Derek 2.0

Their opinions are formed by the intelligence briefings they receive from the Obama administration..No different then Clinton's then support for the invasion of Iraq....saying the "entire intelligence community" is hyperbole. He's said himself that he's yet to see any evidence suggesting that to be the case........oddly enough, he said that the Obama administration officials have also "delayed" his briefing on the very subject until Friday.......... Why would he threaten Russian, sans any evidence, of wrongdoing? That doesn't make sense.......if Wikileaks themselves is saying they received the emails from a Bernie supporter within the DNC, why would Trump take the Democrats/Obama administrations claims on faith?

You answered your own question.......politics........By linking Trump and Russia, the Democrats hoped to further discredit him among swing voters and soft Republicans. Post election, politics yet again. Obama and the Democrats only hope for both maintaining Obama's legacy and regaining the Senate in two years is by dividing the Republicans and further discrediting Donald Trump..........what better way then to fashion a crisis before Trump is even sworn into office. As I've said, and asked (you), what is Trump going to do that is in the Russians interests, at the bidding of Putin? Saying Trump will do "stuff", in my mind, does not make him a Russian puppet.

I don't know that he was receiving Presidential briefs during the campaign, likewise he could have been skeptical of information coming out of the Obama administration and its appointments within US intelligence.......wouldn't be the first to call into question US Intelligence sources, nor the first time US intelligence services involved themselves in politics.

You don't consider any of Bret Baier, Bill Hemmer, Howard Kurtz, Shepard Smith, John Stossel, Martha MacCallum, Ed Henry, Laura Ingraham, Charles Krauthammer or Brett Hume (etc)...... "actual journalists"? And whoever replaces her after the Factor (Tucker Carlson? Martha Macallum? Kimberly Guilfoyle? Sean Hannity?) will have the 2nd highest ratings...... Fox didn't fire her.....they offered her more money then CNN and ABC combined.........she wanted a daytime show that allows her to spend more time with her family. Maybe.........or maybe it will be another Katie Couric......I watched (and enjoyed) Kelly's show and election coverage, that will be missed, but I can't see myself (or many of her viewers) following her to daytime.

Such as? Funny, I think claiming Trump will do "unnamed stuff" for Putin, sans any evidence to support such a belief (or even what Trump will do for Putin) is not only naive, but bordering on paranoia.......like tin-hats and sandwich boards paranoia.

I tend to agree, I was very supportive of the notion of an O'Leary run, but his recent statements and fence sitting have put me all in behind Mad Max......

Like Yellowcake and mobile weapons labs?

Without a doubt......just like Obama did with Iran and Cuba......did that make Obama a puppet of Iran and Cuba though? So you don't feel Trump will follow through on his energy policies? Why is that? And what agenda is that? Fighting radical Islam and the Pacific pivot, containing the Chinese..........not exactly a departure from current and past administrations policies? Do you have something more sinister, more befitting of the Puppet meme?

How is Trump going to act in Russia's interest(s)? Further weaken their Petro-based currency and outspend and invest in the World's most powerful military?

It doesn't?

Wikileaks has stated they received the emails from sources within the DNC....... The Putin conspiracy theorists have yet to square the circle as to why Putin, on paper, would want a Trump administration..........a Trump administration that will further buildup the US Military, is calling out the majority of NATO members on their own defense spending and most important of all, is pro-energy development.......which will without a doubt lower the world prices of oil and gas.....which will have a further negative impact on the Russian economy (and bank accounts of the Russian oligarchy). So why does Putin want a stronger and energy independent United States? Until there is a motive, "the Russians did it" lacks the same foundation of 9/11 false flags and the faked Moon landings......... I've no doubt there will be an attempt at improved relations between the two, based on common ground, namely radical Islam and China...........

For many of the same reasons the Nazis went to war initially.......to regain their previously held territory, in this case, land lost during the Russian revolution....land the Finns gave back to the Soviets as part of their peace treaty, land that is currently apart of Russia today.

Agree 100%......the Pacific pivot has been a reality since the 90s, growing proportional to the growth of China...........Europe has become "that family member", every family has one....unable and unwilling to take care of themselves, reliant upon the very nation that they collectively look down upon, and now they bring little to nothing to the table. Putin does want to restore "Russian Greatness", looking after the strategic interests of his nation.......Putin, unlike most of Europe, is willing to use force to achieve his ends....if Putin and American have shared interests, it would seem only logical that they better their mutual relations and develop a partnership to achieve common goals.

