Trump's Russian Collusion

[MDlaxfan76]

Yup, both McCain and Romney had their 'bad' moments, tilting overly to the right to attract base voters.

IMO, betraying the 'better angels' of their character.
Indeed, they said so later, in McCain's case apologizing for particular mistakes.

I don't think Trump has any 'better angels'.
Lifetime of dishonesty and egotism.
No real empathy. Resentment, anger, hate, bigotry, misogyny...
No 'better angels' countervailing, just the posturing of a con man.
Definition of a sociopath.

[cradleandshoot]

As I said, cradle, you have quite the complex.

You dislike Republicans "out of principle" and yet hate the Democrats too.

And clearly you dislike me...because I'm not like other Republicans you know???

Is your dislike for me supposed to bother me?

And is any aspect of your attack on me personally actually responsive to the prior discussion or otherwise on point?

Yes, I'm a lifelong Republican, always vote both general and midterms, have never voted D in a Presidential election before. Conservative in tone, conservative fiscally, moderate-progressive socially, forward leaning engagement internationally, heavy on soft power over hard power whenever possible. Yup, that description is no longer welcome in the Trumpist cowed GOP. In todays' Trumpist GOP you are expected to actually hate and despise the Dems. Sorry, that's not me.

My only point is that folks like me are not going to vote for Trump in 2020. Some may not vote at all, some may vote third party like I did in 2016, some may vote D for the first time in their lives. I will be doing the latter even if it's someone I really hope isn't the nominee for them.

But I'm not prepared to become a Democrat. To the contrary, I want Trumpism to suffer an ignominious defeat, sufficient to break the fever hold over the GOP. I want the GOP to re-boot and compete not as an anti-science, reactionary, bigoted, nativist, aggressively authoritarian movement but rather as an intellectually sound counterweight to the left.

Democracy needs that balance.

You have me all wrong. I do not dislike you. I just do not understand what type of Republican you are. You confuse the hell out of me. You do understand you rip on your party here all the time and seem to always be in agreement with every FLP person that posts on this forum. I don't recall you EVER being critical of anything they post. I have come to my own conclusion that you are too afraid to draw their wrath and have them jump on your back. I would much appreciate you growing a back bone and standing up for your party once in awhile. It is okay to speak your mind. My experience tells me that when the folks here on the FLP side want to rip on you, you probably have hit a raw nerve with them. I hope you and your family have a wonderful Thanksgiving.

My wife and I are getting ready to head to my sisters house for our own celebration. the best part is that politics never ever enters into the days enjoyment. Outside of my sister and my kids, all of my family have passed on. I refuse to let politics ruin that. One last thought, I hope you never think I honestly dislike you. I just have a problem when it comes to being able to filter the thoughts in my head. When the thought is there it comes out the way it comes out. The people that I truly dislike are the people I will not talk to or respond to at all. I may not have the first clue about what kind of Republican you are, but we have more in common than you think. You are able to express your opinion in a more respectful manner than I do at times. I am working on that but I still have a very long ways to go.

Well, if you don't actually "dislike" me, how about cutting out the dripping disdain ala this bit of charm:

"I am certain MD that you are more than comfy cozy listening to all those concession speeches. You represent the gutless, spineless and testicle less members of your party. Your pandering to all the FLP folks on this forum just to gain their approval tells me all I need to know about your intestinal fortitude."

Listen, I'm just not in the angry, hate the other guy, simply because of Red team Blue Team, mode that some on both the left and the right seem to want to always do. I reject that regardless of party.

Right now, the folks in power, serious power, are the worst of the worst in that regard. They are also beyond simply dishonest and corrupt, they are truly dangerous. Of course, that's just my opinion. If that seems to make me come across as allied with others who likewise see Trump and his cronies and enablers that way, so be it.

I'm also much more likely to be in agreement with those leaning progressive in social matters than I am those who are bigoted, nativists in their leanings. I come by that honestly and can indeed securely say that my views used to be representative of a large part of the GOP, often the most ascendant wing.

But boy oh boy are those views remotely tolerated by the Trumpists? Nope.

