Time For Switching Sides On Mueller

cow451 · Mar 27, 2019

childeye 2 said:
Are you actually buying this?

The devil wouldn't care what you believe so long as it isn't true.

Just taking another poster’s theories to it’s logical path. Didn’t say I believed it.

John 1720 · Mar 28, 2019

childeye 2 said:
We are in their way according to Alexander Dugin.

Russia is not socialistic or communistic. They converted to a market economy when the Soviet Union collapsed where upon a handful of people seized control of major industries making them instant billionaires. They now have a capitalistic system that has basically installed new oligarchs in a market economy similar to organized crime. Just like here, the gap between rich and poor is wide.

Hi Chldeye 2,
This is a Strawman argument, since I didn't say Russia was, but please don't try and paint them as mere Capitalists who have run amuck. That goes against every grain of common sense and the historical record itself. The one running the show for all of Russia is Putin; an ex KGB Lieutenant Colonel under the old Soviet Communist Empire. And it was an Empire that extended over one-sixth of the world's landmass and kept the kids of my generation doing duck and cover exercises in the early 60's. Now, before heading up the country, Putin became the director of the Russian FSB, which was the successor of the KGB. Now, unlike the world's greatest Republic, the United States of America, which rebuilt the economies of Europe and their defeated World War II foes, Germany and Japan, the Soviets annexed all the lands from which they drove back the Nazi armies and made them Satellite arms of their own regime. Putin makes no apologies for the inglorious Soviet past, and in fact he has openly glorified and reveled in that past. He wants to return Russia to its former glory. That is the real driving force behind his policies.
He has been in power since 1999 and probably will remain in power until he dies, despite that constitutionally he was not supposed to serve more than two terms and again is not supposed to after serving his 4th term in the year 2024. So, like I said the driving force behind Russian policy is to return it to its former Soviet Greatness, which it had under the Communist Regimes. Our definition of greatness and theirs however are polar opposites with respect to the ideals we aspire to.
This is why I believe Putin does not care a hill of beans whether a Republican or a Democrat is in the White House. He simply wants us divided becaue a divided America is a much weaker America. All that talk of our current President colluding with the Russians was sheer spin; and really that spin greatly played into the hands of Russia's national interest far more than any of their 2016 interference as it caught fire; or perhaps " misplaced emotional fervor" is a better term to describe that debacle. CNN even attended a Russian backed anti-Trump event - how embarrassing is that?
Speaking Geopolitically and not spiritually, Russia's biggest problem is their economy. Putin clearly sees annexation as a plan to bring back their former dominance as well as that tact making inroads to resolve the fact they are a 2nd or third class economic power. Just as Comrade Stalin perspective on the world, Putin's view of the independent States, which border Russia, are all seen as potential Western threats to his country. He does not recognize Ukraine as a separate nation; even though Russia signed off on that when Ukraine negotiated with them by giving up their nuclear weapons. He has stated his position on these free nations as the West 'has stabbed Russia in the back'.
Following his annexation of the Crimea he stated, "It looks like the so-called ‘winners’ of the Cold War are determined to have it all and reshape the world into a place that could better serve their interests alone.” He sees himself as a hero and a restorer of former Soviet glory.
What stands in Russia's and Putin's way is President Trump who, unlike our past presidents, boldly has supplied Ukraine with the weapons to defend themselves and, more recently, has asked NATO to come to their defense. He also told them to get out of Venezuela and ordered airstrikes against the Russian backed Syrian regime when they used Chemical weapons against the Kurdish Syrians. He also attacked Russian mercenaries, he expanded the sanctions against Russian companies, increased defense spending, restored missle defense within Poland and the Czech Republic and ended the Obama arms embargos to Georgia. Thee are but a few of his policies towards Russia. Ex CIA leader Brennan as well as most of our mass media portrayed Trump asnot only a collaborator but accused him of treason against the United States with Russia. It would have just been plain silliness if it hadn't arose as a concerted effort to turn the Justice system and the American public in dividing the nation over it. These are not the actions of someone allied with the national interests of Russia but clearly they run counter to their geopolitical efforts and ideals to return it to its former Soviet glory.
So, yes - I stand by my narrative of what Russia is really up to in it subversive activities within the United States of America. Furthermore, I think we all need to wake up!

whatbogsends · Mar 28, 2019

John 1720 said:
Hello Childeye the 2nd,
Perhaps you may want to consider switching your news sources, as you seem to be lacking information that Mueller investigative council exposed quite early.

