stevenkesslar

Actually, that's almost correct. Your statement about shakedowns works as long as you exclude countries that harvest organs from young adults who are minorities (China/Ivanka/fashion trademarks!!!!), or countries that use bone saws to kill Americans (Jared/Saudi Arabia/$2 billion slush fund). Other than that, you are absolutely correct. Jared Kushner raised $2B from Saudi prince MBS Affinity Partners raised funds six months after Kushner left White House Ivanka’s Trademark Requests Were Fast-Tracked In China After Trump Was Elected

I agree. I refer to Bush 41's war as "Desert Storm." The salient point there is what I think is still called the Powell Doctrine. Have defined objectives. Get in. Get out. We did. We won. To me the Bush 43 War, what I call the Iraq war, was total folly. When I'd argue with people about it I would use some quote or part of an essay from Bush 41, in the context of defending why he did NOT go to Baghdad. Everything Bush 41 predicted could go wrong did go wrong under Bush 43. I think there were four points. We'd get bogged down in a quagmire. It would split our allies. It would divide America. It would unite our opponents, especially Iran at the time. All turned out to be true. This is actually where I would differ a bit with Mearsheimer. Watching his speech I posted above (to some centrist DC think tank) is the first time I really rethought how I have felt since the war started. I think he's just right, from a military perspective, that time and the odds are on Putin's side. If Putin's objective is in fact to take over some or all Russian-speaking parts of Ukraine. I think Mearsheimer biggest thing really is that this is wrecking Ukraine. Which is what we don't want, and which was avoidable. He'd be the first one to say, "But, we are where we are." What I think he may underestimate is all Bush 41's points. This is unifying NATO. This is turning the world against Russia, and to some degree China. Even though much of the world wants to stay neutral, understandably. This is going to be a quagmire for Putin, even and especially if he can swallow a big chunk of Ukraine. The biggest problem for the US is this could also eventually split America. Since the Trump/MAGA folks want to cut a deal with Putin so Ukraine is not our problem. On my list of what would cause Vlad to actually use tactical nukes, not bluster, #1 would be to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO. My logic goes like this. He did write a love letter to Ukraine. Which I think can be read as a plea to not turn Ukraine into an anti-Russia neighbor. But when push came to shove, all bluster and rhetoric aside, he decided that it made sense to just start slaughtering Ukrainian children like pigs, anyway. That's not bluster. So it suggests he's actually willing to go pretty far. Putin's a realist. So he has to know Ukrainians now hate Russia, even if some are forced to become part of it. But to Murderous Vlad slaughtering Ukrainian children like pigs and earning their hate and retaliation forever was worth preventing Ukraine from becoming an anti-Russia NATO neighbor. So would he take it one step further and use tactical nukes in Ukraine to prevent that? I'd say there's a good chance he would. Here's a debate I'd like to listen to. It would only take on real world meaning if Ukraine can't kick Russian soldiers out, and so there is a military stalemate. The debate I want is between Mearsheimer and Kissinger. Both argued for years for Ukraine to be a neutral and peaceful bridge between Russia and NATO. Otherwise, they warned, it might get wrecked. Both argue it is now too late for that. Mearsheimer argues that there is no way Putin will let any part of Ukraine join NATO. And don't even think about it, because he will use nukes to prevent that. Kissinger argues that Russia might accept Ukraine joining NATO. But it would have to be in the context of really changing the way Russia is treated. Like not as a pariah. Mearsheimer would argue, "Good luck with that." The West now sees Putin as Hitler. And Putin has no reason to trust a word any Western leader says. Like I said, the only point at which I think this kind of debate even makes sense is if there is a military stalemate that both sides want to somehow negotiate their way out of. For now, I'm for Ukraine turning Russia's young men into fertilizer. Russian Moms can thank Vlad for that. 😱

Which is where it gets tricky. If we really wanted Ukraine to have a deterrent, there were two things we could have done. One, told them to keep their nuclear weapons, so they could decide to remove Moscow from the planet at will. Or two, actually get them in NATO in 2008, or as soon as possible thereafter. We did neither. So, again, I think we - the US, NATO, the West - helped create this uncertainty where Ukraine is now being wrecked. So part of that uncertainty is that Ukraine, by design or error, could in fact start dropping our bombs on Russia. Some have argued they have a huge incentive to escalate, since it will draw NATO in. Which is what they want. It is very understandable to me that Zelenskyy was incensed about Biden's reticence about NATO. Because he is left dangling by a thread with a brutal butcher nearby. But Biden has read the polls and knows America is not itching to go to war with Russia. And meanwhile of course Trump will settle the whole thing in a day. Or maybe a few hours. Who knows. On the list of things that could provoke Vlad to use nukes, US bombs dropping on Moscow would probably be pretty high up there. Even if they were sent courtesy of Ukraine. I'd make a clear distinction there. Some have argued that Vlad may use nukes if Ukraine starts successfully retaking the four oblasts and humiliating Russia. If he did that, that's where I hope NATO just send the jets in. Because we are defending Ukrainians who are defending Ukrainian territory. Actually attacking Moscow with US weapons is a very different thing. I was adamantly opposed to the Iraq War. I hope what we've learned is that when we go on offense, we tend to suck. When we are defending people who actually want to be defended, we do much better. If you go with the idea that Ukraine is being wrecked, which is not really what either the US or even Murderous Vlad wants, it does make sense to keep the war in Ukraine and try to make it the least bad it can be. That means, best case, Ukraine can actually win a war of attrition. Worst case, Murderous Vlad chews off and swallows a chunk of Ukraine. But then, whether he realizes it or nor, I think just about 100 % of the 20th Century - not to mention more recent adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan - suggests he's gonna have some really nasty shit inside him for a long time to come. I do think Murderous Vlad has a huge problem, either way. Poor thing. As far as US and NATO interests, I like the idea that what starts in Ukraine stays in Ukraine and ends in Ukraine. If US or NATO leaders decide it is in our interest to blow up lots of Russians, we should do that inside Ukraine. There are lots of Russian soldiers there that the locals would absolutely love to see slaughtered.

Exactly. There's two issues. I assume the generals and diplomats are both working overtime to calibrate aggression and response. So you have good ideas about measured responses. If they do A, we do B. But we don't do C. My point is that Putin, for now, is fighting a long and very bloody war of attrition. In which he has more soldiers and more artillery. So if we are talking about what NATO's force can do, I hope Putin has been told that if he does certain things, like nukes, we'll send in NATO jets. Not ships or escorts. And we will blow the fuck out of Russian soldiers and defenses. To me the absolute worst form of appeasement would be tolerating Putin's use of nukes. That said, whatever we do involving grains and ships doesn't alter the fundamental dynamic. Putin could win a long and bloody war of attrition by outmanning and outgunning his opponents. Second issue. Putin is not Hitler. This is where I think Mearsheimer, who I have cited a lot, is right on. His basic shtick, and the title of his most recognized book, is about the tragedy of great power politics. His pithy line about Hitler is that he ran "Murder, Inc." and killed about 20 million people, mostly civilians. Nazi Germany was fundamentally an aspiring great power that was going to cause trouble and had to be stopped, he argues. He viewed the USSR the same way, but less deadly. He puts Putin in a different category, I think appropriately. He argues, and I agree, that NATO fucked up in 2008 when it promised Ukraine, "We have your back, but not really." He has argued for years Ukraine was in danger of being wrecked. And now it is being wrecked. Mearsheimer has a word that I think describes this perfectly: tragedy. Especially for Ukraine. That's not excusing or apologizing for Murderous Vlad. But it is saying he is not Hitler. Meaning he does not have to be stopped at all costs, even if it totally wrecks Ukraine. Because even Murderous Vlad, in his love letter to Ukraine I posted above, seems to say that wrecking Ukraine is not the purpose of this exercise. Besides, even if he gets what he wants, like four or more oblasts, he's going to have to fix what he wrecked. While millions of Ukrainians (even if they are forced to be Russians) with dead husbands or kids dwell on how much they hate Russians. i agree with Kissinger and Mearsheimer that until Putin chose to start this war, there was a path to a neutral Ukraine that was a peaceful bridge between Russia and NATO. Not a country to be wrecked. Both those guys now argue it's too late for Plan A, thanks to Murderous Vlad. And if Ukraine wants to and can win a bloody war of attrition, I'm all for it. Like I said, what I most want now is for Biden and Congress to appropriate more money to send them more weapons ASAP. That's not appeasement. But the least bad Plan B for Ukraine may end up being a bloody and awful military stalemate. And the avoidance of even worse things that will further wreck Ukraine, like nuclear bombs dropping on Ukrainian cities or soldiers.

