Countdown to Extinction: The 2016 Presidential Election

[PerfectWagnerite]

For a somewhat different perspective.

http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no-one-talks-about/

So redneck inbreds are Republicans and educated city dwellers are Democrats. Tell me something I don't know. If rural America is so great how come most people after they get an education couldn't wait to move out of there?

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

Jill Stein agrees with me on the extreme danger of Hillary:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/10/12/jill_stein_hillary_clintons_declared_syria_policy_could_start_a_nuclear_war.html

"On the issue of war and nuclear weapons, it is actually Hillary's policies which are much scarier than Donald Trump who does not want to go to war with Russia."

[kishnevi]

     Putin ally tells Americans: vote Trump or face nuclear war

     

     If you put it like that.....

   

I've seen that idea from people who have been longtime conservatives.

One of the odder twists of this election is seeing the American rightwing claim the Democrat is too hawkish towards Putin, and that we should ally ourselves with the head of the KGB ( whatever its contemporary form may be) as he seeks to reconstitute the Russian, possibly the Soviet Empire.

This of course does not keep the same people from claiming Hillary is a Marxist.

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

One of the odder twists of this election is seeing the American rightwing claim the Democrat is too hawkish towards Putin, and that we should ally ourselves with the head of the KGB ( whatever its contemporary form may be) as he seeks to reconstitute the Russian, possibly the Soviet Empire.

Oh please, not this canard again. I've been reading in Western media about Putin's supposed quest to "reconstitute the Russian Empire" since about 2003. Yet 13 years later, he is nowhere close to succeeding in this impossible quest. (Sort of like how Iran has been always a few months/years away from a nuclear bomb for the past 15 years or so.)

BTW, referring to Zhirinovsky as a "Putin ally" imputes to him greater significance than he actually has. He's really a kind of court jester; his job is to make inflammatory statements, and he's been doing it since he first came on the scene in the late 1980s.

[kishnevi]

Oh please, not this canard again. I've been reading in Western media about Putin's supposed quest to "reconstitute the Russian Empire" since about 2003. Yet 13 years later, he is nowhere close to succeeding in this impossible quest. (Sort of like how Iran has been always a few months/years away from a nuclear bomb for the past 15 years or so.)

BTW, referring to Zhirinovsky as a "Putin ally" imputes to him greater significance than he actually has. He's really a kind of court jester; his job is to make inflammatory statements, and he's been doing it since he first came on the scene in the late 1980s.

Not all quests succeed. But it seems a very accurate summary of his foreign policies.

Mind you, the idea that we should not oppose him has some points in its favor.

Nor do I think we are very much in danger from a nuclear war under either Clinton or Trump. 

But the Green Party candidate is continuing a leftist tradition, now almost a century old, of being dovish to Russia.

No, the surreal element comes from the fact that being dovish towards Russia is an idea taking root among the American Right.

[drogulus]

Oh please, not this canard again. I've been reading in Western media about Putin's supposed quest to "reconstitute the Russian Empire" since about 2003. Yet 13 years later, he is nowhere close to succeeding in this impossible quest. (Sort of like how Iran has been always a few months/years away from a nuclear bomb for the past 15 years or so.)

BTW, referring to Zhirinovsky as a "Putin ally" imputes to him greater significance than he actually has. He's really a kind of court jester; his job is to make inflammatory statements, and he's been doing it since he first came on the scene in the late 1980s.

    Yes, I understand his role, but it's not primarily court jester. He's the leader of one of the tame "opposition" parties. His job is to make Putin look good and promote the illusion of democratic process.

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

Not all quests succeed. But it seems a very accurate summary of his foreign policies.

I don't want to derail this thread into an in-depth discussion of post-Soviet politics, but I do have one question for you, re: the belief that Putin's goal is to rebuild the Russian Empire or USSR.

