When will Trump be impeached? -2019 Better late than never- Congratulations!

https://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/2016/03/09/epa-remains-a-paragon-of-government-waste-fraud-and-abuse/#4815957c34c5

 

http://eaglerising.com/32980/major-corruption-questions-as-the-epa-is-caught-hiding-billions-of-dollars-in-slush-fund-like-accounts/

 

Looking at the chronology of events, its clear that Crimea never wanted or consented to be part of Ukraine or separate from Russia.

Chronology for Crimean Russians in Ukraine
Minorities at Risk Project, Chronology for Crimean Russians in Ukraine, 2004, available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/469f38ec2.html [accessed 29 March 2017]
Apr 29, 1954 Under Khrushchev, the Soviet Union transfers the Crimea from the Russian SFSR to the Ukrainian SSR. This move is done in marking the 300th anniversary of the Pereiaslav Agreement which, in large part, marked the beginning of Ukrainian subjugation to the Muscovite Empire. The official party line has declared this the beginning of the long Russo-Ukrainian friendship.
Jan 20, 1991 A referendum is held in the Crimea on restoring autonomy to the region. Over 80% of the electorate participates, of which 93.26% supported the "restoration of the Crimean ASSR as a subject of the USSR and as a party to the Union Treaty."
Jan 1992 The Russian Foreign Ministry and parliament condemn the transfer of Crimea to the Ukraine in 1954.
May 5, 1992 Crimea's parliament declares total independence subject to approval in a referendum to be held in August 1992.
May 13, 1992 The Ukrainian parliament declares the Crimean parliament's independence declaration unconstitutional and gives them until May 20 to rescind it. They also give President Kravchuk the power to use all necessary means to halt Crimean independence.
May 21, 1992 The Russian parliament passes a resolution declaring the 1954 transfer of Crimea illegal and calling for negotiations on the future of Crimea. This move is supported by some Russian nationalists and Communists in Crimea.
Jan 10, 1993 Over 2,000 protesters hold an unauthorized demonstration in Sevastopol calling for separation from Ukraine
Jan 18 - 20, 1993 Anti-Ukrainian demonstrations again take place in Sevastopol and Simferopol. This time they are organized by the All Crimean Movement of Electors for a Crimean Republic, the Republican Movement of Crimea, Yedinstvo, and the Union of Communists. Demands include the transfer of Crimea back to Russian jurisdiction and early elections be held for all government bodies.
Jul 16, 1993 The anti-Ukrainian Popular Assembly declares that only Russian laws should be valid in the city of Sevastopol, new elections to the city council should be held, Sevastopol deputies in Kiev should be dismissed and new elections for deputies to be sent to Russia should be held, the Ukrainian naval headquarters should be removed forcibly from Sevastopol, and Russia should cut off oil deliveries to Ukraine. The declarations are accompanied by anti-Ukrainian / pro-Russian demonstrations. Meshkov makes statement that once Sevastopol is reunited with Russia, the rest of Crimea would soon follow. Non-Russians throughout Crimea and in Kiev denounce the statement. Most of these sentiments are not held by Russians in the rest of Ukraine. Many Crimean Russians yearn for a return to the Soviet Union and re-establishment of Soviet authority in Ukraine.
Aug 23, 1994 The Sevastopol city council decided to declare Sevastopol a Russian city, making the city subject only to Russian legislation. The resolution was backed by 36 of the 42 members and was immediately denounced as illegal by Ukrainian authorities.
Mar 1995 The Ukrainian parliament rescinded Crimea's constitution and abolished the post of Crimean President. 
Feb 23, 1997 Crimean communists attending a meeting in Simferopol have called on authorities to cut off relations with NATO. The Congress of the Russian People called on Russian and Ukrainian leaders to immediately sign a defensive union recognizing Sevastopol as the main base of the Black Sea Fleet.
Mar 18, 1997 Riot police in Crimea prevented about 1000 protestors from storming the parliament building in Simferopol during a demonstration calling for the return of the peninsula to Russia. Pro-Russian communist groups organized the demonstration which was attended by about 5000 people.
http://www.refworld.org/docid/469f38ec2.html

Funny how the western media constantly portrays Crimea as poor people brutally annexed by Russia against their will.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Even Wikipedia leaves out vast portions of history in its rush to declare Crimea a part of Ukraine.

I'm not going to argue any of those points because A) I'm no expert on the topic, B) They're all true, as far as I can tell.

   However, just as Wiki allegedly leaves out some facts, your list leaves out a number of important facts as well. The majority of Crimeans may want to rejoin Russia, but it isn't an overwhelming majority: there are many who are pushing to remain part of the Ukraine, and even more who advocate (unrealistically in my opinion) to push for complete independence.

   My earlier point wasn't that Crimea wants to remain Ukrainian but that wherever it ends up, there will be a lot of unhappy people. It's probably going to be an issue for the next couple generations, just like it was (and still is) in Cyprus.

