Why do the Ds Want Another Cold War?

[SDBoiler1]

This article, written by a liberal, makes quite a bit of sense. The D's auto-outrage is just playing into Trump's hand. They just can't help themselves. Trump, in their minds, is an existential threat to civilization itself.

http://theweek.com/articles/785530/why-democrats-want-another-cold-war

 

[PurdueFan1]

This article, written by a liberal, makes quite a bit of sense. The D's auto-outrage is just playing into Trump's hand. They just can't help themselves. Trump, in their minds, is an existential threat to civilization itself.

http://theweek.com/articles/785530/why-democrats-want-another-cold-war

So an opinion piece written by someone you claim is a liberal automatically says all democrats want another Cold War? Gotcha. So you’re cool with me saying all Republicans are white nationalists then?

 

[indy35]

Maybe the GOP can hold their convention in Moscow. They’ve shown they have no care about the people of our country outside of the super wealthy.

 

[SDBoiler1]

So an opinion piece written by someone you claim is a liberal automatically says all democrats want another Cold War? Gotcha. So you’re cool with me saying all Republicans are white nationalists then?

Non sequitur

 

[SDBoiler1]

Maybe the GOP can hold their convention in Moscow. They’ve shown they have no care about the people of our country outside of the super wealthy.

The D establishment is just as far into bed as the R establishment. Get a clue. How much of the Wall Street and hedge fund crowd was in the Clinton's back pocket, and Obama's at least early on?

For all the carping you do about how much the Ds care about the people, the truth is they care more about illegals than they do actual American citizens. They have shown this over and over again in recent years.

The Ds are controlled by the coastal elites who don't give two $hits about "flyover country" and the great majority of the nation, landmass/county-wise. They are totally out-of-touch with the Midwest, the South, the Mountain West, much of the Southwest.....Face it, the Ds push policies that are unpopular and are lurching ever farther to the left. Keep pushing socialism, please....

 

[indy35]

The D establishment is just as far into bed as the R establishment. Get a clue. How much of the Wall Street and hedge fund crowd was in the Clinton's back pocket, and Obama's at least early on?

For all the carping you do about how much the Ds care about the people, the truth is they care more about illegals than they do actual American citizens. They have shown this over and over again in recent years.

The Ds are controlled by the coastal elites who don't give two $hits about "flyover country" and the great majority of the nation, landmass/county-wise. They are totally out-of-touch with the Midwest, the South, the Mountain West, much of the Southwest.....Face it, the Ds push policies that are unpopular and are lurching ever farther to the left. Keep pushing socialism, please....

Yes, the party that started the CFPB and the party that hates it with a passion are exactly the same. Are there too many Dems in bed with Wall St, absolutely. But that is very different than an entire party that does absolutely nothing for the vast majority of Americans. What’s the last R policy that wasn’t totally geared toward the wealthy? I’ll wait.

 

[PurdueFan1]

So an opinion piece written by someone you claim is a liberal automatically says all democrats want another Cold War? Gotcha. So you’re cool with me saying all Republicans are white nationalists then?

Non sequitur

Except it’s not.

 

[BoilerBiker]

This article, written by a liberal, makes quite a bit of sense. The D's auto-outrage is just playing into Trump's hand. They just can't help themselves. Trump, in their minds, is an existential threat to civilization itself.

http://theweek.com/articles/785530/why-democrats-want-another-cold-war

the two one party system needs enemies and war to ensure their control.

unfortunately your desire for trump to fight the 'deep state' has taken some setbacks.
j.bolton was selected, and he has longed voiced to bomb and force regime change in places like n.korea, iran. trump just called out u.s. intelligence (similar to 10+years ago), only to quickly backtrack just a day later.

it seems russia continues to be the 1 exception, but much else seems largely unchanged.

