Kasparov on CNBC

[Hugh Brodie]

Gary Kasparov is about to speak (or be interviewed) on CNBC. It's now 4:45 pm EST.

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: Kasparov on CNBC

He was on Fox a few days ago.

[Wayne Komer]

Re: Kasparov on CNBC

Kasparov on CNBC

November 23, 2016

He's on Fox, he's on CNBC - but what is he saying?

[Bob Armstrong]

Re: Kasparov on CNBC

Kasparov on CNBC

November 23, 2016

He's on Fox, he's on CNBC - but what is he saying?

I didn't listen.....but generally he is mainly talking about two things: 1. the charade of democracy in Russia, and 2. that Putin is not trustworthy......anyone think I've got this wrong?

Bob A

[Nigel Hanrahan]

Re: Kasparov on CNBC

I didn't listen.....but generally he is mainly talking about two things: 1. the charade of democracy in Russia, and 2. that Putin is not trustworthy......anyone think I've got this wrong?

Bob A

Kasparov is a virulent neo-con. The results of the recent US Presidential election, with the expected coronation of the neo-con's chosen candidate down the drain, probably has him, and the rest of that hawkish confederacy, apoplectic with rage.

But you forgot to add 3: unending war - including pre-emptive nuclear strikes - is the favorite hobby horse of all of the neo-cons. This is one of those examples in which the richness of human life is not exhausted by the views of shrill cold warriors.

Good thing, too.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Re: Kasparov on CNBC

Kasparov is a virulent neo-con. The results of the recent US Presidential election, with the expected coronation of the neo-con's chosen candidate down the drain, probably has him, and the rest of that hawkish confederacy, apoplectic with rage.

But you forgot to add 3: unending war - including pre-emptive nuclear strikes - is the favorite hobby horse of all of the neo-cons. This is one of those examples in which the richness of human life is not exhausted by the views of shrill cold warriors.

Good thing, too.

Have Kasparov ever told about "pre-emtive nuclear strikes"?

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: Kasparov on CNBC

I didn't listen.....but generally he is mainly talking about two things: 1. the charade of democracy in Russia, and 2. that Putin is not trustworthy......anyone think I've got this wrong?

Bob A

I don't think he mentioned the charade of democracy in Russia on Fox but I believe he did call Putin a dictator which seems a bit of a stretch in fact given that he did win an election. You could argue that the election was fixed I suppose because he has the media in his back pocket but if that were the case we could have called Hillary a dictator if she had won because of the fact that she had the media in her back pocket in the last U.S. election. That didn't seem to work out so well for her.

It is great that all the celebrities who worked so hard for Hillary got presidential medals which got no play on Fox so I almost missed it but caught it on MS-NBC while flicking channels. It seems to me that awarding a presidential medal for partisan activities seems a bit odd. Some of the recipients were Bill and Melinda Gates, Robert de Niro, Bruce Springsteen, Dianna Ross, Tom Hanks, Kareem Abdul Jabbar, Michael Jordan, Ellen Degeneres, etc.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/22/us...eres.html?_r=0

[Kerry Liles]

Re: Kasparov on CNBC

I don't think he mentioned the charade of democracy in Russia on Fox but I believe he did call Putin a dictator which seems a bit of a stretch in fact given that he did win an election. You could argue that the election was fixed I suppose because he has the media in his back pocket but if that were the case we could have called Hillary a dictator if she had won because of the fact that she had the media in her back pocket in the last U.S. election. That didn't seem to work out so well for her.

It is great that all the celebrities who worked so hard for Hillary got presidential medals which got no play on Fox so I almost missed it but caught it on MS-NBC while flicking channels. It seems to me that awarding a presidential medal for partisan activities seems a bit odd. Some of the recipients were Bill and Melinda Gates, Robert de Niro, Bruce Springsteen, Dianna Ross, Tom Hanks, Kareem Abdul Jabbar, Michael Jordan, Ellen Degeneres, etc.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/22/us...eres.html?_r=0

Are you unaware of the charitable work that is spearheaded by Bill and Melinda Gates (the Gates Foundation)? I presume the other recipients also qualified based on their humanitarian work, but I guess I will have to read the NYT article to find out. You seem to be assuming they are just cronies of Obama but perhaps they share a common disgust of Trump and his neanderthal mentality.

added: well, I have to agree some of the recipients are probably just there because Obama likes their work or artistry, but that is his prerogative I guess.

