2024

[MDlaxfan76]

Yes, I do support being a bulwark for Ukraine. Definitely...I recall you trying to tell us it wasn't really the Russians who crossed the border and took Crimea, then you pivoted to the claim that it was really Russia's in the first place...I recall our argument at that time, the tragic history of appeasement.

I'm still right, IMO.

Listen, if you want to be an isolationist and a nationalist, rejecting international law and organizations, global interdependence, prefer to let other nations deal with their own crises and threats, etc...no sweat, that's simply your opinion (Tulsi's too?)...but how about some actual integrity and consistency to this isolationism?

If you and Tulsi actually believe we should go back to isolationism, then advocate pulling the Navy and Air Force all the way back, abandon all bases around the world, including ME and North Africa...stop messing with what's happening elsewhere, stop striking perceived enemies and simply defend ourselves at home. No more pretending that we need to fight Islamic extremists as if they're actually a bigger threat to America's interests than Russia, China...much less the threat from within. Go ahead and build your wall, keep out all those non-white immigrants...

But be consistent.

We'll disagree.

That part is a fabrication. I never denied that the little green men who seized Crimea were Russians. I pointed out that they received little to no resistance from Ukranian military forces.

My isolationism is non-interventionist. No nation building or wars of choice for human rights abuses or imposing changes in culture.
I support strong naval forces to keep the sea lanes open (with allies) which are vital to our economic survival, robust alliances with fellow democracies & a strong military for deterrence purposes. I support our pivot to Asia to support our Indo-Pacific allies via conventional deterrence. I think we over-invest in defending a wealthy EU from a Russian threat that they do not take seriously, just because we let Putin get under our skin with his political needling. We need to do as much in NATO as our EU allies do, & no more, & focus more on the W Hemisphere & Arctic.

You think we should be a "bulwark" for Ukraine -- whatever that weasel word means. Should we respond with military force against Russia if they invade Ukraine ? Yes or No ?

Do you think we should respond with military force against China if they invade Taiwan ? Yes or No ?

Yes to both. And we should make that clear, else we're green lighting each.

You and I could agree on some things in terms of priorities, but you lost me with your defense of "nationalism" and "isolationism", historical tragedies again and again, and your denial of what the Russians were trying to do...on behalf of Trump, whose "policies" you supported.

[MDlaxfan76]

Listened to a discussion on Bloomberg Radio today about China and our crackdown on China’s access to computer chips and other technologies. China is committed to decoupling from the US in response. Long term, it’s likely to be a losing battle for us if technology is bifurcated by trading partners. China graduates twice as many students as we do annually and 50% are STEM. “We be Fkuc’d”….may turn out to be poor policy decisions but moat of us won’t be around to see it.

Yes, this kind of action is doomed.

Just as dumb as the trade tariffs under Trump.

[old salt]

Yes, I do support being a bulwark for Ukraine. Definitely...I recall you trying to tell us it wasn't really the Russians who crossed the border and took Crimea, then you pivoted to the claim that it was really Russia's in the first place...I recall our argument at that time, the tragic history of appeasement.

I'm still right, IMO.

Listen, if you want to be an isolationist and a nationalist, rejecting international law and organizations, global interdependence, prefer to let other nations deal with their own crises and threats, etc...no sweat, that's simply your opinion (Tulsi's too?)...but how about some actual integrity and consistency to this isolationism?

If you and Tulsi actually believe we should go back to isolationism, then advocate pulling the Navy and Air Force all the way back, abandon all bases around the world, including ME and North Africa...stop messing with what's happening elsewhere, stop striking perceived enemies and simply defend ourselves at home. No more pretending that we need to fight Islamic extremists as if they're actually a bigger threat to America's interests than Russia, China...much less the threat from within. Go ahead and build your wall, keep out all those non-white immigrants...

But be consistent.

We'll disagree.

That part is a fabrication. I never denied that the little green men who seized Crimea were Russians. I pointed out that they received little to no resistance from Ukranian military forces.

My isolationism is non-interventionist. No nation building or wars of choice for human rights abuses or imposing changes in culture.
I support strong naval forces to keep the sea lanes open (with allies) which are vital to our economic survival, robust alliances with fellow democracies & a strong military for deterrence purposes. I support our pivot to Asia to support our Indo-Pacific allies via conventional deterrence. I think we over-invest in defending a wealthy EU from a Russian threat that they do not take seriously, just because we let Putin get under our skin with his political needling. We need to do as much in NATO as our EU allies do, & no more, & focus more on the W Hemisphere & Arctic.

You think we should be a "bulwark" for Ukraine -- whatever that weasel word means. Should we respond with military force against Russia if they invade Ukraine ? Yes or No ?

Do you think we should respond with military force against China if they invade Taiwan ? Yes or No ?

Yes to both. And we should make that clear, else we're green lighting each.

You and I could agree on some things in terms of priorities, but you lost me with your defense of "nationalism" and "isolationism", historical tragedies again and again, and your denial of what the Russians were trying to do...on behalf of Trump, whose "policies" you supported.

If the citizens of Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Afghanistan, or any other nation choose to live under authoritarian rule -- that's on them, it is their decision.

If we allow ourselves to fall prey to disinformation & propaganda from Russia, China, or any other source, that's on us. We created the social media tools they are using, just as our political parties & commercial influencers use them.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Listened to a discussion on Bloomberg Radio today about China and our crackdown on China’s access to computer chips and other technologies. China is committed to decoupling from the US in response. Long term, it’s likely to be a losing battle for us if technology is bifurcated by trading partners. China graduates twice as many students as we do annually and 50% are STEM. “We be Fkuc’d”….may turn out to be poor policy decisions but moat of us won’t be around to see it.

Yes, this kind of action is doomed.

Just as dumb as the trade tariffs under Trump.

23% of our graduates are STEM and when you consider male college attendance is dropping, it is going to be even harder as many women take a break when families come along. China will own Africa, Brazil, and ASEAN markets. We will be on a knife’s edge.

[MDlaxfan76]

Listened to a discussion on Bloomberg Radio today about China and our crackdown on China’s access to computer chips and other technologies. China is committed to decoupling from the US in response. Long term, it’s likely to be a losing battle for us if technology is bifurcated by trading partners. China graduates twice as many students as we do annually and 50% are STEM. “We be Fkuc’d”….may turn out to be poor policy decisions but moat of us won’t be around to see it.

Yes, this kind of action is doomed.

Just as dumb as the trade tariffs under Trump.

23% of our graduates are STEM and when you consider male college attendance is dropping, it is going to be even harder as many women take a break when families come along. China will own Africa, Brazil, and ASEAN markets. We will be on a knife’s edge.

I return to immigration and our innovation-driven, prosperity system as our strategic advantage.
But we have a bunch of knuckleheads who don't want immigration of anyone that doesn't look like them (or will work for them), whether legal or illegal.

Dumb.
There's no drawbridge that will protect us from global competition...we need to get far more serious.

[MDlaxfan76]

Yes, I do support being a bulwark for Ukraine. Definitely...I recall you trying to tell us it wasn't really the Russians who crossed the border and took Crimea, then you pivoted to the claim that it was really Russia's in the first place...I recall our argument at that time, the tragic history of appeasement.

I'm still right, IMO.

Listen, if you want to be an isolationist and a nationalist, rejecting international law and organizations, global interdependence, prefer to let other nations deal with their own crises and threats, etc...no sweat, that's simply your opinion (Tulsi's too?)...but how about some actual integrity and consistency to this isolationism?

If you and Tulsi actually believe we should go back to isolationism, then advocate pulling the Navy and Air Force all the way back, abandon all bases around the world, including ME and North Africa...stop messing with what's happening elsewhere, stop striking perceived enemies and simply defend ourselves at home. No more pretending that we need to fight Islamic extremists as if they're actually a bigger threat to America's interests than Russia, China...much less the threat from within. Go ahead and build your wall, keep out all those non-white immigrants...

But be consistent.

We'll disagree.

That part is a fabrication. I never denied that the little green men who seized Crimea were Russians. I pointed out that they received little to no resistance from Ukranian military forces.

