Ban Russia, Ban USA, Blame Canada

[Cousin Strawberry]

I hear ya UW but...what if it's true?

The start of the evidence predates Putin, it predates Reagan, it really predates most players on the global stage.

I encourage you to read over Corn's link. I had a look and it really gets you thinking...ya but what if it's true.

If it is then the United States executive branch of government has been compromised by their enemies and these enemies are utilizing their asset to actively sabotage the NATO alliance, the relationships with historic allies..

What if it's true? Then what?

[UWSaint]

If it is then the United States executive branch of government has been compromised by their enemies and these enemies are utilizing their asset to actively sabotage the NATO alliance, the relationships with historic allies..

What if it's true? Then what?

(1) Russian interference with Trump was the subject of 3 years of intense investigation. And they all just missed it?

(2) NATO countries don't like Trump. NATO's secretary general loves him. Why? Because Trump's diplomacy w/r/t NATO has resulted in additional commitments to NATO that weren't there before. It happened in the first term, and it was reupped in this term. Why? Part of its Russia, but a lot of it is that the US demanded more contributions to the alliance. It was fear the US would walk that led to (a little more) putting money and guns behind words and empty promises. If Russia's been using Trump to sabotage the alliance, these are pretty odd results.

(3) The fissures between Europe and the US have nothing to do with Russophilia (though I totally believe that Russia does everything it can to foment discord in NATO) and everything to do with Europe providing less and less of an argument about why it is the United States' interests to maintain the alliance. Increased defense spending by NATO countries will help to maintain the alliance a lot -- and will help create a balance of power if it ever falls apart (win win). But one thing that always held the alliance together was a shared worldview, an overlapping culture, and a (largely) shared view of liberty and democracy. The American perspective, especially on the MAGA right, is that Europe is more anti-liberty and anti-democracy than ever, and that its a continent that is oikiphobic of its traditions, bankrupt, and resigned to managing its decline. And while that case might be overstated, its not without a factual support. (Much in the same way as European antipathies towards the US and Trump may be overstated, but are not without factual support). That doesn't make China or Russia more like the US in terms of shared values than the US is with Europe, but the traditional, soft ties that bind aren't nearly as strong, and we seem to be moving in opposite directions. If its just about maintaining peace or trade, and it is no longer about a common purpose, then it doesn't matter who the allies are, not to the same degree. Especially when there are nations on the rise where the future could be peace and cooperation or antagonism and zones of nonoverlapping interest.

[Meds]

A well written article by the hockey profile and sports writer Szymon Szemberg.

Szymon Szemberg is the CEO of the European Hockey Club Alliance E.H.C. He was head of information of the International Ice Hockey Federation (IIHF) 2001-2014 and COO of the Champions Hockey League (CHL) 2013-2015.

IT'S TIME TO GIVE THE REAL REASON WHY RUSSIA IS OUT

I'm glad that the international sporting authorities' banning of different bad nations ended war. I am sure that's how apartheid ended, too.

I love it when UW simply points out when the actions, or proposed actions, of some sort of official body or organization amount to nothing more than pissing in the wind.

[Meds]

(3) The fissures between Europe and the US have nothing to do with Russophilia (though I totally believe that Russia does everything it can to foment discord in NATO) and everything to do with Europe providing less and less of an argument about why it is the United States' interests to maintain the alliance. Increased defense spending by NATO countries will help to maintain the alliance a lot -- and will help create a balance of power if it ever falls apart (win win). But one thing that always held the alliance together was a shared worldview, an overlapping culture, and a (largely) shared view of liberty and democracy. The American perspective, especially on the MAGA right, is that Europe is more anti-liberty and anti-democracy than ever, and that its a continent that is oikiphobic of its traditions, bankrupt, and resigned to managing its decline. And while that case might be overstated, its not without a factual support. (Much in the same way as European antipathies towards the US and Trump may be overstated, but are not without factual support). That doesn't make China or Russia more like the US in terms of shared values than the US is with Europe, but the traditional, soft ties that bind aren't nearly as strong, and we seem to be moving in opposite directions. If its just about maintaining peace or trade, and it is no longer about a common purpose, then it doesn't matter who the allies are, not to the same degree. Especially when there are nations on the rise where the future could be peace and cooperation or antagonism and zones of nonoverlapping interest.