I agree. I was summarizing the argument someone else made. I think putting NATO ships at risk is not a particularly good idea. A better idea, if we Americans want to to roll the dice, is to blow the living fuck out of as many Russian soldiers in Ukraine as quickly and as mercilessly as can we can. With NATO planes, not ships. The only problem with my idea, like the NATO ship idea, is that Murderous Vlad might use the nuclear codes. That's probably why NATO jets won't blow the shit out of Russian soldiers. And even Murderous Vlad won't go nuclear. Short answer: you're right. That's exactly why Ukrainians will hate Russians more, and find it easier to kill you. You are right next door. How many drones from Kabul are ending up in Moscow these days? From Ukraine, a dead Russian in Moscow is just a drone's throw away. But why bother killing Russians in Moscow when it is so much easier to kill them in Ukraine? And the idea that you are slaughtering the Ukrainian children that you supposedly love, and that speak Russian, and are just like you, is precisely why Ukrainians will spend generations, if not lifetimes, wanting to slaughter you like pigs. Even the US, in Iraq and Afghanistan and Vietnam, couldn't figure out how to get Canadians to want to kill us. Somehow, Murderous Vlad managed to figure it out. Congratulations, @Moses! Long answer: let's discuss theory, and reality. As a preface, that video of John Mearsheimer saying Ukraine is more likely to lose a long and bloody war of attrition to Russia has a number of comments from what sound like very reasonable Russian citizens. Their point is that this academic, an American patriot, is able to see the world the way many or most Russians do. Why is that so hard? Article by Vladimir Putin ”On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians“ Mearsheimer referred to the love letter MV (I'll abbreviate for Murderous Vlad) wrote to Ukrainians in 2021. Listening to Mearsheimer, it honestly was a head scratcher. The Western propaganda I'd heard about the love letter was that MV is some psycho. Who has these delusions about history. And I will agree with MV's critics that his historical scholarship is very one-sided. But it honestly does read like a love letter. Or perhaps a plea. Let me quote MV. And since MV has a warm fuzzy spot is in his heart for Gays like me, I'll even stipulate that We Gays should view MV kindly. So let's assume what he says is correct: I said above that I think NATO fucked up in 2008. Mearsheimer would argue that Ukraine was essentially invited to be wrecked by NATO. And now they are being wrecked, with no end of the slaughter in sight. Now I'll add that we're going to stipulate that this is basically because Crooked Hillary and the CIA could not let it go. Fucking up Libya and fucking up Iraq was not enough. Crooked Hillary just had to fuck up Ukraine, too. Let's also say, as Mearsheimer and Kissinger do, that Ukraine played their cards poorly. They had a chance to be a peaceful bridge between NATO and Russia. Which is what MV is actually begging for in his love letter. So we have Crooked Hillary doing evil shit, which we all know she is good at. And MV and Ukrainian kids, who are all peace and love. Or all Мир и Любовь in the language they both speak. Ain't it swell? Let me quote MV again, from his love letter: Aww! What a guy! I said let's compare theory to reality. So we have Vlad's love letter as theory. Now let's shift to reality. Here's the rub. If Murderous Vlad respects Ukrainians' desire to be free, why the invasion? He has to know that in every oblast but the Crimea, over 80 % of Ukrainians voted for freedom from Russia. How is this respect? And if he wants Ukrainian children, many of whom speak Russian, to be safe, why is he slaughtering them like pigs? That's a really big problem, I'd say. Maybe that's how you build respect. But I'd guess it is how you build hate. Shit. Ukraine just voted to not even celebrate Christmas on the day Russians do. So much for traditions. I could make a good argument that Murderous Vlad fell into Crooked Hillary and the CIA's trap. He said in his love letter that it was unacceptable to further stoke these "anti-Russia" feelings in Ukraine. Well, geez Louise! (How do you say Geez, Vlad! in Russian?) I'd say he got exactly what he didn't want. He lost the geopolitical game. Ukrainians now hate Russians. And of course they would happily slaughter Russians like pigs. Just like Russians slaughter Ukrainian kids like pigs. Can you blame them? So we do have the Crooked Hillary Theory. But I think Mearsheimer is also right that this is a classic example of the tragedy of great power conflict. Although he says a big part of the problem is that MV is only a great power wannabe. If there is a road to peace, it probably starts with a military stalemate. And the idea that neither the US nor Russia really benefit from this in the long run. But China does. That said, I'd much rather be the US than Russia. Ukrainians are welcoming US soldiers who train them. Yet they are slaughtering Russian soldiers as quickly and as brutally as they can. Why do you you think that is, @Moses? One way in which this is exactly like Afghanistan, whether we are talking about the USSR or US invasion, is that it is a quagmire that the invading power can't win. Mearsheimer has the most optimistic take I've heard for MV, based on what he hears from smart Russians. The very best hope is that MV can hold the four oblasts he occupies, and maybe take a few more. But that is years of bloody war that will be really bad news for the Russian economy. Probably the best case for Russia is that they're able to continue to shrink slowly, rather than shrink a lot. Maybe all those Ukrainians forced to relocate to Russia can help. The way in which this is worse for Russia than Afghanistan is that your enemy is right next door. Or, actually, inside what Murderous Vlad now calls Russia. If you think they will stop wanting to slaughter you like pigs, @Moses, dream on. But it might be wise to lock your door when you're asleep. If I wanted to make a wildly optimistic prognosis for how Ukrainians will soon be swooning over Murderous Vlad, it would simply be that he is Murderous Vlad, If they don't love him, and respect him, he will kill them. So basically what played out in Chechnya plays out in Ukraine. It could work. Mearsheimer argues that Poland will be safe for 20 or so years. Because that's about how long it will take Murderous Vlad, or his Murderous Replacement, to pacify the Russian speaking part of Ukraine. Who voted 4 to 1 against being part of Russia. Oh, did I mention that was BEFORE their kids were systematically slaughtered? I think the problem is that Chechnya has a little more than 1 million people, compared to over 2 million in Kyiv alone. And Chechnya is not split in two, with NATO on their border. So MV did get exactly the problem he didn't want when he started a war. There's every reason to think this is like Afghanistan, just closer. And easier to kill Russians. If not, the other example not far away is West and East Germany, as the younger MV knew all too well. We all know how that ended. A lot more. Google says 15,000 Soviet soldiers died in Afghanistan. The estimates are 50,000 to 100,000 Russian soldiers so far. And if MV has his way, the slaughter is just getting started. Historians suggest the 15,000 dead soldiers and quagmire in Afghanistan helped bring down the USSR. If so, what does this mean for Murderous Vlad?

