Uh, I'd say she didn't because she wasn't ****ing any politicians or anyone with power that we know of.

I assume by quietly you mean without violence. They're definitely going to whine and scream about it like well Donald Trump would. They're usually weak people but who knows cult members can lash out hard.

Yes, it's a cult. Even if they acknowledge he screwed up, it's someone else's fault anyway. It's your fault I hit you and you deserved it and all that.

I was at a smallish party over the weekend, maybe 20 people. Some folks got to talking politics and some dip**** started going off about how illegal immigrants shouldn't come here if they don't want their kids taken away from them and how he's tired of paying taxes so that they can live here for free. The host of the party told him to get the **** out of his house, most (but not all) of the remaining guests cheered.

There's sort of a small overlap between what he says and what I say - the bit about contempt and anger. It's pretty standard across the spectrum.

I don't agree that people who respond with contempt/anger are being used.

I'm in the opposite camp to Brooks - although I'm sure I (and most of us) would be be happier ignoring politics, I couldn't be more opposed to doing so.

Bollocks.

This. I immediately lose respect for people I meet who tell me they do not follow politics, the news, or current events. Obviously don't let it consume your life, but if you can't tell me who your US Senators are, but you know the full roster of an NFL team your priorities are whacked.

All I have thought about driving home from the office today was that there is a >0 chance Trump and Putin discussed using nukes to get rid of political foes and people they don't like.

Unfortunately, my senators are named 'complete moron', and 'my god what a ****ing idiot.' It's embarrassing in my state.

Not sure about NYT but CNN gave us Crazy Susan DeLemus (those aren't Bette Davis eyes, boy) way back in 2015. Just another salt-of-the-earth Trump supporter moonlighting as an elected New Hampshire House of Representatives Tea Party birther (there's video). Her husband, Jerry DeLemus? A Bundy rancher. Just everyday, average folks.

How does she not realize by now that this is a feature, not a bug, to the Republicans?

Yeah as others have noted, this is like the apex of the genre. One of the surprising wrinkles we have commonly seen in the "go out on safari and talk to Trump voters in the wild" is how utterly lazy (propagandist?) this form is, where the old angry white weeping over runny eggs in the diner is replaced with a different stock character... literal professional GOP staffers who worked on the Trump campaign are presented as the vox populi.

What is the justification for taking 4 professional Republican operatives, sticking them at a table, giving them free rein to jabber rehearsed talking points, and critically -- present them as random normals the journalist just ran into? Seems like somewhere there's an obligation to disclose you're talking to a bunch of literal paid Trump flackeys, party officials, etc.? I'm not suggesting it's not OK to talk to these people but at least present them for what they are. When Chuck Todd talks to Ronna Romney McDaniel or Corey Lewandowski on Meet the Press, he doesn't present them as random voters he just found at the pub.

Right. Which as I wrote...Finland's NATO skepticism is a bit well-founded, and they recognize the promise of common defense isn't worth that much given their unique situation.

Whether because of practical concerns (it would be hard for NATO to stop a Russian invasion without a preemptive military buildup) or real politick ones (e.g., Finns are guessing that if **** hits the fan, they're sort of a global backwater and peripheral player and not strategically important, and NATO resources may not materialize immediately to save them)...the promise of collective defense might not be worth much to them.

I think bobman is ultimately correct that Russia and Finland have an unspoken gentleman's agreement to coexist peacefully wherein Finland doesn't antagonize Russia (by doing something like say joining NATO) and Russia agrees to not make them a client state ala Ukraine. Whether this is because Russia is honoring the unspoken deal or because they have their own practical concerns (as you note, invading Finland might not be a walk in the park; Finland does have a standing army, etc.) is immaterial in trying to answer the question why Finland doesn't join NATO.

The "co-exist peacefully" part is core. As I noted, hypothetically -- joining NATO and taking NATO money and resources to further militarize their Russian border would be seen as an obvious provocation. Finland doesn't want to become the powder keg and central battlefield of a prospective WWIII, so they're eschewing that option. But then, without the preemptive buildup, what does the promise of collective defense get you? As Finland well knows from their own history, and as you note, it's not worth that much. If their circumstances were different (e.g., if you could magically move Finland 1500km away from Russia) then the whole calculus might change. Or if say Finland had huge oil reserves/resources ala Norway, they could intuit that NATO's calculations may change entirely and that they could count on NATO rising to their immediate defense, forcefully, if Russia got aggressive, and they wouldn't have to militarize the border and they could count on an immediate and swift response.

But the geographic realities make joining NATO a huge gamble.

It's the face you make when you just resisted the urge to shout "Nine high like a boss"

Right. "Somewhat guarantee" is the key here. I think they recognize NATO's Article 5 is essentially one big semi-bluff. It's deterrence.

That's not to say Article 5 is a completely unsupported security commitment, either. But you have to put yourself in a scenario where Russia sees an attack on Finland as a rational thing to do; it seems like in almost ~all of those scenarios, you're in a global cataclysmic total war scenario. Is securing Finland's territorial integrity going to be NATO's top priority? Probably not? Norwegian oil, Turkey, preventing unfettered incursion into Central Europe ...sure, OK, those are going to be NATO's top priorities. Not confident Finland would be.

I think Finland has correctly guessed that the costs of provocation of Russia by joining NATO > the benefits gained by the "somewhat guarantee of collective defense" they get by joining NATO. Obviously they would get the full statutory protections of Article 5, but practically and effectively, in the real world, in scenarios where Russia has decided to attack/invade -- it's not at all clear what that offers Finland.

Sure, I agree to an extent that Finland is trying to get the best of both worlds: they're gambling that any Russian provocation would ultimately draw the rest of the west to their defense, but they don't have to bother paying for NATO just to get a guarantee of collective defense that effectively exists anyway.

I think the points about Russia being a second-tier world power and Finland already having a decent effective deterrence via their own military are well-founded but ultimately unconvincing for why Finland doesn't join NATO, or further my point. Finland wants just enough deterrence (their own military) to signal to Russia an invasion would be costly and bog them down and waste their time/money/resources, but don't want to signal what might be seen as aggression (joining NATO, further military build up on the border). The retort is always "well Finland could join NATO but effectively not militarize the border further" but then the question is what Finland gets; the answer is the "somewhat guarantee" thing wherein they get a promise of collective defense that's practically vague.

I mean put really glibly, what's stopping Trump / Tucker Carlson style politics from pervading in such a scenario. We just saw these guys explicitly say this about Montenergo. "Oh, Russia's invading? Well, Article 5 was more of a non-binding guideline, not a rule per se; why should we go send American boys and treasure to go defend Finland, lol we can't even tell the Nordics apart on a map!" Ultimately, the promise of collective defense remains a semi-bluff. Wonderful on paper, but practically and realistically dependent on perpetual consensus from the west that Finland would be worth fighting for AND a bunch of legitimate practical military concerns about how you can realistically even defend Finland's borders on short-notice in the face of Russian aggression. As I said, it would take Russia a long time to march into Germany such that the promise of collective defense effectively buttressed by a country across the ocean can be effective. Finland? Not so much.

And remember, too, that the promise of collective defense isn't practically great either EVEN IF you assume NATO will definitively and always meet their commitments, immediately and forcefully. Does Finland really want to be the stage for WWIII anyway? Take WWI. Would you rather have been Belgium (in league with the Allies, recipients of "collective defense" guarantees)? Or Switzerland?

If I were Finland, I'd much rather WWIII or whatever scenario we're imagining play out in Poland or Turkey or Hungary than my backyard.

https://twitter.com/soledadobrien/st...31945280983042

Fwiw. Apparently there is a longer version, where they provide more info (i havent seen it). Thats not much of an excuse tho.

[NYT op-ed voice] don't you think it would have been more productive to civilly explain to the party guest that you think he is wrong, have a nuanced discussion of the merits of immigration, and then tell him that while you disagree, you respect his right to be racist?

for real though this story is awesome, party host go on chapo

Interesting article about Google News and how it handled the Finland summit. Basically it just presented a lot of Fox News stories.

http://www.niemanlab.org/2018/07/on-...p-to-the-task/

Finland at the time did not have a mutual defense agreement with the Allies. The promise of troops was made when the Russian invasion had been ongoing for three months. They ultimately didn‘t send any because France was getting overrun by German troops.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...90400029499393

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...91915402203139

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...94101116948480

Re Finland, has NATO courted Finland much? I could see the whole thing being some kind of gentlemen’s agreement between all 3.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...99507910283264

Grandpa sure is on a tear this morning.

Wasn't Butina exposed a year ago? Why the **** did she stay in US?