Donald Trump

Trump's Strange Coziness With the Kremlin

This is not to America's benefit.

|

Trump
Ron Sachs/ZUMA Press/Newscom

Donald Trump assured Americans Thursday that he is not acting in covert concert with Vladimir Putin. "I have nothing to do with Russia," he said during his news conference, insisting, "The whole Russian thing, that's a ruse."

Those statements followed the firing of his national security adviser, Michael Flynn, after it was reported that Flynn had lied to Vice President Mike Pence about his pre-inauguration phone conversations with the Russian ambassador. Flynn's deception was notable because it suggested he had something to hide.

When BuzzFeed published a secret dossier on Trump that contained all sorts of disturbing allegations, the fear was that the Russian strongman had the means to blackmail the incoming president. But the salacious bits were so outlandish that they discredited the entire story.

Given his record, the fact that Trump denies something automatically raises strong suspicions that it's true. Maybe it's not. But here's the crucial question: If Trump were in fact being directed by Putin, would he be doing anything different from what he has done?

Trump has taken a friendlier and more optimistic view of the regime in Moscow than anyone in American politics. As a candidate, he welcomed Russia's military intervention in Syria on behalf of a vicious dictator. He said he would consider recognizing Russia's seizure of Crimea and lifting the sanctions imposed in response to it.

He bragged that Putin had called him "brilliant," and he extolled Putin as a stronger leader than Barack Obama. He invited the Russians to hack into Hillary Clinton's email.

It's already hard to remember how bizarre this once would have seemed for any American politician—particularly a Republican and particularly a president. Distrust of Russia has been a bone-deep instinct among Republicans since Warren G. Harding's day. One of their most durable themes was that they were tougher and less gullible about Russia than the Democrats. Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan made their names as implacable foes of Soviet communism.

Trump had nothing obvious to gain during the campaign from offering a rosy view of Putin. The voters who proved decisive to his victory—working-class whites, particularly men—had no history of affection for the Kremlin; just the opposite.

There is nothing in conservative ideology that argues for overlooking the human rights abuses and state-dominated economy that characterize Putin's country; again, nothing could be less compatible. If a Democratic candidate had taken a similar posture five, 20, or 50 years ago, Republicans would have vilified him as a cowardly appeaser.

Nor does Trump's indulgent posture serve any obvious American interest. The United States doesn't help itself by excusing Putin's aggression against Ukraine, which could lead him to destabilize other pro-Western nations on his borders. Weakening NATO likewise would reduce our influence in Europe while ceding leverage to Russia.

The Trump record goes beyond mere statements. The New York Times recently reported that phone records indicate members of his campaign team "had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election." Trump has denied it, but Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov confirmed the campaign was in regular communication with his government.

U.S. intelligence agencies say the Kremlin was behind the hacking of computers at the Democratic National Committee. Flynn had been a regular guest on Putin's TV propaganda organ, RT.

Trump's first campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, had done an abundance of business in Russia. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson got the Order of Friendship medal from Putin. And we know very little about Trump's personal business interests in Russia—which Donald Jr. once said were significant—because he won't release his tax returns.

He made it plain Thursday that he was angrier at the press for reporting Flynn's lie than he was at Flynn for lying. Trump didn't fire him for 17 days after learning about the deception—and Flynn would probably still be national security adviser if The Washington Post had not broken the story.

That lengthy and mysterious delay helps to explain why people inside the government leaked the information. Their fear was that Flynn's secret made one of the most important figures in the White House vulnerable to Russian extortion. Trump was aware of that concern but did nothing until the truth came to light.

At this point, the Kremlin could hardly ask for more than it's gotten from Trump. And if we can't tell from Trump's policies whether he's being blackmailed or being naive, maybe it doesn't matter. Either way, we lose.

© Copyright 2017 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

NEXT: Big Brother in the U.K.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Fuck off Chapman, go to hell.

    I am sick to death of this god damned “oooh Russians” bullshit.

    Fire this worthless SOB already!!

    1. Don’t feel bad I wasn’t invited either. 🙁

    2. Are you mad enough to stroke out because that would ne nice?

    3. McCarthyism, Part Deux.

    4. This web site is called REASON.com. As in REASONable. if you want to visit a site that loves Putin try something like ooohputiniloveyouscrewmetoo.ru. Once upon a time conservatives hated communists and (some) dictators, not their fellow Americans. Chinese communists were very bad people. Now we throw our money at them while saying please please bend me over and rape me and my country. To quote our president: SICK.

