Just So We're Perfectly Clear, There Will Be No Wall. Ever. This Is Why.

[Shalcker]

We're in an unprecedented situation. This is new territory for us.

Really?

I think this article will be helpful for historical comparisons.

Just as the America's Cruel Revenge on Russia in the post-Trump era is going to be an unprecedented situation too.

Right, just like with Nixon and Reagan.

Or Bush, for that matter:
The George H. W. Bush Administration only had a single criminal indictment, but it’s notable for two reasons. It was the only time that a U.S. treasurer has ever gone to prison. But Catalina Vasquez Villalpando’s conviction and sentence is probably less notable than who didn’t go to jail: President Bush 41 himself escaped potentially ruinous scandal by granting clemency to six people indicted in the Reagan Administration’s Iran-Contra scandal, thereby avoiding trials that could have exposed Bush 41’s involvement.

Pardoning people who might have gotten you in hot water seems to have historical precedent.

I do hope you appreciate that Shalcker. Because of 2016, America, once free of Trump with its anger unleashed, will hunt Russia forever. Not even Republicans pretend Russia didn't interfere anymore (just that it didn't "sway the election"). Post Trump, they'll edit that out. And you'll have both parties who will try and score domestic political points by seeing who can fuck you people the most.

I think "domestic point multipliers" are pretty low in US for most kinds of foreign policy, so, not that scary really.

Bring it on, and we'll see how it goes.

There will be, for the first time in our history, no "peaceful co-existence" or 'reconciliation" caucus. There already is a very large "let's wreck their lives" caucus though.

Start saving canned goods, little buddy. The clock's ticking. We're coming for you all. And your dictators' wonder weapons and stupid stunts won't save you either.

All right, I'll bring flowers for US funeral instead.

- - - Updated - - -

I gotta admit. It's kind of nice having you around. It really gives some insight into what Russian troll farm talking points are going to be for the day.

It is called "learning foreign culture" :P

- - - Updated - - -

People would still have to be dumbasses disconnected from reality to think that Trump was going to be a grenade tossed into the establishment. Trump is more like a mildly smelly stink bomb tossed into the establishment, because "the establishment" is a bunch of rich fucks who pay politicians to get them to run government in favor of said rich fuck.

Well, it was their best bet after Bernie (even though i'm sure they'd be just as disappointed should have Bernie won if they leaned that way).

Anyone who was not a complete and utter retard knew that Trump was a half-broke self-labeled billionaire who whores himself out for money. He's been whoring himself out to the highest bidder since he became president and he was whoring himself out long before that.

"He is rich so he'll not need that much" seems to be common mistake in a lot of countries.

If anything, Trump has set a worse precedent for those against "the establishment" than has ever existed within our country. He's broken multiple conflict of interest laws when it comes to receiving money for political favor, but we're so bogged down in investigating him in 20 other ways that they're probably waiting for the other investigations to conclude to just pile those charges on top of him.

Got to plug that article about indictments for various presidents again.

I think Trump still haven't beaten Reagan yet?

I do find a degree of hilarity in seeing a Putinista backing hatred for "the establishment", given Putin's government is transparently and opnely corrupt in every single way that people in the US only are able to THEORIZE about our "establishment".

Who says i don't hate it just as much? No similar "grenades" around though; maybe i just know our opposition too well by following it long time, and quite aware of what they can and cannot do.

No other president has tried to unilaterally shut the government down to force his will into action when none of the other branches of government wanted it.

Well, if president has such power clearly it can be used this way.

Getting a blowie and lying about it is leagues away from "shutting government down to force an unpopular agenda upon the people". I realize that you can't fathom a country where a large number of people have to AGREE on something for it to become law, as you live somewhere where if daddy Putin wants it, daddy Putin gets it.

I think 2013 shutdown quite qualifies as "shutting government down to force an unpopular agenda upon the people" (or, rather, to not implement popular agenda).

[Skroe]

Really?

I think this article will be helpful for historical comparisons.

Yes really. Because the Mueller investigation is inprecedented and has obtained unprecerented convictions and indictments in record time. Because of the types of crimes involved, and where it leads. Most administrations have individuals who commit wrongdoing. Like this? And these crimes? Never. It's new. Period.

