Putin congratulates Trump, hopes to cooperate to end RU-US relations crisis - Polidicks

[QUOTE=rndgenerator;51340315]What have you done to piss Russia off?[/QUOTE] It exists.

Almost all countries presidents congratulate new presidents, it is like thing you know being nice.

Ive been hearing this rumor of ww3 with russia, what a crock of shit from trumps mouth. Now that trum is prez we are looking at nato being crippled even more, and being extremely passive towards russia. The real winners in this election is russia, whos had their hands surprisingly deep in it.

[QUOTE=Simplemac3;51339547]I understand why you would want to avoid a war with Russia. I don't understand why you would want to be friends with Russia as they are now. They're a bunch of goddamn bullies. Meanwhile, I see the same people that laud Trump for trying to befriend Russia vilify Clinton because she's buddied up with Saudis in the past for the sake of politicking.[/QUOTE] You do realize America just elected a bully, right? A whiny, tantrum-throwing bully, but a bully all the same.

While there will be no war, I'm 100% sure of that. Most likely, power projection from the Russian government will be more frequent now.

Welp, with this kind of depressive mood all I can say is start learning Russian.

[QUOTE=antianan;51340152]What I don't understand is why you people think Trump is going to be a "friend" of Russia anyway. He was the guy who offered to shoot down our planes on sight, and, as far as i remember, he never did any official promises or statements indicating his good attitude towards Russia. His actual aims and motives are obviously completely different from the rhetoric used during his campaign and debates(or do you really think he's going to build that wall and do other crazy things he's promised). It can easily turn much worse for us, and i don't see a single reason why our clowns there in Kremlin think his victory is a good thing for Russia.[/QUOTE] Well the clowns in Kremlin believe Trump is better than Clinton, not necessarily that it's a good thing on its own. Trump expressed very little interest in Syria and the like where our junta is invested in, unlike Hillary, so betting on him being better for Putin's shenanigans seems reasonable. I don't think Trump will be hostile towards Russia, but this "Putin's puppet that'll dissolve NATO" shit is going overboard. There're more legit reasons to dislike (and maybe hate even) Trump than that.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;51339754]She "pretty much" was calling for no such thing.[/QUOTE] Seriously? Hillary utterly hates putin. The reset basically came to an end with her comments regarding the election of putin just two years after the reset. After it became clear the russian silent majority was bitterly opposed to the russian liberalism clinton pushed and we funded, she wrote them off. From there on she was a hawk advocate of countering their renewed resistance to our march eastwards and exploitation of middle eastern instability to depose formerly soviet supported Arab nationalist states in alliance with sunni powers, a phenomenon with dangerous implications for Russia's Caucasus. She wanted a no fly zone in Syria and to escalate the cyber war. Her state department favorite victoria nuland is responsible for significant agitation in ukraine (and she was being eyed for secretary of state). She would have given more aid to color revolutionary-esque nationalist movements that alienate Russia from the european project and encircle it. She would have backed such with NATO and continued the economic warfare. Clinton represented the uncompromising liberal hawk that'd agitate a second world nation that failed to liberalize and, because of a silent majority quite like ours, turned inward into illiberal nationalism. Her loss is a victory for working people that don't want to die for globalist, neoliberal elites for the sake of spreading EU/NATO.

[QUOTE=maniacykt;51339511]Okay, now look here. Ukraine (or more specifically, Crimea) was a low risk/high chance of success type of affair that was achieved more or less without bloodshed on our part. Hence celebrations. Now imagine a hypothetical war with Finland or Norway or whatever whose standing army isn't in shit state (no offense to Ukraine) - death toll rises, [B]more and more coffins are bringing joy to mothers back home every day[/B], economy takes a huge dive and "Uh-oh guys, why aren't we winning?". People unhappy and boom! Riots/revolution and shit, regime doesn't want that, y'see?[/QUOTE] Can I just say that I really love this Russian brand of black humour?

[QUOTE=Broguts;51341494]Can I just say that I really love this Russian brand of black humour?[/QUOTE] Yeah, we're fuckin insensitive. Deal with it :v:

Good. The Russians will be caught by surprise when we invade.

