What's really embarrassing is how all other candidates support sanctions on Russia , a country which is less of a threat than a wannabe caliphate which can't beat a bunch of communists who are fighting one of the strongest countries in Europe/Middle East.

Because economic sanctions is exactly how you keep less threatening countries in check when it's too painful to invest military resources. Obviously you have to calculate the damage on your side (farm profits in Eastern Europe are plummeting, and countries like Germany don't like increased gas prices) but Obama's already been pretty straightforward- Ukraine/etc. are not worth any more effort on America's part than this.

Gas prices increasing is good for europe. It will speed up the energy transition and force countries to find other sources of supply for gas, which will both reduce their russian dependence.

^ Yeah, but humans are naturally lazy, so while in the long run it is good for Europe, knyte says "countries like Germany don't like increased gas prices" -not that it isn't good for them.

Stop defending irresponsible warmongering on NATO's part. Sanctioning is most basic thing against to do against Russia, remove that and we won't be gearing up for war against them in Eastern Europe like we are now. Trump , and this pains me to say, is the one candidate who has a much smaller chance of starting a world war due to this. Russia is not a threat to the US in almost everyway. What makes war likely though, is sustained interference in conflicts like in Donbas and Syria (Putin left though, thank heavens), and sustained economic sanctions.

Trump flip-flopping is not an argument against Trump, it's a counterargument against the argument that Trump is (decently) constant in his stances (which is rarely argued, anyway). Cruz, Kasich and whoever else can just be good at hiding what they really want to do. Being a small politician doesn't mean you'll be the same as a big politician.

I'm assuming each politician will tell the truth about what they do, which is an assumption and may not happen, but there are no guesses otherwise. And I'd pick Trump, who says he is not going to grow the military forces out, over Cruz, who says he will.

What are you talking about? Trump's entire platform revolves around him promising not to be a RINO (Republican In Name Only) like most of the GOP, which keep getting voted into Congress by rank-and-file voters who hope that real conservative change will come to DC. However the entire point of exposing Trump's inconsistencies on policy is that Trump is a RINO and therefore can't be expected to fight the RINOs in Congress to bring conservative change. The number of times Cruz and Kasich have flip-flopped in their entire political careers is probably less than what Trump has done in a decade.

Russia is not a threat to the US in almost everyway. What makes war likely though, is sustained interference in conflicts like in Donbas and Syria (Putin left though, thank heavens), and sustained economic sanctions.

+1. Couldn't say it better myself. In my email conversations with Professor Cohen, he says the Russophobia of the neoconservative and neoliberal military establishment is a byproduct of forgetting Russia's place in the world post-Berlin Wall collapse. In almost every major indicator of international, military, economic, cultural, and geopolitical power Russia falls behind the USA. The idea that the US sent actual Congressman to Maidan Square to support an armed coup of Yanukovich is an absolute disgrace. That would be equivalent to Putin sending Duma members to help support the Texas secessionist party. Is the Donbas really worth American taxpayer money and military equipment? No. People like Senator McCain who try to frame it in the "We have to help them fight for Democracy!" narrative are living 30 years in the past where there was an actual legitimate national security interest in destroying Russian communism. Communism is dead and Russia actually poses less danger than China.

What are you talking about? Trump's entire platform revolves around him promising not to be a RINO (Republican In Name Only) like most of the GOP, which keep getting voted into Congress by rank-and-file voters who hope that real conservative change will come to DC.

Yeah, that's a big bit of his campaign, and that's a counter-argument against that, but frankly, even the stuff he says he's going to do, most of it is not very radic.

Trump is a RINO and therefore can't be expected to fight the RINOs in Congress to bring conservative change.

Is it somehow un-Republican to grow the military? Congress is conservative and wants more, I don't know what you're talking about, but all the Republicans at this point are definitely pretty conservative.

The number of times Cruz and Kasich have flip-flopped in their entire political careers is probably less than what Trump has done in a decade.

Again, knowing what they did as a small politician won't help much to forecast what they'll do as a big politician.

Professor Cohen

Who's that? It's clear you're trying to brag here, or at least, bring in an "expert source", but I have no idea who you're talking about. Cohen is a kind of popular Germanic last name.

Russia actually poses less danger than China.

China is actually very dangerous to America, on the other hand. American military forces and propaganda are poking the wrong foe, with all its propoganda against China, like "Chinese South Sea Aggression". China's trying to secure it's claimed borders, in the meantime, America is trying to start something. Also, America better make friends with India, too.

