Putin’s pawn

Where’s Joe McCarthy when we need him?

There are numerous reports from respectable publications that Trump’s inner circle has been infiltrated by supporters of Vladimir Putin:

MOSCOW—Excited by Donald Trump’s pledge to promote “easing of tensions and improved relations with Russia,” the Kremlin establishment earlier this month invited Trump adviser Carter Page to speak before graduating students of the New Economic School. Page did not disappoint. In his remarks, Page condemned current American policy for its “often-hypocritical focus on democratization, inequality, corruption and regime change.” When a Russian student asked Page whether he really believed that American society was liberal and democratic, Trump’s adviser grinned and delivered a line that might have come from Vladimir Putin himself. “I surround the word ‘liberal’ with quotes,” he said. ”I tend to agree with you that it’s not always as liberal as it may seem,” he said. “I’m with you.”

It was thus perfectly in keeping with Trump campaign’s entente with the Kremlin that last week Trump aides reportedly watered down the new Republican platform on Russia, removing language that called for giving weapons to Ukraine to fight Russian and rebel forces. Page, an energy expert, has close ties to Russian business and relationships with executives at Gazprom, the giant state-run gas company. Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort has worked as a lobbyist for former Ukraine’s former Russia-aligned president, Viktor Yanukovych.

Putin is arguably the most dangerous person in the world today.  His willingness to conquer neighboring countries and annex territory is something we haven’t seen since the heyday of Hitler and Saddam.  Wars occur when there is ambiguity as to how countries will respond to aggression.  If Bush had made it 100% clear that he would have responded forcefully to Saddam’s aggression in 1990, there would have been no Gulf War in 1991.  If he had made it 100% clear that he would not respond, there would have been no Gulf War in 1991. Instead, he left our response ambiguous, and Saddam guessed wrong.  Bush spoke softly and carried a big stick. The rest is history.

Trump’s policy is to create ambiguity as to how the US will respond to a Russian invasion of a NATO member.  Almost every day the Trump campaign comes out with another test balloon, right out of the Kremlin playbook.  A month ago Trump supported Brexit.  A couple days ago he suggested that he might restrict Frenchmen and Germans from visiting America.  Yesterday it was a threat to withdraw from the WTO:

Donald Trump suggested on Sunday that the US could pull out of the World Trade Organisation and said the EU had been created largely to compete against the US in international trade.

In an interview with NBC, the Republican presidential candidate said the US might withdraw from the WTO if his plans to use tariffs to bring factories back from Mexico were challenged.

Mr Trump also repeated his controversial suggestion that the US might not fulfil its commitments to defend Nato allies under attack if they did not do more to boost defence spending.

When I read Ezra Klein’s piece providing 14 reasons why Trump was unfit to be President (only 14? Klein is slipping) I couldn’t help thinking about how almost all of these also applied to Hitler.  Of course as usual, I am referring to Adolf Hitler, not “Hitler”, so don’t accuse me of comparing Trump to “Hitler”, the mass murderer. There were a few of the 14 that did not apply to Adolf Hitler, candidate in German democratic elections.  And in those few cases, Trump actually looks worse than Hitler.  For instance, Hitler was actually fairly knowledgeable about military and foreign affairs, whereas Trump seems like someone who’s never read a newspaper. Remember that Tiananmen “riot”?  Because Trump is so ignorant, he must rely on his advisors, who are Putin supporters.  Thus unlike Hitler, Trump is just a pawn of the Russians.

Trump and Putin, no scratch that, Trump advisors and Putin (Trump’s too dumb to have his own views) share a common interest in blowing up the western alliance, constructed over decades to prevent a repeat of WWII.  They thrive on chaos. They saw how the President of Turkey gained vast new powers as a result of chaos, and hope to do the same.

People talk about how “the establishment” hates Trump.  But there are other establishments, and I’m afraid “the establishment” is no match for the establishment releasing embarrassing information on Hillary right before the convention.  Putin very, very much wants Trump to win, and he plays very dirty. There are even claims that Putin orchestrated terrorist attacks in Russia to gain more power.  I have no idea if they are true, but it’s certainly the sort of thing he would do.

The press needs to stop asking stupid questions about whether Trump’s wife plagiarized a few lines in a speech (which helps Trump by making it seem he’s a normal candidate, and that this trivia is the sort of reason he should not be elected) and instead start asking his aides the following question:

Are you now, or have you ever been, a supporter of Vladimir Putin?

PS. If I were Hillary’s media people, I’d focus 100% of my TV ads between now and the election on the theme of Trump being Putin’s pawn. It may not be true, but just the fact that it’s possibly true provides the strongest argument against electing Trump. As I said before, a world where it might or might not be true is far more dangerous than either certainty.  And that’s the world we currently live in.

PPS.  In fairness to Trumpistas, if this story is true, Trump will have a right to say, “I told you so.”

PPPS.  Nixon would have destroyed Trump on this Russian influence issue.  C’mon Hillary, show your inner Nixon.


Tags:

 
 
 

207 Responses to “Putin’s pawn”

  1. Gravatar of morgan warstler morgan warstler
    25. July 2016 at 06:04

    Good Christ, you are completely unhinged Scott. Putin admitted outright the US is the sole Superpower.

    Whats so funny is how each person holds onto their precious and their reality gets most distorted to not let it go.

    US immigration policy becoming restricted to top 5-10% of Earthlings who like bikinis is pretty simple and basic policy shift… it keeps US natives happy, gives out low skilled higher service sector wages, AND increases our rate of immigration!

    But Scott HATES it bc the idea of US brain draining the earth of talent and leaving the hollowed counties to crumble and fail isn’t Scott’s idea…. even IF it leads to less human suffering in long term.

    China in Taiwan South Sea is no different than Russia Scott… but you have a boner for China.

    Why wouldn’t we redo NATO to fight radical Islam and partner with Putin?

    We got over Vietnam.

    China does FAR MORE to us than Russia.

    I said back then with BREXIT the stock market which Scott loves woild decide who was going to bend.

    Relax Scott stop acting like you are fighting Nazis…

    Admit why you don’t want US to be Earth Country Club.

    I dare you

  2. Gravatar of ben ben
    25. July 2016 at 06:15

    First up: not a trump fan boy.

    Weird logic – you state “since the days of Saddam” yet then go on to state that Bush was the aggressor. And then criticise Trump for using more friendly tones with Russia and infer this will increase ambiguity which will lead to war. How are countries ever to have better relations under this rational?

    “There are even claims that Putin orchestrated terrorist attacks in Russia to gain more power. I have no idea if they are true,”

    Ok I’m unsubscribing, absurd!

  3. Gravatar of Daniel Daniel
    25. July 2016 at 06:20

    I love it when Sumner starts hyperventilating about Trump.

    If I didn’t know better, it’s almost as if the establishment is regarding him as a real threat.

  4. Gravatar of collin collin
    25. July 2016 at 06:24

    I find it odd that Iraq Gulf War 1 is so praised as it did directly lead to the second Iraq War and forced the US being the police force for the world. There are a lot reasons for this and considering Bush Sr. doing the right thing but not taking Bagdad might have led to his election loss. It does strike me how the President so successful with the Iraq War became so unpopular the next year. I know jobless recession and tax increases which was related to the war.

    Anyway, I always assumed that Saddam miscalculated how the other Arab nations would react especially since he was putting the Palestinian state on the table. So he did not think the Saudis and other nations would allow the US such easy access for the military and might turn against Israel.

    To be honest, I think this whole Trump/Putin Russian angle is getting overblown with a lot of heresy evidence and at this point is counterproductive against Trump campaign. (Josh Marshall is jumping the shark here.) I am tired of the US being the police of the world and I do find Trump’s direct comments about European treaties terrible.

  5. Gravatar of Tom Brown Tom Brown
    25. July 2016 at 06:30

    Great article Scott,

    This Trump and his campaign manager’s (Manafort’s) ties to the Kremlin have been documented over the past few months by Erick Erickson at TheResurgent.com, at RedState.com and by The National Review.

    Here’s Erick Erickson:

    If you have not paid attention, the Trump campaign operates essentially as a subsidiary of the Kremlin. In fact, Trump is now calling for the dissolution of NATO and worked to weaken the Republican platform on Ukraine. Both were goals of Vladimir Putin and both are being accomplished by Donald Trump.

    I and others have noted for months that much of the online troll army supporting Trump are operated out of Moscow. In fact, the New York Times reported on a number of Twitter accounts peddling “ebola in America.” The reporters documented that those accounts were run out of Moscow and the twitter trolls themselves admitted it. Now some of those accounts are pro-Trump accounts.

    Likewise, Trump has major financial backing in his businesses by Russian oligarchs. The Trump SoHo project was secretly funded, in part, by Russians.

  6. Gravatar of Benjamin Cole Benjamin Cole
    25. July 2016 at 06:39

    Putin does have thuggish qualities. Worse than Xi of China? Tough call. Xi has a more-polished public persona. But in Tibet or Vietnam, what would the answer be?

    Still, Russia today is a crony capitalist, Catholic militaristic nation, exactly of the type we made alliance with all through Latin America for decades.

    Our Founding Fathers advised avoiding foreign entanglements. Good idea.

    BTW: The Russians are so stupid they once tried to occupy Afghanistan. Afghanistan! How did that make sense?

    We were against the Russians when they were commies and now we are against them when they are crony capitalists?

    Do US globalists need enemies?

    Putin’s land grabs are creepy but limited to regions with heavy Russian populations. China will soon Hanify the Tibetans into second-class citizens.

  7. Gravatar of Tom Brown Tom Brown
    25. July 2016 at 06:59

    And a couple of NR pieces [1], [2].

    Notice how Trump didn’t really speak about the constitution, freedom, liberty, the initiative of the entrepreneur or small government at his convention speech? He did brag-promise repeatedly that he would “end crime” and “end violence” starting January (20th to be specific). [Wow, he can end crime and violence!!! He must be SOOO Strong! Not even Superman claims he can entirely end crime and violence!]. He also mentioned repeatedly that “Nobody knows the system like I do” and he said “I’m the ONLY ONE who can fix this” and yet he gave zero details. It’s almost like he’s asking us to put his faith in HIM and only HIM. Don’t ask questions, just believe in the raw animal power of Trump over all. Or as Jay Nordlinger at NR writes in his guide to the uninitiated in the lexicon of Trumpites (specifically describing what the mean by “It’s not about ideology”):

    “It’s not about ideology.” This is something I hear from Trump folk when I or someone else points out that Trump is not a conservative, or that he takes left-leaning positions, or outright leftist positions (as on health care). A related phrase is, “It’s not about box-checking.” What do they mean by this? I think they mean, “No fair talking about issues. No fair talking about the federal debt or taxation or entitlements or trade or gun control or abortion or NATO or affirmative action or ethanol subsidies. Issues and positions don’t matter. Thinking doesn’t matter. What matters is that Donald Trump is a big strong man, and that’s what this country needs now.”

    I think he nails it with that strongman bit. That where he and Putin are similar, no? Are Americans really so pathetic and emasculated that they need to feel a vicarious thrill from an “alpha” authoritarian strong man like Trump (or Putin), even if he is obviously a fraud? Just so they can pretend they too are strong for a while?

    Part 2 of the Trumpite lexicon here:
    [http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/438043/trump-talk-cont?target=author&tid=1853]

    The [[[PUTIN]]]-trump axis: Would W describe it as an “Axis of Evil?”

    (As best I can understand from Harding’s blog the square brackets point out a hero of the alt-Right, as opposed to the round ones which are used to identify Jews.)

  8. Gravatar of Tom Brown Tom Brown
    25. July 2016 at 07:02

    Still, Russia today is a crony capitalist, Catholic militaristic nation, exactly of the type we made alliance with all through Latin America for decades.

    No, it’s Russian Orthodox.

  9. Gravatar of Tom Brown Tom Brown
    25. July 2016 at 07:25

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/putins-party/article/2003473#.V5SyX6GrF9k.twitter

  10. Gravatar of mbka mbka
    25. July 2016 at 07:34

    Scott,

    all with you on that post. It’s a bit odd though. After thinking of Trump simply as a skilled populist and demagogue for such a long time, it does seem surprising that now he appears more and more like the real Manchurian candidate, not for the Democrats but for the Russians. Hats off in a grim way to Putin if he pulls this off: In a mere two, three years, regained Crimea, neutralized the Baltic states into voluntary finlandization, 80%-ish sympathy rate for Russia in Germany, EU paralyzed by refugees, destabilized by Brexit, Britain itself again in danger of breakup, and now Trump is already weakening NATO and the WTO, simply by talking. All without a single shot fired, by pure agit-prop. Going by “cui bono”, who knows, maybe the strangely clustered recent German attacks had some IS recruiters from somewhere else than Syria too.

    And awful EU strategy on the UK if the Guardian piece is true.

  11. Gravatar of Ray Lopez Ray Lopez
    25. July 2016 at 07:45

    +1 to morgan warstler, who rebuts Sumner effectively. Sumner is unhinged, unstable, unwilling to read anything that shows money is neutral, and yet, he secretly gloats at being “the blogger that saved the world” (in his own mind).

  12. Gravatar of Tom Brown Tom Brown
    25. July 2016 at 07:50

    RedState.com is on this too:
    http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2016/07/25/russian-government-helping-trump-win-election/

  13. Gravatar of Tom Brown Tom Brown
    25. July 2016 at 07:57

    @mbka, well put! Manchurian candidate indeed! BTW, who here thinks Trump could beat Putin at chess?… or any other activity? That so many would fall for “Only **I** can fix it!” is astounding, but now we see who the bottom boy is in the Putin-trump “special relationship.”

  14. Gravatar of Benjamin Cole Benjamin Cole
    25. July 2016 at 08:17

    Tom Brown:

    Well…the Russian Orthodox are considered a part of the Eastern Orthodox. There was a split between Catholicism and the Eastern Orthodox in 1054, but evidently the Papacy has forgiven the split.

    Broadly speaking they are all Catholics.

    I prefer non-interventionism and a much-reduced military ala Ron Paul.

    But what makes an alliance with Sunnis (Saudis) preferable to an alliance with the Shiites and Russian Orthodox?

    9/11 was a Sunni operation, btw. Saddam was Sunni too.

  15. Gravatar of Peter Peter
    25. July 2016 at 08:29

    “Bush spoke softly and carried a big stick.”

    Same thing that happened in Korea.

  16. Gravatar of TGGP TGGP
    25. July 2016 at 08:46

    I dislike Trump, but to me his unwillingness to fight Russia is one of his good qualities. The Soviet Union is gone, we have vastly more military power than anyone else, so we don’t need to worry and can avoid war.

    Putin is a bad guy, but so far he’s been restricted to immiserating his own people, supporting Crimean separatists and giving Georgia a bloody nose. Compared to the US track record on the world stage he’s relatively non-threatening. Of course, the US is more powerful and causes immense destruction without much thought, but that’s hardly a consolation.

  17. Gravatar of Joe Joe
    25. July 2016 at 09:19

    TGGP, yeah, we probably shouldn’t fight Russia over Syria. But if Russia rolls through a NATO member, we’re bound by treaty to act. Ambivalence will only encourage Putin (just as Prof. Sumner says).

    Trump talks so much of the “Pledge” that Cruz should stick to. Certainly the United States should stick to its pledge to defend other NATO members from attack. It has been the linchpin of American and European security since the end of World War II. A stable security environment primarily benefits the most powerful country – despite what Trump says, that’s still the United States. NATO guarantees work in OUR interest most of all.

    For the pro-Trumpers, maybe if he released his bloody tax returns we could maybe see how he isn’t totally dependent on Russian capital? Oh wait…

  18. Gravatar of Matt Waters Matt Waters
    25. July 2016 at 09:23

    I’m hardly a fan of Trump, but why has the US defended countries such as South Korea, South Vietnam and Kuwait? And given NATO obligations, why should Estonia possibly be added to that list?

    On other issues, Trump can be extremely interventionist. Banning all Muslims, killing terrorist families and using torture actively hurt preventing radicalization. Trump said outright that we should just “take the oil,” like you can put all of Iraq’s oil in a pickup truck.

    So I’m not defending Trump. But I do wonder what’s the benefit of protecting countries such as Estonia or Kuwait? Considering Hussein’s and Putin’s record on human rights, there’s a large humanitarian reason to care about it. But if you’re honestly “America First,” it’s hard to tie it to a true American interest.

  19. Gravatar of Richard A. Richard A.
    25. July 2016 at 09:28

    I’m no Trump fan, but the amendment that got watered down in the Republican platform was about granting lethal aid to Ukraine and it was being pushed by the war wing of the Republican party. I suspect that when the Democratic platform comes out, it will also be missing such a provision.

    There is an anti-Russia bias in the MSM and it’s coming from the bomb first ask questions later crowd.