Russian trolls orchestrated divisive protests in the US about Trump — here are 9 that we know about

So what I said was not a false narrative.

Again, what I said was not propaganda. Russia from the beginning tried to sow discord among us. They succeeded in mobilizing it. Yes, the left bought into it more than the right but both sides need to be wary of this. BTW: I did not say one word here against Hillary Clinton so that in and of itself is a false narrative.

I fail to see the logic behind this mutually exclusive statement here. I believe it short sighted to say they wanted one candidate or another. It's my opinion Trump has been alot tougher on Russia than Hillary would have been but that is simply my subjective opinion, since we'll never know her as President. Russia stands to gain much more by dividing Americans than backing a particular leader and I'll double down on that reality rather than believe Putin cares one bit if a Democrat or a Republican is in the White House.
United we stand, divided we fall. Everyone knows that or at least they should unless they want to wind up on the refuse heap of other nations that didn't pay attention to history.

You might want to review the article you posted.

The Anti-Trump protests the Russians organized were AFTER the election.

"Russian interference didn't end with Trump's election victory.

Shortly after the November vote, the Russians helped organize several pro-Trump rallies at the same time they organized anti-Trump protests, calling on people to object to the election results.

On November 12, the Russians helped coordinate an anti-Trump rally that drew as many as 25,000 people, according to NBC News. "

Prior to the election, every rally/event listed in that article was pro-Trump, except the "Muslims for Hillary", in which (from your article) "they allegedly paid a real American to hold a sign portraying Clinton alongside a quote: "I think Sharia Law will be a powerful new direction of freedom."" I'd argue that even that was framed as anti-Hillary, intended to rally the right against her.

The Russian propaganda machine was decisively pro-Trump. Those framing it as neutral towards the outcome of the election are either misinformed or lying.

John 1720 · Mar 28, 2019

whatbogsends said:
You might want to review the article you posted.

The Anti-Trump protests the Russians organized were AFTER the election.

"Russian interference didn't end with Trump's election victory.

Shortly after the November vote, the Russians helped organize several pro-Trump rallies at the same time they organized anti-Trump protests, calling on people to object to the election results.

On November 12, the Russians helped coordinate an anti-Trump rally that drew as many as 25,000 people, according to NBC News. "

Prior to the election, every rally/event listed in that article was pro-Trump, except the "Muslims for Hillary", in which (from your article) "they allegedly paid a real American to hold a sign portraying Clinton alongside a quote: "I think Sharia Law will be a powerful new direction of freedom."" I'd argue that even that was framed as anti-Hillary, intended to rally the right against her.

The Russian propaganda machine was decisively pro-Trump. Those framing it as neutral towards the outcome of the election are either misinformed or lying.

I don't think so. It's very clear, as I stated from the outset Russia attempted to divide us and I'd say they did a pretty good job. I only pasted one news source there are dozens of others from new agencies that didn't try to kill the story - but that is all tangential to my primary assertion - Russia is still trying to divide the nation and I stand by my original story.

mark46 · Mar 28, 2019

This is an example of why this issue is a plus for Trump. Releasing classified information is illegal. Releasing grand jury testimony is illegal. Releasing information with regard to an existing case is very poor practice. Releasing information regarding someone who is not being prosecuted (excluding the president) is poor practice [one that likely greatly harmed Clinton, thanks to Cuomo's violation of this principle].
=======
The 700 page report with redactions should be available by the end of April. Both Mueller and Barr should appear before the committees, Barr at any time, and Mueller after the next phase of the release of information.
========
Even suggesting impeachment of Barr for not immediately releasing unreacted information in violation of the law is just plain silly. The law REQUIRES that Mueller give a report to Congress, and that Barr give notice to Congress that the report is finished. The Congress CHOSE to have a Special Counsel that reports to the AG, with all the power being in the AG. They could have continued the Nixon era law whereby the investigator reported to Congress.
======
That being said, the Congress will get hundreds of pages of information. Of course, no amount of information will be enough for those on the left. They want information to overturn Mueller's decision with regard to collusion. That simply can't happen.