Precisely. I think there's at least two good ways to explain what I mean. One, I want Biden to keep doing what he is doing now. And NOT what some of the more isolationist voices in the Republican Party want to do. Which is disengage. Two, you are also correct that the number of people who know what Ukraine needs to win is ZERO. Zelenskyy does not know. Putin does not know. And Biden does not know. I'll repeat the main sobering thing I took away from the video I posted above. We have known from Day One that if the basic idea is that Ukraine and Russia are going to fight a long and bloody war of attrition, Russia has the upper hand. Why? Two reasons. One, more soldiers. Two, more artillery. Last year it looked like maybe Ukraine could push Russia out of Ukraine. Now it doesn't look that way so much. But, again, you and I don't know. I don't think anyone knows. So for now we just keep throwing massive amounts of weapons and lots of people into the meat grinder. And mostly what we get these days is lots of blood and dead Ukrainians and Russians. If it's a question of who wins the War Of The Human Meat Grinder, Russia has proven both through history and demography that it does have the upper hand. Will Ukraine somehow break through the defenses and drive Russians back? Maybe. Will Ukrainians shift toward thinking all we are doing is killing tens of thousands of Ukrainians (and eventually hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians) with no hope of taking any territory back? Maybe. Do you know? Nope. Do I know? Nope. I think the problem kind of solves itself. If things just grind down into a military stalemate, which seems quite possible, it probably reduces everyone's willingness to fund more war. That's predictable in the US, I think. And it increases Ukraine, the US, and NATO getting their mind around whatever a "cold peace" is. But we are nowhere near that yet. I think my wildly optimistic but not impossible "win" would be that Ukraine drives Russia out of the four oblasts they annexed and largely occupy. And they give up Crimea. In other words, go back to 2021, but not 2013. In the vote on Ukrainian independence the Crimea was the only oblast that was around 50/50. And now they have supposedly voted to be part of Russia. The idea of winning Crimea back militarily and making it Ukraine again just seems undoable. But, realistically, right now it's seems more like Western propaganda than reality to think Ukraine can actually push Russia back to the 2021 borders. We'll see. But I want Biden and NATO to keep trying, since that is what Ukraine wants. The other answer to your question is that if I got to choose who knows how to answer the question, I would choose Henry Kissinger and John Mearsheimer. Kissinger has been saying for years we should be spending more time trying to understand Putin, and less time trying to understand how to kill or depose him. Kissinger was for figuring out some way to make Ukraine a neutral state, like Austria. Whatever you think about that idea, Kissinger now says that is no longer possible. We're too far into a war to the death. So his best case scenario is like mine. We go back to the pre-2022 borders and Ukraine then gets to join NATO. Only problem, Mearsheimer adds, is that there is no way Putin will accept that. Oh, and it turns out Murderous Vlad has enough soldiers and artillery to enforce his will. And if it takes (fill in a number between 0 and 5 million) dead Ukrainians to enforce his will, who cares? That's why we call him Murderous Vlad. If he can't have Ukraine, he'll wreck it. That's the sober view of things. To me that sums it up. I think there's only two really important things that could change. One, maybe Ukraine actually can drive Russia out with their soldiers and US and NATO weapons. I am rooting for them. Or, two, we send in NATO and blow the shit out of as many Russian soldiers and weapons as we can inside the boundaries of what we recognize as Ukraine. And then see whether Vlad really wants World War III. Anyone here want to make THAT call? 😱 I do think the US and the EU are in a good position. The US fucks up when we decide to impose democracy on Afghanistan, or Iraq, or Libya, or Vietnam. Even if I take the most cynical pro-Putin view, that we can blame Hillary and the CIA for stirring up this mess, it is still 1000 % clear that most people in Ukraine don't want to be part of Russia. And now they deeply and passionately want to kill Russians. They may not throw roses at the feet of US soldiers. But they welcome their training, and their weapons. So I can say I'm proud to be an American, if that is what we Americans do. I'm guessing most Europeans feel the same way. And I don't get the feeling that the rest of the world, even if they want to stay neutral, feels like America is going off again, like we did in Iraq. If I could change one thing in America, it would be that we all agree to appropriate more money to build more weapons that Ukraine wants faster. But the Trumpy part of the GOP that is going soft on Ukraine won't have it. My poor Reagan-loving WWII veteran Dad must be rolling in his grave. But even if Vlad "wins," I think he loses. The most he can hope to win is a new Afghanistan, inside his self-proclaimed borders. Which is much closer and much more able and willing to fuck with Russia forever. Who knows. Maybe one of them will manage to kill Vlad. I'd gladly piss on his grave. But I wouldn't count on something better taking his place.

What you and I don't know is what message Putin got from Biden/NATO about what happens if he actually uses nukes. My hunch is that Putin was told that nukes = NATO in some way. Like maybe that's when NATO jets start bombing Russian positions inside Ukraine, but not in Russia. China has probably sent a similar message: that nukes is not good for a bosom buddy relationship. In the shorter term, we agree that Trump is the worst thing that could happen to Ukraine. In the longer term, listening to Mearsheimer I just had this sinking feeling of yet another forever war. He's the first to admit he doesn't know. And he wants Ukraine to win. He is a patriot that graduated from West Point. But he is also a realist who tends to make well educated guesses.

