Trump Timeline ... Trumpocalypse

[Michael Scally MD]

MOSCOW — President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, in a decision that was widely expected, suspended his country’s observance of a key nuclear arms control pact on Saturday in response to a similar move by the United States a day before.

But adding to a sense that the broader architecture of nuclear disarmament has started to unravel, Mr. Putin also said that Russia would build weapons previously banned under the treaty and would no longer initiate talks with the United States on any matters related to nuclear arms control.

The Trump administration withdrew from the treaty, a keystone of the late Cold War disarmament pacts known as the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, saying that Russia had been violating it for years. The decision holds the potential to initiate a new arms race, not only with Russia, but also China, which was never a signatory to the 1987 treaty.

In a televised meeting on Saturday with his ministers of foreign affairs and defense, Mr. Putin said Russia would, indeed, design and build weapons previously banned under the treaty — something the United States says Russia is already doing — but would not deploy them unless America did so first.

 

[Michael Scally MD]

Okay, everyone, I'm going to explain why the INF Treaty even existed and why it's an idiotic move to dump it and think we can replicate our success against the USSR in the 1980s all over again. Mute or turn off notifications if you don't want this mini-lecture. /1

The problem centers around "extended deterrence." How do you convince your opponent you'll respond to an attack on your allies as you would an attack on yourself? You can *say* that you will treat invading Bonn like it's an invasion of New York, but how do you make it stick? /2

NATO had this problem because it was grossly outnumbered during the Cold War. So we said: Well, we'll nuke you. The Soviets said: "Whatever. You won't trade Chicago for Frankfurt." For us to jump from "war in Europe" to "nuking Leningrad" was a stretch. /3

We had a gap. We had"battlefield" nukes for affecting the course of battles (like tank engagements) and "strategic" nukes for US vs USSR strikes. We needed something in between, which would strike Soviet forces in Eastern Europe as a step toward all-out war./4

Both sides developed "theater" nukes that could strike far in the rear of each alliance, and thus provide a link from Europe to all-out nuclear war. This is why they were a deterrent: because they made it, paradoxically, easier to get from "shots fired" to "Moscow melted." /5

In the 1970s, the Soviets (as usual) tried to get the upper hand in this competition and fielded a much more accurate, mobile version of these weapons, a strategically insane move that was even opposed by the Soviet diplomatic establishment. But Moscow's generals got their way /6

These Soviet weapons were so menacing that NATO came together in the late 70s - yes, at the behest of Carter, not Reagan - to field a responding system that could also drop a nuke down a rabbit hole (or on Moscow) almost immediately. This was an *immensely* dangerous time. /7

By the 1980s, war in Europe could go to all-out nuclear war in minutes. But here's what was *different*: We put those weapons in Europe *in the path of a Soviet invasion.* We told the Soviets: "If you come in, we'll have no choice. It'll be your doing, not ours." /8

In other words, deterrence relied on the Soviets triggering a "use or lose" crisis, rather than relying on some steely-eyed decision in Washington to unleash hell. That made a huge difference. Maybe a POTUS would lose his nerve...but what about the guys about to be overrun? /9

This was a good move, because it made the link from war in Europe to the end of the USSR a lot more credible. Deterrence was, in a way, taken out of our hands, and nuclear war would be the fault of the Soviets for invading, whether we wanted it or not, and they knew it./10

And there's the hitch: today, we're not defending against some massive Soviet invasion anymore. The targets for most of the old US INF were areas that are now part of NATO.
Now, a new US INF would have only one target: Russia. /11

Today, there's no "Warsaw Pact" to fight this out on. If we use INF, we'll be hitting inside Russia. If you think that this is a good idea, well, te salud, Don Corleone, because there's no way the Russians will sit around and just take a nuke strike inside Russia. /12

Likewise, in Asia, we have nowhere to put these weapons if we develop them again. (Japan? South Korea? Uh, no.) And the only targets for them will be in China itself. There's no "theater" in which we'll be striking; in both Russia and China, these will be strategic strikes. /13