      1. Trumpty Dumpty, He’s quite off-the-wall,
        Trumpty Dumpty won’t stay in His toilet stall
        He just goes ahead and takes His shits,
        Totally regardless of whereever He sits
        Whenever He simply, no way, can sleep,
        He Twits us His thoughts, they’re all SOOO deep!
        He simply must, He MUST, Twit us His bird,
        No matter the words, however absurd!
        He sits and snorts His coke with a spoon,
        Then He brazenly shoots us His moon!
        They say He’ll be impeached by June,
        Man, oh man, June cannot come too soon!
        So He sits and jiggles His balls,
        Then He Twitters upon the walls
        “Some come here to sit and think,
        Some come here to shit and stink
        But I come here to scratch my balls,
        And read the writings on the walls
        Here I sit, My cheeks a-flexin’
        Giving birth to another Texan!
        He who writes these lines of wit,
        Wraps His Trump in little balls,
        He who reads these lines of wit,
        Eats those loser’s balls of shit!”

      2. Do you suggest that we start a new cold war?

      3. Drink!

    5. you are free to leave you know

  2. “Given his record, the fact that Trump denies something automatically raises strong suspicions that it’s true. ”

    Illogical. Unless he also ACCEPTS BLAME for things that AREN’T true.

    Because if he denies all false accusations, AND all true accusations, then his denial has no correlation to the truth of something. It neither increases or decreases the odds. It’s just a random noise coming out his mouth.

    But if he fesses up to even a tiny percentage of true accusations, then his denial automatically DECREASES the odds of it being true. Maybe not by a lot, but Chapman’s using bad reasoning here.

    1. (I’m taking my new studies of Bayes for a test drive…I invite the commentariat to point out any mistakes…)

      1. They’re off on a long-weekend circle jerk. (Don’t feel bad – I wasn’t invited either.)

    2. Let’s say “Bob” is arrested for raping a child. “Bob” denies he did it. “Bob” denies his name is “Bob”. “Bob” admits “being in the area”. After all “Bob” lives down the block. So now “Bob’s” denial automatically decreases the odds of it being true? I think I agree? Anyway because I find the crime reprehensible I am strongly suspicious of Bob and am inclined to think he’s guilty.

      1. He must be guilty! He was accused of something awful!

  3. Oh for Christ’s sake. It’s not that hard to figure out. First of all the ‘dossier’ was a ruse – an easily discreditable false flag that Trump could use as an excuse to discredit the press as ‘fake news’ and shut it down. He failed. Just read Trump’s tweets at the time and this fact is obvious – he keeps repeating ‘fake news’ and ‘lying press’ etc. Secondly TrumPutin’s scheme is to incite violence in the middle east and use that as a pretext to ‘bomb the hell out of them’ to disrupt supplies to raise the value of Tillerson’s interests in the US and Russia. Trump is NOT being extorted by Russia – you are barking up the wrong tree. Same for Flynn – they were simply trying to hide their ‘clever’ scheme from Pence and he caught on and flipped his lid. Flynn had to go. Seriously next time just talk to me first ok?

  4. What does Chapman have on Reason such that they keep posting his bs?

    1. If Steve Chapman was just pretending to be a libertarian so he could get a writing gig out of it, what would he be doing differently?

      1. Considering he’s a syndicated columnist I think he’s gotten his writing gig.

        My complaint with Chapman is less that I disagree with him, more that he doesn’t present a more structured argument for me to disagree with, since that would be more beneficial to learn from.

        More a general complaint than this article.

  5. Why would trumps personal tax returns show significant dealings with russia?

    Fantasizing about russian boogeymen is i guess the cool things to do these days

    1. Because Donald Trump’s son made a statement that the family business had significant ties to Russia.

      1. Thats cool but thosw wouldnt show up in his personal tax return

        1. He avoids personal income tax liability by taking losses from the businesses. It’s all the same thing. Show us your taxe returns or don’t. I don’t care. I just assume there’s something incredibly damaging there or this asshole would have released them.

          1. This would be speculation on your part as you dont have any idea. If all his businesses are losses then im not sure how he has continued to stay afloat.

