The US leads the conga line of sanctions against Russia. The other nations reflexively fall in behind. They know that they'll be targeted with the weaponized dollar if they don't.

Mike_L wrote:The US leads the conga line of sanctions against Russia. The other nations reflexively fall in behind. They know that they'll be targeted with the weaponized dollar if they don't.

All you've got Mike are assertions.

Are you getting these assertions from RT?

Mike_L wrote:The US leads the conga line of sanctions against Russia. The other nations reflexively fall in behind. They know that they'll be targeted with the weaponized dollar if they don't.

Your source:

This is the result of the 1944 Bretton Woods agreement, the effect of which was enhanced when the link between the dollar and gold ended in the 1971 Nixon shock, allowing America to control the supply of the currency.

What has any of this got to do with the topic, "President Trump Watch"? Remember, he's the dotard who thinks windmills cause cancer. Economic theory and associated wibbles are irrelevant unless they satisfy his personal greed.
[/off topic]
Meanwhile, do you have any news on the concentration camps?

newolder wrote:

Mike_L wrote:...

No "gaslighting" needed. Anyone who refuses to recognise the dangers of a weaponised dollar in the hands of Trump is genuinely insane.
This is an administration that openly threatens its supposed allies with economic warfare...

The gaslighting is when you post a link to a document that has nothing to do with Trumpian policies or the US dollar (it was about EU sanctions and all currency references were to the Euro) then try to make me read some RT disinformation or other to make me doubt my own sanity.

EU sanctions that were led by the US, first by the Obama administration and continued by the Trump administration. (Granted, I could've chosen a better article to make that point).
If you look at the timeline of sanctions in the Wikipedia entry, it's clear that the US took the lead role. And, from the same entry...

On 3 October 2014, US Vice President Joe Biden said that "It was America's leadership and the president of the United States insisting, oft times almost having to embarrass Europe to stand up and take economic hits to impose costs".

This is the sort of US bullying of its allies to which I'm referring. It's even more starkly revealed in the other article I referenced... the one about the US imposing a huge fine on a French bank that dared to do business in Cuba and Iran.

newolder wrote:

You sarcastically asked...

newolder wrote:Meanwhile, do you have any news on the concentration camps?

What sarcasm?

...and you got a sarcastic reply.
I'll decide for myself what my go-to source should be.

No, you posted a link to RT that you claimed were my friend. There was no accompanying [/sarcasm] in the post.

My mistake. I misread.
I retract and apologise.

You are free to go wherever you like for source material. How's that working out for you at a skeptic's forum?

Skepticism (especially as it relates to politics) sometimes involves a consideration of contrary views. To the extent that RT.com usually presents the views of the opposing side, it has a place here, IMO.

Mike_L wrote:...

Skepticism (especially as it relates to politics) sometimes involves a consideration of contrary views. To the extent that RT.com usually presents the views of the opposing side, it has a place here, IMO.

So long as you are aware that former RT reporters know that its not to be trusted in its reporting (via wikipedia),

...

RT has been frequently described as a propaganda outlet for the Russian government and its foreign policy. RT has also been accused of spreading disinformation by news reporters, including some former RT reporters.

and you know when they are attempting to pull the wool over your eyes, you should be able to exercise doubt and take their output with a truckload of salt. Otherwise, you remain part of the problem by passing on the disinformation without questioning the claims.

Hitherto, your opinion is as valuable as that of a trickster's mark.

Mike_L wrote:

newolder wrote:

Mike_L wrote:...

No "gaslighting" needed. Anyone who refuses to recognise the dangers of a weaponised dollar in the hands of Trump is genuinely insane.
This is an administration that openly threatens its supposed allies with economic warfare...

The gaslighting is when you post a link to a document that has nothing to do with Trumpian policies or the US dollar (it was about EU sanctions and all currency references were to the Euro) then try to make me read some RT disinformation or other to make me doubt my own sanity.

EU sanctions that were led by the US, first by the Obama administration and continued by the Trump administration. (Granted, I could've chosen a better article to make that point).
If you look at the timeline of sanctions in the Wikipedia entry, it's clear that the US took the lead role. And, from the same entry...

On 3 October 2014, US Vice President Joe Biden said that "It was America's leadership and the president of the United States insisting, oft times almost having to embarrass Europe to stand up and take economic hits to impose costs".

Further gaslighting - Joe Biden is not Trump.

newolder wrote:

Mike_L wrote:...

Skepticism (especially as it relates to politics) sometimes involves a consideration of contrary views. To the extent that RT.com usually presents the views of the opposing side, it has a place here, IMO.

So long as you are aware that former RT reporters know that its not to be trusted in its reporting (via wikipedia),

...

