My simple comment regarding anything that Fiona Hill says is to simply realize that when she states “Thatâs why I went into government in 2016. I didnât go in there to serve Donald Trump. I went in there to deal with a national security crisis after the Russians launched an influence operation to basically subvert the US 2016 presidential election.”, it is evident that she is both delusional and living in cloud cuckoo land. Russian interference in the 2016 election was insignificant. Basically a zero. Now compare that to interference from big tech (google, facebook, twitter, etc…) in the 2020 election. In other words, despite being a so-called expert, she doesn’t really know what she’s talking about. And that’s so unfortunate when one has people influencing and making policy decisions not based on reality but how they think the world should be.
Silly. Just because she says things about Russian interference in 2016 that you don’t like, you write off all her experience dealing with Putin and Ukraine. Not very clever.
Oh she just told a massive tangential lie to the subject matter we are supposed to rely on her expertise on. What’s the big deal? Really? I don’t know if you have been paying attention, but much of the support behind United States opposing Russia at all costs is because many resistance liberals still believe Putin hacked the 2016 election to install Donald Trump as president. You know the same people who liked to call people who disagreed with them “Putin puppets” before Ukraine was even invaded? This claim has been proven false several times over now and is still tearing the country apart. Don’t act like it is nothing.
Why is it a lie? Most of things Iâve read suggest that the Russians did try and interfere with the US election. I donât believe there was any collusion with Trump, or that they intervened to help any particular side but instead inflame the culture wars and sow discord, but itâs still interference
Yanis Varoufakis was asked if he thought Russia had tried to influence the US 2016 election and his response was “Yes of course it did, but then again so did I. So what?”
To have a balanced view you have to also ask how much influence did Russia have, was the 2016 US election the only election they tried to influence, do other people and nations also seek to influence elections, and most of all does the USA do this to other nations on a routine basis?
The answers, respectively are “almost none”, “no”, “yes” and “obviously yes”.
The only real significance of the 2016 US election is that Trump got elected and this pissed off a bunch of self-righteous liberal-fascist arseholes who think they own the American government. Had that not happened, none of them would be throwing accusations about like a baby throwing its toys out of the pram. It’s nothing more than a proxy for complaining about democracy itself without officially admitting that that’s what it really is.
NB – I am not a Trump supporter, just someone who nonetheless recognises that Trump does annoy all the right people. As a president, despite a small number of notable successes, he was a failure.
‘Almost no influence’ is probably an exaggeration. The manufactured panic about those Hilary mails did help Trump a lot, and the leaks gave some of the ammunition. One could argue that relying on a foreign intelligence service to hack your opponents mails is going a bit too far – much like bugging the campaign headquarters of the opposition actually. But OK, Trump won. You cannot claim that he stole the election.
With all due respect, we only have the word of the DNC and Crowdstrike that the DNC emals were hacked by the Russians. They never allowed the FBI to look at the computers and do a forensic investigation. So the bottom line is we have a side with a vested interested in claiming Russian hacking, who cooked up the Steele report and the Russian collusion nonsense. That’s hardly reliable evidence. What I can say, given that I live in the US, and I might add close to Washington DC, that I didn’t notice anything that the Russians might or might not have done. Did they broadcast propaganda of one sort or another on Russia Today â no doubt but the viewership of Russia Today is so small and so to be effectively zero. Now compare that to what big tech did in the 2020 election where burying the Hunder Biden labtop story likely swung the election Biden’s way, and where one Presidential candidate, Trump (whether you like him or not) was deplatformed on Twitter and Facebook. Similarly when Zuckerberg messed around with the election in Wisconsin, later deemed to be illegal, although he only got a slap on the wrist (i.e. a minute fine relative to his wealth). Now that’s real interference.
Hereâs how it works: a âscandalâ is cooked up, lie nuggets are given – not âleakedâ – to reliable minions in the media who then publish a shock horror story. Government hacks use said story to âopen an investigationâ, and media minions have that manufactured fiction to pump for however long itâs necessary. Both side do this, but the Democrats own the media, so itâs like breathing to them. And then, when sh*t dies down, the world finds out that – like Covid – it was all made up.
Covid is real. You are possibly not. And Democrats certainly do not ‘own’ the media -. But people to the left of the Democratic Party do not get their voice heard well.
Covid is real, and it specifically targeted the elderly, the obese, and those who were chronic or seriously compromised. So it was a pandemic for these individuals–but it was merely a flu like disorder for over 90% of those who got it. In the hands of Fauci and the media, it became a Panic-demic–a dress rehearsal for mass disinformation, violation of individual rights, and herd think. Science–which involves debate and exploration of options–was discouraged. Vaccilnes were promoted as the only solution. The vaccines did not deliver, and we have yet to see the end of the MRNA question.
The clear and obvious solution was outlined by the Gt Barrington Declaration, as indeed I proposed myself, as a world class risk management consultant, from the very beginning, ie isolate the vulnerable (easy) not the virus (impossible).. Of course no one listened.. too much money to be made from Tory slush funds!
It depends what you mean by ‘real’. As for ‘pandemic’ it certainly was not. To say ‘it was a ‘pandemic for the obese,etc’ ; means it was not a pandemic.
You totally, 100% misunderstood my comment. Obese was used as an example, perhaps I should have said Seniors. the fact remains all I was pointing out was that it was not a Pandemic.
You totally, 100% misunderstood my comment. Obese was used as an example, perhaps I should have said Seniors. the fact remains all I was pointing out was that it was not a Pandemic.
Ironic that the Far Right automatically assumes everything they don’t hear on Fox News must be a lie, yet they naively believe everything they see there must be absolutely true. Both the Left and the Right push propaganda, but are blind to the lies coming from their “side”.
Ironic that the Far Right automatically assumes everything they don’t hear on Fox News must be a lie, yet they naively believe everything they see there must be absolutely true. Both the Left and the Right push propaganda, but are blind to the lies coming from their “side”.
Covid is a danger to people with damaged immune systems. Elderly, obese, and disabled individuals who did NOT have compromised immune systems mostly were fine.
There were elderly individuals over a hundred years old who survived both Covid and the 1918 flu (antibodies were still present). One characteristic people in those groups had in common was a higher tendency toward Vitamin D deficiency, which is bad for immune response, but not all had this problem. In fact, obese people are a higher percentage of the population now than before Covid. If it had been true that they were uniquely vulnerable just because they’re fat, more would have died.
The clear and obvious solution was outlined by the Gt Barrington Declaration, as indeed I proposed myself, as a world class risk management consultant, from the very beginning, ie isolate the vulnerable (easy) not the virus (impossible).. Of course no one listened.. too much money to be made from Tory slush funds!
It depends what you mean by ‘real’. As for ‘pandemic’ it certainly was not. To say ‘it was a ‘pandemic for the obese,etc’ ; means it was not a pandemic.
Covid is a danger to people with damaged immune systems. Elderly, obese, and disabled individuals who did NOT have compromised immune systems mostly were fine.
There were elderly individuals over a hundred years old who survived both Covid and the 1918 flu (antibodies were still present). One characteristic people in those groups had in common was a higher tendency toward Vitamin D deficiency, which is bad for immune response, but not all had this problem. In fact, obese people are a higher percentage of the population now than before Covid. If it had been true that they were uniquely vulnerable just because they’re fat, more would have died.
Covid is real, and it specifically targeted the elderly, the obese, and those who were chronic or seriously compromised. So it was a pandemic for these individuals–but it was merely a flu like disorder for over 90% of those who got it. In the hands of Fauci and the media, it became a Panic-demic–a dress rehearsal for mass disinformation, violation of individual rights, and herd think. Science–which involves debate and exploration of options–was discouraged. Vaccilnes were promoted as the only solution. The vaccines did not deliver, and we have yet to see the end of the MRNA question.
You’re right. The Democrats don’t own the media. The MSM is own by the people who own the Democrats! They also own the GOP btw.. and the Tories in the UK. Governments today are merely well bribed, bought and paid for puppets.. There are a few notable exceptions but even they are slapped down and beaten into line, eg Bernie Sanders on support for the war/MIC.. they soon put him right; the coward.
You’re right. The Democrats don’t own the media. The MSM is own by the people who own the Democrats! They also own the GOP btw.. and the Tories in the UK. Governments today are merely well bribed, bought and paid for puppets.. There are a few notable exceptions but even they are slapped down and beaten into line, eg Bernie Sanders on support for the war/MIC.. they soon put him right; the coward.
Covid is real. You are possibly not. And Democrats certainly do not ‘own’ the media -. But people to the left of the Democratic Party do not get their voice heard well.
You need to back up your claims with proven sources. No one should be taking the allegations of neo-con warmongers seriously anymore without concrete evidence.
If you knew anything about goverment security, you would not claim that Hilary emails story was “manufactured panic”.
You would be sacked and charged if you did what she did.
If you can explain source of Clinton couple wealth, great. I am all ears.
Otherwise most likely explanation for usage of private email server is concealment of illegal activity….
With all due respect, we only have the word of the DNC and Crowdstrike that the DNC emals were hacked by the Russians. They never allowed the FBI to look at the computers and do a forensic investigation. So the bottom line is we have a side with a vested interested in claiming Russian hacking, who cooked up the Steele report and the Russian collusion nonsense. That’s hardly reliable evidence. What I can say, given that I live in the US, and I might add close to Washington DC, that I didn’t notice anything that the Russians might or might not have done. Did they broadcast propaganda of one sort or another on Russia Today â no doubt but the viewership of Russia Today is so small and so to be effectively zero. Now compare that to what big tech did in the 2020 election where burying the Hunder Biden labtop story likely swung the election Biden’s way, and where one Presidential candidate, Trump (whether you like him or not) was deplatformed on Twitter and Facebook. Similarly when Zuckerberg messed around with the election in Wisconsin, later deemed to be illegal, although he only got a slap on the wrist (i.e. a minute fine relative to his wealth). Now that’s real interference.
Hereâs how it works: a âscandalâ is cooked up, lie nuggets are given – not âleakedâ – to reliable minions in the media who then publish a shock horror story. Government hacks use said story to âopen an investigationâ, and media minions have that manufactured fiction to pump for however long itâs necessary. Both side do this, but the Democrats own the media, so itâs like breathing to them. And then, when sh*t dies down, the world finds out that – like Covid – it was all made up.
You need to back up your claims with proven sources. No one should be taking the allegations of neo-con warmongers seriously anymore without concrete evidence.
If you knew anything about goverment security, you would not claim that Hilary emails story was “manufactured panic”.
You would be sacked and charged if you did what she did.
If you can explain source of Clinton couple wealth, great. I am all ears.
Otherwise most likely explanation for usage of private email server is concealment of illegal activity….
Why do we forget that the Soviets influenced elections in the US for decades and did so masterfully? And not only elections, but wide swaths of US domestic policy, from marriage, the rearing of children, trade union formation, sexual mores, and you name it. Why do we forget that Alger Hiss stood behind Rosevelt at Yalta? Why do we forget, most all, that the political left in the US applauded the Soviets as they did these things, even dug in behind them? How is it that all this hypocrisy does not get noticed?
Actually, Roosevelt saved American capitalism. Without him, the U.S. would have become a dictatorship run by some strongman, whether socialist or fascist. If Roosevelt hadn’t created all the public works projects and other government programs to help starving people, there would have been a revolution that would have swept democracy away.