            Again any russia ties would not be in a personal tax return and im not sure what you think is damaging in there. If it was it would have been investigated by irs

            1. It’s not speculation that Trump’s son stated the family business had ties to Russia. It’s not speculation that Trump later claimed he has nothing at all to do with Russia and never has. Your turn. Can you offer an explanation for these contradictory representations?

              It’s not speculation that Trump and his mouthpieces have repeatedly denied they had any contact with Russia during the campaign but now we see reports that the guy in charge of Trump’s campaign had repeated communications with Russia. If it’s indeed true Trump’s campaign manager was talking to Russians during the campaign then is responsible for those communications. Trump is responsible for the actions of those within his campaign especially the acrions of a campaign mananger.

              1. Ok cool? Why is that concerning? US companies do business in Russia, US government officials have worked with Russia. Russian dealings of his business would not be in personal tax returns.

                Trump said his campaign was not in cahoots with Russia to influence the election….not that he has never had any personal dealings with Russia.

                You are conflating doing business with the conspiracy that he is some puppet of russia installed by them. Because someone has contacts with some folks in Russia, does not mean there was some big conspiracy and nefarious plot. A campaign manager had some communication with Russia…so why is there a concern? Provide some evidence.

                Take off the tinfoil dude.

                1. You’re the one conflating. It’s simple. Trump and his mouthpieces lied about not having any contact with the Russians during the campaign, full stop.

              2. Wasn’t Flynn fired for lying about meeting with the Russians in December?

                1. But there wasn’t any wrong doing to begin with as per an NPR report.

                2. No. He was fired for lying to Pence about those meetings and their contacts.

                  And, again ‘Russians’ =/= Russian government. Flynn got canned for lying about some meetings with the Russian ambassador.

              3. Did Jr. say “ties with Russia” or has business dealings with Russia? If “ties” are those ties with the government of Russia or business people? Do Trump ties come from Russia? I’d want to see exactly what he said before running around with my hair on fire.

                And I thought Libertarians were all about free trade? “Trade will all nations, binding treaties with non” or something like that.

                And now they’re all Neo-Con? ‘Open a can of whup-ass on those Ruskies!’

                This Chapman character is charging windmills if you ask me, and Geralt… calm down until we see some hard evidence.

              4. ‘Ties to Russia’ or ‘ties to other Russian business interests’.

                There’s a big difference.

                Its like saying Sony can’t be trusted by the Japanese people because they’re CEO has ‘ties to Americans’.

              5. If Trump is being lead around the nose because of his son’s business interests, why not base your argument on that rather than rehashing old accusations?

          2. If you got some evidence share it please.

            1. And I want to know who the heck took over the AmSoc account. it’s certainly not the kid who owned it a few months ago.

              This is like Bizaro world or something. AmSoc being somewhat reasonable??

              1. am soc handle (lower case) was grabbed when commie kid let it get loose. Commie kid (when he posts, which isn’t often anymore) posts as Am Soc.
                Yes, confusing, but…

          3. Just as when the police show up at your door, Geralt, without a warrant wanting to come in and investigate. If you deny them, who MUST be hiding something, right? Just because a person believes in privacy, does in no way conflate to them having something to hid.

            1. Exactly. Just because the son said they had business interests in Russia doesn’t rise to being Putin’s bitch.

              Logical fallacy.

              1. And Trump not releasing his tax returns does not mean he has anything to hide.

                He’s not legally obligated to do so and enough people said what was in his returns was a non-issue (by voting for him anyway after he refused).

  6. Trump did not invite them to hack into her email.

    1. he jokingly said if you have her emails please release them. but Reason seems to like to take what the left says as fact when the reality is verifyably otherwise.

      1. Hell, I have no ties to Russia and I would have said the same thing.

        1. I said the same thing about the NSA. I don’t think that means I encouraged the NSA to hack into Hillary’s email.

    2. And every time someone in the press says he did, they play right into his “mainstream media is the enemy of the American people.”

      Chapman, when you repeat left-wing talking points that are contrary to fact, you destroy what credibility you might have. What Trump said was, “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” – since at the point in time that he said it, Clinton didn’t have those emails on a private server any more (and Trump and everyone else knew it), it is a misstatement to say that he invited them to “hack into Hillary Clinton’s [no-longer-existing] email.”

      Only a partisan halfwit or someone with an axe to grind could possibly think it’s reasonable to interpret his jesting statement to be an actual request for the Russians to do something. And even if Clinton’s server still existed and still might have those emails on it, how is it in any way problematic to say “Hey, hackers, we haven’t been able to get this stuff that she *should have* given us – if you can get it for us, we’d really appreciate it”?

    3. So Russia would wait until they got permission from Trump? How courteous!

  7. There is no coherent message. Only a hodge podge of events listed to only say be very afraid!

  8. What is the expectation from steve on trump to here?

    Trumps energy policies show that he isnt being blackmailed or under secret control of russia

    1. You don’t get it. Today is even numbered day, so Trump is a Russian puppet and likely Manchurian Candidate. Tomorrow is an odd numbered day, so he will be a reckless cowboy that will bring us to war with Russia. I know the narratives flipping each day can get confusing, but try to keep up.

      1. Don’t defame reckless cowboys. He’s a goosestepping fascist on odd numbered days. Everybody knows that.

  9. “Trump was aware of that concern but did nothing until the truth came to light.”

    I dont know about steve but i think you typically wait to make a decision until the truth comes to light

    1. OMG, he’s employing Russian folk wisdom of “let’s solve problems as they’re incoming”!

      (Which in practice functions pretty much like American “don’t fix what’s not broken”)

  10. Trump has no problem lying and it’s become obvious that the people who work in the Whitehouse will support these lies no matter how obvious the lie. Politicians have always lied but nothing like this. The lies have never been so obvious. I don’t even care about the politics of any of it when someone lies to me the way Trump and his people lie to me it’s over. Fuck him.

    1. What does this have to do with the article?

    2. Which lies are you talking about? And i am sure they are upset you have declared it is over

      1. The lies are completely out of proportion to the lies of the average politician. Actually they aren’t but, what the hell, it looks like they’ve decided to go with that.

        1. I like how someone who hates trump to begin with claims the lies is what makes them done (as if he would be given a chance otherwise)

        2. Yeah. It’s almost as if ‘you can keep your doctor’ and ‘$2500 saving on premiums’ never happened.

          Obama was ‘perceived’ to be a good guy ergo ‘white lies’ for the good of people.
          Trump is seen as a bad guy ergo he lies against the interest of the people.

      2. They lied about why they fired Flynn. He was fired only after the truth was exposed to the public. Trump was perfectly happy to hide the truth from the public. Trump seems perfectly happy to lie and misrepresent and to allow and encourage others to do so on his behalf as long as those misrepresentations are done for partisan gain.

        1. He’s a typical politician which is not a good thing but his lies really aren’t out of proportion for a profession that makes the mafia look honest.

          1. I don’t know about that man. The way Trump lies seems more insidious than the typical pol. It seems to be pathological with Trump as opposed to strategic.

            1. What do you expect him to do based on your use of the word insidious?

            2. The way Trump lies seems more insidious than the typical pol.

              You mean, like with a cloth?

            3. Obviously you weren’t paying attention during the Clinton Administration.

              Or the Bush Administration or the Obama Administration.

              All three of Trump’s predecessors lied and, when they lied, they knew they were lying and they intended to deceive. Quite often they didn’t actually need to lie, but lying had become an instinctual response.

              Trump is different. Trump’s untruthful statements arise from his unique combination of ignorance and inarticulate dimwittedness coupled with an idiot savant’s genius in media manipulation and self-promotion. I seriously doubt that his untrue statements are actually lies in most cases. Instead, I think that Trump probably believes his own bullshit and, in his ignorance and dimwittedness, often just gets the facts wrong when they conflict with his bullshit.

              1. Clinton was a compulsive liar, she couldn’t help but lie its all she knows to do

                Trump is a pathological liar, he lies without knowing he is lying because he totally believes his own bullshit

              2. “All forty four of Trump’s predecessors lied and, when they lied, they knew they were lying and they intended to deceive. ”
                FTFY

            4. “I would rather have a calculating sociopath lie and deceive me than a blowhard that ejaculates uncontrolled word mish-mashes that often don’t make sense on paper.”

            5. Yeh, Trump lied under oath about having sex with a woman.

              Jesus.

        2. And you know this how? What truth was exposed to the public? Trump was maybe warned around 2 weeks before and then he was fired. I don’t really see the problem with that. You get the story of what happened before rushing to judgement

          Flynn lied to Pence and was fired.