The issue is about using NATO ships to transport grain, and whether Russia would attack them. Do I think that alone would trigger World War III? Extremely unlikely. But that is partly because both Putin and NATO are making it clear that they don't want to directly engage each other. The provocation that would really test how far Putin would go is if NATO said, "Sure, Ukraine. Join NATO immediately." They just had a great chance to show they had balls, and do that. Zelenskyy has balls, and wanted just that. But NATO didn't do it. I don't think NATO wants to go to war with Russia. And I don't think Putin wants to go to war with NATO. The somewhat more likely scenario is that many geopolitical analysts think there's a reasonable chance Putin would use nukes to prevent a loss in Ukraine. The most frequent suggestion is that to prevent Ukraine from taking back Crimea and humiliating Putin, he might well launch nukes on Ukrainians. But not against NATO. Who knows? But I would not rule that out. Right now, it doesn't look like Putin is humiliated so much. He's saying the counter-offensive is a bust. Some version of all your arguments were used for years to predict that of course Putin would never actually start a war in Ukraine. Because he isn't stupid enough to provoke NATO that way and become a global pariah. And possibly start World War III. And yet, he did. First in Crimea. And then the whole nation. So the idea that we can predict just how far Putin will actually go hasn't worked so well. I despise Murderous Vlad. And I'd rather have Biden than Trump because Biden will do "whatever it takes" to support Ukraine militarily. That said, at the same time I agree with Mearsheimer's argument I posted above that NATO was stupid to keep ignoring what Putin said about Ukraine and NATO starting in 2008. Even moreso, they were stupid to say to Ukraine, "We've got your back. But not really." So, again, the idea that we can just poke the bear as we wish knowing that of course bears are not stupid enough to go to war hasn't really worked so well. NATO ships would be a different form of the same goading. The thing I most want NATO and the US to do, for now, is keep sending Ukraine whatever it needs to win. But Mearsheimer makes the best argument I've heard to date that Putin simply has more soldiers and more artillery. Which is what wins wars. So Ukraine simply won't be able to "win" as we would hope. He argues that as the war of attrition grinds on, possibly for years, Putin may be able to seize all the Russian-speaking Southern oblasts along the Black Sea. If that happens, it solves the NATO ship problem. Because Ukraine will be landlocked. All of this seems very plausible. The strategy that's been debated since the war started is whether Putin can gradually prevail in a long war of attrition against Ukraine, but not NATO. Right now it's not looking so bad for Putin. I'll up the ante on your question and ask you this. Do we really have the balls to engage Russia directly and militarily? Because that would stop the slaughter. Why fuck around with NATO ships with grain on them? Let's skip that and give Ukraine what they really want: NATO jets with bombs on them. Why not? We could have a real fun competition to see whether US or UK or French or Canadian bombers could take out more Russian soldiers. Fuck all those land mines. That's so World War I. Let's just bomb the fuck out of them. And let's invite Vlad to send his entire military across the border. So we can fry the fuck out of them, too. Without starting World War III. Because, after all, we're only defending Ukraine's territorial integrity. That's what I'd argue the US and NATO would do if we want to prove that we really have balls. That's what Zelenskyy and probably most Ukrainians want. They want us to actually have their backs, with our blood. And if we actually did it, there's probably no more than a 50/50 chance that Vlad would escalate to nukes or attacks on NATO. Because he knows that would escalate to direct NATO hits on Russia. Why not roll the dice? The sobering thing Mearsheimer is saying is if we don't do something like that, which he would probably argue is folly, then we are stuck with a horrific, bloody, and long war of attrition that Ukraine is more likely to lose. Meaning they will never regain the territory they have already lost. And they are at risk to gradually lose more. So then, militarily, our best hope is a stalemate that wrecks Ukraine. And punishes Russia greatly for wrecking Ukraine. I think that's a pretty sobering assessment of the choices we may eventually face, if we learn that the vaunted counteroffensive barely moves entrenched Russian positions. It's entirely predictable that Gen. Petraeus will pop up, yet again, and make the same "surge" arguments that didn't really work in Iraq or Afghanistan. It's a proven recipe for quagmire. So I'll argue we either Go Big and Go NATO and bomb the fuck out of them. Or we start to accept the fact that Ukraine got wrecked. As Mearsheimer predicted for several decades it would if we poked the bear too much. But the good news is at least a smaller version of a Western-oriented Ukraine survived. And Russia's big victory is they get a brand new Afghanistan inside their proclaimed border. Or worse. Because it will be so much easier for pissed off Ukrainians to endlessly kill Russians. As Mearsheimer asked in that video above, "Where does it end?" Excellent question. By the way, since I've cited him a lot, I should mention Mearsheimer is no dove. His core argument is that the real strategic threat is China. He would argue you are right about the military power of nations like Germany, or France, or the UK. @unicorn. He's been saying since the end of the Cold War that NATO could de-escalate and leave a weakened Russia to fight Ukraine, with the direct support of Germany and maybe other European nations. He also argued decades ago, after the collapse of the USSR, that Ukraine should keep its nukes to prevent the bear from ever starting this kind of war. So his strategic ideas have aged well. Mostly he thinks the US and our allies should really be focusing on China. And another forever war in Ukraine is a distraction from that, which was avoidable. I agree with him. That said, we are where we are. And I want Ukraine to win, if they can.

The other thing that's genius is the sort of good cop/bad cop strategy that is emerging. Biden will let the prosecutors, and even the Never Trump Republicans, be the heavies on indictments. And on Trump's general criminality, pathological lies, and contempt for democracy. Or, you could actually call it a good news/bad news strategy. Trump embodies the bad news. While Biden simply states what the good news is. Here's a sneak peek of election 2024.

Then again, getting NATO directly involved after Vlad bombs NATO ships could lead to World War III. Oops! Russian wheat exports were up 36 % last year. So part of the reason the rumors of the demise of Vlad's Russia were premature is he is making lots of money on food and energy exports. He's helping to create and sustain inflation in both commodities, and profiting from it., too. Clever guy! African Union calls on Russia to reinstate Ukrainian grain deal A recent study projected a famine in the Horn of Africa that will impact tens of millions in three African nations alone. They are suffering from a combination of drought and Putin's war. For what it's worth, I think Russia and China suck at soft power. I've read countless stories about how Europeans think Vlad wants them to freeze to death. And Africans have good reason to think Vlad wants them to starve to death. This can't be helping Russia, and indirectly China, in the long run. That said, desperate people do desperate things. in the short term, it is funding Vlad's war and crippling Ukraine. Given the declining Republican support for simply sending weapons to Ukraine - which US corporations make a lot of money on and which employs US workers - it's a no brainer that Biden won't be looking for ways to get NATO directly involved in the run up to an election. Trump will argue Biden essentially started the war. And he'll work it out with Vlad in no time at all. Probably a day or so. 🤫 If you want to watch something really depressing, watch this YouTube video that's a little over an hour: John Mearsheimer Ukraine Salon Mearsheimer thinks Putin has the upper hand, for three reasons. It's a war of attrition. He has more soldiers. More artillery. And more capacity to strangle Ukraine economically, as we are seeing. Mearsheimer is an awesome strategic thinker who has been saying some things for decades that have aged well. First, he's a hawk on China, arguing it would not rise peacefully. Because that's not what great powers do. Second, he's a dove on most other US wars: Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq. He argued democracies suck as occupying forces. Third, he was the odd man out arguing decades ago that Ukraine should keep their nukes as deterrence. Then, like George Kennan and Clinton's Defense Secretary, among others, he argued we really were poking the bear. In his case he says this all really started with our post-2008 NATO expansion plans. He preferred Bernie in 2020 (because of his focus on income inequality) and thinks Trump is a blundering disaster. But he also clearly sees this war as Biden's folly. The best counter argument I've heard, from Edward Luttwak recently for example, is that both Putin and Biden have strategic interests to settle this. While Putin has juggled the Russian war economy well, and it has shrunk way less than was promised, that can't last forever. Meanwhile, Biden (and The Blob) want to focus on China. Implicit in this thinking is the idea that there are alternatives to driving Xi and Vlad into each other's arms. Even though they are two of the nicest guys around, of course. 😉 I also think Mearsheimer underestimates Vlad's problems. He thinks Vlad will double down and go for four more Ukrainian oblasts eventually - meaning all eight ones that primarily speak Russian. Including Odesa and all the ones along the Black Sea. And that Vlad will have to spend a decade or two absorbing that before he can think about moving on to Kyiv, the Baltic states, or Poland. Maybe. But over 80 % of every oblast except Crimea voted NOT to be part of Russia. So I suspect Vlad knows that he could have a new Afghanistan on his hand. And what's left of Ukraine would be the equivalent of Pakistan. Where it is all too easy to cross a border to go find Russians to kill. Then again, it worked in Chechnya. Vlad may find the prospect irresistible. If anyone wants to watch an hour of Mearsheimer I'm curious if others think he is right or wrong.