Right, just like with Nixon and Reagan.

Or Bush, for that matter:
The George H. W. Bush Administration only had a single criminal indictment, but it’s notable for two reasons. It was the only time that a U.S. treasurer has ever gone to prison. But Catalina Vasquez Villalpando’s conviction and sentence is probably less notable than who didn’t go to jail: President Bush 41 himself escaped potentially ruinous scandal by granting clemency to six people indicted in the Reagan Administration’s Iran-Contra scandal, thereby avoiding trials that could have exposed Bush 41’s involvement.

No. This is nothing like that at all. This is worse than Watergate.


Pardoning people who might have gotten you in hot water seems to have historical precedent.[/quote]
Pardoning people at this point is too late to save Trump. He probably won't do it.

I think "domestic point multipliers" are pretty low in US for most kinds of foreign policy, so, not that scary really.

You underestimate how unpopular Russia is here, and how angry Americans, particularly democrats and those against Trump are about it. And this is two years later.

More specifically this is what is going to happen. In the 2020 election post-Trump, the candidates will be asked about US relations with Russia and Russia sanctions. Both will crawl over thesmelves to look hard on Russia. And Congress, which can't vote united on anything, pretty much votes in hysterical majorities, twice a year, against Russia.

No. Russia made a major strategic error doing what it did, in exchange for a minor tactical victory.

Bring it on, and we'll see how it goes.

The theme of US foreign policy in Europe is going to be "how many things can we take away from Russia".

Your dignity will be somewhere on the list.

All right, I'll bring flowers for US funeral instead.

What are you going to do. Bullshit us to death?

You people can't do spit. You played one little trick in Ukraine in 2014. You played another in 2016 here. What is your clownish regime going to do? Nuke us because we're making you poor? Give me a break.

Russia interfered in our democracy. That's Defecon 1. You're out of tricks of that magnitude. Not even rolling a division into Estonia would do what you'd think. But then again, your dictator, the War Criminal Vladimir Putin, was correctly assessed by his KGB handlers 35 years ago: "reckless", "not intelligent", "mistakes luck for skill".

So go ahead. Go detonate one of your dumb, pointless wonder weapons on some empty shit stained rock to main a point. 25 years ago, Bush '41 didn't extract a high cost when the US beat you in the Cold War. The next time you're in a bad spot, the US President at the time won't be nearly so sympathetic.

[Blur4stuff]

What if Russia put all that effort into improving their country instead?

[Skroe]

What if Russia put all that effort into improving their country instead?

Then it could have been a bigger Germany. An industrial powerhouse.

Instead it's settling on "bigger, nuclear armed Serbia, but with less democracy".

[Cthulhu 2020]

Well, if president has such power clearly it can be used this way.

The president doesn't have that kind of power though. He can refuse to sign budget bills, but if both houses of our legislature pass a budget with a veto proof majority, Trump can cry his way to sleep, because he can't stop it. So no, a president will never have the authority to just shut government down all on his own.

THEORETICALLY he could if out legislature does not pass a spending bill with a veto proof majority. But most of the hundreds of people in our legislature know how catastrophic failing to pass a spending bill would be, not just for the average American but for themselves as well. There might be a couple of die hard Trumpers in congress now, but 3 or 4 people isn't going to stop a veto proof bill.

[Skroe]

The president doesn't have that kind of power though. He can refuse to sign budget bills, but if both houses of our legislature pass a budget with a veto proof majority, Trump can cry his way to sleep, because he can't stop it. So no, a president will never have the authority to just shut government down all on his own.

THEORETICALLY he could if out legislature does not pass a spending bill with a veto proof majority. But most of the hundreds of people in our legislature know how catastrophic failing to pass a spending bill would be, not just for the average American but for themselves as well. There might be a couple of die hard Trumpers in congress now, but 3 or 4 people isn't going to stop a veto proof bill.

It's worth remembering why non-borderstate Republicans care about the wall. One word:

Fundraising.


It's useful to raise campaign money off the wall. But when the time comes to lead that along, or via the budget, get Federal dollars to their States or districts, their desire for the wall gets put on hold instantly.

And this is why the last 4 budgets have passed by such huge numbers. The bills that have passed so far as part of the apporporiations process, as I wrote up thread, have been within a hair of a veto-proof majority. Getting that majority would come if it were whipped votes, which they weren't.

