Putin has no love lost for crazy cat ladies like Hillary or Merkel. He's giving them both a huge turn on their collective faces for Christmas. To see Trump pile on is glorious.

Shout out to Fast Eddie. For he knows not what he says.

Yeah Putin was full of bantz today. He had an end of year press conference, which is where the quotes are coming from:

Quote: I have commented on this issue on a number of occasions. If you want to hear it one more time, I can say it again. The current US Administration and leaders of the Democratic Party are trying to blame all their failures on outside factors. I have questions and some thoughts in this regard.

We know that not only did the Democratic Party lose the presidential election, but also the Senate, where the Republicans have the majority, and Congress, where the Republicans are also in control. Did we, or I also do that? We may have celebrated this on the “vestiges of a 17th century chapel,” but were we the ones who destroyed the chapel, as the saying goes? This is not the way things really are. All this goes to show that the current administration faces system-wide issues, as I have said at a Valdai Club meeting.

It seems to me there is a gap between the elite’s vision of what is good and bad and that of what in earlier times we would have called the broad popular masses. I do not take support for the Russian President among a large part of Republican voters as support for me personally, but rather see it in this case as an indication that a substantial part of the American people share similar views with us on the world’s organisation, what we ought to be doing, and the common threats and challenges we are facing. It is good that there are people who sympathise with our views on traditional values because this forms a good foundation on which to build relations between two such powerful countries as Russia and the United States, build them on the basis of our peoples’ mutual sympathy.

They would be better off not taking the names of their earlier statesmen in vain, of course. I’m not so sure who might be turning in their grave right now. It seems to me that Reagan would be happy to see his party’s people winning everywhere, and would welcome the victory of the newly elected President so adept at catching the public mood, and who took precisely this direction and pressed onwards to the very end, even when no one except us believed he could win. (Applause).

The outstanding Democrats in American history would probably be turning in their graves though. Roosevelt certainly would be because he was an exceptional statesman in American and world history, who knew how to unite the nation even during the Great Depression’s bleakest years, in the late 1930s, and during World War II. Today’s administration, however, is very clearly dividing the nation. The call for the electors not to vote for either candidate, in this case, not to vote for the President-elect, was quite simply a step towards dividing the nation. Two electors did decide not to vote for Trump, and four for Clinton, and here too they lost. They are losing on all fronts and looking for scapegoats on whom to lay the blame. I think that this is an affront to their own dignity. It is important to know how to lose gracefully.

But my real hope is for us to build business-like and constructive relations with the new President and with the future Democratic Party leaders as well, because this is in the interests of both countries and peoples.

[...]


First, about the interference. I already responded to one of your fellow journalists from the United States. The defeated party always tries to blame somebody on the outside. They should be looking for these problems closer to home.

Everybody keeps forgetting the most important point. For example, some hackers breached email accounts of the US Democratic Party leadership. Some hackers did that. But, as the President-elect rightly noted, does anyone know who those hackers were? Maybe they came from another country, not Russia. Maybe somebody just did it from their couch or bed. These days, it is very easy to designate a random country as the source of attack while being in a completely different location.

But is this important? I think the most important thing is the information that the hackers revealed to the public. Did they compile or manipulate the data? No, they did not. What is the best proof that the hackers uncovered truthful information? The proof is that after the hackers demonstrated how public opinion had been manipulated within the Democratic Party, against one candidate rather than the other, against candidate Sanders, the Democratic National Committee Chairperson resigned. This means she admitted that the hackers revealed the truth. Instead of apologising to the voters and saying, “Forgive us, our bad, we will never do this again,” they started yelling about who was behind the attacks. Is that important?

Full Transcript
http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/53573

The bold bit about the US and Russia coming closer together around traditional values and a common view on the world's organization is just words, but it's potentially powerful stuff. It's a simultaneous roundhouse kick to both the cultural marxists and Neocon warmongers, who have had it their own way for decades. I look forward to the old media escalating their outrage over Trump and Putin, signing the Neocon tune in agitating for war with Russia.

(12-23-2016 05:36 PM)Libertas Wrote:  I'm not even sure the F-35 can be killed at this point. There's so many sunk costs into it that it's become a white elephant and so many people are tied into it, but Trump's done the impossible far more than once. So let's see what happens. It's also possible to negotiate prices down.

