37% of Republicans like Putin

[Jaskalas]

How mentally deranged and shortsighted it is that many Repubs are thankful to Putin for helping them win an election.

If it stops escalating war in Syria, stops a no fly zone, stops our military from attacking Russian military, stops WW3 and stops nukes from flying. You should reconsider just how thankful you should be.
Thankful (/sarc) that our election produced two results of horror, and that the voters simply chose the lesser evil.

 

[HomerJS]

I don't think most Americans really know much about Putin well enough to have a valid opinion of him to be honest. They see memes of him riding a bear, with no shirt, shooting guns. Ignorance can be a killer.

I also have a hard time believing polls at face value after this election. I immediately look at the references, who and how people were polled. No longer do I just see a poll and believe it as fact.

It is funny that some leftists hold Castro in high regard. Wear shirts of him, speak highly of him. When he was a murderous piece of shit. Hypocrisy, but not unusual. Then speak so poorly of Putin. Obviously, not everyone does this. Just an observation on my part.

Castro is dead and Cuba hasn't done anything to threaten us in about 50 years. Russia attacked us this year. You righties had a bird when Obama suggested we have to talk to our enemies. Now Trump want to be pals when his country directly attacked ours.

 

[trenchfoot]

If it stops escalating war in Syria, stops a no fly zone, stops our military from attacking Russian military, stops WW3 and stops nukes from flying. You should reconsider just how thankful you should be.
Thankful (/sarc) that our election produced two results of horror, and that the voters simply chose the lesser evil.

The whole premise of your response rests on the word "if". I find that a rather weak plank to support your reasoning on. Yet, I do see the point you're making there.

As far as being thankful, well, when I apply logic and reasoning to the equation, it seems to me that if Putin wanted Trump to win and absolutely hated Hillary, then I'd have to go with Hillary since it was Hillary that Putin saw as being his biggest threat to his plans for "Making Russia Great Again" at the expense and demise of the USA, of course. 😉

 

[desura]

The whole rhetoric is irresponsible. I've heard phrases like "Russia attacked us" and "Russia weaponized intelligence."

This is rhetoric. If you look at the reality of what Russia did, yes, they might have selectively leaked information.

...And?

They did not tamper with the machines, they did not wage DDOS attacks, they did not pay off journalists. This scandal is nothing.

 

[fskimospy]

The whole rhetoric is irresponsible. I've heard phrases like "Russia attacked us" and "Russia weaponized intelligence."

This is rhetoric. If you look at the reality of what Russia did, yes, they might have selectively leaked information.

...And?

They did not tamper with the machines, they did not wage DDOS attacks, they did not pay off journalists. This scandal is nothing.

So to be clear you believe that a hostile foreign power hacking our political parties and selectively using the information they obtained to influence our elections for the purpose of helping the candidate they view most favorable to their interests is 'nothing'?

lolwut.

 

[desura]

So to be clear you believe that a hostile foreign power hacking our political parties and selectively using the information they obtained to influence our elections for the purpose of helping the candidate they view most favorable to their interests is 'nothing'?

lolwut.

Yes, I view it as nothing. They got the info because the DNC practiced bad information security. It was a phishing email that Podesta clicked on. It was human error by the DNC.

More rhetoric about "hostile foreign power." They have their own history and concerns and the truth is that the United States has encroached on Russia's sphere of influence by expanding NATO.

I mean, it is disturbing how eager Washington is for a military showdown with Russia. Their own rhetoric has this cumulative effect of inflating any threat beyond all proportion.

 

[FelixDeCat]

He will likely lead the USA now as well, thanks to you.

I said Putin is dangerous but he is not going away. And please stop the exaggeration. It does not help.

 

[fskimospy]

Yes, I view it as nothing. They got the info because the DNC practiced bad information security. It was a phishing email that Podesta clicked on. It was human error by the DNC.

The means by which they got it are irrelevant, it is the action they took with the information that matters. You're welcome to view a hostile foreign power intervening in US elections as 'nothing' but you can't expect other people to play along.

More rhetoric about "hostile foreign power." They have their own history and concerns and the truth is that the United States has encroached on Russia's sphere of influence by expanding NATO.

Irrelevant. Whatever excuses you're trying to make for Russia repeatedly invading their neighbors is besides the point. The only question is: Is Russia friendly or hostile to the US and its allies? The answer is obviously that it is more hostile than friendly. I'm sorry if you have difficulty accepting that reality.

I mean, it is disturbing how eager Washington is for a military showdown with Russia. Their own rhetoric has this cumulative effect of inflating any threat beyond all proportion.

I'm not sure what news sources you have been reading but this sounds like something directly out of RT and it's sheer nonsense. Friends don't let friends read Russian propaganda.

 

[trenchfoot]

So to be clear you believe that a hostile foreign power hacking our political parties and selectively using the information they obtained to influence our elections for the purpose of helping the candidate they view most favorable to their interests is 'nothing'?

lolwut.

Well, he tried. 😀

This is what it's going to be like every time Trump does some harmful thing to the security and well being of the people of our nation. This is exactly what Trump and Putin is relying on to keep their influence over those that give them their power.

I'll never get used to it, but so long as Trump and the GOP attain the initial goal of spreading each and every one their lies and disinformation, their mission is accomplished because they fully realize that their supporters will simply ignore the blatant lies for what they are no matter how it negatively affects their own lives.

As we all know, they have been conditioned by decades of ominous existentially threatening chicken little rhetoric and they have gone all in on it, seeing as if they now believe their very lives depend on this belief.

Many of them know very well that all of what they rest their faith in is a big fat lie, but they won't do a thing about it because it evokes the strongest lasting emotions that unifies and strengthens their party and may very well be the only thing that holds the party together, but they're doing it for all the wrong reasons.

 

[desura]

The means by which they got it are irrelevant, it is the action they took with the information that matters. You're welcome to view a hostile foreign power intervening in US elections as 'nothing' but you can't expect other people to play along.



Irrelevant. Whatever excuses you're trying to make for Russia repeatedly invading their neighbors is besides the point. The only question is: Is Russia friendly or hostile to the US and its allies? The answer is obviously that it is more hostile than friendly. I'm sorry if you have difficulty accepting that reality.



I'm not sure what news sources you have been reading but this sounds like something directly out of RT and it's sheer nonsense. Friends don't let friends read Russian propaganda.

Something like phishing is just part of the game. I mean, remember when news came out that the USA bugged Angela Merkel's phone? This is all fair game.

What is breaking the rules actually is stuff like when the Chinese state passes on economic espionage results to domestic firms. But in state-to-state relations, phishing for info is pretty routine actually.

Russia invades neighbors because the US interferes with those neighbors. Frankly, we shouldn't be interfering with those neighbors because they are far away and speak a different language and so we only have a partial understanding of the situation down there and as a result we act on our own particular ideals.

I have watched some RT just out of curiousity because it is pilloried so much. Just as a sniff test, I find the warmongering in the Washington Post much more objectionable and detached from reality.

 

[BurnItDwn]

Putin is a dangerous dictator and has to be dealt with effectively. Liking him or disliking him is irrelevant. He will likely lead Russia for life.

This is one of those rare times where I agree 100% with what Felix said.

 

[fskimospy]

Something like phishing is just part of the game. I mean, remember when news came out that the USA bugged Angela Merkel's phone? This is all fair game.

What is breaking the rules actually is stuff like when the Chinese state passes on economic espionage results to domestic firms. But in state-to-state relations, phishing for info is pretty routine actually.

Spying on other countries is most certainly part of the game, but that's also irrelevant. Russia attempting to interfere in our elections is a hostile move that demands a response. It is not something any sovereign country should ever accept.

Russia invades neighbors because the US interferes with those neighbors. Frankly, we shouldn't be interfering with those neighbors because they are far away and speak a different language and so we only have a partial understanding of the situation down there and as a result we act on our own particular ideals.

That's a novel take, that Russia repeatedly invading its neighbors isn't Russia's fault, it's the US's fault! Here's a tip: the only entity to blame for Russia invading its neighbors is Russia.

There's a reason why all of Russia's neighbors want into NATO so badly, it's because of Russia's long, long history of attacking them without provocation. Russia can beat up on them with impunity, and as history shows it does. Russia is terrified of NATO though.

I have watched some RT just out of curiousity because it is pilloried so much. Just as a sniff test, I find the warmongering in the Washington Post much more objectionable and detached from reality.

It should tell you a lot that you view a literal Russian state propaganda network as closer to reality than the Washington Post. I strongly suggest you take a step back and think about why you think propaganda is more credible than actual newspapers.

 

[desura]

Spying on other countries is most certainly part of the game, but that's also irrelevant. Russia attempting to interfere in our elections is a hostile move that demands a response. It is not something any sovereign country should ever accept.



That's a novel take, that Russia repeatedly invading its neighbors isn't Russia's fault, it's the US's fault! Here's a tip: the only entity to blame for Russia invading its neighbors is Russia.

There's a reason why all of Russia's neighbors want into NATO so badly, it's because of Russia's long, long history of attacking them without provocation. Russia can beat up on them with impunity, and as history shows it does. Russia is terrified of NATO though.



It should tell you a lot that you view a literal Russian state propaganda network as closer to reality than the Washington Post. I strongly suggest you take a step back and think about why you think propaganda is more credible than actual newspapers.

Yeltsin won reelection in Russia with US assistance. The US regularly comments on the internal affairs of other countries, hoping to sway the results of elections in those countries.

Russia invading its neighbors is to protect a sphere of influence and for geopolitical advantage. Crimea for instance controls access to the Black Sea and is where much of their fleet is stationed. I am aware of cause and effect, and see no reason for the United States to interfere over there. This only happens because the US interferes with Russia's neighbors. The USA is also easily fooled by pro-democracy rhetoric. Hillary Clinton was fooled into Libya by such talk. It happens.

Yes, it is a testament to the unreality of the WAPO and the DC establishment that this is so. It's called weighing the evidence for yourself and forming your own opinion.

 

[Pens1566]

Yeah, someone is not getting it. Sad!

 

[fskimospy]

Yeltsin won reelection in Russia with US assistance. The US regularly comments on the internal affairs of other countries, hoping to sway the results of elections in those countries.

Irrelevant. The actions of the US in no way dictate what the US should accept from other countries. For example, the US bombs other countries all the time. That does not mean if Russia dropped a bomb on Times Square that we should ignore it. They have committed a hostile act, and that demands a response.

Russia invading its neighbors is to protect a sphere of influence and for geopolitical advantage. Crimea for instance controls access to the Black Sea and is where much of their fleet is stationed. I am aware of cause and effect, and see no reason for the United States to interfere over there.

Yes, Russia is invading its neighbors because it thinks it is to their advantage to do so. In no way does that alleviate Russia from responsibility for those invasions.

Again, this is why those countries can't wait to get into NATO: they are tired of being invaded by a hyper-aggressive major power in that region.

Yes, it is a testament to the unreality of the WAPO and the DC establishment that this is so. It's called weighing the evidence for yourself and forming your own opinion.

Exactly my point! You have weighed the evidence and somehow, bafflingly, come to the conclusion that Russian propaganda is telling you the closest to the truth. That should be a huge flashing warning to you that you are not evaluating the evidence effectively.

 

[Jhhnn]

The whole rhetoric is irresponsible. I've heard phrases like "Russia attacked us" and "Russia weaponized intelligence."

This is rhetoric. If you look at the reality of what Russia did, yes, they might have selectively leaked information.

...And?

They did not tamper with the machines, they did not wage DDOS attacks, they did not pay off journalists. This scandal is nothing.

Journalists got paid for sensationalizing the information that was hacked & released. The reward was indirect but quite real. Most people don't even know what the information really was. All they know is what the headlines said about it.

From Russia's perspective it was entirely predictable & expected.

 

[alien42]

Yeltsin won reelection in Russia with US assistance. The US regularly comments on the internal affairs of other countries, hoping to sway the results of elections in those countries.

Russia invading its neighbors is to protect a sphere of influence and for geopolitical advantage. Crimea for instance controls access to the Black Sea and is where much of their fleet is stationed. I am aware of cause and effect, and see no reason for the United States to interfere over there. This only happens because the US interferes with Russia's neighbors. The USA is also easily fooled by pro-democracy rhetoric. Hillary Clinton was fooled into Libya by such talk. It happens.

Yes, it is a testament to the unreality of the WAPO and the DC establishment that this is so. It's called weighing the evidence for yourself and forming your own opinion.

you keep confirming that Russia influenced our election in favor of Trump, but that's OK because we should all support the US and Russia equally. you really don't see the problem with being a traitor?

 

[desura]

Irrelevant. The actions of the US in no way dictate what the US should accept from other countries. For example, the US bombs other countries all the time. That does not mean if Russia dropped a bomb on Times Square that we should ignore it. They have committed a hostile act, and that demands a response.



Yes, Russia is invading its neighbors because it thinks it is to their advantage to do so. In no way does that alleviate Russia from responsibility for those invasions.

Again, this is why those countries can't wait to get into NATO: they are tired of being invaded by a hyper-aggressive major power in that region.



Exactly my point! You have weighed the evidence and somehow, bafflingly, come to the conclusion that Russian propaganda is telling you the closest to the truth. That should be a huge flashing warning to you that you are not evaluating the evidence effectively.

We shouldn't be bombing countries all the time. It doesn't make it right, but it also means we need to recognize the root cause and motivation.

Russia is invading its neighbors out of fear of encirclement. Look, if Russian forces were deployed in Mexico, you bet we would be on edge. We are doing this via NATO to Russia, and then wonder why they lash out.

For the record, I don't really make a habit of watching RT. This is more a diss of the WAPO, which I hold in very low regard. In general, I have come to see Stephen Cohen of The Nation's thoughts on the matter to be most convincing.

 

[fskimospy]

We shouldn't be bombing countries all the time. It doesn't make it right, but it also means we need to recognize the root cause and motivation.

Maybe we shouldn't be bombing other countries, but again just because we bomb other countries doesn't mean that we should accept being bombed. Regardless of any action the US takes in terms of elections of other countries, it's in our best interest to make Russia abundantly aware of the fact that they will pay for taking this action.

Russia is invading its neighbors out of fear of encirclement. Look, if Russian forces were deployed in Mexico, you bet we would be on edge. We are doing this via NATO to Russia, and then wonder why they lash out.

So basically what this means is that Russia requires the states around it to align with it or face invasion. This sure sounds like their fault, not ours.

For the record, I don't really make a habit of watching RT. This is more a diss of the WAPO, which I hold in very low regard. In general, I have come to see Stephen Cohen of The Nation's thoughts on the matter to be most convincing.

You're welcome to not like the Washington Post of course, but let's not descend into the absurd. Whatever your complaints about the Post, it is not a government funded propaganda network like RT.

 

[desura]

Maybe we shouldn't be bombing other countries, but again just because we bomb other countries doesn't mean that we should accept being bombed. Regardless of any action the US takes in terms of elections of other countries, it's in our best interest to make Russia abundantly aware of the fact that they will pay for taking this action.



So basically what this means is that Russia requires the states around it to align with it or face invasion. This sure sounds like their fault, not ours.



You're welcome to not like the Washington Post of course, but let's not descend into the absurd. Whatever your complaints about the Post, it is not a government funded propaganda network like RT.

Russia should pay--proportionately. There likely is a similar level of cyber attack that the United States can wage. But this is not an act of war or a "weaponized" anything. It is mischief. So any military action against them for this would be unwarranted and completely disproportionate.

Russia has legitimate sphere of influence concerns. And it is their neighborhood. They live there. They speak the language and understand the culture better than we ever could. You still haven't answered how you would respond if Russia had troops in Mexico. The US definitely freaked out when Cuba had nukes stationed there.

The BBC is also government funded, and yet it is held in high esteem. RT is demonized because people demonize Russia beyond objective reason. I have reason to be suspicious of our own media, and since I am a native of the USA I have the cultural nuance to fully understand their faults.

 

[Jhhnn]

Irrelevant. The actions of the US in no way dictate what the US should accept from other countries. For example, the US bombs other countries all the time. That does not mean if Russia dropped a bomb on Times Square that we should ignore it. They have committed a hostile act, and that demands a response.



Yes, Russia is invading its neighbors because it thinks it is to their advantage to do so. In no way does that alleviate Russia from responsibility for those invasions.

Again, this is why those countries can't wait to get into NATO: they are tired of being invaded by a hyper-aggressive major power in that region.



Exactly my point! You have weighed the evidence and somehow, bafflingly, come to the conclusion that Russian propaganda is telling you the closest to the truth. That should be a huge flashing warning to you that you are not evaluating the evidence effectively.

Trump & the Repubs don't see it that way at all. From that perspective, the act of winning justifies any means used to achieve it, up to & including serving the purposes of the Russian oligarchy. The hacking & the information dump wasn't the damaging part. What Repub operatives did with it was. What they now intend will be even more so.

 

[pauldun170]

We meddle in the affairs of foreign governments.
We've invaded foreign countries for "reasons".
We've done nasty things for "reasons.'
No denying it.
It can be argued that nation states play these games for valid reasons.

That's a separate conversation from the thread topic
Anyone who thinks Putin is great leader is an idiot.
At best they are a misinformed child.

 

[fskimospy]

Russia should pay--proportionately. There likely is a similar level of cyber attack that the United States can wage. But this is not an act of war or a "weaponized" anything. It is mischief. So any military action against them for this would be unwarranted and completely disproportionate.

I haven't seen anyone call for military action against Russia for this. We can do a lot of other things to them, and we should.

Russia has legitimate sphere of influence concerns. And it is their neighborhood. They live there. They speak the language and understand the culture better than we ever could. You still haven't answered how you would respond if Russia had troops in Mexico. The US definitely freaked out when Cuba had nukes stationed there.

I don't see how this is relevant or why Russia understanding local cultures makes it okay for them to extract alignment with Russia from neighboring countries with the threat of invasion.

The BBC is also government funded, and yet it is held in high esteem. RT is demonized because people demonize Russia beyond objective reason. I have reason to be suspicious of our own media, and since I am a native of the USA I have the cultural nuance to fully understand their faults.

You don't type like a native of the US, but regardless your attempt to compare the BBC with RT is absurd and I think you know that. The reason why RT is 'demonized' is due to their long history of pretty blatant propaganda. They did it to themselves.

 

[pauldun170]

Reminds of this
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/18/sara-firth-resigns-russia-today-lies-anchor_n_5598815.html
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wor...ir-russian-invasion-ukraine-article-1.1712043

 

[desura]

I haven't seen anyone call for military action against Russia for this. We can do a lot of other things to them, and we should.



I don't see how this is relevant or why Russia understanding local cultures makes it okay for them to extract alignment with Russia from neighboring countries with the threat of invasion.



You don't type like a native of the US, but regardless your attempt to compare the BBC with RT is absurd and I think you know that. The reason why RT is 'demonized' is due to their long history of pretty blatant propaganda. They did it to themselves.

People are saying this is an act of war. This is not an act of war. But an act of war connotes a military response.

This is because we don't understand local cultures. What happened in Libya is that HRC bought the whole line about Libya being primed for democracy by a bunch of smooth talking locals. This did not happen, and now Libya is an Islamist hellhole. The fact is that when we see some freedom fighter in East Europe claiming Russian oppression, they might have other motives at play, and Americans are pretty vulnerable to people talking about their love of democracy. The worst case scenario is if America involves itself in accord with what are essentially small-minded local nationalists against other local nationalists. And on that topic, you never answered how you would respond if Russia were stationing troops in Mexico, writing a bunch of treaty obligations with Mexico, and then treating American hostility to such events as cause for war. Because this is what we are doing WRT the Baltic states.

I think this whole thing about "Russian agents everywhere" is just a sign of American nationalist paranoia.