  20. Gravatar of Tom Brown Tom Brown
    25. July 2016 at 09:37

    The Putin-trump connection is especially ironic when considered in light of one of the most important words in the Trumpkin lexicon (as explained by NR’s Jay Nordlinger): “globalist”:

    I think the most prominent word, from Trumpites, is “globalist.” That is their epithet of choice. It seems to have replaced “cosmopolitan,” or “rootless cosmopolitan,” a once-common slur against Jews. It is one of those nonsense words of the populist Right. In all likelihood, they think you’re for trade. Or for alliances. Or for general involvement in the world. Certainly, they think you are not a patriot.

    It’s one I see used here (and other hotbeds of Trumpism) nearly as much as “running-dog capitalist” was used by Maoists.

  21. Gravatar of Joe Leider Joe Leider
    25. July 2016 at 09:44

    Matt Waters, that’s maybe a good argument BEFORE Estonia became part of NATO, but now that Estonia IS a part of NATO, we’re now in the position that we have to defend it, and it is in our interest to defend it.

    It’s like when Obama drew the red line with Assad using chemical weapons, then did nothing when Assad crossed it. It was one of Obama’s more glaring screw ups.

    Once you issue a security guarantee or draw a red line, you can’t just take it back willy nilly unless you draw up a new treaty. Or at least don’t leave any ambiguity. Either say “yes Estonia is a member of NATO and we’re defending it” or “no we won’t do anything for Estonia because they are probably in Russia’s sphere of influence”. But this whole “well maybe we’ll defend Estonia if we deem they’ve paid enough of their dues” just doesn’t work.

    I think there’s an interest segue back to monetary policy here – the basic principle that it’s best not to half-ass a policy. Only full-ass or no-ass will do.

  22. Gravatar of Gary Anderson Gary Anderson
    25. July 2016 at 09:48

    This idea that Putin is the biggest world threat is laughable, Scott. Who is the aggressor nation doing regime change? The USA is. We are the most dangerous nation in the world, put up to it by Israel who tells us what to do, along with its financiers, Rothschilds and Rockerfellers.

    Putin didn’t destroy Iraq, Syria, Libya. We did Scott. Now we have Clinton Stealing Sanders’ primary. Only a moron could lose to bigot in chief Trump. Clinton may be that moron as she has fallen behind in the polls today.

    It is fantasy that Putin is more dangerous than the New World Order. Laughable.

  23. Gravatar of Gary Anderson Gary Anderson
    25. July 2016 at 09:56

    And, by the way, Tom Brown, Trump is a globalist too. He has the backing of Sheldon Adelson, who chastised Christie in Las Vegas, for saying that the Palestinians were “occupied”, even though they are occupied.

    Trump says he will uncover all these conspiracies, many of which are true, by the way. But he won’t. He was talking about Israel funding ISIS like the Saudis fund ISIS, but was afraid to actually say Israel, on the Morning Joe Show. But we have video showing ISIS and Israeli troops working together.

    But Trump will not expose the conspiracy. They probably would assassinate him if he did.

  24. Gravatar of Tom Brown Tom Brown
    25. July 2016 at 10:00

    This has been something worrying me for months now: the tradition of giving the candidates a national security briefing. Ryan was gung-ho to prevent Hillary from getting one, but in light of this emerging Putin-trump special relationship, what about the prospect of giving Trump one?:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/putin-trump-national-security-briefings_us_57963cd6e4b02d5d5ed2476b

  25. Gravatar of gofx gofx
    25. July 2016 at 10:22

    Scott, Hillary has already shown her “Inner Nixon”, what with committing crimes, erasing evidence, giving and receiving bribes, having an enemies list…she’s got him down perfectly. And a Keynesian to boot!

  26. Gravatar of rayward rayward
    25. July 2016 at 10:25

    I suspect Sumner is commenting on the absurdity of this (he filed it under Trump Derangement Syndrome). That the political party that has been red-baiting for over 100 years would nominate someone for President with ties to the Russian president has to be the greatest irony ever. It’s been suggested by one pundit that Trump can’t borrow money from conventional lenders any more (having burned them too many times) so he relies on Russian plutocrats for loans. Of course, many suspect that Trump ran for president not intending to win but to get a new reality tv show and maybe provide some publicity for the hotels bearing his name (if not his ownership). To be bipartisan in my comment, what’s more ironic that having two opposing candidates, one the suffering wife of a philanderer and the other a philanderer himself. Go figure. Is America great or what.

  27. Gravatar of Scott Sumner Scott Sumner
    25. July 2016 at 10:37

    Ben, There are days when I am simply staggered by the lack of reading comprehension of the public. You said:

    “Weird logic – you state “since the days of Saddam” yet then go on to state that Bush was the aggressor. And then criticise Trump for using more friendly tones with Russia and infer this will increase ambiguity which will lead to war.”

    I never stated or even implied that Bush was the aggressor. I never stated or even implied that Trump being nice would lead to war.

    Ben, Come back here when Xi conquers a neighboring country.

    Mbka, A year ago I did a Manchurian candidate post, and people laughed. I’m “hyperventilating”. Of course they are never able to actually contest any of my facts.

    Peter, You may well be right, my knowledge of US history is weak. But it makes sense, given that the North Koreans had just seen us not lift a finger to save the Nationalist Chinese.

    TGGP, You said:

    “I dislike Trump, but to me his unwillingness to fight Russia is one of his good qualities.”

    What the heck has happened to reading comprehension around here? Please read the post again and respond to what I actually said, or don’t respond at all.

    Matt, You said:

    “So I’m not defending Trump. But I do wonder what’s the benefit of protecting countries such as Estonia or Kuwait?”

    You shouldn’t lump these two together. We had a defense treaty with Estonia-via NATO. The NATO organization has been a huge boon to the US, by making the world more stable. If we had set up a NATO type structure after WWI it’s very possible that WWII would never have happened. I’d add that there’s no reason why NATO should cost us anything. If we spend too much on defense (and we do) that’s our stupidity, it has nothing to do with NATO.

  28. Gravatar of Matthew Waters Matthew Waters
    25. July 2016 at 10:37

    “Matt Waters, that’s maybe a good argument BEFORE Estonia became part of NATO, but now that Estonia IS a part of NATO, we’re now in the position that we have to defend it, and it is in our interest to defend it.”

    This did cross my mind. As a counterpoint, here’s a good argument for why the idea of “credibility” leads to many awful foreign policy decisions.

    http://www.vox.com/2016/4/29/11431808/credibility-foreign-policy-war

    In the case of Assad, any true intervention against him would have involved either 1) large civilian casualties from airstrikes or 2) boots on the ground. Neither option was in America’s interest.

    But if we stipulate that a “red line” comment or joining NATO commits US troops, why should we have allowed Estonia to join NATO? There is a humanitarian benefit, where the people of Estonia have better lives. There’s a slight benefit from having Estonia as a trading partner. Maybe there is a benefit in the long term, as more countries have better human rights and living standards. Is there anything else?

  29. Gravatar of Scott Sumner Scott Sumner
    25. July 2016 at 10:42

    gofx, Yes, she’s always reminded me of Nixon, which is why I expect her to be a horrible president.

    Rayward, Actually, all my Trump posts are filed under TDS. And yes, there are all sorts of ironies here, one hardly knows where to begin. If it wasn’t for the risk of nuclear war, I’d just laugh at Trump.

  30. Gravatar of Scott Sumner Scott Sumner
    25. July 2016 at 10:53

    Matthew, Every time a country joins NATO, NATO gets bigger, and the non-NATO part of the world gets smaller. In the very long run all countries will be in NATO, and there will be no more war. We are a long way from that point, but every tiny step is an improvement. Already NATO totally dwarfs any other military power in the world. That makes other countries reluctant to attack NATO—but only if the treaty is credible. Unfortunately, Trump is reducing that credibility, and hence increasing the risk of war.

  31. Gravatar of Art Deco Art Deco
    25. July 2016 at 11:04

    Putin is arguable the most dangerous person in the world today.

    He’s an elderly, Machivellian machine boss. He presides over a productive base 1/10th the size of China’s, and less if you bracket out the natural resource rents. His military was taxed reconquering Chechenya, which has a population about that of metropolitan Pittsburgh. The swatch of territory he conquered has a population of 2 million and consists largely of Great Russians. The Ukraine is not that injured losing potentially troublesome houseguests.

    As we speak, the World Bank has it that Russia’s production per-capita has returned to the levels prior to the Gaidar depression and total fertility rates are up to the European mean (1.6), or halfway to replacement levels. The country’s still working to get itself out of the hole in some respects. Putin’s getting older and his penchant for riverboat gambles (never all that manifest) is likely to decline.

    The real source of anxiety should be China.

  32. Gravatar of Art Deco Art Deco
    25. July 2016 at 11:08

    Matthew, Every time a country joins NATO, NATO gets bigger, and the non-NATO part of the world gets smaller. In the very long run all countries will be in NATO, and there will be no more war. We are a long way from that point, but every tiny step is an improvement.

    No, NATO just loses focus and decision-making capacity. An alliance of Germany, Britain, France, and Italy (with junior partners) contra Russia has an institutional purpose. The United States can establish bilateral agreements with various states which mesh with that. NATO is a relic.

  33. Gravatar of engineer engineer
    25. July 2016 at 11:14

    Couple of comments:
    1) Just last week you talked about historical land claims of the Chinese off the coast of the Philippians and Vietnam…..well I think the historical land claim of Mother Russia over the Crimea is far stronger. The Crimea was part of Russia going back hundreds of years. Add that to the fact that the residents of the Crimea overwhelmingly support being a part of Russia..and the rest of the Russian people overwhelming support Putin and the ethnic Russians that live in the Crimea and I think it can be argued that our reaction was a bit of an overreaction. That said, Russia, like Mitt Romney said 4 years ago, to be roundly mocked by the democrats at the time, is a big foreign policy challenge. Luckily, the price of oil is not supporting his ambitions, but western Europe really needs to wean itself off the Russian pipelines.
    – I’m convinced that Russia is behind the Wiki leaks DNC mail cyber attack. No doubt that Putin hates Hilary…(as well as O’bama).
    – When the only candidates for president both have 70% disapproval ratings, you really need to wonder about the strength of our democracy. It is not quite like the choice in Syria, ISIS or al-Assad..hmmmmm…but it is not good…

  34. Gravatar of Art Deco Art Deco
    25. July 2016 at 11:15

    That the political party that has been red-baiting for over 100 years

    “Red baiting” in 1914? You have a taste for anachronism.

    I have news for you: the Communist Party and the red haze consisted in 1948 of about a dozen trade unions and a mess of burrowing gatekeepers in the publishing industry, the film business, and a selection of government bureaucracies and academic departments. Other than Henry Wallace (who later admitted he’d been snookered) and a scatter of others, no working politician wanted anything to do with them in 1948 and they had a minimal reserve of popular affection. Ellen Schrecker is schmuckette.

  35. Gravatar of Art Deco Art Deco
    25. July 2016 at 11:19

    It’s been suggested by one pundit that Trump can’t borrow money from conventional lenders any more

    About a generation ago, Charles Krauthammer offered that people who compose press releases and opinion columns can get a pass for uttering lunacies by prefacing them with the phrase, “there has even been speculation”.

  36. Gravatar of Art Deco Art Deco
    25. July 2016 at 11:30

    Still, Russia today is a crony capitalist, Catholic militaristic nation, exactly of the type we made alliance with all through Latin America for decades.

    They spend < 5% of their domestic product on military uses and national service hitches have been cut to 12 months. Albert Makashov and Alexander Lebed have been just about the only political notables with a supra local constituency in the last generation who were at one time professional soldiers. And, again, the country's cultural allegiance is to the Orthodox Church (even though only a single digit share is at the divine liturgy on a weekly basis). The modal opinion of the Catholic Church in Orthodoxy is somewhere between critical and aghast.

  37. Gravatar of Art Deco Art Deco
    25. July 2016 at 11:33

    I prefer non-interventionism and a much-reduced military ala Ron Paul.

    This requires subscribing to Paul’s premises, which are fantastical.

  38. Gravatar of Art Deco Art Deco
    25. July 2016 at 11:37

    neutralized the Baltic states into voluntary finlandization,

    They have a total population of 6 million. They’re going to need a patron if the environment is not congenial. Finland did not get a bad deal after 1944. Much better deal than Roumania got.

  39. Gravatar of MikeDC MikeDC
    25. July 2016 at 11:41

    So we have a choice between Trump, who’s taken millions from Russians, or Clinton, who’s taken millions from Russians and also has given them access to all sorts of classified and embarrassing information that could be used to blackmail her.

  40. Gravatar of Brian Donohue Brian Donohue
    25. July 2016 at 11:44

    “Putin is arguable [sic] the most dangerous person in the world today.”

    A lot of dumb things are arguable.

    Looking forward to your next post on economics…

  41. Gravatar of Postkey Postkey
    25. July 2016 at 11:47

    “NATO’s Warsaw Communiqué: Planning the Crime of Aggression
    I have been a defence lawyer most of my working life and am not used to gathering evidence for a prosecution, but circumstances impelled me to open a file for the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, or perhaps some future citizen’s tribunal, in which is contained the evidence that the NATO leaders are guilty of the gravest crime against mankind, the crime of aggression.”
    http://journal-neo.org/2016/07/18/nato-s-warsaw-communique-planning-the-crime-of-aggression/
    http://journal-neo.org/2016/07/18/nato-s-warsaw-communique-planning-the-crime-of-aggression/

  42. Gravatar of Postkey Postkey
    25. July 2016 at 12:02

    “Putin to Western elites: Play-time is over
    The Russian blogger chipstone summarized the most salient points from Putin speech as follows:

    1. Russia will no longer play games and engage in back-room negotiations over trifles. But Russia is prepared for serious conversations and agreements, if these are conducive to collective security, are based on fairness and take into account the interests of each side.

    2. All systems of global collective security now lie in ruins. There are no longer any international security guarantees at all. And the entity that destroyed them has a name: The United States of America.

    3. The builders of the New World Order have failed, having built a sand castle. Whether or not a new world order of any sort is to be built is not just Russia’s decision, but it is a decision that will not be made without Russia.

    4. Russia favors a conservative approach to introducing innovations into the social order, but is not opposed to investigating and discussing such innovations, to see if introducing any of them might be justified.

    5. Russia has no intention of going fishing in the murky waters created by America’s ever-expanding “empire of chaos,” and has no interest in building a new empire of her own (this is unnecessary; Russia’s challenges lie in developing her already vast territory). Neither is Russia willing to act as a savior of the world, as she had in the past.

    6. Russia will not attempt to reformat the world in her own image, but neither will she allow anyone to reformat her in their image. Russia will not close herself off from the world, but anyone who tries to close her off from the world will be sure to reap a whirlwind.

    7. Russia does not wish for the chaos to spread, does not want war, and has no intention of starting one. However, today Russia sees the outbreak of global war as almost inevitable, is prepared for it, and is continuing to prepare for it. Russia does not want war—nor does she fear it.

    8. Russia does not intend to take an active role in thwarting those who are still attempting to construct their New World Order—until their efforts start to impinge on Russia’s key interests. Russia would prefer to stand by and watch them give themselves as many lumps as their poor heads can take. But those who manage to drag Russia into this process, through disregard for her interests, will be taught the true meaning of pain.

    9. In her external, and, even more so, internal politics, Russia’s power will rely not on the elites and their back-room dealing, but on the will of the people.

    To these nine points I would like to add a tenth:

    10. There is still a chance to construct a new world order that will avoid a world war. This new world order must of necessity include the United States—but can only do so on the same terms as everyone else: subject to international law and international agreements; refraining from all unilateral action; in full respect of the sovereignty of other nations.

    To sum it all up: play-time is over. Children, put away your toys. Now is the time for the adults to make decisions. Russia is ready for this; is the world? “

    http://cluborlov.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/putin-to-western-elites-play-time-is.html

  43. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    25. July 2016 at 12:46

    Art, You said:

    “The real source of anxiety should be China.”

    It’s not about GDP, it’s about level of recklessness and quantity of nukes. Russia far exceeds China in both categories. You don’t see China invading neighboring countries. Russia is a threat to its neighbors–it already conquered one of them.

    Engineer, You said:

    “Just last week you talked about historical land claims of the Chinese off the coast of the Philippians and Vietnam…..well I think the historical land claim of Mother Russia over the Crimea is far stronger. The Crimea was part of Russia going back hundreds of years. ”

    That’s absolutely laughable. By your logic we should have wars all over Europe right now. Mexico should invade the US. After all, there are plenty or areas that used to be part of neighboring countries. So that entitles you to invade? That’s the new international law? Ridiculous. Commenter Harding defends Hitler’s taking of the Sudetenland—after all, lots of German lived there. This stuff just shows me how totally unhinged Trump people have become. Nothing is so evil that they won’t defend it, to make their guy look good.

    No other country has a better claim to those islands than China. (And even China’s claim is pathetically weak.) Those islands don’t matter, as no one lives there. Crimea has millions of people. No comparison.

    MikeDC, Clinton clearly supports NATO. Period. End of story.

    Postkey. The scary part is that Trump supporters can read those Putin speeches and think they make sense.

