It’s not in his interest to be mouthing off and keeping it in the news cycle in the run up to the midterms. It’s pretty clear now that Mueller has entered a low key phase so it would be really daft of any of the GOP side to even mention the Russia investigation.
Trump/Russia/SDNY investigation
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
It’s not in his interest to be mouthing off and keeping it in the news cycle in the run up to the midterms. It’s pretty clear now that Mueller has entered a low key phase so it would be really daft of any of the GOP side to even mention the Russia investigation.
Putin hails the fall of United States as a moral leader around the globe in annual speech
https://www.rawstory.com/2018/10/pu...ates-moral-leader-around-globe-annual-speech/
https://www.rawstory.com/2018/10/pu...ates-moral-leader-around-globe-annual-speech/
This reads like a Russian influence campaign. Subvert the enemy by helping them elect a clown, then publicize their "moral failures" after the clown creates a circus.
Putin wins now no matter what happens with Trump.
He wins aa long as he’s in office but he could release all the evidence in the world that he conspired with Trump and revel in them trying to remove and imprison Don as well.
He has all the chaos and the power to use it as he wishes.
Its not really helping him much in either case. Trump will be gone at some point and Russia will only have survived instead of faced the creep of Democracy reaching its front yard under Hillary.
It can probably survive until he dies tbh.
I'd say there's more likelihood of him somehow managing to get Ukraine, Georgia and so on back than Democracy getting ever closer to his front yard whilst he's in charge at least.
Theres a constant risk of him overplaying (or having already overplayed) his hand. If it becomes accepted fact that he installed a rogue US president, then the consequences from a furious US could be world changing.
Furious US, or a furious half of the US? Or is it even less than a half...
At the moment yes, but that’s because half don’t believe a word of it. Maybe they never will, but if the proof is easy to understand and incontrovertible then there are few things more scary than zealots who find out they’ve been deceived. Especially when they’re the half the country who are usually the main cheerleaders for using military force.
There are usually the main cheerleaders of using military force against defenseless countries.
The politicians maybe, but you think the Republican base who spent decades being told that the Ruskies were the evil empire are going to balk at war?
They have the memory span of a sparrow. Otherwise how would you explain them not giving a feck about Trump bending over for Putin at the summit ?
And so it begins...
Their power is very limited on this, especially with elections only 18 days off.
So the Freedom Caucus wants to attempt to shut down the Mueller investigation.The irony .
I was wondering if him helping all these right wingers in Europe might backfire too. Worth remembering that it was italian and German fascists wot nearly wiped out Russia.
BOOM!
Anticlimactic...
Glad I'm not the only one who can't see it
You don't have luck with tweet posts recently
That's two that have been deleted quickly now.
I can't remember what that one was either as I posted a few last night. Damn It was about Mueller freezing Agalarov(?)'s US bank accounts.
I'm certain I've got that Agadoo bloke's name wrong, chiefo.
Yeah me too, but the gist of the story (Tweet) was correct and that's good enough for me, guv!
Ahhh playing the old poor health card. He was alright recently when he was swanning about in high class restaurants donning his designer suits and ridiculously priced Ostrich leather jacket.
I don't think he wants that. It would bankrupt Russia. What he wants, is those countries firmly in the Russian trade sphere, where he can reap all the economic benefits, without having to run some degree of a military occupation. Will he nibble at majority Russian regions if he can like he did with Crimea? No doubt, because there is little to no long term, on going military cost to keep such places under control. He has had the opportunity with Donetsk and Luhansk but hasn't, which doesn't rule out a play in the future. However, wholesale annexations without an overwhelming support of the majority are simply not something you will see very often going forwards. The cost of military occupation will be completely counter intuitive to the actual goal of making money and expanding economies.
There will never be anything more than a limited proxy war between Russia and the USA, so long as both countries possess the capability of glassing the major population centers of the other. If such backlash occurs, then we had all better hope, that there is a civil uprising in the USA to overthrow the lunatics who would carry us into the end of the world as we know it, for political meddling, something we have mastered for the last 3/4 of a century.
Things can get out of control quickly when the public are angry, that’s the scary part.
The public are better off angry than dead.
Angry can lead to dead. Politicians will do a lot of crazy shit if the voters demand it.
Not if they are sane. Only a brainwashed or mentally disabled person would willingly end the world as we know it.
This kind of thing never starts with the intention to end the world or start a world war. People always start out thinking they can gain a smaller goal and achieve quick victory. Then things start spiraling out of control, and escalate beyond what anyone originally wanted. It happened over and over again in the past, except now nuclear weapons add a whole new dimension to how bad things can potentially get.
Nuclear weapons have been around for 70 years and the world has come through much more dangerous times that it is now. There was a point when politicians thought nuclear war is actually winnable and it is a matter of 'when' than 'if' . There were actually (short) periods when command and control of nuclear arsenals was given to commanders in the field. Think about that for a second . The risk today is far, far lower than 30 years ago.
Yea it's not like we haven't been close to nuclear armageddon before is it? /s