In 2008, Russia engaged Georgia in a brief war. The Georgian army was totally defeated, and NATO was not going to come to their rescue. Georgia isn't a NATO country anyway, so it could expect no help from that alliance.

At that point, Russia could have easily occupied and absorbed all of Georgia. It would have been the ideal place to begin the rebuilding of the USSR in earnest. Why didn't they do it?

And here we are, 8 years later, and Georgia is still an independent country.

Mind you, the idea that we should not oppose him has some points in its favor.

Indeed, but you state above that the "American rightwing" says we should ally with Putin. Some people are saying that, but it's still a very fringe position. More common is to support neutrality, or at least not openly antagonizing or provoking Russia.

But the Green Party candidate is continuing a leftist tradition, now almost a century old, of being dovish to Russia.

But the reasoning now is very different. Ideological support of the Soviet Union, which used to animate sectors of the left, is long gone.

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

    Yes, I understand his role, but it's not primarily court jester. He's the leader of one of the tame "opposition" parties. His job is to make Putin look good and promote the illusion of democratic process.

The real opposition party in Russia is the Communist Party. This is rarely mentioned in English-language media, but they usually come second in elections.

Nobody in Russia takes Zhirinovsky's party (ludicrously misnamed the Liberal Democratic Party) seriously.

[Madiel]

So redneck inbreds are Republicans and educated city dwellers are Democrats. Tell me something I don't know. If rural America is so great how come most people after they get an education couldn't wait to move out of there?

If that's what you took out of the article, I suggest you read it again. Properly.

For starters, if you actually read the article you'd already know many of the reasons why people move. A serious lack of economic activity and job opportunity.

[Herman]

Good article. Interesting. I particularly agree with the assertion that Trump and Republicans are naught more than Doppelgängers, a Jekyll & Hyde of the same coin. Let them all go down together, we won't miss them.

I agree that the GOP have dug this grave themselves; right now Trump looks like an Independent hijacking the party, but the biggest difference he plainly says the things the classic GOP representatives suggested.

For instance Pence in Iowa, to the upset woman who talked about a revolution should it turn out Clinton gets elected. Pense talked about closely watching for voter fraud at a state level, Indiana, Iowa, etc.

There is no evidence whatsoever of voter fraud in the sense of people (read: black people) voting mutiple times. But that was what Pence (posing as Mr Squeaky Clean) was suggesting.

He couldn't bring himself to do what McCain did, eight years ago, when a similarly deluded audience member siad that Obama was "an Arab". Gently, but roundly dismiss that thought.

[Herman]

Let them all go down together, we won't miss them.

But on the other hand, it is a yuge problem if in the world's one remaining democratic superpower one of two parties is so dysfunctional that it can be hijacked by a millionaire tv-star, and nobody's stopping him.

It doesn't even look like anyone in the GOP is thinking how to proceed Nov 9; all they're doing is taking turns "Me No Trump" and the opposite the next day.

[Zeus]

Nobody in Russia takes Zhirinovsky's party (ludicrously misnamed the Liberal Democratic Party) seriously.

I actually read a book written by Zhirinovsky once (in 1997 I think). Something about how Russia needed to march southward to the sea (Persian Gulf? Indian Ocean?) to restore order.

Maybe that's how Putin sees the Syria operation?

Fascinating stuff. 

Not.

[Karl Henning]

I think it may be splitting hairs to say that Putin cannot make Russia into USSR 2.0.  The important points as I see them are that Putin is in effect a quasi-Stalin autocrat, only this time with some of the trappings of democracy;  and Russia remains a nuclear power.  It were foolhardy to dismiss the potential hazards.

[drogulus]

The real opposition party in Russia is the Communist Party. This is rarely mentioned in English-language media, but they usually come second in elections.

Nobody in Russia takes Zhirinovsky's party (ludicrously misnamed the Liberal Democratic Party) seriously.

     I didn't say the Liberal Democrats were a serious opposition party, I said they were not. Zhirinovsky is being used to make Putin seem reasonable by comparison, and to send a message that's too hot for Putin to deliver himself.

