Honestly the only time I can recall a big midterm WAVE of enthusiasm on the left was in 2006 (though admittedly I may be misremembering...I wasn't that into politics until I hit my late 20s). The left just flat out doesn't turn out for midterms. It's why the GOP has had a stranglehold on Florida for the past 20 years.

The Ukraine probably wouldn't have been invaded if it were a NATO member. But then the flip side of that is that if it was invaded it could have sparked a nuclear war, which seems like some pretty significant downside risk. Which kind of leads into why is Russia's opinion on the matter so important. They have a bunch of nukes pointed at us.

What? "NATO expansion served no clear purpose other than antagonizing Russia" is an opinion that is obviously from the US perspective. That it could be beneficial to Montenegroians is irrelevant. Tucker is correct that there is no particular American interest served by having a mutual defense treaty with Montenegro.

There also seems to be some kind of effect where people really get sick of a president about year 6. People were sick of Bush and the economy hadn't even tanked yet. Liberal sniping at Obama really ramped up about year 6. I seem to remember Clinton wasn't super popular either.

I worry it's going to take until then for low-info moderate republicans (IE - not hardcore Trumpers) to turn on him.

It never ****ing ends

While "making the world safe for democracy" is a terribly dumb and rightly parody-able slogan of what the US military does - expanding NATO is, like, perhaps the only thing we do that actually works towards that!

So, if you just entirely reject that "making the world safe for democracy" (in reality, not in the ironic "oh we're bombing brown people for...freedom!" sense) is even remotely a good thing that the US should find value in - then, sure, you're right.

Otherwise, LOL

keeeeeeeeeed is even posting utooobs now ffs.

Sanders is likely correct here.

I certainly don't think we should try to make the world safe for democracy by expanding military alliances right up to a recently-defeated (but still armed to the teeth with nukes) adversary's borders. If the US is interested in making the world safe for democracy (it isn't), then it should probably start with alternative activities that have a lower risk of starting a catastrophic nuclear war. Something like refraining from interfering in the internal politics of other countries seems like a good start.

Would bet money that, sometime in the last 72 hours, someone used the phrase "upper echelons" in Trump's earshot and was asked to explain what it meant, after which Trump offered "higher ends" as a paraphrase, and has been working it into conversations for the last few days. I just get these hunches sometimes.

Okay:



Phew! Glad we got this sorted out! That was a close one!

This is...hopeful?

The failure, after the cold war ended to do everything possible to build up the institutions like the UN and bring Russia further and further into the international fold was a political catastrophe.

The Iraq war (2) was the worst crime because it proved that the usa had no interest in international law/consensus and only understood power. Countries around the world, and russia in particular are absolutely correct not to trust the usa. The progressive forces lost support and putin was able to grasp more and more power.

If anyone hadn't realised this when Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/etc were in charge then it should be painfully obvious by now.

jesus christ dude I was obviously talking about post-cold war NATO expansion in general.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...64477162278918

I doubt it. Last time I posted in politics I was told Taibbi had become a right wing shill.

East European countries, once free of Russia, applied to join NATO because of what Russia is like. (See under invasion of Ukraine, shootdown of MH17, and so on.) There was no reason to refuse. Russia now can't touch those countries, because of NATO. This is good. Risking nuclear warfare is not a thing. Russia simply can't engage in warfare against Britain, France, the US or their NATO allies. It can cyber-troll, it can idiotically poison the odd person with nerve agents, but it can't engage in actual warfare. Its tanks can't roll like they rolled into Prague in '68. That's off.

Trump is merely a Russian agent of influence, bought and paid for since the 1980s (because no one else will finance him because he's such a total liability). It doesn't matter what Trump says and it doesn't matter what Putin says.

Thank God the governor of Georgia will be strong on borders.

Like Seth Moulton?

https://moulton.house.gov/issues/foreign-policy/

"As a Marine who served multiple combat tours in Iraq fighting a war I wish we hadn’t started, I know how important it is to make smart national security decisions."

Nah probably not. How about Tammy Duckworth?

https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...-at-war-119243

"When my colleagues start beating the drums of war, I want to remind them what the true costs of war are."

Hmm that doesn't sound very hawkish either. Do we even need to ask Ted Lieu where he stands?

https://www.salon.com/2016/03/17/loo..._war_in_yemen/

"'Look like war crimes to me': Congressman raises concerns over U.S. support for Saudi war in Yemen"

So uncritical. Maybe you were referring to the new crop of candidates? Let's check in with Amy McGrath:

https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/09/28...hilcot-report/

"Unlike some investigative reports created by the U.S. Congress, the Chilcot Report contains an objective, thoughtful, and thorough accounting of British decision-making. The Iraq War is widely considered a strategic failure, with 4,806 American and coalition members deaths and 32,246 wounded, not to mention the deaths of an estimated 500,000 Iraqi fighters and civilians – a conservative number by any measure, and all at a monetary cost of over $3 Trillion. The American people are entitled to a similar exhaustive inquiry."

Literally campaigning on taking a "more critical look at the War on Terror." So do you have any links to describe what you're talking about or do you want to go ahead and admit maybe you're the one who's failed to critically analyze the role veterans are playing in lending credibility to calls for a more restrained use of military force in pursuit of foreign policy goals?

https://twitter.com/OrinKerr/status/1019670974008995841

One friggin seat. Ugh.

It’s like a ****ing template every time with these endorsements. So and so is:

Crime! Borders! Military! Cops! Immigration! Vets!

Fuuuuuuccccckkkkkk you

Don't know someone can watch the video of that exchange and think that's a logical conclusion.

History of NATO enlargement

Also countries even closer like Ukraine and Georgia are in "intensified dialogues" to join NATO