I don't understand how you can made definitive blanket statements like that, based on the limited info we have.

All we have right now is one lying sack of shit talking to another lying sack of shit about some vague agreements.

NK has promised to denuclearize, on multiple occasions, since the early 1990s.

Please don't be naive.

And the post 1990 borders of Texas include historically Mexican lands populated by Mexican people...so what. It was sovereign and Russia acknowledged that, agreed to it, and signed binding treaties ratifying it permanently.

Those keys and systems would have been quickly replaced had those treaties not been enacted...enough of them to be a deterrent. Had we not agreed to defend them and Russia agreed to never try to annex or otherwise take them over, they would have been a nuclear nation and safe from Russian expansion.

As I said, not defending them was a violation. I'm not defending the US's actions.
Opportunity kicked off Russian land grabs, make no mistake.

That statement reflects our undeniable obligation under clear international treaty, not any personally desire to be at war.
Nuclear powers often go to war...by proxy. We've been in one in Syria recently. Edit: according to Russia, they weren't there anyway, so they would be hard pressed to complain about US military in the Ukraine fighting what Russia said were all Ukrainians, no?

Regarding collusion-This isn't a legal forum, you can debate legal terminology and specific charges on one, here, we all understand what collusion means and none of us are swearing out specific legal charges.
Definition of collusion:secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose; acting in collusion with the enemy

Edit: As for the coup, many called it the revolution. It was a coup by the populace, who largely thought the elections were rigged for pro Russians. That said, it was probably a violation for us to eventually support it (I think we waited until after Russian incursions, though). It still, in no way, excuses the Crimean or Ukrainian invasions and annexations.

Ah, I see you didn't read the links.

Else you would know :

* The post 1990 borders of Ukraine include historically Russian lands populated by Russian people.

* Ukraine's nukes could not be to guard against Russia because Russia had the crypto keys and guidance control over Ukrainian nukes.

* U.S. support for the 2014 coup against Ukraine's government was arguably also a treaty violation. (I don't actually care about this one)

* Government corruption, rising nationalism, and anti-Russian sentiment, are what led to the coup, which kicked off the fighting, which led to Russian intervention, which led to the "land grabs".


(Anti-Russian sentiment was brewing for years before the 2014 coup. You can see it play out in the 2012 language law issue, which was one of the historical turning points leading up to conflict: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_policy_in_Ukraine#Proposals_for_repeal_and_revision)


Sidenote, this statement is pure insanity : "We should be at war with Russia today over it's murderous expansions"
War with Russia would last less than an hour, and the only winner would be South America and Africa.
Nuclear powers can never go to war. I mean _never_ never.






Regarding collusion, here :
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/02/opinion/collusion-meaning-trump-.html

"
President Trump declared on Twitter: “There is NO COLLUSION!”
"
There ya go. A Trump declaration that the campaign was not illegally secretly coordinated (i.e. no collusion). Not backwards at all.

The link also explains the irrelevance of the term regarding legal issues.

-scheherazade

The USSR is gone. No one is trying to guard western industry against communist overthrow anymore. That time is long gone.




Imagine person A pushing person B, and person B pushes back, and the news runs around screaming that B pushed A. That's basically our simplistic news coverage about Ukraine.

Feel free to read about the 2014 coup : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Ukrainian_revolution
I take no issue with Ukrainians giving their old government a swift kick out the door (and for understandable reason - such as corruption). However, with that comes the usual scapegoating of the undesirables. Would it have been better that Russia let groups like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_Sector ravage ethnic Russians just across their border?

Crimea has been Russia from 1779 till ~1990, when it happened to end up under Ukrainian control after the USSR broke up. People living there are also Russian citizens, born either while it was still Russia, or to Russian parents.
Take a look:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Crimea
Then ask yourself, considering the right wing neo nazi anti-ethnic-Russian shitstorm in Ukraine, where would the Crimeans rather be?

Russia isn't a saint. It's acting in self interest. It's also not a villain. Things happen for reasons.

The treaty you refer to is : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances
The link explains how it can be read to fault either the U.S. (for coup involvement) or Russia (for subsequent conflict involvement).

Just to put things in perspective :
Imagine Russia getting involved in a coup in Mexico or Canada. Or imagine Russia placing missile launchers in Cuba. Do you think that we would be as cordial to Russia as Russia has been to us?
So Russia tries to help a candidate who prefers friendly relations, that's hardly the sign of a committed adversary.

I mean, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I shouldn't think and analyze the situation from multiple perspectives with consideration for circumstance and motivation, and instead I should just accept what the news has on 24/7 repeat. /s





Collusion is not a crime because /literally/ it is not a crime. You will not find the word "collusion" mentioned as an offense in any criminal code. It's only on TV because people started using that phrase to assert that the campaign and Russia were acting independently (which is irrelevant, they don't need to coordinate to break the law).


-scheherazde

I was in middle school/jr. high in 4/6/1990 before becoming a HS frosh!

saw this on teens react, pretty cool. I was a sophmore in 1990.

Ha!
Sci-fi channel makes these constantly....or at least airs them. They're usually a few rungs below the likes of Sharknado with 1990 videotoaster graphics and pure ripoff plots.

1. Mass shootings are <1% of the murder rate, and murder is <1% of the death rate. Getting wound up about mass shootings is as dumb as getting wound up about terrorism. They're both very small in relation to how much people freak out.
2. We already have lots of gun control. Especially in places like California, where the killer bought most of his guns legally and passed a background check.

3. Bump stocks were the real problem. Even the NRA is open to restricting bump stocks. Let's do that.

4. Let's not go overboard with the Australian solution. Australia's murder rate almost halved from 1990 to 2015, and people erroneously give the buyback credit for that, but in that same 25 year time span the US murder rate went down even more (from 9.4 to 4.5 per 100,000) The murder rate went down everywhere in that time frame due to banning leaded gasoline that causes brain damage. Also due to some smaller factors (more abortion, better software for predictive policing).

OK, a few things.

60 km/h is about 37 mph and although I don't know the exact speed limit on that street, it's not unreasonable to assume it's 50 or 60 km/h.

In the video, the light turns yellow approximately 1.5 seconds before he enters the intersection. He is going 54 km/h at that time. This means he is approximately 23 m from the intersection when the light turns yellow.

According to nacta.org, the safe stopping distance for an average driver at 35 mph is 136 ft or around 41 m.

From the Ontario Highway Traffic Act: Every driver approaching a traffic control signal showing a circular amber indication and facing the indication shall stop his or her vehicle if he or she can do so safely, otherwise he or she may proceed with caution. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 144 (15).

Also from the Ontario Highway Act: No driver or operator of a vehicle in an intersection shall turn left across the path of a vehicle approaching from the opposite direction unless he or she has afforded a reasonable opportunity to the driver or operator of the approaching vehicle to avoid a collision. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 141 (5).

1990 apparently...

Since when are teasers over 2 minutes long?

I'm hoping this is excellent, but just don't see how they can adequately compress it to a single movie. I really liked the miniseries they made in 1990, and can't imagine a better Pennywise than Tim Curry. We'll see.

Is there a signed treaty? No. But the US SoS (James A. Baker III) and the German Foreign Minister (Hans-Dietrich Genscher) are on the record in 1990

Genscher is on video tape stating very clearly: "Wir waren uns einig, dass nicht die Absicht besteht das NATO-Verteidigungsgebiet auszudehnen nach Osten. Das gilt übrigens nicht nur im Bezug auf die DDR, die wir da nicht einverlaiben wollen, sondern das gilt ganz generell."

In English: we are in agreement that there is no intention of expanding the NATO security zone eastwards. This applies not only to the GDR, which we do not intend to incorporate, but in general."

Or how about Baker's words, Feb. 9, 1990, St. Catherine's Hall at the Kremlin:
"If we maintain a presence in a Germany that is a part of NATO, there would be no extension of NATO's jurisdiction for forces of NATO one inch to the East."

And the minutes show Gorbachev as having said:
"Certainly any extension of the zone of NATO is unacceptable."

To which Baker replied:
"I agree."

Again, no treaties, nothing. But some people, myself included, make the argument that unequivocal statements of a nation's highest-ranking diplomat are to be taken seriously, unless overruled by explicit, written agreements.

And from what we've heard from Gorbachev over the years, he took them for their words.

Admittedly, having been replaced by Yelzin who received massive "help" from the US might have made Gorbachev a little grumpy.

What remains at the end is this: NATO was created as a defensive alliance against the Soviets and wasn't dissolved when the Soviet Union collapsed. The highest-ranking diplomats of the primary players at that time (US, FRG) are on the record with promises that NATO wouldn't expand eastwards after the German reunification. Now NATO is closer to Russia's border than ever and the Ukraine had a democratically elected government (they were thugs, but elected) overthrown by forces that had massive support from the US. As a result, fascist militias wearing SS insignia are roaming free in Novorossiya, with government support.

If I were Russia, I'd be pissed.