  44. Gravatar of Scott Freelander Scott Freelander
    25. July 2016 at 12:58

    The Democratic Party is showing itself to be a mess today, but the irony of Republicans claiming Obama’s a Manchurian candidate while supporting Trump…

  45. Gravatar of engineer engineer
    25. July 2016 at 14:11

    OK, my “laughable comments” were not meant to imply that we give Putin a pass on the Crimea or that I am a Trump supporter for that matter.

    Yes I also find the relationship between Putin and Trump disconcerting on many levels. The idea that Trump may have orchestrated the wiki leak like he orchestrated the national inquirer articles during the primary…tantamount to treason in my book…

    While Russia spends a fraction of what the US spends on the Military that can be a very misleading on many levels and I wouldn’t belittle the ability of the Russian military to intimidate its neighbors. Unfortunately, the Russian military/industrial complex supports itself by selling arms to unsavory characters around the world. Asymmetric threats costs a lot of money to protect our troops from.

  46. Gravatar of Art Deco Art Deco
    25. July 2016 at 14:16

    It’s not about GDP, it’s about level of recklessness and quantity of nukes. Russia far exceeds China in both categories. You don’t see China invading neighboring countries. Russia is a threat to its neighbors–it already conquered one of them.

    It conquered a province of one of them with minimal bloodshed, a province wherein the majority are Great Russians and Ukrainian is hardly spoken. I would not say Chechenya was worth the candle, but the suppression of the Chechen rebellion was an intramural insurrection, not the conquest of a neighbor (and the worst of the bloodshed there occurred under the preceding administration).

  47. Gravatar of Albert Albert
    25. July 2016 at 14:17

    Anywhere else but the parallel universe that the good Professor lives in “respectable publications” is equal to leftist propaganda sheets…

  48. Gravatar of Tom Brown Tom Brown
    25. July 2016 at 14:28

    @Scott Freelander,

    You say the Dems are a mess today: certainly true. And the Bernie bros have their own silly lexicon (I link to one for the Trumpistas above) to bludgeon actual Democrats with. If they don’t outright use the same “globalist” epitaph that Trumpsters do, they seem to have adopted “TPP” as a kind of all encompassing symbol of insider darkness and evil, so of course being against it puts you on the side of the angels. It’d be nice if HRC could somehow announce that she’s putting Bernie in charge of coming up with something better and at the same time investigating what can be done to shore up our Asian economic and military alliances. Once the Bernie rebels see their man in the driver’s seat on that, actually tasked with sullying himself with accomplishing something tangible, will they still be as committed to using their “running-dog” style sloganeering? Just a thought. Probably a stupid one, but oh well.

  49. Gravatar of Scott Freelander Scott Freelander
    25. July 2016 at 14:40

    Tom,

    I’m actually starting to get scared. The Democrats may be too incompetent to beat Trump. This was a terrible year to put up a weak candidate like Clinton.

    I wish Obama could run again. I’m pretty confident he could beat Trump. He’s a more gifted campaigner than anything else.

  50. Gravatar of Lorenzo from Oz Lorenzo from Oz
    25. July 2016 at 15:20

    Scott: a piece that you might enjoy, from a writer who I have long appreciated.
    http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/208990/revolt-of-the-banana-republicans

  51. Gravatar of Tom Brown Tom Brown
    25. July 2016 at 15:22

    @Scott Freelander,

    I’m with you there! If any two of these three: Clinton, Pence, Kaine filled spots on the tops of the two tickets, I’d rest easy at night, as I’ve done for every election I can remember going back to 1976. It’s the fact that Trump is one that gives me the jitters. I guess on the bright side, if Trump wins we may never have to worry about these election things ever again (assuming his sons Uday (AKA Patrick Bateman) and Qusay outlive him).

    You might be right about Obama, but if that were possible I’m sure his favorables would take a dive upon accepting the nomination: after all he’s been instrumental in putting TPP forward, and that’s basically the same as child molestation and puppy torture to a Bernie bro (or a Trumpster for that matter). And not only that, remember who was 1st 100% responsible for Benghazi before Clinton was 100% responsible and and before Rice was 100% responsible? Yes, it was Obama… and just like Vince Foster’s corpse I’m sure that’d be resurrected.

  52. Gravatar of Tom Brown Tom Brown
    25. July 2016 at 15:27

    @Scott Freelander, you might like this:
    https://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/07/the-left-gave-us-hitler-they-gave-us.html

  53. Gravatar of Gary Anderson Gary Anderson
    25. July 2016 at 15:41

    Until Scott Sumner reads up on Oded Yinon, he will never understand why Bush/Cheney were the aggressor in the middle east. Here it is Scott, and Israel Shahak told the truth, and warned America about the globalists. But we didn’t listen.

    You want to know who killed JFK? LBJ did, and his ties to Israel are well documented. And my natural father was Jewish for those who want to play a race card.

  54. Gravatar of mbka mbka
    25. July 2016 at 15:45

    BTW. This wouldn’t be the first time that Putin scores big in “How to win friends and influence people”. Ex German chancellor Schroeder has been on board of Gazprom since 2005, considers himself a personal friend of Putin’s, and defended him vigorously over Ukraine.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/10697986/Merkel-fury-after-Gerhard-Schroeder-backs-Putin-on-Ukraine.html
    Gazprom seems to be some kind of vehicle to bind foreign elites to Russia’s fate.

  55. Gravatar of mbka mbka
    25. July 2016 at 15:50

    Scott,

    another irony, not noted in the Guardian article. Here:
    https://euobserver.com/justice/134469
    scroll to “UK China deal”, it would look like the UK and the EU start competing on who will allow China _greater_ access to their territories, not lesser. Because now they’re in dorect competition over access to the _China_ market.

    The world works in wondrous ways.

  56. Gravatar of engineer engineer
    25. July 2016 at 16:09

    Tom Brown…Yes, the left is serving up Trump. Che Guevara RIP…I want my Bernie shirt and headband! The Sanderinista struggle goes on!

  57. Gravatar of Bill Ellis Bill Ellis
    25. July 2016 at 16:33

    Scott says… “If I were Hillary’s media people, I’d focus 100% of my TV ads between now and the election on the theme of Trump being Putin’s pawn.”

    I think You are being too much of a guy-guy to see clearly…

  58. Gravatar of Bill Ellis Bill Ellis
    25. July 2016 at 16:58

    If I were king I’d open up the border with mexico 100% for labor as long as the border was just as open to capital and residency… Young workers would migrate north while old retrieves would move south…

    Us Liberals have the wrong Idea on how to deal with globalism… Instead of trying to tear down the global system of government already in place (and masquerading as a free market)… We should be trying to democratize globalism… Globalism’s effect on the west has been all about making changes in ways that benefit the 1%. That’s not surprising since the changes were negotiated and designed by the world’s elite for the world’s elite…

    Instead of being against the TPP we should be demanding to renegotiate it in public….how about a demand for some small minimum standards of workers rights ….like no slavery ? But that’s CRAZY! I know, I know…

    I want to be able to say as a nation…we won’t buy your shrimp produced by slaves anymore… When we don’t have a voice we don’t have to face things…when we have a voice we become responsible.

    Globalism is not going to go away…it can keep being by the elite for the elite or we can make it more democratic… And all the liberal ( and now the cult of trump too ) screaming ‘STOP” in the world won’t defeat it. Because “Stop” is not an alternative in reality…

  59. Gravatar of Gary Anderson Gary Anderson
    25. July 2016 at 17:15

    “Globalism is not going to go away…it can keep being by the elite for the elite or we can make it more democratic… And all the liberal ( and now the cult of trump too ) screaming ‘STOP” in the world won’t defeat it. Because “Stop” is not an alternative in reality…”

    That is true Bill. My issue with globalism is the abuse it brings through the movement of capital in and out of nations. My issue is not free trade, or playing sports with the Russians, etc. There is a dark side of globalization, from liar loans, to Fed inaction in 2008, to regime change in the middle east according to Yinon Zionism, to slow growth in America leading to people like Trump being popular.

    And no, Zionism is not Judaism or any religion at all. It is a doctrine of WORLD DOMINATION. That is the essence of the dark side of globalization.

  60. Gravatar of Bill Ellis Bill Ellis
    25. July 2016 at 18:01

    @Gary Anderson….The elite is made up of powerful people from all backgrounds…From all around the world… the post WWII elite are the world’s first truly global culture… Sure Jews are over represented in the elite… But they, like the rest of the elite, have more in common with each other regardless of race or religion than they have with the people of their countries of origin, or coreligionists… Most of them could give a shit about any of that crap…
    This is not a conspiracy by them …it’s all completely in the open for anyone to see.

    But you think it’s all about Jews controlling the world… God, that’s sad and lazy…

  61. Gravatar of Bill Ellis Bill Ellis
    25. July 2016 at 18:39

    From now on let’s blame every terrorist attack on a NATO member on Trump for telling the bad guys that we Americans are weak on defending our allies…

    Its completely absurd…but its what the repub/cons would do if the tables were turned… It’s just the kinda “a good foreign policy is acting angry and violent ” argument logic they always use to talk about the world…

  62. Gravatar of MikeDC MikeDC
    25. July 2016 at 18:47

    Clinton clearly supports NATO. Period. End of story.

    That’s a very Trumpish answer. I don’t believe it. Would Hillary take the US to war to support Estonia? Turkey? Would we want her to? Would the rest of NATO be on board?

    What would the actual policy differences be? NATO and our posture toward Russia aren’t things that should have obvious right answers. Making it sound otherwise is pure TDS.

  63. Gravatar of Tom Brown Tom Brown
    25. July 2016 at 19:17

    @Bill Ellis,

    According to Jay Nordinger’s Trump folks lexicon (that he published as a helpful guide in the National Review), the proper term those Jews are “neocohens.”

  64. Gravatar of Major.Freedom Major.Freedom
    25. July 2016 at 19:20

    As an anti-Trump, anti-Hillary, political atheist, the attacks against Trump coming out of the left, are just pathetic and proof the left doesn’t have anything anymore.

    Racist!
    Sexist!
    Mysoginist!
    Bigot!

    Like robots.

  65. Gravatar of Major.Freedom Major.Freedom
    25. July 2016 at 19:26

    http://imgur.com/RFbdZKn?r

  66. Gravatar of Tom Brown Tom Brown
    25. July 2016 at 19:28

    Scott Sumner,

    One thing I don’t get is the Dem’s hostility to TPP. What’s your view on it? Of course Trump says he’s against it as well, but I don’t trust that he knows any more about it than I do.

    What little I do know about it makes me inclined to support it, but I’d be interested in your opinion.

  67. Gravatar of Benjamin Cole Benjamin Cole
    25. July 2016 at 19:33

    Maybe the anti-globalists are barking up the wrong tree.

    President Xi of China is strongman who much admires Putin.

    Trump is wanna-be creampuff strongman who admires Putin.

    Putin is a strongman who admires Putin.

    The New World Order: Trump+Xi+Putin!

    from Nina Kruscheva:

    “In China, Xi, a professed admirer of Putin’s methods, has adopted the Russian’s playbook as he has consolidated power….Under Xi, however, collective leadership has given way to one-man rule, and the unwritten rules of behaviour have been junked.

    Like Putin, Xi uses anti-corruption measures to dispatch rivals and concentrate power in his own hands, and he has been even more ruthless than Putin in doing so. Hundreds of senior generals in the People’s Liberation Army have been purged and imprisoned on corruption charges….

    Moreover, Xi has violated the Party norm of not pursuing members of the Politburo Standing Committee, beyond removing them from office. Consider the example of Zhou Yongkang, China’s long-time internal security chief, who has been imprisoned on charges of bribery, corrupting state power (for allegedly having too many mistresses) and leaking state secrets. Members of his family have also been imprisoned.”

  68. Gravatar of Ray Lopez Ray Lopez
    25. July 2016 at 19:47

    Sumner calls himself a libertarian? And he endorses Joe Leider’s views over Matt Waters? Ridiculous. People like Leider is one reason we had WWI: ‘treaty obligations’. A refresher: “the Austro-Hungarian government sought assurances from her ally, Germany, that she would come to her aid should the unthinkable happen and Russia declared war on Austria-Hungary [over Serbia]”

    Again, what strategic interests does the USA have in Kuwait and Estonia, as Waters says? Or more concretely, since I’m a Greek citizen, do you, Mr. USA, want to go to war if Greece and Turkey get into conflict? You want another Galipoli? It’s absurd what Sumners and Leider propose, it’s the military – industrial complex gone amok. And Sumner claims to be libertarian?

  69. Gravatar of Tom Brown Tom Brown
    25. July 2016 at 19:49

    @Benjamin Cole, interesting. You write

    for allegedly having too many mistresses

    What number of mistresses does the Chinese Communist Party recommend anyway?

  70. Gravatar of Gary Anderson Gary Anderson
    25. July 2016 at 19:53

    @Gary Anderson….The elite is made up of powerful people from all backgrounds…From all around the world… the post WWII elite are the world’s first truly global culture… Sure Jews are over represented in the elite… But they, like the rest of the elite, have more in common with each other regardless of race or religion than they have with the people of their countries of origin, or coreligionists… Most of them could give a shit about any of that crap…
    This is not a conspiracy by them …it’s all completely in the open for anyone to see.

    But you think it’s all about Jews controlling the world… God, that’s sad and lazy…”

    @Bill I am just going off David Ben-Gurion’s vision of a world court in Jerusalem. Please don’t think I am stupid. And Joe Biden said you don’t have to be Jewish to be a Zionist. Obama is a Zionist. I think the Saudis are Zionists, lol. Zionism is a globalist doctrine, and you can find it in interviews with Ben-Gurion. Do not think for a moment that the Zionist vision is not centered in israel. But know this, there are many Jews who hate Zionism. True Torah Jews, and the International Jewish Anti Zionist Network are just two groups who believe Zionism is, well, a fake Zion.

    I am a member of Jewish Voice for Peace, and it is opposed to Zionist actions and some members are opposed to the existence of Israel but not all.

  71. Gravatar of Patrick R. Sullivan Patrick R. Sullivan
    25. July 2016 at 20:11

    ‘Where’s Joe McCarthy when we need him?’

    He’d probably be investigating Bernie Sanders and his honeymoon in the Soviet Union, or Barack Obama’s flirtation with Castro and Hugo Chavez.

  72. Gravatar of Lorenzo from Oz Lorenzo from Oz
    25. July 2016 at 20:29

    Easily the best piece I have read on the working class appeal of Trump. (Remembering Scott Alexander’s point that class outlook and income may not be as strongly associated as people tend to think.)
    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/trump-us-politics-poor-whites/

  73. Gravatar of Tom Brown Tom Brown
    25. July 2016 at 20:34

    A part of me wishes either Bernie had won or HRC had put Bernie on the ticket and offered him the same job Trump offered Kasich: foreign and domestic policy. Hillary could spend her time “Making us stronger together.” Then (if they win) he’d be on the hook to deliver all that stuff that’s going nowhere with a GOP controlled House… followed by disappointment from his fans (even the fire-bag-berner zealots) because he didn’t deliver. Maybe that’s the kick in the balls from reality that they need to sober up.

    Both parties bases need a dose of reality. The Dems aren’t going to provide free college to everyone anymore than Trump is going to personally “end crime and violence starting on 1/20/’17.” It’s scary how delusional both parties can get. So it comes down to which party (this time) offers fewer dumb promises and, more importantly, offers the best chance of there being a more or less fair election in another four years without inflicting too much damage on the country in the meantime. The choice is clear for me in that regard. I just wish the pie-in-the-sky dreamers in the party had no one to blame for their certain disappointments other than the guy who irresponsibly promised more than he could possibly deliver.

  74. Gravatar of Lorenzo from Oz Lorenzo from Oz
    25. July 2016 at 20:57

    The Scott Alexander post about class, status and income is here:
    http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/01/30/staying-classy/

  75. Gravatar of Tom Brown Tom Brown
    25. July 2016 at 21:03

    MF, you write:

    …proof the left doesn’t have anything anymore.

    Racist!
    Sexist!
    Mysoginist!
    Bigot!

    Like robots.

    Actually I’ve read a constant stream of those same complaints about Trump for more than a year now on right wing sites like RedState.com and TheResurgent.com. So don’t lay those criticisms solely at the feet of the rest (see my links for a few examples).

    Besides, you gotta expect a bit of that from a Dem convention, especially when Trump is the nominee. It’s as certain as somebody implying Hillary gets her marching orders from Lucifer (Carson) or that Obama is “absolutely” a secret Muslim (Sabàto) at a GOP convention.

  76. Gravatar of Peter Peter
    25. July 2016 at 21:06

    About the Korean War, some stuff from wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korea_War#Outbreak_of_war_.281950.29

    “By spring 1950, Stalin believed the strategic situation had changed. The Soviets had detonated their first nuclear bomb in September 1949; American soldiers had fully withdrawn from Korea; the Americans had not intervened to stop the communist victory in China, and Stalin calculated that the Americans would be even less willing to fight in Korea—which had seemingly much less strategic significance. The Soviets had also cracked the codes used by the US to communicate with the US embassy in Moscow, and reading these dispatches convinced Stalin that Korea did not have the importance to the US that would warrant a nuclear confrontation.”