Russia has 600,000 “orphans,” although 70 to 90 percent of them have birth parents who are alive. This is Russia’s third great wave of orphans, the first two coming on the heels of the two world wars.

https//www.washingtonpost.com/

So your point is.... we should hate russian people because they have orphans?



Their media hate propaganda campaign against russia (which you are recycling) is essentially no different in spirit and intention, to what they print in north korea.



Congratulations






When it comes to creating fear and hatred of a foreign nation and leadership, Washington is now at the same level as Pyongyang.

But it's ok if Russians do it.

This is all you or any vatnik does:

So you're a air pollution denier? You want to repeal clean-air regulations? You're glad Trump did that?

"It is extensively proven, and widely accepted, that air pollution can harm humans, which is why the government regulates it."

The majority of Crimeans may want to rejoin Russia, but it isn't an overwhelming majority

97.7% isn't an overwhelming majority to you?

That's the percentage that voted to rejoin Russia.

wherever it ends up, there will be a lot of unhappy people.

I don't think so, kyndo.

Wean yourself off CNN.

Aurata have you ever been to the Crimea?

A senior Obama administration official said there was "concrete evidence" that some ballots in the Crimea referendum arrived in some Crimean cities pre-marked.

A senior Obama administration official said there was "concrete evidence" that some ballots in the Crimea referendum arrived in some Crimean cities pre-marked.

And the vast majority of people who 'legally' voted were ethnic Russian who only make up around 58% of the Crimean population.

A senior Obama administration official said there was "concrete evidence" that some ballots in the Crimea referendum arrived in some Crimean cities pre-marked.

And the vast majority of people who 'legally' voted were ethnic Russian who only make up around 58% of the Crimean population.

Crimea river.

Support for Russia and the ussr was always extremely high because most of the population is related to the russian military or black sea fleet somehow, including ethnic ukrainians. Also kiev pays its sailors less and has lower standards of general administration. Asking crimea and eastern ukraine to view themselves as 'ukrainian' is a bit like asking London to be part of the Irish republic.

The only people 'unhappy' about the democratic will of the people, are, as ever, the neocons in Washington who wanted to sieze the Black sea port for themselves.

The majority of Crimeans may want to rejoin Russia, but it isn't an overwhelming majority

97.7% isn't an overwhelming majority to you?
That's the percentage that voted to rejoin Russia.

wherever it ends up, there will be a lot of unhappy people.

I don't think so, kyndo.
Wean yourself off CNN.

    First of all, I don't read much CNN, so it won't take much weaning. I don't really enjoy the website format.

    Secondly, 97.5% voted (in a technically unconstitutional referendum where international observers such as the UN and the OSCE were denied entry by troops armed with Russian equipment) to join the Russian Federation, true.
    I also agree that that percentage is a pretty overwhelming majority -- and that it would remain an huge majority even if the many allegations of vote tampering and fraud were all true (polls both before and after the referendum agree that the majority of Crimians would prefer to leave the Ukraine).
   But that's the problem: they were offered only 2 choices: stay in the Ukraine under the 1992 constitution, or join Russia. If there had been the option of autonomy, or even of a return to the 1991 constitution, the referendum would not have been so clear-cut. There are several minorities in Crimea that dislike Russia just as much as they dislike the Ukraine.

    That's what I was talking bout with my parallels to Cyprus etc: many people in that peninsula would really rather not be part of either country, and will be unhappy regardless of where they end up.

Which brings to mind: "Whether the beat beats the wolf or the wolf beats the bear, the rabbit always loses."

Crimea river.

That the Kremlin has been vexed by Mr. Navalny is clear from the authorities’ response to what, in most countries, would be inconsequential protests that merely disrupted traffic. The police arrested protesters in some cases for nothing more than carrying a rubber duck, a symbol of extravagant money reportedly spent on a duck pond at a government residence.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mh85R-S-dh8

A senior Obama administration official said there was "concrete evidence" that some ballots in the Crimea referendum arrived in some Crimean cities pre-marked.

And the vast majority of people who 'legally' voted were ethnic Russian who only make up around 58% of the Crimean population.

Crimea river.

Among the f***ing stupid things the president of the USA is doing, this one is among the most ridiculous.  There is proof about global warming and he is listening to his business buddies who wnat to push fossil fuels. 

Why are you worried about global warming but not nuclear war?


Why is it that Trump, who wants to do the only sane thing and improve relations between thermonuclear powers, is portrayed as an idiot?

but the neo-cons and neoliberals who are risking ending life on earth with their relentless stalking of Russia are portrayed as the salt of the earth?

All so they can keep extorting massive amounts of money out of the government.

Are you ready to die for the military-industrial complex savant?

Why are you worried about global warming but not nuclear war?

Nuclear war won't happened. Nukes are a deterrent that's all. No one's going to use a nuke. It'd be foolish to. And no war with Russia will happen. Maybe they'll get sanctions for being a-holes. Boo hoo.