Conversely, if the Republican Party doesn't want to be seen as racist, sexist, or homophobic, they should elect leaders who makes laws that are NOT sexist, racist, or homophobic. This is off topic from Third Party and Manchin. But since we're talking about the election, generally, that's one of the interesting things about the GOP these days. We're seeing both the worst of the MAGA Trump Party, and the best of a multi-racial post-Trump Republican Party all at once. Now that former RNC Chair Michael Steele has gone full on MSNBC, he talks about things like the Tim Scot/Nikki Haley project. Steele himself was elevated by the Republicans as a reaction to Obama. And facilitating South Carolina electing an Indian American female conservative Governor, and a Black male conservative House member and then Senator, was part of Steele's vision of a new GOP in Obama's America. I give Kevin McCarthy credit for continuing that. He says he's the guy who made it a priority to recruit conservatives who were not all White men to run for the House in 2020 and 2022. It worked. As a Democrat, I think it helps depolarize race and makes both parties pay more attention to what non-Whites want. Of course, it has now come to my attention that it's "racist" for Democrats to study or care about what Blacks want, since we don't have that racism stuff anymore. It was only a few years ago that Tim Scott would show up on Trevor Noah and say, convincingly, one thing he won't do is hold back on calling out racism when he sees it. And he did, in a very funny way, when Trump had his 2020 Proud Boys moment. Now that he is running for POTUS, he calls out Obama because Democrats use race as a political weapon to control Blacks. Huh? Nikki is not campaigning on how she took down the Confederate flag to unify and heal. Why am I not surprised ? Trump always manages to throw any debate and anyone involved in it into the gutter. My hope has been that Tim Scott and Nikki Haley are two of the leaders who help build the post-Trump Republican Party in 2028. So I suspend disbelief and think even good people just say dumb shit like that during campaigns. Chicago and South Carolina have historically been two of the most racist places in America. So one litmus test I have is that if America can elect a Black Democrat from Illinois and a Black Republican from South Carolina POTUS based on the content of their character, we're making good progress. The Democrats nominated Obama, despite the fact that he was a nobody running against the Clinton machine. Tim Scott and Nikki Haley are way back in the dust behind the two White guys moaning about critical race theory. It's early days, of course. But the GOP has not persuaded me that America is done with that whole racism thing. There is good news. As I promised, another White guy has arrived to save America. Woo hoo! Shucks. Thanks, Joe. You're swell.

I'm not gonna disagree with a word you said. But I ain't gonna disagree with Jim Carville when he says "It's the economy, stupid," either. The fact that the economy was still recovering from a 1991 recession in 1992 is widely credited with helping Clinton's win. And dare I mention many, including many Democrats, see Bill as a predator? None of the other adjectives apply. Although I know some purist Gays who view Clinton's actions in the 90's as essentially anti-LGBTQ. I'm obviously hoping 2024 is more like 1984. By election day, the economy and stock market were widely perceived as in rapid recovery. Even if we have a mild recession (Europe is technically in the most mild of recessions right now) I'm also hoping that given the choice between 10 % inflation and a mild recession that is deflationary, Americans might not be so sour about a brief and shallow recession. If it makes the pain in their pocketbook stop. By my count the last time a POTUS was re-elected during a recession was 1948. It perhaps mattered that by that point the even more painful post-WWII inflation had been tamed. Biden is compared to Truman a lot. This could be one more similarity. Since it's been suggested I rely too much on polls and should get around more, I'll add some anecdotal things about how this plays out in my family. It actually fits very well with the national picture about the college educated versus the "poorly educated," to quote Trump. My Dad was a mainstream Republican. Before he died he told one of my brothers he regretted voting for Trump. Who he basically viewed as less bad than Hillary. Of his six kids, three consistently lean left and three lean right. Of the three on the left, the only really interesting thing is how emphatic my brother who I'd call a Bloomberg moderate Democrat was about how Trump needed to be shot by somebody in 2020. I'm usually the outspoken liberal. And even I would never say something like that. But I think it accurately reflected just how much moderate educated professionals despised Trump by the time COVID broke out. The three right of center voters were interesting. One, who I'd call a McCain Republican, voted for Trump in 2016 based on his conservative economic views. By 2020 he was also outspoken about what a "megalomaniac" Trump was. He made a point of letting me know he voted for Biden in 2020. I asked him if he had only voted on the economy, who would he have supported? He immediately answered Trump. I asked why. He immediately said, "My retirement account." I asked why he voted for Biden, then. He said, "Because Trump's a megalomaniac." He's also a college educated White professional. So he fits right into the broad national political pattern. He's a poster child for your argument. He despises Trump. A second brother who is essentially the same voted for Trump in 2016. I'm guessing he voted for Trump again in 2020, but I haven't asked. If he did, it would have been a reluctant vote. Since he doesn't like Trump's anti-democracy antics, either. And he lives in a solid red state, anyway. The interesting conversation I had with him during Trump's Presidency is I asked him what he thought about the idea that Trump voters are racist. He pointed out something I of course knew. Which is that he has a Black son-in-law and a grandchild most people would call Black. Like me, he likes Tim Scott. So he does not consider himself racist. He's also college educated. My one sister, who is not college educated, also followed the national pattern. She does not recall voting in 2016. But she definitely recalls voting for Trump in 2020. My two right of center brothers can clearly articulate conservative economic policy as why they voted for Trump in either 2016 or 2020, despite their misgivings about his personality. When I asked my sister why she voted for Trump, she basically went into a long anti-Black Lives Matter rant. She obviously saw those ads Trump ran with fires and scary images of Black protestors. Non-college educated White women were a real source of strength for Trump in 2020. I pushed back a little about why I like BLM, but she was politely not buying. Here's how I view where my sister fits in to America 2023. My first real political experience was the six months I spent as a volunteer helping to get Chicago's first Black Mayor elected back in the 80's. That was basically a race war. I was assaulted once handing out flyers by some White guy. The even more sinister thing is some nice looking White woman came up to me and whispered in my ear, "You are a traitor to your race." That shit actually happened back then. At the 2020 RNC Tim Scott eloquently spoke about how he could get elected because of a "change in the Southern heart." He was almost 100 % right. But he could have mentioned the "Northern heart" as well. Happily, after redistricting, my sister's US Rep is Lauren Underwood, one of my favorite Democrats. Having grown up in the Chicago suburbs, there is no way in hell a soft-spoken Black nurse like Underwood could have been elected in predominantly White Chicago suburbs when I was a kid. Or for most of my adult life. My sister won't even know who she is, if she votes in 2024. If she does read up about Underwood, she probably wouldn't vote for her, anyway. But Underwood will probably win her third term, easily. So mostly I view this as progress. Even if it is two steps forward, one step back. The one I have the hardest time with is one of my sister's daughter, who I really enjoy traveling with. And I learned pretty quickly that there's no upside to talking politics at all. She's college educated, very successful, a true Republican (no RINO's, please), loves her Gay uncle, and is not a racist. If I ask her what she thinks about Tim Scott, she responds with, "What do you think of Candace Owens?" I'm blunt. So I say I think she's a divisive Black conservative flamethrower. Whereas Scott actually wants to unify people, be POTUS, and could win. That's pretty much where the discussion ends. So it's not just older voters who didn't go to college. To me, Owens is a perfect example of someone who gives my niece permission to believe what she reads in far right wing media. Democrats want to let murderers run free, basically. I don't want to ask, because I don't want to hear the answer. But I'm pretty sure she'd argue that things like CRT are basically about indoctrinating as many White kids as possible, and psychologically damaging any child with the audacity to disagree. It's a very long way from The Audacity Of Hope, sadly. She'll vote for Trump. But she lives in Kentucky. Until a year ago, she did live in Ohio. In late 2022 she told me her Republican Governor was a RINO, so she was glad his term had ended. Call me an asshole. But I pointed out that Mike DeWine was actually re-elected, by a roughly 2 to 1 margin. Like John Kasich, I said, he barely won the first time around. But he worked hard enough at compromising that he managed to pick up lots of Democrats to win re-election in a landslide. This is not information she knew, or particularly wanted to hear. Better to stick to the margaritas. There's one other thing about willful ignorance I'll underline, because it goes to your point about "over-extending the use of their brain cell." Point taken. But we're talking about the wrong organ, I believe. To me, it's an example of the point I've beaten to death in other threads about how The Gays won by using our hearts, not heads. And fostering empathy over common values - like love and commitment. My niece complains bitterly and sincerely that she can't openly discuss her views among Gay and liberal friends. A few of whom I've met. But if you're going to call Mike DeWine a RINO, not have a clue why he wins, ignore Tim Scott, and mostly focus on whatever Candace Owens and all the other flame throwers say to divide, you really can't be too surprised or bitter about that. It's willful ignorance, disguised as knowledge. I'll end where I started. I'm not going to disagree with a word you said. My point, using my family as a compass, is that Trump would of course win in a landslide if it were just older White women and men without college degrees. And I understand how they resent being seen as racists or homophobes. Most of them are a lost cause. And from talking to some in my own family I know why. I'm glad within my family we can actually talk about these things, mostly respectfully. I'm hoping the economy is good enough, and Democrats' messaging about the economy is good enough, to offset my brothers' impulses to vote for Trump simply because they vote Republican. And he's a Republican. Although it doesn't matter, really. Since none of us live in a swing state. To wind it back into the topic of the thread, putting Manchin on the ticket would give my two right of center brothers an easy reason to NOT vote for Biden. One will vote for Biden for sure, unless he has the option to vote for someone like Manchin. The other was so turned off by Jan. 6th that he probably won't vote for Trump again. But Manchin on the ballot gives him a good reason to not even think about Biden. So they're both good examples of how Manchin could split the anti-Trump vote. With my sister probably the best outcome for Biden and Democrats is if she just doesn't vote at all.