But here's the even stranger aspect: for many Trumpists, the ideological leanings seem irrelevant, the only thing that matters is loyalty/fealty to Trump. The heck with the Constitution even.

Thank you for the kind wishes re Thanksgiving; same to you and yours.
I'm about to go hit a few golf balls with my 84 yr old mom and my wife (who like me doesn't play this game) and then we'll enjoy a Thanksgiving dinner with friends. First Thanksgiving without my dad.

We too plan to steer away from politics and focus instead on our many blessings. Peace, brother.

"I am certain MD that you are more than comfy cozy listening to all those concession speeches. You represent the gutless, spineless and testicle less members of your party. Your pandering to all the FLP folks on this forum just to gain their approval tells me all I need to know about your intestinal fortitude."

I use similar vernacular to many of my friends and coworkers. The statement says what it says. IMO there is a huge problem in the Republican party of having the courage to stand up for what you believe in while under harsh criticism from the Democrats and the media. I do believe you are pandering to most of the FLP folks on this forum because you rarely if ever call them out when they spout hooey. If I did not like you or respect you I would not respond to you at all. I admit I can be way too blunt with what I say and how I say it. I will never be a diplomat but I will never pee on your leg and tell you it is raining out.

I'd appreciate less personal attack. I don't know about you, but being described in any sense as "gutless, spineless and testicle less" would be an insult that would likely get you a punch in the mouth in a bar or backyard. Or if in a work setting, fired.

I don't know which posters you describe as "FLP" but I'm pretty sure I don't have any issue with challenging views with which I disagree. What you may be seeing, however, is that on many of the disagreements that get aired in these threads, I find myself agreeing more with those leaning 'left' than those leaning 'right'.

I think this is because of the extreme divisiveness of the Trumpist movement, the overt bigotry and nativism, the overt misogyny, the overt disrespect for the rule of law, the overt anti-science hubris...I can go on and on. I don't see those aspects of Trumpism as 'conservative', nor do I see this wild debt build-up as 'conservative'.

So, in this moment in which the power being exercised in America is being led by the most disreputable of human beings, surrounded by fawning sycophants as enablers and co-conspirators in fraud and in the destruction of positive norms of decency and honesty, it really isn't a surprise that this perspective aligns me more with others who feel the same than with those who apologize for or 'explain' Trump.

But you can bet your sweet bippy that I'll be strongly challenging of an authoritarian from the left if such emerges in response, if/when the pendulum of power swings the other way.

The phrase of the day in my workplace is " why dont you suck my left nut" my female co-worker has even taken a shine to it. Even with the anatomical issues that are so obvious. We are different animals MD. You would be aghast at some of the terminology I have invoked on my own kids at times. It is a technical point but I said you REPRESENT my critique. IMO there are way too many gutless, spineless Republicans that run and hide when the white hot spotlight becomes too warm for them. It would be a refreshing change to once and awhile see the Rebublican base stand up for themselves. I would really like to see you call out some of the FLP diehards on this forum when they go off the rails. You never do that and it makes me wonder where you are coming from.

[seacoaster]

Back to the thread topic?

Pretty good article:

https://www.justsecurity.org/67536/here ... -happened/

[Trinity]

Sondland and Trump look like they’re lying about the NQPQ call of Sept 9? Oh, what webs we weave when we shakedown Ukraine.

[old salt]

The cow isn't talking.

Schiff's protecting the Cow's ID -- whistleblower.

[Typical Lax Dad]

The cow isn't talking.

Schiff's protecting the Cow's ID -- whistleblower.

I though protecting whistleblowers was Nunes’ specialty? In other nonsense:

https://www.foxnews.com/media/jason-cha ... rtment.amp

[Trinity]

Good thing Obama didn’t wiretap Trump Tower. He’d be getting arrested this week.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Good thing Obama didn’t wiretap Trump Tower. He’d be getting arrested this week.

He is a criminal.

[Trinity]

He golfed too much.

[Typical Lax Dad]

He golfed too much.

And he was racist.

[old salt]

And he was racist.