I donât disagree. My point was a factual one. Alger Hiss was a member of the CPUSA. He also worked for the State Department. Whittaker Chambers was also a member of the CPUSA and came to know Hiss in that capacity. Chambers would in time come to doubt the Soviet cause and to expose both Hiss and himself as agents of the Soviet Union. In the late 1940s, Hiss was tried, and convicted, in the US senate, of espionage. The lawyer who prosecuted Hiss was a man named Richard M. Nixon, who would become vice president of the USA in 1952 and president in 1968. Chambers wrote a book about the trial entitled âWitness.â It is, if I may say so, a great read. Chambers makes clear in the book just how deeply integrated the CPUSA was many aspects of American life (labor unions, education, the arts, politics, the military, etc.). There is a photo in the book of Hiss standing with Rosevelt, Churchill and Stalin. It is no great secret that many in the USA at the time, and not only at that time, saw the Soviet way as the great hope of mankind. My point is that the Soviets not only endeavored to influence American elections but to transform American life altogether and, whatâs more, that many in American applauded this cause. This does not mean that I look upon Pres. Nixon with rose colored glasses. He lied relentlessly about the war in southeast Asia, and caused untold suffering and death in the process. I would point here to Hannah Arendtâs book âOn Lying and Politics.â
That’s controversial, actually. There is some good evidence to suggest that it was Herbert Hoover’s measures that set the basis for the post-1929 crash recovery, but the benefits arrived too late to save his presidency. There is evidence in the economic data, too, that many of Roosevelt’s measures did lasting economic damage that would have become unavoidable if the second world war hadn’t justified a further massive increase in state spending, which in turn then was only saved because the US dollar became the world’s reserve currency in 1944.
Under Roosevelt the US was a near dictatorship run by a strongman! We still suffer today under the burden of administrative state programs which his narcissism prevented him from sundowning. Don’t romanticize history. There are damned few real heroes.
I donât disagree. My point was a factual one. Alger Hiss was a member of the CPUSA. He also worked for the State Department. Whittaker Chambers was also a member of the CPUSA and came to know Hiss in that capacity. Chambers would in time come to doubt the Soviet cause and to expose both Hiss and himself as agents of the Soviet Union. In the late 1940s, Hiss was tried, and convicted, in the US senate, of espionage. The lawyer who prosecuted Hiss was a man named Richard M. Nixon, who would become vice president of the USA in 1952 and president in 1968. Chambers wrote a book about the trial entitled âWitness.â It is, if I may say so, a great read. Chambers makes clear in the book just how deeply integrated the CPUSA was many aspects of American life (labor unions, education, the arts, politics, the military, etc.). There is a photo in the book of Hiss standing with Rosevelt, Churchill and Stalin. It is no great secret that many in the USA at the time, and not only at that time, saw the Soviet way as the great hope of mankind. My point is that the Soviets not only endeavored to influence American elections but to transform American life altogether and, whatâs more, that many in American applauded this cause. This does not mean that I look upon Pres. Nixon with rose colored glasses. He lied relentlessly about the war in southeast Asia, and caused untold suffering and death in the process. I would point here to Hannah Arendtâs book âOn Lying and Politics.â
That’s controversial, actually. There is some good evidence to suggest that it was Herbert Hoover’s measures that set the basis for the post-1929 crash recovery, but the benefits arrived too late to save his presidency. There is evidence in the economic data, too, that many of Roosevelt’s measures did lasting economic damage that would have become unavoidable if the second world war hadn’t justified a further massive increase in state spending, which in turn then was only saved because the US dollar became the world’s reserve currency in 1944.
Under Roosevelt the US was a near dictatorship run by a strongman! We still suffer today under the burden of administrative state programs which his narcissism prevented him from sundowning. Don’t romanticize history. There are damned few real heroes.
And why are so many resolutely looking back at the days of the Russki under the bed phobia? Is this retro fixation possibly being “influenced” by a far more malign and dangerous power farther to the East?
Actually, Roosevelt saved American capitalism. Without him, the U.S. would have become a dictatorship run by some strongman, whether socialist or fascist. If Roosevelt hadn’t created all the public works projects and other government programs to help starving people, there would have been a revolution that would have swept democracy away.
And why are so many resolutely looking back at the days of the Russki under the bed phobia? Is this retro fixation possibly being “influenced” by a far more malign and dangerous power farther to the East?
A somewhat better argument although I don’t agree with the term self righteous liberal-fascist. Its a nonsense phrase -just a way of expressing your deep irritation at sanctimoniousness perhaps? I for my part loathe Trump for all sorts of reasons.
Liberal fascism is a fairly well defined concept and it does apply to large parts of the modern Left. That’s controversial obviously – left-wingers themselves are usually furious at the designation – but that that doesn’t mean that the concept is wrongly applied or is meaningless.
You forgot the Far Right. Extremists on both the Left AND the Right hate democracy and freedom of speech. It’s only because Russia turned fascist with Putin that the Right suddenly loves Russia. That and they are afraid of him.
I “forgot” the Far Right simply because it’s not part of the context of this particular thread. I am defending the notion that Fascism is a left-wing extremism alongside Communism and the other traditional variants. The common factor they possess is belief in a large, powerful, expensive State. No right-wing ideology shares this, and since Fascism does support a large powerful State, it cannot be right-wing.
This is not to say that right-wing extremisim does not exist of course, merely that it has nothing to do with what I’m describing here.
I take issue, too, with the idea that the modern Right “loves Russia” as you put it. What draws the modern Right to oppose the West’s Ukraine War involvement is more based upon a defective libertarian assessment that it is not the West’s problem. I say this as a libertarian myself, I just reckon that on this case many of my fellow libertarians have got this one wrong, and that there can be no way this isn’t our problem.
The view is more extreme in America, where the libertarian position is that America should abdicate entirely its role as world’s policeman, so you can see why European libertarians in NATO countries are not about to agree with that idea.
I “forgot” the Far Right simply because it’s not part of the context of this particular thread. I am defending the notion that Fascism is a left-wing extremism alongside Communism and the other traditional variants. The common factor they possess is belief in a large, powerful, expensive State. No right-wing ideology shares this, and since Fascism does support a large powerful State, it cannot be right-wing.
This is not to say that right-wing extremisim does not exist of course, merely that it has nothing to do with what I’m describing here.
I take issue, too, with the idea that the modern Right “loves Russia” as you put it. What draws the modern Right to oppose the West’s Ukraine War involvement is more based upon a defective libertarian assessment that it is not the West’s problem. I say this as a libertarian myself, I just reckon that on this case many of my fellow libertarians have got this one wrong, and that there can be no way this isn’t our problem.
The view is more extreme in America, where the libertarian position is that America should abdicate entirely its role as world’s policeman, so you can see why European libertarians in NATO countries are not about to agree with that idea.
You forgot the Far Right. Extremists on both the Left AND the Right hate democracy and freedom of speech. It’s only because Russia turned fascist with Putin that the Right suddenly loves Russia. That and they are afraid of him.
Liberal fascism is a fairly well defined concept and it does apply to large parts of the modern Left. That’s controversial obviously – left-wingers themselves are usually furious at the designation – but that that doesn’t mean that the concept is wrongly applied or is meaningless.
The people of Ukraine and other countries that suffered under the former Soviet Union still remember well how horrific it was, and need no other motivation to resist Putin’s dictatorship. They have recently had a taste of freedom and will now fight to the death to keep it. That and the brutal reality that Putin has already mass murdered thousands of Ukrainians, so it is either win or die as a people for them.
Once again I read an appeal to the sentimental. Given, that Ukraine is well within Russia’s sphere of influence, and that Putin, whatever else he is (I leave it to the Almighty to weigh his soul) is a nationalist. Given that the current Ukrainian state is in violation of the Minsk accords, corrupt, undemocratic and suppresses dissent and religious freedom. Given that a certain percentage of the Ukraine thinks of themselves as more Russian than “Ukrainian”. Question: How can the UN justify its expensive existence if it isn’t to solve such conflicts? Obviously a rhetorical question.
Once again I read an appeal to the sentimental. Given, that Ukraine is well within Russia’s sphere of influence, and that Putin, whatever else he is (I leave it to the Almighty to weigh his soul) is a nationalist. Given that the current Ukrainian state is in violation of the Minsk accords, corrupt, undemocratic and suppresses dissent and religious freedom. Given that a certain percentage of the Ukraine thinks of themselves as more Russian than “Ukrainian”. Question: How can the UN justify its expensive existence if it isn’t to solve such conflicts? Obviously a rhetorical question.
The people of Ukraine and other countries that suffered under the former Soviet Union still remember well how horrific it was, and need no other motivation to resist Putin’s dictatorship. They have recently had a taste of freedom and will now fight to the death to keep it. That and the brutal reality that Putin has already mass murdered thousands of Ukrainians, so it is either win or die as a people for them.
This is accurate. Democracy means respecting the will of the people as expressed through elections. Complaining about the electoral college and stating that Trump lost the popular vote is a very democratic criticism. Whining that a dishonest ad campaign from a foreign power unduly influenced voters is disrespectful to the process and dehumanizing to the voters. If you only support democracy when people elect leaders from a list of ‘acceptable’ candidates, you do not actually support democracy.
In fact, ad campaigns and other interference in U.S. elections by foreign powers is, and has been, highly illegal for decades (22 USC § 2708(k)(4) . It’s still illegal, whether or not it convinces people. American elections are only for American citizens.
You never had to select candidates from a list, and you still don’t. You can write in whoever you want, but I wouldn’t bother writing in Mickey Mouse like way too many do. It even works occasionally: Lisa Murkowski won re-election through a write in campaign.
I seem to remember they didn’t just verbally complain that Trump supposedly lost an election. That’s minimizing something that was far from benign. There was among, other things awful things, an insurrection, loss of life, and a lot of trauma and suffering. And, two years later the “complaining” is still going on.
In fact, ad campaigns and other interference in U.S. elections by foreign powers is, and has been, highly illegal for decades (22 USC § 2708(k)(4) . It’s still illegal, whether or not it convinces people. American elections are only for American citizens.
You never had to select candidates from a list, and you still don’t. You can write in whoever you want, but I wouldn’t bother writing in Mickey Mouse like way too many do. It even works occasionally: Lisa Murkowski won re-election through a write in campaign.
I seem to remember they didn’t just verbally complain that Trump supposedly lost an election. That’s minimizing something that was far from benign. There was among, other things awful things, an insurrection, loss of life, and a lot of trauma and suffering. And, two years later the “complaining” is still going on.
‘Almost no influence’ is probably an exaggeration. The manufactured panic about those Hilary mails did help Trump a lot, and the leaks gave some of the ammunition. One could argue that relying on a foreign intelligence service to hack your opponents mails is going a bit too far – much like bugging the campaign headquarters of the opposition actually. But OK, Trump won. You cannot claim that he stole the election.
Why do we forget that the Soviets influenced elections in the US for decades and did so masterfully? And not only elections, but wide swaths of US domestic policy, from marriage, the rearing of children, trade union formation, sexual mores, and you name it. Why do we forget that Alger Hiss stood behind Rosevelt at Yalta? Why do we forget, most all, that the political left in the US applauded the Soviets as they did these things, even dug in behind them? How is it that all this hypocrisy does not get noticed?
A somewhat better argument although I don’t agree with the term self righteous liberal-fascist. Its a nonsense phrase -just a way of expressing your deep irritation at sanctimoniousness perhaps? I for my part loathe Trump for all sorts of reasons.
This is accurate. Democracy means respecting the will of the people as expressed through elections. Complaining about the electoral college and stating that Trump lost the popular vote is a very democratic criticism. Whining that a dishonest ad campaign from a foreign power unduly influenced voters is disrespectful to the process and dehumanizing to the voters. If you only support democracy when people elect leaders from a list of ‘acceptable’ candidates, you do not actually support democracy.
Often a fan, but that bit of sweeping generalization did not do justice to the subject, nor to your wit. Bear in mind, that today’s US is far less homogenized than in earlier times. I do agree with your remarks as applied to our chattering classes and imperial administrators in Versailles-on-the-Potomac. No, let me amend: Versailles-on-the-Cloaca-Maxima. You might find that Flyover America is stubbornly attached to the values of civilization. Are they undereducated? Sadly … I pine for the days when I thought Idiocracy was dystopian future fiction.