[Karl Henning]

Sad.

Trump's lawyer sends laughable letter to the NY Times calling for retraction of sexual assault story

The legal threat seems to be an intimidation tactic, but it could backfire.

[André]

There are vast differences between american and russian world views and the means they put in place to achieve their goals.

The USA has lots of trouble assembling a coherent picture of the world. Plain ignorance borne of centuries of political isolationism precludes the gathering and the understanding of historic tendencies and up to date info. Case in point: a candidate to the election cannot name a single foreign head of state. Just ask Trump to name 5 (just 5) of the former USSR republics. Just ask any university graduate to name the second largest city of Germany, France or the UK. And we're not in Asia or Africa yet. The basic info is not there.

American diplomacy has no long term view whatsoever. None at all. What they do is purely an action/reaction reflex, inasmuch as the USA is itself concerned, and only in that case. Reaction (bomb, invade, then pull out) followed by zero planning for the aftermath. Most Americans have no collective global memory. They know their own history, but are clueless about the rest of the world.

Russia OTOH does have long term perspectives. Theirs is a very, very patient people (so are the Chinese), who have been around for centuries, if not millenia, surrounded by vast spaces (countries) with a constant history of playing with borders to protect their people and expand its zone of influence. They never make a move out of political principle alone. There has to be a long term geopolitical advantage. Ukraine and the Crimea are a case in point. It's only a question of time before they move toward the Baltic. If you know old folks of estonian, latvian or lituanian origin (I do), just ask them how they feel about their homeland. It will be 2 minutes in the conversation and they will mention that you can never trust the Russians. "Just wait...". Their concern stems from centuries of collective historic memory.

The making of USSR 2.0, as Karl puts it, is a mattter of time. It may not be around the corner, but they are patient.

[drogulus]

     

I actually read a book written by Zhirinovsky once (in 1997 I think). Something about how Russia needed to march southward to the sea (Persian Gulf? Indian Ocean?) to restore order.

Maybe that's how Putin sees the Syria operation?

Fascinating stuff. 

Not.

     Putin has his Black Sea port, and has reinforced Tartus on the Mediterranean. His goal is to restore the Russian empire. It will have Romanov and Soviet features.

     
1721 After defeating Sweden, Russia gains control of Estonia, Livonia and Ingria. Tsar Peter I (later known as Peter the Great) is proclaimed as the first Emperor of all Russia

1772 The First Partition of Poland sees almost a third of Poland divided between Prussia, Austria and Russia. The full partition of Poland was completed by 1795.

1799 The Russian American Company is founded, and begins constructing settlements in North America, particularly in Alaska and California.

1809 The Finnish War concludes, and Sweden cedes Finland to the Russian Empire.

     The goal of warm water ports that has animated Russian policy since Peter the Great has been realized.

[Florestan]

If you know old folks of estonian, latvian or lituanian origin (I do), just ask them how they feel about their homeland. It will be 2 minutes in the conversation and they will mention that you can never trust the Russians. "Just wait...". Their concern stems from centuries of collective historic memory.

As Romanian, I fully confirm this.

[Karl Henning]

He said, we said

For 16 months, Washington Post columnists and contributors have been making the case against Donald Trump. [By simply reporting exactly what he has said, in many cases.]

[Madiel]

Just to help continue the tangent...

A key aspect of the Soviet Union is that many Russians were moved to the satellite republics. I say "were moved" because I'm not sure how much say individuals ever had in the move.

But the overall result was quite deliberate. Regions that were not "Russia" ended up with very sizeable Russian populations. And those populations are still there after the break-up of the Soviet Union.

Estonia is 25% Russian, compared to 8% in the 1920s.

The fundamental reason Ukraine has been tearing itself apart is because Eastern Ukraine isn't ethnically Ukrainian, it's evenly divided ethnically and linguistically Russian predominates.