With regard to obstruction, the House will have plenty of information. As Barr has indicated, there is little information beyond Trump's public statements and tweets.

Fantine said:
I don't blame Mueller at all, fighting against the clock, farming out as much evidence as he could to the Southern District of NY and other courts who were beyond Trump's reach. He did his best.

I think that Barr should be impeached for obstruction of justice, and I want to see every single page of the report, unredacted.

whatbogsends · Mar 28, 2019

John 1720 said:
I don't think so. It's very clear, as I stated from the outset Russia attempted to divide us and I'd say they did a pretty good job. I only pasted one news source there are dozens of others from new agencies that didn't try to kill the story - but that is all tangential to my primary assertion - Russia is still trying to divide the nation and I stand by my original story.

It's very clear that your primary assertion disagrees with the facts presented in the article you cited to support that assertion. The Russian propaganda effort was decidedly pro-Trump.

whatbogsends · Mar 28, 2019

mark46 said:
This is an example of why this issue is a plus for Trump. Releasing classified information is illegal. Releasing grand jury testimony is illegal. Releasing information with regard to an existing case is very poor practice. Releasing information regarding someone who is not being prosecuted (excluding the president) is poor practice [one that likely greatly harmed Clinton, thanks to Cuomo's violation of this principle].
=======
The 700 page report with redactions should be available by the end of April. Both Mueller and Barr should appear before the committees, Barr at any time, and Mueller after the next phase of the release of information.
========
Even suggesting impeachment of Barr for not immediately releasing unreacted information in violation of the law is just plain silly. The law REQUIRES that Mueller give a report to Congress, and that Barr give notice to Congress that the report is finished. The Congress CHOSE to have a Special Counsel that reports to the AG, with all the power being in the AG. They could have continued the Nixon era law whereby the investigator reported to Congress.
======
That being said, the Congress will get hundreds of pages of information. Of course, no amount of information will be enough for those on the left. They want information to overturn Mueller's decision with regard to collusion. That simply can't happen.

With regard to obstruction, the House will have plenty of information. As Barr has indicated, there is little information beyond Trump's public statements and tweets.

I highlighted the part i'm responding to. To my knowledge, no one has suggested the impeachment of Barr "for not immediately releasing unreacted information in violation of the law" - any talk I've heard that suggested the impeachment of Barr was for hastily returning a verdict on obstruction despite the Mueller Report itself indicating that it was a difficult subject to assess.

John 1720 · Mar 28, 2019

whatbogsends said:
It's very clear that your primary assertion disagrees with the facts presented in the article you cited to support that assertion. The Russian propaganda effort was decidedly pro-Trump.

The assertion was this and was made by childeye 2

This of course is a false narrative if you're trying to put forth the premise that the Russians were not anti-Hillary and subsequently not pro-Trump. Because I have not seen any anti-Trump propaganda from Russia on any news source, and have seen with my own eyes made by another poster

I simply corrected the record and made no assertions as to who the Russians did more to. So, I don't know what assertions you are talking about, since it was not in the main domain of my post
Thanks!

Albion · Mar 28, 2019

mark46 said:
No one of trump's team is guilty of collusion. There will be no future indictments. There are no sealed indictments. The family is free and clear of any prosecution regarding Russia.
=====
Perhaps, the REPUBLICANS will now say that, while 2 years has been wasted, that Mueller did a fine job, and that the report and conclusions are valid and serve the cause of justice.

And, DEMOCRATS, when they don't get what they want from Mueller, now switch and attack Mueller for not given them the underlying, incriminating information on the president.