Often a fan, but that bit of sweeping generalization did not do justice to the subject, nor to your wit. Bear in mind, that today’s US is far less homogenized than in earlier times. I do agree with your remarks as applied to our chattering classes and imperial administrators in Versailles-on-the-Potomac. No, let me amend: Versailles-on-the-Cloaca-Maxima. You might find that Flyover America is stubbornly attached to the values of civilization. Are they undereducated? Sadly … I pine for the days when I thought Idiocracy was dystopian future fiction.
I’m afraid you continue to be delusional and are eating far too much pie in the sky. Try a little commonsense and logic instead.. you’ll see things very differently!
There is nothing new here – cccp-russia has interfered for decades. What is new here is that dems used russia’s business as usual as an extraordinary attack on US democracy in order to prevent Trump from becoming president. Dems didn’t stop there and continued to sabotage and slander the legitimately elected president for all 4 years, weakening the state, pushed the country to a bloody anarchist isurection, adopted the strategy “power at all costs” and rigged elections with the help of big tech, leftists maisnstream media and offended European governments, because Trump demanded to spend money ontheir own millitary and be careful with russia. But this time, Fiona Hill decided that everything was in order.
Yanis Varoufakis was asked if he thought Russia had tried to influence the US 2016 election and his response was “Yes of course it did, but then again so did I. So what?”
To have a balanced view you have to also ask how much influence did Russia have, was the 2016 US election the only election they tried to influence, do other people and nations also seek to influence elections, and most of all does the USA do this to other nations on a routine basis?
The answers, respectively are “almost none”, “no”, “yes” and “obviously yes”.
The only real significance of the 2016 US election is that Trump got elected and this pissed off a bunch of self-righteous liberal-fascist arseholes who think they own the American government. Had that not happened, none of them would be throwing accusations about like a baby throwing its toys out of the pram. It’s nothing more than a proxy for complaining about democracy itself without officially admitting that that’s what it really is.
NB – I am not a Trump supporter, just someone who nonetheless recognises that Trump does annoy all the right people. As a president, despite a small number of notable successes, he was a failure.
I’m afraid you continue to be delusional and are eating far too much pie in the sky. Try a little commonsense and logic instead.. you’ll see things very differently!
There is nothing new here – cccp-russia has interfered for decades. What is new here is that dems used russia’s business as usual as an extraordinary attack on US democracy in order to prevent Trump from becoming president. Dems didn’t stop there and continued to sabotage and slander the legitimately elected president for all 4 years, weakening the state, pushed the country to a bloody anarchist isurection, adopted the strategy “power at all costs” and rigged elections with the help of big tech, leftists maisnstream media and offended European governments, because Trump demanded to spend money ontheir own millitary and be careful with russia. But this time, Fiona Hill decided that everything was in order.
It has very little to do with that, which is why Sens. McConnell and Graham, not to mention people who, like me, never bought into Trump Derangement Syndrome are supportive of Ukraine. So maybe it’s not “nothing,” but it isn’t all that much, either.
Lindsay Graham has never known a war he doesn’t like, and McConnell can see the money flowing in from the military-industrial complex. The US is laughing all the way to the bank on this war.
No doubt you would have also surrendered to Hitler to avoid war. More fool you to surrender to mass murderers and become one of their victims without even fighting back.
Today, Putin is the REAL “merchant of death”. The mass graves of thousands of innocent people in Ukraine were on his orders.
People who rely on simplistic slogans, and are too lazy to learn anything, also know nothing. They repeat the same mistakes that caused the death of millions not so long ago.
No doubt you would have also surrendered to Hitler to avoid war. More fool you to surrender to mass murderers and become one of their victims without even fighting back.
Today, Putin is the REAL “merchant of death”. The mass graves of thousands of innocent people in Ukraine were on his orders.
People who rely on simplistic slogans, and are too lazy to learn anything, also know nothing. They repeat the same mistakes that caused the death of millions not so long ago.
For individuals with shares yes. It is costly to the nation and far more costly to the world if they simply do nothing about China and Russian hegemony in their claimed modern day ‘spheres’ which grow larger every moment & only curbed by resistance. Listen to Fiona Hill’s message about ultimate diplomacy required.
For individuals with shares yes. It is costly to the nation and far more costly to the world if they simply do nothing about China and Russian hegemony in their claimed modern day ‘spheres’ which grow larger every moment & only curbed by resistance. Listen to Fiona Hill’s message about ultimate diplomacy required.
McConnell and Graham want Republicans to win, so why would they object when it happens? They support Ukraine, because it is in U.S. interest to let Ukraine fight Putin there, so we don’t have to fight Putin here. We’re getting a bargain deal from Ukraine. We only have to send them a few extra weapons (a tiny fraction of the U.S. military budget), and they do all the fighting and dying. If Putin wins in Ukraine, he won’t stop there any more than Hitler stopped with Austria.
The U.S. doesn’t need to fight Putin at all, and many of those who suggest it does, are invested in the growing power farther to the East and wish to distract. For a segment of the political-industrial clique, Ukraine represents their money laundry and bioweapons shenanigans, and their support of it is self-interested. Ironically, the “war” in Ukraine has improved Russia’s economic picture considerably! Personally, I doubt very much that Putin has a grand scheme of conquest. He is in his home stretch and would very much like a solid accomplishment to his legacy before he hangs up the Tsar’s crown, which, I am told, he uses as a tea cozy on most days.
The U.S. doesn’t need to fight Putin at all, and many of those who suggest it does, are invested in the growing power farther to the East and wish to distract. For a segment of the political-industrial clique, Ukraine represents their money laundry and bioweapons shenanigans, and their support of it is self-interested. Ironically, the “war” in Ukraine has improved Russia’s economic picture considerably! Personally, I doubt very much that Putin has a grand scheme of conquest. He is in his home stretch and would very much like a solid accomplishment to his legacy before he hangs up the Tsar’s crown, which, I am told, he uses as a tea cozy on most days.
Lindsay Graham has never known a war he doesn’t like, and McConnell can see the money flowing in from the military-industrial complex. The US is laughing all the way to the bank on this war.
McConnell and Graham want Republicans to win, so why would they object when it happens? They support Ukraine, because it is in U.S. interest to let Ukraine fight Putin there, so we don’t have to fight Putin here. We’re getting a bargain deal from Ukraine. We only have to send them a few extra weapons (a tiny fraction of the U.S. military budget), and they do all the fighting and dying. If Putin wins in Ukraine, he won’t stop there any more than Hitler stopped with Austria.
‘Proved false’? Where? When? AFAIAC it is proved that Russia *did* run an influence operation, because they preferred Trump to Hilary. Otherwise, who leaked those Democrat emails? Did it swing the election? Most likely not. Did it make Trump’s victory invalid? Definitely not (alas). Did Trump collude or collaborate ahead of time? Well, there was no sufficient evidence that he did, and quite likely he was innocent of that – at least within the rather wide bounds of what people from both sides are usually able to get away with in US elections. But the claims of a Russian influence operation have not been proved false, any more than it has been proved who killed OJ Simpsons wife.
What do they admit, exactly? Some accusations against Trump are thoroughly discredited, such as the cavorting with prostitutes in Moscow. Other claims I’d consider proved. Again, who did leak those Democrat emails? Sorry to be repetitive, but if you could give me a link I could check just what the NYT is and is not admitting.
Rasmus, Julian Assange said Wikileaks did not get the emails from Russia (CNN interview 4th Jan 2017) – text from Washington Post here. A single definitive source who would know. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/01/05/julian-assanges-claim-that-there-was-no-russian-involvement-in-wikileaks-emails/
Now it would be great if the world could double-check with Mr Assange over the whole affair, but he’s been incommunicado in Belmarsh prison for nearly four years – unconvicted, yet living through an inhumane and tortuously slow extradition procedure – a journalist imprisoned for doing journalism. What could you read into that?
Well, Bill Clinton said he did not have s–x–l relations with Monica Lewinsky. Assange, like Bill Clinton then, has every reason to hide or distort the truth. Do you take him at his unsupported word? If he, or someone else ,can say who *did* leak those mails, and provide some convincing evidence, then we can talk about it.
Your bias and complete inability to think logically really shines through. Frankly, it seems to that you are a CIA or MI5/MI6 bot. Now go prove me wrong! That’s the sum total of your logic. Further, I would venture to say, that since you live in the UK, your knowledge and direct experience of american politics is close to zero. In other words you have no idea what you’re talking about but you’re very good at repeating the “approved narrative” whether this be Russian interference in the 2016 election or Covid policy.
Why does Assange have a reason to hide or distort the truth? He’s not a politician, or a spy or secret agent, or anonymous commentator. Wikileaks published document troves that they took great pains to validate and check that they were true. Assange built his reputation on his veracity.
This is in contrast to the mass of fake and false reporting on Russian collusion promulgated by people connected to the Clinton campaign.
So, turn it around, why would you choose to believe them over the persecuted journalist with a stellar track record?
If he did get that material from Russia, either directly or indirectly, admitting it would put him in a very bad light, and might make him more likely of ending up in an American prison. If he got it in some other way he could reveal his sources to prove it, but then he is not going to do that. Bayesian reasoning: his denying that the material came from Russia is worthless, because he would say that whether it was true or not.
False Bayesian reasoning. Denying Russia provided it, does not say anything about where it did come from – it just removes Russia from the list of possibilities. Assange was already locked in the Ecuadorian embassy, being pursued by the Americans (including a subsequent CIA assassination plot), saying it was Russia wouldn’t have made a blind bit of difference.
At the time (2017) information from Russia was not an issue in any way legally, Steele supposedly (later proven untrue) got information from Russia, or the FBI’s connections to Deripaska. If you’re trademark is truth, why say something false?
I think you’ve heavily bought into the narrative, without enough background. Remember when you confused Hillary’s emails with the DNC or Podesta dump? Or took a joke as a demand? The actors pushing this stuff for political gain are not reliable sources.
Let us get a bit more Bayesian, here. Assume he got those data from somewhere else. He would say he did not get them from Russia, because it would be true. Now assume that he *did* get those data, directly or indirectly from the FSB. Would he say so? I strongly doubt it. It would ruin his image as an independent and honest voice, reduce him to a tool of Russian interests in the public eye, and weaken the people, legally and politically, who are trying to keep him from being extracted to the US. If those data came form the FSB he would have nothing to gain and much to lose by admitting it. You seem to think Assange is very reliable and the data could not possibly have come from Russia. That may or may not be the case (though I obviously disagree), but whether you believe that or not, his denial has no value as evidence.
Now you’re deep in conspiracy theory generation territory to keep your narrative alive (nothing but a might-have). We know lots of the Russia-did-it stories were fake and deliberately spread for political gain. We also know Assange has a history of veracity. So we have a witness statement from a credible witness with a history of truth telling versus a ‘might have’ from dubious sources. I could be wrong, but when I weigh both pieces of data, I know which way my priors shift.
Now you’re deep in conspiracy theory generation territory to keep your narrative alive (nothing but a might-have). We know lots of the Russia-did-it stories were fake and deliberately spread for political gain. We also know Assange has a history of veracity. So we have a witness statement from a credible witness with a history of truth telling versus a ‘might have’ from dubious sources. I could be wrong, but when I weigh both pieces of data, I know which way my priors shift.
Let us get a bit more Bayesian, here. Assume he got those data from somewhere else. He would say he did not get them from Russia, because it would be true. Now assume that he *did* get those data, directly or indirectly from the FSB. Would he say so? I strongly doubt it. It would ruin his image as an independent and honest voice, reduce him to a tool of Russian interests in the public eye, and weaken the people, legally and politically, who are trying to keep him from being extracted to the US. If those data came form the FSB he would have nothing to gain and much to lose by admitting it. You seem to think Assange is very reliable and the data could not possibly have come from Russia. That may or may not be the case (though I obviously disagree), but whether you believe that or not, his denial has no value as evidence.
