The Kremlin Caucus
-
Hey, if we're going to focus on policies rather than personalities, how about examining Trump's policy on dealing with these two abject scumbags?
-
I don't think Trump has a policy for dealing with you and Jon...
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
-
@Jolly said in The Kremlin Caucus:
I don't think Trump has a policy for dealing with you and Jon...
3/10. You tried, you failed.
Do you agree with what these two idiots wrote?
-
Partially.
- I don't think the U.S. is the world's policeman. It is not worth our blood or treasure. I look at Ukraine as primarily a European problem that should have generated a European response.
- Russians are paranoid, Putin moreso. NATO expansion (and we were talking about that before the Ukraine War) does put them to thinking the worst.
I'm not as America First as either RFK or Tulsi, but I don't think either are absolute idiots.
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
Partially.
- I don't think the U.S. is the world's policeman. It is not worth our blood or treasure. I look at Ukraine as primarily a European problem that should have generated a European response.
- Russians are paranoid, Putin moreso. NATO expansion (and we were talking about that before the Ukraine War) does put them to thinking the worst.
I'm not as America First as either RFK or Tulsi, but I don't think either are absolute idiots.
@Jolly said in The Kremlin Caucus:
Partially.
- I don't think the U.S. is the world's policeman. It is not worth our blood or treasure. I look at Ukraine as primarily a European problem that should have generated a European response.
- Russians are paranoid, Putin moreso. NATO expansion (and we were talking about that before the Ukraine War) does put them to thinking the worst.
I'm not as America First as either RFK or Tulsi, but I don't think either are absolute idiots.
Based on what they're writing I've got a pretty good idea of where they'd have stood in the 1930's. Just like RFK's Masshole grandfather.
-
@Jolly said in The Kremlin Caucus:
Partially.
- I don't think the U.S. is the world's policeman. It is not worth our blood or treasure. I look at Ukraine as primarily a European problem that should have generated a European response.
- Russians are paranoid, Putin moreso. NATO expansion (and we were talking about that before the Ukraine War) does put them to thinking the worst.
I'm not as America First as either RFK or Tulsi, but I don't think either are absolute idiots.
Based on what they're writing I've got a pretty good idea of where they'd have stood in the 1930's. Just like RFK's Masshole grandfather.
@Doctor-Phibes said in The Kremlin Caucus:
@Jolly said in The Kremlin Caucus:
Partially.
- I don't think the U.S. is the world's policeman. It is not worth our blood or treasure. I look at Ukraine as primarily a European problem that should have generated a European response.
- Russians are paranoid, Putin moreso. NATO expansion (and we were talking about that before the Ukraine War) does put them to thinking the worst.
I'm not as America First as either RFK or Tulsi, but I don't think either are absolute idiots.
Based on what they're writing I've got a pretty good idea of where they'd have stood in the 1930's. Just like RFK's Masshole grandfather.
Channeling your inner KathyK this morning, I see...
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in The Kremlin Caucus:
@Jolly said in The Kremlin Caucus:
Partially.
- I don't think the U.S. is the world's policeman. It is not worth our blood or treasure. I look at Ukraine as primarily a European problem that should have generated a European response.
- Russians are paranoid, Putin moreso. NATO expansion (and we were talking about that before the Ukraine War) does put them to thinking the worst.
I'm not as America First as either RFK or Tulsi, but I don't think either are absolute idiots.
Based on what they're writing I've got a pretty good idea of where they'd have stood in the 1930's. Just like RFK's Masshole grandfather.
Channeling your inner KathyK this morning, I see...
@Jolly said in The Kremlin Caucus:
Channeling your inner KathyK this morning, I see...
Hardly. What these two are doing is undermining allies of the US who are engaged in an active war. Joseph Kennedy did the same thing in Britain during the London Blitz.
-
@Jolly said in The Kremlin Caucus:
Channeling your inner KathyK this morning, I see...
