Implanting Bill Gates's Micro-chips In Brains For Over 20 Years!

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

No. Trump was a useful idiot for Putin. Still is. The Ukraine tragedy/criminal war is something different.

Think of it this way... Putin has certain chess moves he can make in his quest to expand or protect Russia's sphere of influence. While Trump was in office, he could blunt NATO, the biggest threat to that influence, through Trump's policies. With Trump out of office, he uses a different move - threat of war, and now war - to blunt NATO.

My criticism of the media was twofold: (1) Russia isn't an existential threat to us; (2) Trump was not in control of any of the alleged "collusion" (a very vague word, btw). I think this war validates (1) as we've seen Russia's ragtag army perform miserably so far, embarrassing Putin before the world. And I stand by (2) because the more information that comes out the more we see Trump was the textbook definition (Soviet-coined term, btw) of a useful idiot. The Russians fed him crumbs that helped him beat Hillary and they used the promise of more of them to maneuver him. To use a Breaking Bad analogy, the media wanted to make Trump "the one who knocks." In reality, he was more Saul Goodman. Hustling for the next dollar, or to get past the next political obstacle (usually created by his own fuck-up).

I agree his posture toward Putin looks worse, particularly his recent lauding of Putin's "genius."

Well, of course Russia is very much an existential threat to us (which is why the people who want a no-fly zone over Ukraine are being stupid).

I asked a question about the real world -- the relationship between Trump and Russia -- and you instead started talking about your criticism of the media. That's clarifying. Instead of talking about what actually did happen involving Trump and Russia, e.g., see the Solnit article I linked to, you'd rather rebut some narrower set of claims about Trump's "control" over "collusion." You're not pro-Russia, and you're not really anti-anti-Trump, you're anti-media.

I find it hard to have this conversation with you, because it's hard for me to tell what you're talking about or reacting to. It's less that you see "the media" saying things with which you disagree, and more that you have snorted some lines of Taibbi or Greenwald complaining about the media and you excitedly agree.

At the risk of changing the subject to talk about the real world, I am extraordinarily disheartened by the war, even if it's clear that the Russian military initially underperformed. See this interview with Russia expert Fiona Hill in which she explains what Putin is trying to do. She also explains why she thinks Putin might use nuclear weapons, just to bring things back to the existential-threat issue.

eta: The WSJ article quoted in this tweet seems interesting too, but I don't have a subscription and my company is too cheap to get one.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Well, of course Russia is very much an existential threat to us (which is why the people who want a no-fly zone over Ukraine are being stupid).

I asked a question about the real world -- the relationship between Trump and Russia -- and you instead started talking about your criticism of the media. That's clarifying. Instead of talking about what actually did happen involving Trump and Russia, e.g., see the Solnit article I linked to, you'd rather rebut some narrower set of claims about Trump's "control" over "collusion." You're not pro-Russia, and you're not really anti-anti-Trump, you're anti-media.

I find it hard to have this conversation with you, because it's hard for me to tell what you're talking about or reacting to. It's less that you see "the media" saying things with which you disagree, and more that you have snorted some lines of Taibbi or Greenwald complaining about the media and you excitedly agree.

At the risk of changing the subject to talk about the real world, I am extraordinarily disheartened by the war, even if it's clear that the Russian military initially underperformed. See this interview with Russia expert Fiona Hill in which she explains what Putin is trying to do. She also explains why she thinks Putin might use nuclear weapons, just to bring things back to the existential-threat issue.

I had an interesting discussion with a relative who lives in a place where every other house is flag officer. She said, basically, that the universal feeling was "why the fuck didn't we do this in 2014", that this level of sanctions and unity back then would have stopped this now. The general feeling there is that if we don't push now, after Ukraine will come Moldova, the Baltics, Kazaksthan, etc., eventually back to Afghanistan and warm water ports in the Mediterranean and Indian oceans.