-snip- I don't wanna be banned! I hope relations between Trump and Putin are not to the detriment of the American people.

[QUOTE=Smoot;51341645]-snip- I don't wanna be banned! I hope relations between Trump and Putin are not to the detriment of the American people.[/QUOTE] As well the detriment of european people. I honestly hope the European Federation start to exist at this point.

Oh, good. A terrifying, bigoted maniac of a politician extending a peace offering to [I]another[/I] terrifying, bigoted maniac of a politician. I'm sure that'll end well. Better relations with Russia is a nice idea, for certain. The only problem with this is that both Putin and Trump are [I]horrible fucking people.[/I]

[QUOTE=VintageCat;51339848]Visited the thread to say exactly that. I want cheap Steam games back.[/QUOTE] Boy I want cheap everything (wasn't even cheap in the first place)

[QUOTE=Conscript;51341429]Her loss is a victory for working people that don't want to die for globalist, neoliberal elites for the sake of spreading EU/NATO.[/QUOTE] People actually believe this garbage. Her loss is a loss for all US Allies and all minority groups in the country. It's a loss for freedoms like net neutrality, it's a loss for fighting climate change, it's a loss for the economy, it's a loss for civil rights. Prepare for ties to be cut (Cuba's first on the list), prepare for trade wars, prepare for corporate power grabs. We're gonna be hurt.

[QUOTE=Oizen;51339723]Hillary was pretty much calling for war with Russia. This is a good thing.[/QUOTE] when did trump supporters go from "attack iranian ships!!" to hippies

[QUOTE=Rudevinny;51343267]I don't even know how would Russia attack Finland. What are they going to do, rile the combat-worthy fraction of 75k Finnish Russians into forming militias and "People's" Republics on Finnish land? Against approximately 22000 active conscripts and 900000 reserves?[/QUOTE] Helsinki would be overtaken in hours, the guerilla war that follows would take years. Good thing we got shitloads of anti-air and artillery, so at least we can try to make it very expensive to attack.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;51343118]People actually believe this garbage. Her loss is a loss for all US Allies and all minority groups in the country. It's a loss for freedoms like net neutrality, it's a loss for fighting climate change, it's a loss for the economy, it's a loss for civil rights. Prepare for ties to be cut (Cuba's first on the list), prepare for trade wars, prepare for corporate power grabs. We're gonna be hurt.[/QUOTE] US allies didn't need protection before and they don't need it now, no NATO member is under threat of invasion or ever was. What you mean to say is the collusion between a few antagonistic eastern european states and america to keep the continent divided and Russia and Germany from ever getting friendly and challenging the anglosphere, is over. Minorities don't lose unless you think being held to civic nationalist standards is a loss. Clinton isn't for net neutrality at all. Civil rights are untouched, you are still equal before the law. Climate change is a touchy topic but important to look at from a different angle if you want a national economy that remains competitive. A loss for the economy is just another way of saying an international system of capitalism punishes nationalism. Trump doesn't believe in regime change, and he was the candidate with no wall street backing, major news sponsorships, and takes a stand against rootless international corporations. There's really nothing you said here that's correct, except for trade wars and climate change.

[QUOTE=Conscript;51343476]US allies didn't need protection before and they don't need it now, no NATO member is under threat of invasion or ever was. What you mean to say is the collusion between a few antagonistic eastern european states and america to keep the continent divided and Russia and Germany from ever getting friendly and challenging the anglosphere, is over. Minorities don't lose unless you think being held to civic nationalist standards is a loss. Clinton isn't for net neutrality at all. Civil rights are untouched, you are still equal before the law. Climate change is a touchy topic but important to look at from a different angle if you want a national economy that remains competitive. A loss for the economy is just another way of saying an international system of capitalism punishes nationalism. Trump doesn't believe in regime change, and he was the candidate with no wall street backing, major news sponsorships, and takes a stand against rootless international corporations. There's really nothing you said here that's correct, except for trade wars and climate change.[/QUOTE] can you explain to me why you seem to be okay with the rise of nationalism? i've pinned you as a communist for a long time, but now you seem to rejoice from the fact that we are on the trail to a rebirth of fascism.