Oh, “admitting it” “would put him in a very bad light” (somehow), as opposed to where he is now, bathing in glory and not at all under threat from the US security establishment.
False Bayesian reasoning. Denying Russia provided it, does not say anything about where it did come from – it just removes Russia from the list of possibilities. Assange was already locked in the Ecuadorian embassy, being pursued by the Americans (including a subsequent CIA assassination plot), saying it was Russia wouldn’t have made a blind bit of difference.
At the time (2017) information from Russia was not an issue in any way legally, Steele supposedly (later proven untrue) got information from Russia, or the FBI’s connections to Deripaska. If you’re trademark is truth, why say something false?
I think you’ve heavily bought into the narrative, without enough background. Remember when you confused Hillary’s emails with the DNC or Podesta dump? Or took a joke as a demand? The actors pushing this stuff for political gain are not reliable sources.
Oh, “admitting it” “would put him in a very bad light” (somehow), as opposed to where he is now, bathing in glory and not at all under threat from the US security establishment.
Yep, spot on! Odd isn’t it.. these mouthpieces lie over and over and over again but the suckers continue to believe in their lies, distortions and propaganda.. how stupid can these guys be?
If he did get that material from Russia, either directly or indirectly, admitting it would put him in a very bad light, and might make him more likely of ending up in an American prison. If he got it in some other way he could reveal his sources to prove it, but then he is not going to do that. Bayesian reasoning: his denying that the material came from Russia is worthless, because he would say that whether it was true or not.
Yep, spot on! Odd isn’t it.. these mouthpieces lie over and over and over again but the suckers continue to believe in their lies, distortions and propaganda.. how stupid can these guys be?
Why do you even still care that Bill lied about sex with Monica? If Hillary wanted to divorce him for it, that was their business and no one else’s. If lying about cheating on your wife was a crime, half the men in America would be in prison.
I do not care and I never did. I always thought that the entire impeachment process was a pretext and a farce – and was even quite happy when Clinton met this shameless political operation with a barefaced “depends on what you mean by ‘is'”. I just thought it was a good example of why you cannot believe people just because they deny things.
I do not care and I never did. I always thought that the entire impeachment process was a pretext and a farce – and was even quite happy when Clinton met this shameless political operation with a barefaced “depends on what you mean by ‘is'”. I just thought it was a good example of why you cannot believe people just because they deny things.
Your bias and complete inability to think logically really shines through. Frankly, it seems to that you are a CIA or MI5/MI6 bot. Now go prove me wrong! That’s the sum total of your logic. Further, I would venture to say, that since you live in the UK, your knowledge and direct experience of american politics is close to zero. In other words you have no idea what you’re talking about but you’re very good at repeating the “approved narrative” whether this be Russian interference in the 2016 election or Covid policy.
Why does Assange have a reason to hide or distort the truth? He’s not a politician, or a spy or secret agent, or anonymous commentator. Wikileaks published document troves that they took great pains to validate and check that they were true. Assange built his reputation on his veracity.
This is in contrast to the mass of fake and false reporting on Russian collusion promulgated by people connected to the Clinton campaign.
So, turn it around, why would you choose to believe them over the persecuted journalist with a stellar track record?
Why do you even still care that Bill lied about sex with Monica? If Hillary wanted to divorce him for it, that was their business and no one else’s. If lying about cheating on your wife was a crime, half the men in America would be in prison.
Assange won the Martha Gellhorn prize for journalism in 2011 (among others including an Australian Walkley Award for Most Outstanding Contribution to Journalism). Presumably the prize givers knew what a journalist was, as did the Guardian when they reported it. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/jun/02/julian-assange-martha-gelhorn-prize
Putin’s propaganda is due exactly the same in-depth skepticism as the Clinton-campaign-driven, and now-debunked, Russian conspiracy theory, where they made up false stories to smear their opponents. You wouldn’t want to be believing one of those, in the same way you wouldn’t want to be believing Putin.
Assange won the Martha Gellhorn prize for journalism in 2011 (among others including an Australian Walkley Award for Most Outstanding Contribution to Journalism). Presumably the prize givers knew what a journalist was, as did the Guardian when they reported it. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/jun/02/julian-assange-martha-gelhorn-prize
Putin’s propaganda is due exactly the same in-depth skepticism as the Clinton-campaign-driven, and now-debunked, Russian conspiracy theory, where they made up false stories to smear their opponents. You wouldn’t want to be believing one of those, in the same way you wouldn’t want to be believing Putin.
Well, Bill Clinton said he did not have s–x–l relations with Monica Lewinsky. Assange, like Bill Clinton then, has every reason to hide or distort the truth. Do you take him at his unsupported word? If he, or someone else ,can say who *did* leak those mails, and provide some convincing evidence, then we can talk about it.
Rasmus, Julian Assange said Wikileaks did not get the emails from Russia (CNN interview 4th Jan 2017) – text from Washington Post here. A single definitive source who would know. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/01/05/julian-assanges-claim-that-there-was-no-russian-involvement-in-wikileaks-emails/
Now it would be great if the world could double-check with Mr Assange over the whole affair, but he’s been incommunicado in Belmarsh prison for nearly four years – unconvicted, yet living through an inhumane and tortuously slow extradition procedure – a journalist imprisoned for doing journalism. What could you read into that?
What do they admit, exactly? Some accusations against Trump are thoroughly discredited, such as the cavorting with prostitutes in Moscow. Other claims I’d consider proved. Again, who did leak those Democrat emails? Sorry to be repetitive, but if you could give me a link I could check just what the NYT is and is not admitting.
I assume you’re English. and you make a lot of unproven assertions. It has absolutely not been proven that Russia ran an influence operation, and if they did nobody was aware of it because nobody read anything or viewed anything in the outlets they used. As for leaking the DNC emails, far more likely is that a disgruntled employee of the DNC did this. Further, there is no evidence whatsoever that the Russians preferred Trump. In fact, for Russia Hilary would have been far more accommodating, as she had been in the past.
Finally your logical is totally flawed. Anybody and any party can make a claim. It’s not up to others to prove that this clam is false, rather it’s up to the people making the claim to prove that it’s indeed correct.
For example, I could claim that you’re an MI5 agent but that doesn’t make it so, and it’s not up to you to prove that claim false. Rather it’s up to those making the claim to prove it to be true.
It is a troll-like strategy: attempt to bog down the thread by posting myriad questions and so on. I stopped replying to him a few days ago. It’s a waste of time.
It is a troll-like strategy: attempt to bog down the thread by posting myriad questions and so on. I stopped replying to him a few days ago. It’s a waste of time.
Youa make a 100% valid point! Hence the downticks.. on UnHerd logic, commonsense and reason are not popular.. silly conjecture and baseless, slavish credulity are valued!
Youa make a 100% valid point! Hence the downticks.. on UnHerd logic, commonsense and reason are not popular.. silly conjecture and baseless, slavish credulity are valued!
Seriously, ask yourself why Russia would prefer Trump over Clinton. The Clintons have always had a gigantic For Sale sign as their personal motto (ask Haiti about it). Clinton would have been easy to work with, as was Obama (âtell Vlad, in my second term, Iâll have more flexibilityâ). Trumpâs only âcrimeâ was inadvertently kicking over the DC corruption rock by being elected and thinking that Washington actually wanted to solve problems. Once he was in office, he discovered the exact opposite to be the case, and, as the odious Chuck Schumer said – on camera – the FBI had âsix ways to Sundayâ to f*ck him up. And they did. Whatâs the lesson here? It wasnât really about Trump. It was anyone who gets in the way of the Washington crime syndicate, [D] or [R]. Just look at what theyâre doing to DeSantis. Sheesh, they were prepared to make big floppy Mitt Romney look like Simon Legree (âHeâs gonna put yâall back in chainsâ). I marvel at the inability of people to see this stuff. Itâs not as hidden, itâs not artful, itâs right there, in your face, daring you to do something about it.
They would prefer Trump because he admired autocrats like Putin, because he was divisive and produced chaos and polarisation, and because he was not going to do much to keep Russia within limits.
Seriously? He strenuously warned the entire European Union to beware of dependency on Russian energy – the only thing theyâve got to sell. As for being divisive, thatâs politics: people have principles. It was, however, the Washington establishment that turned him into Emanuel Goldstein.
..who turned him into an orange lunatic? such a pity, he probably had a valid case a lot of the time.. out of the mouths of babes and sucklings I guess?
Nah, I saw him myself; I heard him too.. the p***y grabbing, the slap him in the mouth remark, build the wall and make Mexico pay for it.. nah, definitely a lunatic. He did get one or two things right.. but even a busted clock tells the right time twice a day!
Nah, I saw him myself; I heard him too.. the p***y grabbing, the slap him in the mouth remark, build the wall and make Mexico pay for it.. nah, definitely a lunatic. He did get one or two things right.. but even a busted clock tells the right time twice a day!
..who turned him into an orange lunatic? such a pity, he probably had a valid case a lot of the time.. out of the mouths of babes and sucklings I guess?
Seriously? He strenuously warned the entire European Union to beware of dependency on Russian energy – the only thing theyâve got to sell. As for being divisive, thatâs politics: people have principles. It was, however, the Washington establishment that turned him into Emanuel Goldstein.
Correct.. hence the downticks: the more valid, the more truthful, the more obvious, the clearer, the more logical, the more reasoned the more downticks.. maybe the downticks come from the CIA? who knows?
They would prefer Trump because he admired autocrats like Putin, because he was divisive and produced chaos and polarisation, and because he was not going to do much to keep Russia within limits.
Correct.. hence the downticks: the more valid, the more truthful, the more obvious, the clearer, the more logical, the more reasoned the more downticks.. maybe the downticks come from the CIA? who knows?
The Democrat emails were hacked and published via wikileaks. By whom, if not the Russians – who were anyway identified as the likely culprits by the people who invetigated the breach? There have been various reports of Russian botnets pouring out tweets etc. Admittedly I do not have specific links – just seen it all over the press – but if you still care enough to ask I shall do some googling.
The Democrat emails were hacked and published via wikileaks. By whom, if not the Russians – who were anyway identified as the likely culprits by the people who invetigated the breach? There have been various reports of Russian botnets pouring out tweets etc. Admittedly I do not have specific links – just seen it all over the press – but if you still care enough to ask I shall do some googling.
I assume you’re English. and you make a lot of unproven assertions. It has absolutely not been proven that Russia ran an influence operation, and if they did nobody was aware of it because nobody read anything or viewed anything in the outlets they used. As for leaking the DNC emails, far more likely is that a disgruntled employee of the DNC did this. Further, there is no evidence whatsoever that the Russians preferred Trump. In fact, for Russia Hilary would have been far more accommodating, as she had been in the past.
Finally your logical is totally flawed. Anybody and any party can make a claim. It’s not up to others to prove that this clam is false, rather it’s up to the people making the claim to prove that it’s indeed correct.
For example, I could claim that you’re an MI5 agent but that doesn’t make it so, and it’s not up to you to prove that claim false. Rather it’s up to those making the claim to prove it to be true.
Seriously, ask yourself why Russia would prefer Trump over Clinton. The Clintons have always had a gigantic For Sale sign as their personal motto (ask Haiti about it). Clinton would have been easy to work with, as was Obama (âtell Vlad, in my second term, Iâll have more flexibilityâ). Trumpâs only âcrimeâ was inadvertently kicking over the DC corruption rock by being elected and thinking that Washington actually wanted to solve problems. Once he was in office, he discovered the exact opposite to be the case, and, as the odious Chuck Schumer said – on camera – the FBI had âsix ways to Sundayâ to f*ck him up. And they did. Whatâs the lesson here? It wasnât really about Trump. It was anyone who gets in the way of the Washington crime syndicate, [D] or [R]. Just look at what theyâre doing to DeSantis. Sheesh, they were prepared to make big floppy Mitt Romney look like Simon Legree (âHeâs gonna put yâall back in chainsâ). I marvel at the inability of people to see this stuff. Itâs not as hidden, itâs not artful, itâs right there, in your face, daring you to do something about it.