Sanctions = less money in order to pressure a country to do the right thing.

https://twitter.com/grantsamms/status/846784766984802306/photo/1

Why is it that Trump, who wants to do the only sane thing and improve relations between thermonuclear powers, is portrayed as an idiot?

but the neo-cons and neoliberals who are risking ending life on earth with their relentless stalking of Russia are portrayed as the salt of the earth?

Why don't you remind us about how you now think Trump is a neocon idiot because he's not sucking up enough to Putin?

Nuclear war won't happened. Nukes are a deterrent that's all.

What if there's a false alarm, a miscommunication of incoming missile strike?

During the cold war both sides worked to reduce tensions and keep channels of communication open. American Presidents worked closely with the Soviets to reduce tensions. There was nixon with Salt I (anti-ballistic missile treaty). There was carter with Salt II. Reagan and gorbachev worked to end the cold war. So even when false alarms happened (and they frequently do), people at the controls assumed them to be false because they knew that both sides had an atmosphere of trust.


All that has gone. From the Clinton administration onward the neo-cons have destroyed any trust that had been built. And all of this nonsense has risen out of the military-security complex.
 
-The US pulled out of non-proliferation treaties and changed to a first strike policy.
-They  moved troops into eastern Europe and now up to the borders of Russia (despite pledging not to).
-They are currently putting missile launchers in countries surrounding Russia.
- They are escalating the provocations with new military drills in the Baltics.

They also have their media working 24/7 to demonise and antagonize Russia and its leaders, and brainwash the americans into hating Russia. To create an atmosphere of hysteria and paranoia in the US population, to prepare them for war.

They also refuse any and all co-operation with Russia, including even in close military operations as in Syria. They close down all channels of communication, expelling diplomats and now creating a situation where anybody who so much as talks to a Russian person can be accused of treason. Anyone who suggests that its probably a better idea to improve relations is accused of being a Russian spy. In the past, the US has only acted this way when they have later attacked the country concerned.

Obviously the Russians have to take these threats seriously. And nowadays anyone at the controls is more likely to assume that the alarm is real.

And you don't even think it strange that no western media published Putins warning of WW3?

Putin's warning: 2016
The world is being pushed on a path to WW3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqD8lIdIMRo

Sanctions = less money in order to pressure a country to do the right thing.

Why don't you put sanctions on countries far worse than Russia? Saudi Arabia? Qatar?

Its already been proven to you that crimea returned itself to Russia, it was not seized against its will.

The sanctions are simply pressure by Washington to try and force Russia to surrender and become another vassal puppet state. Russia might simply give in, for the sake of humanity, and agree to whatever Washington wants. They're a more decent and civilized people than the arrogant idiots in Washington. Particularly if the atlanticists get into power there. But I wouldn't be too sure. Russian leaders have vowed to defend their country. And in the meantime, you've simply forced Russia to build stronger alliances with your other enemies.

So you're a air pollution denier? You want to repeal clean-air regulations? You're glad Trump did that?

"It is extensively proven, and widely accepted, that air pollution can harm humans, which is why the government regulates it."

How do you get that from what I posted?   The EPA is not doing it's job according to the
articles I posted, that is all. 
The EPA needs some major reforms or needs to be replaced by someone who will do the job.


Here's an interesting article from someone who used to work for the EPA:

http://www.greens.org/s-r/078/07-48.html

Is this guy just going to spend his whole time deflecting the attention from himself onto Obama.  Apart from having no clear foreign policy direction, he seems to 'playing' politics rather than actually 'doing' politics.  How long can he get away with doing that?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/04/syria-gas-attack-trump-us-foreign-policy

He seems to have just one foreign policy: Defeat ISIS. Except, the world is a lot bigger and complicated than just ISIS.

He's already caved to the Chinese on economic issues. Trump called Obama weak all the time but he's clearly shown already that he has no backbone.

Is this guy just going to spend his whole time deflecting the attention from himself onto Obama.  Apart from having no clear foreign policy direction, he seems to 'playing' politics rather than actually 'doing' politics.  How long can he get away with doing that?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/04/syria-gas-attack-trump-us-foreign-policy

Let’s see. Obama, the President of the United States, publically draws a “red” line with Assad/Syria, completely ignores it, and that is considered acceptable foreign policy.  Maybe Obama’s foreign policy is even worthy of a Nobel peace prize……

Trump does not see a U.S. vital security or economic reason for the U.S. to go to war against the Assad regime (and either do I), has his Secretary of State issue a statement calling it a horrific act, does not have US militarily respond, and this means there is no Trump foreign policy.  Okay, now I get it….

ISIS has threatened the U.S., but the Assad regime, both father and son, have not been a military threat to the U.S.  Furthermore, Syria has had a military relationship with the Russians/Soviets since 1971, and even during the Cold War the U.S. tolerated this relationship.  We supply weapons to Israel and Israel handles Syria…..

We do have vital security and economic concerns regarding what North Korea is doing…..

Finally, regarding a current administration saying that a problem today is the result of what a previous administration did or did not do, I sure am glad that the Obama administration never said anything like that about the W. Bush administration……