    “Korea was not included in the strategic Asian Defense Perimeter outlined by Secretary of State Dean Acheson.”

  77. Gravatar of Tom Brown Tom Brown
    25. July 2016 at 21:06

    Should say “at the feet of the left” not “rest”

  78. Gravatar of Laura S. Laura S.
    25. July 2016 at 21:23

    Too soon to tell. There was a trial ballon of this Russian angle on Trump back around a month ago. The was greeted as plausible but probably not true–faith in opposition research by his republican opponents! Once the balloon was out, the trump russia stories started ballooning in loyal leftwing mouthpieces and building for the past month. The wikileaks announcement & release was the icing on the cake for more reputable press to carry the line tied back to the DNC emails.

    Never mind that the DNC emails primarily help Bernie, and Bernie has his own ties back to Russia dating thirty years hence. So why the focus on the trump angle and the silence on the Bernie angle. It’s all just political mud slinging by allies so far. Maybe there is truth in there, but no one knows yet.

  79. Gravatar of Tom Brown Tom Brown
    25. July 2016 at 22:46

    @Lorenzo, thanks for the link to the interview with Vance.

  80. Gravatar of E. Harding E. Harding
    25. July 2016 at 22:53

    Scott, put down the crack pipe.

    “Putin is arguably the most dangerous person in the world today.”

    -ISIS totally wasn’t invented by Erdogan and Barack Obama; it’s all Putin’s doing!

    “His willingness to conquer neighboring countries and annex territory is something we haven’t seen since the heyday of Hitler and Saddam.”

    -Was the reunification of Germany in 1990 a good thing or a bad thing? I lean towards “good”. Same with the reunification of Krim with Russia in 2014.

    The Libyan war was a violation of the rules of the game and resulted in a loss of life far greater than Donbass. U.S. support for the Ukrainian coup was a violation of the rules of the game and resulted in Donbass.

    Look in the mirror, Sumner. Putin is the most moral leader on the world stage. If Trump is his puppet, that makes him look so much better than he actually is (which is basically a fat politically independent con man with a good taste in women).

    “Every time a country joins NATO, NATO gets bigger, and the non-NATO part of the world gets smaller. In the very long run all countries will be in NATO, and there will be no more war.”

    -NATO is little more than an Islamist terrorist organization.

    “If we had set up a NATO type structure after WWI it’s very possible that WWII would never have happened.”

    -No. Hitler would have just taken one more year to invade France and Eastern Europe. And the NATO-type organization would have done some stupid intervention in the Spanish Civil War along the way, which would have given it to the Bol’shevists.

    @Art

    “His military was taxed reconquering Chechenya, which has a population about that of metropolitan Pittsburgh.”

    -That was well over a decade ago. Things have improved.

  81. Gravatar of E. Harding E. Harding
    25. July 2016 at 22:57

    Sumner has two main diseases: TDS and PDS. It would be best for him to excise both from his body and take a job as a Trump advisor, and maybe one to the Russian government, as well.

    Make America Great Again!

  82. Gravatar of Lorenzo from Oz Lorenzo from Oz
    25. July 2016 at 23:38

    Tom Harding: my pleasure. It is an conversation which deserves to be widely read.

  83. Gravatar of Benjamin Cole Benjamin Cole
    26. July 2016 at 00:01

    Tom Brown: how many concubines per CCP big-dog?

    No more than Xi!

  84. Gravatar of Major.Freedom Major.Freedom
    26. July 2016 at 01:05

    Tom Brown:

    Argh, in the spirit of truth I have to go against my better judgment and defend Trump on those links.

    Re:Racism. It is not racist to question a person’s neutrality on the basis of their nationality, when it comes to political views between that nation and the US. I see “Russian” being bandied about by Sumner, and he is questioning Putin’s neutrality based on nationality. Mexico is a country, not a race. The judge in question voluntarily identifies himself with groups based on race. If Trump were a black jew, and the judge was a neonazi KKK member, I don’t think it would be a stretch to question the KKK guy’s bias.

    Re: Mysogynist. Lol, that describes your average college guy’s experience. That is not misogyny. Misogyny is HATRED and CONTEMPT for women.

    Re: Bigot. This link doesn’t show anything. It just says “Racist!”.

    The debate is over. The left has nothing except name calling! It is a joke.

  85. Gravatar of Toby Toby
    26. July 2016 at 03:25

    Scott, have you ever watched the BBC series “Yes Prime Minister”?

    If so, do you remember that part about the Nuclear Deterrent and the Salami-tactics? If not, then it’s definitely worth watching https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKbDKsNsjac I sometimes wonder whether Putin has watched this as well or thinks in these terms.

  86. Gravatar of Cornflour Cornflour
    26. July 2016 at 05:09

    Some time ago, I wrote a brief comment here imploring Mr. Sumner to reconsider his dive into political rants. I too find Mr. Trump a repulsive embarrassment, but Mr. Sumner contributes little to the national political debate. At the same time, he undermines his credibility as an economist.

    If Mr. Sumner needs a change of pace from talking about NGDP targeting, then I’d like to hear more about foreign films, a subject that seems dear to him. Alternatively, I’d also be very happy to read a series of posts on monetary economics for the layman.

    If Mr. Sumner can’t resist talking about politics, it’d be much better if he restricted himself to a discussion of how a good understanding of economic history and theory can lead us to better public policies.

    In any event, I’m begging Mr. Sumner, please get off this Trump kick. If you just can’t help yourself, why not start a separate blog just for that kind of venting. Seriously, why undermine a new and hard-won reputation as a serious economist? Doesn’t make sense to me.

  87. Gravatar of Gene Callahan Gene Callahan
    26. July 2016 at 05:20

    “Putin is arguably the most dangerous person in the world today. His willingness to conquer neighboring countries and annex territory is something we haven’t seen since the heyday of Hitler and Saddam. ”

    Scott, just stop, you are embarrassing yourself.

  88. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    26. July 2016 at 05:27

    Engineer, For once we agree.

    Art, You said:

    “It conquered a province of one of them with minimal bloodshed, a province wherein the majority are Great Russians and Ukrainian is hardly spoken.”

    Yes, sort of like the Sudetenland. Even by your standards a weak argument. I suppose you’d have no objection to Mexico taking back Laredo?

    Scott, You said:

    “I’m actually starting to get scared.”

    Don’t worry, Tom and Mike Sax assured us that Trump would lose in a landslide. That’s why Sax voted for him in the primaries.

    mbka, Yes, I recall shaking my head over Schroeder.

    Tom, I support TPP.

    MikeDC, You said:

    Would Hillary take the US to war to support Estonia? Turkey? Would we want her to? Would the rest of NATO be on board?”

    Yes, Yes, Yes and Yes. I’m surprised how little people know about NATO. In terms of national security, an attack in Estonia is no different from an attack on Iowa. If that was not out policy, we never should have created NATA. A NATO that is not credible is far worse than either a credible NATO, or no NATO.

    Peter, Thanks. Wow, that’s exactly like the Gulf War. So that makes two cases. Does anyone know if the Japanese expected to US to respond by conquering Japan, when they attacked Pearl Harbor?

    Harding, You said:

    “Was the reunification of Germany in 1990 a good thing or a bad thing? I lean towards “good”. Same with the reunification of Krim with Russia in 2014.”

    Even by your lowly standards, this is idiotic. The East German government supported reunification, while the Ukrainian government opposed it. That’s how international law works. You can’t just grab a piece of another country, without the central government’s consent.

    Each day, Trumpistas reach a new low.

    You said:

    “Putin is the most moral leader on the world stage.”

    Trump called Putin’s disgraceful piece in the NYT a “masterpiece”. No wonder you like Trump.

    You said:

    “NATO is little more than an Islamist terrorist organization.”

    I like to give you Trumpistas all the rope you need. . . .

    Toby, Never seen it.

  89. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    26. July 2016 at 05:32

    Cornflour and Gene, Yes, my Trump posts are stupid, but the Trumpistas are even sillier. Notice that not one (including you two) was able to refute anything I said.

    Gene said my claim about Putin was silly, but wasn’t able to name a single alternative. Perhaps the leader of North Korea is more dangerous, that’s arguable. Which other leaders combines a formidable nuclear force, with a predilection for attacking his neighbors. I’m still waiting for an answer . . .

  90. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    26. July 2016 at 05:34

    Cornflour, You said:

    “Alternatively, I’d also be very happy to read a series of posts on monetary economics for the layman.”

    I already did a short course on monetary economics, link in the right column.

  91. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    26. July 2016 at 05:46

    Lorenzo, Thanks for the Kirchick piece. And people think my posts are over the top. By comparison, I’m actually nice to Trump.

    The Rod Dreher piece was good. But it’s important to recall that Trump will probably win the over $100,000 vote. We need more articles about why Trump is popular with well educated Orange County Republicans.

  92. Gravatar of ben ben
    26. July 2016 at 06:03

    Scott “I never said Bush was the aggressor”

    “Bush spoke softly and carried a big stick. The rest is history.”

    He failed to be clear he would be aggressive given a specific “line in the sand” and then was aggressive. I can’t think he can be anything other than the aggressor in this case.

  93. Gravatar of Gary Anderson Gary Anderson
    26. July 2016 at 06:20

    Scott, Trump is a domestic hater, but Clinton and the neocons are foreign haters. Regime change, the core of their policy is a policy of HATE. Clinton looks more unstable now versus Putin than Trump. What a sick race. No good choice.

  94. Gravatar of MikeDC MikeDC
    26. July 2016 at 06:44

    Yes, Yes, Yes and Yes. I’m surprised how little people know about NATO. In terms of national security, an attack in Estonia is no different from an attack on Iowa. If that was not out policy, we never should have created NATA. A NATO that is not credible is far worse than either a credible NATO, or no NATO.

    Scott, I don’t think you should be talking about how little folks know in terms of national security when you’re going on like this. As it turns out, I actually do know more than most folks about this subject. But really, we can come back to general ignorance to see why you’re way off base.

    Yes, the letter of the NATO treaties say what you are saying they say. But this means about as much in practice as the actual text of the US Constitution means when it comes to deciding what’s “Constitutional”.

    This isn’t just true of the US, it’s true of all the NATO countries. Even in the Cold War days, the degree to which the member nations would support each other and the exact nature of “hostility” that would warrant a response has been unclear. That is it say, it’s a political determination just like anything else.

    To give an example, if events in Ukraine or Georgia are good examples, what’s much more likely than an overt Russian invasion, is the outbreak of a Russian-sponsored civil conflict. The appropriate NATO response is to avoid this happening in the first place through diplomacy. Which, of course, is largely handled (or not) by anonymous bureaucrats and bringing in the higher rollers to leverage relationships and make tit for tat threats (like “Hey, Germany, if you complain about what we’re doing, we’re going to shut off our National Gas pipeline for the next week”).

    Anyway, the danger here is that the folks in power need to understand that regardless of what the letter of the treaty says, the American people aren’t going to wage war in support of Estonia in the same way they would wage war in support of Iowa. Nor would the Germans treat an attack on Estonia or Turkey as an attack on Saxony.

    The trick of NATO is to maintain some level of credibility in the face of this reality. To that end, I don’t think Trump said anything because he only said what everyone knows. On the other hand, Clinton once co-sponsored a senate resolution calling for the inclusion of Georgia and the Ukraine into NATO.

    Had that happened, there’s a good chance that NATO would be effectively destroyed already because we wouldn’t have had credible means of stopping Russia’s unconventional campaign there.

  95. Gravatar of Tom M Tom M
    26. July 2016 at 07:09

    @Scott ” Wars occur when there is ambiguity as to how countries will respond to aggression. If Bush had made it 100% clear that he would have responded forcefully to Saddam’s aggression in 1990, there would have been no Gulf War in 1991. If he had made it 100% clear that he would not respond, there would have been no Gulf War in 1991.”

    Do you really believe this? I don’t think absolute’s exist in international relations, especially when it comes to wars and I think it’s pretty ridiculous to claim otherwise. Are you insinuating that with Trump creating greater ambiguity, the likelihood of hostility between the US and Russia is greater? Or that Russia will be even more aggressive?

    With Trump as president- I don’t see a Russia looking to infringe on old Soviet states, I see a Russia looking to step up its military activity in the Middle East. More military bases in Syria- greater trade/military engagements with Iran. I would argue the greater ambiguity you claim Trump would bring, would mean that the risk of interfering in Eastern Europe would be too unknown for Russia to gamble with… but given Trumps FP views, I think they would see the risk of interfering in the Middle East as far smaller.

    With Hilary as President- I see a person that Putin KNOWS won’t risk politically alienating US votes by interfering in global affairs. All he needs to do is look at a public opinion poll on US intervention in various areas to know how she’ll respond.

    I think either of them is a terrible option. But pretending Trump is so much worse is unjustified- especially given Clinton’s history of poor military interventions.

  96. Gravatar of Art Deco Art Deco
    26. July 2016 at 08:38

    Yes, sort of like the Sudetenland. Even by your standards a weak argument. I suppose you’d have no objection to Mexico taking back Laredo?

    Mexico does not have the wherewithal to take Laredo. The majority of the population in Laredo speaks English (v. 4% of Mexcio’s population). There is no obtrusive separatist sentiment in Laredo. In 1848, the population of Laredo was about 1,100 (v. 250,000 + today); they never really had it bar nominally. The United States ha had Webb County, Texas since 1848; the Crimea was transferred from Russia to the Ukraine in 1954. No more than a quarter of the population was ever Ukrainian.

    The Sudetenland &c suffered a preference cascade during the years running from 1933-38 when pan-German sentiment took down the pot. The reason to hold on to the Sudetenland and Germanophone Bohemia was because of the military fortifications, mineeral deposits, and industry to be found there. The population therein was troublesome and best allowed to separate. The Benes ministries thought so, which is why the ethnic Germans were expelled en bloc in 1945. One can contrive more congenial solutions to these problems.

  97. Gravatar of E. Harding E. Harding
    26. July 2016 at 09:03

    “Notice that not one (including you two) was able to refute anything I said.”

    -I refuted everything you said. The fact you refuse to acknowledge this simply shows how low your IQ falls when you discuss politics of any kind.

    “You can’t just grab a piece of another country, without the central government’s consent.”

    -Likewise, you can’t just support an unconstitutional coup in another country. When the rules don’t apply for America, they don’t apply for Russia, either. Tit for tat.

    And are you really going to condemn the Mexican War or the Spanish-American War, too? How about the six-day war?

    “Thanks for the Kirchick piece. And people think my posts are over the top.”

    -The neocohens have been over the top since the early 1980s. Lies are nothing new for them.

    “Which other leaders combines a formidable nuclear force, with a predilection for attacking his neighbors. I’m still waiting for an answer”

    -Barack Obama. Bibi Netanyahu. Arguably, Xi.

    Stop reading to the Economist and start reading anything written by patriotic Russians. Or even largely sensible people, like Art Deco.

    “Yes, sort of like the Sudetenland.”

    -What was wrong with that?

    “I support TPP.”

    -Why?

    “Yes, Yes, Yes and Yes.”

    -Why do you believe that? No evidence suggests this.

    “A NATO that is not credible is far worse than either a credible NATO, or no NATO.”

    -Why so? And your idea of “credibility” is squarely the opposite of reality.

    “The NATO organization has been a huge boon to the US, by making the world more stable.”

    -LOL. Somehow, Sumner manages to reach a conclusion precisely the opposite of the truth. Probably because he reads too many of the establishment papers uncritically because they’re written by people like him. I never make that mistake.

    Every day, statist NeverTrumpers reach a new low in their utter disregard for logic, reason, and basic morality.

  98. Gravatar of Gary Anderson Gary Anderson
    26. July 2016 at 11:05

    @Scott Sumner Scott, you may have a point but not so much for what you mentioned as what this article says. I just ran across it. This is big. I don’t mind Trump being friends with Putin but I don’t want Trump being owned by Putin. That would disqualify him for president:

    “Trump’s campaign manager, Paul Manafort, helped orchestrate Putin’s intervention in Ukraine. His Russia adviser Carter Page has deep ties to Russia and owns stock in Gazprom, the state-controlled firm that is a major source of the Kremlin’s financial and economic power. Michael Flynn, another Trump adviser, appears regularly on RT and refused to answer questions about whether he is paid to do so. Trump and Putin have exchanged lavish compliments.

    Trump’s own financial ties to Russia are completely non-transparent and will remain so as long as he refuses to release his tax returns.” http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/07/why-some-leftists-defend-trumps-ties-to-russia.html

  99. Gravatar of Tom Brown Tom Brown
    26. July 2016 at 11:29

    Scott, you write:

    Don’t worry, Tom and Mike Sax assured us that Trump would lose in a landslide. That’s why Sax voted for him in the primaries.