But you do have to wonder what they were thinking trying to jerry-rig one plane for three different roles. Unless it was just a total giveaway to the MIC from the beginning which is possible.

At this point, I never doubt anything, especially about what Trump can and can't accomplish.

Latinopan Wrote:At this point, I never doubt anything, especially about what Trump can and can't accomplish.

^ If the 2016 election cycle taught us anything, it's that underestimating Trump is a serious mistake.

(12-23-2016 05:36 PM)Libertas Wrote:  I'm not even sure the F-35 can be killed at this point. There's so many sunk costs into it that it's become a white elephant and so many people are tied into it, but Trump's done the impossible far more than once. So let's see what happens. It's also possible to negotiate prices down.

Hold the leather seats and metallic paint options.

You guys should quit speculating about war with Russia. Trump and Putin are going to team up to bring righteous justice to the death cultists in the middle east

Someone has to explain to me the purpose of the nuclear weapons tweet.

Russia is apparently upset that we're improving our anti-ICBM capabilities in Europe. Tuesday Putin said Russia needs to improve its strategic nuclear capabilities to be able to penetrate any existing defenses. Mr. Trump said "bring it, Vlad", implying that if Russia wants to get into another arms race with us, he's happy to oblige and we'll knock their socks off because we have way more money to spend on such things than Russia.

That's pretty much it.

(12-24-2016 02:48 AM)Vicious Wrote:  Someone has to explain to me the purpose of the nuclear weapons tweet.

Sure thing, bud.

weambulance correctly touched on it already, but earlier this week Putin stated publicly that Russia must "enhance the combat capability of strategic nuclear forces, primarily by strengthening missile complexes that will be guaranteed to penetrate existing and future missile defense systems" (going with the Western media outlet translation of his remarks).

No matter what may have been said by various people in Trump's entourage after the fact, Trump's tweet was very clearly a direct response to Putin's challenge. Trump is putting Putin and his people on notice: Unlike the openly globalist (and crypto-fag/commie) Obama -- who is going to be taken out with the trash in four weeks' time, not a moment too soon -- the United States under Trump will not be remiss in modernizing and, if necessary, expanding its nuclear weapons arsenal; especially so if Russia intends to "enhance" its own capabilities in this regard.

In case any of you have doubts about what Trump meant by the tweet, you should note that Trump telephoned Mika B during Friday's broadcast of MSNBC's Morning Joe and said in the clearest terms possible: "Let it be an arms race. We will outmatch them at every pass and outlast them all."

At long last, we Americans will be getting straight talk from a real human being who has his country's interests first and foremost in his mind. Amen.

Does that clear it up?

(Incidentally, Vicious, I wouldn't worry about Putin if I were you -- isn't Sweden prepared to fight Russia to the last Finn??)

Quote: Incidentally, Vicious, I wouldn't worry about Putin if I were you -- isn't Sweden prepared to fight Russia to the last Finn??

I've never met a Finn ungrateful for the troop and material support from Sweden during the Winter War, and I'm surrounded by them daily. In a conventional war the military consensus is that a Russian attack on the Nordic countries would be initiated by an amphibious assault on the Swedish island of Gotland to control the Baltic. In a nuclear war however this is all moot, the Nordic countries would be wiped out before any possibility of the civil population to react.

However this is off topic, but I'd be happy to continue elsewhere as these are the scenarios I've trained for in my service.

The question regarding Trumps tweet was an honest one, I've simply not kept up with current events due to everything going on with yuletide.

And here we were being told by the fake news media that Trump was Putin's puppet.

WRONG!

(12-24-2016 04:41 AM)Bushido Wrote:  And here we were being told by the fake news media that Trump was Putin's puppet.
WRONG!

I'd like to think that all the women who claimed sexual assault by Trump are getting together with all the Russian hackers for an end of year celebration to reminisce about the year that was...

Safe to say that in July 2015, this Presidency isn't what I would have expected.

Restarting a Nuclear arms race is in the peoples best interest? No, that does not clear it up.

(12-24-2016 06:14 AM)nick_ Wrote:  Restarting a Nuclear arms race is in the peoples best interest? No, that does not clear it up.

Forgive my analogy, but I've been watching Savage Kingdom on NatGeoWild, and I'm quite impressed with lion social hierarchies. The main lion tribe in the show is ruled by two brothers, who scent mark the borders of their territory that's so large a round trip takes two weeks. It's quite annoying to travel the same route over and over again but it's preferable to fighting other male lions.

