Deripaska
jamie said:
Was wondering if Paul was for removing sanctions from Deripaska so that this could happen:
https://time.com/5651345/rusal-investment-braidy-kentucky/
I should probably look on Mate's twitter account to find Paul's answer.
Yes. Doing business with Russia is a normal thing. Just ask anyone of the 3,000 US companies who are doing business there:
http://www.aalep.eu/american-companies-operating-russia
People who haven't learned from the collusion scam yet need to re-read The Crucible or better yet The Emperor's New Clothes as a first step toward recovery of their mental capacity.
I never said doing business with Russia was bad - but certain actors that you will defend until their gone are not the best. Just to be clear - you're completely happy with Deripaska and his past business dealings?
jamie said:
I never said doing business with Russia was bad - but certain actors that you will defend until their gone are not the best. Just to be clear - you're completely happy with Deripaska and his past business dealings?
Funny you should mention defending "bad actors". The collusion thread is now examining why so many alleged liberals are defending the effort by Trump and Bolton to overthrow the Venezuelan government. And to make matters worse, there is an alleged liberal on that thread who refuses to acknowledge that Trump and Bolton are "meddling" in Venezuela.
But to answer your question, most if not all Russian oligarchs are thieves who plundered the natural wealth of the former Soviet Union with the acquiescence and encouragement of Boris Yeltsin who the US touted and supported (with billions of dollars) as the hero of Russian democracy. Yeltsin picked Vladimir Putin as his replacement, which is how Putin became president of Russia.
I assume that Deripaska, a Russian oligarch, is also a thief, which doesn't make me happy, but that's the nature of Russian capitalism that was created with the support and assistance of the US and every other Western country and international financial institution.
So the answer to your question is No.
paulsurovell said:
Funny you should mention defending "bad actors". The collusion thread is now examining why so many alleged liberals are defending the effort by Trump and Bolton to overthrow the Venezuelan government. And to make matters worse, there is an alleged liberal on that thread who refuses to acknowledge that Trump and Bolton are "meddling" in Venezuela.
Legitimate governmental authority in Venezuela was unconstitutionally usurped by Maduro with the support of the military. It's all explained on the "collusion thread", so no reason to argue about it on this unrelated thread.
paulsurovell said:
But to answer your question, most if not all Russian oligarchs are thieves who plundered the natural wealth of the former Soviet Union with the acquiescence and encouragement of Boris Yeltsin who the US touted and supported (with billions of dollars) as the hero of Russian democracy. Yeltsin picked Vladimir Putin as his replacement, which is how Putin became president of Russia.
I assume that Deripaska, a Russian oligarch, is also a thief, which doesn't make me happy, but that's the nature of Russian capitalism that was created with the support and assistance of the US and every other Western country and international financial institution.
"Vladimir Putin, The Innocent Bystander" is the most absurd and fantastical "whatabout" to date.
Based on the above scenario you have laid out, "most if not all Russian oligarchs are thieves who plundered the natural wealth of the former Soviet Union with the acquiescence and encouragement of Boris Yeltsin", do you think that there is a separation between the current government of Russia and the thieving oligarchs?paulsurovell said:
Funny you should mention defending "bad actors". The collusion thread is now examining why so many alleged liberals are defending the effort by Trump and Bolton to overthrow the Venezuelan government. And to make matters worse, there is an alleged liberal on that thread who refuses to acknowledge that Trump and Bolton are "meddling" in Venezuela.
But to answer your question, most if not all Russian oligarchs are thieves who plundered the natural wealth of the former Soviet Union with the acquiescence and encouragement of Boris Yeltsin who the US touted and supported (with billions of dollars) as the hero of Russian democracy. Yeltsin picked Vladimir Putin as his replacement, which is how Putin became president of Russia.
I assume that Deripaska, a Russian oligarch, is also a thief, which doesn't make me happy, but that's the nature of Russian capitalism that was created with the support and assistance of the US and every other Western country and international financial institution.
So the answer to your question is No.
If yes, do you think that separation is greater or lesser than the separation between the US government and its oligarch's and their lobbyists?
nohero said:
paulsurovell said:
Funny you should mention defending "bad actors". The collusion thread is now examining why so many alleged liberals are defending the effort by Trump and Bolton to overthrow the Venezuelan government. And to make matters worse, there is an alleged liberal on that thread who refuses to acknowledge that Trump and Bolton are "meddling" in Venezuela.
Legitimate governmental authority in Venezuela was unconstitutionally usurped by Maduro with the support of the military. It's all explained on the "collusion thread", so no reason to argue about it on this unrelated thread.
@nohero opines that Maduro's election was "unconstitutional" and that's why he supports Trump's efforts to overthrow Maduro. No US meddling in Venezuela, according to @nohero.
Unfortunately, Maduro is recognized by the United Nations as the President of Venezuela, despite the efforts of another one of @nohero's heroes -- Mike Pence -- to change that. And that carries more weight than @nohero's legal mumbo-jumbo.
ridski said:
Based on the above scenario you have laid out, "most if not all Russian oligarchs are thieves who plundered the natural wealth of the former Soviet Union with the acquiescence and encouragement of Boris Yeltsin", do you think that there is a separation between the current government of Russia and the thieving oligarchs?paulsurovell said:
Funny you should mention defending "bad actors". The collusion thread is now examining why so many alleged liberals are defending the effort by Trump and Bolton to overthrow the Venezuelan government. And to make matters worse, there is an alleged liberal on that thread who refuses to acknowledge that Trump and Bolton are "meddling" in Venezuela.
But to answer your question, most if not all Russian oligarchs are thieves who plundered the natural wealth of the former Soviet Union with the acquiescence and encouragement of Boris Yeltsin who the US touted and supported (with billions of dollars) as the hero of Russian democracy. Yeltsin picked Vladimir Putin as his replacement, which is how Putin became president of Russia.
I assume that Deripaska, a Russian oligarch, is also a thief, which doesn't make me happy, but that's the nature of Russian capitalism that was created with the support and assistance of the US and every other Western country and international financial institution.
So the answer to your question is No.
If yes, do you think that separation is greater or lesser than the separation between the US government and its oligarch's and their lobbyists?
No and lesser (although not so much on many issues).
nohero said:
paulsurovell said:
But to answer your question, most if not all Russian oligarchs are thieves who plundered the natural wealth of the former Soviet Union with the acquiescence and encouragement of Boris Yeltsin who the US touted and supported (with billions of dollars) as the hero of Russian democracy. Yeltsin picked Vladimir Putin as his replacement, which is how Putin became president of Russia.
I assume that Deripaska, a Russian oligarch, is also a thief, which doesn't make me happy, but that's the nature of Russian capitalism that was created with the support and assistance of the US and every other Western country and international financial institution.
"Vladimir Putin, The Innocent Bystander" is the most absurd and fantastical "whatabout" to date.
Putin the Devil Incarnate is equally absurd and far more dangerous.
paulsurovell said:
No and lesser (although not so much on many issues).
I appreciate the answer. Why do you think Russian oligarchs have less influence over the Russian government?
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:
"Vladimir Putin, The Innocent Bystander" is the most absurd and fantastical "whatabout" to date.
Putin the Devil Incarnate is equally absurd and far more dangerous.
But the former accurately describes a position here, the latter doesn't. That being said, his governance seems to lack any redeeming qualities.
paulsurovell said:
@nohero opines that Maduro's election was "unconstitutional" and that's why he supports Trump's efforts to overthrow Maduro. No US meddling in Venezuela, according to @nohero.
Unfortunately, Maduro is recognized by the United Nations as the President of Venezuela, despite the efforts of another one of @nohero's heroes -- Mike Pence -- to change that. And that carries more weight than @nohero's legal mumbo-jumbo.
That's not how things work. The United Nations isn't some world "supreme government" that has to approve the governments of all its members. That's how right-wing ranters describe it, when they tell their gullible followers that the "sovereignty" of the United States is at risk from the UN. It's also how the UN is described in those "Left Behind" books about the "Rapture" and the End Times, fwiw.
What Paul calls "legal mumbo-jumbo" is more properly called "the rule of law". Under that, in Venezuela Maduro's hold on power is unconstitutional. So Paul and I disagree on the importance of the rule of law.
nohero said:
paulsurovell said:
@nohero opines that Maduro's election was "unconstitutional" and that's why he supports Trump's efforts to overthrow Maduro. No US meddling in Venezuela, according to @nohero.
Unfortunately, Maduro is recognized by the United Nations as the President of Venezuela, despite the efforts of another one of @nohero's heroes -- Mike Pence -- to change that. And that carries more weight than @nohero's legal mumbo-jumbo.
That's not how things work. The United Nations isn't some world "supreme government" that has to approve the governments of all its members. That's how right-wing ranters describe it, when they tell their gullible followers that the "sovereignty" of the United States is at risk from the UN. It's also how the UN is described in those "Left Behind" books about the "Rapture" and the End Times, fwiw.
What Paul calls "legal mumbo-jumbo" is more properly called "the rule of law". Under that, in Venezuela Maduro's hold on power is unconstitutional. So Paul and I disagree on the importance of the rule of law.
When someone's desperate attempt to defend Trump's criminal policy to overthrow a foreign government pushes him over the edge.
ridski said:
paulsurovell said:
No and lesser (although not so much on many issues).
I appreciate the answer. Why do you think Russian oligarchs have less influence over the Russian government?
