Russia helps Ralph Nader get elected in 2016

[Okeefenokee]

Unless Russia changed vote totals there is no more "tampering" than there is tampering by PACs, donors, and corporate donors.

People still have free will when they go into the voting booth. This whole Russia thing is just a mental breakdown by most of the world to place blame for Trump's election.

smartest flower child in the room.

[BjornP]

Unlike many other countries the US can chill. No one dares to invade it.

I'm really hoping you are actually a child. That can sorta justify such a stupid comment.

[Ex-California]

Unlike many other countries the US can chill. No one dares to invade it.

I'm really hoping you are actually a child. That can sorta justify such a stupid comment.

Hasn't happened since 1812

[BjornP]

Yeah, because the only way the US could lose global power, lose allies, lose overseas markets is if Russia invaded you.

[ssu]

Unlike many other countries the US can chill. No one dares to invade it.

I'm really hoping you are actually a child. That can sorta justify such a stupid comment.

Hasn't happened since 1812

You know it's NOT about anybody invading the US. It's about the US just to have policies that support you.

For Russia it's things like:

There not being an EU and no Atlantic tie, no atlanticism, no NATO. And European countries would not be dealing with Russia as a group, as EU or NATO, but on a bilateral basis. That's Russia's objective.

Now you guys don't care a shit about having NATO or not or there being an EU, so it might be really difficult to understand this.

[Speaker to Animals]

Would Putin just get the Finland invasion over already?

[ssu]

Would Putin just get the Finland invasion over already?

Oh, he just wants us to be like we were during the Cold War.

And when some Poles or Balts start sounding like us or the Swedes in their comments, then the US has lost and Russia has won.

[Hwen Hoshino]

Yeah, because the only way the US could lose global power, lose allies, lose overseas markets is if Russia invaded you.

Why would trade stop if the US abandoned it's bases.

I'm really hoping you are actually a child. That can sorta justify such a stupid comment.

Hasn't happened since 1812

You know it's NOT about anybody invading the US. It's about the US just to have policies that support you.

For Russia it's things like:

There not being an EU and no Atlantic tie, no atlanticism, no NATO. And European countries would not be dealing with Russia as a group, as EU or NATO, but on a bilateral basis. That's Russia's objective.

Now you guys don't care a shit about having NATO or not or there being an EU, so it might be really difficult to understand this.

and people would trade, drink and fuck like they always do. Why cannot countries negotiate on their own?

[ssu]

Why cannot countries negotiate on their own?

You don't see the obvious imbalance? This is Basic 1.0 international politics.

Just have this thought experiment: image if all the US states would have their own trade policies and foreign policy and deal with other sovereign states by themselves.

Think about then Canada and let's say Maine. Now for tiny Maine trade with Canada is important (47% of it's exports go to Canada), but for Canada Maine itself is rather unimportant. Thus Canada likely could quite well dictate things to Maine where some California or Texas themselves likely would be an even match on the negotiating table for Canada. But as all US states discuss trade relations with Canada as a federation, the United States, the stance is totally different. (Similar example would be the case of New Mexico and Mexico. The state of New Mexico has 46% of it's exports going to Mexico.)

It's quite naive to think about the issues he only from a very narrow security policy view of if one country would invade another or not. In many way all the things that a country wants from anothers can be obtained by other forms of pressure than just have tanks rolling in.

[Ex-California]

Why cannot countries negotiate on their own?

You don't see the obvious imbalance? This is Basic 1.0 international politics.

Just have this thought experiment: image if all the US states would have their own trade policies and foreign policy and deal with other sovereign states by themselves.

Think about then Canada and let's say Maine. Now for tiny Maine trade with Canada is important (47% of it's exports go to Canada), but for Canada Maine itself is rather unimportant. Thus Canada likely could quite well dictate things to Maine where some California or Texas themselves likely would be an even match on the negotiating table for Canada. But as all US states discuss trade relations with Canada as a federation, the United States, the stance is totally different. (Similar example would be the case of New Mexico and Mexico. The state of New Mexico has 46% of it's exports going to Mexico.)

It's quite naive to think about the issues he only from a very narrow security policy view of if one country would invade another or not. In many way all the things that a country wants from anothers can be obtained by other forms of pressure than just have tanks rolling in.

We're a single country, not a federation of countries like the EU. Bad analogy

The problem with the EU and NATO is that the officials are making these huge decisions for the people who live in their client countries on a completely unelected and arbitrary basis.