[Nigel Hanrahan]

Re: Kasparov on CNBC

Have Kasparov ever told about "pre-emtive nuclear strikes"?

The neo-cons have a giddy enthusiasm for military spending, including, e.g., violations of the ABM Treaty with first strike weapons in Romania and Poland - once laughingly claimed to be aimed at Iran, but the lies unmasked with the change in US-Iranian relations - and, of course, since the time of the Wolfowitz Doctrine this has been made explicit US policy, never repudiated. The US is the only country in the world that specifically claims the right to a first strike nuclear attack. The neo-cons have had their way for quite some time now in the broad strokes of US foreign policy.

Kasparov parrots the neo-con foreign policy views and he's been doing this for a very long time. One thing that was interesting in the US election was that the Democrats were the pro-war party and the GOP were not; the usual expectations were upside-down.

We shall see whether Donald Trump can make a dent in this bellicose policy. Not starting WW3 would be a good start.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Re: Kasparov on CNBC

added: well, I have to agree some of the recipients are probably just there because Obama likes their work or artistry, but that is his prerogative I guess.

"especially meritorious contribution to (1) the security or national interests of the United States, or (2) world peace, or (3) cultural or other significant public or private endeavors"
Every listed person deserves the medal.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Re: Kasparov on CNBC

The neo-cons have a giddy enthusiasm for military spending, including, e.g., violations of the ABM Treaty with first strike weapons in Romania and Poland - once laughingly claimed to be aimed at Iran, but the lies unmasked with the change in US-Iranian relations - and, of course, since the time of the Wolfowitz Doctrine this has been made explicit US policy, never repudiated. The US is the only country in the world that specifically claims the right to a first strike nuclear attack. The neo-cons have had their way for quite some time now in the broad strokes of US foreign policy.

Kasparov parrots the neo-con foreign policy views and he's been doing this for a very long time. One thing that was interesting in the US election was that the Democrats were the pro-war party and the GOP were not; the usual expectations were upside-down.

1. Though, it is only your far stretching extrapolation about Kasparov and nukes.

2. Russia has "nukes them first" in her military doctrine too.

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: Kasparov on CNBC

"especially meritorious contribution to (1) the security or national interests of the United States, or (2) world peace, or (3) cultural or other significant public or private endeavors"
Every listed person deserves the medal.

It just happens to be a coincidence that just about everyone he honored happens to be a donor or fundraiser or public cheerleader for Democratic party causes.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Re: Kasparov on CNBC

It just happens to be a coincidence that just about everyone he honored happens to be a donor or fundraiser or public cheerleader for Democratic party causes.

Lets see who Trump will adore over four years LOL

[Bob Armstrong]

Re: Kasparov on CNBC

I don't think he mentioned the charade of democracy in Russia on Fox but I believe he did call Putin a dictator which seems a bit of a stretch in fact given that he did win an election. You could argue that the election was fixed I suppose because he has the media in his back pocket
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/22/us...eres.html?_r=0

The elections are "fixed" in the sense that:

1. there are regular reports of stuffed ballot boxes, with no one outside of government being able to monitor;

2. opposition politicians who are making too much headway find themselves arrested on all sorts of minor charges, and sometime held for lengthy periods;

3. strong opposition media (Such as they are) find themselves under severe scrutiny by government regulation, and breaches are always found leading to muzzling of one type of another.

Perhaps others from both the left (I consider myself mildly centre-left) and the right can add to the evidence list that democracy on the ground in Russia does not in fact exist, and elections/democracy are a sham currently in Russia......the cost to the government of elections is a small price to pay to convince the world that Russia's democracy equates with that of France, Canada, USA, Germany, etc.

Bob A

(And I am not a supporter of the type of extreme criticism Garry is making of Russia)

[Nigel Hanrahan]

Re: Kasparov on CNBC

1. Though, it is only your far stretching extrapolation about Kasparov and nukes.

2. Russia has "nukes them first" in her military doctrine too.

AFAIK, Russia, even under Stalin, never had a "First Strike" doctrine. You'll have to prove that. In any case, Kasparov has been associated, cheek to jowel, hip to hip, with the neo-cons and their bellicose foreign policy for a very, very, very long time. I understand that with a Baltic name like "Zeromskis" you might just disagree.

Cheers.