[QUOTE=Conscript;51343476]US allies didn't need protection before and they don't need it now, no NATO member is under threat of invasion or ever was. What you mean to say is the collusion between a few antagonistic eastern european states and america to keep the continent divided and Russia and Germany from ever getting friendly and challenging the anglosphere, is over. Minorities don't lose unless you think being held to civic nationalist standards is a loss. Clinton isn't for net neutrality at all. Civil rights are untouched, you are still equal before the law. Climate change is a touchy topic but important to look at from a different angle if you want a national economy that remains competitive. A loss for the economy is just another way of saying an international system of capitalism punishes nationalism. Trump doesn't believe in regime change, and he was the candidate with no wall street backing, major news sponsorships, and takes a stand against rootless international corporations. There's really nothing you said here that's correct, except for trade wars and climate change.[/QUOTE] Trump may not personally believe in regime changes, [URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1541027&p=51342878&viewfull=1#post51342878"]but his administration is a different matter[/URL]. You can't look at Trump in isolation even if you view him as a political outsider.

[QUOTE=Conscript;51343476]What you mean to say is the collusion between a few antagonistic eastern european states and america to keep the continent divided and Russia and Germany from ever getting friendly and challenging the anglosphere, is over.[/QUOTE] Oh yes, damn those evil Eastern Europeans for not liking the country that invaded and occupied them for decades, and puppet-master Germany waiting and watching for the opportunity to take over Europe from behind the curtains. [editline]9th November 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Conscript;51343476]Minorities don't lose unless you think being held to civic nationalist standards is a loss. Clinton isn't for net neutrality at all. Civil rights are untouched, you are still equal before the law. Climate change is a touchy topic but important to look at from a different angle if you want a national economy that remains competitive. A loss for the economy is just another way of saying an international system of capitalism punishes nationalism.[/QUOTE] Minorities do lose though. Trump's victory legitimizes the idea that Mexicans and Muslims do not belong in the US. He wants to instate a national policy of "Stop and Frisk" so that Police Officers nation-wide may be legally allowed to search non-white people without cause or warrant. It's going to drive hatred of law enforcement in non-white communities to new levels. His policies toward LGBT persons are harmful at best, but Pence's are downright inhuman. If Pence is allowed to get his way, LGBT persons will be prevented from marrying, and it will be legal to fire or refuse to hire or serve an LGBT employee or customer. Finally, Pence also supports Conversion Camps, which are so terrible they should be considered a human rights violation. So yeah, Civil Rights are severely violated there. As for Net Neutrality, Hillary has aligned with Obama's policy on it so far. Trump on the other hand flat out said he will not support it, and also went on to say that we should "close up" the internet so our enemies can't use it. Whatever the fuck that is supposed to mean. And with Climate Change, he flat out denies that it exists, and he is on the path to appointing cabinet members who believe the same. It's a shame that some industries will suffer, but new industries will grow and replace them. Not sure what you were rambling about with "regime change" though, I didn't say anything about that unless you misunderstood my comment about foreign relations.

[QUOTE=Conscript;51343476]US allies didn't need protection before and they don't need it now, no NATO member is under threat of invasion or ever was. What you mean to say is the collusion between a few antagonistic eastern european states and america to keep the continent divided and Russia and Germany from ever getting friendly and challenging the anglosphere, is over. [/QUOTE] Russia and Germany don't get friendly because their geopolitical goals are diametrically opposed. Germany in particular being the pillar of the EU. I'd also say that despite Brexit, they have a much stronger relationship with the Anglosphere than they could hope to gain from Russia. The idea that "no NATO member is under threat from invasion or ever was" is hilarious as the only reason NATO exists is because these countries clearly disagreed with you. But what do they know, globalism :tinfoil: [QUOTE=Conscript;51343476]Minorities don't lose unless you think being held to civic nationalist standards is a loss. [/QUOTE] Most minorities would consider this a loss yes. [QUOTE=Conscript;51343476]Clinton isn't for net neutrality at all.[/QUOTE] The election is over. What Clinton thought of net neutrality is pointless. Trump clearly doesn't value it, which is relevant since he is president. Try to stay on topic. [QUOTE=Conscript;51343476]Civil rights are untouched, you are still equal before the law. [/QUOTE] For now. [QUOTE=Conscript;51343476]Climate change is a touchy topic but important to look at from a different angle if you want a national economy that remains competitive. A loss for the economy is just another way of saying an international system of capitalism punishes nationalism.[/QUOTE] Climate change isn't a touchy topic nor should mitigating it be prioritized lower than "remaining competitive". [QUOTE=Conscript;51343476]Trump doesn't believe in regime change, and he was the candidate with no wall street backing, major news sponsorships, and takes a stand against rootless international corporations. There's really nothing you said here that's correct, except for trade wars and climate change.[/QUOTE] At this point I can't tell if you are lying or ignorant but woo buddy are you in for a rude awakening. Atleast it's a good thing you aren't part of the native working class you talk up so much who is going to get fucked by Trumpinomics :^)