My isolationism is non-interventionist. No nation building or wars of choice for human rights abuses or imposing changes in culture.
I support strong naval forces to keep the sea lanes open (with allies) which are vital to our economic survival, robust alliances with fellow democracies & a strong military for deterrence purposes. I support our pivot to Asia to support our Indo-Pacific allies via conventional deterrence. I think we over-invest in defending a wealthy EU from a Russian threat that they do not take seriously, just because we let Putin get under our skin with his political needling. We need to do as much in NATO as our EU allies do, & no more, & focus more on the W Hemisphere & Arctic.

You think we should be a "bulwark" for Ukraine -- whatever that weasel word means. Should we respond with military force against Russia if they invade Ukraine ? Yes or No ?

Do you think we should respond with military force against China if they invade Taiwan ? Yes or No ?

Yes to both. And we should make that clear, else we're green lighting each.

You and I could agree on some things in terms of priorities, but you lost me with your defense of "nationalism" and "isolationism", historical tragedies again and again, and your denial of what the Russians were trying to do...on behalf of Trump, whose "policies" you supported.

If the citizens of Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Afghanistan, or any other nation choose to live under authoritarian rule -- that's on them, it is their decision.

If we allow ourselves to fall prey to disinformation & propaganda from Russia, China, or any other source, that's on us. We created the social media tools they are using, just as our political parties & commercial influencers use them.

I don't really agree as to the word "choose". Not sure how much "choice" those folks have.

But I do think that ultimately those societies and their governments need to deliver for their people, else they may well overcome the authoritarian system...but that's the point of authoritarian systems, to remove "choice". Whether by force or propaganda, to so thoroughly dominate as to eliminate "choice".

At best, there's a degree of "consent".

China's at least trying to earn the 'consent' through economic growth; Russia has basically given up, just a kleptocracy.

Totally agree as to "on us"...if we allow the Big Lie for instance, if we don't totally reject the Insurrection and don't actually have consequences for those who fomented it, that's "on us".

And our adversaries will be emboldened as we fail to bolster democracy and the rule of law, as well as civility at home.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Listened to a discussion on Bloomberg Radio today about China and our crackdown on China’s access to computer chips and other technologies. China is committed to decoupling from the US in response. Long term, it’s likely to be a losing battle for us if technology is bifurcated by trading partners. China graduates twice as many students as we do annually and 50% are STEM. “We be Fkuc’d”….may turn out to be poor policy decisions but moat of us won’t be around to see it.

Yes, this kind of action is doomed.

Just as dumb as the trade tariffs under Trump.

23% of our graduates are STEM and when you consider male college attendance is dropping, it is going to be even harder as many women take a break when families come along. China will own Africa, Brazil, and ASEAN markets. We will be on a knife’s edge.

I return to immigration and our innovation-driven, prosperity system as our strategic advantage.
But we have a bunch of knuckleheads who don't want immigration of anyone that doesn't look like them (or will work for them), whether legal or illegal.

Dumb.
There's no drawbridge that will protect us from global competition...we need to get far more serious.

It’s this bifurcation that I worry about. Competing head to head is one thing but if China develops subsystems for chips, chips and then needs operating systems that run off its chips and then the software on top, you will see their trading partners adopt their technology to facilitate commerce. We will be stuck with our markets. I would rather have a larger tent that includes China It’s an interesting potential problem.

[Farfromgeneva]

Good lord, Gabbard's DOA as a Dem candidate and disqualified in oh so many ways...

Has she introduced any actual legislation in the past couple of years?
Oh yeah, anti-transgender legislation under "Protect Women's Sports Act"...

She may lose support from that massive group of unrestricted transgender sports advocates

And we haven't even gotten to Vlad's support...

...still using your HRC talking point McCarthyite smears.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/18/politics ... index.html

Clinton did not provide proof about how Russia is “grooming” Gabbard. She and her team pointed to allegations that Russian news and propaganda sites often report on Gabbard’s campaign and that moments in Gabbard’s campaign have been reportedly amplified by trolls and bots on Twitter with ties to Russia. Gabbard has denied those allegations.

Clinton’s team also noted that some of Gabbard’s foreign policy views align closely with Russian interests.

Gabbard responded on Twitter Friday afternoon to Clinton’s comments.

“Thank you @HillaryClinton. You, the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long, have finally come out from behind the curtain,” she tweeted.

“From the day I announced my candidacy, there has been a concerted campaign to destroy my reputation,” she added. “We wondered who was behind it and why. Now we know — it was always you, through your proxies and powerful allies in the corporate media and war machine, afraid of the threat I pose.”

“It’s now clear that this primary is between you and me. Don’t cowardly hide behind your proxies. Join the race directly.”

The funny thing was that Tulsi was looking for the attention, she was only at 1.2%...never did get much past that point...yet, claimed to be HRC's main competition-I don't think she was merely delusional, I think she was desperate.

“Just two days ago, the New York Times put out an article saying that I’m a Russian asset and an Assad apologist and all these different smears,” Gabbard said, referring to a recent story that said she is being backed by Russians on Twitter. “This morning, a CNN commentator said on national television that I’m an asset of Russia. Completely despicable.”

Yup, and you still don't believe that Vlad had his folks trying to influence the 2016 election in favor of Trump and against Clinton. Nah, nuthin' to see...

You're ohh so credible.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-e ... rd-n964261

I think you know how low my regard was for HRC; despite my revulsion at Trump, and that was well-earned revulsion, a totally disqualified on every dimension candidate, I still couldn't bring myself to cast a vote for Clinton. Went for the 3rd party knucklehead as a protest vote.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... -explained

But hey, Tulsi's still a tool for the Russians : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iywKH60NUGg

She's not the first candidate who's opposed to getting into wars, & wars with Russia specifically.

Of course any country is going to promote a candidate who best serves their interests. That does not make them a Russian asset.

Did you decry John Kerry as a Soviet or Chinese asset for his antiwar views during Vietnam (the height of the Cold Wat), or accuse him of being an Iranian asset for JCPOA ?

She served 2 tours in Iraq & is still serving as a Major in the Army Reserve.
Speaking of credibility -- who are you to accuse her of being a Russian asset ?
You claim to be repulsed by Clinton yet you eagerly embrace her McCarthyite smear tactics.

https://twitter.com/tulsigabbard/status ... 52?lang=en

I only said she had Vlad's support...favorite Dem candidate of Vlad...and indeed, they had the bots and troll farm working for her. I don't need to like or agree with Hillary on a darn thing to believe the data scientists.

And yup, Tulsi's still a tool for the Russians. Whether that's intentional or not (and sure seems like it's intentional) she's nevertheless predictably useful to them.

"Useful idiot" is still an "asset", though not the same as an "agent" the latter being something I highly doubt.

But yeah, you have zero credibility on this one. You pooh poohed that the Russians were involved actively in supporting Trump and against Clinton from the get go and you're still hanging on...

What is your basis for saying it is intentional on her part ?
She's isolationist in that she eschews great power conflict -- whether with Russia or China.
She does not wish to provoke either of them until/unless they are a clear & present danger -- an imminent existential military threat to the US.
After 9-11, her tours in Iraq & her NG/Army Reserve experience, she obviously still sees the spread of militant Islam as the most imminent threat.
None of that makes her a Russian asset or Islamophobe.

You are so intolerant of people who do not share your perspective that you assign darker motives rather than tolerate honest, legitimate & well reasoned differences of opinion & perspective, based on relevant experience (...more extensive than yours).

Again, you have zero credibility on this as an inveterate denier of the Russian attempts to influence our elections.
Experience

And no, on policy, it's immensely dumb (or worse) to say on national TV that we should not stand with a free, democratic, western-leaning Ukraine because, ohh my, the Russians have nuclear weapons...ohh my...and hey a lot of Ukrainians speak Russian...I don't think she's actually this stupid, nor do I I think she's merely prioritizing fighting Islamic extremists...nope...but that's just my opinion, just my impression...which is why I said "sure seems like it's intentional" (I don't know it's intentional, she just appears to be inviting Vlad's support)...after all, she knows she's Vlad's darling, she knows how much press coverage she gets on RT etc, she knows the Russian troll farms have worked on her behalf; again, she's not that stupid not to know...but she's never said, knock it off, get out of our elections, step back Vlad. Thus, my impression that she's inviting Vlad's support.

But, of course, you could be right that she's entirely and simply just a "useful idiot" from Vlad's perspective. A tool.