But I'm in Germany, so now I have a strongman in charge of Russia, a thug who has journalists and opposition in general killed, on the one side, and the Americans who installed a Nazi-sympathising regime in Ukraine on the other.

What's not to like about it.

So when the US establishment then goes on a full-blown bender to position Russia as a scapegoat for now having to live with President Trump, they are playing with fire just to distract from their fucked-up domestic policies.

And we're not even touching on the hypocrisy of the US being outraged when some foreign nation meddles in their internal affairs. Of course Russia tries to influence US politics in their favor. Guess what, so does the UK, France, Germany, NZ, China, Japan, even bloody Luxembourg for all I know. Just like the US exerts influence on German politics (ie German Marshall Fund, Atlantikbrücke, etc), and on politics of every other nation of significance.

No prob, I was just wondering.
Oh...I'm sorry you took it that way. I gave her a pass on this story alone, and only on the specific detail that she didn't say what the commentator claimed she did, but she did IMPLY what he said, and to those that don't listen closely, that's likely what they heard. I did not "buy it", I do hear what she came close to saying, and I call her out for being completely biased in her assessments and implications about what this means. You are correct, however, that while I APEAR to give her a pass for qualifying, I would likely not give those on the right the same....but that's only an appearance. Her IMPLICATION that this would "prove" they have something on Trump is just biased, conjecture, and wrong, and is a reason I don't watch her, even though I agree mostly with her takes on things.....mostly.
Kyle was lying when he reported what she said....and that's what I took issue with. I also took issue with his take on the issue that Russia militarizing it's borders isn't something to guard against...history proves him wrong.

The 'proof' of Russian involvement in the hacking is classified, you won't get to see it. That's an issue with Trump decrying the intelligence community (who didn't really get Iraq wrong, btw, they were clear in their uncertainty in their reports, but the administration erased any hint of uncertainty and claimed the redacted reports were fact publicly.)...but as a whole, I still have some trust in them...perhaps it's misplaced but I have a hard time believing so many intelligence organizations came to the same specific conclusions based on pure bias.

Um...Russia expanded into 2 countries recently, and are eyeing the other Slavic states. To me, that's a renewal of a hot war if we ever react like we're obligated to by treaty, until we do, it's a renewal of the cold war (and a violation of numerous treaties, including https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances) ...one that the pentagon is probably quite happy about, granted.

Again, don't feel you have to defend your viewpoint from me, or your admiration for a reporter....but allow me to have my own viewpoint, and to state and explain it if I choose. I am also quite biased, but not to the point of exclusion of fact.


EDIT: As to the troop placement in the Eastern NATO countries, I would like to see minutes of the 1990 summit where this agreement/guarantee was either made or not, not just reports of what Putin says today VS what Gorbachev says today...I want to see what was ACTUALLY said in the meeting, and more important, what was SIGNED by the parties. That the Russians haven't produced a signed treaty guaranteeing NATO wouldn't deploy farther in the East EVER is a pretty good indicator to me that it was not agreed on, so claims about what may have been SAID during negotiations are moot and have no bearing at all on what was agreed on. It's possible there was that agreement, if they just point us to it, I'll be on their side on this topic (unless it included a clause like "unless Russia begins expansion back into it's now independent satellites")

We don't have Kinder Eggs in the US, but we did have Wonder Balls in the 1990s. It was only a fad however and we have yet to have anything like Kinder Egg or Wonder Ball since.

I love Snopes. Of course, the devil is in the details:

"The editor of the biographical text about Barack Obama which was included in the booklet maintained that the mention of Kenya was an error on her part and was not based on any information provided to her by Obama himself:

"Miriam Goderich edited the text of the bio; she is now a partner at the Dystel & Goderich agency, which lists Obama as one of its current clients.

"'You're undoubtedly aware of the brouhaha stirred up by Breitbart about the erroneous statement in a client list Acton & Dystel published in 1991 (for circulation within the publishing industry only) that Barack Obama was born in Kenya. This was nothing more than a fact checking error by me — an agency assistant at the time," Goderich wrote. "There was never any information given to us by Obama in any of his correspondence or other communications suggesting in any way that he was born in Kenya and not Hawaii. I hope you can communicate to your readers that this was a simple mistake and nothing more.'

"A New York Times article about Barack Obama published in 1990, a year before the Acton & Dystel promotional booklet was issued, correctly identified his birthplace as Hawaii.

"A variant of this item paired the image shown above with the statement "Big Oops! Harvard Law Review did not cleanse its 1991 yearbook which states he was born in Kenya." As noted above, the biographical sketch pictured above was put out by a literacy agency; it was not part of any yearbook published by Harvard."