So it's only existential if you think it's a bad idea to recreate the Great Game of the 19th Century.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I had an interesting discussion with a relative who lives in a place where every other house is flag officer. She said, basically, that the universal feeling was "why the fuck didn't we do this in 2014", that this level of sanctions and unity back then would have stopped this now. The general feeling there is that if we don't push now, after Ukraine will come Moldova, the Baltics, Kazaksthan, etc., eventually back to Afghanistan and warm water ports in the Mediterranean and Indian oceans.

So it's only existential if you think it's a bad idea to recreate the Great Game of the 19th Century.

I think the analogy is that 2014 was the Anschluss, and this is Czechoslovakia. Agree with the larger point. Putin doesn't need to invade Moldova or Kazakhstan to have them in his orbit. The Baltics are definitely threatened, and I would think Finland too, more than Sweden. See the Fiona Hill interview for an explanation.

But also, the problem is not that Russia is a strong state. That's China. The problem is that Russia is a weak state, with grievances and a desire to overcompensate and punch above its weight. A stronger USSR couldn't control Afghanistan, nor could. Where do the warm water ports come from?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I think the analogy is that 2014 was the Anschluss, and this is Czechoslovakia. Agree with the larger point. Putin doesn't need to invade Moldova or Kazakhstan to have them in his orbit. The Baltics are definitely threatened, and I would think Finland too, more than Sweden. See the Fiona Hill interview for an explanation.

But also, the problem is not that Russia is a strong state. That's China. The problem is that Russia is a weak state, with grievances and a desire to overcompensate and punch above its weight. A stronger USSR couldn't control Afghanistan, nor could. Where do the warm water ports come from?

Warm water ports were a key goal of Russian imperialism and statecraft all through the 19th century - part of why the Crimean War was fought back in 1850s and undoubtedly part of why they want Crimea and Ukraine now.

[Replaced_Texan]

Sorry all for the brief downtime! My credit card number changed and I forgot to update the host. All is clear, and I also renewed the domain for another three years. Hopefully that'll keep us up and running for awhile.

Also, my son was born two weeks ago today, and I've sort of been distracted.



His pictures are all over my facebook and twitter if you follow such things.

I'm in love.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Thanks RT! He's beautiful.

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

Sorry all for the brief downtime! My credit card number changed and I forgot to update the host. All is clear, and I also renewed the domain for another three years. Hopefully that'll keep us up and running for awhile.

Also, my son was born two weeks ago today, and I've sort of been distracted.



His pictures are all over my facebook and twitter if you follow such things.

I'm in love.

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

Sorry all for the brief downtime! My credit card number changed and I forgot to update the host. All is clear, and I also renewed the domain for another three years. Hopefully that'll keep us up and running for awhile.

Also, my son was born two weeks ago today, and I've sort of been distracted.



His pictures are all over my facebook and twitter if you follow such things.

I'm in love.

C'mon, I really hope no one annoyed you about this. Congrats!

[Icky Thump]

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

Sorry all for the brief downtime! My credit card number changed and I forgot to update the host. All is clear, and I also renewed the domain for another three years. Hopefully that'll keep us up and running for awhile.

Also, my son was born two weeks ago today, and I've sort of been distracted.



His pictures are all over my facebook and twitter if you follow such things.

I'm in love.

He's wonderful.

[Oliver_Wendell_Ramone]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

Sorry all for the brief downtime! My credit card number changed and I forgot to update the host. All is clear, and I also renewed the domain for another three years. Hopefully that'll keep us up and running for awhile.

Also, my son was born two weeks ago today, and I've sort of been distracted.



His pictures are all over my facebook and twitter if you follow such things.

I'm in love.

Big time congrats!!!

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

Sorry all for the brief downtime! My credit card number changed and I forgot to update the host. All is clear, and I also renewed the domain for another three years. Hopefully that'll keep us up and running for awhile.

Also, my son was born two weeks ago today, and I've sort of been distracted.



His pictures are all over my facebook and twitter if you follow such things.

I'm in love.

Thank you for keeping us around, let me know if I should send on something for the costs.

But in all cases, baby before imaginary friends.