RT has been frequently described as a propaganda outlet for the Russian government and its foreign policy. RT has also been accused of spreading disinformation by news reporters, including some former RT reporters.

and you know when they are attempting to pull the wool over your eyes, you should be able to exercise doubt and take their output with a truckload of salt. Otherwise, you remain part of the problem by passing on the disinformation without questioning the claims.

Hitherto, your opinion is as valuable as that of a trickster's mark.

Yes, just like the BBC is all too frequently a propaganda outlet for the British government.

BBC propaganda cartoon:



RT propaganda to counter BBC propaganda. Creates a nice balance for skeptics.

______________________________________

newolder wrote:

Mike_L wrote:

newolder wrote:

Mike_L wrote:...

No "gaslighting" needed. Anyone who refuses to recognise the dangers of a weaponised dollar in the hands of Trump is genuinely insane.
This is an administration that openly threatens its supposed allies with economic warfare...

The gaslighting is when you post a link to a document that has nothing to do with Trumpian policies or the US dollar (it was about EU sanctions and all currency references were to the Euro) then try to make me read some RT disinformation or other to make me doubt my own sanity.

EU sanctions that were led by the US, first by the Obama administration and continued by the Trump administration. (Granted, I could've chosen a better article to make that point).
If you look at the timeline of sanctions in the Wikipedia entry, it's clear that the US took the lead role. And, from the same entry...

On 3 October 2014, US Vice President Joe Biden said that "It was America's leadership and the president of the United States insisting, oft times almost having to embarrass Europe to stand up and take economic hits to impose costs".

Further gaslighting - Joe Biden is not Trump.

Yes, Trump is merely continuing the sanctions put in place by the previous administration. Kind-of supports what I previously said about US policy that spans administrations.

Yes, Trump is merely continuing the sanctions put in place by the previous administration. Kind-of supports what I previously said about US policy that spans administrations.

Or it kind of means that the reason why sanctions were levied against Russia - for its illegal military attack on another nation resulting in Crimea and Sevastapol being annexed in imperialistic fashion - haven't changed, and actually shows that punishment for such behavior isn't tribalistic politics but is recognized internationally as being wholly unacceptable in the modern era.

Annexation is wholly unacceptable if Russia does it (even if the territory concerned is historically Russian, and the annexation takes place with strong majority support of the territory's population).
Perhaps Putin's mistake was to do it all in one go. Perhaps if he had done it piecemeal over several years -- say, by building settlements -- he would've got multi-billion dollar aid from Washington instead of sanctions.

Mike_L wrote:Annexation is wholly unacceptable if Russia does it (even if the territory concerned is historically Russian,...

It's 'historically' Russian like it's 'historically" Turkish like it's 'historically' Mongolian like it's 'historically' Roman like it's 'historically' Persian, and so on. Once again, this is wholly irrelevant nonsense conjured up by despots to legitimize their illegal land-grab.

Mike_L wrote:...and the annexation takes place with strong majority support of the territory's population).

Which is not only incredibly naive to believe that vote is legitimate, but is also very similar to how Russia came about annexing Crimea in the first place under Catherine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexatio ... tion_(1783)

In March 1783, Prince Potemkin made a rhetorical push to encourage Empress Catherine to annex Crimea. Having just returned from Crimea, he told her that many Crimeans would "happily" submit to Russian rule. Encouraged by this news, Empress Catherine issued a formal proclamation of annexation on 19 April [O.S. 8 April] 1783.[1][12] Tatars did not resist the annexation. After years of turmoil, the Crimeans lacked the resources and the will to continue fighting. Many fled the peninsula, leaving for Anatolia

Mike_L wrote:Perhaps Putin's mistake was to do it all in one go.

Or, you know, to do it at all.

Mike_L wrote: Perhaps if he had done it piecemeal over several years -- say, by building settlements -- he would've got multi-billion dollar aid from Washington instead of sanctions.

Perhaps the Soviet propaganda strategy of whataboutism makes it alright then?

Also incredibly ironic considering historical facts, the USSR settled ethnic Russians and forcibly deported native residents in satellite territories expressly to pull shit like this.

Mike_L wrote:Annexation is wholly unacceptable if Russia does it (even if the territory concerned is historically Russian,

No more than it is historically Turkish.

Mike_L wrote:...

Yes, just like the BBC is all too frequently a propaganda outlet for the British government.

Since you are incapable to stay on topic (Trump) for even 1 sentence, I'm going to ignore the rest of your whataboutism hereabouts.

