress and the SC, both with the Constitutional authority to stop the Executive power grab, instead twist and contort the English language to accommodate it.

The Constitution is dead and therein lies the root of our demise. Who may revive it? Certainly not the Democratic or Republican Parties. And that dear friends is what the tribalists here and elsewhere fail to understand.

It's why the drumbeat for "Hill" falls on many RSN deaf ears.
 
 
-6 # Mako 2016-07-20 18:04
What the hell are you even talking about?

Trump now is a protector of the Constitution???

I'm sure he'd show it as much respect as he did this country's bankruptcy laws, the H1 Visa program, New York property taxes, and the US tax code.

You are so full of it.
 
 
+4 # dbrize 2016-07-20 19:46
Quoting Mako:
What the hell are you even talking about?

Trump now is a protector of the Constitution???

I'm sure he'd show it as much respect as he did this country's bankruptcy laws, the H1 Visa program, New York property taxes, and the US tax code.

You are so full of it.


Please reference what in my statement gives even an iota of a clue that I referred or even hinted that Trump "is a protector of the Constitution". That you can this egregiously mischaracterize my point is verification of it.

Someone posted that you were smarter than rocback. If this is what you've got, you aren't even in range of Robbee.

I suggest you might put down your obvious talent for shilling momentarily and be aware that my statement is a condemnation of both parties that goes well beyond either of the two apparatchiks running today.
 
 
-3 # Mako 2016-07-20 20:33
Your reference to the Constitution is a non-sequitur. I asked what you're even talking about because no one is even fucking talking about the Constitution, checks and balances, and the other random puffery you've just thrown in there.

What are you talking about? State your position or I'll leave you to wax on poetically about how the poor little Constitution is being ignored. I'm sure you have a pocket Constitution that you're gripping soundly and protecting.
 
 
+5 # dbrize 2016-07-20 21:06
It is a non sequitur to you. I am not surprised, though you have inadvertently made the point.

I have stated my position and that you are unable to grasp it does little to verify your comprehension.

That you might "...leave (me) to wax poetically..." is of no concern at all though your demeaning phraseology about "...the poor little Constitution... " is another verification of my point.
 
 
+7 # Radscal 2016-07-20 21:25
Quoting dbrize:
[quote name="Mako"]What the hell are you even talking about?



Someone posted that you were smarter than rocback. If this is what you've got, you aren't even in range of Robbee.


Ouch!
 
 
+7 # economagic 2016-07-20 21:36
Mako, slow down and you will see that is essentially what dbrize is saying. He is NOT saying anything good about Trump, but rather pointing out how presidents in the 20th century have increasingly ignored the Constitution when it comes to warfare and making war. This is a fully bipartisan failing, especially for those of us who remember both Korea and Viet Nam, then learned as we grew older how the realities of both differed from what the presidents and the media told us at the time.

Look up a lawyer named John Bonifaz. He wrote a whole (small) book about how presidents and judges overrode the section of the Constitution requiring a declaration of war by the Congress, which also sank his own effort to have Bush's wars ruled illegal. (The loophole is that Congress funded the unconstitutiona l actions, thereby giving its approval in lieu of a formal declaration.)
 
 
+1 # Mako 2016-07-21 01:46
Thank you for pinning that down for me, and yeah that's true. That's been a trend of the executive to try to stretch the Constitution as far as it can get away with, so that it can enact its agenda.

I actually heard about that argument regarding how the declaration of war has been so systemically eroded and ignored, and definitely disagree with that. Congress giving Bush unilateral control for that war was a terrible mistake.

Thank you for that informative reply.
 
 
+2 # economagic 2016-07-21 07:02
Mako, you are quite remarkable, and you are definitely smarter than rocback, and plenty of others! Neither are you out of your league in these threads, where you will find a number of good teachers with broad and deep knowledge. I think I listed several in one post, certainly Radscal, but Merlin and dbrize are among them, often Tedrey, also lorenbliss (the old Marxist cynic, but with long and hard-won experience), librarian if you're polite (hey, she's a librarian!), and several others.