?? "Perhaps?" Five days later, and this is indeed the situation we have, no?

whatbogsends · Mar 28, 2019

John 1720 said:
The assertion was this and was made by childeye 2

This of course is a false narrative if you're trying to put forth the premise that the Russians were not anti-Hillary and subsequently not pro-Trump. Because I have not seen any anti-Trump propaganda from Russia on any news source, and have seen with my own eyes made by another poster

I simply corrected the record and made no assertions as to who the Russians did more to. So, I don't know what assertions you are talking about, since it was not in the main domain of my post
Thanks!

The examples you provided for anything anti-Trump were after the election (you know, when it was too late to have any influence on the election). The only pro-Hillary example you cited was "Muslims for Hillary", which was definitely couched with language designed to hurt Hillary, not help her. The Russian propaganda was overwhelmingly anti-Hillary/pro-Trump. Your correction of the record was, at best, misleading.

I agree that part of goals of the Russian propaganda was to create/enhance division in the US, but they were almost entirely pro-Trump until after the election had concluded.

John 1720 · Mar 28, 2019

whatbogsends said:
The examples you provided for anything anti-Trump were after the election (you know, when it was too late to have any influence on the election). The only pro-Hillary example you cited was "Muslims for Hillary", which was definitely couched with language designed to hurt Hillary, not help her. The Russian propaganda was overwhelmingly anti-Hillary/pro-Trump. Your correction of the record was, at best, misleading.

I agree that part of goals of the Russian propaganda was to create/enhance division in the US, but they were almost entirely pro-Trump until after the election had concluded.

The assertion you are talking about was this and it was made by childeye 2

This of course is a false narrative if you're trying to put forth the premise that the Russians were not anti-Hillary and subsequently not pro-Trump. Because I have not seen any anti-Trump propaganda from Russia on any news source, and have seen with my own eyes made by another poster

I simply corrected the record and made no assertions as to who the Russians did more to. So, I don't know what assertions you are talking about, since it was not in the main domain of my post which you can find in #84 and #102 - everything else about who was wronged more is tangential to my post and I consider it to be distraction to the more important elements of Russia interference. Sorry
Thanks![/QUOTE]

whatbogsends · Mar 28, 2019

John 1720 said:
The assertion you are talking about was this and it was made by childeye 2

This of course is a false narrative if you're trying to put forth the premise that the Russians were not anti-Hillary and subsequently not pro-Trump. Because I have not seen any anti-Trump propaganda from Russia on any news source, and have seen with my own eyes made by another poster

I simply corrected the record and made no assertions as to who the Russians did more to. So, I don't know what assertions you are talking about, since it was not in the main domain of my post which you can find in #84 and #102 - everything else about who was wronged more is tangential to my post and I consider it to be distraction to the more important elements of Russia interference. Sorry
Thanks!

I think the quoting got messed up in your post, but I apologize if I misunderstood/misrepresented your opinion. Thanks for the dialogue.

John 1720 · Mar 28, 2019

whatbogsends said:
The examples you provided for anything anti-Trump were after the election (you know, when it was too late to have any influence on the election). The only pro-Hillary example you cited was "Muslims for Hillary", which was definitely couched with language designed to hurt Hillary, not help her. The Russian propaganda was overwhelmingly anti-Hillary/pro-Trump. Your correction of the record was, at best, misleading.

I agree that part of goals of the Russian propaganda was to create/enhance division in the US, but they were almost entirely pro-Trump until after the election had concluded.

There were many protests against Trump both before and after the election. The full scope of the ones which were led by the Russians will probably be covered in the Mueller report, although we may never know.
Again we have several instances of rallies staged against both candidates and the primary reason, as Mueller reported was to sow discord; which was my initial assertion that I was told was a false narrative. If it is a false narrative Mueller certainly did not think so:

One Facebook group called “United Muslims of America” was allegedly created by the Russians to plan a rally called “Support Hillary. Save American Muslims” in July 2016 in Washington.
The “Trump Is NOT My President” rally, along with a “Show Your Support for President-elect Donald Trump” rally, which both took place November 12, 2016 in New York City, were organized by the Russians, alleges the indictment signed by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Yes, after the election but still an attempt to sow discord and help the case to unseat an American president.
According to the indictment, the Russians also organized a “Charlotte Against Trump” rally in North Carolina a week later, on November 19.