My simple comment regarding anything that Fiona Hill says is to simply realize that when she states “Thatâs why I went into government in 2016. I didnât go in there to serve Donald Trump. I went in there to deal with a national security crisis after the Russians launched an influence operation to basically subvert the US 2016 presidential election.”, it is evident that she is both delusional and living in cloud cuckoo land. Russian interference in the 2016 election was insignificant. Basically a zero. Now compare that to interference from big tech (google, facebook, twitter, etc…) in the 2020 election. In other words, despite being a so-called expert, she doesn’t really know what she’s talking about. And that’s so unfortunate when one has people influencing and making policy decisions not based on reality but how they think the world should be.
Silly. Just because she says things about Russian interference in 2016 that you don’t like, you write off all her experience dealing with Putin and Ukraine. Not very clever.
Oh she just told a massive tangential lie to the subject matter we are supposed to rely on her expertise on. What’s the big deal? Really? I don’t know if you have been paying attention, but much of the support behind United States opposing Russia at all costs is because many resistance liberals still believe Putin hacked the 2016 election to install Donald Trump as president. You know the same people who liked to call people who disagreed with them “Putin puppets” before Ukraine was even invaded? This claim has been proven false several times over now and is still tearing the country apart. Don’t act like it is nothing.
Why is it a lie? Most of things Iâve read suggest that the Russians did try and interfere with the US election. I donât believe there was any collusion with Trump, or that they intervened to help any particular side but instead inflame the culture wars and sow discord, but itâs still interference
Yanis Varoufakis was asked if he thought Russia had tried to influence the US 2016 election and his response was “Yes of course it did, but then again so did I. So what?”
To have a balanced view you have to also ask how much influence did Russia have, was the 2016 US election the only election they tried to influence, do other people and nations also seek to influence elections, and most of all does the USA do this to other nations on a routine basis?
The answers, respectively are “almost none”, “no”, “yes” and “obviously yes”.
The only real significance of the 2016 US election is that Trump got elected and this pissed off a bunch of self-righteous liberal-fascist arseholes who think they own the American government. Had that not happened, none of them would be throwing accusations about like a baby throwing its toys out of the pram. It’s nothing more than a proxy for complaining about democracy itself without officially admitting that that’s what it really is.
NB – I am not a Trump supporter, just someone who nonetheless recognises that Trump does annoy all the right people. As a president, despite a small number of notable successes, he was a failure.
‘Almost no influence’ is probably an exaggeration. The manufactured panic about those Hilary mails did help Trump a lot, and the leaks gave some of the ammunition. One could argue that relying on a foreign intelligence service to hack your opponents mails is going a bit too far – much like bugging the campaign headquarters of the opposition actually. But OK, Trump won. You cannot claim that he stole the election.
With all due respect, we only have the word of the DNC and Crowdstrike that the DNC emals were hacked by the Russians. They never allowed the FBI to look at the computers and do a forensic investigation. So the bottom line is we have a side with a vested interested in claiming Russian hacking, who cooked up the Steele report and the Russian collusion nonsense. That’s hardly reliable evidence. What I can say, given that I live in the US, and I might add close to Washington DC, that I didn’t notice anything that the Russians might or might not have done. Did they broadcast propaganda of one sort or another on Russia Today â no doubt but the viewership of Russia Today is so small and so to be effectively zero. Now compare that to what big tech did in the 2020 election where burying the Hunder Biden labtop story likely swung the election Biden’s way, and where one Presidential candidate, Trump (whether you like him or not) was deplatformed on Twitter and Facebook. Similarly when Zuckerberg messed around with the election in Wisconsin, later deemed to be illegal, although he only got a slap on the wrist (i.e. a minute fine relative to his wealth). Now that’s real interference.
Yep, always looking at the wrong “election interference”
Yep, always looking at the wrong “election interference”
Hereâs how it works: a âscandalâ is cooked up, lie nuggets are given – not âleakedâ – to reliable minions in the media who then publish a shock horror story. Government hacks use said story to âopen an investigationâ, and media minions have that manufactured fiction to pump for however long itâs necessary. Both side do this, but the Democrats own the media, so itâs like breathing to them. And then, when sh*t dies down, the world finds out that – like Covid – it was all made up.
Covid is real. You are possibly not. And Democrats certainly do not ‘own’ the media -. But people to the left of the Democratic Party do not get their voice heard well.
While Covid is indeed a flu, the Covid Pandemic was a manufactured panic war-gamed in October 2019 via Event 201: https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/our-work/exercises/event201/
Where do Democrats go when they leave the hands-on political arena? The media. Please.
Thank you for posting that and for that insight into US politics, of which I am blissfully unaware.
..you are blissfully unaware of almost everything that has occurred since the middle ages Charlie!
Lucky you. Anyway, QED: https://chicago.suntimes.com/movies-and-tv/2023/2/21/23609740/jen-psaki-former-biden-administration-spokesperson-to-debut-sunday-msnbc-show
Thank you so much, I must admit Iâve missed most of this stuff.
.
Remind me where Steve Bannon came from and went after the Whitehouse.
Thank you so much, I must admit Iâve missed most of this stuff.
.
Remind me where Steve Bannon came from and went after the Whitehouse.
..you are blissfully unaware of almost everything that has occurred since the middle ages Charlie!
Lucky you. Anyway, QED: https://chicago.suntimes.com/movies-and-tv/2023/2/21/23609740/jen-psaki-former-biden-administration-spokesperson-to-debut-sunday-msnbc-show
Covid is real, and it specifically targeted the elderly, the obese, and those who were chronic or seriously compromised. So it was a pandemic for these individuals–but it was merely a flu like disorder for over 90% of those who got it. In the hands of Fauci and the media, it became a Panic-demic–a dress rehearsal for mass disinformation, violation of individual rights, and herd think. Science–which involves debate and exploration of options–was discouraged. Vaccilnes were promoted as the only solution. The vaccines did not deliver, and we have yet to see the end of the MRNA question.
The clear and obvious solution was outlined by the Gt Barrington Declaration, as indeed I proposed myself, as a world class risk management consultant, from the very beginning, ie isolate the vulnerable (easy) not the virus (impossible).. Of course no one listened.. too much money to be made from Tory slush funds!
It depends what you mean by ‘real’. As for ‘pandemic’ it certainly was not. To say ‘it was a ‘pandemic for the obese,etc’ ; means it was not a pandemic.
You must be so disappointed that most fat people survived. An infectious disease that very few people die of is not a pandemic.
You totally, 100% misunderstood my comment. Obese was used as an example, perhaps I should have said Seniors. the fact remains all I was pointing out was that it was not a Pandemic.
You totally, 100% misunderstood my comment. Obese was used as an example, perhaps I should have said Seniors. the fact remains all I was pointing out was that it was not a Pandemic.
You must be so disappointed that most fat people survived. An infectious disease that very few people die of is not a pandemic.
Yep! it appears that many UnHerd readers have become well and truly herded by the propaganda and lies that are the ‘bread and butter’ of the MSM.
Ironic that the Far Right automatically assumes everything they don’t hear on Fox News must be a lie, yet they naively believe everything they see there must be absolutely true. Both the Left and the Right push propaganda, but are blind to the lies coming from their “side”.
Ironic that the Far Right automatically assumes everything they don’t hear on Fox News must be a lie, yet they naively believe everything they see there must be absolutely true. Both the Left and the Right push propaganda, but are blind to the lies coming from their “side”.
Point taken.
Covid is a danger to people with damaged immune systems. Elderly, obese, and disabled individuals who did NOT have compromised immune systems mostly were fine.
There were elderly individuals over a hundred years old who survived both Covid and the 1918 flu (antibodies were still present). One characteristic people in those groups had in common was a higher tendency toward Vitamin D deficiency, which is bad for immune response, but not all had this problem. In fact, obese people are a higher percentage of the population now than before Covid. If it had been true that they were uniquely vulnerable just because they’re fat, more would have died.
The clear and obvious solution was outlined by the Gt Barrington Declaration, as indeed I proposed myself, as a world class risk management consultant, from the very beginning, ie isolate the vulnerable (easy) not the virus (impossible).. Of course no one listened.. too much money to be made from Tory slush funds!
It depends what you mean by ‘real’. As for ‘pandemic’ it certainly was not. To say ‘it was a ‘pandemic for the obese,etc’ ; means it was not a pandemic.
Yep! it appears that many UnHerd readers have become well and truly herded by the propaganda and lies that are the ‘bread and butter’ of the MSM.
Point taken.
Covid is a danger to people with damaged immune systems. Elderly, obese, and disabled individuals who did NOT have compromised immune systems mostly were fine.
There were elderly individuals over a hundred years old who survived both Covid and the 1918 flu (antibodies were still present). One characteristic people in those groups had in common was a higher tendency toward Vitamin D deficiency, which is bad for immune response, but not all had this problem. In fact, obese people are a higher percentage of the population now than before Covid. If it had been true that they were uniquely vulnerable just because they’re fat, more would have died.
Thank you for posting that and for that insight into US politics, of which I am blissfully unaware.
Covid is real, and it specifically targeted the elderly, the obese, and those who were chronic or seriously compromised. So it was a pandemic for these individuals–but it was merely a flu like disorder for over 90% of those who got it. In the hands of Fauci and the media, it became a Panic-demic–a dress rehearsal for mass disinformation, violation of individual rights, and herd think. Science–which involves debate and exploration of options–was discouraged. Vaccilnes were promoted as the only solution. The vaccines did not deliver, and we have yet to see the end of the MRNA question.
You’re right. The Democrats don’t own the media. The MSM is own by the people who own the Democrats! They also own the GOP btw.. and the Tories in the UK. Governments today are merely well bribed, bought and paid for puppets.. There are a few notable exceptions but even they are slapped down and beaten into line, eg Bernie Sanders on support for the war/MIC.. they soon put him right; the coward.
You Right wingers are as cowardly as the Far Left. You both kiss Putin’s a**, because you’re so afraid of him. All bullies are cowards.
You Right wingers are as cowardly as the Far Left. You both kiss Putin’s a**, because you’re so afraid of him. All bullies are cowards.
While Covid is indeed a flu, the Covid Pandemic was a manufactured panic war-gamed in October 2019 via Event 201: https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/our-work/exercises/event201/
Where do Democrats go when they leave the hands-on political arena? The media. Please.
You’re right. The Democrats don’t own the media. The MSM is own by the people who own the Democrats! They also own the GOP btw.. and the Tories in the UK. Governments today are merely well bribed, bought and paid for puppets.. There are a few notable exceptions but even they are slapped down and beaten into line, eg Bernie Sanders on support for the war/MIC.. they soon put him right; the coward.
Yep.. sounds like the rules of the game to me! All you need is 40 million US suckers to believe all that crap.. how hard can that be?
Not hard, obviously. I live here. You’d wouldn’t believe what is believed.
I would.. I do.. I’ve had some contact with them.. scary zombies, aaarrgh!
I would.. I do.. I’ve had some contact with them.. scary zombies, aaarrgh!
Not hard, obviously. I live here. You’d wouldn’t believe what is believed.
Covid is real. You are possibly not. And Democrats certainly do not ‘own’ the media -. But people to the left of the Democratic Party do not get their voice heard well.
Yep.. sounds like the rules of the game to me! All you need is 40 million US suckers to believe all that crap.. how hard can that be?
No I can’t, nor do I care, nor does anyone outside of the US probably..
You need to back up your claims with proven sources. No one should be taking the allegations of neo-con warmongers seriously anymore without concrete evidence.
If you knew anything about goverment security, you would not claim that Hilary emails story was “manufactured panic”.
You would be sacked and charged if you did what she did.