If you're going to bash Empress Catherine over Crimea, then you can just as well bash King George III over modern-day Australia or bash Queen Isabella over modern-day America. Pointless. What's instructive is to consider recent history... i.e. the history that has shaped the makeup of the current population... you know, the people actually living there at the moment, rather than the ones who are a couple of centuries gone.

According to Wikipedia, nearly 68% of Crimea is ethnic Russian, with 83% of the total population speaking exclusively Russian.

Spearthrower wrote:

Mike_L wrote:...and the annexation takes place with strong majority support of the territory's population).

Which is not only incredibly naive to believe that vote is legitimate, but is also very similar to how Russia came about annexing Crimea in the first place under Catherine.

That link is not about the referendum, which you can say is worthless if you want, because of the circumstances under which it took place.
It's about post-referendum polls that show majority support in Crimea for the territory being restored as part of Russia...

According to survey carried out by Pew Research Center in April 2014, majority of Crimean residents say the referendum was free and fair (91%) and that the government in Kyiv ought to recognize the results of the vote (88%).

Spearthrower wrote:

Mike_L wrote: Perhaps if he had done it piecemeal over several years -- say, by building settlements -- he would've got multi-billion dollar aid from Washington instead of sanctions.

Perhaps the Soviet propaganda strategy of whataboutism makes it alright then?

Whether or not it makes it alright is up to you. What it does is to reveal the double standard of the US. The blatant hypocrisy, to put it more directly.
The furore over the annexation of Crimea is a pretext for ramping up the decades-old policy of weakening Russia... i.e. "to prevent the emergence of a new rival".

Mike_L wrote:If you're going to bash Empress Catherine over Crimea,

If you're going to respond to fantastical posts, ie straw-men, there's no point in having a discussion with you.

Correct.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Mike_L wrote:If you're going to bash Empress Catherine over Crimea,

If you're going to respond to fantastical posts, ie straw-men, there's no point in having a discussion with you.

Well, perhaps Spearthrower shouldn't have erected the strawman in the first place.

The thread has been off course for several pages already... something for which I'm partly (not solely) responsible.
And it's a case of "around and around". I've made my points about the annexation of Crimea over and over. The majority here will not be swayed by my arguments, nor I by theirs.

So let the thread go back to Trump. I agree with all of you that he's a buffoon, and an odious one at that. (Vlad and I are very disappointed that he hasn't lifted the sanctions).
Back to "Trump watch" is fine by me.

Mike_L wrote:(Vlad and I are very disappointed that he hasn't lifted the sanctions).

You only seem to have a problem here that somebody is more powerful than somebody else. Suck it up, buttercup. When you finally can make a case for whatever it is you seem to think you have a case for, you'll do it. Iran is just as full of fucknuttery as the US is, if not more so. What predicates your choices? Let me guess.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Mike_L wrote:(Vlad and I are very disappointed that he hasn't lifted the sanctions).

You only seem to have a problem here that somebody is more powerful than somebody else. Suck it up, buttercup. When you finally can make a case for whatever it is you seem to think you have a case for, you'll do it. Iran is just as full of fucknuttery as the US is, if not more so. What predicates your choices? Let me guess.

I'm sure your guess is as good as mine.

Mike_L wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

Mike_L wrote:(Vlad and I are very disappointed that he hasn't lifted the sanctions).

You only seem to have a problem here that somebody is more powerful than somebody else. Suck it up, buttercup. When you finally can make a case for whatever it is you seem to think you have a case for, you'll do it. Iran is just as full of fucknuttery as the US is, if not more so. What predicates your choices? Let me guess.

I'm sure your guess is as good as mine.

God forbid my guess should be better than yours, as it very well might be. In that case you're just one more with a left hand that doesn't know what its right hand is doing. When you have the balls to say what your own guess is, you'll let me know.

I don't know why the US economic model has a better track record than the Russian one, but it does. It won't last forever, but until then, your left hand is stuck not knowing what your right is doing, unless, as I suspect, both are tucked up your arse.

Mike_L wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Mike_L wrote:If you're going to bash Empress Catherine over Crimea,

If you're going to respond to fantastical posts, ie straw-men, there's no point in having a discussion with you.

Well, perhaps Spearthrower shouldn't have erected the strawman in the first place.

You've just demonstrated you don't know what a straw-man is. Which is a misrepresentation of your interlocutors argument.
Neither I nor ST bashed Catherine. We simply pointed out that your argument about Crimea being historically Russian is nonsensical as it's historically belonged to many nations.

Mike_L wrote:
The thread has been off course for several pages already... something for which I'm partly (not solely) responsible.
And it's a case of "around and around". I've made my points about the annexation of Crimea over and over. The majority here will not be swayed by my arguments, nor I by theirs.

None of that validates or justifies your straw-manning.