But he wasn't a cry baby, like his fan boys here who claim victimhood by proxy, on his behalf.

You forgot your tan suit trope.

[a fan]

And he was racist.

But he wasn't a cry baby

Nope.

But his detractors sure were. 8 years of crybaby-pee-pants from you and the Water Cooler right, remember?

"Waaaaaaaaah! Obama's doing the Middle East wrong!! Waaaaaaaah!!"

And when Obama left, did you stop your 5-year-old-who-dropped-his-ice-cream-cone routine?

Nope. You move your crybaby act to anyone who was a meany-weenie to Trumpy-wumpy.

Waaaaaaah! Mommy!!! The Deep State is being mean to Trump!! Waaaaaah.

Pot. Kettle.

[Typical Lax Dad]

And he was racist.

But he wasn't a cry baby, like his fan boys here who claim victimhood by proxy, on his behalf.

You forgot your tan suit trope.

You suffer Stockholm Syndrome by Proxy.....

[old salt]

And he was racist.

But he wasn't a cry baby

Nope.

But his detractors sure were. 8 years of crybaby-pee-pants from you and the Water Cooler right, remember?

"Waaaaaaaaah! Obama's doing the Middle East wrong!! Waaaaaaaah!!"

And when Obama left, did you stop your 5-year-old-who-dropped-his-ice-cream-cone routine?

Nope. You move your crybaby act to anyone who was a meany-weenie to Trumpy-wumpy.

Waaaaaaah! Mommy!!! The Deep State is being mean to Trump!! Waaaaaah.

Pot. Kettle.

Stick with the subject. What does that have to do with whether or not Obama was a racist ?
You reflexively respond to anything about Obama, totally out of context, as if Obama is above critique.
I profoundly disagreed with some of Obama's policies & decisions,
but I never said, or implied, that he was a racist. That's the issue.
Of course, when I was persistently critical of him, racist motives were implied.
...because that's how the victim mongering, race baiting game is played.

[a fan]

Stick with the subject.

I am. You just called anyone here who dared to point out that some of the things Obama was criticize for were stupid...crybabies.

I profoundly disagreed with some of Obama's policies & decisions

Yes. And as we have all learned here, about 1/3rd of your complaints were wholly base on party affiliation.

How many times did you yell at Obama for "lecturing", or being "condescending" to other leaders?

Trump can't open his mouth or (snicker) tweet about foreign countries without doing both. But magically, "it's different when Trump does it".

[old salt]

Stick with the subject.

I am. You just called anyone here who dared to point out that some of the things Obama was criticize for were stupid...crybabies.

I profoundly disagreed with some of Obama's policies & decisions

Yes. And as we have all learned here, about 1/3rd of your complaints were wholly base on party affiliation.

How many times did you yell at Obama for "lecturing", or being "condescending" to other leaders?

Trump can't open his mouth or (snicker) tweet about foreign countries without doing both. But magically, "it's different when Trump does it".

Wrong. You're so anxious to butt in & argue, you don't even realize when I compliment Obama for not playing the victim.
I called the proxy race baiters crybabies.

You don't know jack about what my complaints are based upon & once again you're changing the subject.
...but that never stops you from butting in & telling me what you think I think.

Trump hasn't started any wars & he's rebuilt our military.
Obama green lighted the Arab spring, encouraged revolutions in Libya & Syria - then turned his back & pulled completely out of Iraq, left the door open for IS, & dithered while they conquered a caliphate. He entered into a deal with Iran that bankrolled the IRGC, knowing it would not survive a (R) Presidency. He surged us in Afghanistan, with nothing to show for it. Look how quickly Trump ran IS out of their caliphate & drove their remnants back under their rocks.

Meanwhile, Obama drew us down in Europe, kissed Putin's ring with his reset button, mocked Romney when he said Russia was out biggest threat, & was then surprised when Putin seized Crimea, but did nothing in response, leaving it to his successor to send the tanks to Poland. He ignored N Korea (strategic patience) & his pivot to China was strictly rhetorical.

