Like Valhelm you're falling into the same trap of treating Russia as kind of a democracy where the political leader's actions are shaped by the opinion of ordinary citizens in a sort-of bottom-up process. It's all true how you describe the views of ordinary Russians but, and that's the difference, they're being dictated from the top -- the Kremlin -- down to the ordinary Russians.
As an example, the concept of "Novorossiya" -- i.e. the annexation of larger swaths of Ukrainian territory and the creation of a new state -- had a support of 20-25% in Russia without a large propaganda drive. If Putin had made the decision to follow through on this concept, support for "Novorossiya" would've likely surged well, well above 50% for some of the same reasons -- historic land, always belonged to us anyway, yada yada yada.
Similarly, if Putin decides to change his behavior he'll rely on the Kremlin media to put an appropriate spin on it to sell it back to the ordinary Russians and they'll approve of it.
Again, stop putting words in my goddamn mouth.
At no point have I argued for "wide-ranging economic sanctions".
Because making the Russian economy worse off diminishes their state power?
This is America, 2017.
How long are you leaving the paper on the church bulletin board?
Given that Russia is an oligarchy with the wealth massively concentrated in the hands of a few, (In fact it may be the most inequitable major economy in the world) , this shouldn't be too difficult.So tell me, how do you intend to make sanctions which are not wide-ranging but do make the Russian economy worse off to the point it diminishes Russian state power?
This argument assumes that no world leader would ever gamble with a tactic. Moreover, it ignores the distinction between the short-term (in which Putin is likely insulated from Russia's many, many problems) and the long-term (in which Putin could become vulnerable if public opinion were to turn against him after years of sanctions-induced economic stagnation).
i work for a midsize market research firm, we collect data for like half of all the major political polls
What's the "nuance" you're speaking of?So tell me, how do you intend to make sanctions which are not wide-ranging but do make the Russian economy worse off to the point it diminishes Russian state power?
Given that Russia is an oligarchy with the wealth massively concentrated in the hands of a few, (In fact it may be the most inequitable major economy in the world) , this shouldn't be too difficult.
Putin has gone apoplectic in the face of the Maginsky act, so if you double and triple down on that angle of leverage....
"Do you approve or disapprove of the job Donald Trump is doing as president? Is that strongly (approve/disapprove), or only somewhat?"
What's the "nuance" you're speaking of?
Right, no, I got that.
Is it a national poll
Is it for a campaign
is it for a state
is it for a district
I do not care about the quality of life of the average Russian. I understand they are under a shitty oligarchal society. I also understand that nothing that we can do can actually help them escape this. They are currently committing genocide in Chechnya and we can do nothing to to help those gay men.If you think there's nuance there and there's some way that Russia's economy could be damaged to the point it reduces their state power without damaging the quality of life of the average Russian, please tell me, I'm all ears. I was hoping kirblar would have the answer, as he seemed so confident in it, but I can't hear much but the sound of backtracking.
Good, good.poll i have in the field right now - only 57% of conservatives "strongly approve" of trump at this point
the numbers are getting pretty frail here
You want a response for the sake of doing something.I do not care about the quality of life of the average Russian. I understand they are under a shitty oligarchal society. I also understand that nothing that we can do can actually help them escape this. They are currently committing genocide in Chechnya and we can do nothing to to help those gay men.
Russia has attacked the USA, the UK, Germany, France, and countless other nations. This cannot go without a response. I do not believe economic sanctions should be off the table for "humanitarian" reasons. A recession is not a world-ending event. There is still food, water and shelter there. I also do not know what the best course of action re: specific sanctions is, because it is not my field of expertise. But "nothing" is not the response we should be taking here.
national, not for a campaign, major pollster, will be released publicly in a few days, likely to be weighed differently than my raw data
I do not care about the quality of life of the average Russian. I understand they are under a shitty oligarchal society. I also understand that nothing that we can do can actually help them escape this. They are currently committing genocide in Chechnya and we can do nothing to to help those gay men.
Russia has attacked the USA, the UK, Germany, France, and countless other nations. This cannot go without a response. I do not believe economic sanctions should be off the table for "humanitarian" reasons. A recession is not a world-ending event. There is still food, water and shelter there.
Yes, because when you are attacked, you respond.You want a response for the sake of doing something.
That's not a good reason.
This is dumb afYes, because when you are attacked, you respond.
Yes, because when you are attacked, you respond.
This is dumb af
You respond if you think it will have a deterrent effect.
If not - why?
Assuming diplomacy with Putin is naive. Like I said before, your choices are capitulate constantly and encourage him or defend yourself and possibly antagonize him.
I do wonder if he'll ever have his "crossing into Poland" moment where he actually conquers a nation border to border. Then Crab posts that we live in a post-Russian conquest world so we need to move past it. Putin collects a few more bears and laughs.
I legit don't understand how you can be an American citizen, post in this topic and not be livid at how Russia fucked us over last year and how the lesson they've learned so far is "cool we should do this again since there have been no repercussions!". Clearly boots on the ground is off the table - they're a nuclear power. Everything else should be on the table including but not limited to sanctions and cyberwarfare. There should be a discussion on what the best avenue to peruse, what makes the most sense and what constitutes a actually proportional response. However If you think the response to what Russia did last year is actual "nothing" please forfeit your citizenship.
You must respond.You are President Trump and I claim my five pounds.
Sanctions don't work in the long-term because they don't induce stagnation (unless you keep applying new ones), they induce a single hit. After the initial recession, the economy affected reorients towards different markets (e.g., like how Russia's economy redoubled after the 2014 sanctions by pivoting towards Asian markets) and you're back to square one.
I don't know? I just know that the response should be measured and considered with respect to the bad act we're trying to mitigate. "PUNCH EM BACK" is not that.You don't think hitting back at the fucks running Russia will deter them from doing it again? Or conversely not responding won't encourage them to act further? Jesus dude.
This is some hawkishness I can't comprehend. "Everything should be on the table" outside of boots on the ground??????I legit don't understand how you can be an American citizen, post in this topic and not be livid at how Russia fucked us over last year and how the lesson they've learned so far is "cool we should do this again since there have been no repercussions!". Clearly boots on the ground is off the table - they're a nuclear power. Everything else should be on the table including but not limited to sanctions and cyberwarfare. There should be a discussion on what the best avenue to peruse, what makes the most sense and what constitutes a actually proportional response. However If you think the response to what Russia did last year is actual "nothing" please forfeit your citizenship.
I legit don't understand how you can be an American citizen, post in this topic and not be livid at how Russia fucked us over last year and how the lesson they've learned so far is "cool we should do this again since there have been no repercussions!". Clearly boots on the ground is off the table - they're a nuclear power. Everything else should be on the table including but not limited to sanctions and cyberwarfare. There should be a discussion on what the best avenue to peruse, what makes the most sense and what constitutes a actually proportional response. However If you think the response to what Russia did last year is actual "nothing" please forfeit your citizenship.
This is actually hugely disingenuous when I've spent repeated posts explicitly talking about bulking up the Polish border, but fine, continue this gross piece of intellectual masturbation.
Joe Biden: Americans decided health care is for all. The GOP wants to roll that back.
Their plan would once again make it a privilege for the wealthy.
As vice president, I met with Americans all across our country. What they told me over and over is that the Affordable Care Act gave them peace of mind — that if they got sick, or if their child got sick, they could get care and not have to worry about going broke as a result. They no longer had to lay awake at night wondering: Can I pay for this treatment? What happens if she gets cancer? How will I feed my family and afford the care?
They told me that because when the ACA became law and health-care coverage was extended to millions of people, it meant we had finally decided, as a nation, that health care is a right for all and not a privilege for the few.
Republican leaders in Congress believe the opposite. And if they take that peace of mind away, they'll have to look Americans in the eye and explain to them that they have to start worrying again.
The ACA isn't perfect, but the choices we made when designing the law flowed from a commitment to provide the best possible care to the most people. Compare that to Republican proposals, which the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has said will mean more than 20 million fewer people will have health coverage by 2026, and millions more will no longer have the same protections provided by the ACA.
Senator McConnell says there's still time to make changes to the bill before it gets to the Senate floor. But it shouldn't even get there, because his bill can't be fixed. By denying that all Americans have a right to health care, it's fundamentally flawed. And Republicans are underestimating the American people if they think a few changes to the bill here or there will convince us that this bill is anything but a big step backward.
In my 36 years as a senator, I saw my colleagues take plenty of hard votes. This just isn't one of them. If Republican leadership wants to improve the ACA, let's first come to an agreement that everyone should have health coverage. Then, based on that premise, let's have a debate about how best to improve care and reduce costs. Let's again make the commitment that in America, health care is a right for all, not a privilege for the wealthy.
8. Agalarov associate
CNN reported July 14 that there was also an eighth person in the room, according to two sources familiar with the circumstances, although the name has not been disclosed. The person was described to CNN by a source as a representative of the Russian family, the Agalarovs, who had asked Goldstone to set up the meeting. While it isn't clear who the person is, a second source said he was an employee of the Agalarovs who was in the US before the meeting.
The "lesser of two evils" argument ignores the fact that, in the absence of Assad's brutal and inflammatory tactics, the Syrian civil war would not have likely occurred, nor would it have devolved into a sectarian conflict. The New Republic wrote about this back when the conflict began, and the warning at the end now looks quite prescient:I haven't read of any specifically sectarian violence perpetuated by the Assad regime. On the contrary, massacres and forced conversions of Christians, Shi'ites, and Druze have been carried out by rebel groups and ISIS.
I don't endorse the Syrian government or believe the Assad family are good people, but I recognize that in their conflict with this specific Wahhabist enemy they are the lesser evil. Ideally, their power would be held by a more democratic and accountable government. The Syrian Kurds do offer a hint of a viable alternative to the Ba'athist police state. But there is no outcome in which the sectarian rebels leave Syria a more prosperous and liberated country.
Supporters of the 45-year-old president have long maintained that Assad is the only man who can keep Syrias diverse sects from turning on each other, using examples of sectarian strife in neighboring Lebanon and Iraq to warn of the potential dangers if the president were to be toppled. But when the anti-regime protests broke out in February, Assads first tactic was a sectarian move: to discredit any peaceful popular revoltwhich started in poor, rural, Sunni regionsas a terrorist conspiracy led by Sunni religious extremists.
As demonstrations grew around the country in March and April, state television channels started reporting on how terrorists were killing civilians and policemen. The reports ignored the fact that any nonviolent demonstrations were occurring. Instead, the state news agency, SANA, reported that police had discovered large weapon caches in towns such as Deraa, where the international media was reporting mass pro-democracy protests.
...
Assad hoped, a western diplomat in Damascus explained to me, that this rhetoric would scare Syrians into believing that he was the only man who could hold the delicate balance of Syrias competing sects intact, and he hinted repeatedly that his opponents were serving a foreign conspiracy to spread sectarian strife. His plan was to solidify his support among minority groups, such as Christians and Druze, by creating the specter of a Sunni extremist uprising. But, in fact, the rhetoric only served to alienate moderate Sunni Muslims, by labeling them as terrorists, into thinking along sectarian lines, the diplomat explained.
As the protests have grown, Assads second tacticrelying increasingly on his Alawite power base to crush pro-democracy protestshas naturally caused sectarian tension to grow still stronger. In addition to filling the top echelons of the security forces with loyal Alawites, Assad has also employed the services of the feared Shabbiha, a notorious Alawite paramilitary, who are accused of acting as unofficial enforcers for Assads regime.
...
The opposition wants a neat revolution; but Syria is not Egypt. Assads violent crackdown and deliberately divisive rhetoric is fanning the flames of inter-group rivalries and score-settling, anddespite great efforts by peaceful protesters like Ranaquickly laying the foundation for even more sectarian bloodshed.
Didn't they work in Iran?
PBY has literally been arguing to do nothing and appease Putin instead through the course of this discussion.Two points.
One: literally nobody is arguing do nothing. Nobody. Implying literally anyone here is arguing for it is tiresome. I don't spend my time going 'I can understand people maybe wanting to just about vote Clinton, but anyone in this thread arguing that the poor should be left to starve and die can fuck off' because it would be pointless - nobody is arguing that and I'm not going to debase myself with aspersions of that nature.
Two: you know what the most important criteria is for being on the table? That something works. Wide-ranging sanctions don't work. Ergo, they have no place on the table.
And you get mad when people misstate your arguments?!!?PBY has literally been arguing to do nothing and appease Putin instead.
I don't know? I just know that the response should be measured and considered with respect to the bad act we're trying to mitigate. "PUNCH EM BACK" is not that.
This is some hawkishness I can't comprehend. "Everything should be on the table" outside of boots on the ground??????
Like - are you okay with airstrikes?
You also gave up on Ukraine because Russians apparently think it belongs to them. If the Russian public starts thinking they really like Poland?
So Ron Johnson is pissed that McConnell told moderates the worst Medicaid cuts won't go into effect and is now saying he's a no. LOL
That parenthetical is exactly what makes me nervous.Everything that's not a military strike (with the right to do so being reserved) should be on the table. This isn't Disneyland, they're trying to hack our infrastructure as we speak. They have a de facto asset in the White House. They're playing for keeps, if we don't want to get took we better start doing so too
Please, explain what you think we should be doing in the wake of Russia doing wide-ranging propaganda attacks, meddling in our election and installing a fucking puppet in the white house?And you get mad when people misstate your arguments?!!?
That paranthetical is always implied!That parenthetical is exactly what makes me nervous.
I don't trust our military to get it right, especially in light of this weird hawkish wave popping up on the left.
No, I'm giving up on Crimea because there is no reasonable prospect of getting it back, which is wildly different to doing it because Russia thinks it belong to them. If you can't understand the difference between these two positions, there's absolutely no point in conversation with you because this is some basic-level shit. If you can understand the difference between these two positions, there's absolutely no point in conversation with you because you're being deliberately disingenuous. Either way...
PBY has literally been arguing to do nothing and appease Putin instead through the course of this discussion.
No you don't.
You better do something that fixes or mitigates the aggression. You just want escalation or some kind of response in kind. Also a schoolyard fight is a bad analogy for complex global conflict.
Please, explain what you think we should be doing in the wake of Russia doing wide-ranging propaganda attacks, meddling in our election and installing a fucking puppet in the white house?
I don't know - bc how can we know, we don't know what the real threat is. But I do know that we're NOT at war w Russia and our response should be measured, not escalate and be a deterrent, not simply retribution.Please, explain what you think we should be doing in the wake of Russia doing wide-ranging propaganda attacks, meddling in our election and installing a fucking puppet in the white house?
I mean - how can we know? We're not privy to pretty key information about the scale of the threat here."I just don't know????? But it should be something - SOMETHING - measured and appropriate."