...as opposed to you being a useful idiot & tool for HRC. Her campaign hired a Russian agent to insert disinformation into a campaign which dominated the media coverage for years, fooled the FBI, & lead to an impeachment. ...& you bought into it totally.

Do you support US military intervention in Ukraine against Russia ? Should we do more than our NATO allies ?
https://twitter.com/tulsigabbard/status ... 76?lang=en
She supported Obama's sanctions on Russia & supported limited military aid to Ukraine AND our Baltic NATO allies.
https://www.msnbc.com/taking-the-hill/w ... 2796739629

I'm anything but a supporter of HRC, not remotely a fan.
Much less have any influence, nor have any claim of political leadership pretensions.

Tulsi has such pretensions, seeks to have such influence, and really is supported by Vlad as a "useful idiot".

And what a lot of baloney you spew, constantly, to try to distract from what the Russians actually did and continue to do.
My 'experience' may well be far more extensive than yours in this arena, while I would certainly defer to your knowledge of military equipment, tactics...and jargon.

Yes, I do support being a bulwark for Ukraine. Definitely...I recall you trying to tell us it wasn't really the Russians who crossed the border and took Crimea, then you pivoted to the claim that it was really Russia's in the first place...I recall our argument at that time, the tragic history of appeasement.

I'm still right, IMO.

Listen, if you want to be an isolationist and a nationalist, rejecting international law and organizations, global interdependence, prefer to let other nations deal with their own crises and threats, etc...no sweat, that's simply your opinion (Tulsi's too?)...but how about some actual integrity and consistency to this isolationism?

If you and Tulsi actually believe we should go back to isolationism, then advocate pulling the Navy and Air Force all the way back, abandon all bases around the world, including ME and North Africa...stop messing with what's happening elsewhere, stop striking perceived enemies and simply defend ourselves at home. No more pretending that we need to fight Islamic extremists as if they're actually a bigger threat to America's interests than Russia, China...much less the threat from within. Go ahead and build your wall, keep out all those non-white immigrants...

But be consistent.

We'll disagree.

The jargon is an attempt to demonstrate superior strategic understanding out of someone who demonstrably thinks like a tactical person…

[Farfromgeneva]

...& based on your posts, you do not seem to be as paranoid about China as you are about Russia. I wonder why that might be

Missed this later addition.

I've responded to this specious claim a whole bunch of times.
No, I think the Party is hugely dangerous and, thus, China is by far the greatest long term strategic threat to US influence and the success of democracy vs autocracy.

However, the issue is not which country is the greater long term threat, the issue is how best to respond to those threats.

Fundamentally, we need to compete on the basis of the virtues of our system versus autocracy. Our system needs to ultimately need to deliver better for the world than does autocracy.

Both Russia and China are autocracies, though quite different.
Russia is a kleptocrat dictatorship, and quite inefficient in delivering economic goods for its people, so Putin has decided to utilize tactics that undermine democracy in the west, rather than participating in the competitive marketplace. I believe that'll ultimately fail miserably (if we resist vigorously), but in the short term Putin is our most aggressive, direct adversary on behalf of democracy, moreover he's enabled by a white supremacist, "nationalist" movement within the US and numerous other democratic countries that has successfully, in the US, frozen our capacity to work efficiently as a government.

Actual, present threat to democracy's competitiveness on the world stage.

China's longer term threat is indeed greater though, as they are actually successfully delivering far more economic goods and progress to their people (though not all!) and have various strategic assets, including population scale, that are likely to make them an incredibly challenging economic competitor over the next decades. Unlike Putin's Russia, they are much, much more focused on delivering that 'value' to their people, much more efficient. Moreover, they think long term.

So, IMO, it's incredibly important that we get our act together, and focus on competing on the world stage, cooperatively with those who share or are willing to move towards our values, rather than withdrawing into the isolationist, "nationalist" posture, divisive partisan logjams, that will inevitably lead to strategic disadvantage.

And Russia's meddling... and those who appease them, the 'white nationalists', nativists, isolationists that are represented in Trumpism, do great damage to our longer term competition against autocracy and authoritarianism, most specifically China.

That's a mouthful, and I suspect you really don't 'get it', but how about stop asking me the same dumb question as if I haven't answered previously?

Listened to a discussion on Bloomberg Radio today about China and our crackdown on China’s access to computer chips and other technologies. China is committed to decoupling from the US in response. Long term, it’s likely to be a losing battle for us if technology is bifurcated by trading partners. China graduates twice as many students as we do annually and 50% are STEM. “We be Fkuc’d”….may turn out to be poor policy decisions but moat of us won’t be around to see it.
[/quote]

Bigger point agreed regarding bifurcation but I’m very skeptical of the over optimization that has occurred here in our business ecosystem and public sector as well. Replacing god with science is no better than having any other absolute faith at the expense of a broader perspective. Not to sound like an art house tool but the point is a blend is needed for long term success. We still should and need to be doing better, not letting us off the hook, but there’s problems with any all in approach. Like the power tennis player who will commit unforced errors if they just sit on th baseline and blast shots for winners all day and night .

[Farfromgeneva]

Yes, I do support being a bulwark for Ukraine. Definitely...I recall you trying to tell us it wasn't really the Russians who crossed the border and took Crimea, then you pivoted to the claim that it was really Russia's in the first place...I recall our argument at that time, the tragic history of appeasement.

I'm still right, IMO.

Listen, if you want to be an isolationist and a nationalist, rejecting international law and organizations, global interdependence, prefer to let other nations deal with their own crises and threats, etc...no sweat, that's simply your opinion (Tulsi's too?)...but how about some actual integrity and consistency to this isolationism?

If you and Tulsi actually believe we should go back to isolationism, then advocate pulling the Navy and Air Force all the way back, abandon all bases around the world, including ME and North Africa...stop messing with what's happening elsewhere, stop striking perceived enemies and simply defend ourselves at home. No more pretending that we need to fight Islamic extremists as if they're actually a bigger threat to America's interests than Russia, China...much less the threat from within. Go ahead and build your wall, keep out all those non-white immigrants...

But be consistent.

We'll disagree.

That part is a fabrication. I never denied that the little green men who seized Crimea were Russians. I pointed out that they received little to no resistance from Ukranian military forces.

My isolationism is non-interventionist. No nation building or wars of choice for human rights abuses or imposing changes in culture.
I support strong naval forces to keep the sea lanes open (with allies) which are vital to our economic survival, robust alliances with fellow democracies & a strong military for deterrence purposes. I support our pivot to Asia to support our Indo-Pacific allies via conventional deterrence. I think we over-invest in defending a wealthy EU from a Russian threat that they do not take seriously, just because we let Putin get under our skin with his political needling. We need to do as much in NATO as our EU allies do, & no more, & focus more on the W Hemisphere & Arctic.

You think we should be a "bulwark" for Ukraine -- whatever that weasel word means. Should we respond with military force against Russia if they invade Ukraine ? Yes or No ?

Do you think we should respond with military force against China if they invade Taiwan ? Yes or No ?

Yes to both. And we should make that clear, else we're green lighting each.

You and I could agree on some things in terms of priorities, but you lost me with your defense of "nationalism" and "isolationism", historical tragedies again and again, and your denial of what the Russians were trying to do...on behalf of Trump, whose "policies" you supported.

If the citizens of Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Afghanistan, or any other nation choose to live under authoritarian rule -- that's on them, it is their decision.

If we allow ourselves to fall prey to disinformation & propaganda from Russia, China, or any other source, that's on us. We created the social media tools they are using, just as our political parties & commercial influencers use them.

I don't really agree as to the word "choose". Not sure how much "choice" those folks have.

But I do think that ultimately those societies and their governments need to deliver for their people, else they may well overcome the authoritarian system...but that's the point of authoritarian systems, to remove "choice". Whether by force or propaganda, to so thoroughly dominate as to eliminate "choice".

At best, there's a degree of "consent".

China's at least trying to earn the 'consent' through economic growth; Russia has basically given up, just a kleptocracy.

Totally agree as to "on us"...if we allow the Big Lie for instance, if we don't totally reject the Insurrection and don't actually have consequences for those who fomented it, that's "on us".

And our adversaries will be emboldened as we fail to bolster democracy and the rule of law, as well as civility at home.

Managed growth isn’t earning consent. What they did to Jack Ma is so similar to what Putin did to Khodokorsky.