    OK, fair enough, I deserved that. However, I did reregister so I could help bury Bernie. Mike says he didn’t vote Trump either.

    Unfortunately Bernie succeeded in bringing in enough of the wrong element (purists and “emoprogs”) to make a pivot to the center difficult. I’ve given up hope on the GOP ever pivoting to the center. Is it my imagination or is politics getting worse?

    Though Erickson had nice things to say about Michelle Obama’s speech, he now hints that the leftward lurch of the party may shake him from his #NeverTrump stance:
    http://theresurgent.com/why-the-democrats-cannot-take-beating-trump-for-granted/

    I don’t get it. Who cares what the platform is? …it’s not going to happen. The Dems won’t win the house nor will they gain a filibuster proof majority in the senate (if they gain one at all). So gridlock is what we’ll get w/ HRC, and I think that would sound good to someone like Erickson considering the alternative.

    BTW, if these anti-TPP purists are so angry, will they boo Obama when he speaks? I doubt it.

  100. Gravatar of Tom Brown Tom Brown
    26. July 2016 at 11:47

    MF,

    The debate is over. The left has nothing except name calling! It is a joke.

    But again, it wasn’t the left you’re defending him against in those links. Google the following sets of words (RedState or TheResurgent or Erick Erickson or Megyn Kelly or Jennifer Rubin or RightTurn, and bigot, xenophobe, racism, misogyny, sexism etc). You’ll find 10s if not 100s of articles from the right going back over a year at least attacking Trump and Trump supporters for those things (whether or not they’re justified)… the point is they came from the right. So you can’t blame the left exclusively for attacking him that way. In fact if you concentrate on the word anti-Semitism in your search string, and the names Ben Shapiro, Steve Berman, Goldberg, Rubin, Podhoretz and Kristol, you’ll find another set of articles complaining about Trump supporters or Trump himself, all written from a right wing perspective.

  101. Gravatar of Tom Brown Tom Brown
    26. July 2016 at 14:35

    -The neocohens have been over the top since the early 1980s. Lies are nothing new for them.

    Ha, I knew if anyone was going to use “neocohen” it would be Harding. Art Deco? No response to that?

  102. Gravatar of Justin Justin
    26. July 2016 at 15:52

    The United States has worked since the day the Soviet Union split to weaken Russia and surround her with hostile states. Where has Russia exactly conquered? Crimea, an ethnic Russian region in a country that the US had just launched an anti-democratic, anti-Russian coup in. They took Crimea without killing hardly anyone, a far cry from the hundreds of thousands who’ve died because of foolish US wars in Iraq, Libya or the CIA/Mossad-backed Syrian war. Russia’s geopolitical imperative is to control former soviet states, who cares? Russia is fine.

    Russia, as a country with aspirations above western nihilistic consumerism, is a natural ally of the politically reconfigured USA that Mr.Trump has a chance of building. I look forward to greater cooperation between our two countries, we back off with the missile shield and the meddling in the FSU, they give us visa-free travel so we can eat caviar and find wives who don’t have tattoos and high notch counts. Everyone wins.

    PS a reminder that Trump knows macro better than just about any president: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i60MVlYb7FM

  103. Gravatar of Art Deco Art Deco
    26. July 2016 at 16:25

    Art Deco? No response to that?

    The same response I gave you the last time this chatter erupted. The term is an anachronism and the associates of the Committee for the Free World still working may be well-connected but are not that influential and do not advocate much that is all that distinct from the Republican mainstream.

  104. Gravatar of Matthew Waters Matthew Waters
    26. July 2016 at 16:30

    I was away for awhile. I find foreign policy to be the most difficult issue.

    For one thing, neither pure isolationism and pure internationalism/global intervention are correct views. What would pure internationalism look like? I suppose staying in Vietnam for even longer than we did, until a democratic, pro-Western government actually took root in South Vietnam. The second Gulf War is similarly mistaken from the start. Invading Iran today would be a mistake.

    Clearly, many “foreign entanglements” are folly. But complete abandonment of allies really does not feel correct either. The “of allies” part is important, where there is a truly foreign adversary for a stable, democratic ally, rather than regime change in Iraq or intervening in Vietnam’s civil war.

  105. Gravatar of Major.Freedom Major.Freedom
    26. July 2016 at 16:32

    Tom Brown:

    Red Statw has merely adopted and parroted the left wing “racist! Etc” talking points, for their own “old right” defense purposes. It is rather silly to cite those in the right who dislike Trump as so show being unbiased on the basis of them also being Republicans.

    The “Racist!” and other name calling was entirely a creature of the left.

  106. Gravatar of Major.Freedom Major.Freedom
    26. July 2016 at 16:33

    as so show = as somehow

  107. Gravatar of Tom Brown Tom Brown
    26. July 2016 at 17:01

    @Art, sure, but Harding’s “neocohen” kicks it up a notch over “neocon,” no?

  108. Gravatar of Tom Brown Tom Brown
    26. July 2016 at 17:10

    MF, I think all those right wingers were eager to find something in Trump they could defend. Erickson in fact defended him from charges of racism near the start of the campaign last year. Reluctantly, he soon changed his mind.

  109. Gravatar of Tom Brown Tom Brown
    26. July 2016 at 17:39

    George Will asserts Trump is “deeply involved in dealing with Russian oligarchs and others…”, and that’s the reason he won’t release his tax returns:

    http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2016/07/26/george-will-might-right-vladimir-putins-hold-donald-trump-video/

    Is Will beclowning himself with baseless accusations or will he be vindicated?

  110. Gravatar of Major.Freedom Major.Freedom
    26. July 2016 at 18:30

    Tom Brown:

    I have yet to see any evidence Trump is racist.

  111. Gravatar of Benjamin Cole Benjamin Cole
    26. July 2016 at 19:07

    In reading up on Putin, I came across a lot of articles that call him the best friend in Moscow,,,that Israel ever had.

    This must horrify our resident E.Harding, as does the fact that Trump’s daughter converted to Judaism and married into the tribe. Trump=Hitler?

    Indeed, Putin is regarded as a Semiti-ophile, and has met repeatedly with Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel. A lot of Putin pals in Russia are Jewish. Think cabals! In any event, relations between Israel and Russia have never been better.

    Makes one wonder if a Trump-Putin-Israel-Iran nexus could bring peace to the Mideast. Israel and Iran once enjoyed good relations on the basis of water projects, and Iran badly needs help today in that area. No one doe water better than the Israelis. I wonder how much Iranians care about Palestinians.

    I get a creepy feeling there are elements in the US foreign policy community that actively want worse relations with Russia, now a crony-capitalist, Orthodox-Catholic nation (with those pesky Jews at Putin’s side!). .

    The globalists need an enemy, or else why the $1 trillion annually for US military-foreign policy operations? (DoD, VA, debt service, black budget, State). Cut that in half, says Cato Institute, those right-wing extremists.

    True, Putin, Xi, Jung and the guys in green uniforms that took over a SE Asian nation are a dubious crowd. But in politics, as in macroeconomics, sometimes reality intrudes on pure theories.

    Putin is pals with Xi. Maybe instead of threatening each other, China, Russia and USA can get along.

    Odd that Hillary offers no hope in that area, but Trump does. Trump is favored in China too. That’s an odd one.

  112. Gravatar of Gary Anderson Gary Anderson
    26. July 2016 at 19:12

    Major says: Tom Brown: I have yet to see any evidence Trump is racist.

    Wow, what an education gone to waste, Major.

  113. Gravatar of Gary Anderson Gary Anderson
    26. July 2016 at 19:21

    Hi Benjamin, you know that Trump thinks along the same lines as does Ihor Kolomoyski, the bigoted billionaire who wants to fuse Jewish people and Nazis in eastern Europe to fight all Muslims. Therefore, I think those relationships you talk about are tenuous.

    Kolomoyskyi is a dual Israeli/Ukrainian citizen. Believe it or not, some in Israel itself believe in some Khazar connection through DNA. It is an unproven theory, but was put forward by Eran Elhaik. If the Israelis decide they want old Khazar, that is eastern Ukraine and Western Russia.

    Like I say, who knows what is in the minds of those at the highest levels. And who knows how long relationships will last under these tensions.

  114. Gravatar of E. Harding E. Harding
    26. July 2016 at 19:38

    “In reading up on Putin, I came across a lot of articles that call him the best friend in Moscow,,,that Israel ever had.”

    -Considering Yeltsin wasn’t in a position to be much of a friend to Israel, and that the Soviets openly supported Palestinian nationalists, it’s kind of hard to make that mean something significant.

    “This must horrify our resident E.Harding, as does the fact that Trump’s daughter converted to Judaism and married into the tribe. Trump=Hitler?”

    -I’m concerned about Trump’s infatuation with Israel, but I am hardly horrified by it, as it is shared by all GOP politicians. I’m not too concerned about Ivanka’s marital decisions; she’s not running for President, but is mere decoration for the #TrumpTrain.

    Trump is no fan of Iran. I’m glad he’s running for President, as he was the best candidate the GOP had to offer. I plan to vote for him in November, to prevent Supreme Court justices from legislating from the bench and to prevent Hillary-style “smart power” in Libya, Ukraine, and Syria and, just as importantly, to stick it to the elite who want to lodge Black and Mexican supremacy down our throats.

  115. Gravatar of Benjamin Cole Benjamin Cole
    26. July 2016 at 20:40

    E Harding: Seems to me we will see a Trump-USA-Putin-Russia-Israel-Iranian-Jewish coalition in a couple years hence. The US will rotate to the Shiites and away from the Saudi looney Sunnis, who were the 9/11 perps after all.

    Iraq-Iran-Israel the new axis? Why not?

    Times change. Israel used to be tight with Turkey.

    Russia and USA were allies in WWII.

    With the honorary Jew Trump in charge, we could see peace and prosperity again! Trump has Jewish grandchildren!

    The Jews will rule with Trump in the White House!

  116. Gravatar of Tom Brown Tom Brown
    27. July 2016 at 05:13

    @Benjamin, so Trump will be an honorary neocohen? A key (((globalist))) of the “Jew World Order?” Hahaha! =) Better get those campaign signs changed. Brilliant, we can cuck our way to utopia. Cucktopia! We can be a middle segment of the human centipede that is the JWO. Harding will be overjoyed!

  117. Gravatar of Benjamin Cole Benjamin Cole
    27. July 2016 at 05:38

    http://www.salon.com/2016/07/25/shock_poll_nate_silvers_election_forecast_now_has_trump_winning/

    Tom Brown: do not tell E Harding, but the fix is in: Nate Silver (who is Jewish) now says Trump is going to win.

    Let us hope Trump likes an aggressive pro-growth monetary policy.

    Poor Harding. An honorary Jew, Trump, will be in the White House, doing handshakes with Israel and the Semito-phile Putin. Sheesh, besides gilding 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. gold, Trump may raise the Star of David over the portico.

    Well, it will be an interesting Presidency.

  118. Gravatar of Tom Brown Tom Brown
    27. July 2016 at 05:44

    MF, you can ask Erickson why he thinks so here. Or ask some of these people.

  119. Gravatar of Tom Brown Tom Brown
    27. July 2016 at 05:47

    @Benjamin, looks like Nate has it pretty even to me:
    http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

  120. Gravatar of Tom Brown Tom Brown
    27. July 2016 at 05:49

    … but, yes, the rest of your vision is quite insightful. =)

  121. Gravatar of E. Harding E. Harding
    27. July 2016 at 06:09

    “Tom Brown: do not tell E Harding, but the fix is in: Nate Silver (who is Jewish) now says Trump is going to win.”

    -Guys; I’m always aware of the latest polls. Read my Marginal Counterrevolution. The polls-plus model does not indicate a very strong convention bounce yet.

    BTW, the Dem platform looks as though it was written by 4th graders.

  122. Gravatar of Tom Brown Tom Brown
    27. July 2016 at 06:23

    Trump is L. Ron Hubbard minus the literacy and attention span.

  123. Gravatar of Art Deco Art Deco
    27. July 2016 at 06:42

    @Art, sure, but Harding’s “neocohen” kicks it up a notch over “neocon,” no?

    It makes one aspect of the complaints about ‘neocons’ more explicit than it usually is.

    It never seems to have registered with you how nutty is much of the discussion of that circle. The silly season began with people associated with the Rockford Institute and passed from their to consumers of their wares. Example #1 is a mess of bilge concerning Leo Strauss. Leo Strauss ended his career at St. John’s College. It’s hard to imagine a more unworldly academic figure outside of a monastery or at least a seminary. But hey, Douglas Feith and Paul Wolfowitz each took a couple of courses from him ca. 1969 ergo the Strauss Illuminati have been controlling American foreign policy. The other concerns the ‘Trotskyist’ character of the ‘neocon’ circle, an acre of embroidery around a pinhead of fact (the fact being that Seymour Martin Lipset and Irving Kristol has been members of a largely Trotskyist discussion circle at City College of New York ca. 1939).

  124. Gravatar of Tom Brown Tom Brown
    27. July 2016 at 07:43

    It never seems to have registered with you how nutty is much of the discussion of that circle

    Sure, it’s occurred to me plenty after your previous lectures on what’s politically incorrect about it. That’s why I stopped using it.

    But if “neocon” is as politically incorrect as “negro” then “neocohen” must be as un-PC as “mud people,” no? (and “cuck” I guess means “race traitor” i.e. those who promote blood mixing with mud people).

  125. Gravatar of Tom Brown Tom Brown
    27. July 2016 at 07:54

    Trump puts out minds at ease: throw his previous statements about meeting Putin and being “stablemates” down the memory hole: he now says he never met the man:
    http://www.redstate.com/saragonzales/2016/07/27/pathological-liar-trump-suddenly-remembers-never-met-putin/

  126. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    27. July 2016 at 08:00

    I see the Trump posts really bring out the loony comments.

    Ben, Your comment is so laughable illogical I hardly no where to begin. Bush was the aggressor in the Gulf War? Is that a joke?

    MikeDC, Name one example of a NATO country that was attacked, and NATO did not respond. Just one.

    Tom, You said:

    “Are you insinuating that with Trump creating greater ambiguity, the likelihood of hostility between the US and Russia is greater?”

    I’m not insinuating, I’m stating it. Look, Trump is totally unqualified to be President. He knows almost nothing about foreign policy. Trump supporters seem to think this is some sort of joke, but being President is serious business. His clownish comments on foreign policy have been almost laughably ignorant. Do you deny that?

    Art, You said:

    “Mexico does not have the wherewithal to take Laredo.”

    What a wonderful criterion for international law.

    Tom, I apologize to Mike Sax if I confused you two. I recall someone saying they voted for Trump, was it you?

    Justin, You said:

    “The United States has worked since the day the Soviet Union split to weaken Russia and surround her with hostile states.”

    I see that Trump posts really bring out the conspiracy nuts. Russia is not the victim, it’s the villain. Russia tries to conquer its neighbors, the states that surround it (like Georgia and Ukraine) try not to be conquered by Russia. They do not try to invade Russia. This isn’t rocket science. I suppose you would have regarded Germany’s moves in the 1930s as “defensive”.

  127. Gravatar of Art Deco Art Deco
    27. July 2016 at 08:21

    Sure, it’s occurred to me plenty after your previous lectures on what’s politically incorrect about it. That’s why I stopped using it.

    I told you it was a stupid anachronism favored by the terminally disoriented and by people who despise da Joos. Your gamesman’s gloss is your gloss. Nothing to do with me.

  128. Gravatar of Tom Brown Tom Brown
    27. July 2016 at 08:47

    Tom, I apologize to Mike Sax if I confused you two. I recall someone saying they voted for Trump, was it you?

    Neither Mike or I voted for Trump. However, Mike called himself a “Trump Democrat” because he thought Trump being nominated would be excellent for the Dems. I was skeptical at first (and I definitely didn’t want Trump) but he won me over. And for a while it looked like he may have been correct. You warned me “be careful what you hope for” and your unheeded warning may turn out to be prescient. It’s certainly more of a nail biter than I would have wished at this point. But we all know that wishes don’t do anything, so I’ll let myself off the hook.

    On another topic:

    You know even the Trump folks realize he should not have said this when they are in full “he didn’t mean it” mode and Trump is now on twitter himself trying to clarify.

    At some point Putin may decide he has to cut Trump loose and release to us his tax returns. =)

  129. Gravatar of Carl Carl
    27. July 2016 at 08:52

    Scott:

    I’m enjoying watching you play whack-a-mole in your comments section. Let me poke my head out.

    There are other conditions that cause war besides uncertainty, a key one being a crumbling empire. Russia looks more to me like the Austro-Hungarian empire before the First World War than Germany before the Second. The greatest danger from Putin comes not from the danger of him taking over his NATO neighbors, but from him blustering his way into a war to show strength against radical separatists or to counter our strength.

    That is why he is so difficult strategically. On the one hand, he scares the hell out of his former Soviet neighbors with his nukes and his gambler’s attitude. On the other hand, we have to worry about him getting torn apart up while he tries to puff out his chest.