Or, put another way, the Russians and the Chinese will have to *assume* these are strategic strikes, especially if we do something ludicrous like put the new INF on submarines. "Oh, that launch? Just a theater strike. Don't overreact." Sure. Good luck with that. /14

What will deter Russia? If they know they'd lose a conventional action of any size. But we don't like spending money on expensive troops and guns, so instead, we're letting the Russians bait us into a nuclear standoff that benefits *them*, because of the home turf advantage. /15

Without the trigger of INF placed in the way of advancing Russian armies - and no one's going to do that, unless you think we should line the Polish and Baltic borders with nukes - we're left with a *discretionary* force that relies solely on our promise to go nuclear. /16

This is the situation we were trying to get *out of* in the 60s, that we solved briefly in the 80s (at the risk of a holocaust), and that Reagan got us out of as soon he could. We're now the conventionally superior power - but we're acting like it's 1975./17

And trying to replicate the 1980s in Europe by doing it again in Asia is mindless and ahistorical, the kind of thing wargamers come up when they treat nuclear weapons like a big game of Risk. You want to worry China? Build more ships, not more nukes that you won't use./18

Dumping the INF Treaty has long been a cherished idea among guys like Bolton who hate treaties, and nuclear enthusiasts who think you can pop off a couple of dozen small nukes and not escalate to Armageddon. No Dem or GOP administration wanted that until now, so here we are. /19

In sum, we don't know what we're doing. We're not thinking about why we would go to war, what scenarios we're trying to defeat. We're just playing tit for tat, without even knowing why. We're just flailing around, alienating our own NATO allies, then pretending we're tough. /20

Worse, we've come to believe that everything worked out fine in the 1980s, when in fact guys on both sides had to change their shorts when all that was over. We got by that with careful leadership and some basic luck. I guess now all that's left is to buy stock in Vault-Tec. /21x

Thread by @RadioFreeTom: "Okay, everyone, I'm going to explain why the INF Treaty even existed and why it's an idiotic move to dump it and think we can replicate our […]"

 

[Michael Scally MD]

 

[Michael Scally MD]

tRumpFuckingIdiot, tRumpTard, ...

 

[Michael Scally MD]

Trump Sought a Loan During the 2016 Campaign. Deutsche Bank Said No.

Donald J. Trump was burning through cash.

It was early 2016, and he was lending tens of millions of dollars to his presidential campaign and had been spending large sums to expand the Trump Organization’s roster of high-end properties.

To finance his business’s growth, Mr. Trump turned to a longtime ally, Deutsche Bank, one of the few banks still willing to lend money to the man who has called himself “The King of Debt.”

Mr. Trump’s loan request, which has not been previously reported, set off a fight that reached the top of the German bank, according to three people familiar with the request. In the end, Deutsche Bank did something unexpected. It said no.

Senior officials at the bank, including its future chief executive, believed that Mr. Trump’s divisive candidacy made such a loan too risky, the people said. Among their concerns was that if Mr. Trump won the election and then defaulted, Deutsche Bank would have to choose between not collecting on the debt or seizing the assets of the president of the United States.

The failed loan request is an untold chapter in Mr. Trump’s long and tortured relationship with the banking industry. It shows that he was actively engaged in running his business in the midst of the presidential campaign, and it is likely to attract scrutiny from Democrats on two House committees that are investigating his two-decade relationship with Deutsche Bank.

 

[Michael Scally MD]

 

[master.on]

Oh yeah, I know someone who has a PhD in Pharmaceutical biology and has a patent on a chemical that everybody here is familiar with. Runs a division of a Fortune 500 company. He'd make you and Andy Borowitz look dumb, so....He voted for Trump.

Compare that to doctor pct, who doesn't seem to have anything better to do on a beautiful Saturday evening.

 

[Seattle23]

Darwin's been pretty good to my genetic pool so why dont you eat a big, fat dick!

 

[johntt44]

That's all you got! Really? I bet you look more like them than I do. That from the family photo album?