Remember: Mitch McConnell doesn't care about Donald Trump's fortunes really. What he does care about is bringing taxpayer dollars back to Kentucky to build more buildings named after himself.

[Felya]

What if Russia put all that effort into improving their country instead?

It would easily rival the US... at least. The natural resources of Russia are absurd. The proximity to both Europe and Asia is a huge advantage.

[Mekkle]

It would easily rival the US... at least. The natural resources of Russia are absurd. The proximity to both Europe and Asia is a huge advantage.

That would require a selfless and progressive leader. none of which they seem to have, nor want. They view it as a weakness or some dumb shit.

[Breccia]

What if Russia put all that effort into improving their country instead?

Putin thinks that's what he's doing. What you're seeing is how someone raised to be a militaristic murderous spy runs a country.

[Felya]

That would require a selfless and progressive leader. none of which they seem to have, nor want. They view it as a weakness or some dumb shit.

It required perestroika to be started about 20 years sooner. Although, even in 1979, a focus on automation was ahead of its time.

- - - Updated - - -

Putin thinks that's what he's doing. What you're seeing is how someone raised to be a militaristic murderous spy runs a country.

I don’t believe he is. I think he is laughing at the morons making him rich.

Edit: Don’t confuse means and intent.

[Kaleredar]

What if Russia put all that effort into improving their country instead?

That's what strikes me the most. Russia seems hell-bent on lowering others to their own level, instead of attempting to make themselves better. It's always a matter of "Well SURE Russia did this fucked up thing, but do you remember what the US did..."

And, from what I've seen from the usual Russian suspects around here, they seem perfectly content with that. Which is sad.

Come to think of it, that's kind of how the republican party has become in the US recently.

Odd.

[Felya]

That's what strikes me the most. Russia seems hell-bent on lowering others to their own level, instead of attempting to make themselves better.

And, from what I've seen from the usual Russian suspects around here, they seem perfectly content with that. Which is sad.

Come to think of it, that's kind of how the republican party has become in the US recently.

Odd.

You should watch some YouTube videos on peter the great. The fucker tried... it didn’t last, but at least he tried.

[Shalcker]

Yes really. Because the Mueller investigation is inprecedented and has obtained unprecerented convictions and indictments in record time. Because of the types of crimes involved, and where it leads. Most administrations have individuals who commit wrongdoing. Like this? And these crimes? Never. It's new. Period.

Which crime specifically is "never seen before" out of those already convicted/indicted?

No. This is nothing like that at all. This is worse than Watergate.

On which metric specifically?

Pardoning people at this point is too late to save Trump. He probably won't do it.

That depends on a lot of things we have no way of knowing.

You underestimate how unpopular Russia is here, and how angry Americans, particularly democrats and those against Trump are about it. And this is two years later.

Not seeing any higher anger now then two years ago; if anything it got lower.

More specifically this is what is going to happen. In the 2020 election post-Trump, the candidates will be asked about US relations with Russia and Russia sanctions. Both will crawl over thesmelves to look hard on Russia. And Congress, which can't vote united on anything, pretty much votes in hysterical majorities, twice a year, against Russia.

You're running out of escalation steps; pretty sure by next president your only option for "tougher measures" will be war.

No. Russia made a major strategic error doing what it did, in exchange for a minor tactical victory.

Putin is often seen as great tactician and bad strategist.

His only saving grace is that strategists of other countries too often happen to be worse...

The theme of US foreign policy in Europe is going to be "how many things can we take away from Russia".
Your dignity will be somewhere on the list.

Nope.

What are you going to do. Bullshit us to death?

That's what you're trying to do.

You people can't do spit. You played one little trick in Ukraine in 2014. You played another in 2016 here. What is your clownish regime going to do? Nuke us because we're making you poor? Give me a break.

We'll take Middle East from you.

Russia interfered in our democracy. That's Defecon 1. You're out of tricks of that magnitude. Not even rolling a division into Estonia would do what you'd think. But then again, your dictator, the War Criminal Vladimir Putin, was correctly assessed by his KGB handlers 35 years ago: "reckless", "not intelligent", "mistakes luck for skill".