[QUOTE=1legmidget;51343534]Trump may not personally believe in regime changes, [URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1541027&p=51342878&viewfull=1#post51342878"]but his administration is a different matter[/URL]. You can't look at Trump in isolation even if you view him as a political outsider.[/QUOTE] Newt Gingrich is a neocon. The nationalist alt right defined in reaction to their drawbacks, interventionism being one of them. What makes the Trumpists special is that they are not conservatives, they do not believe in values like small government, exporting democracy, and soon. I highly doubt they'd approve a war with Iran, for the same reason they wouldn't approve a war with Assad or Putin. [QUOTE=Mechanical43;51343509]can you explain to me why you seem to be okay with the rise of nationalism? i've pinned you as a communist for a long time, but now you seem to rejoice from the fact that we are on the trail to a rebirth of fascism.[/QUOTE] not okay, I see it as a natural consequence of the neoliberal center being so utterly shit because nobody western and especially working class benefits from it, and the collapse of the middle class/social mobility and polarization of politics necessarily means the rise of socialists and nationalists who offer popular alternatives. read this [quote]Who and what is responsible for the victory of Trump? First, the Clinton campaign and the Democratic Party, which were unwilling and incapable of presenting a program that could attract any significant popular support. Clinton waged her campaign on the lowest and most reactionary level. She combined claims that Trump was an agent of Putin—aimed at creating the framework for aggression against Russia-with denunciations of the working class as racist and “privileged.” Second, the administration of Barack Obama, elected eight years ago on pledges of “hope” and “change.” Obama won the support of large sections of the working class, including white workers, bitterly opposed to social inequality and the Bush administration’s policies of war and social reaction. During two full terms in office, Obama presided over unending war, a historic transfer of wealth to the ruling class, and the continued erosion of the living standards of the vast majority of the population. Obama’s signature domestic program, the Affordable Care Act, was an assault on health care packaged as a reform. In the final weeks of the election, millions of workers discovered that they are facing double-digit increases in health care costs. This was likely far more important in affecting the outcome of the election than the actions of FBI director James Comey in reviving the Clinton email scandal. Third, the trade unions, which for the past four decades of increasing social inequality have worked systematically to suppress the class struggle and maintain the political stranglehold of the Democratic Party. They have as well assiduously promoted reactionary economic nationalism, which is in line with Trump’s own platform. Fourth, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders and those organizations that promoted him. Sanders’ craven capitulation to Clinton—the logical outcome of his strategy of channeling opposition into the Democratic Party—ensured that opposition to the status quo would be monopolized by the political right. [b]The most significant Trump upsets came in states where Sanders had defeated Clinton by large margins in the Democratic Party primaries.[/b] [b]Behind all of this was the central ideological role of identity politics and the systematic effort to conceal the real social divisions within society. The relentless and obsessive focus on race and gender over the past four decades has been used to give the Democratic Party a left cover for a thoroughly right-wing political agenda at home and abroad. At the same time, it articulates the interests of the most privileged sections of the upper-middle class.[/b] The notion that the basic divisions in society are along the lines of race and gender is not only politically reactionary, it is fundamentally false. The Democrats and Clinton were hoisted on their own petard. They not only lost in regions that are predominantly poor and white, but also suffered from a decline in voter turnout in majority black regions, as African-American workers and youth saw no reason to back the candidate of the status quo.[/quote] [url]https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/11/09/pers-n09.html[/url] After ditching labor in the 60s/70s with the collapse of the new deal coalition, after combining neoliberal economics and 'third way' clintonite liberalism with social justice whilst having an ideological base of hollywood liberals, urban cosmpolitans, and humanities academics, and after globalization eroded the middle class and clearly comes at the expense of native labor, the center-left has completely set the stage for the rise of a rebellious native working class to [i]declare war on everything above them[/i]. It's the same story in britain. This is how they see a billionaire as their voice, and how bernie voters felt pretty apathetic towards trump's threat to clinton. [QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;51343568]Oh yes, damn those evil Eastern Europeans for not liking the country that invaded and occupied them for decades, and puppet-master Germany waiting and watching for the opportunity to take over Europe from behind the curtains.