Again its all subjective.......the Allies were glad to have Stalin with them and not against them during the war......Reagan, Bush and Putin are/were leaders that put their countries interests first........in the coming Cold War with the Chinese, it is far better to have Putin onside then off.......and Russia (and India) itself will be far more useful then the majority of Europe, in a century where conflicts will be fought over resources, centric to the economic growth of the Pacific Rim.

And that was my point....... A subjective point.......many in Europe and Canada felt the Bush (and even the Reagan) administration was a threat to peace and stability. Iraq and Afghanistan prove that. The West worked with Stalin against the Nazis........and Stalin was far "worse" then Putin, and even Hitler in many ways.

Am I? This entire thread is an assumption, an assumption that Putin is an actual threat to Peace and Stability........ The majority of the Russian fleet's MFUs are based with the Northern fleet, not Baltic.........and like other navies, they are capable of performing UNREPs and have basing rights in Syria.........Not sure why they would need basing rights in Turkey.

Its apples and oranges.........American interests today align far more with the Russians then they did back then, likewise the ever growing fracture with the Red Chinese.......simply put, the characters in this movie haven't changed, just the actors.......China has become the new Soviet Union, the Russians have taken on the role played by the Red Chinese (Post Nixon/ Sino-Soviet split) and the growing Pacific Rim nations have become the new Europe......and Old Europe is growing ever more irrelevant.

As are you.......do you think the United States (or the UK and France) would risk a nuclear war with Russia over Latvia or Estonia? The vast majority of NATO members don't have the domestic political capital to properly fund their own defense, let alone send to war without caveats........and you think these nations would risk nuclear war? Russia, and the Soviet Union before it, had/has unfettered access to the Mediterranean through the Straits of Gibraltar........and the slammed door would just as easily be kicked open through the use of nuclear weapons........despite this, its unlikely the Russians will ever control Gibraltar........the Russian Black Sea Fleet is exactly that, a fleet intended for the Black Sea, not power projection into the Mediterranean, that its used as such is a clear demonstration that the Russians have no issues with access to where they want to go.

I don't think its the least bit foolish, for Finland (like Sweden), joining NATO only puts a bigger target on the backs of the Finnish people.......because of your internal politics and wanting military, you pose no threat to Putin's Russia.....hence, no reason for Putin to attack......Finland and Sweden, need only stay out of the Russian's way in the Baltic.

It would make Desert Storm look like a drawn out conflict..... What was the World's response when Putin invaded Georgia and the Crimea? I would expect a similar response if he invaded the Baltic States, only with the political ramifications of sticking his thumb in the eye of NATO......When NATO doesn't, or is unable to effectively, respond, that would be the end of NATO, and a far greater victory for Putin then taking over Baltic countries most couldn't find on a map. Turkey, though one of the largest military powers in NATO (only bested by the three nuclear NATO powers) is still a paper tiger, further weakened by the recent Stalinist purges after the coup......regardless, I doubt the Russians would involve themselves in a conflict with the Turks.......and for what? Access to the Mediterranean is something the Russians already have, and is why they are so determined to keep Assad in power in Syria (basing rights at the port of Tartus)....from a Turkish perspective, the Russians and Syrians offing Kurds is a good thing......the Turks and Russians have no need for conflict.

In my opinion, Trump also sees the Russians as far more "results driven" then the majority of NATO members......right or wrong, Putin doesn't dick around.

You might think its the "right thing"........others look at it as being an "enabler" to Europe.....as said if NATO/Europe truly felt Putin a threat, they'd dramatically boost their own defense.......if they don't, and Putin is an actual threat, they'll have a strong foreign army within their nations.......it just won't be the Americans.

Its an answer that went over your head.......all those Eastern European NATO countries were are "enemies" just over 25 years ago.......things change, as it appears to be happening with the American views on both Europe and Putin's Russia........

Exactly........nations don't have friends, but interests.........look no further then the various Victorian era wars, followed by the First then Second World War......Allies and Enemies played musical chairs between each kick at the can.

It makes perfect sense, by and large, most NATO members have surrendered their sovereignty to the United States (in varying degrees)......if the Americans don't deem Putin a threat to their interests, but Europe does, Europe is up poop creek without a paddle......... Not naive at all.......if Putin wants to invade the Baltic States, and the Americans don't "care", and the remainder of NATO doesn't "care" (demonstrated by their defense spending), why should we care? ........When Putin invaded Georgia and the Crimea.....did it honestly effect your day-to-day life?