Similarly, it's expensive to have to strengthen the nuclear arsenal, frustrating to hear liberal idiots deliberately distort the intent and effect of Trump's tweets, and only a little time consuming to explain it to those genuinely curious people who don't understand - but it's preferable to showing weakness that invites Putin to attack our interests.

Trump's tweet was just peeing on the ground, in lionspeak.

How soon we forget that the nuclear arms race is largely what forced international conflict from being world-spanning wars of total destruction to covert operations and regional proxy conflicts.

A far lesser evil in my humble opinion.

(12-24-2016 06:14 AM)nick_ Wrote:  Restarting a Nuclear arms race is in the peoples best interest? No, that does not clear it up.

We (the USA) really do need to upgrade our nuclear missiles. We are still using tech from the 1960s to the 1980s and the reliability of our current missiles is in question due to age.

example:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/26/us/pentago...s-nuclear/

More butt hurt from CNN.

Muh Muslims!

(12-24-2016 07:39 AM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

(12-24-2016 06:14 AM)nick_ Wrote:  Restarting a Nuclear arms race is in the peoples best interest? No, that does not clear it up.

Forgive my analogy, but I've been watching Savage Kingdom on NatGeoWild, and I'm quite impressed with lion social hierarchies. The main lion tribe in the show is ruled by two brothers, who scent mark the borders of their territory that's so large a round trip takes two weeks. It's quite annoying to travel the same route over and over again but it's preferable to fighting other male lions.

Similarly, it's expensive to have to strengthen the nuclear arsenal, frustrating to hear liberal idiots deliberately distort the intent and effect of Trump's tweets, and only a little time consuming to explain it to those genuinely curious people who don't understand - but it's preferable to showing weakness that invites Putin to attack our interests.

Trump's tweet was just peeing on the ground, in lionspeak.

I see it another way, albeit through John T. Reed's eyes: Putin is testing Trump. These guys are not best buds, and won't be for quite some time yet. It's one thing to be a businessman and like the leader of another country, another thing entirely to be the leader of one country and like the leader of another.

Something similar happens to each US President shortly after he takes the office - someone decides to just offer a little shit to see what sort of man they're really dealing with. It can be North Korea, China, you name it, but the sign is always there: early on, someone decides to be James Dean and push back on the teacher to see how far he can be bent. Consequently entire continents have been unconcerned about the US for the past 8 years or so. Obama would do everything but declare war and so every nation in the world knows he never had the balls to stand behind his threats of red lines and so on.

Trump has calmly said to Russia, "If you want to throw rocks, we will throw rocks back." Proportional escalation, in other words: no histrionics (as Hillary surely would have done) threatening dire consequences, just a plain old hitting the ball back. Supposedly, this form of retaliation was one of the more effective ways of garrisoning in Iraq: you didn't shoot the kid who was throwing rocks at your guys, you threw rocks back until he decided to up the ante.

(In passing: in the famous "Sit Room" photo of Obama and friends watching as the Osama kill mission goes down, the guy is crouched over like he wants to be anywhere else but there. If you asked a stranger who'd been living on a tropical island for a year or two to spot the President of the US in that room, I doubt anyone would've pointed at Barry. That's the sort of guy Obama was.)

(12-23-2016 05:47 PM)Fast Eddie Wrote:  The art thing is just one more reason to stop with the Ivanka worship. There is nothing about this women aside from the identity of her father that should make us fans. Her politics are odious. Her choice of husband is suspect. Her taste in "art" speaks of basic bitch cultural degeneracy.

Yes, she looks good for a 35 year old mother of three. But she's still a 35 year old mother of 3, so that's sorta damning with faint praise in my opinion.

I do not want Ivanka Trump to have a large voice in the Trump administration, let alone to have a successful political career in her own right. She has much more in common with a Chelsea Clinton than she does with us.

Don Jr. on the other hand would have my vote any day. That dude is like a Trump 5.0

Part of the price of Ivanka has more to do highlight femininity. Is a counter cultural attack against the price Amy Schumer, Lena Dunham by the media.

One reason the right have been losing the cultural war is because the right spends more time attacking each others, many times about what real right wing is, than counter attacking.

I agree she should not have large voice in the Trump administration.

She has more in common with a Chelsea Clinton than she does with us, so does Trump with Hillary.