[MDlaxfan76]

Listened to a discussion on Bloomberg Radio today about China and our crackdown on China’s access to computer chips and other technologies. China is committed to decoupling from the US in response. Long term, it’s likely to be a losing battle for us if technology is bifurcated by trading partners. China graduates twice as many students as we do annually and 50% are STEM. “We be Fkuc’d”….may turn out to be poor policy decisions but moat of us won’t be around to see it.

Yes, this kind of action is doomed.

Just as dumb as the trade tariffs under Trump.

23% of our graduates are STEM and when you consider male college attendance is dropping, it is going to be even harder as many women take a break when families come along. China will own Africa, Brazil, and ASEAN markets. We will be on a knife’s edge.

I return to immigration and our innovation-driven, prosperity system as our strategic advantage.
But we have a bunch of knuckleheads who don't want immigration of anyone that doesn't look like them (or will work for them), whether legal or illegal.

Dumb.
There's no drawbridge that will protect us from global competition...we need to get far more serious.

It’s this bifurcation that I worry about. Competing head to head is one thing but if China develops subsystems for chips, chips and then needs operating systems that run off its chips and then the software on top, you will see their trading partners adopt their technology to facilitate commerce. We will be stuck with our markets. I would rather have a larger tent that includes China It’s an interesting potential problem.

Agreed; likewise, the incentives to cooperate to expand the overall market (pie) versus warfare to grab a greater share (slice) are much better.

[Typical Lax Dad]

...& based on your posts, you do not seem to be as paranoid about China as you are about Russia. I wonder why that might be

Missed this later addition.

I've responded to this specious claim a whole bunch of times.
No, I think the Party is hugely dangerous and, thus, China is by far the greatest long term strategic threat to US influence and the success of democracy vs autocracy.

However, the issue is not which country is the greater long term threat, the issue is how best to respond to those threats.

Fundamentally, we need to compete on the basis of the virtues of our system versus autocracy. Our system needs to ultimately need to deliver better for the world than does autocracy.

Both Russia and China are autocracies, though quite different.
Russia is a kleptocrat dictatorship, and quite inefficient in delivering economic goods for its people, so Putin has decided to utilize tactics that undermine democracy in the west, rather than participating in the competitive marketplace. I believe that'll ultimately fail miserably (if we resist vigorously), but in the short term Putin is our most aggressive, direct adversary on behalf of democracy, moreover he's enabled by a white supremacist, "nationalist" movement within the US and numerous other democratic countries that has successfully, in the US, frozen our capacity to work efficiently as a government.

Actual, present threat to democracy's competitiveness on the world stage.

China's longer term threat is indeed greater though, as they are actually successfully delivering far more economic goods and progress to their people (though not all!) and have various strategic assets, including population scale, that are likely to make them an incredibly challenging economic competitor over the next decades. Unlike Putin's Russia, they are much, much more focused on delivering that 'value' to their people, much more efficient. Moreover, they think long term.

So, IMO, it's incredibly important that we get our act together, and focus on competing on the world stage, cooperatively with those who share or are willing to move towards our values, rather than withdrawing into the isolationist, "nationalist" posture, divisive partisan logjams, that will inevitably lead to strategic disadvantage.

And Russia's meddling... and those who appease them, the 'white nationalists', nativists, isolationists that are represented in Trumpism, do great damage to our longer term competition against autocracy and authoritarianism, most specifically China.

That's a mouthful, and I suspect you really don't 'get it', but how about stop asking me the same dumb question as if I haven't answered previously?

Listened to a discussion on Bloomberg Radio today about China and our crackdown on China’s access to computer chips and other technologies. China is committed to decoupling from the US in response. Long term, it’s likely to be a losing battle for us if technology is bifurcated by trading partners. China graduates twice as many students as we do annually and 50% are STEM. “We be Fkuc’d”….may turn out to be poor policy decisions but moat of us won’t be around to see it.

Bigger point agreed regarding bifurcation but I’m very skeptical of the over optimization that has occurred here in our business ecosystem and public sector as well. Replacing god with science is no better than having any other absolute faith at the expense of a broader perspective. Not to sound like an art house tool but the point is a blend is needed for long term success. We still should and need to be doing better, not letting us off the hook, but there’s problems with any all in approach. Like the power tennis player who will commit unforced errors if they just sit on th baseline and blast shots for winners all day and night .
[/quote]

Yes. I believe it will be hard for a bifurcated system to develop but pushing China over the edge isn’t a good thing. They have many advantages over us. I heard an economist call data gathering “the new oil”. China has far more physical capital to mine.

[a fan]

Listened to a discussion on Bloomberg Radio today about China and our crackdown on China’s access to computer chips and other technologies. China is committed to decoupling from the US in response. Long term, it’s likely to be a losing battle for us if technology is bifurcated by trading partners. China graduates twice as many students as we do annually and 50% are STEM. “We be Fkuc’d”….may turn out to be poor policy decisions but moat of us won’t be around to see it.

Yes, this kind of action is doomed.

Just as dumb as the trade tariffs under Trump.

First we were going to be taken over by Russians. Then we moved to Japan in the 80's. Now we're on to China? Pass.

We're going to be "taken over" by ourselves, as we haven't fixed one single major problem in our nation in, oh, about 50 years now.

Where are we on education and STEM?

Where are we on health care for our people?

Where are we on world class infrastructure?

Where are we on labor/visa/immigration?

Until we pull our heads out of our *sses and start serious work on the above issues? We're not going to be able to out compete Canada, let alone China, Japan, and Russia.

We've let our politicians sell our country out to multinational corporations. When, and only when, we decide to take our own country back....will we have a chance of competing with other 1st world nations. Right now? We're leaving 80% of our people behind....and that percentage grows daily.

[old salt]

Good lord, Gabbard's DOA as a Dem candidate and disqualified in oh so many ways...

Has she introduced any actual legislation in the past couple of years?
Oh yeah, anti-transgender legislation under "Protect Women's Sports Act"...

She may lose support from that massive group of unrestricted transgender sports advocates

And we haven't even gotten to Vlad's support...

...still using your HRC talking point McCarthyite smears.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/18/politics ... index.html

Clinton did not provide proof about how Russia is “grooming” Gabbard. She and her team pointed to allegations that Russian news and propaganda sites often report on Gabbard’s campaign and that moments in Gabbard’s campaign have been reportedly amplified by trolls and bots on Twitter with ties to Russia. Gabbard has denied those allegations.

Clinton’s team also noted that some of Gabbard’s foreign policy views align closely with Russian interests.

Gabbard responded on Twitter Friday afternoon to Clinton’s comments.

“Thank you @HillaryClinton. You, the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long, have finally come out from behind the curtain,” she tweeted.

“From the day I announced my candidacy, there has been a concerted campaign to destroy my reputation,” she added. “We wondered who was behind it and why. Now we know — it was always you, through your proxies and powerful allies in the corporate media and war machine, afraid of the threat I pose.”

“It’s now clear that this primary is between you and me. Don’t cowardly hide behind your proxies. Join the race directly.”

The funny thing was that Tulsi was looking for the attention, she was only at 1.2%...never did get much past that point...yet, claimed to be HRC's main competition-I don't think she was merely delusional, I think she was desperate.

“Just two days ago, the New York Times put out an article saying that I’m a Russian asset and an Assad apologist and all these different smears,” Gabbard said, referring to a recent story that said she is being backed by Russians on Twitter. “This morning, a CNN commentator said on national television that I’m an asset of Russia. Completely despicable.”

Yup, and you still don't believe that Vlad had his folks trying to influence the 2016 election in favor of Trump and against Clinton. Nah, nuthin' to see...

You're ohh so credible.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-e ... rd-n964261

I think you know how low my regard was for HRC; despite my revulsion at Trump, and that was well-earned revulsion, a totally disqualified on every dimension candidate, I still couldn't bring myself to cast a vote for Clinton. Went for the 3rd party knucklehead as a protest vote.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... -explained

But hey, Tulsi's still a tool for the Russians : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iywKH60NUGg

She's not the first candidate who's opposed to getting into wars, & wars with Russia specifically.

Of course any country is going to promote a candidate who best serves their interests. That does not make them a Russian asset.

Did you decry John Kerry as a Soviet or Chinese asset for his antiwar views during Vietnam (the height of the Cold Wat), or accuse him of being an Iranian asset for JCPOA ?