Obama ran our military into the ground, burned them out with extended deployments & tied their hands with restrictive rules of engagement.
His soaring rhetoric fell on deaf ears because he would not cross his own line in the sand to back it up.
He went into Libya, then left our NATO allies holding the bag.

Trump is no strategic genius, but he understands what the US public wants.

[a fan]

Wrong. You're so anxious to butt in & argue, you don't even realize when I compliment Obama for not playing the victim.
I called the proxy race baiters crybabies.

Um. Yes, I noticed. You called your fellow posters crybabies. Am I supposed to be happy about that? That's what I was reacting to....

You don't know jack about what my complaints are based upon

Yes. Yes I do. You just don't like hearing it.

Or are you telling me that you're so stupid, and ignorant of American Civics that you think a President can pass a military spending bill all by his lonesome (you blamed Obama for running our military into the ground)? Blame McConnell for our lack of military spending.

You have never done that. So either you're too dumb for words, or you refuse to blame McConnell for his lack of military spending because he's a Republican. Pick one.

...but that never stops you from butting in & telling me what you think I think.

It is what you think....and here it comes, effortless criticism of Obama. It flows from you with the ease of clearing one's throat......

Trump hasn't started any wars & he's rebuilt our military.
Obama green lighted the Arab spring, encouraged revolutions in Libya & Syria - then turned his back & pulled completely out of Iraq, left the door open for IS, & dithered while they conquered a caliphate. He entered into a deal with Iran that bankrolled the IRGC, knowing it would not survive a (R) Presidency. He surged us in Afghanistan, with nothing to show for it. Look how quickly Trump ran IS out of their caliphate & drove their remnants back under their rocks.

Meanwhile, Obama drew us down in Europe, kissed Putin's ring with his reset button, mocked Romney when he said Russia was out biggest threat, & was then surprised when Putin seized Crimea, but did nothing in response, leaving it to his successor to send the tanks to Poland. He ignored N Korea (strategic patience) & his pivot to China was strictly rhetorical.

Obama ran our military into the ground, burned them out with extended deployments & tied their hands with restrictive rules of engagement.
His soaring rhetoric fell on deaf ears because he would not cross his own line in the sand to back it up.
He went into Libya, then left our NATO allies holding the bag.

See? Effortless criticism of Obama, even though much of the criticism is misplaced or flat out wrong.

Trump is no strategic genius

Yes, yes he is. In old salt's mind he is. Go ahead, and try and prove me wrong. Prove it's not about little R's with you.

I counted 20 criticisms----big ones---of Obama in your above rant. If your views are not Republican partisanship-----give me 20 major foreign policy mistakes from Trump. Should be a cakewalk. Hell, you could stick to twitter, and come up with 50.

So let's hear it. Nothing would make me happier than to apologize to you for being wrong.

And when you're done, have a look at VDH and see if he's managed to criticize one single move of Trump (pssstt: there's isn't one. Laughably so)

[a fan]

Trump is no strategic genius, but he understands what the US public wants.

Btw----what in heaven's name are you talking about here.

Trump knows what his drooling base wants, no question there.....agree completely.

But the US public can't stand Trump, nor his policies. So where did you come up with this laugher?

[Typical Lax Dad]

Trump is no strategic genius, but he understands what the US public wants.

Btw----what in heaven's name are you talking about here.

Trump knows what his drooling base wants, no question there.....agree completely.

But the US public can't stand Trump, nor his policies. So where did you come up with this laugher?

Out of his wazoo.

[old salt]

And when you're done, have a look at VDH and see if he's managed to criticize one single move of Trump (pssstt: there's isn't one. Laughably so)

Great minds think alike. Read & learn something.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/11/ ... ervention/

The Trump Doctrine: Deterrence without Intervention?
By VICTOR DAVIS HANSON
November 5, 2019

Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign sought to overturn 75 years of bipartisan foreign policy orthodoxy, especially as it applied to the Middle East.

From 1946 to 1989, the Cold War logic was to use both surrogates and U.S. expeditionary forces to stop the spread of Communist insurrections and coups — without confronting the nuclear-armed USSR directly unless it became a matter of perceived Western survival, as it did with the Berlin airlift and the Cuban missile crises.