 

[Michael Scally MD]

 

[Michael Scally MD]

 

[Michael Scally MD]

 

[Michael Scally MD]

 

[Michael Scally MD]

 

[Michael Scally MD]

 

[Michael Scally MD]

 

[Michael Scally MD]

 

[Michael Scally MD]

 

[Big_paul]

HOLIDAY POWER GRAB
https://claytoonz.com/2019/02/01/holiday-power-grab/

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has no shame. The man isn’t afraid of exhibiting blatant hypocrisy. He’s not ashamed of stealing power. He’s not ashamed of preventing bills from being voted on. He’s not ashamed of changing the rules to put the least acceptable people on the Supreme Court. He’s not ashamed of stealing a Supreme Court seat. Most of all, he’s not ashamed of being the leader of the United States Senate while doing all he can to suppress the people’s choice that puts the leader in place. This is why people yell at him in restaurants. Plus, he looks like a tortoise and those things shouldn’t be allowed in restaurants.

This week, he accused Democrats of a “power grab” when they presented a bill to make Election Day a paid federal holiday.

Voting on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November is a United States tradition. It’s also a relic of a bygone era, like the Electoral College. You would have thought we’d have gotten rid of one of those things when we got rid of slavery. Most developed nations hold elections on weekends or have made them national holidays. Most developed nations encourage as many eligible voters to vote as possible. Republicans hate that. Republicans prefer lower turnouts on Election Day. Most Republicans are still in a plantation-state-of-mind.

McConnell is right. It is a “power grab.” But, Election Day is supposed to be a power grab by the people. Our leaders should be elected by the majority vote, not by acreage which is what the Electoral College does. It’s also how we’re represented in the Senate which is why Republicans control it.

McConnell is not opposed to all “power grabs.” He’s not opposed to gerrymandering. He’s not opposed to voters being purged, like what happened in Georgia for the last election. he’s not opposed to wanky new rules preventing Native Americans from voting, like what happened in North Dakota in the last election. He’s not opposed to towns like Dodge City, Kansas moving their voting precinct outside the city limits. He’s not opposed to African-American students at Prairie View A&M being given the wrong information on where to vote. He’s not even opposed to Russian meddling to help elect a Republican president. He’s not opposed to that Republican candidate colluding with the Russians.

McConnell and Republicans fear a large turnout on Election Day because more Americans vote Democratic, that is, when they bother to vote. According to a 2014 Pew Survey, 51 percent of non-voters lean toward Democrats.

Since 2000, Democrats have only won the House when they won a majority of the vote nationwide. In 2018, they won over 53 percent of the House vote. In 2012, Republicans got fewer votes for the House than Democrats, but they still retained the chamber. When Republicans made massive gains in 1994 and 2010, they got more seats than Democrats did in 2018, though with a smaller percentage of the vote.

Republicans actually gained seats in the Senate while losing the vote to Democrats by over 12 million. They even control the White House despite receiving fewer votes than the Democratic candidate thanks to the Electoral College and Vladimir Putin.

Republicans fear an equal playing field. I’ve actually heard Republicans argue that they should receive more representation since more people vote Democratic. They love to display maps showing how Red the country is, ignoring that the majority of that red space is lowly-populated areas, like Kansas and Nebraska. Republicans think grass should have more representation than black people.

When every citizen of this nation has an equal vote, Republicans will lose. The majority of this nation are tired of Republicans and their bullshit. They’re tired of a party that only cares about white, male, Christian, and rich greedy bastards. They’re tired of a party that has more deference to Russia than to patriotism.

Most of all, they’re afraid of what they screamed about during the Obama era, people taking their country back.

McConnell and Republicans should be making voting easier, not harder. But they won’t do that because their ideas can’t compete with those of Democrats. We won’t have a nation for the people by the people until we get rid of the old guys who favor representation by corporations and lobbies that don’t care if your toddler gets shot at preschool.

Democracy could be a beautiful thing, if we ever try it. So would kicking Mitch McConnell to the curb, which would be much more beneficial than screaming at him in a restaurant.

View attachment 105264

POS

 

[Michael Scally MD]