And again, Trump is not threatening missile strikes on Russia or Russian military in Syria. He's threatening missile strikes on Syria...which is something he did last year in response to another chemical attack and it was a rather weak assault. Trump's bluster is likely to counter the notion that he's never going to do anything to offend Putin, which is probably true.

I mean I hope it is just bluster. But when Syria is Russia's ally then saying you are going to fire the most bigly smart missles at Syria is aggression towards Russia by proxy no? If Russia tweeted that they were about to fire missles on Tel Aviv this would be concerning right?

My main goal of the Trump administration is not to die in a nuclear holocaust. I think that is a reasonable ceiling for his presidency. So him tweeting multiple deranged tweets about Russia this morning has me concerned.

ETA-I realize probably no one takes Trump seriously anymore (or for a long time for that matter) so I am probably overreacting.

While all the speculating on Trump's Syria response is going on, could someone explain to me why it's such a big deal that Assad is killing these civilians with gas, as opposed to killing them with bullets and artillery like he's been doing for the past 6 years?

Also, knowing the desired end goal would be nice. Is the US position pro Assad, anti Assad, or neutral? Does anyone even know?

In before Keed posts that people itt claim he is Glenn Greenwald with no evidence.

The tweeting is obviously irresponsible, and its not wrong to be concerned. That said, Russia has been helping Assad for a long time, and its never stopped Trump from saying that he wants to be friends with Russia. Russia abandoning Syria has never been a requisite for such a friendship. So I think Trump is still bonded to Putin and I think Putin knows it...despite tweets to the contrary.

Even if Preet were dead serious it also wouldn't be censorship and Trump would have a million other platforms via which he can spew his bile.

I believe this quote is relevant in regard to Trump and trumpstains.

Cool I just started this book, I recommend it even if you're not religious

I don't have contempt for bayesian thinking. I have contempt for folks who are claiming to be steely-eyed paragons of analytical thinking while somehow neglecting to update their sophisticated DATA DRIVEN "Trump is being blackmailed by Putin" bayesian models (which, as far as I can tell, are fed by equal parts of excerpts of the Steele dossier and clips of Rachel Maddow's show) when Trump takes actions that are unfavorable to Russia. And, as my homeboy Glenn Goatwald eloquently points out, in many ways the Trump administration has had a much more confrontational posture towards Russia than Obama.

I have a hard time believing anything by Eric Metaxas is worth reading.

I've heard that before, gave it a shot on a recommendation and at least so far I'm pleasantly surprised.

But what EVIDENCE do we have that you don't have contempt for bayesian thinking ?

Yep

And why do you think that Trump's posture toward Russia has hardened in the last six months? Is it possibly because of (i) the Mueller investigation; and (ii) widespread criticism and ridicule of Trump for directing snuggly comments toward Putiin.

Trump deserves zero credit for now having a tougher policy toward Russia because he changed course only at the point of a bayonet. His instincts re Putin were (and probably are) abhorrent.

Much confrontational

In dealing with the Mexican president in the past: transcripts were leaked in which Trump told more or less told him 'Just play along with what I say publicly - it's for domestic consumption. Of course you won't have to pay for the wall.'. Don't see it being a reach to believe that he's using the same tactics with China in regards to trade or Russia in general. Saying or acting one way publicly while making private overtures which fly in direct contravention to what gets tweeted or reported on.

It was not clear who you were taking aim at when you refer to these "steely-eyed" folks.

As I'm sure you know, Bayesian updating depends on one's prior belief, so someone who was at, say, 95% before the new data is still going to be at, say 90%. Likewise, the Hannitys of the world are going to be at a very low belief even with evidence that supports "Putin blackmail" or some wider claim of "russian involvement"

what evidence do you have that quoting and engaging keed is or has ever been a good idea?

This is reminiscent of the old delusion about Trump playing 4D chess. I don't know what it will take to convince people. There is no plan. There is no coherent strategy. Trump is just an old fool in the White House mashing buttons.

I don't think that the change has been as abrupt as you are painting it. From the very beginning of his term Trump was much more confrontational towards two Russia allies, Syria and Iran, than Obama. I agree that his personal attitude towards Putin is likely abhorrent, but that seems to be the rule among bigly totalitarians. I mean is Trump being blackmailed by Duerte as well, or does Trump just like dudes like Duerte and Putin?

The latter. I never subscribed to the former.

So much this it ****ing hurts. The guy lies more than he tells the truth. The tiny, much delayed action that was mandated by law and empty threats he has made while under incredible and increased scrutiny are more suspicious, not less. The head scratching over it is bananas to me. There is no creedance to what he has said he will do, very very little consequence to what he has done, and even if you don’t think he is capable of the fish move of showing strength when he is weak he is not in it alone.

I am much, much more disturbed by people thinking this disproves anything than I am by people who are sizing up the whole picture and seeing evidence of collusion. There may not be collusion but it walks, quacks, has feathers, webbed feet, swims and flies.

This phrase:

"in many ways the Trump administration has had a much more confrontational posture..."

really sounds like bull**** to me. What are these many ways?

If Bezos really wanted to **** with Trump he'd announce that Toronto was the most likely location for HQ2 due to US political instability.

Right, so just to circle back to the bolded. The mechanism you describe is certainly possible and even likely. Trump could decide to be tough on Russia in order to attempt to silence criticism and Trump-is-being-blackmailed-by-Putin conspiracy theories. Which is why I've been saying that overblowing the importance and significance of Russian interference in the election is dangerous. It increases tensions with Russia, puts pressure on Trump to DO SOMETHING vis a vis Russia, and increases the probability of nuclear war. All over something that the United States has done to other countries many times, including to Russia itself.