And yes,

During the 2016 presidential campaign, the indictment says, the Russian agents worked in support of the Trump campaign, while spreading denigrating information about his Democrat opponent Hillary Clinton. The goal, alleges the indictment, was to “sow discord in the U.S. political system.”

whatbogsends · Mar 28, 2019

John 1720 said:
There were many protests against Trump both before and after the election. The full scope of the ones which were led by the Russians will probably be covered in the Mueller report, although we may never know.
Again we have several instances of rallies staged against both candidates and the primary reason, as Mueller reported was to sow discord; which was my initial assertion that I was told was a false narrative. If it is a false narrative Mueller certainly did not think so:

One Facebook group called “United Muslims of America” was allegedly created by the Russians to plan a rally called “Support Hillary. Save American Muslims” in July 2016 in Washington.

The “Trump Is NOT My President” rally, along with a “Show Your Support for President-elect Donald Trump” rally, which both took place November 12, 2016 in New York City, were organized by the Russians, alleges the indictment signed by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Yes, after the election but still an attempt to sow discord and help the case to unseat an American president.

According to the indictment, the Russians also organized a “Charlotte Against Trump” rally in North Carolina a week later, on November 19.

And yes,

During the 2016 presidential campaign, the indictment says, the Russian agents worked in support of the Trump campaign, while spreading denigrating information about his Democrat opponent Hillary Clinton. The goal, alleges the indictment, was to “sow discord in the U.S. political system.”

Again, the "United Muslims of America" was designed to create support against Hillary. "they allegedly paid a real American to hold a sign portraying Clinton alongside a quote: "I think Sharia Law will be a powerful new direction of freedom." Do you honestly think that having a rally, in which they try to align "Sharia Law" with Hillary Clinton is designed to create support for Hilllary?

And again, the anti-Trump protests the Russians coordinated were AFTER the election. None of the events listed prior to the election were anti-Trump. While anti-Trump rallies after the election can certainly be part of sowing discord, everything they did prior to the election was with the intent of getting Trump elected. Feel free to show any evidence of anti-Trump events coordinated by the Russians before the election (you know, when they could actually have an impact on the election), but the article you cited, and everything else I've read on the subject, show that, first and foremost, the propaganda campaign supported Trump getting elected.

mark46 · Mar 28, 2019

I apologize. It didn't occur to me that Barr consulting with Rosenstein and Mueller and giving a brief report to Congress in 48 hours was an impeachable offense. Also, it is very likely that Barr would have had many discussion with Rosenstein before the report was issued.

Consider what the Dems would have said if Barr was more careful and sent a notification to Congress that Mueller investigation was finished, and that he would report to them after 2 months of review. The Dems would have been apoplectic.

whatbogsends said:
I highlighted the part i'm responding to. To my knowledge, no one has suggested the impeachment of Barr "for not immediately releasing unreacted information in violation of the law" - any talk I've heard that suggested the impeachment of Barr was for hastily returning a verdict on obstruction despite the Mueller Report itself indicating that it was a difficult subject to assess.

whatbogsends · Mar 28, 2019

mark46 said:
I apologize. It didn't occur to me that Barr consulting with Rosenstein and Mueller and giving a brief report to Congress in 48 hours was an impeachable offense. Also, it is very likely that Barr would have had many discussion with Rosenstein before the report was issued.

Consider what the Dems would have said if Barr was more careful and sent a notification to Congress that Mueller investigation was finished, and that he would report to them after 2 months of review. The Dems would have been apoplectic.

Firstly, to my knowledge, there hasn't been much talk about impeachment of Barr at this point. A few people, yes, but not a widespread talking point.

More importantly, I already corrected you as to why they were bringing up impeachment, and it had nothing to do with "giving a brief report to Congress in 48 hours". It had to do with the content of that report, specifically, making a decision on obstruction despite the underlying Mueller Report indicating that the information regarding obstruction was complex.