Edited 3/16/2016 22:08:09

even the stuff he says he's going to do, most of it is not very radic.

1) Banning muslim entry
2) Deporting 11-12 million illegal immigrants

Many would consider that radical :P

Is it somehow un-Republican to grow the military?

Based on my definition of what it means to be Conservative and a Republican, yes it is contrary to historical political philosophy to grow the military.

Again, knowing what they did as a small politician won't help much to forecast what they'll do as a big politician.

Cruz was never a small anything. He clerked with Supreme Court Justice Rehnquist, was the Associate Deputy Attorney General of the DoJ, was the Texas Solicitor General, and then US Senator for Texas. Throughout that time, he hasn't changed much.

Who's that? It's clear you're trying to brag here, or at least, bring in an "expert source", but I have no idea who you're talking about. Cohen is a kind of popular last name.

Apologies. Professor Stephen F. Cohen is professor emeritus of Princeton and NYU, and his area of expertise is in Russian History. During the 2014 unrest in Ukraine he was heavily criticized for his pro-Russian views with people like Christiane Amanpour calling him an apologist for Putin. Cohen argues that the media stifles anyone who even tries to understand the situation from the Kremlin's perspective and he regularly writes for The Nation, a progressive and non-interventionist newspaper that endorsed Bernie Sanders. Cohen believes that US foreign policy is responsible for the continuation of Cold War hostilities between the two countries despite its end in 1991, citing NATO's eastward expansion as evidence for his hypothesis.

I would watch this - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rX_HuMiP8v8

I only know him because I organized for him to speak at our High School about the importance of civic nationalism and history for democracy.

1) Banning muslim entry
2) Deporting 11-12 million illegal immigrants

Many would consider that radical :P

If that's what he really meant, just illegalising all Muslims from coming in, that's not going to be allowed. Lowering Muslim immigration and anti-immigration in gener, though, is nothing radic.

Based on my definition of what it means to be Conservative and a Republican, yes it is contrary to historical political philosophy to grow the military.

You're a libertarian, not a conserve. A conserve wants more government control, a libertarian less. Also, the meaning of Republican (with uppercase R) is whatever the Republican party wants right now, which is conservism.

Cruz was never a small anything. He clerked with Supreme Court Justice Rehnquist, was the Associate Deputy Attorney General of the DoJ, was the Texas Solicitor General, and then US Senator for Texas. Throughout that time, he hasn't changed much.

So was Cruz not a small politician in these years?

Professor Stephen F. Cohen is professor emeritus of Princeton and NYU, and his area of expertise is in Russian History. During the 2014 unrest in Ukraine he was heavily criticized for his pro-Russian views with people like Christiane Amanpour calling him an apologist for Putin. Cohen argues that the media stifles anyone who even tries to understand the situation from the Kremlin's perspect

"understanding the situation from the Kremlin's perspect" is also a mistake. Russia was not justified to invade Ukraine, nor take Crimea, nor invade Syria. However, what is not a mistake, is to look at it in relativity, was America justified to send weapons and militarymen to Ukraine, either, or invade Iraq or Afghanistan? Very much no.

What does the Republican party want to do right now? Suck RR's dead dick.

Russia was not justified to invade Ukraine, nor take Crimea, nor invade Syria.

Russia didn't do #1 or #3. And #2 was justified by a democratic referendum, which the West is just unwilling to accept as true and so smears it as a rigged election even thought they have no proof of such a thing occurring. Also Putin had permission from Assad, the democratically elected leader of Syria, to engage in military engagements against ISIS in Syria.

So was Cruz not a small politician in these years?

No he wasn't. Being a small politician would be like serving in your state legislature or being part of your local government.

Edited 3/16/2016 23:13:20

Hehe, Assad was only kind of democratically elected ;) although I agree with pretty much the above. Mindlessly antagonising Russia is not getting anybody anywhere.

Being a senator isn't smalltime. Plus he came from texas.

         -----------------------
         |        |             |
         | __/\__ |             |
         | '.  .' |_____________|
         |  /..\  |             |
         |  `  `  |             |
         |        |             |
         '--------'-------------'

Everything's bigger in Texas.

EDIT: Warlight hates ascii.

Edited 3/16/2016 23:50:44

thomas. use this: https://i.gyazo.com/127d169e899dc0f9622ec308fd3de83c.png

thx, looks like the actual flag now.

The issue with popular sovereignty is bleeding Kansas

Russia was not justified to invade Ukraine, nor take Crimea, nor invade Syria.