If you can explain source of Clinton couple wealth, great. I am all ears.
Otherwise most likely explanation for usage of private email server is concealment of illegal activity….
With all due respect, we only have the word of the DNC and Crowdstrike that the DNC emals were hacked by the Russians. They never allowed the FBI to look at the computers and do a forensic investigation. So the bottom line is we have a side with a vested interested in claiming Russian hacking, who cooked up the Steele report and the Russian collusion nonsense. That’s hardly reliable evidence. What I can say, given that I live in the US, and I might add close to Washington DC, that I didn’t notice anything that the Russians might or might not have done. Did they broadcast propaganda of one sort or another on Russia Today â no doubt but the viewership of Russia Today is so small and so to be effectively zero. Now compare that to what big tech did in the 2020 election where burying the Hunder Biden labtop story likely swung the election Biden’s way, and where one Presidential candidate, Trump (whether you like him or not) was deplatformed on Twitter and Facebook. Similarly when Zuckerberg messed around with the election in Wisconsin, later deemed to be illegal, although he only got a slap on the wrist (i.e. a minute fine relative to his wealth). Now that’s real interference.
Hereâs how it works: a âscandalâ is cooked up, lie nuggets are given – not âleakedâ – to reliable minions in the media who then publish a shock horror story. Government hacks use said story to âopen an investigationâ, and media minions have that manufactured fiction to pump for however long itâs necessary. Both side do this, but the Democrats own the media, so itâs like breathing to them. And then, when sh*t dies down, the world finds out that – like Covid – it was all made up.
No I can’t, nor do I care, nor does anyone outside of the US probably..
You need to back up your claims with proven sources. No one should be taking the allegations of neo-con warmongers seriously anymore without concrete evidence.
If you knew anything about goverment security, you would not claim that Hilary emails story was “manufactured panic”.
You would be sacked and charged if you did what she did.
If you can explain source of Clinton couple wealth, great. I am all ears.
Otherwise most likely explanation for usage of private email server is concealment of illegal activity….
Why do we forget that the Soviets influenced elections in the US for decades and did so masterfully? And not only elections, but wide swaths of US domestic policy, from marriage, the rearing of children, trade union formation, sexual mores, and you name it. Why do we forget that Alger Hiss stood behind Rosevelt at Yalta? Why do we forget, most all, that the political left in the US applauded the Soviets as they did these things, even dug in behind them? How is it that all this hypocrisy does not get noticed?
I say that was a gross distortion of the truth but it would fall so far short of the mark as to be an understatement of unforgivable magnitude.
Actually, Roosevelt saved American capitalism. Without him, the U.S. would have become a dictatorship run by some strongman, whether socialist or fascist. If Roosevelt hadn’t created all the public works projects and other government programs to help starving people, there would have been a revolution that would have swept democracy away.
I donât disagree. My point was a factual one. Alger Hiss was a member of the CPUSA. He also worked for the State Department. Whittaker Chambers was also a member of the CPUSA and came to know Hiss in that capacity. Chambers would in time come to doubt the Soviet cause and to expose both Hiss and himself as agents of the Soviet Union. In the late 1940s, Hiss was tried, and convicted, in the US senate, of espionage. The lawyer who prosecuted Hiss was a man named Richard M. Nixon, who would become vice president of the USA in 1952 and president in 1968. Chambers wrote a book about the trial entitled âWitness.â It is, if I may say so, a great read. Chambers makes clear in the book just how deeply integrated the CPUSA was many aspects of American life (labor unions, education, the arts, politics, the military, etc.). There is a photo in the book of Hiss standing with Rosevelt, Churchill and Stalin. It is no great secret that many in the USA at the time, and not only at that time, saw the Soviet way as the great hope of mankind. My point is that the Soviets not only endeavored to influence American elections but to transform American life altogether and, whatâs more, that many in American applauded this cause. This does not mean that I look upon Pres. Nixon with rose colored glasses. He lied relentlessly about the war in southeast Asia, and caused untold suffering and death in the process. I would point here to Hannah Arendtâs book âOn Lying and Politics.â
That’s controversial, actually. There is some good evidence to suggest that it was Herbert Hoover’s measures that set the basis for the post-1929 crash recovery, but the benefits arrived too late to save his presidency. There is evidence in the economic data, too, that many of Roosevelt’s measures did lasting economic damage that would have become unavoidable if the second world war hadn’t justified a further massive increase in state spending, which in turn then was only saved because the US dollar became the world’s reserve currency in 1944.
Under Roosevelt the US was a near dictatorship run by a strongman! We still suffer today under the burden of administrative state programs which his narcissism prevented him from sundowning. Don’t romanticize history. There are damned few real heroes.
Giuseppe Garibaldi perhaps?
What is it about my comment that makes you think I WAS romanticising history?
Giuseppe Garibaldi perhaps?
What is it about my comment that makes you think I WAS romanticising history?
I donât disagree. My point was a factual one. Alger Hiss was a member of the CPUSA. He also worked for the State Department. Whittaker Chambers was also a member of the CPUSA and came to know Hiss in that capacity. Chambers would in time come to doubt the Soviet cause and to expose both Hiss and himself as agents of the Soviet Union. In the late 1940s, Hiss was tried, and convicted, in the US senate, of espionage. The lawyer who prosecuted Hiss was a man named Richard M. Nixon, who would become vice president of the USA in 1952 and president in 1968. Chambers wrote a book about the trial entitled âWitness.â It is, if I may say so, a great read. Chambers makes clear in the book just how deeply integrated the CPUSA was many aspects of American life (labor unions, education, the arts, politics, the military, etc.). There is a photo in the book of Hiss standing with Rosevelt, Churchill and Stalin. It is no great secret that many in the USA at the time, and not only at that time, saw the Soviet way as the great hope of mankind. My point is that the Soviets not only endeavored to influence American elections but to transform American life altogether and, whatâs more, that many in American applauded this cause. This does not mean that I look upon Pres. Nixon with rose colored glasses. He lied relentlessly about the war in southeast Asia, and caused untold suffering and death in the process. I would point here to Hannah Arendtâs book âOn Lying and Politics.â
That’s controversial, actually. There is some good evidence to suggest that it was Herbert Hoover’s measures that set the basis for the post-1929 crash recovery, but the benefits arrived too late to save his presidency. There is evidence in the economic data, too, that many of Roosevelt’s measures did lasting economic damage that would have become unavoidable if the second world war hadn’t justified a further massive increase in state spending, which in turn then was only saved because the US dollar became the world’s reserve currency in 1944.
Under Roosevelt the US was a near dictatorship run by a strongman! We still suffer today under the burden of administrative state programs which his narcissism prevented him from sundowning. Don’t romanticize history. There are damned few real heroes.
And why are so many resolutely looking back at the days of the Russki under the bed phobia? Is this retro fixation possibly being “influenced” by a far more malign and dangerous power farther to the East?
I say that was a gross distortion of the truth but it would fall so far short of the mark as to be an understatement of unforgivable magnitude.
Actually, Roosevelt saved American capitalism. Without him, the U.S. would have become a dictatorship run by some strongman, whether socialist or fascist. If Roosevelt hadn’t created all the public works projects and other government programs to help starving people, there would have been a revolution that would have swept democracy away.
And why are so many resolutely looking back at the days of the Russki under the bed phobia? Is this retro fixation possibly being “influenced” by a far more malign and dangerous power farther to the East?
A somewhat better argument although I don’t agree with the term self righteous liberal-fascist. Its a nonsense phrase -just a way of expressing your deep irritation at sanctimoniousness perhaps? I for my part loathe Trump for all sorts of reasons.
Liberal fascism is a fairly well defined concept and it does apply to large parts of the modern Left. That’s controversial obviously – left-wingers themselves are usually furious at the designation – but that that doesn’t mean that the concept is wrongly applied or is meaningless.
You forgot the Far Right. Extremists on both the Left AND the Right hate democracy and freedom of speech. It’s only because Russia turned fascist with Putin that the Right suddenly loves Russia. That and they are afraid of him.
I “forgot” the Far Right simply because it’s not part of the context of this particular thread. I am defending the notion that Fascism is a left-wing extremism alongside Communism and the other traditional variants. The common factor they possess is belief in a large, powerful, expensive State. No right-wing ideology shares this, and since Fascism does support a large powerful State, it cannot be right-wing.
This is not to say that right-wing extremisim does not exist of course, merely that it has nothing to do with what I’m describing here.
I take issue, too, with the idea that the modern Right “loves Russia” as you put it. What draws the modern Right to oppose the West’s Ukraine War involvement is more based upon a defective libertarian assessment that it is not the West’s problem. I say this as a libertarian myself, I just reckon that on this case many of my fellow libertarians have got this one wrong, and that there can be no way this isn’t our problem.
The view is more extreme in America, where the libertarian position is that America should abdicate entirely its role as world’s policeman, so you can see why European libertarians in NATO countries are not about to agree with that idea.
I “forgot” the Far Right simply because it’s not part of the context of this particular thread. I am defending the notion that Fascism is a left-wing extremism alongside Communism and the other traditional variants. The common factor they possess is belief in a large, powerful, expensive State. No right-wing ideology shares this, and since Fascism does support a large powerful State, it cannot be right-wing.
This is not to say that right-wing extremisim does not exist of course, merely that it has nothing to do with what I’m describing here.
I take issue, too, with the idea that the modern Right “loves Russia” as you put it. What draws the modern Right to oppose the West’s Ukraine War involvement is more based upon a defective libertarian assessment that it is not the West’s problem. I say this as a libertarian myself, I just reckon that on this case many of my fellow libertarians have got this one wrong, and that there can be no way this isn’t our problem.
The view is more extreme in America, where the libertarian position is that America should abdicate entirely its role as world’s policeman, so you can see why European libertarians in NATO countries are not about to agree with that idea.
You forgot the Far Right. Extremists on both the Left AND the Right hate democracy and freedom of speech. It’s only because Russia turned fascist with Putin that the Right suddenly loves Russia. That and they are afraid of him.
Of course, it would be nice to hear one (‘all sorts of reasons’, that was both truthfull and correct factually.
PS I note they never do.
Liberal fascism is a fairly well defined concept and it does apply to large parts of the modern Left. That’s controversial obviously – left-wingers themselves are usually furious at the designation – but that that doesn’t mean that the concept is wrongly applied or is meaningless.
Of course, it would be nice to hear one (‘all sorts of reasons’, that was both truthfull and correct factually.
PS I note they never do.
Try this: did the US (via the CIA and âŹ5bn) try to influence Ukraine’s politics? lol.. get a grip Fiona!
The people of Ukraine and other countries that suffered under the former Soviet Union still remember well how horrific it was, and need no other motivation to resist Putin’s dictatorship. They have recently had a taste of freedom and will now fight to the death to keep it. That and the brutal reality that Putin has already mass murdered thousands of Ukrainians, so it is either win or die as a people for them.
Once again I read an appeal to the sentimental. Given, that Ukraine is well within Russia’s sphere of influence, and that Putin, whatever else he is (I leave it to the Almighty to weigh his soul) is a nationalist. Given that the current Ukrainian state is in violation of the Minsk accords, corrupt, undemocratic and suppresses dissent and religious freedom. Given that a certain percentage of the Ukraine thinks of themselves as more Russian than “Ukrainian”. Question: How can the UN justify its expensive existence if it isn’t to solve such conflicts? Obviously a rhetorical question.
It canât.
It canât.
Once again I read an appeal to the sentimental. Given, that Ukraine is well within Russia’s sphere of influence, and that Putin, whatever else he is (I leave it to the Almighty to weigh his soul) is a nationalist. Given that the current Ukrainian state is in violation of the Minsk accords, corrupt, undemocratic and suppresses dissent and religious freedom. Given that a certain percentage of the Ukraine thinks of themselves as more Russian than “Ukrainian”. Question: How can the UN justify its expensive existence if it isn’t to solve such conflicts? Obviously a rhetorical question.