Hardly. What these two are doing is undermining allies of the US who are engaged in an active war. Joseph Kennedy did the same thing in Britain during the London Blitz.
@Doctor-Phibes said in The Kremlin Caucus:
@Jolly said in The Kremlin Caucus:
Channeling your inner KathyK this morning, I see...
Hardly. What these two are doing is undermining allies of the US who are engaged in an active war. Joseph Kennedy did the same thing in Britain during the London Blitz.
No, these two don't think we have a lot of business protecting a corrupt regime, without a vital natural interest at stake. Now, one can certainly disagree with that viewpoint, but having that viewpoint does not mean they're crazy.
BTW, back to WW2...The U.S. declared war on Japan, December 8, 1941. The U.S. did not declare war on the Third Reich until after Germany declared war on the U.S., four days after Pearl Harbor.
So here's an interesting thought exercise...If Hitler had not declared war on the U.S., when (or if) would the U.S. gave gone to war with Germany?
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
I don’t think either are idiots either. They are simply dead wrong in their assessment of Putin’s Russia and the role of NATO.
Russia was given every opportunity practicable in 1990’s and into the 2000’s towards a working relationship alongside rather than in opposition to NATO. There was even the possibility of a future membership. When it became apparent to the Kremlin that it could not dictate its conditions of cooperation or receive special privileges to joining the alliance it unilaterally chose to remain in opposition. Putin knows very well that NATO is exclusively a defensive alliance.
Kennedy and Gabbard either do not understand this inconvenient fact or have choosen to ignore it. Kennedy is a nutter and Gabbard should know better given her military rank as a reservist Lt Col..
-
OK, I admit maybe 'idiots' was being charitable.
Crazy and cynical then.
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in The Kremlin Caucus:
@Jolly said in The Kremlin Caucus:
Channeling your inner KathyK this morning, I see...
Hardly. What these two are doing is undermining allies of the US who are engaged in an active war. Joseph Kennedy did the same thing in Britain during the London Blitz.
No, these two don't think we have a lot of business protecting a corrupt regime, without a vital natural interest at stake. Now, one can certainly disagree with that viewpoint, but having that viewpoint does not mean they're crazy.
BTW, back to WW2...The U.S. declared war on Japan, December 8, 1941. The U.S. did not declare war on the Third Reich until after Germany declared war on the U.S., four days after Pearl Harbor.
So here's an interesting thought exercise...If Hitler had not declared war on the U.S., when (or if) would the U.S. gave gone to war with Germany?
So here's an interesting thought exercise...If Hitler had not declared war on the U.S., when (or if) would the U.S. gave gone to war with Germany?
Actually it is not an interesting thought exercise in this conversation. Rather it’s one of your signature distractors from the topic at hand. It is irrelevant to the present day situation. You’ve tried to use it before in similar discussions here. Didn’t work then and won’t work now.
-
I’ve commented before on here about channel flipping one night and running across OANN playing the Russian national anthem and a short film glorifying Mother Russia. It was very weird. Ever since, I’ve been suspicious of Russian influences in conservative media.
-
The view from an adjacent conservative channel I follow, who's friends with Lauren Chen and her husband:
Link to video -
Can you tl;dw it?
It’s plausible, though hardly exculpatory, that Dave ‘the tool’ Rubin and Tim ‘civil war now’ Poole didn’t know that the anonymous people giving them a million dollars weren’t the Russians. (That is to say, they were not only useful, but also idiots).
But Lauren Chen is in all probability dead to rights guilty. Read the indictment.
-
It's not a defense of Chen. He terms the affair "devastating" to her reputation.
I still find it easy to believe that Rubin et al had full editorial control over their content, regardless of their lack of due diligence about where the money was coming from. (They were told it was a French billionaire, but didn't investigate too hard.) Having opinions that Russia likes Americans to have, is not proof that those opinions are bought and paid for by Russia. Especially not when the commentators were established and didn't perceptibly change after their contract with Chen's company.
