monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

That's the polite way of putting it. I'd tell anybody that the UK was seriously and totally fucked...

That was true the moment that Brexit passed.

It's amazing, simply amazing, that our country existed for 200+ years before ICE did. Almost unbelievable really....

okay, you can stop posting stupid youtube videos claiming it is really the left that is intolerant since you've just proven once again rhat the major source of intolerance is really the right and has been for decades.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-44772311

London is getting ready

Interesting. The majority of the Kavanaugh debate seems to be happening on the right. Social conservatives aren't too pleased. On the upside for Kavanaugh, Vox suggests this unease by social conservatives might get him Collins' vote.

Not surprisingly, you are missing my point. "Russia" is not a living, breathing, thinking entity. To the extent it can be said to do anything, what it does is entirely dependent on the people in charge at the time. Putin was not in charge in 1991, or, obviously, when the Crimea was shifted from one USSR pocket to another.

I don't know the details of the original transfer well enough to know whether or not it involved a treaty being signed, but even if it had, such a treaty would have been a farce considering the Ukraine was not actually a sovereign state at the time and the USSR has been cast to the dustbin of history. Regardless of his character, Putin should not be expected to honor, abide by, or insist upon deals made by the USSR. If he was a freedom loving democrat, you wouldn't expect him to. I am also unaware of any actual treaty, between Russia and the Ukraine, which included territorial definition, being signed and ratified in 1991. I feel certain that if one existed Ukraine and its supporters would have been waving it furiously in the air when Russia invaded. If you have evidence of such a treaty, please share.

Clearly, at the time of the Soviet breakup, those in charge of Russia either didn't believe they had a territorial claim on the Crimea or they saw no benefit in pressing it. It certainly doesn't defy credulity to imagine that there were plenty of Russians, at the time, (including perhaps a younger Putin) who didn't agree with the decision, but had no power to alter it.

In the absence of a treaty that could be taken seriously, succeeding Russian governments were not bound by a decision not to press a territorial claim in 1991. Again, I also feel certain that you are not going to regard the many decisions and actions of President Trump binding on future Democrat presidents. Should he manage to negotiate a deal with North Korea, unless it involves a treaty ratified by the Senate, the president who follows him (Democrat or Republican) will be perfectly within his or her rights to render it null and void. It's what happens when a president makes foreign policy moves that are not broadly supported by the American people (as determined by their elected representatives) and which is why Trump could dump the Iran deal as well as the Paris Climate Change Agreement.

I guess it was worth a shot by Obama to enter into these two deals without Congress giving them their stamp of approval, but since he didn't take the route that would have made them more entrenched, Trump was able to sweep them away with the same phone and pen Obama used to enter into them. So many people were counting on Hillary to keep these deals in place...including the Iranians.

The only thing that matters is his confirmation.

What happens after is what really matters.

A fine bit of sophistry.

It is also exactly what you would expect from a movement that is not connected with Russian troll farms, but you've chosen to view its denial as proof of its guilt. Pretty slick.

The Russian's meddling in our election succeeded beyond their wildest dream and not because it had any effect what-so-ever on the outcome. From the earliest days, our intelligence agencies described the Kremlin's motive as sowing distrust in our democratic institutions. Well, they went one step further, they sowed a field of distrust between one another.

Mind you, this has been a standard tactic of the left for years: Blaming third parties for actions or events that in some way cast a poor light on them. Antifa thugs run wild in the streets? "Right-wing provocateurs posing as Antifa thugs!!" Thousands of disaffected moderate liberals go public with their disillusionment and it's "Russian Troll!" If you want to be kept up to date on the latest conspiracy theories just watch MSNBC and the "Young Turks."

The Russians with their "troll farms" that barely registered on the public's mind and will have assumed a status far beyond their actual activity. No longer is the left limited to blaming right-wing imposters or "outside agitators" who don't really reflect the nature and will of local communities, they have farms of foreign bogeymen with whom no American is going to sympathize.

They gave you such a huge gift and yet you are so ungrateful

With less than 80,000 votes in 3 states deciding the outcome and ~10MM fewer voters showing up than 2008, you can't KNOW this to be true.

Actually, he said the UK is in "somewhat turmoil." There's a difference as you know.

He would have been accurate though if he didn't use the qualifier.

Now perhaps the entire nation isn't in turmoil to the extent that there is fighting in the streets and British dogs are having sex with British cats, but the government certainly is. Imagine a series of US cabinet resignations and how that situation would be described.

And should Remainer May continue with her weaselly plan to circumvent the results of the Brexit referendum there will be even greater turmoil within the government and some of it is likely to spill into the streets (perhaps not affecting the sex lives of dogs and cats though).

She is either going to have to back off her plan or face a no-confidence vote which she probably doesn't have the strength to survive. I certainly don't see Labour coming to her rescue even though they are, largely, anti-Brexit.

It's a pretty common phenomenon in political arguments, Finn, it's not limited to the left, and it doesn't "prove guilt" on either side. I think the purpose is to blunt an expected line of criticism before it can take hold and gain traction. It's discourse that is one step removed from the evidence-based criticism. I don't have direct confirmation that Russian troll farms are actively engaged in disseminating disinformation; you don't have direct confirmation that they aren't. I thought it was interesting to see the right attempt to use the "Russian bots" theory to tar the left. I don't happen to find the quotation believable.


Not really interested.