  130. Gravatar of Tom M Tom M
    27. July 2016 at 09:00

    @Scott

    I agree with everything you’re saying, I just don’t think ambiguity necessarily leads to greater chance of war ESPECIALLY in this case where Russia would never want a fight with the US. Let’s assume I’m Putin and I’m thinking about invading country XYZ:

    1) Hilary is President- I know she isn’t willing to directly intervene
    2) Trump is President- I’m unsure if he is willing to intervene

    Mark Twain- “It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.”

    To me, as a foreign power- his ambiguity creates uncertainty in my mind, why risk that I’ve miscalculated? Especially when a miscalculation would be detrimental for me.

    And let’s be honest here- US political Foreign Policy since the fall of the Soviet Union has basically been pathetic. The US hasn’t faced a legitimate threat in almost 30 years which has basically bread this era of foreign policy blunders with zero accountability. Basically the entire Arab Spring was a joke from the start, many serious historians/foreign policy analysts even warned about the underlying uprisings. But politicians were allowed to mess the entire thing up because at the end of the day- there mistakes aren’t serious enough to warrant them being voted out of office.

    THAT is what you get with Hilary Clinton. Do I think Trump is worse? Honestly, I don’t know. He could be, but to say that his comments are laughable compared to what top politicians/figures have actually DONE is just sad.

    That’s why everyone should vote Gary Johnson. If Hilary or Trump win- I think its going to be pretty terrible either way. Imagine if Johnson got 15%+ of the popular vote, or even carried a state? Then maybe at least some productive policies may actually get implemented in the next administration

  131. Gravatar of Art Deco Art Deco
    27. July 2016 at 09:10

    What a wonderful criterion for international law.

    International law is a set of useful conventions regarding diplomatic property, shipping lanes, &c. that remains in force because no one this side of the Kim Il Sung clan, the Khmer Rouges, or the Khomeini crew fancies they gain anything tangible to them by violating it. It is not ‘law’ in the sense that a statute or ordinance is. No one defines, enforces, or adjudicates it. No international political dispute of any consequence can be resolved by appeals to ‘international law’.

    Russia tries to conquer its neighbors, the states that surround it (like Georgia and Ukraine) try not to be conquered by Russia.

    About 6.5% of the population of Georgia lives in Abkhazia and 1.5% lives in South Ossetia. The expulsion of ethnic Georgeians from Abkhazia happened on Yeltsin’s watch.

    About 5% of the Ukraine’s population was in the Crimea (a swatch of territory it received only in 1954). About 7% is in the portions of the Donbass occupied by Russian paramilitaries.

    Putin press agents are in the habit of trading in a mess of hoo ha about ‘bloody coups’ &c., which tends to muddy the discussion. Germany et al needs to come to a modus vivendi with Russia about the alignment of the smaller states in Europe, and a compromise is not going to incorporate extending the sway of German-dominated institutions to the Russian border.

    One thing one might do is put these disputes into context. There’s a revanchist aspect to Russian political culture right now, but compared to inter-war Germany or compared to the Arab world and adjacent areas since 1947, Russia has been fairly insensitive to stimulus re the development of revanchism. A generation ago, and in a very different context, George Liska suggested a variety of diplomatic initiatives in an attempt to ‘socialize Russia to the west’. As we speak, rope-a-dope might be the best strategy with Russia while they blow off steam.

  132. Gravatar of Art Deco Art Deco
    27. July 2016 at 09:13

    That’s why everyone should vote Gary Johnson.

    If I’m going to engage in ineffectual posturing, I’m not chowing down on Nazi wedding cakes to do it.

  133. Gravatar of Art Deco Art Deco
    27. July 2016 at 09:23

    Russia looks more to me like the Austro-Hungarian empire before the First World War than Germany before the Second.

    Look again. Russia’s a national state wherein Great Russians form over 80% of the population and are so evenly spread that t the supra-local territorial units with a non-Russian majority comprehend perhaps 8% of the total population and make an archipellago of territories rather than a contiguous unit. Russia’s not suffering any sort of crisis of legitimacy and the central government has the assent of north of 3/4 of the public. I think Germans and Magyars made up about 1/3 of the population of the Dual Monarchy.

  134. Gravatar of engineer engineer
    27. July 2016 at 09:26

    “Tom Brown: do not tell E Harding, but the fix is in: Nate Silver (who is Jewish) now says Trump is going to win.”

    Nate Silver said right up until Trump won, that Marco Rubio was going to win…so I wouldn’t bet the IRA on that.

    In my mind, Hilary has shown bad judgment in her dealing with Putin. Yes, he is everything that she has said…but she also was supposed to be a diplomat and soon (I’d put the odds more at 80/20) to be president. Having such a bitter personal relationship with the leader of Russia can not be good. I’d prefer GW’s approach, someone that took Putin to the ranch and showed him a good time. I could see Gary Johnson doing that.

  135. Gravatar of Tom Brown Tom Brown
    27. July 2016 at 09:51

    @engineer, did you feel the same way about Romney because of his anti-Putin stance in 2012?
    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/oct/22/barack-obama/obama-romney-called-russia-our-top-geopolitical-fo/
    But maybe you’re right about Johnson. He could try slipping him one of his home-made brownies, and they could lay shirtless on the WH roof and gaze at the stars together. But Putin is such a stickler about how his food is handled that may not work out.

  136. Gravatar of MikeDC MikeDC
    27. July 2016 at 09:55

    MikeDC says NATO plays a subtle game in which everyone knows all sides will not fulfill its obligations to the letter except in response to the most outlandish provocation.

    Scott responds by saying how many outlandish provocations are there?

    MikeDC says… huh? In fact, NATO obligations has been invoked only once (in response to the 9/11 attacks). By that measure, any of the various al qaeda/ISIS attacks in France, Germany, Belgium, Spain and London over the past several years would be considered attacks. Likewise, the Turkish invasion of Cyprus (and resultant combat between the Greek and Turkish armed forces) would similarly be cause to invoke Article 5.

    But… and this is the point… doing so would invoke a lot of uncertainty. Who and how much would actually help?

    This is important because aggressive countries are not simply limited to marching their armies upon their neighbors. Any enemy with some level of sophistication (and Putin certainly counts here) can understand this and use it.

  137. Gravatar of Justin Justin
    27. July 2016 at 10:32

    Russia didn’t invade Georgia. Russia was the de facto sovereign in South Osetia and Abkhazia when Sakashvili got full of himself and invaded those regions, only to be crushed by Russia’s then unprofessional army (they wouldn’t dare invade today). The people in those regions aren’t ethnic Georgians and want Russian protection. Shame on you for insinuating that Putin is like the former German chancellor or that I approve of said Chancellor’s policies from 80 years ago. How again is Russia retaking Crimea illegitimate? The region is ethnic Russian, only belonged to Ukraine because Khrushchev added it in the 50s. They’d have left it alone if Viktoria Nuland would have stayed out of Ukraine.

  138. Gravatar of Art Deco Art Deco
    27. July 2016 at 10:54

    Just to point out that in Abkhazia in 1979, ethnic Georgians outnumbered the Abkhaz by a margin of 2.6 to 1. Abkhaz militias managed to forcibly expel their Georgian neighbors because they were armed and organized by Russia patrons. The media were so distracted by what was up in Bosnia and Krajina at the time that they did not notice a similar-scale event in the Caucusas.

  139. Gravatar of Carl Carl
    27. July 2016 at 11:30

    Art Deco:

    Fair point. The Austro-Hungarian analogy works for stability not ethnicity. But you overestimate the stability of Russia and the likelihood that it will have the same borders in 20 years.

  140. Gravatar of Gary Anderson Gary Anderson
    27. July 2016 at 11:31

    @Scott Sumner. Are you an American spy? Both candidates are flawed beyond repair. Clinton hates and is hated by Putin. Clinton is in the wrong. Neocon regime change, Scott, is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.

    On the other hand, Putin is an adversary, with the means to wipe this blog and all its participants off the face of the earth. For that reason we don’t need a president who is compromised by financial entanglements.

    Here is the great American Conspiracy, Scott: Regime change is the official policy of the United States and the War on Terror is simply a diversion and is sometimes completely fake.

    Ask yourself how many times ISIS has attacked Israel, Scott. ZERO times, Scott. We are the darkside as much or more than Putin is.

  141. Gravatar of Art Deco Art Deco
    27. July 2016 at 12:01

    Fair point. The Austro-Hungarian analogy works for stability not ethnicity. But you overestimate the stability of Russia and the likelihood that it will have the same borders in 20 years.

    The Dual Monarchy’s internal condition was problematic because of ethnic fissures (though the succession rules followed by the House of Hapsburg did not help).

    Over the period running from 1917 to 1936, the Soviet government created a number of union republics for nationalities clustered on its marches. The Russian Federated Republic was the residuum. Russia’s boundaries have hardly changed in 80 years, so I’m not sure why I would wager they will change much in the next 20.

    There are some swatches of territory in Kazakhstan which have European majorities (Russian, Ukrainian, and German in that order), there is one city in Estonia on the border which has a Russian majority, and there a some border municipalities in the Ukraine where self-identified Great Russians are a majority. These aside, the border lines up pretty well with ethnic distinctions (though not linguistic ones, as Russian is the preferred language of eastern Ukraine and urban White Russia). The only marches with a non-Russian majority are Tuva, Daghestan, and Chechenya, which have a total population just north of 4 million.

    The menu of possible irridentist claims and secessionist movements is circumscribed. Are you expecting a Chinese invasion?

  142. Gravatar of engineer engineer
    27. July 2016 at 12:01

    “He could try slipping him one of his home-made brownies, and they could lay shirtless on the WH roof and gaze at the stars together.”

    Yes, if only Churchill and FDR had tried that with Stalin at Yalta..that whole cold war episode might have been prevented..

  143. Gravatar of engineer engineer
    27. July 2016 at 12:58

    BTW, this is what Romney said…which I think stands the test of time…and I agree with it today. These are just facts and comments on policy, they are not personal insults.

    “I’m saying in terms of a geopolitical opponent, the nation that lines up with the world’s worst actors,” Romney said. “Of course the greatest threat that the world faces is a nuclear Iran, and a nuclear North Korea is already troubling enough. But when these terrible actors pursue their course in the world and we go to the United Nations looking for ways to stop them … who is it that always stands up with the world’s worst actors? It’s always Russia, typically with China alongside. And so in terms of a geopolitical foe, a nation that’s on the Security Council that has the heft of the Security Council, and is of course is a massive nuclear power, Russia is the geopolitical foe.”

  144. Gravatar of Tom Brown Tom Brown
    27. July 2016 at 13:12

    By tradition, both candidates will receive (what I suppose are classified) security briefings. Holy shit.

    I think it ought to be a law that all candidates for president must disclose to the public at least the last five years of their tax returns AND apply for and be granted a Top Secret security clearance.

  145. Gravatar of Art Deco Art Deco
    27. July 2016 at 13:13

    he thought Trump being nominated would be excellent for the Dems.

    Hilligula polled a few points better against Trump than she did against Cruz, Rubio, or Kasich. Not the stuff of which excellence is made. Had the Democrats put their better foot forward, Sanders would be the nominee and Trump really would be in the hole.

  146. Gravatar of Art Deco Art Deco
    27. July 2016 at 13:16

    I think it ought to be a law that all candidates for president must disclose to the public at least the last five years of their tax returns AND apply for and be granted a Top Secret security clearance.

    The actual law says they have to be a natural born citizen past their 35th birthday. Has been since 1788.

  147. Gravatar of Gary Anderson Gary Anderson
    27. July 2016 at 13:30

    Wow, Israel wants Trump for president. That seems odd since Trump could expose Mossad’s involvement in 9/11 WTC.

    I think Trump may end up just exposing the neocons like Cheney, and let Israel off the hook.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/josh-rogin/wp/2016/07/27/giuliani-israeli-leaders-want-trump-for-president/

    But, Trump lied again. He said he would not make fun of disabled people but he is on video making fun of a disabled journalist. Trump lies about obvious things.

    I wonder how many POW’s are going to vote for him, as well.

  148. Gravatar of engineer engineer
    27. July 2016 at 14:20

    The secretary of state job should not given in exchange for a political endorsement and uniting a political party. Ex-Generals, career diplomats, college professors…they made good secretaries of state…not politicians…Hilary was insulting Putin (along with other world figures) long before becoming secretary of state and everyone knew that she got the job due to political patronage. That, along with the obvious conflict of interest with the Clinton foundation, and that she was just padding her resume for another presidential run, made her a terrible choice. She set up a private email server because she was afraid of her domestic political opponents that could be working at the state department.

  149. Gravatar of Tom Brown Tom Brown
    27. July 2016 at 14:44

    The actual law says they have to be a natural born citizen past their 35th birthday. Has been since 1788.

    Yes, I realize that. I’m thinking of a potentially beneficial enhancement to the legal requirements. Assuming Trump loses, the GOP might be on board with that, since they could greatly diminish the possibility of Trump-like figures hijacking their party in the future, and flushing all their conservative ideals down the toilet while they’re forced to smile and grin in the background. If it’s not in the form of legislation, I’d think both parties might consider incorporating at least the tax return part of it into their party rules (it looks like that might have prevented Sanders from getting very far as well, since for whatever reason he never did release his tax returns either). IMO Trump had no business running as a Republican and Sanders had no business running as a Democrat. Traditionalist Worker Party and Socialist Party would have been better fits for both, respectively.

  150. Gravatar of Tom Brown Tom Brown
    27. July 2016 at 15:01

    … both parties could have saved themselves (and the country) a lot of grief if they had a non-negotiable tax return disclosure rules. Maybe O’Malley could have been a contender for the Dems in that case. I’m agnostic on O’Malley, but Sanders’ promises of free unicorns and pixie dust for all was a little much to take, and now it’s basically in the platform.

  151. Gravatar of Tom Brown Tom Brown
    27. July 2016 at 15:29

    @engineer,

    The secretary of state job should not given in exchange for a political endorsement and uniting a political party.

    Who do you think Trump will nominate? Paul Manafort? Carter Page? Ben Carson? Sarah Palin? Gary Busey?

  152. Gravatar of Bill Ellis Bill Ellis
    27. July 2016 at 15:41

    Major.Freedom…If you don’t see racism in trump… Do you see it in anybody ??

    Me, I’m a racist… And every time I hear someone else say that they aren’t racist….I think …”well, your not human then ”

    Being racist for humans is a natural as it gets… We are generalizing machines of a high order.. And we generalized about EVERYTHING, We All will make gross assumptions about About every distinctive thing We see.. including race…

    there should be no shame in being a racist…as long as you admit it…recognize that it fucks things up..and try and fight the bias as best you can… Its really hard work.

    Its a lot harder and takes a lot more courage than constructing personal fairy tails about our nobility twords others to justify our privilege.

    A Person who thinks themselves a “non racist” would never do anything to hurt a person of another race based on race… would they ? No No…perish the thought..!!! ( im clutching at my pearls )…” Minority’s only have themselves to blame”… Right ?

  153. Gravatar of Major.Freedom Major.Freedom
    27. July 2016 at 16:27

    Bill Ellis:

    “If you don’t see racism in trump… Do you see it in anybody ??”

    Oh certainly, yes. Many people in fact. Why do you ask? Are you actually going to post what you are insinuating is so obvious?

    I think you bought into the media narrative…

  154. Gravatar of Major.Freedom Major.Freedom
    27. July 2016 at 16:30

    Gary Anderson:

    “Wow, what an education gone to waste, Major.”

    Are you going to show evidence Trump is racist? I see a common thread of lots of accusations and no evidence.

  155. Gravatar of Major.Freedom Major.Freedom
    27. July 2016 at 16:36

    Tom Brown:

    “MF, you can ask Erickson why he thinks so here. Or ask some of these people.”

    No evidence Trump is racist there either.

    Come on people! It is a simple question! Where is the evidence Trump is racist?

    Posting links to people calling him racist is not evidence.

  156. Gravatar of Tom Brown Tom Brown
    27. July 2016 at 16:40

    The Trump Subreddit Creates a “Safe Space” for Special Snowflake Donald Trump’s AMA

    The alt-right have always been a stalwart group of supporters for Donald Trump, who picked up their vote with his brand of no-nonsense, tell it like it is, anti-political correctness.

    One thing the alt-right loves to make fun of – though rightly – are those whose sensibilities are so delicate that they have the need to create “safe spaces” around them. Essentially, these are bubbles where no disagreement, debate, or criticism are allowed.

    So it’s absolutely hilarious that Trump’s AMA (Ask Me Anything) on the r/The_Donald subreddit must be turned into an absolute, battened down safe space for their snowflakey lowercase lord and savior.

    I call it tPC (PC for Tumpkins and other delicate snowflakes)

  157. Gravatar of Gary Anderson Gary Anderson
    27. July 2016 at 18:50

    Yes, Major, he called an American born judge a Mexican, saying he couldn’t get a fair trial in his Trump University case because he criticized Mexico.