That certainly seemed to be the case in 2022. Biden got endless grief for his idea that "it's the democracy, stupid." But it sure seems like lots of people felt it was the democracy, stupid. Most non-Trumpy conservative Republicans did well. Almost every Trump election denying MAGA Republican blew themselves up. I'd single out Brian Kemp in Georgia as a telling example. He's a conservative Republican who made his re-election about the shitty Democrat economy, stupid. Even as he distanced himself from Trump's lies. He did better against Stacey Abrams than he had four years prior. Even as Trump's ass kissing election denying Senate candidate lost. That sent a pretty clear message about what works and what doesn't in what is now a swing state. Republican strategist Whit Ayres in that interview I posted above seems pretty confident that if Trump is nominated, it makes 2024 a referendum on Trump. Meaning the GOP loses, he says. Hope he's right. Clintonista Democratic strategist Doug Sostik said a similar thing to Bill Kristol recently in an interesting way. He said the 2022 election was a referendum on "crazy." And that helped Democrats. If Trump makes 2024 about the shitty Biden economy, he's says, Democrats will have a difficult time - as of now, at least. If Biden makes the 2024 election about "crazy," Biden wins. Asked which he thinks is more likely, Sostik says the latter. Biden will make it about "crazy." Hope he's right. I think the answer is hiding in plain sight. I'm not a huge fan of Rasmussen polls. But I can't help noticing that before inflation really took off in Fall 2021, even Rasmussen shows voters clearly approved of Biden more than Trump. Then from about Fall 2021 to Fall 2022, when inflation was at its worst, voters clearly approved of Trump more than Biden. Since then it's more or less been a toss up. Even if you believe Rasmussen polls are skewed, which I do, the trend seems real. It will be a battle between it's the economy, stupid, and it's the crazy people, stupid. The sweet spot for Biden is being able to argue he's not crazy, and the economy is good. We'll see. The problem right now is clear majorities of voters feel Trump personifies crazy, but the Biden economy sucks.

Rasmussen is the only polling company with daily tracking. In June 2022, when inflation peaked, Biden's worst daily approval rating was 38 approve/60 disapproval In the July 2023 daily polls, his single best day was 46 approve/52 disapprove. A lot better. If you go backward from June 2022, Biden's approval rating kept getting worse as inflation climbed. So that's not proof. But it strongly suggests that, like with Ford and Carter, a higher "misery index" would hurt Biden in 2024. Conversely, if inflation stabilizes at 3 % or even goes down to the 2 % target rate or lower, it suggests Biden's approval rating will improve. Same thing happened to Reagan after the 1982 bloodbath: his approval rating gradually climbed from horrific to landslide territory as the economy improved. This also strongly suggests that voters will blame a recession on Biden, fair or not. Using the chart below, the three candidates since 1984 who ran representing the party in power while the economy was working against them all lost: Bush 41 in 1992, McCain in 2008, Trump in 2020. Recent history strongly suggests that "it's the economy, stupid," is true. The thing I like about polling, in general, is that while it is far from perfect it is usually better than just making a wild ass guess. Same with Alan Lichtman, who on this particular point is extremely interesting. He's correctly predicted the winner of every Presidential race since 1984 in advance. So while that's not the same as 2 + 2 = 4 every time, it's a pretty solid record that merits attention. That's basically Lichtman's scorecard for every Presidential race he has correctly predicted, and why. Part of what makes common sense about this, and is flattering if you actually believe in democracy, is it's based on the idea that voters predictably decide based on important things. Like the economy, recessions, war and peace, impeachment. Try as they might, cynical pollsters and messaging gurus just aren't able to convince people that a pig with lipstick is not really a pig. One of the things Lichtman argues that is going to be controversial in 2024 is that an incumbent party is always better off running the incumbent President, and avoiding a party fight. I buy that. Others don't. I might feel differently if everyone agreed that Gavin Newsom was our guy, or Kamala Harris was our girl. But they don't. Even if we had a Democratic primary and every big name in the polls ran, the polls suggest Biden would win. Probably for the same reason Trump will be nominated: there is no alternative Republican everyone can agree to rally around yet. So this is where Lichtman's theory gets very interesting. Maybe there could still be some big foreign policy game changer. But probably not. The Republicans are sure working the scandal thing hard, without much success. So Biden's re-election basically comes down to a recession and a third party. Unless you completely dismiss Lichtman's track record and theories, his analysis of 1992 and Bush 41 is probably the closest to now. Bush had one thing Biden doesn't: a clear foreign policy win. Biden has one thing Bush didn't: several clear domestic policy wins to run on. ("Finish the job.") So Lichtman's theory is that in every election since the Civil War it consistently takes six of these keys to nail your political coffin shut. Neither Biden nor Bush could change the fact that they lacked charisma, and they lost seats in the midterm (the party mandate key). The main variables that are still up for grabs that killed Bush 41 and could kill Biden is running in a recession with someone like Manchin catching fire as a third party candidate. That could be fatal for Biden. The other interesting historical question is whether this is really in anyone's control. Part of what appeals to me about this theory, other than it's perfect ability to predict results so far, is that Lichtman's partner in crime back in the early 1980's was a global expert on predicting earthquakes. So the idea is that when you have vibrant third party wildfires like Anderson in 1980 or Perot in 1992 and 1996 who get lots of votes, it's a political tremor that indicates a political earthquake may be coming. It's only one variable. Which is why it helped take out Bush in 1992 but not Clinton in 1996, who was running during an economic boom. But nature abhors a vacuum. It could be that the Democratic messaging and managers can't stop this. They can probably stop Manchin. Maybe he's just using it to get something else he wants. But if not Manchin, it could be lots of other people. And not necessarily through No Labels. In the worst case scenario, like we have the hard landing that everyone fears, it's easy for me to imagine that some populist billionaire like Perot (Elon Musk?) decides they'll save America and jump in the race. Lichtman's keys and all the polls are basically saying the same thing right now: it's going to be close, if the election were held today. You can dismiss all this as some ivory tower academic theory, of course. Even though it's worked pretty well in predicting elections in advance. What's harder to dismiss is that when you just count votes third party Nader is almost certainly why Gore lost in Florida. And third party Stein at the very least contributed to Clinton's loss in 2020. There's no doubt of that. I'm glad Democrats are freaking out and ringing alarms. A strong third party run will divide the anti-Trump vote. And help Trump and his devoted base win.