Russia didn't do #1 or #3. And #2 was justified by a democratic referendum, which the West is just unwilling to accept as true and so smears it as a rigged election even thought they have no proof of such a thing occurring.

Please don't be propogandised by RT, I don't want to deal with both a patriotic American and a patriotic Russian. Now, technically, it hasn't really invaded Rada Ukraine, but it definitely is bullying it, and there was loads of propoganda for it in Russia, the #ПутинВвдеиВойска (PutinSendtheTroops) hashtag was trendy for a bit. Now, what it is doing is supporting separatist countries with an united Novorossiya-Starayarossiya armed force, and although it isn't sending too many troops there (yet, anyway), it has sent loads of military equipment.

Why on Earth would it be democratic? No major Russian election is democratic, and is it really democratic when the military forces are in Crimea, and the ones holding this? A few polls were taken found that majority of folk just wanted to keep on being an Ukrainian autonomous oblast, and it'd make sense - even with polls in Russian-dominated sites in Kazakhstan and other countries, they don't want to join the Russian homeland, they just don't want that kind of hassle. You know how much the Ossetians and Abkhazians wanted independence from Georgia? According to a few Russian/Abkhazian/Ossetian government-sponsored polls, in some sites, over 100%. That's how much they want independence from Georgia. 96% in Crimea? No way it's going to be that high. Almost every modern "democracy" has rigged votes - India, America, Brazil, Japan, Russia. And the more powerful the country is, the more likely the vote has to be rigged.

Yes, it obviously did invade Syria (though not attacking the SAR), you later say it yourself.

Also Putin had permission from Assad, the democratically elected leader of Syria, to engage in military engagements against ISIS in Syria.

And America had permission from Kurdistan, IR, NCSROF, and Base, while Russia has support only from the SAR and Kurdistan. Now, I know the SAR is UN-recognised - but so is the IR. And what importance is that anyway, UN membership? Do you really think Syria controls Er-Raqqa just since it is recognised to?

No he wasn't. Being a small politician would be like serving in your state legislature or being part of your local government.

We have different meanings, then. Small politician = anything not in the 2 seats with the most power (in America, president and I think vice president).

Do we rig? And evidence?

it hasn't really invaded Rada Ukraine, but it definitely is bullying it

You literally said Russia invaded Ukraine - "Russia was not justified to invade Ukraine" - and now you're saying it didn't invade it. And who cares about a little bullying?? Get out of the utopian world of rainbows and butterflies. This is geopolitics. This is the ugly reality of the world. Russia has a clear national security interest in protecting Eastern Europe from encroaching UN-NATO influence, and it took actions to protect itself. It never declared war on The Ukraine, did not sent soldiers into Rada Ukraine under orders from the Duma, and did not try to lead a coup of the "democratically elected" Petro Poroshenko.

Why on Earth would it be democratic? No major Russian election is democratic, and is it really democratic when the military forces are in Crimea, and the ones holding this?

Putin's approval ratings according to the Levada Center are nearly 90%. Putin has no need to rig Russian elections when he already has incredible popularity and public support. And don't come back saying Levada Center is a propaganda arm: "Since it was founded in 1987, originally as the All-Union Public Opinion Research Center, the Levada Center has conducted the country's most credible surveys on social and political topics. It is known around the world for its objectivity and professionalism."

http://www.theguardian.com/world/datablog/2015/jul/23/vladimir-putins-approval-rating-at-record-levels

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/opinion/article/why-the-kremlin-hates-levada-center/480433.html

Also your point on how an election is democratic with the military forces in Crimea is completely irrelevant. You really think the Russian military was going to start shooting up Crimean citizens if they voted against joining Russia? That doesn't even make sense.

Yes, it obviously did invade Syria (though not attacking the SAR), you later say it yourself.

I said they had "permission from Assad, the democratically elected leader of Syria, to engage in military engagements against ISIS in Syria". Its not an invasion if they have permission. In the Gulf War of 1990 the US landed troops in Kuwait to liberate the nation. Would you call than invasion? I wouldn't considering they were there to free them and defeat the enemy (Iraq). The same situation applies here. Assad asks Putin for help to take out ISIS. Putin with clear permission engages in military activities. If anything, you can call US/NATO military activities in Syria an invasion because last time I checked they don't have permission from Assad to do so.

Edited 3/17/2016 01:39:03

Jai, Putin is only popular because of all the evil, murderous nationalists in Russia. They don't count as actual people though, so his support is really much lower.