Congrats again. It really warms my heart to sign on to FB and see the photos. If it makes me happy I can only imagine how happy it makes you.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Thank you for keeping us around, let me know if I should send on something for the costs.

But in all cases, baby before imaginary friends.

Congrats again. It really warms my heart to sign on to FB and see the photos. If it makes me happy I can only imagine how happy it makes you.

Does anyone else feel we should sue the site for the time we lost? Icky, a possible class action?

Of course then we would have to claim we have something in common with flower, which has to quell plaintiffs joining?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

Sorry all for the brief downtime! My credit card number changed and I forgot to update the host. All is clear, and I also renewed the domain for another three years. Hopefully that'll keep us up and running for awhile.

Also, my son was born two weeks ago today, and I've sort of been distracted.



His pictures are all over my facebook and twitter if you follow such things.

I'm in love.

Congratulations! That's awesome.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally Posted by replaced_texan

sorry all for the brief downtime! My credit card number changed and i forgot to update the host. All is clear, and i also renewed the domain for another three years. Hopefully that'll keep us up and running for awhile.

Also, my son was born two weeks ago today, and i've sort of been distracted.

:d

his pictures are all over my facebook and twitter if you follow such things.

I'm in love.

congrats!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Well, of course Russia is very much an existential threat to us (which is why the people who want a no-fly zone over Ukraine are being stupid).

That is stupid, because it risks a rash act. But I do not think even the Russians are going to nuke the US. They might drop a tactical nuke in Ukraine. But nuking us would be the end of everything. Somebody shoots Putin before that happens.

I asked a question about the real world -- the relationship between Trump and Russia -- and you instead started talking about your criticism of the media.

That article was a just a rehash of every prior allegation rolled up into one screed. And it was weak sauce. Disinformation is not "meddling." It's a form of campaigning people have used since people have run for office. Anyone trying to call manipulation of the credulous a crime is missing the problem. The problem isn't the propagandist, but the moron who believes the propagandist. We have a lotta morons here.

That's clarifying. Instead of talking about what actually did happen involving Trump and Russia, e.g., see the Solnit article I linked to, you'd rather rebut some narrower set of claims about Trump's "control" over "collusion." You're not pro-Russia, and you're not really anti-anti-Trump, you're anti-media.

Why would you think I was pro-Russia? I am anti-media.

You asked if I changed my position on Trump's relationship with Russia because of the war. I said no. And then I clarified that my only position on Trump's relationship with Russia was that it was falsely characterized (by far more than just the media) as one in which Trump was proactive, as opposed to a manipulated asset.

Trump's relationship with Russia doesn't have much, if anything, to do with this war. As I said, Putin manipulating Trump was one device to protect Russia's sphere of influence, and this war is another.

I guess one could argue that if Trump were still in office the war actually would not have happened, as Putin wouldn't feel the need to use that chess move, as he'd still have the ability to manipulate Trump, which is a far less costly one.

I find it hard to have this conversation with you, because it's hard for me to tell what you're talking about or reacting to. It's less that you see "the media" saying things with which you disagree, and more that you have snorted some lines of Taibbi or Greenwald complaining about the media and you excitedly agree.

Russia sought to get influence with Trump by giving him stuff to help him get elected. He took that stuff, used it, and knowing he'd need a miracle to get re-elected, cozied up to Russia, hoping to get more stuff from them that'd help him. He also borrowed a ton of money from them. All of that has been exposed and acknowledged a million times. What am I supposed to say in response to a rehash of that?

At the risk of changing the subject to talk about the real world, I am extraordinarily disheartened by the war, even if it's clear that the Russian military initially underperformed. See this interview with Russia expert Fiona Hill in which she explains what Putin is trying to do. She also explains why she thinks Putin might use nuclear weapons, just to bring things back to the existential-threat issue.

Putin has lost his mind. This is the dumbest unforced error in the history of dictatorships. I still can't wrap my head around it, but there is a silver lining -- he's uniting a fractured West.