True. But you could also say Trump's worst thing is that he is Trump. Republican strategist Whit Ayres nailed this No Labels drama in a roughly three minute segment- from 1:04:00 to 1:07:00 - in the interview Bill Kristol just did with him below. He pointed out 2 in 3 Americans don't really want a Biden/Trump rematch. He called No Labels a "fruitless endeavor with a positive motivation to offer an alternative to Trump/Biden." His logic is flawless, I think. In 1992 Perot got 19 % of the vote but 0 % of the electoral college vote. So even if he gets that much, which is unlikely, Manchin can't win. If Trump is the nominee, it will be a referendum on Trump. So all Manchin or West or any third party candidate can do is split the anti-Trump vote and put Trump in the White House again. Ayres is right. Ayres didn't say it quite the way I will. The No Labels people want less division. But what they will get is a Divider In Chief focused on four year of retribution. Whit Ayres: Is Trump Inevitable? Do Any of the Other Republicans Have a Chance? That whole interview is great if you have an hour. I'll add one thing neither Kristol nor Ayres say. It's the recession, stupid. That's the "biggest unknown" to me. Right now inflation is 3 % and unemployment is 3.6 %. If it stays that way or gets better, and the election is a referendum on Trump, Trump loses. Maybe Biden wins even if Manchin gets in, like Perot did in 1996 when Clinton's economy was on a roll. But if the economy is shaky like it was in 1992, a third party candidate could help the incumbent lose. Like Perot did. Trump's best hope is to make 2024 a referendum on the recession. If there is one. In that case, Manchin could easily peel off enough anti-Trump votes in Arizona and Georgia and Wisconsin for Trump to win.

Religious right gets blindsided by angry parents in a Southern California school district This is somewhat encouraging news. It would be nicer if the culture wars just went away. But let's be realistic. If we are going to fight culture wars, I'd rather be winning them. At least in blue states like California, it seems like whoever starts the culture war loses. Try banning LGBTQ curriculum and saying Harvey Milk was a pedophile, and it won't go well. Not even with moderate Republicans, like the one quoted in that article. Not so much because they revere Harvey Milk. They just are sick of culture wars, I bet. Same reason Ron-O-Rama lost 10 % of his approval rating in Florida, and arguably a shot at the Presidency, when he shifted from cleaning up after hurricanes to culture wars. In red states, on the other hand, there is no evidence of life-threatening political backlash against the deluge of laws banning CRT or "gender-affirming care" or talking about Harvey Milk. Meaning the Republican Governors and legislatures who passed those laws got re-elected in 2022 by big margins. But, as I just noted, if the Ron-O-Rama show flops nationally because people aren't clamoring for culture war, that will help The Gays. That area described, Temecula, used to be in the 41st US House District of California I think. When they redistricted I think they moved it so that Temecula is out, and Gayish Palm Springs is in. It matters because Gay lawyer Will Rollins came within a few points of defeating Republican Ken Calvert is that district in 2022, and is up for a rematch in 2024. I could actually see this helping Rollins. His pitch is sort of, "I'm a lawyer who worked with the government to fight terrorists. I just want everyone to have common sense rights." If school board members are pissing parents off by fighting culture wars over Harvey Milk, it probably helps guys like Rollins in blue states.

Sure beats me! 😉 (But seriously satire or not parasites and cancer is serious shit so being a helpful and solid guy you should probably consult with professionals who have an established record of successful pest control and disease prevention.)

Adding extensive quotes that provide additional useful facts and perspective: The first citation is from AIDS United dated December 2021,, and then several quotes from the June 2021 GAO report AIDS United cites to reach its conclusions FOSTA-SESTA and its impact on sex workers And from the GAO report on the implementation and effectiveness of FOSTA: Gosh. Who'd have ever guessed that a law that drove these platforms overseas would make prosecution in the US more difficult? 😉

Appeals court upholds but narrows sex-trafficking statute Activists claimed the Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act violated the First Amendment. I take that to be good news ............ kinda, sorta, maybe? At least it clarifies that the broad and expansive way to interpret the law is NOT what Congress meant. Which was clear, if you read the Congressional Record of the floor debate. Yup, I did. But really? Who does that? Chuck Schumer, among others, was very clear that he didn't want to impair "harm reduction" organizations that work with sex workers, or free speech. This was about going after abusive sex traffickers. That said, it would be better still if they simply decriminalized prostitution. But don't hold your breath. This is a little bit like clarifying after the prisoner has been executed that "punishment" meant a slap on the wrist, not a firing squad. One of the plaintiffs was a massage therapist who says he lost business after Craig's List pulled many categories of ads. Whatever harm was done, for years, is done. The basic goal of FOSTA was to reduce sex trafficking in the US. The Congressional Record of the floor debate included pages and pages of real horror stories of victims, some children, who were sold and abused and even murdered. Has FOSTA helped? From a 2019 FBI report on all human trafficking: From the most recent federal report I could find, dated October 22: One other data base I could find comes from the National Human Trafficking Hotline, which says they have "one of the most extensive data sets on trafficking in the United States." They measure "signals," meaning anything from phone calls to texts to online tips received by the hotline. Here are the number of signals received starting from the year before FOSTA passed: 2017: 36.068 signals 2018: 43,751 signals 2019: 51,921 signals 2020: 56,127 signals 2021: 51,073 signals If anyone has actually followed this closely - I haven't - a more thorough analysis would be welcome. But it seems like a decent one word answer is NO, FOSTA did not help reduce sex trafficking. Incidents reported went up in the year after FOSTA became law on April 11, 2018. That 2022 report's time frame is a decade, during which trafficking has gone way up. The Hot Line reports substantial increases in trafficking signals in each of the two years after FOSTA was passed, although there was a definite decline in 2021. I'm guessing COVID was somehow a factor, for good or bad. If FOSTA helped identify and prosecute and ultimately reduce sex trafficking, that would be significant. But the argument against it was that at best it would be a game of Whack A Whore with lots of collateral damage. At worst it would make trafficking harder to identify and prosecute by driving it further into the dark. If the goal in 2018 was to substantially reduce US sex trafficking, that simply has not happened.

Linguist, read thyself. You are truly funny. Correct or not, I'm just reading this as satire now. It's just too over the top.

