She was basically expected to fail. For various political reasons within the DNC she needed to be given the presumption of a chance but there was an understanding from the start that she'd not go anywhere.

Sort of like the republicans running John McCain or something... the know he's not going to win. They might even nominate him... but if they do... they know he's not going anywhere.

Hillary is the same thing and so is Bernie or Trump. the political forces that know anything know that these people are the opening circus attraction.

Behind Hillary there are a lot of people in the Dem ranks that can stand up and be more credible than her. And they will especially since Hillary appears to be self destructing faster than anything believed possible. This email thing is getting increasingly serious. I doubt she's going to jail over it but... it is looking like something nasty could come out of it. The sweater is getting unraveled.

On the other political side you have Trump... who also will not be president. Its not going to happen. Even if he got the nomination and he won't... but even if he did... he'd still lose.

So who cares what these people say they would do. I might as well stand up and say what I would do if I were president. Or anyone else on slashdot... Stand up and tell us what you'd do if you were president.

Whatever you said matters about as much as Hillary's various schemes to get enough votes to get her party's nomination.

I will say this... IF Hillary got nominated... she might win. She'd have a D after her name and that is a very powerful thing in an election. But... I don't think she's going to get nominated.

She's kind of a female Al Gore in a lot of ways. Neither Gore nor her wants to associate with Bill Clinton but neither of them would even be considered for high office without that association. I don't know why they distance themselves from Bill. If I were either of them I'd walk around on stage as Bill Clinton gave me piggybacks. As much as possible, I'd try to make people think they were voting for Bill Clinton.

Bill Clinton could actually win again... I mean... legality and term limits aside... people like him. No one likes Hillary. Even her supporters don't like her. They feel comfortable with her maybe or they think her politics are right or whatever. But they don't like her. Who wants to have a beer with Hillary? or a glass of wine or anything? No one likes her. Bill is funny. He's got stories. He's charming. You'd have a good time and he projects that in his politics and personality.

Hillary projects... Agnes from accounting... The woman in the office that does something boring and repetitive that no one cares about... she goes home every day at 5pm and people assume she has a lot of cats because of the pictures of cats all over her cubicle...

I mean seriously... imagine if Hillary were not a politican but just some person. Would you want to know her or spend any time with her?

Exactly. I mean... I'd rather spend time with Trump then her... and Trump is insane. But Trump is at least amusing. I'd likely deck him every so often... and doubtless he'd call the cops on me because I assume he's a whiny bitch on the subject. But... people you want to spend time with versus not is relevant in politics. Likability.

And that's a problem for old Hill. She isn't getting the nomination. I don't see it. And if she does... she's one of the weaker presidential candidates the dems could field.

I'd actually fear Bernie more in this election if I were the republicans more than Hillary. I mean... bernie is a frizzy haired crack pot. But he's at least sincere. He actually believes the shit that comes out of his mouth. Hillary doesn't believe anything. Those are just animal sounds she makes to lull the peasants. Everything is focus groups, talking points, lobbying scripts... she licks her finger, holds it up to the wind, and that's her position.

And I think THAT perception is going to be very hard for her to overcome.

As to my position... it has some basis to it. Yours has none what so ever.

Nothing.

Not anything at all.

Nada.

There is no evidence or indictation in anything you will find that implies the US was insincere in this offer. And I should note that the offer has not been recended... yet.

If this continues... it may be in our interests for Russia to just cease to exist as a country. Not a threat of violence from us... but a threat of strategic undermining that leads to systemic collapse.

The last time the Russians collapsed they lost of most of Eastern Europe to the West. We're not giving it back and the Eastern Europeans don't want to go back.

The next time Russia collapses they'll likely lose most of their eastern territory.

And while this is happening what remains of their Soviet warchest will have rusted and crumbled.

Time is on our side here. The smart move for Russia is to accept the deal while there is enough left of them to make it.

As to insinuations of deceit... I didn't insinuate it. I stated it in no uncertain terms. I think you're being very dishonest by refusing to accept the US made that offer.