[/quote] The end of history wasn't a time for eastern european nationalists to exact revenge on Russia, it's because of them and Bill Clinton that the European project came to be something that comes at the expense of russia, rather than enfranchising it and putting it on the path to democracy with the rest of europe. As of now, you basically have a conservative-nationalist Russian silent majority hated by wealthy Russian liberals supported by us in the cities, who push a destructive liberalizing economic philosophy nobody working class wants. So we cut our losses after barely even trying to enfranchise Russia and give it a nice transition to capitalism like we did with Poland, and instead just turned to eastern euro nationalists whose hatred for russia makes them willing to swallow our brand of economics (until we got to Ukraine and Georgia, who have significant national minorities with cultural and economic ties to Russia). Germany is just being rational about the whole thing and starting to realize we, as the historic successor to Britain, oppose any significant continental european power. Alignment between Russia and central europe is very bad for us, so we stoke eastern europe's history of nationalist bloodshed (where there are no good guys or true victims btw) [quote]Minorities do lose though. Trump's victory legitimizes the idea that Mexicans and Muslims do not belong in the US.[/quote] It more legitimizes the idea that we have national interests that will be protected, and out of some weird self-hatred perpetuated by a wealthy liberal elite and academia we won't be acting like a post-national state to the benefit of the rich. This is a native working class rebellion like Brexit, however it is not ethno-nationalist in character and anyone can still take part of it, so long as they take up the civic identity. [quote]He wants to instate a national policy of "Stop and Frisk" so that Police Officers nation-wide may be legally allowed to search non-white people without cause or warrant.[/quote] A right wing populist is going to take a hard stand on any criminal underclass. It's really only the nature of america's racialized class system that this becomes disproportionately racial but, again, Trump is not a white nationalist. He's just a duterte, and by favoring a national system of capitalism you give minorities a better chance at social mobility rather than leaving them to compete with third worlders or worse, giving them racial double standards on access to education that agitate the majority tax paying population. It's a contradiction that led to the rise of trump and needs to be dealt with [quote]His policies toward LGBT persons are harmful at best, but Pence's are downright inhuman. If Pence is allowed to get his way, LGBT persons will be prevented from marrying, and it will be legal to fire or refuse to hire or serve an LGBT employee or customer. Finally, Pence also supports Conversion Camps, which are so terrible they should be considered a human rights violation. So yeah, Civil Rights are severely violated there.[/quote] Again trump is a miserable conservative on these issues, and the alt right itself doesn't care for spirituality. They care about culture. [quote]As for Net Neutrality, Hillary has aligned with Obama's policy on it so far.[/quote] Like most of her feelings on Obama's policies and completely in contrast to Bernie, she's less enthusiastic about his progressive ideas and varies from more moderate to clearly to the right of him (such as with intervention in the middle east). She had to be pulled to merely agreeing to vote for net neutrality by the public and external pressure, and she remained [url=https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/13829]ambivalent[/url]. [quote]Trump on the other hand flat out said he will not support it, and also went on to say that we should "close up" the internet so our enemies can't use it. Whatever the fuck that is supposed to mean. And with Climate Change, he flat out denies that it exists, and he is on the path to appointing cabinet members who believe the same. It's a shame that some industries will suffer, but new industries will grow and replace them.[/quote] On climate change, the native working class especially the blue collar types have undergone so much rapid and destructive social change caused by the global economy I think we can afford to slow it down for the sake of social well being and national healing, and we can only be so green in that context without losing lots of money. Net neutrality is disappointing, but he comes off as pretty uneducated on the issue, seeing it as explicitly political and targeting conservative media somehow and otherwise being about national security. [QUOTE=Raidyr;51343967] Atleast it's a good thing you aren't part of the native working class you talk up so much who is going to get fucked by Trumpinomics :^)[/QUOTE] Well, I am but, I'll take national capitalism over liberal capitalism and rotten, post-national plutocracy any day. Most of the workers of the world feel similar, Europe was always an exception but that's changed very quickly. The russians refuse to go back to the 90s even with our threats because the silent majority hates their liberals so much and what they did in that decade. Now with America going down a similar path, Europe will follow.