    He also said some native Americans suing him in the 1990’s didn’t look Indian enough.

    He is a racist, plain and simple. Major, both candidates are deeply flawed, Clinton is a neocon who hates Putin and Trump is a racist hothead sociopath.

    I want to move away from this idiotic nation who would nominate these morons, but I can’t afford to.

  158. Gravatar of Matthew Waters Matthew Waters
    27. July 2016 at 18:51

    Tom Brown,

    Adding to the President’s requirements can only be done with a Constitutional Amendment. The courts have been clear Congress cannot change the requirements.

  159. Gravatar of Tom Brown Tom Brown
    27. July 2016 at 18:58

    @Matthew Waters,

    I think it’s worth looking into. But in the meantime the party’s should think about a tax return disclosure requirement. Also, perhaps it’s possible to legally create a channel by which a candidate COULD go through the process of obtaining a temporary Top Secret clearance so that party’s would have that as an option to force on candidates as a requirement. Thus even if a potential candidate isn’t working in a capacity that would require such a clearance, simply being a candidate for being a candidate could warrant an appropriate agency to process their paper work to see if they’d qualify for one.

  160. Gravatar of Tom Brown Tom Brown
    27. July 2016 at 19:01

    … what I mean by “it’s worth looking into” is an amendment. I know that’s a HUGE task to get through, but once I’ve seen what’s happened this year, it would have my support.

  161. Gravatar of Carl Carl
    27. July 2016 at 19:16

    Art Deco:

    No. I think the Far Eastern district will gradually become more autonomous but not to leave in the next 20 years nor to be invaded.

  162. Gravatar of E. Harding E. Harding
    27. July 2016 at 19:26

    “Bush was the aggressor in the Gulf War? Is that a joke?”

    “Russia tries to conquer its neighbors, the states that surround it (like Georgia and Ukraine) try not to be conquered by Russia. They do not try to invade Russia. This isn’t rocket science.”

    -These statements squarely contradict each other. If you can’t see how, Sumner, you truly are a moron, reading the filthy lies in the Economist instead of doing something much more informative, like looking at a map or even reading the most basic summaries of subjects you understand nothing of. In the case of Georgia, South Ossetia was analogous to Kuwait. Russia never tried to conquer Ukraine or Georgia. If it wanted to, it could have easily done so. Russia, unlike the U.S., is a conservative power, not a revisionist one. It would never want to annex a bunch of people who fundamentally did not desire to be ruled by it.

    “I suppose you would have regarded Germany’s moves in the 1930s as “defensive”.”

    -Nope. Russia’s actions in Ukraine and Georgia can be construed as in any way equivalent in their lack of provocation to Germany’s moves in the 1930s only by a moron.

    Sumner, open your eyes a bit. Stop being stupid.

  163. Gravatar of msgkings msgkings
    27. July 2016 at 19:27

    @Gary Anderson: if you had enough money which country would you move to?

  164. Gravatar of E. Harding E. Harding
    27. July 2016 at 19:38

    “Look, Trump is totally unqualified to be President.”

    -All right, Sumner. Name me the five objective qualifications for President.

    “His clownish comments on foreign policy have been almost laughably ignorant.”

    -Overall, they have shown vastly more awareness of the world outside the United States than Hillary Rotten Clinton’s, despite the fact that Rotten was once Secretary of State (whatever that is).

    Make America Great Again!

  165. Gravatar of msgkings msgkings
    27. July 2016 at 19:49

    @Harding:

    The primary objective qualifications for president are:

    Being over 35 years old
    Being a natural born citizen of the US
    Not being Donald Trump

    Anyone with an IQ over 96 knows this, which is why you don’t.

  166. Gravatar of E. Harding E. Harding
    27. July 2016 at 20:14

    msgkings, what was the point of your comment? I can see none but smug self-satisfaction. Well, you got it.

  167. Gravatar of E. Harding E. Harding
    27. July 2016 at 20:24

    Guys, sometimes you gotta ask yourself: is Sumner really stupid enough to believe some of the crap he writes? Or, like most religious people, just intensely deluded because he read a book and his elders told him it was true.

  168. Gravatar of msgkings msgkings
    27. July 2016 at 20:26

    The point of it, comrade, was to troll you. Which I clearly have done successfully. It’s not that hard since you have a slightly below average IQ.

  169. Gravatar of Tom Brown Tom Brown
    27. July 2016 at 22:23

    MF, I never said he was a racist. I disputed your claim that such assertions originate only from the left. You asserted that writers on the right like Erickson who level such criticisms at Trump have “merely adopted and parroted the left wing.” I don’t know how you know that. Why don’t you ask him? (I’ll go out on a limb and predict that he will dispute your assertion — of course if he does then he could be lying, but I have no reason to assume that)

    Also, I listened to Panetta, Bloomberg, Biden, Kaine and Obama tonight, and Bill Clinton last night and Michelle Obama and Sanders on Monday night and I don’t recall any of them calling Trump a racist or a sexist. Maybe they did, and I just missed it, but in general the speeches were positive and not heavily focused on Trump. That was my takeaway impression.

  170. Gravatar of Bill Ellis Bill Ellis
    27. July 2016 at 22:43

    Major freedom…asks… “Are you actually going to post what you are insinuating is so obvious?”

    I thought I was asking a simple question… How do YOU determine if someone is a racist or not… If saying an American of Mexican decent can’t be a fair judge when it comes to someone who wants to make policy towards mexico isn’t racist I don’t know what is..

    By that logic every freaking person in, or running for Federal elected office could not be fairly judged by a Mexican american Judge… Or a Judge of English decent… Or really any judge of decent…because our elected officials literally make policies that effect every nation in the world…

    Anyone who can take and live up to this oath is a worthy judge…
    “I, ___ ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as ___ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”…

    until and unless they have shown that they can’t live up to this oath…they can’t be dismissed because of their race…that would be literately ignoring a person’s body of work and judging them based solely on race…how’s that not racist ?

    are you against Jews judging Arabs too… How about a white supremacist judge ruling over black people ? As long a they can prove they have upheld the oath..If they have ruled the way the law required.. I’m OK with it..

    That you aren’t even considering the judge’s (excellent) record in your defense of trump…but instead just give examples of pairs of races that you believe are inherently too biased to rule fairly on each other…I’d say that makes you a racist too…

    so how do you determine if someone is racist ? How am I wrong ?

  171. Gravatar of Art Deco Art Deco
    28. July 2016 at 04:42

    I’m thinking of a potentially beneficial enhancement to the legal requirements.

    Beneficial enhancements and adjustments to be eligible for election would be

    1. To be a citizen of the United States, having formally renounced any possible claims on foreign citizenship.

    2. Having lived a majority of one’s natural life in one or another of four sets of circumstances: as a lawful and palpable resident of the United States, as a lawful and palpable resident of an abiding possession of the United States (held for 50 years or more when you lived there), enrolled in the armed services; or (while a citizen), as a civilian employed by the U.S. government, posted abroad.

    3. Having (on the date of the election) resided for 18 months at a locus in the United States or an abiding possession thereof and having filed tax returns from that locus.

    4. Having reached one’s 60th birthday ‘ere the election, but not due to reach one’s 72d birthday by the date of one’s supposed inauguration.

    5. Able to complete the term without contravening the standard for rotation in office. The standard in question would be that one is not permitted to occupy the office for more than 10 years in any bloc of 12.

    The standard to succeed to the office might be more lax under the assumption that a successor would occupy the office for perhaps 7-8 months until the state legislatures elected a new president or for until the term ended if the vacancy occurred late in the term (say, last 15 months). For example, changing the age range to a minimum of 40 and a maximum of 75.

    You might add the requirement that the aspirant not be incarcerated, on probation, on parole, under a guardianship, in a state of civil commitment, or have undischarged fines and judgments. Then you recall Gov. Perry’s tangles with unscrupulous local prosecutors and you think that might have some drawbacks.

    The use of financial disclosures is to track down bribes. You cannot bribe Trump and the opportunities for grotesque buck-raking are already there for certain sorts (eg the Clinton Crime Family).

  172. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    28. July 2016 at 06:57

    Justin, So Georgia invaded Georgia. Interesting. I guess logic is not your strong suit.

    Harding, So invasions are OK if you only plan to annex part of the territory? Is that your new argument?

    Tom, So the Trumpkins now need safe spaces? Then they should thank the campus SJWs for leading the way. I find that the people who talk toughest are usually the biggest crybabies when things go against them. I can’t even imagine the excuses Trumpkin’s will come up with if he loses.

  173. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    28. July 2016 at 07:08

    Art, I’m not going to contest any of those facts, but they don’t in any way change the argument that Russia is currently the biggest threat to European peace. Is the threat tiny compared to Hitler? Sure, but it’s still the biggest threat out there. Nobody fears Belarus.

    I’m still waiting for people to tell me which world leaders are more dangerous. Perhaps Kim in N. Korea, but beyond that it’s hard to think of one. (I’m not counting terrorist groups, just world leaders.)

    Everyone, Yes, ambiguity is not the only cause of wars, but in the modern world it’s an increasingly important one. We no longer live in the world of Alexander the Great, or Napoleon.

  174. Gravatar of Art Deco Art Deco
    28. July 2016 at 10:07

    I’m still waiting for people to tell me which world leaders are more dangerous.

    Leaders come, leaders go. What’s happening now is that China is displacing the United States as the world’s premier power. The implications of that we have yet to learn. We do know that there’s a current of opinion in China that fancies they have scores to settle with the occident. John Derbyshire, who is not a China scholar but has language skills and some history of residency therein, offers that ordinary people would be most unpleasantly surprised by what is modal opinion on Chinese listservs and the like. He has an interesting story here:

    http://www.johnderbyshire.com/Opinions/NationalQuestion/antiamericanism.html

  175. Gravatar of Major.Freedom Major.Freedom
    28. July 2016 at 15:19

    Tom Brown:

    MF, I never said he was a racist. I disputed your claim that such assertions originate only from the left.

    But I never said they ONLY come from the left. They definitely originated in the “first time” sense from the left, has become the dominant talking point of the left, and it is only from the anti-Trump portion of the right that they parrot the left talking point.

    You asserted that writers on the right like Erickson who level such criticisms at Trump have “merely adopted and parroted the left wing.” I don’t know how you know that. Why don’t you ask him? (I’ll go out on a limb and predict that he will dispute your assertion — of course if he does then he could be lying, but I have no reason to assume that)

    It is not even necessary for Erikson to have a clear idea of the environment in which he writes, or how it came to be. He does not have to be lying. He just needs to be anti-Trump, then find what is already in the press to latch onto and virtue signal to his colleagues.

    The point is that Erikson, in the articles you linked to, didn’t actually show any evidence that Trump is racist. That is what I am asking for. Nobody has shown any yet.

  176. Gravatar of Major.Freedom Major.Freedom
    28. July 2016 at 15:31

    Bill Ellis:

    I thought I was asking a simple question… How do YOU determine if someone is a racist or not… If saying an American of Mexican decent can’t be a fair judge when it comes to someone who wants to make policy towards mexico isn’t racist I don’t know what is..

    Bill, you do realize that Mexico is a country, not a race right?

    Trump wasn’t insinuating Hispanics are inferior. He was questioning the judge’s bias on the basis of nationalism. Trump is unapologetically nationalist (which by the way is one of the reasons I do not admire Trump). What Trump is projecting is that he himself would be biased in favor of his own American heritage if he were to judge an institution in Mexico that was being accused of some dumb charge serving as an excuse to go after it because of it being anti-American immigration or whatever. I would not consider it racist at all if the owner of that institution, who was Mexican by nationality, questioned Trump’s ability to be unbiased and adjudicate the case on the basis of Trump’s “American heritage”.

    Similarly, Trump wanting to ban “Muslim immigration” for a time, is also not racist. It is at most “anti-religion”, since Muslim is not a race either.

    I have seen no evidence whatsoever that would suggest Trump believes certain races or one race is “superior” to another race.

  177. Gravatar of Tom Brown Tom Brown
    28. July 2016 at 15:32

    Scott, you write

    I can’t even imagine the excuses Trumpkin’s will come up with if he loses.

    Well personally I hope they blame it on Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, Jeff Flake, Ben Sasse, Susana Martinez and all the assorted #NeverTrump people and organizations, thus creating an un-mendable rift in the party. Likewise I hope the #NeverTrump folks pick up some support, so the split is closer to 50/50. And if that means the Trump side gets the bern-outs, so be it. Good riddance!

  178. Gravatar of Gary Anderson Gary Anderson
    28. July 2016 at 15:49

    “Harding, So invasions are OK if you only plan to annex part of the territory? Is that your new argument?”

    Russia gave Crimea, part of the old Khazaria, to the Ukraine and took it back, apparently with the citizens’ approval. It isn’t as bad as it sounds. I am all for sovereignty, but the Ukraine was regime changed by the west. We gave billions to the opposition.

    Victoria Nuland, married to the cofounder of PNAC, said we gave billions to the opposition over time.

  179. Gravatar of Tom Brown Tom Brown
    28. July 2016 at 16:39

    it is only from the anti-Trump portion of the right that they parrot the left talking point

    Actually some segments of the pro-Trump portion of the right also apparently think Trump is a racist… and likewise think that’s a GOOD thing. David Duke is a fan of Trump as well. He’s running as a Republican for Louisiana’s senate seat this year (and he kind of sounds like a racist on his youtube channel… but I’ll let you be the judge). Google this:

    Do proud racists support Trump?

    and you can find many many other examples. Does that make Trump a racist? Not necessarily, but apparently there are both pro and anti Trump conservatives that think Trump is a racist.

    Also it’s fascinating that you know what’s happening in Erickson’s head better than he does.

  180. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    28. July 2016 at 17:32

    Art, You said:

    “John Derbyshire, who is not a China scholar”

    You are always good for a few chuckles.

    God help us if the Chinese find out want some of my commenters say about them over here.

  181. Gravatar of Tom Brown Tom Brown
    28. July 2016 at 18:20

    You cannot bribe Trump…

    On what basis? Also, blackmail may work fine. Let’s see his tax returns. Let’s see if George Will is right, or if Erickson is right. Or if Mark Cuban or Bloomberg is right. If the information there would set our minds at ease, I’d think he’d be eager to share those. Looks like he’s just reneged on his promise to do so now.

  182. Gravatar of Tom Brown Tom Brown
    28. July 2016 at 18:22

    … where are Trump’s college transcripts? Didn’t he used to hammer on Obama about that? I’d like to see them. He says he did very very well, but where’s the proof?

  183. Gravatar of Major.Freedom Major.Freedom
    28. July 2016 at 19:33

    Tom Brown:

    Actually some segments of the pro-Trump portion of the right also apparently think Trump is a racist… and likewise think that’s a GOOD thing. David Duke is a fan of Trump as well. He’s running as a Republican for Louisiana’s senate seat this year (and he kind of sounds like a racist on his youtube channel… but I’ll let you be the judge).

    Tom you can cite the anti-Trump wing of the right all day long, it won’t change the fact that the whole “Trump is racist” originated from the left, and popularized by the left. Of course the anti-Trump right will pilfer ANYTHING that casts negativity.

    I have yet to see any evidence of Trump being racist.

    Also it’s fascinating that you know what’s happening in Erickson’s head better than he does.

    Actually I am just making an observation. Erikson is the head of #NeverTrump. It is not surprising he’ll borrow the attack of racism from the left.

    Still no evidence!

  184. Gravatar of Bill Ellis Bill Ellis
    28. July 2016 at 20:59

    Major F…. says “you do realize that Mexico is a country, not a race right?”

    you do realize you are playing semantics games don’t you ? You do realize that RACE is an artificial construct…and that makes it completely plastic and personal… Right ? It’s science…

    It’s all about what is commonly identified as race… and your definition of race is no more valid than anyone else…

    American is not a race either but it does not stop about 30 million mostly white and mostly poorly educated Americans from identifying their race as AMERICAN..(these guys are the most loyal repub votes by the way)

    My Mexican friends would think you were absolutely crazy if you told them they are wrong to think trump is a racist because because Mexican not a race…

    “Brown” is not a race either…and nobody brown identifies as being part of the “brown race”… but everyone calls discrimination against someone because they are brown, racism… what would you call it..?? Colorism ?

    if all you can do is rest your opinion on a technical definition of a word that is not even a valid concept…. you got nothing…

    but even if someone accepts you ignorant definition of race.. All your really doing is saying trumps not a racist…he’s a bigot… priggish of you…

  185. Gravatar of Bill Ellis Bill Ellis
    28. July 2016 at 21:41

    Major f says…”Trump wasn’t insinuating Hispanics are inferior. He was questioning the judge’s bias on the basis of nationalism.’

    Saying an American judge can’t do his job because of bias is saying he is an inferior judge… Saying he is inferior because of his ethnicity is racism…

    “Nationalism”? interesting word choice… the Judges Nationalism is clearly pro American… your and trump’s knee jerk questioning his loyalty is… bigotry.

