Foxy,

If you think an article that begins "As Trump continues to defend his Putin bromance" is going to give you an unbiased appraisal of something then that's on you.

The funny thing is that one article I saw on this opined that the anti-Trumpers would find it hard to spin the Ukrainian payment as not showing that Trump isn't pro-Putin. But the problem is that that assumes that these people look at it rationally. But suffering TDS means that rationality has long since exited the room. The notion that this Ukrainian support comes from Mattis against the wishes of Trump is just utterly bonkers. But bonkers and TDS go hand in hand.

AC,

You missed a step in your "Regime Change Script" - first start with a country where the people are oppressed and economically depressed.

You are wrong about Russia being a democracy. It isn't and never was, at least not in the sense of having free and fair elections the way we understand them. There was never a free press.

But the Russians are fine with that. Their national character seeks strong authoritarian leaders and has as far back as Rurik and Oleg. When Stalin died, Russians wept. Putin is a Tsar but has to play at being popularly elected for the sake of appearances. But whenever his authority is in the least bit challenged he acts in ways that Peter and Catherine (the greats) would have completely understood and applauded.

Thankfully though Russia is a spent force and continues its economic decline. The only reason it still matters is because the Democrats want to use it to justify their tantrum over loosing the election. The West's real foe over the net decade or three is China. Russia is a side-show.

ttbn,

I did not tell AC what to do.

All I asked was for him not to address any posts
to me as I won't be responding to them or reading
them.

Your attack on me is unwarranted and quite nasty.
Especially bringing up my mother who passed away
in January this year. That's low even for you.
You really are a toxic little man.

If these lefty fools had a modicum of intelligence and realised which side their bread is buttered on, they would be concerning themselves with really bad leaders like Xi Jinping, Recep Erdogan, the Saudi royal family, the South African parliament, all the dictators of the African continent, and so on. They could busy themselves with our own PM and Opposition Leader who are doing so much damage to their own country. There is also Teresa May and Angela Merkel, and the juvenile idiot in Canada - all doing their best to sell out the West.

But, no. They have to bad mouth a man who has refreshed tired old politics and made huge strides for his own country and the world. They are the real ‘traitors’ and ‘fools’.

how did some of us go from reds under the beds screamers to supporters of a man clearly too close to Russia? what would become of the west if no one said no to Putin?China? well at least some of us are concerned at the B grade Movie we know as America and its F grade leader who plays to his bib and brace overalls gumboot wearing Christian right supporters tomorrow as it is every day he will upset someone say he never said what he clearly did, and if he was say Clinton the reds under the beds side would scream in deep pain at him

Well I suppose I should apologise for calling you a Communist Belly,
I don't actually think you're one, and it is your thread as well;
I went too far stirring you up.

But all you bloody leftists stir me up too when you sell our the country out, and then whine about about Trump.

I'm sorry I called you a communist, that wasn't right;
But as long as you go along with all this feelgood progressive bs and support the ALP, I will consider you a collaborator in ruining the country.

Your lot defends Soros and his causes and takes his money, I can't give that a free pass.

Hi Foxy,
Well I'm sorry that you're offended, but if you understood the points I was trying to make, then you'd understand that I'm not specifically having a go at you.
I argue the pro's and con's of what you say on its own merits.

Regarding your request that I not respond to your comments;
I would not want anyone to feel victimised by my comments, and also I wouldn't want anyone to feel as though they can't have their comment in the first place for fear of being harassed.

But that said, if you to put your thoughts and opinions out into the big world of ideas they have to stand up to criticism.

If I was to self-censor my responses to you because you claimed harassment; then it would allow your opinions and ideas to be more easily spread without the merits of such ideas being challenged, would it not?

I've got to stand up for my country and what I believe in.
A wise person would see both sides.

I suppose these days its common for progressive's to back out of losing arguments without losing face by claiming harassment, when your arguments are shown to be flawed and not hold merit.

Once again, ethics...