Bear Pit: now the sole domicile of politics at LuLa

[Alan Klein]

Maybe it's because of worries that if China attacks Taiwan and we defend, we would lose. Perhaps Biden wisely thinks the best course is to maintain the status quo by not provoking China to attack. This is called "diplomacy."

China has been actively building up their military. We cannot assume we would be dominant, particularly 12,000 miles from home and on China's shores. In particular, their anti-ship missles will make it difficult or impossible for us to make proper use of our carriers. So perhaps it's better to walk the fine line between capitulation and war.

If we're afraid of helping the Taiwanese, then we should tell them they're on their own and cancel our security guarantees.  We're of no help by signaling the Chinese that we're afraid to send our representative to Taiwan but then think that they're going to believe we'll send our navy and shed our blood defending Taiwan.  Either we're in or we're out.  Biden cannot have it both ways. 

He doesn't know how to lead.  He pulled out of Afghanistan like a coward ruining twenty years of work we did there and sending Afghans, especially their women back to the 8th century.  Then he told the Russians he wouldn't mind if they only took a little bit of Ukraine territory only having to reverse that.  The Russians didn't take him seriously and attacked. 
 
Frankly, Pelosi who I don't like has more balls than Biden.  She visited Tianemen Square two days after  the demonstrations there when hundreds of Chinese demonstrators were killed by the Communist Party.  She held up a banner supporting the demostrators.   Biden's a pussy, has no inner core beliefs, and will abandon the Taiwanese as he abadoned the Afghans and encouraged the Russians.  And the Chinese know it. 

[TechTalk]

Where on earth do you get your information?

What's the point? It's just been the same stupid bullshit merry-go-round for SIX YEARS! Now being used as a distraction from the INTERNAL assault on democracy in the United States by Trump and his domestic terrorists.

What Putin wanted to achieve SIX YEARS ago was to throw sand in the gears of American democracy and then watch the machine tear itself apart. He succeeded beyond his wildest dreams!

[MattBurt]

Yeah, Putin is the only real winner here.
Ignorant Americans not only took the bait but they swallowed the hook!

[Robert Roaldi]

...
He doesn't know how to lead.  He pulled out of Afghanistan like a coward ruining twenty years of work we did there and sending Afghans, especially their women back to the 8th century.  Then he told the Russians he wouldn't mind if they only took a little bit of Ukraine territory only having to reverse that.  The Russians didn't take him seriously and attacked. 
...

It was Trump who decided to leave and you agreed with it. There was never going to be an orderly withdrawal, not in anyone's wildest dreams. Didn't happen in Vietnam, could not happen in Afghanistan. If Taiwan wants a lesson to learn, it might want to look to those two examples. Why do you assume that Taiwan expects much help from the US? Do you still have the quaint notion that the US is the world's police and will step in to fix things. Those days are gone and Trump helped kill them. Not even the USA's closest allies can fully trust the US anymore, let alone far away lands.

As for Afghanistan sending women back to 8th century, is Texas that much better, with their anti-abortion private lawsuit legislation? Besides which, are you actually trying to get me to believe that the US was there to help their women achieve equality? Pull the other one. The US could not even ratify the ERA. I'm expecting one of your states to exercise their "state's rights" soon and legalize slavery again. Seems like the obvious next step. With twerps like MJT and Boebert in elected positions, and Trump calling Mexicans rapists, what exactly is too farfetched to contemplate anymore?

[digitaldog]

What's the point? It's just been the same stupid bullshit merry-go-round for SIX YEARS!

Most of what you refer to is stupid bullshit.
"Political language... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind". -George Orwell

[Alan Klein]

Yeah, Putin is the only real winner here.
Ignorant Americans not only took the bait but they swallowed the hook!

I think Putin lost even more than we did, or maybe equally.  Trump wanted to work out better security arrangements, and commercial and diplomatic deals with Russia.  But because of the claims he colluded with them, he had to show more animosity toward them for American domestic optics.  We could have provided more assurance to Putin that we had no intentions to push NATO into his face even more and that could have possibly avoided the current war in Ukraine.

In the future, China is a bigger problem to us than Russia.  It would have been helpful to have better Russian relations.  If we get into a standoff with China in the South China Sea, it would be helpful to have Russia on China's northern border with Russia pointing guns at them rather than at NATO in the west.  Now we pushed Russia into China's camp.  Xi could not be happier.  Now if he attacks Taiwan, he won't have to watch his back against Russia.

[TechTalk]

He's just barking at the moon.

[PeterAit]

If we're afraid of helping the Taiwanese, then we should tell them they're on their own and cancel our security guarantees.  We're of no help by signaling the Chinese that we're afraid to send our representative to Taiwan but then think that they're going to believe we'll send our navy and shed our blood defending Taiwan.  Either we're in or we're out.  Biden cannot have it both ways. 

He doesn't know how to lead.  He pulled out of Afghanistan like a coward ruining twenty years of work we did there and sending Afghans, especially their women back to the 8th century.  Then he told the Russians he wouldn't mind if they only took a little bit of Ukraine territory only having to reverse that.  The Russians didn't take him seriously and attacked. 
 

I won't try to explain to you the subtleties of diplomacy. But I will ask, why is it the job of the US to police the world? I sincerely hope that Taiwan continues as an independent state, free of the repression of mainland China, but perhaps it's none of our business. Look at the complete disasters of Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. The best of intentions (well, not in Vietnam) but the worst of outcomes.

And do you not remember that the complete withdrawal from Afghanistan was Trump's idea (one of the few good ones IMO)? And negotiated with the Taliban by his people? With a "date certain" of May 1, 2021? And Biden pushed the date back to August 31 to allow better planning. And when the final withdrawal did not go exactly as planned, all of a sudden it's the end of the world for the right-wing slack-jaws. If Trump had been re-elected and the exact same thing happened, you and other would hold him blameless and blame it on Obama or Hillary.

[Alan Klein]

I won't try to explain to you the subtleties of diplomacy. But I will ask, why is it the job of the US to police the world? I sincerely hope that Taiwan continues as an independent state, free of the repression of mainland China, but perhaps it's none of our business. Look at the complete disasters of Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. The best of intentions (well, not in Vietnam) but the worst of outcomes.

And do you not remember that the complete withdrawal from Afghanistan was Trump's idea (one of the few good ones IMO)? And negotiated with the Taliban by his people? With a "date certain" of May 1, 2021? And Biden pushed the date back to August 31 to allow better planning. And when the final withdrawal did not go exactly as planned, all of a sudden it's the end of the world for the right-wing slack-jaws. If Trump had been re-elected and the exact same thing happened, you and other would hold him blameless and blame it on Obama or Hillary.

Maybe you're right.  Should we stop helping Ukraine?  Should we pull out of NATO?

[Robert Roaldi]

Maybe you're right.  Should we stop helping Ukraine?  Should we pull out of NATO?

Because all situations are the same.

[digitaldog]

Because all situations are the same.

For the pathologically stupid yes.

[TechTalk]

Biden's a pussy, has no inner core beliefs, and will abandon the Taiwanese as he abadoned the Afghans and encouraged the Russians.  And the Chinese know it.

You've abandoned your own country and its foundational pillars of democracy, freedom, and peaceful transfer of power and everyone knows it. You collaborate with traitors by making excuses for them. You might as well just paint a big yellow stripe down your back and let everyone know what you really represent.

[Chris Kern]

Meller found TONS of evidence of collusion between Trump and the Russians . . .

Actually, the Mueller report was not able to determine "that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its [2016] election interference activities."

The Mueller lawyers did develop evidence, sufficient to meet a prima facie burden in any court in the United States, that Trump and his associates engaged in a criminal attempt to obstruct the investigation into Russian interference in that election.  However, in accordance with U.S. Department of Justice policy, the Mueller report deferred to the congressional impeachment authority for the initial disposition of the evidence rather than recommending prosecution of an incumbent president.  Trump could be criminally prosecuted now for the alleged obstruction of justice since he no longer is in office.

Interesting similarity to Richard Nixon.  There was never sufficient evidence to demonstrate that Nixon was involved in the planning of the Watergate burglary.  The charges that led to his impeachment and resignation were based on his involvement in the subsequent obstruction of justice (as well as other, earlier, arguably criminal behavior).

[TechTalk]

The Mueller Report doesn't take any position on collusion because collusion "is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law". Evidence which could be viewed as collusion was never a consideration and Mueller took a very narrow view in defining criminal conspiracy or coordination.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mueller_report#Conspiracy_or_coordination_vs_collusion...

The investigation found there were at least 170 contacts between Trump or 18 of his associates with Russian nationals and WikiLeaks, or their intermediaries, though the contacts were insufficient to show an illegal conspiracy. To establish whether a crime was committed by members of the Trump campaign with regard to Russian interference, investigators "applied the framework of conspiracy law", and not the concept of "collusion", because collusion "is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law". They also investigated if members of the Trump campaign "coordinated" with Russia, using the definition of "coordination" as having "an agreement – tacit or express – between the Trump campaign and the Russian government on election interference." Investigators further elaborated that merely having "two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other's actions or interests" was not enough to establish coordination.

But, the only reason that it's a topic of discussion again and again after SIX YEARS is because Alan continually brings it up in a false narrative to distract from Trump's subversion and attempted destruction of democracy in the United States.

[PeterAit]

It's exactly the same thing. If Trump had used Russian sources to help him in his campaign, that's no different than Hilary using Russian spy contacts to advance her campaign. Both would be using a foreign power to assist them.  Calling what Hillary did "opposition research" and what Trump supposedly did "treason" is just putting lipstick on a pig for Hillary.  You're being partisan, that's all.

Also, there were not TONS of evidence.  Mueller found nothing and said it.  What Manfort did was done on his own.  He was running back-channel spying for the Ukrainians who bribed him $10 million and possibly the Russians.  Manafort was there to help himself, not Trump.  As I explained in my earlier post, he fired Manafort as his campaign manager as soon as he realized that Manafort was too cozy with the Russians.  Trump dumped him.   How is that colluding?

So Clinton's campaign, thru many subcontracting steps, ends up with the sleaze Steele, whom Clinton did not know, and he creates a mostly phony dossier. And Clinton is to blame? Yet Trump personally selects Manafort and he goes off and does what he did, and Trump is blameless? Oh please. And your notion that Trump didn't know what Manafort was up to, at least in broad outline, is astoundingly naive.

[Alan Klein]

Actually, the Mueller report was not able to determine "that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its [2016] election interference activities."

The Mueller lawyers did develop evidence, sufficient to meet a prima facie burden in any court in the United States, that Trump and his associates engaged in a criminal attempt to obstruct the investigation into Russian interference in that election.  However, in accordance with U.S. Department of Justice policy, the Mueller report deferred to the congressional impeachment authority for the initial disposition of the evidence rather than recommending prosecution of an incumbent president.  Trump could be criminally prosecuted now for the alleged obstruction of justice since he no longer is in office.

Interesting similarity to Richard Nixon.  There was never sufficient evidence to demonstrate that Nixon was involved in the planning of the Watergate burglary.  The charges that led to his impeachment and resignation were based on his involvement in the subsequent obstruction of justice (as well as other, earlier, arguably criminal behavior).

Mueller's testimony in Congress about his report showed much confusion as to obstructing justice.  Congress had hope for a clear statement from him they could use against Trump.  All they got from Mueller was watered-down confusion.  Even they knew they couldn't charge Trump with obstruction of justice.  The evidence was not there. If in fact obstruction was clear, Congress would have impeached Trump for that.  They never did although they impeached him twice for other things. 

In any case, what jury today would find a man guilty for defending himself against false and illegal charges of Russian collusion, lies made to the FISA court, and the illegal action of the FBI when they lied to a US court?  If someone is illegally banging you on the head with a pipe, you have a right to defend yourself.   In addition, Trump would claim if there was sufficient evidence, then Congress should have charged him at the time.  While the Attorney General's policy was to defer, there was no such requirement for Congress.  To have a lesser court trial than Congressional impeachment charge a president for crimes Congress should have addressed while he was president would be thrown out.  Nixon's illegal actions were based on obstruction of a private burglary. So state laws apply.  In this case, obstruction of duties had to do more with his official duties as president.  Congress should have impeached for it.  They didn't.  Case closed.

[TechTalk]

So you REALLY think that the Clinton/Steele dossier caused the current war in Ukraine? I mean, seriously?...

I really hate repeating myself, but just a friendly reminder that you're feeding an insatiable appetite and need for attention by engaging with someone that is...



in order to get a response from you.

and it just goes on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on....

[Alan Klein]

So Clinton's campaign, thru many subcontracting steps, ends up with the sleaze Steele, whom Clinton did not know, and he creates a mostly phony dossier. And Clinton is to blame? Yet Trump personally selects Manafort and he goes off and does what he did, and Trump is blameless? Oh please. And your notion that Trump didn't know what Manafort was up to, at least in broad outline, is astoundingly naive.

So you think I'm naive for believing Trump didn't know that Manafort was dealing with the Russians and I think you're being naive that Hillary didn't know Russians were preparing her phony dossier on Trump.  Hmmm. 

[digitaldog]

So you think I'm naive for believing Trump didn't know that Manafort was dealing with the Russians...Hmmm. 

Naive no; very consistently stupid yes.
That's the overwhelming consensus of your postings here by others. There is no reason for you to ask.
“In a world of thieves, the only final sin is stupidity.” Hunter S. Thompson

[TechTalk]

So you think I'm...

an ineffective senile old man