You bring a lot to the table, most important your determination to make sense of a maddening world. Kierkegaard said life is "absurd," although he was giving that term a new and special sense. He is definitely a part of the "uncertainty" story in my long double post above.

I'm pretty sure I was at least as angry in my "decade of struggle" and as disgusted at not getting solid answers as you are, just not as vocal. But we didn't have the internet then. I'm sure some of my professors didn't know what to make of me (maybe in part because I wasn't vocal enough), and I know I was inexcusably nasty to one history professor from whom I could have learned a lot.
 
 
0 # Mako 2016-07-21 15:27
Thank you for that compliment and many thanks for the recommended reading. I really do appreciate being able to talk with you intelligently even if we might disagree on some issues here. Exchanging ideas and discussion is always nice, so thanks for sharing your intelligence.

It's funny that now, there are at least 3 on that list of users that I've engaged with and had really good interactions with. A very pleasant and positive surprise.

And yeah, life is definitely "absurd," lol, but that's what makes it horrifying and amazing at times.
 
 
-5 # Robbee 2016-07-20 19:03
Quoting dbrize:
The Constitution is dead and therein lies the root of our demise. Who may revive it? Certainly not the Democratic or Republican Parties. And that dear friends is what the tribalists here and elsewhere fail to understand.

It's why the drumbeat for "Hill" falls on many RSN deaf ears.

- indeed! our constitution is "dead" for you! - that's why our drumbeat for hill falls on your! deaf ears! - well put!
 
 
+4 # dbrize 2016-07-20 21:12
Quoting Robbee:
Quoting dbrize:
The Constitution is dead and therein lies the root of our demise. Who may revive it? Certainly not the Democratic or Republican Parties. And that dear friends is what the tribalists here and elsewhere fail to understand.

It's why the drumbeat for "Hill" falls on many RSN deaf ears.

- indeed! our constitution is "dead" for you! - that's why our drumbeat for hill falls on your! deaf ears! - well put!


Good one Robbee! Clever, very clever.
 
 
0 # Salus Populi 2016-07-27 08:27
dbrize: "the denouement has been bipartisan beginning with FDR's internment proceedings"

I would place the fall quite a bit earlier, with Woodrow Wilson's Espionage Act and use of the CREEL Commission to stampede the populace into support for the war he claimed in his 1916 re-election campaign that he "kept us out of." In Walter Karp's posthumously published collection of essays, the one entitled "The America That Was Free and Is Now Dead" [or "The Old America..."[[_p assim_]] from Karp's "The Politics of War"], excerpted extensively at thirdworldtrave ler.com, gives an extensive and detailed look at how the State began its apotheosis.

[It is particularly timely, as next June is the centenary of the repellant and monstrous Espionage Act, which lay dormant for many years but has been dusted off and used repeatedly by the Obama administration, "the most transparent in history," to destroy the lives of whistle blowers.]
 
 
-6 # Robbee 2016-07-20 15:47
# Merlin 2016-07-20 15:20
Bernie and failing that, Jill Stein.

- merl! you've had a full year to do it? - why don't you or rad or pat cough up what you really mean?

what you 3 really mean is that all progressives are temples of purity?

we are each duty bound to our private purity?

to vote for only our perfect candidate? - no one else may do?

for the past year you've been trolling us with your notion that that is bernie? - that no one else could do? - then you came up with stein? just as good? no? even better? - so only one or the other could do? - to vote hill! would compromise our purity? - our eternal? incandesent? essence? - which? at all cost? even rump prez? we may not do?

but for every temple of purity! there can never be more than one! - one perfect candidate? - holds? exactly our same views? exactly? - ourself?

bernie is not perfect! - neither is stein! - technically! anyone but merl? oneself? - is compromise!

merl? - why don't you write-in merl? - advise rad? to write-in rad? - pat? so on? so forth?

that would be pure? right? - that would be perfect? - each progressive's perfect vote? - for each progressive's perfect candidate?

but that’s not REALLY what you want? is it? -

what you are here to do on rsn is to encourage progressives to throw away their votes! - to make progressives not count! - to make progressives irrelevant! to any political issue! - in effect! - to shut all progressives up!
 
 
-5 # Robbee 2016-07-20 15:49
merlin, part 2

i may be no librarian! - but - I - HATE - CENSORSHIP!

for any who don't recall - merlin and i have argued over whether progressives owe each other any duty other than to vote for their perfect candidate? even if it means throwing away a vote on a 3rd-party candidate? who can't win?

and in support of his position, merlin says that there is no significant difference between hill and jeb! - yes! our dispute is footnote in history! that old! - and that hill cannot be influenced to be any better person than she was before?

and i counter that there is a significant difference between hill and any gop slime merlin can name! - that bernie, warren, reich and other progressives should influence hill to be a better! more progressive! person than she was before!

i believe that as progressives our 1st goal has to be to convert america to progressive ideals! - our 2nd goal has to be to take over the dem party! - both of our goals involve converting - yes! converting! - hill and everyone like! or unlike her!

at stake here is more than manners or how sore you get about us arguing over the movement! - we argue whether a progressive owes any other person! any progressive behavior? - or are we all islands who owe no one but ourselves anything?
 
 
-5 # Robbee 2016-07-20 15:56
merlin, part 3

i don't blame merlin for being pissed at dems in general! or hill in particular! - i am too! - what i am urging all here to do is to do something constructive about our rigged-against- us-government! - as opposed to do nothing!

the aim of greens and of pledgers to write-in? - and those who promote us throwing away our votes? - merl? rad? and pat? this means you? - is to throw away progressive votes! - to do nothing! - to make us! what? nothing! - eunichs! infertile! powerless! no threat! - merlin! y’all! cohorts! - thanks for nothing!

wake up rsn! - look what merl? rad? and pat? are up to? - know what is to be known!

# Promoting Peace 2016-06-11 07:32
Life is cause and effect. As such, if we vote for Drumpf, we will get a right wing nutcase, and possibly more, appointed to the Supreme Court by him.

We will also get a childish, egomaniac, "leading" this country, in a very negative direction.

He has no respect for our precious environment, nor for anyone or anything that gets in the way of his bank account, or his extremely inflated ego.

We will get a major bully who will try dictating to all other world leaders that we are the greatest, and everyone else must submit to us.

He will try to force other countries to bow to "his" whims, including trying to force Mexico to build his stupid wall between us.

He will create massive disrespect towards our country, and he will create great animosity and hatred towards us.
 
 
-6 # Robbee 2016-07-20 16:03
merlin, part 3

The rest of the world already thinks we're crazy, due to allowing Bush to live in the White House for 8 years, and now they think we've gone way over the top for letting Drumpf get as far as he has come.

I will do whatever I can to stop Drumpf before he does even more damage to our country. Some other countries are even passing around petitions trying to make it illegal for him to enter their country.

How can we possibly choose to give Drumpf the Presidency, via us refusing to vote for Hillary, or via us throwing away our votes on a third party candidate, who hasn't the slightest chance ever of becoming President at this time?

# Promoting Peace 2016-06-13 22:08
You're right Robbee. People may want to think they aren't partially responsible for Drumpf winning, if they vote for a third party candidate, or don't vote, but that's just an excuse to satisfy their own guilt.

If we see someone being raped and we don't try to stop it, we are partially responsible for the outcome.

If enough people don't vote for Hillary, the lesser of the two evils, then they are truly responsible for Drumpf becoming the "leader" of this country, and all the devestation that will follow due to his craziness, hate mongering, racism, greed, arrogance, stupidity, etc…

- go bernie! and go dem!
 
 
+7 # Anonymot 2016-07-20 16:57
I guess that sending in a couple of low brains with a guide book is an indication of how Clinton operates. Full-time professional trolls have indeed made a mess of RSN. They have an endless supply of knee-jerk slogans and ready-made information as well as nothing else to earn their keep.

I wonder how many other Comment sections each of them operates under various names. It's sort of a preview of how a dictatorship functions to break up intelligent discussion that threatens the dictator. Give them another few years and they will be followed up by SS-style Brown Shirts. I saw that operate in Franco's Spain as well as all of the Eastern communist countries.

I remember Paul Bowles describing to me how the 1st group of scientologists came to Tangiers. They worked in teams of 2 or 3. In a couple of months they had scammed people out of farms, yachts, houses, etc. Scum using a very effective fleecing system on the unsuspecting, uninitiated.

Personally, The Clinton neofasc is far more to be feared than the ineffective Donald Trump who will be somewhat brought to heel by the slightly more sensible Republicans.

I wonder if pro trolls are paid by the red mark or by the hour. In any event, they are a mind clouding nuisance.
 
 
+6 # kundrol 2016-07-20 17:42
There's a cure for the troll infestation. Ignore them. No matter how stupid, disgusting or insulting they get, just ignore them. If all the people here who just want to discuss issues peacefully 'take the pledge' to ignore trolls, I strongly suspect they will give up and go away. And if they don't, so what, we can just carry on with our discussions without even reading their rot.
 
 
-4 # Mako 2016-07-20 18:54
I love how that's your go-to, fallback position whenever ANYONE challenges your skewed, hypocritical assertions/inte rpretations that give a free pass to Trump for every mound of shit he hurls but indict Clinton on every minute statement or hypothetical she says while ignoring her actual work, record and statement on reality.

You are so intellectually dishonest and lacking rebuttal. And it clearly angers you. You hate being challenged or confronted with evidence against your own preconceived conclusion or opinion that you go into fits and just cry "TROLL," missing the definition or context of the definition entirely.

No, little one. Having to be exposed to DIFFERING VIEWPOINTS AND OPINIONS isn't TROLLING. It's called living in reality, outside of a bubble. I'm sorry you're so factionalized; anyone who doesn't agree with you 100% is EVIL, CORRUPT, or a TROLL. It's utter lunacy.

Go over to Politico, USA News, or ANY other large news site and you will learn what real "trolls" are. Trolls don't fucking say anything but one line of incendiary, bombastic rhetoric nor do they remain to discuss their position in any meaningful way.


I'm so sorry you don't get to throw around hyperbolic insults towards Clinton and Obama with impunity anymore. It must really infringe on your enjoyment but I'm sure this internet is big enough of for the both of us. If I can handle being around Republicans 24/7, you'll survive differing opinions on the internet. I promise.
 
 
+4 # economagic 2016-07-20 21:46
Why do you think Anonymot is talking about you? I don't know that he is not, but I know that he IS talking about two or possibly three others who have been muddying the waters here since long before you signed on. Trolls com in many varieties. Some are hit and run, as you say, some go on for pages at a time (one here, not you; look and you'll see).

You ARE, however, your own worst enemy when you accuse others of being "hyperbolic" or unable or unwilling to deal with different viewpoints. Some people here have done that for a living for decades. You do it yourself, but only you give yourself time to think, and "don't forget to breathe."
 
 
0 # Mako 2016-07-21 01:56
Well considering how he's castigated and has called me a troll before for my opinions, it seemed consistent with his replies to me previously.

My original anger and frustration has cooled, first off. So I'm not sure why me calling certain criticisms and attacks on Hillary hyperbolic, such as calling her "evil" or someone who would literally start "WWIII" is wrong. I feel those type of sweeping, alarmist, and over the top terms to denote a disagreement in her policy are just.... Well, over the top and conflated.

I am going to admit that given what I've read on this Ukraine situation, NATO and the US's involvement, and apparently Hillary's support of NATO on this... to be something I don't agree with or want to happen.

But the alternative is someone who is not only clearly a warmongerer by its definition, but someone who is wholly unqualified, unfit, and not of the disposition to ever be near that much power at all.

I guess my faith that Hillary wouldn't do something as reckless as actually try to start a conflict that leads to nuclear war comes from the fact that we've not had that happen in decades since the Bay of Pigs, and Dems have generally been better in NOT getting us involved in new pointless wars of aggression. That's not to say I agree with everything Obama's done either, but on the whole he's been better than anything we'd have like a prospective McCain, or Romney.

We need more progressives in congress to act as stalwarts against risks like this.
 
 
+2 # economagic 2016-07-21 07:25
"Well considering how he's castigated and has called me a troll before for my opinions, it seemed consistent with his replies to me previously."

I didn't realize that. He is another from whom we can learn, but every person is an individual (obviously), and everyone responds differently. We don't all learn in the same way, and a teacher who is suitable for one person is not necessarily so for another. I remember two in particular in grad school that many students found exceedingly difficult from whom I learned a lot, one because he saw math from a perspective from which I had learned it in the past, the other because he really was a jerk but whom I was able to tolerate because he had knowledge I was interested in and I had dealt with jerks before.

You are right about the hyperbole in many of the comments here. These really ARE scary times, and we all get "over the top" at times (except for me ;-)).

Ukraine is fiendishly complicated. I can't keep it straight myself as (Radscal seems to) There is an article in last night's group by Robert Parry that seeks to avoid another possible confusion.

As for the lesser evil, everyone makes her/his own choice, applying their best judgment to whatever information they have been able to gather. The important point to remember is that we all make a choice, and our judgment is in effect an opinion, not a fact. A LOT of people posting here would have us believe their opinion IS fact! (See: Uncertainty again.)
 
 
+2 # librarian1984 2016-07-21 00:19
I'm not drawing any conclusions but did anyone notice that in one of today's fundraising emails Marc Ash referred to something we didn't want to 'loose'?

Which one of the trolls does that, is it shades?

There's probably software to analyze speech patterns etc so one could figure out if a troll was using multiple characters, tthough it would take less time to just lump them all under one big bin that says 'Trash'.

Hey I'm NOT just being paranoid! Am I? You'd tell me if I was, right? Sssh! Did you hear that? ;-o
 
 
+1 # Bic Parker 2016-07-20 17:35
For Brexit anti NATO

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/cover_story/2016/07/vladimir_putin_has_a_plan_for_destroying_the_west_and_it_looks_a_lot_like.html

*

Putin’s Puppet
14.4k
2.9k
1.3k
If the Russian president could design a candidate to undermine American interests—and advance his own—he’d look a lot like Donald Trump.
 
 
0 # Robbee 2016-07-20 17:42
Quoting Bic Parker:
If the Russian president could design a candidate to undermine American interests—and advance his own—he’d look a lot like Donald Trump.

- the russian egg candidate?
 
 
-3 # Robbee 2016-07-20 18:21
Quoting Robbee:
Quoting Bic Parker:
If the Russian president could design a candidate to undermine American interests—and advance his own—he’d look a lot like Donald Trump.

- the russian egg candidate?

- the faberge egg candidate?
- the embedded russian doll candidate?
- the drumpf domino?
- from russia? with love?
- when drumpf gets elected - n!ato sails away! - never to be seen again!
- arise! euro-neo-nazis!
 
 
0 # Salus Populi 2016-07-27 09:26
Robbee: "arise! euro-neo-nazis! " WTF? Not sure what this implies: That Putin is responsible for the neo-Nazis in Ukraine? That Trump's campaign manager Paul Manafort's taking on the previous, and elected, president of Ukraine as a client, whom the neo-Nazis and their USian friends overthrew, amounted to support of the Nazis?! Please clarify.
 
 
+3 # Radscal 2016-07-20 18:30
Except this Drumpf candidate was designed by Bill Clinton.

“Four Trump allies and one Clinton associate familiar with the exchange said that Clinton encouraged Trump’s efforts to play a larger role in the Republican Party and offered his own views of the political landscape.”

"Clinton sounded curious about Trump’s moves toward a presidential bid and told Trump that he was striking a chord with frustrated conservatives and was a rising force on the right.

"One person with knowledge of Clinton’s end of the call said the former president was upbeat and encouraging during the conversation, which occurred as Trump was speaking out about GOP politics and his prescriptions for the nation."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bill-clinton-called-donald-trump-ahead-of-republicans-2016-launch/2015/08/05/e2b30bb8-3ae3-11e5-b3ac-8a79bc44e5e2_story.html
 
 
-6 # Mako 2016-07-20 18:42
Yeah, he sure manufactured him alright by giving him passing advice to engage in politics.

Ooooooo.. What a conspiracy....

Everyone knows they were friends. This is unsurprising and irrelevant.
 
 
+6 # Radscal 2016-07-20 20:11
Actually, your post is the first of the Hil-bots comments I've ever seen that acknowledges they were friends.

Everyone else insisted it was just Trump donating to all politicians, and the Clintons taking bribes (oops, I mean "donations") from anyone.
 
 
-7 # rocback 2016-07-20 20:41
changing the subject again Radscall when you are exposed. You are too easy pal.
 
 
+4 # Radscal 2016-07-20 21:27
Hahahahahaha

You are a cut-up. Always good for a laugh.
 
 
+6 # Anonymot 2016-07-20 18:30
Yes. Or Hillary Clinton. Either will bring America down.
 
 
-6 # ericlipps 2016-07-20 19:09
Quoting Anonymot:
Yes. Or Hillary Clinton. Either will bring America down.

As I've said elsewhere about claims that Hillary Clinton will start World War III, I've got a thousand dollars (and you can have it in the currency of your choice, be it dollars, euros, gold, canned food or guns) that says it won't happen.
 
 
-1 # Robbee 2016-07-20 20:04
Quoting ericlipps:
Quoting Anonymot:
Yes. Or Hillary Clinton. Either will bring America down.

As I've said elsewhere about claims that Hillary Clinton will start World War III, I've got a thousand dollars (and you can have it in the currency of your choice, be it dollars, euros, gold, canned food or guns) that says it won't happen.

- shades of it omni? - well! i don't have a thousand dollars to bet! - don't even play lotto ! so i never can! - but i bet a cuppa! that hill will be good! - maybe not great? - still a small! significant! progressive triumph! for america!

- go bernie! and go dem!
 
 
-7 # rocback 2016-07-20 18:01
If you had any doubts about Trumps campaign, read Manforts clients:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Manafort
 
 
+5 # librarian1984 2016-07-20 19:17
Tell us about the polls, crak'd. How are they doing? HRC has been endorsed by Obama, Sanders, Warren, Reid, Pelosi.

She must be SKYROCKETING to victory! Especially considering how badly Trump has been damaged the past week or two.

Wait, what .. this just in? HRC is losing to Trump In OH, PA and FL! Huh? How can that be? She's been outspending him 40 to 1!

She's polling nationally 7 points behind? But Trump hasn't even spoken at the convention yet!

Trump polls better on the economy (9 points), and they're statistically tied on foreign trade, terrorism, national security and immigration. hm.

Trump leads among Independents, 42% of the electorate, by 12 points. weird. And now, after Comey's testimony, HRC's negatives are even higher than DT's.

Good news for the Greens though. Their donations have tripled!
 
 
-6 # rocback 2016-07-20 20:46
Really? Tripled? What, its now up to $150? Wow, maybe she'll break the 1% mark in votes this year.

Or is Trump your real candidate like I have always said. You seem pretty happy for him. He does seem to be your type.

And I know you are frustrated these days because you keep stalking me.
 
 
-2 # Robbee 2016-07-20 21:48
Quoting librarian1984:
She's polling nationally 7 points behind? But Trump hasn't even spoken at the convention yet!

Trump polls better on the economy (9 points), and they're statistically tied on foreign trade, terrorism, national security and immigration. hm.

- lib? i thot i told you to expect the RNC convention bump? - what matters is polls after the DNC bump? you know?
 
 
+2 # librarian1984 2016-07-21 00:42
Hey, R. How are you? These polls don't reflect a GOP bump either and frankly, with the quality of the 'entertainment' the GOP may just get skid marks :-)

Are you really for HRC? Bernie is so much better IMO, a chance at a real correction after too long neglecting the non-elite.

People can differ about whether they think HRC is evil or not, but she is the wrong candidate at this particular time, and no one should get the nomination just because they think it's their "turn". That's way GOP thinking.

The American electorate, like many electorates, is angry and torn between making a correction (Canada) or fascism. The establishment candidate is the wrong choice right now. If the Dems run HRC they are gambling with a Trump presidency while trying to blame it on progressives. CYA is the technical term.

Were you for Bernie first or HRC right out of the gate? What is it you like about her?

Take care.
 
 
-3 # Robbee 2016-07-21 10:21
Quoting librarian1984:
Hey, R. Are you really for HRC? Bernie is so much better IMO, a chance at a real correction after too long neglecting the non-elite.

People can differ about whether they think HRC is evil or not, but she is the wrong candidate at this particular time ...

The American electorate, like many electorates, is angry and torn between making a correction (Canada) or fascism. The establishment candidate is the wrong choice right now. If the Dems run HRC they are gambling with a Trump presidency ...

Were you for Bernie first or HRC right out of the gate? What is it you like about her?

- bernie and i are sticks in the mud - always peer into the future - always have a plan and a backup - we burn no bridges - i'm only here playing rsn games on account of warren and bernie! - who stir my heart! - hill was never our plan A

here on rsn, ever since bernie said it - on Sunday Nov 08, 2015 - "on her worst day, Hillary Clinton will be an infinitely better candidate and President than the Republican candidate on his best day" - i have been reminding us here what bernie says

that broken record we've heard was only bernie and me - sticks in mud - our plan B was always hill

what can i possibly like about hill? - i love those who trust her! - for good measure! - women! blacks! latinos! union members! jews! muslims! and other rump haters!

ask bernie, warren, scott galindez, steve weissman, marc ash or frank rich? same question? same answer!
 
 
+2 # librarian1984 2016-07-22 02:49
"ask bernie, warren, scott galindez, steve weissman, marc ash or frank rich? same question? same answer!"

But all those people have endorsed her and her numbers are going DOWN. Why is everyone willing to risk a Trump presidency by insisting on HRC when every poll for months show Sanders winning.

It's a week before the super delegates vote. This is the time to stand firm.

If you really care about Bernie why are you caving already?
 
 
-5 # Robbee 2016-07-20 19:24
# Radscal 2016-07-20 18:30
Except this Drumpf candidate was designed by Bill Clinton (yadda, yadda)

- rad! to elect rump! you would say anything! however nonsensical! confess! - the truth sets you free!

rad has one and only one reason to ignore rump's 17 promises! and hill's dozen! - rad has loved ones in iran! - and BEFORE obama's iran treaty - that she endorsed! - hill repeatedly argued to bomb iran! - no matter what happens! ever! rad's relatives have a visceral! irrasable! hatred of what hill threatened before treaty! a genetic! ethnic! memory! - if irish harbored hatred of english this way? - there would still be bombings every week!

so rad can hold his nose on rump! - all the evil he promises! - and deny all the good that hill promises! - specifically because rad believes that rump is the key to the safety of his loved ones! - in effect rump holds rad's loved ones hostage! - to rad's support for rump here on rsn!

it is remarkably selfless of rad to promote rump! when only his loved ones can! as rad sees it! benefit from denying hill the presidency! - that is - if, as we all pray, wherever else he may bomb? rump does not bomb iran! - rad! don’t bet on it!
 
 
-2 # Robbee 2016-07-20 21:39
RNC update! - you can see why they call donald's son eric out until the 3rd day of rump's coronation! - eric is the designated, dynamic prez in waiting! of the duck dynasty!

pence rocked the crowd! - his first point is that rump's election sets scotus for "the next 40 years!"- with rights to life! 2nd amendment! plus "our constitutional rights!"

coronation follows tomorrow nite!
 
 
+1 # librarian1984 2016-07-21 00:48
lol Trump's duck dynasty.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN