So what's the deal with Russia?

Post Reply New Topic

LOL....I only did that once!

If I'm really interested in what I'm reading, I can read very many pages.

Historically, "liberals" have had less animosity with Russia than "conservatives; this was especially true during the Cold War (1946-1991). Nowadays, the tables have been turned, so to speak, because of Russia's possible shenanigans pertaining to the 2016 US elections.

You guys are allowed to talk about politics on here?

The most I have read is 200 pages per day.

I don't know. LBJ and Truman were sending troops into Vietnam and Korea to fight the Communists big time. By comparison, Ike, Nixon and Reagan were all sitting down at the table to discuss with the Soviets.

I would by an large expect the Liberals to hold a far less hawkish position in 2014 when Russia was invading Crimea but now that is not the case so much.

As for Truman, Eisenhower, and Reagan, we weren't involved militarily in Vietnam during their administrations.

Nixon was actually pretty hawkish when it came to Vietnam.

He wanted to establish some sort of "relations" with Communist China and with the USSR---but he was an extreme anti-Communist (almost as bad as Joseph McCarthy!). He was much more vociferously anti-Communist than LBJ.

Huh I always thought Nixon a bit of a progressive, much more so than those Clintons anyway. Why is he like Mccarthy?

I am wondering as this thread progresses, how much of what I read will sound reasonable and how much will sound like superstition. "Putin is a bad man, everyone knows that, he hides in your closet and steals your candy when you're asleep, ask anyone".

Maybe the problem isn't with Russia itself, but rather with Vladimir himself; "There will be no peace with Russia as long as Putin is in charge".

Weve never held any grudge.

The grudge was forgotten in 1991.

There was even hope that the Russian Republic would join NATO. But Putin got rid of democracy in his country, is trying to take over Ukraine, and cyber attacked the US election. And he cyber attacks west european elections as well. So Russia under Putin is a hostile power.

The election hacks were more successful ( and hit closer to our homes here in America) than anything the Old Soviet Union ever did to us during the original Cold War. The old stogy soviet dictators were not nearly as savvy (socially, or tech-wise) as Putin and his modern henchmen are. So in may ways Putin is far more scary than seemingly more belligerent Soviet dictators of old were.

Nixon became "progressive" because he "felt the need" to become "progressive." Just like George Wallace.

George Wallace was a blatant segregationalist during the 1960s who supposedly "renounced" racism in the 1970s--probably because he felt it was politically expedient.

Read up on Nixon's 1950's activities. He was a young Congressman who was a crusader against communism and against "infiltration" by Communists into many US government departments.

I hate it when congressmen behave like that. They and their constituents think their oh so mighty for taking a stand against corruption when in actual fact their just being pieces of crap. Nixon sounds like the Ted Cruz of the 1950s some petty politician who wants attention.

Awhile back I made a thread when I was thinking about whether George Wallace actually renounced racism.

That's actually a very good analogy: Ted Cruz/Richard Nixon.

Very similar types. Very "earnest" about their conservatism.

Very much into obtaining attention to themselves.

Yeah "earnest." Only if that is a translation for modelling yourself as the prettiest politician in the room.

If their is one thing I don't like about our current political climate, people value looks and soundbites. The Marco Rubios, the Ted Cruzes as a result actual experienced people get thrown out of the way. As a result we don't get someone with substance.

Cruz and Nixon were alike in another way: they came from humble beginnings. Nixon much more so than Cruz, actually. Nixon could have been an Horatio Alger-type person had he not screwed up so badly.

Both were serious, earnest people at young ages. I'd have to say that both have "substance," but that both, as young people, didn't respect experience. And the didn't respect truth too much, either.

I just consider it very cheaty how politicians in the senate do very little, but entertain their constituents but then expect to be elected president. They haven't done their job and in all likelihood don't know how to be president well.

However come to think of it, I recognize that both Ted and Nixon are very smart people, who understand the political climate. But they have been destructive with the power they have had bestowed on them.

The "Senate" is called the "Senate" for a reason. They are the "upper house."

I believe this was the original intention of the Founding Fathers---to have a sort of non-hereditary "upper house" of people who are "above the fray."

The Senate is not quite like the House of Lords, though. They are more like the Roman Senate, except much less powerful.

I know, it just increasingly seems like a Game of Thrones. And words like "convictions" and "Sincere" get thrown around allot, most commonly by the politicians themselves. It just seems like people go into the senate, then compete for each of their party's pies. And people just accept it.