This post may contain Mildly Adult content.

Politics & News

Mildly Adult

Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Did you hear? Vladimir Putin just peed his pants

He heard the U.S. Democratic Party is going to SUE Russia.

And he soaked them.

Not out of fear. But from laughter.

Have the left wings nuts that took over MY party completely lost their minds?

THAT'S their plan to defend democracy against a Brezhnev wantabe?

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

MistyCee

I'm totally in agreement with you that the DNC needs to find candidates and campaign on issues and try to vote out Trump and to replace his collaborators in Congress.

But, while I'm not thrilled with this suit, I don't think merely filing it is a terrible idea. Even though Trump is not named, he's the beneficiary of this corrupt conspiracy, and, substantive legitimate political issues aside, I think it's important not to just concede that Trumpism is ok and an acceptable part of the political process.

It would be nice if the criminal justice system could deal with this problem on its own, but Trump has pardon power, and the legal ability to clean out the justice department and shut down efforts to prosecute his minons and his family, and a seeming long shot like this seems like a worthwhile step in fighting against the threat he represents to the government, it's institutions, and indirectly, to the American people.

If the Republican Congress continues to protect him, his power wholly unchecked, save for "stunts" like this, and resistance on the State level. I'd like to see Democrats take the House in 2018, but if that doesn't happen, the odds of voting Trump out in 2020 go down dramatically, and, as time goes by, he continues to destroy and marginalize his opponents and critics, the 2024 election might well be meaningless.

Look at it this way. What's the downside?

room101 · 56-60, M

@MistyCee Apparently, he is named in the law suit.

Like you say, what's the downside? That Putin will ignore it and a have a giggle or two about it?

MistyCee

@room101 Trump Sr is not a named defendant, just Jr. and Trump for President, Inc. and Kushner. Putin isn't named either, just the Russian Federation and the GRU, along with others.

I've no doubt Putin will laugh. I know I did, but the court has jurisdiction over all the domestic defendants, and Russian held assets in the US.

Obviously, Trump could interfere with the Marshal service, like he's threatened to do with the DOJ, but for him to shut it down, he'd have pull some really ugly stuff.

I wish I knew who it got allotted to. Wood was a good draw, but if it's an Obama appointee or a non White judge, expect to hear how he or she is part of the conspiracy if the case isn't dismissed quickly.

beckyromero · 36-40, F

@MistyCee

Trump Sr is not a named defendant, just Jr. and Trump for President, Inc. and Kushner. Putin isn't named either, just the Russian Federation and the GRU, along with others.

Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act would basically preclude any judgment against Russia, unless Congress amends it.

U.S. Code › Title 28 › Part IV › Chapter 97 › § 1602
28 U.S. Code § 1602 - Findings and declaration of purpose

The Congress finds that the determination by United States courts of the claims of foreign states to immunity from the jurisdiction of such courts would serve the interests of justice and would protect the rights of both foreign states and litigants in United States courts. Under international law, states are not immune from the jurisdiction of foreign courts insofar as their commercial activities are concerned, and their commercial property may be levied upon for the satisfaction of judgments rendered against them in connection with their commercial activities. Claims of foreign states to immunity should henceforth be decided by courts of the United States and of the States in conformity with the principles set forth in this chapter.

(Added Pub. L. 94–583, § 4(a), Oct. 21, 1976, 90 Stat. 2892.)

MistyCee

@beckyromero there's an exception pled for torts comitted in the US under 1605(a)(5) of that section. Seems kind of shaky though.

beckyromero · 36-40, F

@MistyCee

It's just a public relations ploy. Even some Democratic members of Congress oppose the lawsuit. Saw interviews with Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri (she's up for election) and Representative Jackie Speier of California (she's got a very safe seat).

If the Democrats in Congress really want to sock it to Russia, they'd vote to impose tougher sanctions and increase military spending. And the U.S. should work to help the Europeans wean themselves off Russia gas.

MistyCee

@beckyromero Sure, it's about public relations, and I'm not sure it's a great move, but I don't think it's a terrible one, as I've noted here recently.

Democrats can't vote on anything at the moment without Republican support, and Trump won't put in effect the Russia sanctions that both parties in Congress voted for.

I get that it's a backdoor move which will likely go nowhere, but Trump is blocking the front door, and the Republicans are standing by him still.

That might change, but in the meantime, all Democrats in office are doing is sitting on their hands, trying to get seats, and not feed the right wing narrative that the Mueller probe is a witch Hunt for impeachment.

This suit is goofy, but it's not impeachment, and, let's face it, it's another chance for Trump to blow his gasket and screw up his support. Hell, this silly Stormy stuff grew some legs, and if Trump interferes with even something silly like deposing Kushner or Jr, it might pay off.

room101 · 56-60, M

@MistyCee Sorry, I misread the list of plaintiffs provided by beckyromero.