You're a hoot. This is so over the top I have to wonder. Is this actually some weird form of satire? Like let's see just how over the top we can be? It's quite imaginative. You seem to be saying I lie, and distort, and pivot, so I'm going to rebut that. In fairness to you, the first mention of "Israel" was on the second page of the thread, by another poster. The second was by you, when you stated Israelis always provide hospital care to hateful Muslims who still hate them. That invited comment both about your prejudices, and about Israel's treatment of Palestinians. Don't blame me for your pivots, or your prejudices. In terms of lies, other than using the word, you haven't identified any actual lies anyone told. Knock yourself out. Although we have actually beaten this to death. You've stated Muslims are "vandals, looters, and arsonists." Which given the circumstances sounds factually correct, assuming you mean some particular rioters. You then called all Muslims "savages" six times. Which sounds very distorted and very prejudiced. And also obviously untruthful. And you called Muslims "ungrateful vermin" once. Definitely distorted, and extremely prejudiced. Also a lie in that Muslims are clearly human, not insects. But if Goebbels were here, he'd be pleased with your creativity. It was his favorite way of demeaning Jews, and rationalizing the need for their extermination. You then helpfully advised us that anyone who disagrees with you, which is to say almost everyone, is "unable to engage in a dialogue without debasing yourself." True or false, that's actually very funny. I like talking about my balls. Clients actually wrote about them in several of my escort reviews. "Low hangers" usually. I suppose I should be concerned, in that they'd be easier to chop off. But I don't recall any Muslim I had sex with every trying that. Or even biting them while in their mouth, actually. But now I'm debasing myself. Anyway, if you don't like pivots, perhaps it's best not to change the subject to how Muslims treat my testicles. 😉

Nice try, buddy. I guess that means you don't really have a factual or logical response. And I certainly don't expect you to say, "Yes, my statements ooze raw and blind prejudice." Just dismiss it all as propaganda. It's so 2023. Then again, it's so 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, and 2022, too. Proving my point, I'd argue. It is always easier to incite prejudice and hate than it is to incite peace. I don't think you need a newspaper to know that, though. Since you are modeling introspection, I should try to be a little bit more fair and balanced. Team Trump did get to the bottom of what's going on with Islam and hate. It only cost the Saudis a $2 billion investment in Jared. No crime family or corruption there, though. Maybe just repentance for the evil of Islam, from the country that brought us 9/11. And, in fairness, Trump has now found stuff that is far worse than Islam. The FBI. And the rule of law. So we're making progress.

I'll give you this. You sure ought to be good at recognizing tropes. Because you are very good at writing tropes that are based on raw and blind prejudice. As a clear point of fact, you were the one that went (arguably) off topic and shifted it to Muslims in Israel. This is the one thing I did not particularly care for over at Company Of Men. Cooper likes to stay on the main highway. And I like to go down interesting side roads. So in a thread that starts with a prejudicial rant about Muslims in France, he might not like shifting to even more prejudicial and one-sided rants about how Israelis are the very milk of human kindness. And Muslims return that favor by hating them. To me, it's basically on topic. Same prejudice, different country. If your job is to help out @Olddaddy, you're actually doing a great job. He is at least being honest. He bases his views on his personal experiences. Which sound very limited and superficial. You sound like you're just repeating some rant you read in some hate rag or saw in a film. You also have an affection for precision in language, compared to perceived childish insults and GIFs. Fair enough. So that line could have been lifted directly from The Wandering Jew, a big Goebbels hit. With a few alterations in nouns and adjectives, of course. Whether you realize it or not. Perhaps we should be more adult about this, and go with the same ideas in the original language. Original anti-Semitic version: Jüdische Horden toben durch Deutschland und zerstören alles Anti-Muslim version: Muslimische Horden toben durch Frankreich und zerstören alles Call me biased. But I think it has a certain ring to it. Same shit, different century. Speaking of which: The Muslims of Auschwitz: tales of tragedy and heroism 75 years on Academics estimate more than 1,000 Muslims could have been imprisoned by the Nazis in the Second World War Again, arguably off topic. Because of when the history was written, it makes sense that public perceptions of The Holocaust focus on Jewish extermination. Nobody much talked about The Gays. And Hitler was smart enough to not specifically target all Muslims. But Muslims were more than a drop in the gas chambers, as well. And they were a big part of the anti-Hitler military bloodbath: Hmmm. Maybe Muslims rampaging through Europe and North Africa ain't such a bad thing, after all.

We obviously have two sides that are speaking past each other here. But to go with the idea of balance, I'll flip and say this. Because I think it does speak to the point that it is so much easier to incite hate and violence than it is to incite peace. Unfortunately. There was a period about a quarter century ago when if you gave me a gun and said I could kill any world leader and get away with it, I would have taken the gun and killed Arafat. And implicit in that is the idea that someone better would have replaced him. The key parts of my equation go like this. You had Clinton. You had the last Labor PM of Israel. And you had Arafat. I'd argue 2 of the 3 wanted a peace deal. There were these moments that conservatives I like reading, like George Will, would argue were just embarrassing. Like Madeline Albright running after Arafat as he storms out of a meeting in Paris. Fair point. Arafat's argument, or implication, was that Palestinians would not have supported the peace deal actually on offer. And maybe some Palestinian nut would have killed him, like some Israel right-wing nut had already killed Rabin on God's orders. The polls available from that period strongly suggest that it was the other way around. A majority of Palestinians wanted a peace deal. Probably because they knew things sucked. Israeli Jews were ambivalent. It's been years since I read those polls, so I'll say maybe that's more theory than fact. But we know for a fact that in 1999 Barak won. And Israelis seemed willing to give peace a chance. By 2001 the moment had passed. Barak looked impotent, Sharon came to power, and it's just been cycles of violence and more violence and deepening trenches and more walls ever since. Bill Clinton himself has also argued that it's the demography, stupid. It's the immigrants to Israel coming not from liberal democracies in Europe but from places where the prejudices against Muslims run much deeper. And democracy is not as well rooted. As you said, it's complex. But I think there was a moment when peace could have worked around that period. And Arafat killed it, in my view. Turns out it didn't work out particularly well for him. As an organizer who knows how hard it is for the have nots to win, I will always feel he fucked his people by not taking the deal he could have had. Whatever the arguments against it were, that deal was better than what we have today. But my main point in the context of Paris burning, or airstrikes in Jenin, is that it really is so much easier to incite hate and violence than it is to incite peace. And this is a great example of how people expressing undeniably prejudiced and contemptuous views about entire groups of people think God, or at least facts and logic, are obviously on their side.

It would be nice if it mostly worked that way. Let people who take extreme views give each other medals. No harm done. Hell, I'd be more generous. Why not give Jared $1 billion in return for policy favors while spreading completely undocumented "facts" about all the bribes senile Joe has managed to cleverly hide. Really no harm done. Even good for a laugh. The problem with this kind of simplistic sheer distortion and hate is that it ends up in metal, not medals. In Rabin's case, all it took was metal in the lung, I think. But Yigal Amir was a textbook example of how the hate and bile works. God told him to kill the Jewish leader of Israel. So he did. No regrets. Had to be done, because you know what Rabin was gonna do with The Muslims. Ugh! The Israeli Jewish artist who drew that mural put it extremely well: Same thing at work right now as we type in both Israel and France. Ugh! It's bile and hate and it ends in bullets and death every single time.