At this point, you're misrepresenting what I've said in addition to misrepresenting what those in the media have said. If you believe they are calling for impeachment merely because he released the report in 48 hours, please, cite evidence to support your claim.

John 1720 · Mar 28, 2019

whatbogsends said:
Again, the "United Muslims of America" was designed to create support against Hillary. "they allegedly paid a real American to hold a sign portraying Clinton alongside a quote: "I think Sharia Law will be a powerful new direction of freedom." Do you honestly think that having a rally, in which they try to align "Sharia Law" with Hillary Clinton is designed to create support for Hilllary?

Hi Again,
I think the operative word here is "allegedly." To my knowledge they still organized a rally for Hillary and I'm not sure I'd hang my hat on it all benefitted trump rack.

I didn't really want to get bogged down in the details but regarding the Facebook ads the Russians purchased the House Democrats broke down for us and split the more than 3,000 ads into nine categories:

Congress releases the 3,000 Facebook ads the Russians bought

Events: Russian operatives set up events like anti-Trump protests or pro-Muslim rallies and promoted them on Facebook. In some scenarios, they would set up both a protest and a counterprotest, hoping to lead to conflict in real life. Between 2015 and 2017, they created 129 events, which were viewed by more than 300,000 people. About 62,000 Facebook users said they would attend.
African-American focused: These ads pretended to be a part of the Black Lives Matter movement, with images the House committee members called "pernicious and disturbing." The goal was to intensify racial tensions during the US election in 2016, lawmakers said. One account, called "Blacktivist," had more than 360,000 likes before it was shut down. One ad, posted on Instagram by @afrokingdom_, called for people to "be ready to fight."
Immigration: The ads in this category capitalized on border security issues and anti-immigration sentiments echoing throughout Donald Trump's campaign. One of the IRA's most popular groups, "Stop A.I.," which stood for All Invaders, had 193,813 followers. Another, called "Secured Borders," had 135,301 followers.
Second Amendment: These ads focused on pro-gun audiences, calling out to "2nd Amendment supporters, guns lovers & patriots," according to one post.
Heart of Texas: This Texas-targeted group was so popular that the House Democrats gave its ads a separate category. The page had 253,862 followers and promoted posts with several themes, including guns, immigration and anti-Hillary Clinton. It also promoted posts calling for Texas to secede from the US.
LGBT: The IRA posted ads as pages like "LGBT United," with content such as a "Buff Bernie" coloring book. The page also organized counterprotests.
Muslims: Russian operatives tied their anti-Muslim ad campaign to issues involving Trump and Clinton. They controlled the "United Muslims of America" group, which had more than 328,000 followers. This group would often come into fabricated conflict with the "Heart of Texas" group.
Veterans: The majority of the posts from Russian operatives posing as pro-military groups were anti-Clinton. These posts also mixed in legitimate content promoting veterans to build an audience, lawmakers said.

So, I think this supports the fact that division was their main objective rather than one candidate over the other. As to the magnitude of benefit vs liability I make no claims whether Trump benefited more or not - only that discord was their main objective. Mueller seems to agree with that as well as the House.

whatbogsends said:
And again, the anti-Trump protests the Russians coordinated were AFTER the election.

None of the events listed prior to the election were anti-Trump.

While anti-Trump rallies after the election can certainly be part of sowing discord, everything they did prior to the election was with the intent of getting Trump elected.

Feel free to show any evidence of anti-Trump events coordinated by the Russians before the election (you know, when they could actually have an impact on the election), but the article you cited, and everything else I've read on the subject, show that, first and foremost, the propaganda campaign supported Trump getting elected.

I actually stated that particular event was after the election, if you read my post.
Discussed at length in the 1st part of this post
Mueller and the House seem to disagree with your opinion
Hopefully that clears up your objections to this sidebar - I'm trying to stay focused on the Russian discord because I believe it is still going on and American division is the fruit of it.

mark46 · Mar 28, 2019

Neither of us is surprised by the posturing. There will be no indictments for collusion or obstruction. Of course, Congress can choose to impeach, or simply use the information to better serve the country with needed legislation and explanation to the public. Finally, both Democrats and Republicans will make lots of referrals to the DOJ for investigation, none of which will result in anything. This has already happened.