That logic led to major conflicts like Vietnam and Korea, limited wars in the Middle East and Balkans, interventions in Latin America and the Caribbean, and occasional nation-building in conquered lands. Tens of thousands of Americans died, trillions of dollars were spent, and the Soviet Union and most of its satellites vanished. “We won the Cold War” was more or less true.

Such preemptory American interventions still continued over the next 30 years of the post–Cold War “new world order.” Now the threat was not Russian nukes but confronting new enemies such as radical Islam and a rogue’s gallery of petty but troublesome nuts, freaks, and dictators — Granada’s Hudson Austin, an unhinged Moammar Qaddafi of Libya, Hezbollah’s terrorists in Lebanon, Nicaraguan Communist Daniel Ortega, Panamanian strongman Manuel Noriega, the gang leader Mohamed Aidid of Somalia, the former Serbian thug Slobodan Milosevic, Mullah Omar of the Taliban, Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, arch terrorist Osama bin Laden, the macabre al-Qaeda and ISIS, and on and on.

These put-downs, some successful and some not so much, were apparently viewed by the post–Cold War establishment as our versions of the late Roman Republic and Empire policies of mowing the lawn, with an occasional weeding out of regional nationalists and insurrectionists ... The theory was that occasionally knocking flat a charismatic brute discouraged all others like him from trying to emulate his revolt and upend the international order. Having one or two legions always on the move often meant that most others could stay in their barracks. And it kept the peace, or so the U.S., like Rome, more or less believed.

But the problem with American policy after the Cold War and the end of the Soviet nuclear threat was that the U.S. was not really comfortable as an imperial global watchdog, we no longer had a near monopoly on the world economy that subsidized these expensive interventions, and many of these thugs did not necessarily pose a direct threat to American interests — perhaps ISIS, an oil-rich Middle East dictator, and radical Islamists excepted. What started as a quick, successful take-out of a monster sometimes ended up as a long-drawn out “occupation” in which all U.S. assets of firepower, mobility, and air support were nullified in the dismal street fighting of a Fallujah or a Mogadishu.

The bad guys were bothersome and even on occasion genocidal, and their removal sometimes improved the lot of those of the ground — but not always. When things got messy — such as in the Beqaa Valley in Lebanon, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, or Somalia — it was not clear whether the American use of force resulted in tactical success leading to strategic advantage. Often preemptive insertion of troops either did not further U.S. deterrence or actually undermined it — as in the case of the “Arab Spring” bombing in Libya.

At home, in a consistent pattern, the most vociferous advocates of preemptory war usually claimed prescient brilliance, as when the American military rapidly dislodged the Taliban and Saddam Hussein. But then came the occupation and post-war anarchy. As American dead mounted, the mission mysteriously creeped into nation-building. Sometimes, in the post-invasion chaos, the once noble liberated victims became the opportunistic victimizers. Depressed, some of the original architects of preemption blamed those who had listened to them. The establishment’s calling card became, “My weeks-long brilliant theoretical preemption was ruined by your actual botched decade-long occupation.” In extremis, few kept their support; most abandoned it.

Into this dilemma charged Donald Trump, who tried to square the old circle by boasting that he would “bomb the s*** out of ISIS” (and he mostly did that). Yet he also pledged to avoid optional wars in the Middle East — given that they did not pencil out to the Manhattan developer as a cost-benefit profit for America. We had become the world’s largest large oil producer anyway without worrying very much about how many barrels of oil a post-Qaddafi Libya or the Iranian theocrats pumped each day, and our rivals, like China and Russia, would soon find out that their involvement in the Middle East would likely not pencil out.

Trump started well enough. He backed down the provocative North Koreans and Iranians with tougher sanctions, while refusing to use kinetic force to reply to their rather pathetic provocations. He bombed ISIS but yanked American “trip wire” troops out of the Kurdish-Turkish battle zones in Syria, and he green-lighted the military’s killing of ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. He ratcheted up sanctions against Russia and armed Putin’s enemies without committing to defend any of the old republics of the Soviet Union. He increased the defense budget and boomed the economy but did not use such newly acquired power other than against ISIS.