She served 2 tours in Iraq & is still serving as a Major in the Army Reserve.
Speaking of credibility -- who are you to accuse her of being a Russian asset ?
You claim to be repulsed by Clinton yet you eagerly embrace her McCarthyite smear tactics.

https://twitter.com/tulsigabbard/status ... 52?lang=en

I only said she had Vlad's support...favorite Dem candidate of Vlad...and indeed, they had the bots and troll farm working for her. I don't need to like or agree with Hillary on a darn thing to believe the data scientists.

And yup, Tulsi's still a tool for the Russians. Whether that's intentional or not (and sure seems like it's intentional) she's nevertheless predictably useful to them.

"Useful idiot" is still an "asset", though not the same as an "agent" the latter being something I highly doubt.

But yeah, you have zero credibility on this one. You pooh poohed that the Russians were involved actively in supporting Trump and against Clinton from the get go and you're still hanging on...

What is your basis for saying it is intentional on her part ?
She's isolationist in that she eschews great power conflict -- whether with Russia or China.
She does not wish to provoke either of them until/unless they are a clear & present danger -- an imminent existential military threat to the US.
After 9-11, her tours in Iraq & her NG/Army Reserve experience, she obviously still sees the spread of militant Islam as the most imminent threat.
None of that makes her a Russian asset or Islamophobe.

You are so intolerant of people who do not share your perspective that you assign darker motives rather than tolerate honest, legitimate & well reasoned differences of opinion & perspective, based on relevant experience (...more extensive than yours).

Again, you have zero credibility on this as an inveterate denier of the Russian attempts to influence our elections.
Experience

And no, on policy, it's immensely dumb (or worse) to say on national TV that we should not stand with a free, democratic, western-leaning Ukraine because, ohh my, the Russians have nuclear weapons...ohh my...and hey a lot of Ukrainians speak Russian...I don't think she's actually this stupid, nor do I I think she's merely prioritizing fighting Islamic extremists...nope...but that's just my opinion, just my impression...which is why I said "sure seems like it's intentional" (I don't know it's intentional, she just appears to be inviting Vlad's support)...after all, she knows she's Vlad's darling, she knows how much press coverage she gets on RT etc, she knows the Russian troll farms have worked on her behalf; again, she's not that stupid not to know...but she's never said, knock it off, get out of our elections, step back Vlad. Thus, my impression that she's inviting Vlad's support.

But, of course, you could be right that she's entirely and simply just a "useful idiot" from Vlad's perspective. A tool.

...as opposed to you being a useful idiot & tool for HRC. Her campaign hired a Russian agent to insert disinformation into a campaign which dominated the media coverage for years, fooled the FBI, & lead to an impeachment. ...& you bought into it totally.

Do you support US military intervention in Ukraine against Russia ? Should we do more than our NATO allies ?
https://twitter.com/tulsigabbard/status ... 76?lang=en
She supported Obama's sanctions on Russia & supported limited military aid to Ukraine AND our Baltic NATO allies.
https://www.msnbc.com/taking-the-hill/w ... 2796739629

I'm anything but a supporter of HRC, not remotely a fan.
Much less have any influence, nor have any claim of political leadership pretensions.

Tulsi has such pretensions, seeks to have such influence, and really is supported by Vlad as a "useful idiot".

And what a lot of baloney you spew, constantly, to try to distract from what the Russians actually did and continue to do.
My 'experience' may well be far more extensive than yours in this arena, while I would certainly defer to your knowledge of military equipment, tactics...and jargon.

Yes, I do support being a bulwark for Ukraine. Definitely...I recall you trying to tell us it wasn't really the Russians who crossed the border and took Crimea, then you pivoted to the claim that it was really Russia's in the first place...I recall our argument at that time, the tragic history of appeasement.

I'm still right, IMO.

Listen, if you want to be an isolationist and a nationalist, rejecting international law and organizations, global interdependence, prefer to let other nations deal with their own crises and threats, etc...no sweat, that's simply your opinion (Tulsi's too?)...but how about some actual integrity and consistency to this isolationism?

If you and Tulsi actually believe we should go back to isolationism, then advocate pulling the Navy and Air Force all the way back, abandon all bases around the world, including ME and North Africa...stop messing with what's happening elsewhere, stop striking perceived enemies and simply defend ourselves at home. No more pretending that we need to fight Islamic extremists as if they're actually a bigger threat to America's interests than Russia, China...much less the threat from within. Go ahead and build your wall, keep out all those non-white immigrants...

But be consistent.

We'll disagree.

The jargon is an attempt to demonstrate superior strategic understanding out of someone who demonstrably thinks like a tactical person…

This from a troll on a personal vendetta who has heard "experts" use the dodge of "strategy vs tactics" then apes it to insert himself when he has nothing relevant to add.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Good lord, Gabbard's DOA as a Dem candidate and disqualified in oh so many ways...

Has she introduced any actual legislation in the past couple of years?
Oh yeah, anti-transgender legislation under "Protect Women's Sports Act"...

She may lose support from that massive group of unrestricted transgender sports advocates

And we haven't even gotten to Vlad's support...

...still using your HRC talking point McCarthyite smears.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/18/politics ... index.html

Clinton did not provide proof about how Russia is “grooming” Gabbard. She and her team pointed to allegations that Russian news and propaganda sites often report on Gabbard’s campaign and that moments in Gabbard’s campaign have been reportedly amplified by trolls and bots on Twitter with ties to Russia. Gabbard has denied those allegations.

Clinton’s team also noted that some of Gabbard’s foreign policy views align closely with Russian interests.

Gabbard responded on Twitter Friday afternoon to Clinton’s comments.

“Thank you @HillaryClinton. You, the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long, have finally come out from behind the curtain,” she tweeted.

“From the day I announced my candidacy, there has been a concerted campaign to destroy my reputation,” she added. “We wondered who was behind it and why. Now we know — it was always you, through your proxies and powerful allies in the corporate media and war machine, afraid of the threat I pose.”

“It’s now clear that this primary is between you and me. Don’t cowardly hide behind your proxies. Join the race directly.”

The funny thing was that Tulsi was looking for the attention, she was only at 1.2%...never did get much past that point...yet, claimed to be HRC's main competition-I don't think she was merely delusional, I think she was desperate.

“Just two days ago, the New York Times put out an article saying that I’m a Russian asset and an Assad apologist and all these different smears,” Gabbard said, referring to a recent story that said she is being backed by Russians on Twitter. “This morning, a CNN commentator said on national television that I’m an asset of Russia. Completely despicable.”

Yup, and you still don't believe that Vlad had his folks trying to influence the 2016 election in favor of Trump and against Clinton. Nah, nuthin' to see...

You're ohh so credible.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-e ... rd-n964261

I think you know how low my regard was for HRC; despite my revulsion at Trump, and that was well-earned revulsion, a totally disqualified on every dimension candidate, I still couldn't bring myself to cast a vote for Clinton. Went for the 3rd party knucklehead as a protest vote.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... -explained

But hey, Tulsi's still a tool for the Russians : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iywKH60NUGg

She's not the first candidate who's opposed to getting into wars, & wars with Russia specifically.

Of course any country is going to promote a candidate who best serves their interests. That does not make them a Russian asset.

Did you decry John Kerry as a Soviet or Chinese asset for his antiwar views during Vietnam (the height of the Cold Wat), or accuse him of being an Iranian asset for JCPOA ?

She served 2 tours in Iraq & is still serving as a Major in the Army Reserve.
Speaking of credibility -- who are you to accuse her of being a Russian asset ?
You claim to be repulsed by Clinton yet you eagerly embrace her McCarthyite smear tactics.

https://twitter.com/tulsigabbard/status ... 52?lang=en

I only said she had Vlad's support...favorite Dem candidate of Vlad...and indeed, they had the bots and troll farm working for her. I don't need to like or agree with Hillary on a darn thing to believe the data scientists.

And yup, Tulsi's still a tool for the Russians. Whether that's intentional or not (and sure seems like it's intentional) she's nevertheless predictably useful to them.

"Useful idiot" is still an "asset", though not the same as an "agent" the latter being something I highly doubt.

But yeah, you have zero credibility on this one. You pooh poohed that the Russians were involved actively in supporting Trump and against Clinton from the get go and you're still hanging on...

What is your basis for saying it is intentional on her part ?
She's isolationist in that she eschews great power conflict -- whether with Russia or China.
She does not wish to provoke either of them until/unless they are a clear & present danger -- an imminent existential military threat to the US.
After 9-11, her tours in Iraq & her NG/Army Reserve experience, she obviously still sees the spread of militant Islam as the most imminent threat.
None of that makes her a Russian asset or Islamophobe.

You are so intolerant of people who do not share your perspective that you assign darker motives rather than tolerate honest, legitimate & well reasoned differences of opinion & perspective, based on relevant experience (...more extensive than yours).

Again, you have zero credibility on this as an inveterate denier of the Russian attempts to influence our elections.
Experience

And no, on policy, it's immensely dumb (or worse) to say on national TV that we should not stand with a free, democratic, western-leaning Ukraine because, ohh my, the Russians have nuclear weapons...ohh my...and hey a lot of Ukrainians speak Russian...I don't think she's actually this stupid, nor do I I think she's merely prioritizing fighting Islamic extremists...nope...but that's just my opinion, just my impression...which is why I said "sure seems like it's intentional" (I don't know it's intentional, she just appears to be inviting Vlad's support)...after all, she knows she's Vlad's darling, she knows how much press coverage she gets on RT etc, she knows the Russian troll farms have worked on her behalf; again, she's not that stupid not to know...but she's never said, knock it off, get out of our elections, step back Vlad. Thus, my impression that she's inviting Vlad's support.

But, of course, you could be right that she's entirely and simply just a "useful idiot" from Vlad's perspective. A tool.

...as opposed to you being a useful idiot & tool for HRC. Her campaign hired a Russian agent to insert disinformation into a campaign which dominated the media coverage for years, fooled the FBI, & lead to an impeachment. ...& you bought into it totally.

Do you support US military intervention in Ukraine against Russia ? Should we do more than our NATO allies ?
https://twitter.com/tulsigabbard/status ... 76?lang=en
She supported Obama's sanctions on Russia & supported limited military aid to Ukraine AND our Baltic NATO allies.
https://www.msnbc.com/taking-the-hill/w ... 2796739629

I'm anything but a supporter of HRC, not remotely a fan.
Much less have any influence, nor have any claim of political leadership pretensions.

Tulsi has such pretensions, seeks to have such influence, and really is supported by Vlad as a "useful idiot".

And what a lot of baloney you spew, constantly, to try to distract from what the Russians actually did and continue to do.
My 'experience' may well be far more extensive than yours in this arena, while I would certainly defer to your knowledge of military equipment, tactics...and jargon.

Yes, I do support being a bulwark for Ukraine. Definitely...I recall you trying to tell us it wasn't really the Russians who crossed the border and took Crimea, then you pivoted to the claim that it was really Russia's in the first place...I recall our argument at that time, the tragic history of appeasement.

I'm still right, IMO.

Listen, if you want to be an isolationist and a nationalist, rejecting international law and organizations, global interdependence, prefer to let other nations deal with their own crises and threats, etc...no sweat, that's simply your opinion (Tulsi's too?)...but how about some actual integrity and consistency to this isolationism?

If you and Tulsi actually believe we should go back to isolationism, then advocate pulling the Navy and Air Force all the way back, abandon all bases around the world, including ME and North Africa...stop messing with what's happening elsewhere, stop striking perceived enemies and simply defend ourselves at home. No more pretending that we need to fight Islamic extremists as if they're actually a bigger threat to America's interests than Russia, China...much less the threat from within. Go ahead and build your wall, keep out all those non-white immigrants...

But be consistent.

We'll disagree.

The jargon is an attempt to demonstrate superior strategic understanding out of someone who demonstrably thinks like a tactical person…

This from a troll on a personal vendetta who has heard "experts" use the dodge of "strategy vs tactics" then apes it to insert himself when he has nothing relevant to add.

A spade is a spade.

[old salt]

I only said she had Vlad's support...favorite Dem candidate of Vlad...and indeed, they had the bots and troll farm working for her. I don't need to like or agree with Hillary on a darn thing to believe the data scientists.

And yup, Tulsi's still a tool for the Russians. Whether that's intentional or not (and sure seems like it's intentional) she's nevertheless predictably useful to them.

"Useful idiot" is still an "asset", though not the same as an "agent" the latter being something I highly doubt.

Congratulations Colonel Gabbard !

Putin's favorite Dem politician, (who is allegedly a nationalist, isolationist, nativist, pacifist, islamophobe, unwitting Russian "asset"), has just been promoted to Lieutenant Colonel in the US Army Reserve to serve abroad as a civil affairs officer.

Be on constant alert for Russian assets amongst us. Be afraid, be very afraid.

[Typical Lax Dad]

I only said she had Vlad's support...favorite Dem candidate of Vlad...and indeed, they had the bots and troll farm working for her. I don't need to like or agree with Hillary on a darn thing to believe the data scientists.

And yup, Tulsi's still a tool for the Russians. Whether that's intentional or not (and sure seems like it's intentional) she's nevertheless predictably useful to them.

"Useful idiot" is still an "asset", though not the same as an "agent" the latter being something I highly doubt.

Congratulations Colonel Gabbard !

Putin's favorite Dem politician, (who is allegedly a nationalist, isolationist, nativist, pacifist, islamophobe, unwitting Russian "asset"), has just been promoted to Lieutenant Colonel in the US Army Reserve to serve abroad as a civil affairs officer.

Be on constant alert for Russian assets amongst us. Be afraid, be very afraid.

He favorite Republican was POTUS….at least he had that going for him….which is nice.

[Farfromgeneva]

Good lord, Gabbard's DOA as a Dem candidate and disqualified in oh so many ways...

Has she introduced any actual legislation in the past couple of years?
Oh yeah, anti-transgender legislation under "Protect Women's Sports Act"...

She may lose support from that massive group of unrestricted transgender sports advocates

And we haven't even gotten to Vlad's support...

...still using your HRC talking point McCarthyite smears.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/18/politics ... index.html

Clinton did not provide proof about how Russia is “grooming” Gabbard. She and her team pointed to allegations that Russian news and propaganda sites often report on Gabbard’s campaign and that moments in Gabbard’s campaign have been reportedly amplified by trolls and bots on Twitter with ties to Russia. Gabbard has denied those allegations.

Clinton’s team also noted that some of Gabbard’s foreign policy views align closely with Russian interests.

Gabbard responded on Twitter Friday afternoon to Clinton’s comments.

“Thank you @HillaryClinton. You, the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long, have finally come out from behind the curtain,” she tweeted.

“From the day I announced my candidacy, there has been a concerted campaign to destroy my reputation,” she added. “We wondered who was behind it and why. Now we know — it was always you, through your proxies and powerful allies in the corporate media and war machine, afraid of the threat I pose.”

“It’s now clear that this primary is between you and me. Don’t cowardly hide behind your proxies. Join the race directly.”

The funny thing was that Tulsi was looking for the attention, she was only at 1.2%...never did get much past that point...yet, claimed to be HRC's main competition-I don't think she was merely delusional, I think she was desperate.

“Just two days ago, the New York Times put out an article saying that I’m a Russian asset and an Assad apologist and all these different smears,” Gabbard said, referring to a recent story that said she is being backed by Russians on Twitter. “This morning, a CNN commentator said on national television that I’m an asset of Russia. Completely despicable.”

Yup, and you still don't believe that Vlad had his folks trying to influence the 2016 election in favor of Trump and against Clinton. Nah, nuthin' to see...

You're ohh so credible.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-e ... rd-n964261

I think you know how low my regard was for HRC; despite my revulsion at Trump, and that was well-earned revulsion, a totally disqualified on every dimension candidate, I still couldn't bring myself to cast a vote for Clinton. Went for the 3rd party knucklehead as a protest vote.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... -explained

But hey, Tulsi's still a tool for the Russians : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iywKH60NUGg

She's not the first candidate who's opposed to getting into wars, & wars with Russia specifically.

Of course any country is going to promote a candidate who best serves their interests. That does not make them a Russian asset.

Did you decry John Kerry as a Soviet or Chinese asset for his antiwar views during Vietnam (the height of the Cold Wat), or accuse him of being an Iranian asset for JCPOA ?

She served 2 tours in Iraq & is still serving as a Major in the Army Reserve.
Speaking of credibility -- who are you to accuse her of being a Russian asset ?
You claim to be repulsed by Clinton yet you eagerly embrace her McCarthyite smear tactics.

https://twitter.com/tulsigabbard/status ... 52?lang=en

I only said she had Vlad's support...favorite Dem candidate of Vlad...and indeed, they had the bots and troll farm working for her. I don't need to like or agree with Hillary on a darn thing to believe the data scientists.

And yup, Tulsi's still a tool for the Russians. Whether that's intentional or not (and sure seems like it's intentional) she's nevertheless predictably useful to them.

"Useful idiot" is still an "asset", though not the same as an "agent" the latter being something I highly doubt.

But yeah, you have zero credibility on this one. You pooh poohed that the Russians were involved actively in supporting Trump and against Clinton from the get go and you're still hanging on...

What is your basis for saying it is intentional on her part ?
She's isolationist in that she eschews great power conflict -- whether with Russia or China.
She does not wish to provoke either of them until/unless they are a clear & present danger -- an imminent existential military threat to the US.
After 9-11, her tours in Iraq & her NG/Army Reserve experience, she obviously still sees the spread of militant Islam as the most imminent threat.
None of that makes her a Russian asset or Islamophobe.

You are so intolerant of people who do not share your perspective that you assign darker motives rather than tolerate honest, legitimate & well reasoned differences of opinion & perspective, based on relevant experience (...more extensive than yours).

Again, you have zero credibility on this as an inveterate denier of the Russian attempts to influence our elections.
Experience

And no, on policy, it's immensely dumb (or worse) to say on national TV that we should not stand with a free, democratic, western-leaning Ukraine because, ohh my, the Russians have nuclear weapons...ohh my...and hey a lot of Ukrainians speak Russian...I don't think she's actually this stupid, nor do I I think she's merely prioritizing fighting Islamic extremists...nope...but that's just my opinion, just my impression...which is why I said "sure seems like it's intentional" (I don't know it's intentional, she just appears to be inviting Vlad's support)...after all, she knows she's Vlad's darling, she knows how much press coverage she gets on RT etc, she knows the Russian troll farms have worked on her behalf; again, she's not that stupid not to know...but she's never said, knock it off, get out of our elections, step back Vlad. Thus, my impression that she's inviting Vlad's support.

But, of course, you could be right that she's entirely and simply just a "useful idiot" from Vlad's perspective. A tool.

...as opposed to you being a useful idiot & tool for HRC. Her campaign hired a Russian agent to insert disinformation into a campaign which dominated the media coverage for years, fooled the FBI, & lead to an impeachment. ...& you bought into it totally.

Do you support US military intervention in Ukraine against Russia ? Should we do more than our NATO allies ?
https://twitter.com/tulsigabbard/status ... 76?lang=en
She supported Obama's sanctions on Russia & supported limited military aid to Ukraine AND our Baltic NATO allies.
https://www.msnbc.com/taking-the-hill/w ... 2796739629

I'm anything but a supporter of HRC, not remotely a fan.
Much less have any influence, nor have any claim of political leadership pretensions.

Tulsi has such pretensions, seeks to have such influence, and really is supported by Vlad as a "useful idiot".

And what a lot of baloney you spew, constantly, to try to distract from what the Russians actually did and continue to do.
My 'experience' may well be far more extensive than yours in this arena, while I would certainly defer to your knowledge of military equipment, tactics...and jargon.

Yes, I do support being a bulwark for Ukraine. Definitely...I recall you trying to tell us it wasn't really the Russians who crossed the border and took Crimea, then you pivoted to the claim that it was really Russia's in the first place...I recall our argument at that time, the tragic history of appeasement.

I'm still right, IMO.

Listen, if you want to be an isolationist and a nationalist, rejecting international law and organizations, global interdependence, prefer to let other nations deal with their own crises and threats, etc...no sweat, that's simply your opinion (Tulsi's too?)...but how about some actual integrity and consistency to this isolationism?

If you and Tulsi actually believe we should go back to isolationism, then advocate pulling the Navy and Air Force all the way back, abandon all bases around the world, including ME and North Africa...stop messing with what's happening elsewhere, stop striking perceived enemies and simply defend ourselves at home. No more pretending that we need to fight Islamic extremists as if they're actually a bigger threat to America's interests than Russia, China...much less the threat from within. Go ahead and build your wall, keep out all those non-white immigrants...

But be consistent.

We'll disagree.

The jargon is an attempt to demonstrate superior strategic understanding out of someone who demonstrably thinks like a tactical person…

This from a troll on a personal vendetta who has heard "experts" use the dodge of "strategy vs tactics" then apes it to insert himself when he has nothing relevant to add.

Uh huh. I don’t know what you’re talking about but strategy and tactical are used and quite common outside you’re little myopic and obtuse world.

Nice ASSumption. Stress on the first three letters.

[Farfromgeneva]

Good lord, Gabbard's DOA as a Dem candidate and disqualified in oh so many ways...

Has she introduced any actual legislation in the past couple of years?
Oh yeah, anti-transgender legislation under "Protect Women's Sports Act"...

She may lose support from that massive group of unrestricted transgender sports advocates

And we haven't even gotten to Vlad's support...

...still using your HRC talking point McCarthyite smears.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/18/politics ... index.html

Clinton did not provide proof about how Russia is “grooming” Gabbard. She and her team pointed to allegations that Russian news and propaganda sites often report on Gabbard’s campaign and that moments in Gabbard’s campaign have been reportedly amplified by trolls and bots on Twitter with ties to Russia. Gabbard has denied those allegations.

Clinton’s team also noted that some of Gabbard’s foreign policy views align closely with Russian interests.

Gabbard responded on Twitter Friday afternoon to Clinton’s comments.

“Thank you @HillaryClinton. You, the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long, have finally come out from behind the curtain,” she tweeted.

“From the day I announced my candidacy, there has been a concerted campaign to destroy my reputation,” she added. “We wondered who was behind it and why. Now we know — it was always you, through your proxies and powerful allies in the corporate media and war machine, afraid of the threat I pose.”

“It’s now clear that this primary is between you and me. Don’t cowardly hide behind your proxies. Join the race directly.”

The funny thing was that Tulsi was looking for the attention, she was only at 1.2%...never did get much past that point...yet, claimed to be HRC's main competition-I don't think she was merely delusional, I think she was desperate.

“Just two days ago, the New York Times put out an article saying that I’m a Russian asset and an Assad apologist and all these different smears,” Gabbard said, referring to a recent story that said she is being backed by Russians on Twitter. “This morning, a CNN commentator said on national television that I’m an asset of Russia. Completely despicable.”

Yup, and you still don't believe that Vlad had his folks trying to influence the 2016 election in favor of Trump and against Clinton. Nah, nuthin' to see...

You're ohh so credible.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-e ... rd-n964261

I think you know how low my regard was for HRC; despite my revulsion at Trump, and that was well-earned revulsion, a totally disqualified on every dimension candidate, I still couldn't bring myself to cast a vote for Clinton. Went for the 3rd party knucklehead as a protest vote.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... -explained

But hey, Tulsi's still a tool for the Russians : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iywKH60NUGg

She's not the first candidate who's opposed to getting into wars, & wars with Russia specifically.

Of course any country is going to promote a candidate who best serves their interests. That does not make them a Russian asset.

Did you decry John Kerry as a Soviet or Chinese asset for his antiwar views during Vietnam (the height of the Cold Wat), or accuse him of being an Iranian asset for JCPOA ?

She served 2 tours in Iraq & is still serving as a Major in the Army Reserve.
Speaking of credibility -- who are you to accuse her of being a Russian asset ?
You claim to be repulsed by Clinton yet you eagerly embrace her McCarthyite smear tactics.

https://twitter.com/tulsigabbard/status ... 52?lang=en

I only said she had Vlad's support...favorite Dem candidate of Vlad...and indeed, they had the bots and troll farm working for her. I don't need to like or agree with Hillary on a darn thing to believe the data scientists.

And yup, Tulsi's still a tool for the Russians. Whether that's intentional or not (and sure seems like it's intentional) she's nevertheless predictably useful to them.

"Useful idiot" is still an "asset", though not the same as an "agent" the latter being something I highly doubt.

But yeah, you have zero credibility on this one. You pooh poohed that the Russians were involved actively in supporting Trump and against Clinton from the get go and you're still hanging on...

What is your basis for saying it is intentional on her part ?
She's isolationist in that she eschews great power conflict -- whether with Russia or China.
She does not wish to provoke either of them until/unless they are a clear & present danger -- an imminent existential military threat to the US.
After 9-11, her tours in Iraq & her NG/Army Reserve experience, she obviously still sees the spread of militant Islam as the most imminent threat.
None of that makes her a Russian asset or Islamophobe.

You are so intolerant of people who do not share your perspective that you assign darker motives rather than tolerate honest, legitimate & well reasoned differences of opinion & perspective, based on relevant experience (...more extensive than yours).

Again, you have zero credibility on this as an inveterate denier of the Russian attempts to influence our elections.
Experience

And no, on policy, it's immensely dumb (or worse) to say on national TV that we should not stand with a free, democratic, western-leaning Ukraine because, ohh my, the Russians have nuclear weapons...ohh my...and hey a lot of Ukrainians speak Russian...I don't think she's actually this stupid, nor do I I think she's merely prioritizing fighting Islamic extremists...nope...but that's just my opinion, just my impression...which is why I said "sure seems like it's intentional" (I don't know it's intentional, she just appears to be inviting Vlad's support)...after all, she knows she's Vlad's darling, she knows how much press coverage she gets on RT etc, she knows the Russian troll farms have worked on her behalf; again, she's not that stupid not to know...but she's never said, knock it off, get out of our elections, step back Vlad. Thus, my impression that she's inviting Vlad's support.

But, of course, you could be right that she's entirely and simply just a "useful idiot" from Vlad's perspective. A tool.

...as opposed to you being a useful idiot & tool for HRC. Her campaign hired a Russian agent to insert disinformation into a campaign which dominated the media coverage for years, fooled the FBI, & lead to an impeachment. ...& you bought into it totally.

Do you support US military intervention in Ukraine against Russia ? Should we do more than our NATO allies ?
https://twitter.com/tulsigabbard/status ... 76?lang=en
She supported Obama's sanctions on Russia & supported limited military aid to Ukraine AND our Baltic NATO allies.
https://www.msnbc.com/taking-the-hill/w ... 2796739629

I'm anything but a supporter of HRC, not remotely a fan.
Much less have any influence, nor have any claim of political leadership pretensions.

Tulsi has such pretensions, seeks to have such influence, and really is supported by Vlad as a "useful idiot".

And what a lot of baloney you spew, constantly, to try to distract from what the Russians actually did and continue to do.
My 'experience' may well be far more extensive than yours in this arena, while I would certainly defer to your knowledge of military equipment, tactics...and jargon.

Yes, I do support being a bulwark for Ukraine. Definitely...I recall you trying to tell us it wasn't really the Russians who crossed the border and took Crimea, then you pivoted to the claim that it was really Russia's in the first place...I recall our argument at that time, the tragic history of appeasement.

I'm still right, IMO.

Listen, if you want to be an isolationist and a nationalist, rejecting international law and organizations, global interdependence, prefer to let other nations deal with their own crises and threats, etc...no sweat, that's simply your opinion (Tulsi's too?)...but how about some actual integrity and consistency to this isolationism?

If you and Tulsi actually believe we should go back to isolationism, then advocate pulling the Navy and Air Force all the way back, abandon all bases around the world, including ME and North Africa...stop messing with what's happening elsewhere, stop striking perceived enemies and simply defend ourselves at home. No more pretending that we need to fight Islamic extremists as if they're actually a bigger threat to America's interests than Russia, China...much less the threat from within. Go ahead and build your wall, keep out all those non-white immigrants...

But be consistent.

We'll disagree.

The jargon is an attempt to demonstrate superior strategic understanding out of someone who demonstrably thinks like a tactical person…

This from a troll on a personal vendetta who has heard "experts" use the dodge of "strategy vs tactics" then apes it to insert himself when he has nothing relevant to add.

A spade is a spade.

Well you haven’t served so you also would only know the terms strategic and tactical from some tv “experts”. There’s no way you could possibly know and utilize them otherwise per the true expert here.

[MDlaxfan76]

Yes, I do support being a bulwark for Ukraine. Definitely...I recall you trying to tell us it wasn't really the Russians who crossed the border and took Crimea, then you pivoted to the claim that it was really Russia's in the first place...I recall our argument at that time, the tragic history of appeasement.

I'm still right, IMO.

Listen, if you want to be an isolationist and a nationalist, rejecting international law and organizations, global interdependence, prefer to let other nations deal with their own crises and threats, etc...no sweat, that's simply your opinion (Tulsi's too?)...but how about some actual integrity and consistency to this isolationism?

If you and Tulsi actually believe we should go back to isolationism, then advocate pulling the Navy and Air Force all the way back, abandon all bases around the world, including ME and North Africa...stop messing with what's happening elsewhere, stop striking perceived enemies and simply defend ourselves at home. No more pretending that we need to fight Islamic extremists as if they're actually a bigger threat to America's interests than Russia, China...much less the threat from within. Go ahead and build your wall, keep out all those non-white immigrants...

But be consistent.

We'll disagree.

That part is a fabrication. I never denied that the little green men who seized Crimea were Russians. I pointed out that they received little to no resistance from Ukranian military forces.

My isolationism is non-interventionist. No nation building or wars of choice for human rights abuses or imposing changes in culture.
I support strong naval forces to keep the sea lanes open (with allies) which are vital to our economic survival, robust alliances with fellow democracies & a strong military for deterrence purposes. I support our pivot to Asia to support our Indo-Pacific allies via conventional deterrence. I think we over-invest in defending a wealthy EU from a Russian threat that they do not take seriously, just because we let Putin get under our skin with his political needling. We need to do as much in NATO as our EU allies do, & no more, & focus more on the W Hemisphere & Arctic.

You think we should be a "bulwark" for Ukraine -- whatever that weasel word means. Should we respond with military force against Russia if they invade Ukraine ? Yes or No ?

Do you think we should respond with military force against China if they invade Taiwan ? Yes or No ?

Yes to both. And we should make that clear, else we're green lighting each.

You and I could agree on some things in terms of priorities, but you lost me with your defense of "nationalism" and "isolationism", historical tragedies again and again, and your denial of what the Russians were trying to do...on behalf of Trump, whose "policies" you supported.

If the citizens of Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Afghanistan, or any other nation choose to live under authoritarian rule -- that's on them, it is their decision.

If we allow ourselves to fall prey to disinformation & propaganda from Russia, China, or any other source, that's on us. We created the social media tools they are using, just as our political parties & commercial influencers use them.

I don't really agree as to the word "choose". Not sure how much "choice" those folks have.

But I do think that ultimately those societies and their governments need to deliver for their people, else they may well overcome the authoritarian system...but that's the point of authoritarian systems, to remove "choice". Whether by force or propaganda, to so thoroughly dominate as to eliminate "choice".

At best, there's a degree of "consent".

China's at least trying to earn the 'consent' through economic growth; Russia has basically given up, just a kleptocracy.

Totally agree as to "on us"...if we allow the Big Lie for instance, if we don't totally reject the Insurrection and don't actually have consequences for those who fomented it, that's "on us".

And our adversaries will be emboldened as we fail to bolster democracy and the rule of law, as well as civility at home.

Managed growth isn’t earning consent. What they did to Jack Ma is so similar to what Putin did to Khodokorsky.

Of course, but it would be naive of us not to recognize that for the masses of Chinese, their lives are progressively getting better at a fast clip, generation over generation. Couple that with media control and constant propaganda...with an already high cultural affinity to community over individual, and they're actually generating a high degree of 'consent' currently.

But it's fragile if they fail to continue to improve the economic wellbeing at a fast clip and/or are demonstrably achieving lower living standards than rivals such as the US with no hope of catching up.

And the 'nationalism' factor will likely be heightened, as will 'control', if they feel that 'consent' to be weakening otherwise...dangerous.

Russia is not achieving that progress, thus is full on with the aggressive nationalism propaganda. And asymmetric cyber warfare. And they're being quite effective in exploiting our system's weaknesses, with a whole bunch of Americans actively being complicit.

And that has the double effect of also making us a weaker competitor to China.