What several Democrats have said is that there definitely was collusion, and that Rosenstein should have made a decision whether to indict Trump or not, I don't see this as a big issue. Fir me, obstruction or abuse of power was always a political/impeachment issue.

Albion said:
?? "Perhaps?" Five days later, and this is indeed the situation we have, no?

mark46 · Mar 28, 2019

I'll be clear.

It doesn't matter WHY anyone is calling for Barr's impeachment. My position is that any such statements make these folks look like political novices or political incompetents.

whatbogsends said:
Firstly, to my knowledge, there hasn't been much talk about impeachment of Barr at this point. A few people, yes, but not a widespread talking point.

More importantly, I already corrected you as to why they were bringing up impeachment, and it had nothing to do with "giving a brief report to Congress in 48 hours". It had to do with the content of that report, specifically, making a decision on obstruction despite the underlying Mueller Report indicating that the information regarding obstruction was complex.

At this point, you're misrepresenting what I've said in addition to misrepresenting what those in the media have said. If you believe they are calling for impeachment merely because he released the report in 48 hours, please, cite evidence to support your claim.

childeye 2 · Mar 28, 2019

John 1720 said:
Hi Chldeye 2,
This is a Strawman argument, since I didn't say Russia was,

First, thanks for the attention.

If it's a strawman argument then of course I'm glad to hear that. After reading post#89 I was concerned you might be intimating that anyone promoting socialism was helping Russia in dividing the union. It would be disconcerting if after quoting the convincing eloquence of Lincoln about how slavery of our fellow man was destructive to the union, that suddenly you would be pushing capitalism as the value that unites us.

but please don't try and paint them as mere Capitalists who have run amuck.

Respectfully, I think you're over dramatizing what I said. I simply said that they turned to a market economy after the fall of the soviet union and a handful of people ended up controlling all of the major means of production.

That goes against every grain of common sense and the historical record itself. The one running the show for all of Russia is Putin; an ex KGB Lieutenant Colonel under the old Soviet Communist Empire. And it was an Empire that extended over one-sixth of the world's landmass and kept the kids of my generation doing duck and cover exercises in the early 60's. Now, before heading up the country, Putin became the director of the Russian FSB, which was the successor of the KGB. Now, unlike the world's greatest Republic, the United States of America, which rebuilt the economies of Europe and their defeated World War II foes, Germany and Japan, the Soviets annexed all the lands from which they drove back the Nazi armies and made them Satellite arms of their own regime. Putin makes no apologies for the inglorious Soviet past, and in fact he has openly glorified and reveled in that past. He wants to return Russia to its former glory. That is the real driving force behind his policies.
He has been in power since 1999 and probably will remain in power until he dies, despite that constitutionally he was not supposed to serve more than two terms and again is not supposed to after serving his 4th term in the year 2024. So, like I said the driving force behind Russian policy is to return it to its former Soviet Greatness, which it had under the Communist Regimes. Our definition of greatness and theirs however are polar opposites with respect to the ideals we aspire to.

I agree with everything you said above except for "That goes against every grain of common sense and the historical record itself." I don't understand what you mean. For all I know, you're critiquing your own arbitrary paraphrasing of what you misunderstood me to say.

This is why I believe Putin does not care a hill of beans whether a Republican or a Democrat is in the White House. He simply wants us divided becaue a divided America is a much weaker America. All that talk of our current President colluding with the Russians was sheer spin; and really that spin greatly played into the hands of Russia's national interest far more than any of their 2016 interference as it caught fire; or perhaps " misplaced emotional fervor" is a better term to describe that debacle.

I strongly disagree. Putin is an authoritarian much like the extreme right is here, only Putin is even more so. In the dichotomy of Democracy and autocracy Putin's words reveal an autocrat much like Trump. I watched with my own eyes and heard with my own ears as Putin told the world that he was for Trump because Trump was for "normalizing relations with Russia" and Trump was standing right there showing no disagreement.