[quote]On climate change, the native working class especially the blue collar types have undergone so much [B]rapid and destructive social change caused by the global economy[/B] I think we can afford to slow it down for the sake of social well being and national healing, and we can only be so green in that context without losing lots of money. Net neutrality is disappointing, but he comes off as pretty uneducated on the issue, seeing it as explicitly political and targeting conservative media somehow and otherwise being about national security. [/quote] If you think that the economic woes of the American working class constitute rapid and destructive social change, just wait until the worst effects of Climate Change really start kicking into gear. We can't afford to slow down efforts to abate climate change; it will cause far more economic and social unrest than any economic policy can possibly prevent.

[QUOTE=Conscript;51344185]On climate change, the native working class especially the blue collar types have undergone so much rapid and destructive social change caused by the global economy I think we can afford to slow it down for the sake of social well being and national healing, and we can only be so green in that context without losing lots of money. Net neutrality is disappointing, but he comes off as pretty uneducated on the issue, seeing it as explicitly political and targeting conservative media somehow and otherwise being about national security.[/QUOTE] What "rapid and destructive" changes has the American people gone through due to the global economy and what exactly do environmental controls have to do with them? How exactly does being green lose us lots of money? Sure the coal and oil industries lose out but plenty of other fields that would gain jobs. The coal industry is horrifically corrupt anyways.

[QUOTE=Conscript;51344185] [Wall of text][/QUOTE] Quantity is not a substitute to quality, and I'm calling the whole lot of that rubbish. Your are: - Starting off by mixing definitions of conservatives, neocons and alt-right, then making shit up based on those absurd definitions and categories.* - Implying how Trump's cabinet aligns with these made-up views while ignoring any facts pointing to contrary. - Ginrich is a hawk. While claiming the opposite. While claiming Clinton is poor choice for being a hawk. While she is less than he. - Article from hardcore socialist site blaming democratic loss for not embracing marxist class politics. - Seemingly basing your worldview on socialist essentialist category of "class". - Claims of class struggle that are demonstrably untrue due to election victory of a plutocrat. - Hanging your arguments on said class struggle. - Blaming Russia's post-breakup troubles and recent aggression on Clintons, its neighbors, liberals and, oh, anything except Russia itself.* - Implicit promotion of Russian imperialism.* - Suggesting that Europe's best interest is approaching Moscow while distancing from Washington.* - "Criminal underclass"? Daaamn with all its implications. - Deflecting LGBT issue with more nonsense about alt-right. - Ignoring Trump's position for net neutrality to focus on Clinton. - Promoting short-sighted populist stance on climate change and sustainable energy. - Blaming liberals for everything that went wrong in last two decades, promoting nationalism instead. - Promoting nationalism as a cure to current troubled political situation.* - Promoting "national capitalism" without admitting its drawbacks when faced with benefits received from global markets. - Referring to US administration as "we".* *) Rhetorical devices and argument tactics I've consistently seen used in thousands of pro-Putin news comments since 2014. So pardon me if I'm fed up with them. [editline]10th November 2016[/editline] Oh, and "native working class" is part of the identity politics that fuels the political division which benefits nobody but opportunists looking to seize more power through widespread fear and paranoia. Who counts as "native"?