You question the sincerity of the offer... okay... but it was made. And had the Russians accepted the deal it would obviously have included clauses that required X Y and Z to ensure compliance.

Can you show me incidents of the US making signed agreements with the USSR and then going back on those agreements? Go look for it. I'm sure we did something... we're human... but we complied with most of it pretty religious and that being the case I don't see where you find the justification to question our word in this context beyond your baseless prejudice. Which is all your position boils down to... prejudice. Nothing more when all is said and done.

So... frankly I don't find your position to be legitimate. The US made the offer. That is a matter of record.

The Russians rejected the offer. That is a matter of record.

The opinions of senior US diplomatic officials that were involved in that process are a matter of record. I'm sure I could get statements from the Russians of that era as why they did one thing or another.

And questions beyond that as to whether X or Y would have complied with provision Z is immaterial given that that is a common issue in any diplomatic agreement or business arrangement or any agreement between various parties.

How is it that we ever come to agreements on anything?

Because we work out the details. If party A has a problem with something party B wants then they say that and the two of them can work out compromises etc.

Saying there is a potential of one side or the other betraying the other... what is new?

Your counter argument is dishonest... and stupid mostly because you don't realize how obviously unsupportable your position is and yet you're making it anyway.

I mean... that is dumb.

We're done. If you're going to be stubborn, dishonest, and stupid then I have nothing to gain from talking to you. You've nothing to teach me and you're not clever enough to have thought of anything that I haven't already thought of or know.

So you have no value to me. Your opinion of me beyond that is immaterial to me.

Good day, sir.

and what ignorance would that be? Did you have something to contribute of any intelligence or merely mindless gainsaying, sarcasm, and snark?

I find it interesting that people like you presume intellectual superiority when you haven't the first idea how to actually form either thoughts or arguments.

All questions are relative and contextual.

Suggesting absolute standards be held or be taken seriously is impractical.

1.Your point about fertilizers not contributing to CO2 in plants means that the methane from cows is not a net increase in atmospheric green house gases.

2. As to methane turning into CO2 after it breaks down... yes... but then we're talking about CO2 again and not methane... and the contribution of to atmospheric CO2 from human live stock methane emissions breaking down into CO2 is so tiny as to not be worth talking about.

3. I eat meat. If you don't like that, then populate the world with a different species of sapients. This species... mine... eats meat.

4. As to vegetarians coming from all sides... not in the west. The vegi lobby is progressive hacks in the west. Your defense of them is frankly an amusing bit of evidence in that vein since you don't comment to anything I say unless I poke progressives... then there you are.

Hello there. I see you. ;-)

Your position is based on your lack of belief. Mine is based on official statements from the US government.

My position has more basis as yours is mere supposition.

The offer was made. The Russians rejected it.

Case closed.

Next case.

Had the USSR stayed within the limitations of that invitation then that would have been fine.

It was when they stormed the presidential palace, killed the the former members of the government, and imposed their own government that it would be hard to claim they were there with the blessing of the government.

Unless the government wanted the Soviets to murder them?

The Soviets enjoyed no parity with the US for conduct. It isn't even close. And the modern Russians are demonstrably not a great deal better.

Login and we'll discuss this in more detail.

I don't talk about things in detail with AC's... login and we'll talk about it.

Ah, just FUD spreading as usual.

All powers have histories of invasions. This isn't justification for anything that any other power couldn't claim with equal justification.

Given that Russia is demanding that lots of countries in eastern europe be defenseless because otherwise they feel vulnerable... that is not justifiable. Their vulnerability is as valid as Russias.

Russia says an invasion from XY could reach their borders. Fine. But then Russia has proven they will send invasions into Eastern Europe. While since the end of the Cold War Russia has not been invaded by any of its old Sat states.

Therefore, Russia's concern is at best hypocritical and at worst a deceptive ploy to keep a future target vulnerable for invasion.

As to Russia's population... you're ignoring their massive exodus from Russia. City is full of Russian expats. Half the taxi drivers and plumbers are Russians. The cream of Russia's population LEAVES. If you're smart, educated, talented... why stay in Russia? You'll have a better life, more rights, and a more stable future for your family if you leave.