The people of Ukraine and other countries that suffered under the former Soviet Union still remember well how horrific it was, and need no other motivation to resist Putin’s dictatorship. They have recently had a taste of freedom and will now fight to the death to keep it. That and the brutal reality that Putin has already mass murdered thousands of Ukrainians, so it is either win or die as a people for them.
This is accurate. Democracy means respecting the will of the people as expressed through elections. Complaining about the electoral college and stating that Trump lost the popular vote is a very democratic criticism. Whining that a dishonest ad campaign from a foreign power unduly influenced voters is disrespectful to the process and dehumanizing to the voters. If you only support democracy when people elect leaders from a list of ‘acceptable’ candidates, you do not actually support democracy.
In fact, ad campaigns and other interference in U.S. elections by foreign powers is, and has been, highly illegal for decades (22 USC § 2708(k)(4) . It’s still illegal, whether or not it convinces people. American elections are only for American citizens.
You never had to select candidates from a list, and you still don’t. You can write in whoever you want, but I wouldn’t bother writing in Mickey Mouse like way too many do. It even works occasionally: Lisa Murkowski won re-election through a write in campaign.
I seem to remember they didn’t just verbally complain that Trump supposedly lost an election. That’s minimizing something that was far from benign. There was among, other things awful things, an insurrection, loss of life, and a lot of trauma and suffering. And, two years later the “complaining” is still going on.
In fact, ad campaigns and other interference in U.S. elections by foreign powers is, and has been, highly illegal for decades (22 USC § 2708(k)(4) . It’s still illegal, whether or not it convinces people. American elections are only for American citizens.
You never had to select candidates from a list, and you still don’t. You can write in whoever you want, but I wouldn’t bother writing in Mickey Mouse like way too many do. It even works occasionally: Lisa Murkowski won re-election through a write in campaign.
I seem to remember they didn’t just verbally complain that Trump supposedly lost an election. That’s minimizing something that was far from benign. There was among, other things awful things, an insurrection, loss of life, and a lot of trauma and suffering. And, two years later the “complaining” is still going on.
‘Almost no influence’ is probably an exaggeration. The manufactured panic about those Hilary mails did help Trump a lot, and the leaks gave some of the ammunition. One could argue that relying on a foreign intelligence service to hack your opponents mails is going a bit too far – much like bugging the campaign headquarters of the opposition actually. But OK, Trump won. You cannot claim that he stole the election.
Why do we forget that the Soviets influenced elections in the US for decades and did so masterfully? And not only elections, but wide swaths of US domestic policy, from marriage, the rearing of children, trade union formation, sexual mores, and you name it. Why do we forget that Alger Hiss stood behind Rosevelt at Yalta? Why do we forget, most all, that the political left in the US applauded the Soviets as they did these things, even dug in behind them? How is it that all this hypocrisy does not get noticed?
A somewhat better argument although I don’t agree with the term self righteous liberal-fascist. Its a nonsense phrase -just a way of expressing your deep irritation at sanctimoniousness perhaps? I for my part loathe Trump for all sorts of reasons.
Try this: did the US (via the CIA and âŹ5bn) try to influence Ukraine’s politics? lol.. get a grip Fiona!
This is accurate. Democracy means respecting the will of the people as expressed through elections. Complaining about the electoral college and stating that Trump lost the popular vote is a very democratic criticism. Whining that a dishonest ad campaign from a foreign power unduly influenced voters is disrespectful to the process and dehumanizing to the voters. If you only support democracy when people elect leaders from a list of ‘acceptable’ candidates, you do not actually support democracy.
And the US is not at the same thing all day every day?
But it is really isn’t it? A passionate devotion to wealth beyond all other considerations such as morality, truth, decency, humanity etc.
Often a fan, but that bit of sweeping generalization did not do justice to the subject, nor to your wit. Bear in mind, that today’s US is far less homogenized than in earlier times. I do agree with your remarks as applied to our chattering classes and imperial administrators in Versailles-on-the-Potomac. No, let me amend: Versailles-on-the-Cloaca-Maxima. You might find that Flyover America is stubbornly attached to the values of civilization. Are they undereducated? Sadly … I pine for the days when I thought Idiocracy was dystopian future fiction.
Often a fan, but that bit of sweeping generalization did not do justice to the subject, nor to your wit. Bear in mind, that today’s US is far less homogenized than in earlier times. I do agree with your remarks as applied to our chattering classes and imperial administrators in Versailles-on-the-Potomac. No, let me amend: Versailles-on-the-Cloaca-Maxima. You might find that Flyover America is stubbornly attached to the values of civilization. Are they undereducated? Sadly … I pine for the days when I thought Idiocracy was dystopian future fiction.
But it is really isn’t it? A passionate devotion to wealth beyond all other considerations such as morality, truth, decency, humanity etc.
I’m afraid you continue to be delusional and are eating far too much pie in the sky. Try a little commonsense and logic instead.. you’ll see things very differently!
There is nothing new here – cccp-russia has interfered for decades. What is new here is that dems used russia’s business as usual as an extraordinary attack on US democracy in order to prevent Trump from becoming president. Dems didn’t stop there and continued to sabotage and slander the legitimately elected president for all 4 years, weakening the state, pushed the country to a bloody anarchist isurection, adopted the strategy “power at all costs” and rigged elections with the help of big tech, leftists maisnstream media and offended European governments, because Trump demanded to spend money ontheir own millitary and be careful with russia. But this time, Fiona Hill decided that everything was in order.
Yanis Varoufakis was asked if he thought Russia had tried to influence the US 2016 election and his response was “Yes of course it did, but then again so did I. So what?”
To have a balanced view you have to also ask how much influence did Russia have, was the 2016 US election the only election they tried to influence, do other people and nations also seek to influence elections, and most of all does the USA do this to other nations on a routine basis?
The answers, respectively are “almost none”, “no”, “yes” and “obviously yes”.
The only real significance of the 2016 US election is that Trump got elected and this pissed off a bunch of self-righteous liberal-fascist arseholes who think they own the American government. Had that not happened, none of them would be throwing accusations about like a baby throwing its toys out of the pram. It’s nothing more than a proxy for complaining about democracy itself without officially admitting that that’s what it really is.
NB – I am not a Trump supporter, just someone who nonetheless recognises that Trump does annoy all the right people. As a president, despite a small number of notable successes, he was a failure.
And the US is not at the same thing all day every day?
I’m afraid you continue to be delusional and are eating far too much pie in the sky. Try a little commonsense and logic instead.. you’ll see things very differently!
There is nothing new here – cccp-russia has interfered for decades. What is new here is that dems used russia’s business as usual as an extraordinary attack on US democracy in order to prevent Trump from becoming president. Dems didn’t stop there and continued to sabotage and slander the legitimately elected president for all 4 years, weakening the state, pushed the country to a bloody anarchist isurection, adopted the strategy “power at all costs” and rigged elections with the help of big tech, leftists maisnstream media and offended European governments, because Trump demanded to spend money ontheir own millitary and be careful with russia. But this time, Fiona Hill decided that everything was in order.
It has very little to do with that, which is why Sens. McConnell and Graham, not to mention people who, like me, never bought into Trump Derangement Syndrome are supportive of Ukraine. So maybe it’s not “nothing,” but it isn’t all that much, either.
Lindsay Graham has never known a war he doesn’t like, and McConnell can see the money flowing in from the military-industrial complex. The US is laughing all the way to the bank on this war.
Indeed, the people in the State Dept are but dupes of the Merchants of Death.
They’ve even hypnotized the vast majority of entrepreneurs who don’t make money off of arms.
Why worry about complicated historical explanations when the phrase “Merchants of Death” explains everything?
No doubt you would have also surrendered to Hitler to avoid war. More fool you to surrender to mass murderers and become one of their victims without even fighting back.
Today, Putin is the REAL “merchant of death”. The mass graves of thousands of innocent people in Ukraine were on his orders.
People who rely on simplistic slogans, and are too lazy to learn anything, also know nothing. They repeat the same mistakes that caused the death of millions not so long ago.
No doubt you would have also surrendered to Hitler to avoid war. More fool you to surrender to mass murderers and become one of their victims without even fighting back.
Today, Putin is the REAL “merchant of death”. The mass graves of thousands of innocent people in Ukraine were on his orders.
People who rely on simplistic slogans, and are too lazy to learn anything, also know nothing. They repeat the same mistakes that caused the death of millions not so long ago.
For individuals with shares yes. It is costly to the nation and far more costly to the world if they simply do nothing about China and Russian hegemony in their claimed modern day ‘spheres’ which grow larger every moment & only curbed by resistance. Listen to Fiona Hill’s message about ultimate diplomacy required.
Correct and accurate.. as can be guaged from the downticks.. on UnHere the more downticks the closer to the uncomfortable and inconvenient truth.
I pride myself on my downclicks!
I pride myself on my downclicks!
Indeed, the people in the State Dept are but dupes of the Merchants of Death.
They’ve even hypnotized the vast majority of entrepreneurs who don’t make money off of arms.
Why worry about complicated historical explanations when the phrase “Merchants of Death” explains everything?
For individuals with shares yes. It is costly to the nation and far more costly to the world if they simply do nothing about China and Russian hegemony in their claimed modern day ‘spheres’ which grow larger every moment & only curbed by resistance. Listen to Fiona Hill’s message about ultimate diplomacy required.
Correct and accurate.. as can be guaged from the downticks.. on UnHere the more downticks the closer to the uncomfortable and inconvenient truth.
McConnell and Graham want Republicans to win, so why would they object when it happens? They support Ukraine, because it is in U.S. interest to let Ukraine fight Putin there, so we don’t have to fight Putin here. We’re getting a bargain deal from Ukraine. We only have to send them a few extra weapons (a tiny fraction of the U.S. military budget), and they do all the fighting and dying. If Putin wins in Ukraine, he won’t stop there any more than Hitler stopped with Austria.
The U.S. doesn’t need to fight Putin at all, and many of those who suggest it does, are invested in the growing power farther to the East and wish to distract. For a segment of the political-industrial clique, Ukraine represents their money laundry and bioweapons shenanigans, and their support of it is self-interested. Ironically, the “war” in Ukraine has improved Russia’s economic picture considerably! Personally, I doubt very much that Putin has a grand scheme of conquest. He is in his home stretch and would very much like a solid accomplishment to his legacy before he hangs up the Tsar’s crown, which, I am told, he uses as a tea cozy on most days.
If only. Putin’s military is second rate on a good day. The Nazi military was something else entirely.
The U.S. doesn’t need to fight Putin at all, and many of those who suggest it does, are invested in the growing power farther to the East and wish to distract. For a segment of the political-industrial clique, Ukraine represents their money laundry and bioweapons shenanigans, and their support of it is self-interested. Ironically, the “war” in Ukraine has improved Russia’s economic picture considerably! Personally, I doubt very much that Putin has a grand scheme of conquest. He is in his home stretch and would very much like a solid accomplishment to his legacy before he hangs up the Tsar’s crown, which, I am told, he uses as a tea cozy on most days.
If only. Putin’s military is second rate on a good day. The Nazi military was something else entirely.
Lindsay Graham has never known a war he doesn’t like, and McConnell can see the money flowing in from the military-industrial complex. The US is laughing all the way to the bank on this war.
McConnell and Graham want Republicans to win, so why would they object when it happens? They support Ukraine, because it is in U.S. interest to let Ukraine fight Putin there, so we don’t have to fight Putin here. We’re getting a bargain deal from Ukraine. We only have to send them a few extra weapons (a tiny fraction of the U.S. military budget), and they do all the fighting and dying. If Putin wins in Ukraine, he won’t stop there any more than Hitler stopped with Austria.