The talk of collusion was not spin. So I don't actually detect the proper tone of humility when you describe a person's legitimate concerns about the leader of our country as "misplaced emotional fervor". I find it disingenuous that you are unable to empathize with how concerning it is when we find out that the Person elected to be given the power of the Presidency was lying about talking with Russians about removing sanctions for annexing Crimea, even while Russia was covertly campaigning to help him win the election. There is still serious concern over whether this President has been compromised by the Russians.

CNN even attended a Russian backed anti-Trump event - how embarrassing is that?

It could happen to anybody, so I wouldn't count myself out.

Speaking Geopolitically and not spiritually, Russia's biggest problem is their economy. Putin clearly sees annexation as a plan to bring back their former dominance as well as that tact making inroads to resolve the fact they are a 2nd or third class economic power. Just as Comrade Stalin perspective on the world, Putin's view of the independent States, which border Russia, are all seen as potential Western threats to his country. He does not recognize Ukraine as a separate nation; even though Russia signed off on that when Ukraine negotiated with them by giving up their nuclear weapons. He has stated his position on these free nations as the West 'has stabbed Russia in the back'.
Following his annexation of the Crimea he stated, "It looks like the so-called ‘winners’ of the Cold War are determined to have it all and reshape the world into a place that could better serve their interests alone.” He sees himself as a hero and a restorer of former Soviet glory.

I've heard all of this before. I'm not sure how much of it to believe. Putin may have more watered down expectations. If he has a plot, I would suspect that it involves control of the oil supply to Europe, and building nuclear plants throughout the mid-east.

What stands in Russia's and Putin's way is President Trump who, unlike our past presidents, boldly has supplied Ukraine with the weapons to defend themselves and, more recently, has asked NATO to come to their defense. He also told them to get out of Venezuela and ordered airstrikes against the Russian backed Syrian regime when they used Chemical weapons against the Kurdish Syrians. He also attacked Russian mercenaries, he expanded the sanctions against Russian companies, increased defense spending, restored missle defense within Poland and the Czech Republic and ended the Obama arms embargos to Georgia. Thee are but a few of his policies towards Russia. Ex CIA leader Brennan as well as most of our mass media portrayed Trump asnot only a collaborator but accused him of treason against the United States with Russia. It would have just been plain silliness if it hadn't arose as a concerted effort to turn the Justice system and the American public in dividing the nation over it. These are not the actions of someone allied with the national interests of Russia but clearly they run counter to their geopolitical efforts and ideals to return it to its former Soviet glory.
So, yes - I stand by my narrative of what Russia is really up to in it subversive activities within the United States of America. Furthermore, I think we all need to wake up!

I'm awake, but you're not very convincing while you're gushing over Trump. I think Trump has done only the minimum of what he has had to do. And I believe he did that because he has somewhat been grudgingly schooled since becoming President.

I grant you that he was not wrong to fire missiles into Syria to protest the use of chemical weapons there. He could have fired fewer of them since they weren't meant to hit anything of value, but he had a valid point to make. He didn't exactly boldly supply the Ukraine with the weapons they need to protect themselves just because he authorized the sale of sniper rifles. They were asking for heavy weapons and as far as I know they still are. I'll just mention the change in the Republican platform by the way. Trump never attacked Russian mercenaries. The mercenaries attacked a U.S. base of operations and were slaughtered. He didn't expand Russian sanctions, those were forced by congress. Restored the missile systems to Czech republic and Poland? Are you talking about Poland's response to the nuclear capable Russian cruise missiles being deployed at the polish border?

I really don't care how anyone spins it, I watched Trump take Putin's word over American Intelligence at Helsinki. He even campaigned saying he wanted to drop sanctions and, "it's a good thing to get along with Russia". I think it's unreasonable to trust Trump as the one to protect us from divisive Russian propaganda that he never admitted happened in the first place.

Time For Switching Sides On Mueller

Standing with Ukraine.

Harvest Worker

Senior Veteran

Harvest Worker

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Harvest Worker

Facilitator

Senior Veteran

Harvest Worker

Senior Veteran

Harvest Worker

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Harvest Worker

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads