FBI discovers Russian influence in US election went deeper than thought

FriendlyPenguin

Edit: Sorry, wrong thread

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 1

AlexanderHam

Original post by FriendlyPenguin

http://nypost.com/2017/10/23/now-democrats-have-a-russia-problem/

New York Post? :lol:

Don't you worry, the Russian traitor in the White House will get his come-uppance.

What makes these stories hilarious is that after years of the alt-right praising Russia and bending over for Putin, suddenly Russia is now a bad thing.

Reply 2

AlexanderHam

Original post by FriendlyPenguin

Don't you think it is even more ironic how Russia went from being the bogeyman of the far-right to being the bogeyman of the Democrats (who are, supposedly, left-wing)?

You think the Democratic Party is left-wing? They are to the right of the UK Conservative Party. The Democratic Party has always been centrist, and it has always supported a foreign policy that opposed Soviet, then Russian, power.

The right used to be sane on Russia, but because they are all about partisanship not patriotism, as soon as Trump showed his true colours on that issue, they suddenly started praising Putin and Russia, claiming that Putin is a "good conservative" and he is opposing the "globalists".

The difference between you and me is that if there are Democrats who have been involved in Russia corruption, I want them found and convicted, just as the traitor in the Oval Office should be.

You only want to use this story to provide cover for your beloved leader.

Lest we forget, Trump appointed Michael Flynn, a man who openly took money from the Kremlin and later had to officially register as a foreign agent / lobbyist, as his National Security Adviser. Trump was warned Flynn had pro-Russian connections and ignored this, choosing instead to appoint a man completely compromised by Russia in the most important national security position in the US government.

That's because Trump himself has been bought and paid-for by the Russian state. His ass belongs to them. He needed Russian oligarch money because he was close to bankruptcy. They provided it, and continued to gather kompromat on him over the years, and we are now at the point where Trump would openly praise Putin and Russia, and avoid saying anything bad about them even when it was killing him politically.

I want anyone who has been compromised by Russia to be imprisoned. You want to engage in partisanship to defend your leader. Do you have any principles beyond, "I love the right and hate the left"?

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 3

QE2

So Russia has been attempting to infiltrate and influence US politics at the highest level.

Hasn't this been news for the last year?

What would be strange is if Russia had not attempted to gain leverage on Democrat politicians as well as Republicans. After all, many people thought that Clinton would win.

Reply 4

AlexanderHam

Original post by QE2

The distinction is that we know that the Russian government perceived Hillary Clinton as an enemy and a threat. She is quite hawkish on foreign policy and in favour of US government support to pro-democracy NGO in eastern Europe (which the Russian govt believes is some kind-of CIA plot to overthrow them).

Specifically, the Russian government believed Clinton orchestrated the 2012 protests against Putin. And if she won, she intended to press very hard on the issue of the Russians illegal annexation of Crimea. By contrast, Trump made noises about abandoning the current sanctions against Russia, and wanted to veto the recent US congressional bill that imposed harsher sanctions on Russia.

The Russians have been very warm about Trump, very warm indeed. And he has reciprocated that warmth.

The bottom line is that Trump's relationship with Russia is highly suspicious, verging on treasonous. Clinton's relationship has no such taints. I don't deny that she has other issues in terms of the relationships of the Clinton Foundation, but on Russia she does not have the stink that Trump has

Reply 5

AlexanderHam

Original post by FriendlyPenguin

No, our difference is that you are an Anglophonic supremacist

I believe that the Anglosphere has a duty to exercise global leadership that other linguistic blocs and civilisations are incapable of doing, and that despite its faults, the Anglosphere's leadership in global affairs has been, on the whole, a positive force.

a rather rabid nationalist who thinks Russia is inherently evil

I do not think Russia is inherently evil. I think that the Soviet Union was certainly a violent, oppressive entity (most of the peoples of Eastern Europe who lived under the Soviet thumb from 1945 - 1989 would tend to agree), and that I am in opposition to Russia adopting an imperialist, super-nationalist mentality.

Btw, I could hardly be a rabid British nationalist when I am an immigrant and very proud of my nation of origin. I am a cosmopolitan Anglospherian who believes in the importance of the fundamental cultural, linguistic, legal and moral ties that bind the five Anglosphere nations together.

who thinks the NSA/GCHQ aren't powerful enough already

That is a perfectly legitimate political position. Unlike conspiracy theorists, I do not believe the intelligence services of the Anglosphere are malevolent organisations who spend their time thinking up ways to oppress us. I believe much opposition to their work and their requests for greater powers stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of what these agencies do, and also perhaps a sense of self-importance (the old leftist hippie in Brighton who imagines MI5 cares that he supports Momentum and might be keeping him under surveillance)

and who orgasms when he sees US drones flying in the Middle East

If by that you mean that I support the drone programme (including the UK programme) and that I applaud our air operations that support my Kurdish socialist brothers and sisters on the ground, and take action against far-right reactionary religious fanatics, then yes. That is true.

for all his faults, at least Trump has helped weaken America temporarily

So do you oppose the post-1945 global, rules-based order? You do not believe that the United States actions, with the Marshall Program rebuilding Europe, transforming two previously fascistic behemoths (Germany and Japan) into two keystone democracies, was not positive? You do not believe the role of the US Navy in protecting global sea lines of communication, which allow a person to ship goods overseas for 5% of the cost of sending by air, is a good thing?

If you do not oppose these things then you must concede that the Anglosphere have been fundamental to setting up and maintaining a rules-based global order centred around European, North American, Asian (Japan, South Korea) and Oceanic democracies, which is a far more benign global geopolitical framework that ever we've had in human history.

and woken up European leaders to the fact that the US is not our ally

If you truly believe European leaders now think the United States is no longer a European ally then you have no insight whatsoever into the thinking at the higher levels of European governments. Europeans have seen this movie before, with Reagan then Bush Jr. Trump is by far the worst, but European leaders realise that these relationships transcend any individual leader, and they are based on mutual values as well as mutual self-interest.

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 6

Trapz99

Original post by AlexanderHam

I believe that the Anglosphere has a duty to exercise global leadership that other linguistic blocs and civilisations are incapable of doing, and that despite its faults, the Anglosphere's leadership in global affairs has been, on the whole, a positive force.

Why can't the Anglosphere leave the rest of the world alone? Why should it tell other civilisations how to run their societies and how to live their lives?