So they do.

The only thing keeping Russia from imploding is patriotism... misplaced loyalty to a government dominated by oligarchs that see their own people as peasants and slaves.

Break that... and Russia as a concept... much less a nation... dies.

As to dismissing them... no no... they're being watched very closely. What they say means almost nothing to us at this point. Too many lies. Too much betrayal.

We watch them. With the sound off. At this point the only thing of relevance to us out of Russia is actions.

Login and I'll prove it.

Precisely.

Russia's intentions were tested. They failed. All Putin has accomplished was making our eyes glitter when we look upon them. He made a mistake.

The oil deal with another olive branch from the US.

We made good faith efforts to forgive Russia and help them become a productive, successful, and happy member of the First world.

The Second world died with the fall of the USSR... so... Russia could be First world or Third world.

We helped them keep their space program alive with the ISS. We offered them markets to sell their exports to help their economy. We let them sit in on NATO meetings so they could feel politically and militarily comfortable with what was going on.

And we were in talks about actually adding Russia to NATO. That sounds insane now but it has to be pointed out that the US was trying very very hard to put the cold war relationship behind us.

We shut down the CIA operations in Russia to a large extent. We cut military spending or redirected it to other types of defense spending that are not threatening to nation states like Russia.

Russia has betrayed every trust they were extended and exploited every weakness. The people in the US that were trying to make nice with Russia have been humiliated and have lost all credibility. This is an aspect of American politics that most counties don't understand about it.

We're not one person or one party. Our rivals typically have a unitary political structure where if they make mistakes or circumstances change the same people will be making decisions even if they keep making mistakes.

In the US, the people that make decisions changes all the time. And a lot of the control on who gets to make decisions is based on who has the most credibility. During times of peace you're going to get the more diplomatically minded people making all the plans.

If there is money to be made or trade is important then you're going to have industry and business people influencing the issue.

When the diplomatic efforts blow up in everyone's faces and there isn't any money to be made... the military minds take over.

There are sub factions and more factions outside of these three but the point is that the way the US thinks about something shifts very quickly sometimes because the people making the decisions and their backgrounds can change.

And that means the US is prone to very very sudden changes in the way it does things. The Imperial Japanese were very surprised that the attack on Pearl Harbor caused the US to go to TOTAL WAR with them... where nothing was acceptable short of unconditional surrender. For years, the Japanese had been poking the US and the US ignored it or send strong letters asking the Japanese to stop it.

What happened in Pearl Harbor is that it scared Americans and it humiliated the people that said we could have peace with the Japanese. Instantly they lost all credibility and they were replaced with people that had a military mindset. US thinking changed in an instant... completely. Because the people making the decisions were completely different people.

The same thing happened in 9/11. Terrorists had been attacking US embassies and generally causing problems around the world for years. The US mostly ignored it. I think we would occasionally fire some cruise missiles at what was often an abandoned terrorist camp in the middle of the desert somewhere. Ineffective and largely perfunctory responses. It was Osama's theory that if he hit the US hard he would show his allies that the US was a paper tiger. That the US was all talk. That his people could get away with anything with impunity because the US would not respond with anything seriously.

He triggered the same response. The diplomats sat down and shut up... and the people calling the shots shifted to people with a different way of thinking. Osama was completely taken off guard by the sudden and complete shift in US policy.

The Russians have made a similar mistake. They have assumed that the way the US was responding to Russia after the fall of the USSR would be maintained consistently. In attacking Georgia and then Ukraine... in making threatening comments to the US... in generally acting like a bully... the people pushing for peace have lost credibility. And that means a shift in US policy has occurred because the people that make the decisions are not the same people. The US is not going to look at how to fix Russia or help Russia to bring Russia into an alliance or at least a friendly cooperative relationship.

Rather... the objective is going to bleeding Russia to break it. The US can do that. And there really isn't anything Russia can do to stop it.

The 30 million people that starved to death in the Great Leap Forward, and the seven million that died in the Holodomor, would disagree.