 

[SDBoiler1]

the two one party system needs enemies and war to ensure their control.

unfortunately your desire for trump to fight the 'deep state' has taken some setbacks.
j.bolton was selected, and he has longed voiced to bomb and force regime change in places like n.korea, iran. trump just called out u.s. intelligence (similar to 10+years ago), only to quickly backtrack just a day later.

it seems russia continues to be the 1 exception, but much else seems largely unchanged.

Bolton is not the President, last time I checked. I think you're getting the neocons confused with the Trump Rs. They are not one in the same. In fact, the neocons are some of the most outspoken Never Trumpers there are and some of them have "left the R Party" and have actually said they would vote D going forward.

 

[Purdue97]

Yes, the party that started the CFPB and the party that hates it with a passion are exactly the same. Are there too many Dems in bed with Wall St, absolutely. But that is very different than an entire party that does absolutely nothing for the vast majority of Americans. What’s the last R policy that wasn’t totally geared toward the wealthy? I’ll wait.

Tax cuts. Last year.

 

[PurdueFan1]

Yes, the party that started the CFPB and the party that hates it with a passion are exactly the same. Are there too many Dems in bed with Wall St, absolutely. But that is very different than an entire party that does absolutely nothing for the vast majority of Americans. What’s the last R policy that wasn’t totally geared toward the wealthy? I’ll wait.

Tax cuts. Last year.

Try again.

 

[Bill4411]

Tax cuts. Last year.

You think that wasn’t geared toward the wealthy?

 

[indy35]

Tax cuts. Last year.

Hilarious. Adding over 1 trillion to the debt and almost 90% of the benefits went to corporations and the 1% wealthiest individuals. That in no way is a policy that helps the majority of America. Try again.

 

[SDBoiler1]

Hilarious. Adding over 1 trillion to the debt and almost 90% of the benefits went to corporations and the 1% wealthiest individuals. That in no way is a policy that helps the majority of America. Try again.

So you do subscribe to Nancy Pelosi’s “crumbs” theory? Tell that to the millions of people who are getting a tax break from this bill and who are happy they are getting it.

 

[SKYDOG]

Hilarious. Adding over 1 trillion to the debt and almost 90% of the benefits went to corporations and the 1% wealthiest individuals. That in no way is a policy that helps the majority of America. Try again.

Please feel free to overpay your federal taxes this year in the amount of savings that you will receive. The government will gladly accept it and you will feel very noble for doing so.

 

[indy35]

So you do subscribe to Nancy Pelosi’s “crumbs” theory? Tell that to the millions of people who are getting a tax break from this bill and who are happy they are getting it.

Not a theory, just basic math and knowledge. The tax bill was not about helping the majority of Americans.

 

[SDBoiler1]

Not a theory, just basic math and knowledge. The tax bill was not about helping the majority of Americans.

Typical D. Ds never stop finding ways to spend taxpayer money. They always seem to want more and more, too.

 

[Purdue97]

Yes, the party that started the CFPB and the party that hates it with a passion are exactly the same. Are there too many Dems in bed with Wall St, absolutely. But that is very different than an entire party that does absolutely nothing for the vast majority of Americans. What’s the last R policy that wasn’t totally geared toward the wealthy? I’ll wait.

Try again.

You think that wasn’t geared toward the wealthy?

Hilarious. Adding over 1 trillion to the debt and almost 90% of the benefits went to corporations and the 1% wealthiest individuals. That in no way is a policy that helps the majority of America. Try again.

Not a theory, just basic math and knowledge. The tax bill was not about helping the majority of Americans.

The quote in the original post was, "What’s the last R policy that wasn’t totally geared toward the wealthy? I’ll wait."

Did it help the wealthy? Sure. But I have plenty of friends that bitched about this cut as well that make in the $40,000 to $200,000 range, and they all kept more of their money in paychecks. Suddenly they were quiet.

So totally geared? Nope. And if one does not like keeping more of their money(assuming your employment), feel free to give to charity or donate to govt to lower debt you are so now concerned with. I'll wait.

 

[indy35]

The quote in the original post was, "What’s the last R policy that wasn’t totally geared toward the wealthy? I’ll wait."

Did it help the wealthy? Sure. But I have plenty of friends that bitched about this cut as well that make in the $40,000 to $200,000 range, and they all kept more of their money in paychecks. Suddenly they were quiet.

So totally geared? Nope. And if one does not like keeping more of their money(assuming your employment), feel free to give to charity or donate to govt to lower debt you are so now concerned with. I'll wait.

So you're basing your belief off of the anecdotal evidence of your friends being quiet. That's fine, but just understand that isn't a legitimate way to determine the effects of a policy.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Why is it that when Obama attempted to engage Putin, he was naïve, but now Trump is trying the same and he's sly like a fox?

Politics is a team sport, that's why. Demonstrated daily on this message board.

 

[Purdue97]

So you're basing your belief off of the anecdotal evidence of your friends being quiet. That's fine, but just understand that isn't a legitimate way to determine the effects of a policy.

No, that they kept more money in their paychecks, then stopped their bitching about the new tax law. Reread the post.

 

[TopSecretBoiler]

Why is it that when Obama attempted to engage Putin, he was naïve, but now Trump is trying the same and he's sly like a fox?

Politics is a team sport, that's why. Demonstrated daily on this message board.

Or maybe because their actions have been considerably different? list the sanctions and actions obama took against russia in 8 years. Shouldn't take you long. Don't forget the "red line" and responses to the Crimea annexation and incursions into Ukraine and shooting down a commercial airliner. Then let's compare that to what has happened under trump in ~2 years. Trump has been a hard liner in comparison.

 

[TopSecretBoiler]

The quote in the original post was, "What’s the last R policy that wasn’t totally geared toward the wealthy? I’ll wait."

Did it help the wealthy? Sure. But I have plenty of friends that bitched about this cut as well that make in the $40,000 to $200,000 range, and they all kept more of their money in paychecks. Suddenly they were quiet.

So totally geared? Nope. And if one does not like keeping more of their money(assuming your employment), feel free to give to charity or donate to govt to lower debt you are so now concerned with. I'll wait.

indy35 hates it when minorities are employed. He needs them on the system.

 

[Purdue97]

Why is it that when Obama attempted to engage Putin, he was naïve, but now Trump is trying the same and he's sly like a fox?

Politics is a team sport, that's why. Demonstrated daily on this message board.

Oh please. There is nothing wrong with engaging world leaders, that is a large part of the job of US leaders and do not really remember anyone saying Obama was naive for it. Especially at the beginning. He earned that naive label over time.

Now, for mocking Romney, and not realizing Russia is an adversary in some places and at certain levels, yes. Obama in fact turned out be naive, in fact the 1980's would like their foreign relation strategy back. However, keep in mind all of the progress Reagan made in the 80's with Russia.

Time will tell if Trump is naive or not. He has a heck of a NSC, and if he listens to them, Trump/USA will be fine. As for posters here, all I keep hearing is about all of these agreements Trump naively led us into, but nobody can tell me what one of the agreements was, or what part of an agreement was, except that they will talk in the future.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Or maybe because their actions have been considerably different? list the sanctions and actions obama took against russia in 8 years. Shouldn't take you long. Don't forget the "red line" and responses to the Crimea annexation and incursions into Ukraine and shooting down a commercial airliner. Then let's compare that to what has happened under trump in ~2 years. Trump has been a hard liner in comparison.

03/06/14: Executive Order 13660; Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Ukraine
03/17/14: Executive Order 13661; Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Ukraine
03/20/14: Executive Order 13662; “Blocking Property of Additional Persons Contributing to the Situation in Ukraine
12/19/14: Executive Order 13685; Blocking Property of Certain Persons and Prohibiting Certain Transactions With Respect to the Crimea Region of Ukraine

These do not include electronic/cyber sanctions enacted on Russia for a variety of reasons in 2014/15.

Conversely, Trump enacted sanctions earlier this year, meeting a Congressional mandate to do so. By the way, he also softened some of Obama's cyber sanctions from April of 2015 of the Russian security service right after taking office in one of his first EOs.

Obama revoked some of Bush's sanctions from the Russia-Georgian conflict in 2008. So nice story, bro, but it doesn't add up to "considerably different".

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Oh please. There is nothing wrong with engaging world leaders, that is a large part of the job of US leaders and do not really remember anyone saying Obama was naive for it. Especially at the beginning. He earned that naive label over time.

Now, for mocking Romney, and not realizing Russia is an adversary in some places and at certain levels, yes. Obama in fact turned out be naive, in fact the 1980's would like their foreign relation strategy back. However, keep in mind all of the progress Reagan made in the 80's with Russia.

Time will tell if Trump is naive or not. He has a heck of a NSC, and if he listens to them, Trump/USA will be fine. As for posters here, all I keep hearing is about all of these agreements Trump naively led us into, but nobody can tell me what one of the agreements was, or what part of an agreement was, except that they will talk in the future.

*I* said Obama was naïve for doing things like revoking the Georgia sanctions in 2010 thinking it would cause any change in Putin's ambitions or behaviors. I think Trump is just egotistical enough to think he's going to make a damn bit of difference as well.

Time will prove that to be true as well. Why does each subsequent President have to learn this lesson for themselves? Russia is the hegemon in that sphere of influence, and unless you are willing to go to war over protecting non-NATO members, they are going to do what they view as is in their best interest, whether that be military action or otherwise.

 

[ComradeRedBoilermaker]

A new Cold War should be avoided at all costs. The intelligence and “defense” community has to accept that Russia is a great power on the world stage again, and that genie isn’t being put back into the bottle. The forced liberalization of the Russia backfired spectacularly, and the lesson learned should be that repeated intervention never produces the desired results. The same intelligence community that is losing its mind over Russian election meddling are the same people that were cheering on the CIA and the state department rigging the 96 Russian elections to put Yeltsin in power, which resulted in the modern Russian mafia state. Under no circumstances should these people be taken seriously.

 

[ComradeRedBoilermaker]

The D establishment is just as far into bed as the R establishment. Get a clue. How much of the Wall Street and hedge fund crowd was in the Clinton's back pocket, and Obama's at least early on?

For all the carping you do about how much the Ds care about the people, the truth is they care more about illegals than they do actual American citizens. They have shown this over and over again in recent years.

The Ds are controlled by the coastal elites who don't give two $hits about "flyover country" and the great majority of the nation, landmass/county-wise. They are totally out-of-touch with the Midwest, the South, the Mountain West, much of the Southwest.....Face it, the Ds push policies that are unpopular and are lurching ever farther to the left. Keep pushing socialism, please....

Was kind of with you there until you started talking about “illegals”.

Also lol at “great majority of the nation, landmass/county-wise”. How small the “silent majority” is that all they have left is how much empty space they can point to.

If you want to keep talking about being a “majority”, you have to start talking about actual human beings, assuming you want to be taken seriously.

But we both know you can’t do that. Because the *actual* majority of American citizens, living, breathing human beings, are not republicans and do not vote for republicans.

 

[Purdue97]

*I* said Obama was naïve for doing things like revoking the Georgia sanctions in 2010 thinking it would cause any change in Putin's ambitions or behaviors. I think Trump is just egotistical enough to think he's going to make a damn bit of difference as well.

Time will prove that to be true as well. Why does each subsequent President have to learn this lesson for themselves? Russia is the hegemon in that sphere of influence, and unless you are willing to go to war over protecting non-NATO members, they are going to do what they view as is in their best interest, whether that be military action or otherwise.

I do not disagree in general. I think politicians being egotistical and narcicistic enough to think they can make a serious change applies to them all.

I am just more willing to wait and see outcomes before I start stating someone is selling out the US, call them naive, etc. Sure do not see point in ripping for him agreeing to things that nobody knows what it was.

He pulls a red line or trades five combatants for a deserter and I will pile on

 

[gr8indoorsman]

I do not disagree in general. I think politicians being egotistical and narcicistic enough to think they can make a serious change applies to them all.

I am just more willing to wait and see outcomes before I start stating someone is selling out the US, call them naive, etc. Sure do not see point in ripping for him agreeing to things that nobody knows what it was.

He pulls a red line or trades five combatants for a deserter and I will pile on

I didn’t rip him for the agreements that I don’t know about. I ripped him because he sided with Putin over his own agencies in order to curry favor with Putin for some reason. And he deserves to be ripped for that. Period. Is he also going to hang me out to dry as Commander in Chief?

 

[Purdue97]

I didn’t rip him for the agreements that I don’t know about. I ripped him because he sided with Putin over his own agencies in order to curry favor with Putin for some reason. And he deserves to be ripped for that. Period. Is he also going to hang me out to dry as Commander in Chief?

That is fine. That puts you in a minority. Most have done both.

Have to day I do not disagree. But would also add that the former intel chiefs are behaving rather odd in this case too.

They know there is an investigation going on, talk to Mueller, know he will get to bottom of things. Instead of letting things take their course they have gone on a major offensive/publicity stunt which is really unusual for former intel people. Trump was both correct and belated in reportedly taking away their clearances. Likely needs to do the same with Obama and Biden.

 

[BoilerBiker]

Hilarious. Adding over 1 trillion to the debt and almost 90% of the benefits went to corporations and the 1% wealthiest individuals. That in no way is a policy that helps the majority of America. Try again.

we talkin' 'bout debt? (allen iverson voice)
unfortunately team R loves spending money too

So you do subscribe to Nancy Pelosi’s “crumbs” theory? Tell that to the millions of people who are getting a tax break from this bill and who are happy they are getting it.

therein lies the problem. team D is ironically right in a way. we shouldn't be happy/content for a small tax decrease, hoping it sticks for xx years. why not fight for far more reductions? conservatives, of all groups, should not be thanking the big government bully for simply stealing a bit less. team R is all to happy spending our $ too, they just argue with team D on which statist programs it is.

 

[SDBoiler1]

Was kind of with you there until you started talking about “illegals”.

Also lol at “great majority of the nation, landmass/county-wise”. How small the “silent majority” is that all they have left is how much empty space they can point to.

If you want to keep talking about being a “majority”, you have to start talking about actual human beings, assuming you want to be taken seriously.

But we both know you can’t do that. Because the *actual* majority of American citizens, living, breathing human beings, are not republicans and do not vote for republicans.

America has a constitutional republic form of government. You know it's not a pure democracy.

 

[SDBoiler1]

we talkin' 'bout debt? (allen iverson voice)
unfortunately team R loves spending money too


therein lies the problem. team D is ironically right in a way. we shouldn't be happy/content for a small tax decrease, hoping it sticks for xx years. why not fight for far more reductions? conservatives, of all groups, should not be thanking the big government bully for simply stealing a bit less. team R is all to happy spending our $ too, they just argue with team D on which statist programs it is.

I agree that the Establishment Rs have not been good about spending either. Ryan talked a good game. Did nothing about it.

 

[BuilderBob6]

Trump was both correct and belated in reportedly taking away their clearances. Likely needs to do the same with Obama and Biden.

Why can't they criticize the president? Brennan was over the top but he should be free to speak. Their clearances have nothing to do with them speaking their minds. You think it's ok for the president to punish former government employees for exercising their first amendment rights because he doesn't like what they say?!!!!?

 

[SDBoiler1]

Why can't they criticize the president? Brennan was over the top but he should be free to speak. Their clearances have nothing to do with them speaking their minds. You think it's ok for the president to punish former government employees for exercising their first amendment rights because he doesn't like what they say?!!!!?

That’s not it at all. These people, with their clearances, still are authorized to view classified data, even though they shouldn’t be. Why would anyone allow obvious “enemies” to be privy to data that they can try to use for their own malign purposes?

 

[BuilderBob6]

That’s not it at all. These people, with their clearances, still are authorized to view classified data, even though they shouldn’t be. Why would anyone allow obvious “enemies” to be privy to data that they can try to use for their own malign purposes?

Enemies? They are enemies because they disagree with the president? Therefore we can assume they are going to use that information illegally.....or to somehow take down Trump? Talk about slippery slope. I can't be believe you actually believe this is ok.
You're going to restrict their access because of what they might do? These are words for God's sake.
This is how it starts.

 

[TopSecretBoiler]

03/06/14: Executive Order 13660; Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Ukraine
03/17/14: Executive Order 13661; Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Ukraine
03/20/14: Executive Order 13662; “Blocking Property of Additional Persons Contributing to the Situation in Ukraine
12/19/14: Executive Order 13685; Blocking Property of Certain Persons and Prohibiting Certain Transactions With Respect to the Crimea Region of Ukraine

These do not include electronic/cyber sanctions enacted on Russia for a variety of reasons in 2014/15.

Conversely, Trump enacted sanctions earlier this year, meeting a Congressional mandate to do so. By the way, he also softened some of Obama's cyber sanctions from April of 2015 of the Russian security service right after taking office in one of his first EOs.

Obama revoked some of Bush's sanctions from the Russia-Georgian conflict in 2008. So nice story, bro, but it doesn't add up to "considerably different".

Trump upheld the 2014 sanctions for the Crimea annexation, his first month in office. Jan '17
Trump goes after oligarchs
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/06/us/politics/trump-sanctions-russia-putin-oligarchs.html Apr '18
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/02/tru...anctions-bill-sometime-wednesday-reports.html Aug '17 (CAATSA)
Then Trump booted the diplomats
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/31/us/politics/russia-consulate-close-retaliation.html Aug '17
More Putin crony santions
https://nypost.com/2018/06/11/trump-imposes-new-sanctions-over-russian-cyberattacks/ Jun '18

I see you neglected any "red line" or other responses. I'll just let the record speak for itself.

 

[SDBoiler1]

Enemies? They are enemies because they disagree with the president? Therefore we can assume they are going to use that information illegally.....or to somehow take down Trump? Talk about slippery slope. I can't be believe you actually believe this is ok.
You're going to restrict their access because of what they might do? These are words for God's sake.
This is how it starts.

Do you even know what classified data is? If these people aren’t in office why do they even have or need clearances? Clapper works for CNN, for God’s sake. Brennan works for MSNBC.

If they get back into office, they can get clearances again.

There is no slippery slope here. You just seem incapable of understanding what clearances are and what they are used for.

 

[BuilderBob6]

Do you even know what classified data is? If these people aren’t in office why do they even have or need clearances? Clapper works for CNN, for God’s sake. Brennan works for MSNBC.

If they get back into office, they can get clearances again.

There is no slippery slope here. You just seem incapable of understanding what clearances are and what they are used for.

You should do some homework.

Ex intelligence officials are sometimes used for investigations or taskforces. Current directors will call them for their opinions or background on current events. These former officials don't get regular briefings. Anything they have published has to be approved by the current agencies. Finally, they have taken an oath to uphold the constitutional and not reveal any classified material. You don't know wtf you're talking about.

Do you have a link to classified information any of these guys have revealed on TV?

The problem is we are being conditioned to believe that a political opponent will always act in support of their beliefs.

They are speaking their opinions, the president doesn't like it and wants to punish them. Just another example of Trumpism that resembles authoritarian leaders throughout history.
You want to punish them for something they haven't done.....or because they dare disagree with Trump.