[piva00]

> I think our political parties and media are responsible for 99% of the political extremism, unwillingness to compromise, and placing their self interests over the well being of the country.

FPTP usually creates this polarisation. I don't agree with your take that both parties are equally responsible though, one of them has consistently used political gridlock as a weapon, since Obama years. To the point where one of these parties fillibustered their own bills just to spite the other side.

There are differences in level and scale.

> You say Russia did exactly what they said they would do if NATO didn’t stop expanding eastwards? Oh you’re a traitor or must work at a Russian troll farm.

I have a huge grievance with this line, it's literal Russian propaganda you are repeating.

I'm not from the US if that matters.

[ozzythecat]

> I don't agree with your take that both parties are equally responsible though, one of them has consistently used political gridlock as a weapon, since Obama years.

Is political gridlock the root of the problem? Help me understand how only one party is responsible.

Interesting you mention Obama. He ran on an anti-war platform, which was fairly out of line with the media and general American politics at the time. That alone was a big reason to vote for him.

But what did he do? An unprecedented increase in drone attacks. By all measures, Obama let the military industrial complex grow.

> I have a huge grievance with this line, it's literal Russian propaganda you are repeating.

How is it propaganda? Are you staying this IS NOT exactly what Russia stated, repeatedly since the early 2000s?

[piva00]

> Is political gridlock the root of the problem? Help me understand how only one party is responsible.

The GOP doesn't compromise anymore, it's a fact, no?

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/lets-just-say-it-the...

[2] https://www.vox.com/2016/7/18/12210500/diagnosed-dysfunction...

> Interesting you mention Obama. He ran on an anti-war platform, which was fairly out of line with the media and general American politics at the time. That alone was a big reason to vote for him.

> But what did he do? An unprecedented increase in drone attacks. By all measures, Obama let the military industrial complex grow.

I don't care and there was nothing in my comment that led to this segue about Obama. This is purely soapboxing around an issue that wasn't in discussion, thanks anyway.

> How is it propaganda? Are you staying this IS NOT exactly what Russia stated, repeatedly since the early 2000s?

That's exactly the point, you are repeating this which is Russian propaganda. Why should Russia dictate what Ukraine can or cannot do? NATO didn't expand eastwards, countries to the East asked to join NATO. Should NATO say "no, thanks, Russia doesn't allow us"?

You are performing a bizarro form of victim blaming and not seeing an issue with that. Are you subscribed to Mearsheimer's real politik/offensive realism stuff? It really does feel like you are repeating his lines...

Have you forgotten Chechnya? Or Georgia?

[ozzythecat]

> I don't care and there was nothing in my comment that led to this segue about Obama.

Hold on a second. You’re saying that Republicans have been gridlocking since the Obama years. So clearly, you’re saying one side is at fault. But you don’t want to discuss the merits of Obama’s actual policy. Barack Obama did hypocritical things, but clearly your expectation is that Republicans just go along.

That’s not how a democracy works.

You brought up Obama and Republicans gridlocking, but the minute we dive deep into a more nuanced look, away from your binary/black and white narrative, you say this:

> This is purely soapboxing around an issue that wasn't in discussion, thanks anyway.

Now you’re on a borderline personal attack. I’m not sure you’re here to discuss in good faith.

> That's exactly the point, you are repeating this which is Russian propaganda.

> Why should Russia dictate what Ukraine can or cannot do? NATO didn't expand eastwards, countries to the East asked to join NATO. Should NATO say "no, thanks, Russia doesn't allow us"?

I’m not sure if you understand what “propaganda” means.

Russia doesn’t want NATO at its doorstep, and it sees NATO as an existential threat. You don’t have to agree that this belief is justified. You can say those countries have a right to join NATO. That as sovereign nations, it’s entirely up to them to do as they please.

But that’s not the point here. The Soviets brokered a deal with us. We agreed NATO would not expand eastwards.

Again, Russia is doing what they said they would do, given the present circumstances. Whether you agree with what they’re doing or not, does not make it propaganda.

You could try to argue that the world has changed. That the US and Russia cannot single handedly make decisions in the 1990s and have them enforced on a modern day Europe, that those countries can decide for themselves.

But it’s besides the point. Russia sees NATO at their door step. The real terrifying thing is that our media paints Putin as a dictator, terrorist, a mad man. He probably is all three of those things, but why we’re playing fire with someone sitting on the worlds largest nuclear arsenal is beyond me.

Regarding Russia’s views: It’s the same way we (the US) instilled the Monroe doctrine, and you can bet money that if China gets real cozy with South American countries, we’ll be sending navy carriers down the Pacific.

Two other thoughts:

Your linked “sources” are well known liberal and left of liberal - progressive - organizations. To say this is a GOP specific problem is your ideology yelling out loud. The reality is that both parties are hyper polarized. Neither party has American interests at heart. The biggest ideas any Democrat or Republican has is on how to fan the fear mongering flame and divide people.

Again - the party of forward thinking and liberal ideas literally elected a dinosaur who probably doesn’t even know how to use e-mail.

[mopsi]

> The Soviets brokered a deal with us. We agreed NATO would not expand eastwards.

This is simply not true. It is a talking point developed for Putin's speech at 2007 Munich security conference to justify the shift to genocidal wars against its neighbors. It did not exist before 2007 and was not brought up when, for example, Poland joined NATO in 1999. There was an endless stream of whining and unspecified threats from Russian diplomats at the time, but not once do I remember talk about any deals.

It's nothing more than a simple, yet effective hook for catching western self-flagellants into their net, while the truth is that western governments went above and beyond to accommodate Russia and build cooperation, and it still lead to a maniacal dictatorship carrying out genocide in Europe and threatening rest of the world with hunger and nuclear armageddon.