We have to use what we have, we cannot start waiting for some magical candidate that is 100% fit to what we want.

Like with Donald, we eventually found a way his victory will benefit us, you can see the different point of view changing from last year.

Now we have to ask, in the cultural war, how can we use the first daughter to beneficiary for us?

One you already pointed out, "Yes, she looks good for a 35 year old mother of three." While the cultural Marxists use Lena Dunham as a sex symbol we men should price, Ivanka is 5 years older with 3 kids and look better.

Feminist: Amy Schumer is redefining beauty

RVF member: I prefer a woman like Ivanka

Feminist: triggered intensifies

Paracelsus Wrote:I see it another way, albeit through John T. Reed's eyes: Putin is testing Trump. These guys are not best buds, and won't be for quite some time yet. It's one thing to be a businessman and like the leader of another country, another thing entirely to be the leader of one country and like the leader of another.

Something similar happens to each US President shortly after he takes the office - someone decides to just offer a little shit to see what sort of man they're really dealing with. It can be North Korea, China, you name it, but the sign is always there: early on, someone decides to be James Dean and push back on the teacher to see how far he can be bent. Consequently entire continents have been unconcerned about the US for the past 8 years or so. Obama would do everything but declare war and so every nation in the world knows he never had the balls to stand behind his threats of red lines and so on.

Trump has calmly said to Russia, "If you want to throw rocks, we will throw rocks back." Proportional escalation, in other words: no histrionics (as Hillary surely would have done) threatening dire consequences, just a plain old hitting the ball back. Supposedly, this form of retaliation was one of the more effective ways of garrisoning in Iraq: you didn't shoot the kid who was throwing rocks at your guys, you threw rocks back until he decided to up the ante.

(In passing: in the famous "Sit Room" photo of Obama and friends watching as the Osama kill mission goes down, the guy is crouched over like he wants to be anywhere else but there. If you asked a stranger who'd been living on a tropical island for a year or two to spot the President of the US in that room, I doubt anyone would've pointed at Barry. That's the sort of guy Obama was.)

I agree with, Paracelsus. As much as I would like to see the United States and Russia get along, I wouldn't want to see that at the expense of Trump having to roll over for Putin. Putin wouldn't respect Trump for rolling over, anyway.





It'll be hilarious to watch as Old Media speaks with its forked tongue from both sides of its mouth, first by accusing Trump and Putin of some secret alliance, then pulling a 180 and fear-mongering about the prospect of nuclear war. Trump pushing back on Putin a little bit is nothing to worry about, especially when you consider the fact that Crooked Hillary would've actually gotten us into World War III over her proposed decision to invoke "no-fly zones" over Syrian airspace.

I've had some Bernie/Hillary friend throw the nuclear tweet in my face and I just pointed out that it isn't something new since Trump has spoken over and over during his campaign about the need to keep our military strong. They asked me why I wasn't concerned about an arms race being started out and I said I would be if all the military buildup was combined with Hillary's foreign policy.

An argument I would recommend that rest of you guys use if someone calls you on something similar is to say that Trump's talk about military is more about deterrence (speak softly and carry a big stick) while Clinton's would have looked for a more active role in US affairs would led to more of the mess we've seen in the Middle East in the last decade.

Liberals don't seem to understand the concept of "peace through strength." When people know you're not going to just let someone push you around, they're far more likely to look for an easier mark. The goal then, is to give off the distinct impression of being someone you wouldn't want to fuck with. This isn't done so you can bully others, it's done so you can prevent being bullied yourself.

(12-24-2016 12:12 PM)LeoneVolpe Wrote:  Liberals don't seem to understand the concept of "peace through strength." When people know you're not going to just let someone push you around, they're far more likely to look for an easier mark. The goal then, is to give off the distinct impression of being someone you wouldn't want to fuck with. This isn't done so you can bully others, it's done so you can prevent being bullied yourself.

Yes, want to know why liberals hate the NRA so much? because unlike other faction of the conservative movement, the NRA makes itself clear that if you fuck with them they will not hesitate to push one million times harder.

For liberals "good conservative" are the ones that bend over to their whim, people like Glenn Beck that cry on camera and kneel in front of the audience and eat cupcakes with Samantha Bee.

Trump has been able to make the right realize playing nice does not accomplish anything, showing weakness doe not get you anywhere.