    MF says….”What Trump is projecting is that he himself would be biased in favor of his own American heritage if he were to judge an institution in Mexico…”

    Trump projecting his own bigotry on others does not absolve him of being a bigot… it proves his bigotry.. Besides…your analogy is bad… The Judge is an American… Trumps is not a Mexican…

    MF says…. …”if he were to judge an institution in Mexico that was being accused of some dumb charge serving as an excuse to go after it because of it being anti-American immigration or whatever. I would not consider it racist at all if the owner of that institution, who was Mexican by nationality, questioned Trump’s ability to be unbiased and adjudicate the case on the basis of Trump’s “American heritage”.”

    well you should consider it racist…or bigoted…
    using your example…If trump were a career judge in mexico and had a clear record of ruling as the law required… you would be a big old bigot for questioning his ability to rule fairly based on his heritage..

    I don’t know you… but I’ll bet your a white guy… Because you see trump’s fears as to how he will be treated by our system of justice as reasonable…But think Black people’s complaints as to how they are treated by our legal system are unreasonable…

    Am I right ?

    …or do you think it would be reasonable for every white judge to recuse themselves if the defendant is black ???

    Your argument is rife with white privilege that you see as rights…

  186. Gravatar of E. Harding E. Harding
    28. July 2016 at 22:24

    “So Georgia invaded Georgia.”

    -No, Georgia invaded South Ossetia. South Ossetians have never considered themselves to be part of Georgia. Just like Kuwaitis have never considered themselves part of Iraq. If the U.S. wasn’t the aggressor in the Gulf War, there was no way Russia was the aggressor in the 2008 Georgia War.

    “I’m still waiting for people to tell me which world leaders are more dangerous. Perhaps Kim in N. Korea, but beyond that it’s hard to think of one. (I’m not counting terrorist groups, just world leaders.)”

    -“Barack Obama. Bibi Netanyahu. Arguably, Xi.”

    I’ll add Erdogan to that list.

    “So invasions are OK if you only plan to annex part of the territory? Is that your new argument?”

    -Nope. Try again. Re-read my comment.

    Amazingly, Gary Anderson gets it right on Russia and Ukraine!

    Bill, this comments section is no place for c**ks

    “I can’t even imagine the excuses Trumpkin’s will come up with if he loses.”

    -It will be some variation of “he ran a poor campaign”. But he’ll still probably win.

    BTW, Trumpkin is an obscenity.

  187. Gravatar of Art Deco Art Deco
    29. July 2016 at 04:43

    God help us if the Chinese find out want some of my commenters say about them over here.

    1. Wilhelmine Germany in 1885, China today. Integrating new powers into extant international relationships is a challenge and failure is an option. With disastrous consequences. China has the tools to do much more harm than does Russia, and there’s really no telling at this point how China’s dispositions will develop in the coming decades.

    2. Just what did Derbyshire say that you object to?

  188. Gravatar of Tom Brown Tom Brown
    29. July 2016 at 10:16

    Tom you can cite the anti-Trump wing of the right all day long…

    I was citing the pro-Trump right in that last one (part of it anyway). That was the whole point. They think Trump is a racist too, and they’re HAPPY he is.

  189. Gravatar of Carl Carl
    29. July 2016 at 14:00

    Art Deco:

    Now who’s using pre WWI analogies? You did a good job of poking holes in my present-day Russia – pre WWI Austro-Hungarian empire analogy, but now you’re revealing that you think there is value in applying a pre-WWI model to today(even if it isn’t a perfect fit and it shouldn’t be the only model one tries on). And, here’s how the model fits: You have a receding world superpower (Today: USA; Pre WWI: England), a rising, nationalistic power with a chip on its shoulder(Today: China; Pre WWI: Germany), a decrepit, aging power (Today: Russia; Pre WWI: Austro-Hungary) fighting radical terrorists (Today: Islamic Jihadis; Pre WWI: anarchists).

    When I apply that model I think that Russia is to be feared more for its ability to bluster its way into wars that it will lose than for its ability to conquer its neighbors. It makes me think we should find ways to to reduce friction with China, just as England reduced friction with us while we were rising, but failed to do so with Germany while Germany was rising.

    Regarding Derbyshire: My experience with the Chinese does not align with what he wrote, but his comments correlate with Pew Research numbers, so maybe I’m not talking to the right people.

  190. Gravatar of Major.Freedom Major.Freedom
    29. July 2016 at 15:08

    Bill Ellis:

    You do realize that RACE is an artificial construct…and that makes it completely plastic and personal…

    So which confusion of yours am I supposed to go with then? The fact that you will not admit there is a difference between countries and races, which is already bad enough, or, that you want me to believe in the absurdity that there is no such thing as race, in which case there would be no such thing as racism?

    If there is no such thing as race, and thus no such thing as racism, what exactly are you saying when you say Trump is racist, which you still have not provided any evidence for if we go by the NON-“semantic game” definition?

    It’s all about what is commonly identified as race… and your definition of race is no more valid than anyone else…

    Ah, OK, so YOU want to engage in a semantics game. It is only not racism when you say it is not racism. That is your position in a nutshell.

    According to the actual definition, which you can look up on Google, racism is:

    “the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.”

    So let us revisit what Trump said. He said he questioned the judge’s bias on the basis of his Mexican (that is a country) heritage. This is not racism according to the definition above, because Trump is talking about nationalism, which is NOT “specific” to any race, and he did not imply the Hispanic race is “inferior”.

    Trump would do the same thing if he were the judge. He would be biased on the basis of his “American” heritage. His position is America first.

    Of course he will question every judge’s bias on the basis of their nationality, especially if they are prosecuting him! The judge could have been a Russian, and if that Judge were presiding or prosecuting an American institution being accused of shutting out or disliking or antagonizing Russians, and Trump would have said the same thing.

    Would Trump saying he questions a judge’s ability to be unbiased on the basis of their Russian heritage be a racist comment or belief? Oh no, Russians are predominantly white. That makes you lose your mind. Now it can’t be racism there. Even though it is the exact same thing except a different country.

    My Mexican friends would…

    …approve of your virtue signalling.

    “Brown” is not a race either…

    Uh oh, Freudian slip! Brown is not a race EITHER?

    Ruh roh!

    Actually Brown is a reference to a class of races, those born from those who evolved around the Indian and Middle Eastern regions of the world, who have darker skin than those who are born from those who evolved in the northern European regions. Hence the reference to, you know, color.

    You got nothing except “Trump is racist.”

    No evidence.

    None.

    Saying an American judge can’t do his job because of bias is saying he is an inferior judge… Saying he is inferior because of his ethnicity is racism…

    Haha, no, the judge WOULD be doing his job, if he, the judge, deemed his job to be to increase the influence and power of Mexicans, and to attack those who seek to increase the influence and power of America.

    You do not determine what the job of the judge is and then declare that to be the standard of superiority as it pertains to your claim without evidence that Trump believes Hispanics are inferior as a race?

    Trump has shown evidence of being an “…ist”. A nationalist. He is bigoted on the basis of countries. If you are ” from another country”, and you are judging Trump, then Trump will question your ability to be unbiased. It just so happens that Mexico comes up a lot because the borders are touching.

    If Trump wanted to build a wall between the US and Canada, and a Canadian judge by birth and who identifies himself predominantly as Canadian, were to be the judge over an in institution owned by Trump, Trump would question that judge’s impartiality too.

    Would that be racist?

    “Nationalism”? interesting word choice… the Judges Nationalism is clearly pro American…

    No, the judge is clearly not, since he is a member of a racist organization “La Raza” (which means “The Race” in spanish) whose stated mission is to promote the Hispanic race. He is not pro-american. He is pro-Hispanic.

    Imagine a white judge joining an advocacy group called “The Race” whose stated mission were to promote the white race.

    Yes, Trump is a bigot. He is a Nationalist bigot. An unapologetic Nationalist bigot. That is one reason I strongly dislike him.

    I don’t know you… but I’ll bet your a white guy…

    THAT is racist.

    Bill, you are a racist.

    …But think Black people’s complaints as to how they are treated by our legal system are unreasonable…

    That is borderline racist.

    Your argument is rife with white privilege that you see as rights…

    Nope, sorry Bill, these one liners are all spitballs now. They no longer work. They are overused, empty shells masquerading as substantive argument.

    You got nothing. Your side lost the argument.

    Your beliefs are now the new racism. The balkanization of America into racial factions.

    Now you have to debate actual intellectuals who reject both Clinton and Trump and Johnson and all the rest.

  191. Gravatar of Art Deco Art Deco
    29. July 2016 at 15:09

    The Dual Monarchy was suffering problems because of ethnic fissures and the House of Hapsburg’s succession rules. It wasn’t ‘decrepit’ in any other way. Between 1848 and 1914, it had successfully recast its agrarian system, introduced electoral institutions, effected a partial decentralization, and experienced a measure of industrial development.

    As for Russia, it has had a partial recovery in fertility (with a tfr of 1.6, it’s now at the European average) and it has reversed the effects of the severe post-Soviet depression. It’s per capital production is as high as it ever was (and has doubled since 1999), wage arrearage is now a small problem, it’s not suffering sorely elevated unemployment rates, nor carrying much debt. There’s room for improvement re price stability and re export diversification. Russia’s not in severe danger from ethnic fissures either. It has problems but also possibilities.

    State systems have discernable historical cycles. They’re not repeated precisely, of course. I’m not sure why you find that idea objectionable.

  192. Gravatar of Major.Freedom Major.Freedom
    29. July 2016 at 15:10

    Tom Brown:

    I was citing the pro-Trump right in that last one (part of it anyway). That was the whole point. They think Trump is a racist too, and they’re HAPPY he is.

    No they always vote for Republicans, even the non-racist ones.

  193. Gravatar of Art Deco Art Deco
    29. July 2016 at 15:21

    -“Barack Obama. Bibi Netanyahu. Arguably, Xi.”

    Netanyahu leads a country with a population of 8 million and a productive base of about $200 bn, a country which has never (bar a couple of bombing raids) deployed military forces outside an area of about 36,000 sq miles (about the size of Indiana) and hasn’t had forces outside a zone 11,000 sq. miles in area in over 30 years. How is Netanyahu ‘dangerous’ to anyone but some Arab paramilitaries adjacent to Israel?

  194. Gravatar of E. Harding E. Harding
    29. July 2016 at 22:07

    @Art

    http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1440882472

    also, Israel has nuclear weapons. Georgia it isn’t.

  195. Gravatar of Carl Carl
    29. July 2016 at 22:23

    Art Deco:

    I don’t find the idea of historical cycles objectionable. You made a comparison of China to Wilhelmian Germany. I made a wider comparison to the same era, adding in Russia and the US from today, Austria Hungary and the British Empire from the past. I don’t think cycles are repeated precisely. But I do think historical analogies are helpful for evaluating strategies.

    I think Russia today is more like the AH Empire than you do. The AHs were trying to hold together a multi ethnic empire that they couldn’t hold together. Putin is trying to reconstitute a multi ethnic empire that I don’t believe he can reconstitute. Both cause instability through their unrealistic ambition. And in both cases the empire was the more unstable partner in an alliance with the rising nationalistic power of the day.

  196. Gravatar of Art Deco Art Deco
    30. July 2016 at 04:23

    Putin is trying to reconstitute a multi ethnic empire that I don’t believe he can reconstitute.

    Again, the bulk of the manpower deployed to the task of suppressing the Chechen rebellion was so under his predecessor.

    South Ossetia has a population of about 55,000; during the Soviet period, Ossetia was bisected and the part only accessible from the north by tunnel was assigned to Soviet Georgia, while the rest was an autonomous region within Russia proper. North of 85% of all Ossetians lived in North Ossetia. South Ossetia is an odd little appendix to North Ossetia.

    The Crimea is largely populated with Great Russians. North of 1/3 of the population of the Donbass identifies itself as Great Russian and the Ukrainians there prefer speaking Russian; the Ukrainian language is not much used in the Donbass. If Russia’s in the business of re-constructing a ‘multi-ethnic empire’, they’re taking a circuitous route to that goal.

  197. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    30. July 2016 at 08:56

    Harding, You said:

    “South Ossetians have never considered themselves to be part of Georgia.”

    So now international boundaries are determined by peoples’ feelings?

    Art, Germany was an expansionist power. China is not, and that’s been true for 100s of years.

  198. Gravatar of Art Deco Art Deco
    30. July 2016 at 11:17

    Germany was an expansionist power. China is not, and that’s been true for 100s of years.

    The change in Germany’s frontiers between 1871 and 1914 was nil. The change in Prussia’s frontiers between 1815 and 1863 was nil. All territorial acquisitions between 1863 and 1871 were at the expense of other German states bar Alsace-Lorraine, a germanophone territory loyal to France, and Schleswig-Holstein, a semi-German territory which belonged to the House of Augustenborg. Germany did acquire 9 overseas dependencies between 1871 and 1914. In absolute terms and relative to the population of the metropole, German acquisitions were a fraction of any portfolio of territories held by Britain, France, the Netherlands, or Japan.

    China’s never been this consequential on a global scale. What China does with that resource base is a matter of conjecture.

  199. Gravatar of Art Deco Art Deco
    30. July 2016 at 11:23

    So now international boundaries are determined by peoples’ feelings?

    The boundaries were a Soviet artifact. It’s not surprising when the Soviet Union broke into pieces that some components preferred a different set of affiliations than the one’s they’d had since 1936 (as no one asked them about those affiliations).

  200. Gravatar of Bill Ellis Bill Ellis
    30. July 2016 at 17:50

    you want me to believe in the absurdity that there is no such thing as race, in which case there would be no such thing as racism?

    Can’t you read ? I said race is a man made construct and depends on identity…Race is not what you defined it as… Can’t you understand what that means ???

    You put your opinion before science… That seems to be a requirement for being a conservative…

    http://www.newsweek.com/there-no-such-thing-race-283123

  201. Gravatar of Major.Freedom Major.Freedom
    31. July 2016 at 06:17

    Bill Ellis:

    you want me to believe in the absurdity that there is no such thing as race, in which case there would be no such thing as race? I said race is a man made construct and depends on identity…Race is not what you defined it as

    I never defined race. You said race is merely a man made construct, and hence is not real. Race by that interpretation does not exist as a real thing.

    If race is not real, as you say, then what are you saying when you call anyone a racist? You have dodged and continue to dodge this simple question.

    you put your opinion before science…

    Haha, projection.

    The scientific evidence is that races do exist:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1196372/

    That seems to be a requirement for being a conservative…

    I am not a conservative. I am an anarcho-capitalist.

  202. Gravatar of Major.Freedom Major.Freedom
    31. July 2016 at 06:21

    Bill Ellis says he isn’t saying race does not exist.

    Then proceeds to cite a Newsweek article from an author who is claiming race does not exist, to support his case.

    Lol

  203. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    31. July 2016 at 09:52

    Art, That German history lesson in no way refutes my claim that Germany was an expansionist power. China’s ideology is strongly non-interventionist. That could change, but right now they are not a threat to their neighbors.

  204. Gravatar of Art Deco Art Deco
    31. July 2016 at 11:09

    That German history lesson in no way refutes my claim that Germany was an expansionist power.

    I see you say it’s spinach.

    The German states last territorial acquisition in Europe was in 1871, and it consisted of a germanophone territory nicked off the Second Empire. And the German government of the day was ambivalent about adding that cession to the settlement with France.

    If Germany’s expansionist overseas during that era, it is decidedly less so than Britain or France, who added vast swaths of Africa to their portfolio of territories. Germany fought Britain, France, and Russia during the 1st World War.

  205. Gravatar of Scott Sumner Scott Sumner
    1. August 2016 at 08:28

    Art, You said:

    “If Germany’s expansionist overseas during that era, it is decidedly less so than . . . ”

    There is no “if”, it was expansionist. China is not.

  206. Gravatar of Art Deco Art Deco
    1. August 2016 at 08:50

    There is no “if”, it was expansionist. China is not.

    Again, Germany’s conduct was not distinguished from any other competing power. You keep ignoring this. Germany was no more a threat to France on these grounds than France was a threat to Germany. The bulk of Germany’s acquisition were in 1884 and 1885, coincident with acquisitions by Britain and France. Germany and Britain actually had at least one co-operative project in securing their African dependencies. The places European powers came to blows in Africa were in South Africa (British v. Boer) and at Fashoda (Britain v. France). German acquisitions in the Pacific were contemporary with American acquisitions. German acquisitions in China were contemporary with the concessions received by Britain, France, and Russia.

    There is nothing in the essence of China which allows one to say it is not ‘expansionist’. Any country’s behavior is contingent on circumstances. And it’s not going to necessarily take the precise form that political conflict took a century ago. Agriculture – and areal extent – is less salient. As we speak, however, China’s picking fights over shipping lanes.

  207. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    2. August 2016 at 07:10

    Sure, China might become expansionist in the future, but it is not currently expansionist—indeed it’s ideology is extremely hostile to military adventurism, more so than for other great powers (except perhaps Japan).

Leave a Reply