          1. Flynn lied to you and me too. It’s important you realize that.

            1. And he was fired. No longer the NSA. What more do you want here?

              1. The whole truth and nothing but the truth.

                1. Cool. The FBI isn’t charging him so i don’t know what you are expecting to find

            2. Clapper lied to us also, funny how Obama didn’t fire him.

              1. C’mon juris, what are you expecting here, consistency?

    3. +1 youtube video

      The lies have been obvious for a while.

  11. Flynn isn’t being charged by the FBI so I am not sure there is much here. He lied to Pence and got fired.

    1. The FBI didn’t charge Hillary either, so I’m not sure that’s something to hang your hat on.

      1. They would have, if she had flat out lied to them. But this wasn’t Clinton’s first rodeo, she knew better.

        1. They would have, if they weren’t certain she’d win the election anyways.

  12. I don’t think Chapman makes a good argument but I also think the Russians have something on him. The abrupt change of policy towards Russia from the Rs is suspect as can be and it seems that the intel community is slowly confirming parts of the dossier, etc.

    I’ll reserve judgment til they come out with the smoking gun but he’s right- it’s suspect.

    1. I don’t think you can call it a change of policy “from the Rs” – it’s a change in policy from Trump. He’s not part of (and never has been) the Republican establishment, so unless you see a whole bunch of Republicans in congress and statehouses making the same arguments Trump is, it’s a Trump policy, not a Republican policy. That said, the Russians may think they have some leverage over him, and may actually have something they might be able to use.

  13. Uh oh, I found a dangerous Russian radical immigrant who might be leaking propaganda to influence our elections:

    http://thefederalist.com/2015/…..her-point/

    Clearly, she must be detained in a maximum-coziness facility until we figure out what’s going on.

  14. Monday morning Chap-derp.

    Wonderful.

  15. Connections between Russian hackers and Tea Party confirmed. It’s the worst possible scenario.

    http://www.ebay.com/itm/RUSSIA…..1301943456

    What if somebody backpacks one of these devices into America across the Russian border?

  16. Reason is completely off the rails about Russia. Russia is an adversary to what one blogger likes to call The AngloAmericanZionist Empire. It is an “other” to Western European culture. Peter the Great and Catherine the Great brought science and the Enlightenment but Russia is Byzantine and Asiatic . It is a thousand year old Viking culture as well. It’s fonder was not a Cincinnatus who could not tell a lie, but a psychopath who was called “The Terrible”. Nevertheless, it is a land of deep and beautiful world class literature and art celebrated all over the world.
    But Reason and Chapman go off the rails primarily with their narrow interpretation of modern events. The seem to buy into the #nomoralequivalence BS. Chapman’ s crude interpretation of Syria and the Ukraine is myopic. This piece views our relationship with the world through the eyes of McCain and Graham. Reason conflates Russia’s internal problems and policies and culture with its realistic foreign policy. Russia is simply more right than wrong with these conflicts. Reason and contributors cannot get their heads around the idea that a crude protectionist blowhard bully like Trump is actually more right about Russia and Putin than they are.

    1. Don’t equate Chapman with Reason.

      1. There was a time I would have agreed, but he seems to be pretty mainstream here now.

      2. It ain’t just Chapman. Ever listen to Moynihan on The Fifth Column?

        1. All the time. But one of the things I like about Reason is that not everyone is in lockstep. And many foreign policy issues don’t have a clear “libertarian” slant.

          Couple that with Chapman being a fool in general and Moynihan not working for Reason for a number of years now, I think it’s too broad a brush to attribute a single Russia policy to Reason.

  17. Beautiful But Deadly Russian Assassin To Terminate Trump’s Enemies With Extreme Coziness

    https://www.youtube.com/user/JuliaVins/

    She must break you. She has the best muscles, they’re yuge, trust me, you’re gonna love it.

    1. Is that Michelle Obama in white face?

    1. “it’s ok, the Jacket will save us”

      hahahahahahaha

  18. “But the salacious bits were so outlandish that they discredited the entire story.”

    No, the fact that there was zero corroboration discredited the entire story.

  19. Nice of Chapman to break out his socks.

    The narrative needs a tune up.

  20. Most of us want to have good income but dont know how to do that on Internet there are a lot of methods to earn huge sum, but whenever Buddies try that they get trapped in a scam/fraud so I thought to share with you a genuine and guaranteed method for free to earn huge sum of money at home anyone of you interested should visit the page. I am more than sure that you will get best result. Best Of Luck for new Initiative!
    _+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.moneytime10.com

  21. Given his record, the fact that Trump denies something automatically raises strong suspicions that it’s true.

    No it doesn’t – nothing Trump says has anything whatsoever to do with anything. The guy can’t even speak in complete sentences, let alone coherent ones. I can understand AC’s free-form poetry better than I can understand any half-formed thoughts mushed into malformed sentences piled atop random wads of gibberished asides and mangled tangential discursions and shot through with non sequiturs that fall out of Trump’s piehole. I’d have a hard time deciding if Trump, Hillary, Bernie or Fran Drescher would be my pick for the voice you’d be sentenced to listen to for all eternity in the deepest depths of Hell.

    1. Jerryskids, I want you at Glibertarians.com.

  22. If a Democratic candidate had taken a similar posture five, 20, or 50 years ago

    Or, you know, 8 years ago:

    Russian reset

    1. I wonder where that button is now? Did Clinton save it for her presidential library?

  23. Reason felt compelled to bump this up to the top of HnR at 2:30 PM when it was posted in the morning. Chapman writes here because Reason staff agree with his sorry ass.

  24. In the mean time, NATO brother Erdogan is creating his own dictatorship in Turkey. But that’s different, right?

    1. Seriously. I’ve asked before, what’s really behind this push to make Russia our number one enemy again? It predates Trump, too.

      1. Democrats spent years touting their smart rest on Russia, and were then humiliated by Putin over Syria and Ukraine. It’s petty, bitchy vindictiveness. That’s about it.

        1. Russia can invade Georgia and Democrats ask for a reset. Does not compute (unless Clinton was directed with a shitload of money from Russia).

      2. Maybe the defense contractors have figured out that we’re tired of bombing the sandbox, so they need to resurrect an old bogyman to keep the defense spending juiced into the foreseeable future?

  25. The TDS is strong in this Chapman guy.

  26. Given his record, the fact that Trump denies something automatically raises strong suspicions that it’s true. Maybe it’s not. But here’s the crucial question: If Trump were in fact being directed by Putin, would he be doing anything different from what he has done?

    Just another Chapman article. Nothing to see here…

  27. Got through a couple paragraphs. Couldn’t take more derp than that.

  28. “Given his record, the fact that Trump denies something automatically raises strong suspicions that it’s true. Maybe it’s not. But here’s the crucial question: If Trump were in fact being directed by Putin, would he be doing anything different from what he has done?”

    FFS, Chapman, were you born practicing ‘journalism by innuendo’, or did it take you long years of study to reach that sort of sliminess?

  29. Nothing says libertarian moment like hysterically joining the pile-on and agitating for global war.

    1. I’d really prefer to not be drafted. which would happen in an actual war with Russia. maybe not, but I don’t like my odds.

      1. Look at the bright side – combat units are now coed.

      2. Reasons plan to fully implement a libertarian government.

        Step 1 Agitate for war with Russia.

        Step 2 Nuclear Holocaust

        Step 3 ????

        Step 4 Libertarian paradise

        1. Not a bad plan if you have an invite to that bunker.
          Meanwhile I’ll be wading through snow, marching to my death.

    2. Was there some push for global war I missed in the article?

      Admitting that Putin’s Russia is adversarial is not that, eh?

  30. As a measure of the professionalism with which Reason’s web site is managed, I direct you attention to the time stamp for the post:
    “2.20.17 2:05 pm”
    Notice the first comment reads:
    “BigW|2.20.17 @ 12:09AM”
    And these are threaded comments, such that we should have some idea whether we are relying to a current comment or an earlier, dead, one.
    My contribution didn’t hit zero last year, but it looks like I’ll send an invoice this year. Pathetic content and technical failures which would have embarrassed that kid the hag hired for the closet server.

    1. I have to back off my former statement. This is the one I should have responded with.

      There are few articles and the chat feel is increasing not decreasing. I had such high hopes as well.

      1. Still pretty new and there are some sharp folks there, so I’ll keep watching from time to time.

  31. Shorter Chapman: WOLVERINES!

    Trump could say the 80s want its foreign policy back (like a certain over rated shit head did) I guess to shut people up.

    Next up: Trump thinks Putin is Ned Flanders.

    1. “Shorter Chapman: WOLVERINES!”

      Commie kid (the real one) was posting here regarding the Kochs’ supposed hypocrisy in that Dad built refineries for Stalin, ignoring that he did so to the extent of his contract, and left after getting a face-full of what was going on, never returning.
      So, you see, the kids have some measure of guilt and dishonesty as a result, uh, kind of, well…..
      At least as honest and logical as Chapman’s crap (and why do these idiots make me defend Trump, for pete’s sake?)

  32. It is absolutely hilarious to see all these Trump boner huggers defending their precious oligarch! BigW, dajjal, americansocialist: you guys should try and polish a turd! You guys could then pass it around to each other claiming its a diamond, with each pass increasing its ‘value!’

  33. Flynn’s deception was notable because it suggested he had something to hide.

    Wow. If this is the standard you’re going to use, you better fucking use it in every last context to which it can be applied, or shut the fuck up.

  34. When did interventionist foreign policy become libertarian?

    1. When was it not?

      I don’t recall a non-intervention requirement or it being in Hayek and Mises.

      Most of the arguments I see conflate persons with states, and apply the non-aggression principle to states as if they have rights.

      (Per Rand’s perhaps sole correct view, tyrannies have no right to exist, and war to liberate their victims needs no more justification than that.

      One can argue that a given war is not that, of course, or that the cost is not worth the benefit, or that, say, the human cost is too high because of any number of factors.

      But “only wars of defense are justifiable” is not something that can sit on mere assertion.)

      1. “…war to liberate their victims needs no more justification than that.”

        To you, and on your dime.
        To use your phrase, that is not something that can sit on mere assertion.

        1. Sure.

          I meant moral justification for wanting to do it, note.

          “Making other people pay for it” is always the rough one… but Hayek ain’t Rothbard and we don’t have to be isolationist voluntarists to be libertarians (though we can be).

  35. Would Trump be doing anything different if he worked for Putin?

    Well, he’d be undermining domestic oil production and pipelines, exactly like Trump isn’t and Obama was.

    Obviously Obama was the real Russian lackey, amirite?

    (I haven’t heard Trump on Ukraine, but “doing nothing because whatcha gonna do?” is par.)

  36. JEEBUS. It’s like people can’t conceive of the idea of sensibly, but COMPLETELY, reworking our flawed foreign policy. Maybe saving hundreds of billions of dollars annually by not having a massive military presence all over the world is a good idea? Maybe our “influence” in Europe isn’t worth our country going BK? MAYBE talking the 2nd most powerful military in the world into sharing some of the dirty work with us where we DO actually have aligned interests isn’t a bad idea? I mean Stalin was 1000000000 times the piece of shit Putin is, but he was still pretty helpful in taking out Hitler, right?

    Jesus. Can’t any of these idiots understand anything? People freaking out about lowering our NATO contributions etc are morons. Many of the NATO countries are LITERALLY breaking their signed agreements by not spending what they’re OBLIGATED to spend, and we do nothing.

    If I were president I’d say “Enough is enough” with all these countries we’ve been subsidizing too. Japan needs to pony up for protecting their island from any potential Chinese issues. South Korea should do the same. Etc etc. It’s not a matter of us not being prepared, it’s a matter of others pulling the weight they are capable of pulling, which we can no longer pull for them. We just don’t have the cash anymore.

    1. Not to mention that the 1st and last statement that needs to be made when referring to any military issues involving Russia or China is “NUCLEAR FUCKING MISSILES.”

      We’re either NOT going to go to war with either of them, in which case all the posturing and spending in the world is wasted… OR we ARE going to war with them and it’s the end of the world. We don’t need a military that can deal with anything bigger than Iraq or maybe Iran. Everything beyond that is just bloat since there would be no such thing as a conventional war with Russia or China.

      I can’t comprehend how supposedly intelligent and respected people in the political sphere are able to pass off such incredible stupidity as being anything sensible. The general populace is so stupid it’s beyond belief.