Rarely has such an empowered military relied so much on economic sanctions. And rarely have leftist pacifist advocates of using sanctions and boycotts so damned Trump’s reluctance to launch missiles and drop bombs — the only common denominator being that whatever the orange man is for, they are against.

Trump’s apparent theory is that time is on his side. The Palestinians are cut off from U.S. funds; their U.N. surrogates are orphaned from the U.S. The U.S. Embassy is in Jerusalem. The Golan Heights are not going back to Syria. It is up to the West Bank and Gaza to change the Middle East dynamic, since their Gulf paymasters could care less about them, given the Palestinians’ romance with an Iran that is slowly going broke.

North Korea is squeezed by toughed-up sanctions. They can conduct missile tests, threaten, and cajole, but ultimately their people will be eating grass if they don’t wish to deal. And if they do launch a missile toward the U.S., they are convinced that Trump will launch a lot more against them.

Iran wants a confrontation before the election to undermine the Trump Electoral College base of support. So Trump is apparently willing to overlook such petty slights as the downing of the American drone by Iranian forces. But the Iranians must know that if they start targeting U.S. ships, or attacking NATO allied vessels and planes, Trump will likely restore deterrence by one-off, disproportionate air and missile attacks against Iranian naval and air bases — without intervening on the ground and without worrying that Iranian oil will go off the market entirely.

So there is a sort of Trump doctrine that grew in part out of Trump’s campaign promises and in part from the strategic assessment in 2016-17 by then national-security adviser H.R. McMaster, outlining a new “principled realism.” The net result is not to nation-build, preempt, or worry much about changing fetid countries to look like us, but to disproportionately respond when attacked or threatened, and in a manner that causes real damage, without the insertion of U.S. ground troops, in the fashion of the past 75 years.

Balance in achieving deterrence is the key. If Trump’s protestations that he does not wish to take enemy lives or conduct endless wars for no profit encourage enemy adventurism, then he will have to respond forcefully when American forces are attacked — but in a way that is not open-ended. And that usually means not through the use of ground troops that involve wars that, in Trump’s mind, create bad optics and poor ratings back home.

There are three ways of losing deterrence. One is to bluster, boast, and threaten and then do little — as with Barack Obama’s bombast about red lines in Syria.

A second is to reach out and appease a thug who has no intention of seeing outreach as anything other than laxity to be exploited. The Obama administration’s Russian reset combined the worst elements of this strategy: alternately courting and lecturing Putin, while doing nothing as he invaded former republics and returned to the Middle East.

A third way of losing deterrence is to get bogged down in a quagmire that encourages other would-be terrorists, revolutionaries, and psychopaths to try instigating more of the same. Afghanistan and the Iraq, from 2003 to 2006, are good examples of gridlock. The Libya project of Susan Rice, Samantha Power, and Hillary Clinton is a perfect case of hasty bombing followed by embarrassed indifference to the resulting chaos, and then withdrawal after the loss of four Americans.

There is one final paradox related to the dilemma of maintaining deterrence without invading hostile countries. Trump apparently believes that a booming economy, a well-funded muscular military, and plenty of U.S.-produced oil and gas give America enormous power and a range of choices that recent presidents lacked.

The result would be that when forced to respond to an attack on an American asset or ally, the U.S. could do so disproportionately, destructively, and without any red line, promise, or virtue-signaling about what it might do next — given its unique ability to hit abroad without being hit at home, and with a well-oiled economy that has no need to beg the Saudis to be nice, or to urge the Iranians to pump more, or to get the Venezuelans back into the exporting business.

Add up all these paradoxes, and I suppose we could call the Trump administration’s idea of deterrence without preemptive intervention as either “Live and let live” — or, more macabrely, “Live — and let die.” Either way, the paradox is to maintain critical deterrence against American enemies to prevent a war, but without Pavlovian interventions, and without being baited into optional military action that is antithetical to the national mood that got Trump elected