We can always interfere again. Not like cybersecurity is going to really improve in old institutions.

So go ahead. Go detonate one of your dumb, pointless wonder weapons on some empty shit stained rock to main a point. 25 years ago, Bush '41 didn't extract a high cost when the US beat you in the Cold War. The next time you're in a bad spot, the US President at the time won't be nearly so sympathetic.

Noone beat us in Cold War, and noone is going to walk away from hot war with us either.

- - - Updated - - -

What if Russia put all that effort into improving their country instead?

When it tried US and EU spared no effort to destroy that path to improvement (specifically Ukraine).

Russia won on economy there, and then EU and US forgotten about rule of law and democracy entirely to limit Russian expansion.

That's how this entire conflict started.

[lockedout]

It's 2018 and unified Western sanctions against Russia are entering their fifth year (once unthinkable), and more are rolled out about every 8-9 months.

Tell me again how I'm off my rocker?

You said were going to war with Russia. That would be the end of the world.

[Felya]

Oh and to add to what I replied with earlier. Consider the iron curtain and how Poland was a buffer from western agression. I think that’s one factor in Russia’s problems that goes unnoticed. What if such direct access to Europe, was treated as an advantage and not a millitary disadvantage, requiring a buffer, instead of a dominant trade route to Asia?

- - - Updated - - -

You said were going to war with Russia. That would be the end of the world.

No, he didn’t. He said coming for their food, not lives. That’s sanctions... he isn’t the one screaming electing Hillary means WW3...

[Shalcker]

The president doesn't have that kind of power though. He can refuse to sign budget bills, but if both houses of our legislature pass a budget with a veto proof majority, Trump can cry his way to sleep, because he can't stop it. So no, a president will never have the authority to just shut government down all on his own.

Are they going to though? Is current budget really that bi-partisan?

THEORETICALLY he could if out legislature does not pass a spending bill with a veto proof majority. But most of the hundreds of people in our legislature know how catastrophic failing to pass a spending bill would be, not just for the average American but for themselves as well. There might be a couple of die hard Trumpers in congress now, but 3 or 4 people isn't going to stop a veto proof bill.

How many does Trump actually need to be certain that whatever passes isn't veto-proof?

After all, he was quite active speaking for candidates in midterms - perhaps some connections were made there.

[Shalcker]

No, he didn’t. He said coming for their food, not lives. That’s sanctions... he isn’t the one screaming electing Hillary means WW3...

Right, world #1 grain exporter is totally going to lose on food. Give me a break.

- - - Updated - - -

Keeping the government open is bipartisan. Especially after the most recent election. Republicans know they're on thin ice, they don't want to end up with such a minority that it only takes Dems to pass anything.

Still, how many exactly can defect to break veto-proofness?

[ringpriest]

You said were going to war with Russia. That would be the end of the world.

There's war, and then there's Armageddon; while strategic nuclear weapons have pushed the one closer to the other, simultaneously technological advancement and more sophisticated civilizaion have created many, many more attack surfaces. The war between the United States and Russia is already well underway, and, as with most wars, both sides are losing. Neither has any intention of taking it nuclear, ever (though a "demonstration" strike against some offensive but powerless target seems plausible in the next decade) although that certainly doesn't guarantee such an exchange will never happen.

You know who is winning? China. China is winning. The United States should have confronted the PRC back in the 1990s, fresh from winning the Cold War and with the Tienanmen Square protests in recent memory; on both moral and practical levels, the US should have squeezed China until it cracked (as it is now preparing to do to Russia, if and when it successfully reaches a post-Trump era - which is what I believe Skroe is referring to) - aiming for a good outcome (for the Han people as well as Americans and the rest of the world) of a functioning representative government (or governments - at the least Tibet and Xinjang would have gone, along with HK as well), but willing do take any victory it could get. But instead America followed a path of greed and ease, and declined to wage Cold War 1.5 - and as a consequence, it now gets to wage Cold War 2.0 (Now with Twenty-First Century techology!) with Russia, and then still has to deal with a rival in China that is considerably more formidable than it was 30 years ago.

But I'm drifting - real winners and strategic implications aside, Russia and the United States have been involved in an escalating conflict for the last decade; I cannot say with any certainty who "started" it, but the fundamental point of fracture seems to be a disagreement over Russia's role in world order - the Russians think of themselves as a Great Power - one of a handful of special nations sitting atop the world, peers with the United States, rising China, and a (for now non-existent) truly United Europe (and Putin's Russia has done what it could to prevent a true United Europe from emerging), meanwhile the American establishment sees Russia (geography, nuclear arsenal, and impressive list of achievements aside) as a resource-heavy 2nd tier power, more on the level of, say, France. I think there was a real belief on both sides that a mutually acceptable modus vivendi could be reached, but some time in the mid-to-late oughts it that collapsed, and it became a conflict, a sort of new 4th generation-plus warfare.

Russian moves have included attempts at modernizing their forces, preparing for both 4th generation war and 21st-Century blitzkrieg, some bloody but effective muscle flexing on their borders (including smashing perceived US catspaws in Georgia, Syria, and Ukraine), economic pressures (mostly using their fossil fuel production), and planting the seeds of future anti-American alliances, and, right out of the Soviet KGB playbook, political destabilization. This latter tactic has seen its most spectacular successes with Brexit and Donald Judas Trump.

The US, for its part, started with its traditional "democracy-promotion" operations and an expanded NATO (whether the latter is part of the cause, or an early move in the game, I'm uncertain - perhaps it is both), alliance-building (something America was traditionally good at, and possibly the single place Trump has done the most damage), devastating economic warfare (with many more salvos ready to fire), the long preparations for a decapitating counter-force strike, and a slow, lumbering attempt to turn its military back from being video-game terrorist fighters into the pointy end of a superpower.

The next moves for the United States are fairly obvious - broadly speaking, it will attempt to do what I suggested it should have done with China three decades ago (and what I believe what Skroe has mentioned on this forum before); squeeze Russia until it cracks, at which point the hostile government will be replaced, Russia will become a normal player in the Global Market, and it will cease to have significant military capabilities. I will not, at this time, venture to share any opinion on the morality of this course of action, nor the liklihood of its success, but it is quite clear that (if the US survives Trump) that is what it will attempt to do.

Russia, for it's part, will continue to work on anti-American alliances, keep trying to build a sort of global petro-state anti-western OPEC (useless, while the US remains intact and functional), try to get Trump or his successor to squander American military power on a long, pointless war somewhere, try to drive metaphorical wedges into NATO, do it's utmost to make sure it's nuclear arsenal is not amenable to decapitating first strikes, keep working on its military, tighten the screws domestically to prevent unrest, try to stir up chaos abroad, and prepare to unleash some shock warfare if it deems it necessary

(This whole affair is so spectacularly beneficial to China, that even without evidence I just have to wonder if the US (and Russia) have not been played, in the grandest game of "let's you and him fight", ever.)

[Shalcker]

The next moves for the United States are fairly obvious - broadly speaking, it will attempt to do what I suggested it should have done with China three decades ago (and what I believe what Skroe has mentioned on this forum before); squeeze Russia until it cracks, at which point the hostile government will be replaced, Russia will become a normal player in the Global Market, and it will cease to have significant military capabilities. I will not, at this time, venture to share any opinion on the morality of this course of action, nor the liklihood of its success, but it is quite clear that (if the US survives Trump) that is what it will attempt to do.

Russia, for it's part, will continue to work on anti-American alliances, keep trying to build a sort of global petro-state anti-western OPEC (useless, while the US remains intact and functional), try to get Trump or his successor to squander American military power on a long, pointless war somewhere, try to drive metaphorical wedges into NATO, do it's utmost to make sure it's nuclear arsenal is not amenable to decapitating first strikes, keep working on its military, tighten the screws domestically to prevent unrest, try to stir up chaos abroad, and prepare to unleash some shock warfare if it deems it necessary

(This whole affair is so spectacularly beneficial to China, that even without evidence I just have to wonder if the US (and Russia) have not been played, in the grandest game of "let's you and him fight", ever.)

While i broadly agree with your assessment, could you elaborate why do you think extended "OPEC" is useless?

[Deja Thoris]

How did this turn from a thread on the Wall to one where a Russian propaganda bot is trying hard to prove his country isn't shit? (This isn't nation bashing, statistics prove it!)