@beckyromero Where would Europe get its gas supplies from if they "weaned themselves" from Russian supplies? North Sea gas, controlled by the UK, has basically run out. Experts say that there is little more than ten years worth left in the gas fields. Then there's the Norwegian gas supplies which, because of their proximity to the Arctic Circle and being offshore, are becoming increasingly difficult to source.

beckyromero · 36-40, F

@room101

Where would Europe get its gas supplies from if they "weaned themselves" from Russian supplies?

Liquid natural gas shipments from the U.S. would be one source.

The U.S. exported over 700 billion cubic feet of liquid natural gas overseas in 2017.

The European Union imported about 2.2 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, with Russia the largest supplier (about 75% of Russia's gas exports) and very little of that coming from the U.S.

sources:
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_move_expc_s1_a.htm

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/EU_imports_of_energy_products_-_recent_developments

The revenues Russia receives from all its oil and gas exports accounts for about 40% of its federal budget.

source:
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/23/us-pressures-russias-stranglehold-over-europes-gas-market.html

room101 · 56-60, M

@beckyromero One could argue that reducing the carbon footprint of shipping has played a part in Europes choices. And, of course, monetary cost.

beckyromero · 36-40, F

@room101

And, of course, monetary cost.

Sure. Of course the lack of willingness to spend money was also the main reason why Britain and France didn't have the needed military forces and equipment in 1939.

In otherwords, "You DON'T pays your money and you takes your chances."

room101 · 56-60, M

@beckyromero I think that you're getting your history confused, and the principles of capitalism. It's OK, it's quite a common occurrence.........amongst the brainwashed. It took you three years to show any "willingness" to join your allies in both WW1 and WW2.

beckyromero · 36-40, F

@room101

It took you three years to show any "willingness" to join your allies in both WW1 and WW2.

You have YOUR history confused.

We weren't Allies with Britain and France in World War I until we became Allies by entering the war in 1917.

As for World War II, yes, I agree with you that the delay was unfortunate.

But Roosevelt did use the time to aid Britain in ways we could and build up the U.S. armed forces. What Britain and France did to bolster their own armed forces was too little, too late.

room101 · 56-60, M

@beckyromero You had the luxury of time......while Europe was being attacked! And your "connections" with the Irish and the Germans were more important to you. Tell me, how many times have they stood shoulder to shoulder with you in recent conflicts? How much of your gas do they buy?

Anyway, none of this is relevant to the central point being discussed. Which, again, is a common occurrence. Maybe one day, I'll have a conversation with a Yank without them throwing in the old stand-by of:

If it wasn't for us, you'd all be speaking German.
Or,
We kicked your ass in 1783.

Or some other load of crap that has no bearing on the matter being discussed.

beckyromero · 36-40, F

@room101

We kicked your ass in 1783.

We DID kick your ass in 1783. 😉

But to bottom line it for you, all of the Allies screwed up in not dealing with Nazi Germany sooner than they did.

But each country did so in a different way.

The Republican controlled Congress wouldn't ratify U.S. entry into the League of Nations.

Although I do tend to agree with the French, that Germany should have been dealt with more severely post World War I. But as time went on they didn't have Britain's full support.

The French might have built the Maginot Line to the Channel, but Belgium would have been "offended."

And neither Britain or the French did anything to help Czechoslovakia.

And the Russians? Don't let be get started on those back-stabbing Bolsheviks!

But KUDOS to Britain and France for keeping their word to Poland. KUDOS to how Britain fought on alone basically for a year and a half. KUDOS to how the French people survived Nazi occupation for four years. KUDOS to all the other countries and people that fought against the evils of that dark period in history. (And, yes, KUDOS to the Russian people for the horrors they suffered.)

room101 · 56-60, M

@beckyromero How very impressive, you've read some history on WW1 and WW2. Now please tell me what relevance any of this has to your original post.

Actually, don't bother. I know that conversations can meander, but you've created a tributary that left the main river behind and is on its own meandering path. Enjoy your little voyage.

beckyromero · 36-40, F

@room101

I know that conversations can meander, but you've created a tributary that left the main river behind...

Funny you would say that, [b]since it was YOU who posed the question:

Where would Europe get its gas supplies from if they "weaned themselves" from Russian supplies?

If you don't want "conversations" to "meander" then don't play a role in doing so.

room101 · 56-60, M

@beckyromero AFTER you said:

"And the U.S. should work to help the Europeans wean themselves off Russia gas."

Just like your Obama comment, you said something and I responded. I didn't expect to be taken on a magical mystery ride by doing so!

MistyCee

@room101 @beckyromero I hope it's ok to but in, but it seems like y'all both have taken this way off topic.

room101 · 56-60, M

@MistyCee That's what I've been trying to say for days 😂😂😂

beckyromero · 36-40, F

@room101 @MistyCee But that's part of the joy of it all!
😀

MistyCee

@beckyromero @room101 it's all good, as long as your having fun. And I got some history lessons, without having to take a test!!