  37. You know who else regularly appeared on RT?

  38. Bentley . true that Ashley `s blurb is good… last week I got Lotus Esprit sincere getting a check for $5815 this-last/five weeks and-even more than, ten/k lass-month . without a doubt it is the easiest work I’ve ever done . I began this seven months/ago and almost immediately started earning minimum $77… per-hour . more tips here.
    ********??????*** http://www.4dayjobs.com

  39. WOW, if I wanted to read an anti Russia propaganda piece I would have just looked at the main stream media. How is not hating Russia a bad thing? In fact the worst part of this article is that there is not a single argument or evidence given why we shoud be fearing and hating Russia. FIRE STEVE CHAPMAN!!!

  40. So, let me understand. Trump is advocating not starting a new Cold War with Russia, no longer intervening against the sovereign government in Syria, taking Wikilieaks at face value and recognizing that America’s geopolitical hands are less than pristine. If Trump were in fact being directed by Putin libertarians, would he be doing anything different from what he has done? Okay, I just want to know, who was the honeypot? Was it ENB or KMW?

    1. Is “sovereign” a morally valuable word?

      The Syrian dictatorship’s sovereignty is irrelevant to its moral legitimacy, and its legality is irrelevant.

      If Syria should be left alone because “none of our business”, say that. If because “not worth the blood and treasure”, say that.

      Adding “soveriegn” looks like an argument but isn’t.

      (Cf the Left bringing up Iraq’s sovereignty in 2002.

      Doesn’t matter. Never mattered. Can’t and won’t ever matter.)

      1. Syria is none of our business (how is that?)

  41. Ryder . I just agree… Amanda `s story is something… last monday I got a top of the range Alfa Romeo from having made $5127 this last 5 weeks and-in excess of, 10k lass-month . it’s by-far my favourite-job Ive ever done . I started this four months/ago and pretty much straight away started bringin home over $74, per-hour . hop over to this site
    ??????O????????????-+__+_+_+ https://tinyurl.com/2dayjob-com -*-*-*-*-*-*???????-

  42. As I see it, the issue with Trump is NOT that he wants good relations with Russia. Rather it is that Trump seems to think Putinism is a valid even exemplary system of government.

  43. the hypothesis that Russia is blackmailing Trump just raises too many unanswered questions. If it is true, then what do they actually have on him? When and where did they get such compromising information? How would the intelligence community know that Russia is blackmailing Trump if they don’t know what they are blackmailing him with? If the intelligence community does know what Russia has on Trump, then why hasn’t anyone come forward and revealed it to the public yet?

  44. This is a very pretentious article. The author assumes that all the hyperbolic attacks from the left are objective, and fails to understand what is really going on, and the historical precedent for it. While all the claims of rigging voting machines and blackmail are ridiculous, there is a strategic reason for forming an alliance with Russia. The USA, China and Russia are the world’s three superpowers, and it makes sense for the USA to form an alliance with one of them, lest China and Russia form an alliance to gang up on us. Trump believes an alliance with Russia against China makes more sense than an alliance with China against Russia. The author is apparently ignorant of history. During World War II, the USA formed an alliance with Russia in order to defeat Germany–and Russia was far more evil then than it is now. Russia then was one of the worst communist dictatorships in history, and Stalin murdered more poeple than Hitler. If the USA could form a strategic alliance then with Russia, I see no reason why they can’t now.

  45. Ryder . I just agree… Amanda `s story is something… last monday I got a top of the range Alfa Romeo from having made $5127 this last 5 weeks and-in excess of, 10k lass-month . it’s by-far my favourite-job Ive ever done . I started this four months/ago and pretty much straight away started bringin home over $74, per-hour . hop over to this site
    https://tinyurl.com/startjobmoney11

  46. Holy shit people – the Soviet Union is bye-bye. The “Orange Revolution” has CIA fingerprints all over it, so let’s not conflate the Ukrainian issue with Russian expansionism. Are we not SLIGHTLY better off having a “polite” relationship with one of the three countries on earth that’s got as many megatons as Keith Richards has lives? I hated them damn russkies as much as the next fellow, but another fucking cold war only benefits the neocons – with whom (wild guess here) few libertarian-minded people find much to agree about on foreign policy. Plus, Putin wrestles BEARS! QED

  47. I looked at the check for $8628 , I didnt believe that…my… father in law was like actualie taking home money in there spare time on there computar. . there sisters roommate haz done this for under 17 months and just cleard the morgage on there apartment and got a gorgeous Chevrolet Corvette . go to websit========= http://www.net.pro70.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.