Oikophobia. I had to google that one.

But it's apt.

I'm curious, UW, if you have a theory as to why it seems that so many people (average Joe-public citizens) on the left side of the political aisle are so dead set on Socialistic Liberalism over Free Market Libertarianism. In general most Liberals that I talk with want individual rights and freedoms, but when you point out that what they are asking for is actually Libertarianism, while Liberalism is "Big Brother" exerting more and more control that in its longer game actually removes opportunity and freedom of the individual, well, frankly, they get their nut sack in a twist and don't want to engage in a conversation.

[Per]

I hear ya UW but...what if it's true?

The start of the evidence predates Putin, it predates Reagan, it really predates most players on the global stage.

I encourage you to read over Corn's link. I had a look and it really gets you thinking...ya but what if it's true.

If it is then the United States executive branch of government has been compromised by their enemies and these enemies are utilizing their asset to actively sabotage the NATO alliance, the relationships with historic allies..

What if it's true? Then what?

”I’m not saying Trump is a russian asset, I just can’t think of what a russian asset in the White House would do differently.”

[5thhorseman]

I hear ya UW but...what if it's true?

The start of the evidence predates Putin, it predates Reagan, it really predates most players on the global stage.

I encourage you to read over Corn's link. I had a look and it really gets you thinking...ya but what if it's true.

If it is then the United States executive branch of government has been compromised by their enemies and these enemies are utilizing their asset to actively sabotage the NATO alliance, the relationships with historic allies..

What if it's true? Then what?

”I’m not saying Trump is a russian asset, I just can’t think of what a russian asset in the White House would do differently.”

A real Russian asset would not be as obvious.

[UWSaint]

I'm curious, UW, if you have a theory as to why it seems that so many people (average Joe-public citizens) on the left side of the political aisle are so dead set on Socialistic Liberalism over Free Market Libertarianism. In general most Liberals that I talk with want individual rights and freedoms, but when you point out that what they are asking for is actually Libertarianism, while Liberalism is "Big Brother" exerting more and more control that in its longer game actually removes opportunity and freedom of the individual, well, frankly, they get their nut sack in a twist and don't want to engage in a conversation.

In the US, most Joe Public citizens are not liberal. Liberals are dominated by highly educated coastal sorts on the one hand and minority interest identity groups on the other.

Broadly speaking, the former are attracted to social liberalism because they see themselves as the ones who get to tell others what to do, how to love, what to believe. When they state libertarian positions of the government staying out of stuff (or libertine preferences -- what's wrong with thruples?; government should stay out of the bedroom but kink fest parades on the street if your not a homophobe!), they are stating a brand, expressing a luxury belief they will never practice. They tend to individually small c conservative -- the product of married parents, functional homes, practice monogamy, etc. -- and then they model their parents in their lives. Those in this group who get married and have multiple kids usually will become more conservative over time (or just drop politics); those who get married and don't have kids will stay liberal and run for office, run the NGOs, run government departments. Kids or not, these folks also will comprise the civil service, be the professors and other "educators", and work in corporations or otherwise in the private sector as the transaction costs ancillary to the prime business but necessary a regulated state -- compliance, HR, lawyers, etc. All people who get to tell other people what to do without producing shit or exposing themselves to economic risks.

There is still some Joe Public citizen on the left side in the US who lean socialist, but they aren't libertarians because they choose security over freedom. These are many of the blue collar union members, and also younger people in the service or gig economy who don't see a future as good as their parents had and think the odds are stacked against them. They lean socialist (or at least robust ventral government) because they want the safety net. They are mostly indifferent to the culture wars (and might lean a little to the right). I think this group has a very weak voice in today's democratic party, and many supported Trump. But they are not economic liberals. And if the democrats ever find someone who can speak to this group well, they will win swing states and win the Presidency.