The "lesser" was a response to your question about US oligarchs.
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:
What Paul calls "legal mumbo-jumbo" is more properly called "the rule of law". Under that, in Venezuela Maduro's hold on power is unconstitutional. So Paul and I disagree on the importance of the rule of law.
When someone's desperate attempt to defend Trump's criminal policy to overthrow a foreign government pushes him over the edge.
My turn? Okay, here goes -
Paul denies Maduro's regime is a criminal enterprise that violated Venezuelan law to hold on to power. Which explains his misinformation campaign on MOL.
paulsurovell said:
The "lesser" was a response to your question about US oligarchs.
Yeah, I know what my question was and what your answer was. I'm asking a second question based on that answer: why do you think that is so?
ridski said:
paulsurovell said:
The "lesser" was a response to your question about US oligarchs.
Yeah, I know what my question was and what your answer was. I'm asking a second question based on that answer: why do you think that is so?
Well your comment that I thought that Russian oligarchs have less influence over the government indicates that you didn't know what my answer was.
Let's start over. Please re-state your question in a clear, coherent manner, and I'll be happy to answer.
I concur. I was unclear and misstated my own question, so I apologize. Posting 2 hours before first coffee is rarely a good idea in my case.paulsurovell said:
Well your comment that I thought that Russian oligarchs have less influence over the government indicates that you didn't know what my answer was.
Let's start over. Please re-state your question in a clear, coherent manner, and I'll be happy to answer.
What I meant to ask was... why do you think that Russian oligarchs have more influence over the Russian government than the US equivalent?
ridski said:
I concur. I was unclear and misstated my own question, so I apologize. Posting 2 hours before first coffee is rarely a good idea in my case.paulsurovell said:
Well your comment that I thought that Russian oligarchs have less influence over the government indicates that you didn't know what my answer was.
Let's start over. Please re-state your question in a clear, coherent manner, and I'll be happy to answer.
What I meant to ask was... why do you think that Russian oligarchs have more influence over the Russian government than the US equivalent?
The short answer is that political democracy and economic competition are far less developed in Russia than in the US.
paulsurovell said:
The short answer is that political democracy and economic competition are far less developed in Russia than in the US.
Would you say that the corrupted nature of Russian government is of its own design, or US-led, or a combination of both?
ridski said:
paulsurovell said:
The short answer is that political democracy and economic competition are far less developed in Russia than in the US.
Would you say that the corrupted nature of Russian government is of its own design, or US-led, or a combination of both?
The US mid-wived predatory Russian capitalism, but beyond that it's pretty much their own design.
paulsurovell said:
The US mid-wived predatory Russian capitalism, but beyond that it's pretty much their own design.
That's pretty much my view of it, too. It's a shame, too. I wonder if they'll ever manage to break free from the stranglehold the Bratva-tied oligarchs and politicians have them in. There's so much potential in those states, and they've never really known anything close to western freedom, if there was/is such a thing.
So - there are rumors that a Russian oligarch is a co-signer on Trump's Deutsche Bank loans.
Paul - if it turns out that this IS Deripaska - do you think that's a good thing? Or would you concede that this could be a reason why Trump is unable to disparage Russia for anything on the world stage?
Or are Russian oligarchs very often loan co-signers for American "billionaires"? And this is a normal thing.
jamie said:
So - there are rumors that a Russian oligarch is a co-signer on Trump's Deutsche Bank loans.
Paul - if it turns out that this IS Deripaska - do you think that's a good thing? Or would you concede that this could be a reason why Trump is unable to disparage Russia for anything on the world stage?
Or are Russian oligarchs very often loan co-signers for American "billionaires"? And this is a normal thing.
I'm glad you have a new rumor to raise your spirits.
But your basic premise is way off:
so - it's fine to be financially connected with Deripaska - got it!
And you believe one tweet against Putin makes up for everything? wow, just wow. I guess you must take ALL of his tweets seriously then? And you're giving me a link from Feb 2018 as your backup proof?
jamie said:
so - it's fine to be financially connected with Deripaska - got it!
And you believe one tweet against Putin makes up for everything? wow, just wow. I guess you must take ALL of his tweets seriously then? And you're giving me a link from Feb 2018 as your backup proof?
Didn't say that. You're getting over your skis again.
When Trump says he's been the toughest president on Russia ever he's not far from the truth. Don't get hung up on what he says, look at what he does. I thought you understood that.
And I guess I need to spell out that lowering the threshhold for the use of nuclear weapons and threatening to install nuclear missiles near the Russian border are not pro-Putin policies.
Was wondering if Paul was for removing sanctions from Deripaska so that this could happen:
https://time.com/5651345/rusal-investment-braidy-kentucky/
I should probably look on Mate's twitter account to find Paul's answer.