‘Proved false’? Where? When? AFAIAC it is proved that Russia *did* run an influence operation, because they preferred Trump to Hilary. Otherwise, who leaked those Democrat emails? Did it swing the election? Most likely not. Did it make Trump’s victory invalid? Definitely not (alas). Did Trump collude or collaborate ahead of time? Well, there was no sufficient evidence that he did, and quite likely he was innocent of that – at least within the rather wide bounds of what people from both sides are usually able to get away with in US elections. But the claims of a Russian influence operation have not been proved false, any more than it has been proved who killed OJ Simpsons wife.
Even the New York Times admits the whole thing has no substance.
What do they admit, exactly? Some accusations against Trump are thoroughly discredited, such as the cavorting with prostitutes in Moscow. Other claims I’d consider proved. Again, who did leak those Democrat emails? Sorry to be repetitive, but if you could give me a link I could check just what the NYT is and is not admitting.
Rasmus, Julian Assange said Wikileaks did not get the emails from Russia (CNN interview 4th Jan 2017) – text from Washington Post here. A single definitive source who would know.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/01/05/julian-assanges-claim-that-there-was-no-russian-involvement-in-wikileaks-emails/
Now it would be great if the world could double-check with Mr Assange over the whole affair, but he’s been incommunicado in Belmarsh prison for nearly four years – unconvicted, yet living through an inhumane and tortuously slow extradition procedure – a journalist imprisoned for doing journalism. What could you read into that?
Well, Bill Clinton said he did not have s–x–l relations with Monica Lewinsky. Assange, like Bill Clinton then, has every reason to hide or distort the truth. Do you take him at his unsupported word? If he, or someone else ,can say who *did* leak those mails, and provide some convincing evidence, then we can talk about it.
Your bias and complete inability to think logically really shines through. Frankly, it seems to that you are a CIA or MI5/MI6 bot. Now go prove me wrong! That’s the sum total of your logic. Further, I would venture to say, that since you live in the UK, your knowledge and direct experience of american politics is close to zero. In other words you have no idea what you’re talking about but you’re very good at repeating the “approved narrative” whether this be Russian interference in the 2016 election or Covid policy.
Following on your logic about “not living in USA etc”, why do you comment on Ukraine when you claim to live in USA?
Following on your logic about “not living in USA etc”, why do you comment on Ukraine when you claim to live in USA?
Why does Assange have a reason to hide or distort the truth? He’s not a politician, or a spy or secret agent, or anonymous commentator. Wikileaks published document troves that they took great pains to validate and check that they were true. Assange built his reputation on his veracity.
This is in contrast to the mass of fake and false reporting on Russian collusion promulgated by people connected to the Clinton campaign.
So, turn it around, why would you choose to believe them over the persecuted journalist with a stellar track record?
If he did get that material from Russia, either directly or indirectly, admitting it would put him in a very bad light, and might make him more likely of ending up in an American prison. If he got it in some other way he could reveal his sources to prove it, but then he is not going to do that. Bayesian reasoning: his denying that the material came from Russia is worthless, because he would say that whether it was true or not.
False Bayesian reasoning. Denying Russia provided it, does not say anything about where it did come from – it just removes Russia from the list of possibilities. Assange was already locked in the Ecuadorian embassy, being pursued by the Americans (including a subsequent CIA assassination plot), saying it was Russia wouldn’t have made a blind bit of difference.
At the time (2017) information from Russia was not an issue in any way legally, Steele supposedly (later proven untrue) got information from Russia, or the FBI’s connections to Deripaska. If you’re trademark is truth, why say something false?
I think you’ve heavily bought into the narrative, without enough background. Remember when you confused Hillary’s emails with the DNC or Podesta dump? Or took a joke as a demand? The actors pushing this stuff for political gain are not reliable sources.
Let us get a bit more Bayesian, here. Assume he got those data from somewhere else. He would say he did not get them from Russia, because it would be true. Now assume that he *did* get those data, directly or indirectly from the FSB. Would he say so? I strongly doubt it. It would ruin his image as an independent and honest voice, reduce him to a tool of Russian interests in the public eye, and weaken the people, legally and politically, who are trying to keep him from being extracted to the US. If those data came form the FSB he would have nothing to gain and much to lose by admitting it. You seem to think Assange is very reliable and the data could not possibly have come from Russia. That may or may not be the case (though I obviously disagree), but whether you believe that or not, his denial has no value as evidence.
Now you’re deep in conspiracy theory generation territory to keep your narrative alive (nothing but a might-have). We know lots of the Russia-did-it stories were fake and deliberately spread for political gain. We also know Assange has a history of veracity. So we have a witness statement from a credible witness with a history of truth telling versus a ‘might have’ from dubious sources. I could be wrong, but when I weigh both pieces of data, I know which way my priors shift.
..funny you get do many downticks from such a blindingly obvious observation isn’t it? Astonishing! None so blind as those who will not see, eh?
..funny you get do many downticks from such a blindingly obvious observation isn’t it? Astonishing! None so blind as those who will not see, eh?
Yep.. and pigs might have wings! If the US propaganda machine tells me pigs have wings I’m gonna believe ’em! Dah dah dah..
Now you’re deep in conspiracy theory generation territory to keep your narrative alive (nothing but a might-have). We know lots of the Russia-did-it stories were fake and deliberately spread for political gain. We also know Assange has a history of veracity. So we have a witness statement from a credible witness with a history of truth telling versus a ‘might have’ from dubious sources. I could be wrong, but when I weigh both pieces of data, I know which way my priors shift.
Yep.. and pigs might have wings! If the US propaganda machine tells me pigs have wings I’m gonna believe ’em! Dah dah dah..
Let us get a bit more Bayesian, here. Assume he got those data from somewhere else. He would say he did not get them from Russia, because it would be true. Now assume that he *did* get those data, directly or indirectly from the FSB. Would he say so? I strongly doubt it. It would ruin his image as an independent and honest voice, reduce him to a tool of Russian interests in the public eye, and weaken the people, legally and politically, who are trying to keep him from being extracted to the US. If those data came form the FSB he would have nothing to gain and much to lose by admitting it. You seem to think Assange is very reliable and the data could not possibly have come from Russia. That may or may not be the case (though I obviously disagree), but whether you believe that or not, his denial has no value as evidence.
Oh, “admitting it” “would put him in a very bad light” (somehow), as opposed to where he is now, bathing in glory and not at all under threat from the US security establishment.
False Bayesian reasoning. Denying Russia provided it, does not say anything about where it did come from – it just removes Russia from the list of possibilities. Assange was already locked in the Ecuadorian embassy, being pursued by the Americans (including a subsequent CIA assassination plot), saying it was Russia wouldn’t have made a blind bit of difference.
At the time (2017) information from Russia was not an issue in any way legally, Steele supposedly (later proven untrue) got information from Russia, or the FBI’s connections to Deripaska. If you’re trademark is truth, why say something false?
I think you’ve heavily bought into the narrative, without enough background. Remember when you confused Hillary’s emails with the DNC or Podesta dump? Or took a joke as a demand? The actors pushing this stuff for political gain are not reliable sources.
Oh, “admitting it” “would put him in a very bad light” (somehow), as opposed to where he is now, bathing in glory and not at all under threat from the US security establishment.
Yep, spot on! Odd isn’t it.. these mouthpieces lie over and over and over again but the suckers continue to believe in their lies, distortions and propaganda.. how stupid can these guys be?
Simple reason: M O N E Y
Stellar track record?
Yes, of avoiding justice by skipping bail and hiding in Ecuadorian embassy
Justice. Now there’s an idea. Unfortunately you use the word to mean ‘legal process’ which is too often something completely different.
Justice. Now there’s an idea. Unfortunately you use the word to mean ‘legal process’ which is too often something completely different.
If he did get that material from Russia, either directly or indirectly, admitting it would put him in a very bad light, and might make him more likely of ending up in an American prison. If he got it in some other way he could reveal his sources to prove it, but then he is not going to do that. Bayesian reasoning: his denying that the material came from Russia is worthless, because he would say that whether it was true or not.
Yep, spot on! Odd isn’t it.. these mouthpieces lie over and over and over again but the suckers continue to believe in their lies, distortions and propaganda.. how stupid can these guys be?
Simple reason: M O N E Y
Stellar track record?
Yes, of avoiding justice by skipping bail and hiding in Ecuadorian embassy
Hi did NOT! đ That does not count! just kidding.
đ
đ
Why do you even still care that Bill lied about sex with Monica? If Hillary wanted to divorce him for it, that was their business and no one else’s. If lying about cheating on your wife was a crime, half the men in America would be in prison.
I do not care and I never did. I always thought that the entire impeachment process was a pretext and a farce – and was even quite happy when Clinton met this shameless political operation with a barefaced “depends on what you mean by ‘is'”. I just thought it was a good example of why you cannot believe people just because they deny things.
I do not care and I never did. I always thought that the entire impeachment process was a pretext and a farce – and was even quite happy when Clinton met this shameless political operation with a barefaced “depends on what you mean by ‘is'”. I just thought it was a good example of why you cannot believe people just because they deny things.
Your bias and complete inability to think logically really shines through. Frankly, it seems to that you are a CIA or MI5/MI6 bot. Now go prove me wrong! That’s the sum total of your logic. Further, I would venture to say, that since you live in the UK, your knowledge and direct experience of american politics is close to zero. In other words you have no idea what you’re talking about but you’re very good at repeating the “approved narrative” whether this be Russian interference in the 2016 election or Covid policy.
Why does Assange have a reason to hide or distort the truth? He’s not a politician, or a spy or secret agent, or anonymous commentator. Wikileaks published document troves that they took great pains to validate and check that they were true. Assange built his reputation on his veracity.
This is in contrast to the mass of fake and false reporting on Russian collusion promulgated by people connected to the Clinton campaign.
So, turn it around, why would you choose to believe them over the persecuted journalist with a stellar track record?
Hi did NOT! đ That does not count! just kidding.
Why do you even still care that Bill lied about sex with Monica? If Hillary wanted to divorce him for it, that was their business and no one else’s. If lying about cheating on your wife was a crime, half the men in America would be in prison.
Spot on.. hence the downticks.
Assange is NOT a journalist. No doubt you think Putin’s propaganda is also “journalism”. Of course Assange was also one of Putin’s operatives.
Assange won the Martha Gellhorn prize for journalism in 2011 (among others including an Australian Walkley Award for Most Outstanding Contribution to Journalism). Presumably the prize givers knew what a journalist was, as did the Guardian when they reported it.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/jun/02/julian-assange-martha-gelhorn-prize
Putin’s propaganda is due exactly the same in-depth skepticism as the Clinton-campaign-driven, and now-debunked, Russian conspiracy theory, where they made up false stories to smear their opponents. You wouldn’t want to be believing one of those, in the same way you wouldn’t want to be believing Putin.
Guardian is no longer serious newspaper.
Just propaganda outlet for woke, BLM and gender idiocy supporting leftists.
Guardian is no longer serious newspaper.
Just propaganda outlet for woke, BLM and gender idiocy supporting leftists.
Assange won the Martha Gellhorn prize for journalism in 2011 (among others including an Australian Walkley Award for Most Outstanding Contribution to Journalism). Presumably the prize givers knew what a journalist was, as did the Guardian when they reported it.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/jun/02/julian-assange-martha-gelhorn-prize
Putin’s propaganda is due exactly the same in-depth skepticism as the Clinton-campaign-driven, and now-debunked, Russian conspiracy theory, where they made up false stories to smear their opponents. You wouldn’t want to be believing one of those, in the same way you wouldn’t want to be believing Putin.
Well, Bill Clinton said he did not have s–x–l relations with Monica Lewinsky. Assange, like Bill Clinton then, has every reason to hide or distort the truth. Do you take him at his unsupported word? If he, or someone else ,can say who *did* leak those mails, and provide some convincing evidence, then we can talk about it.
Spot on.. hence the downticks.
Assange is NOT a journalist. No doubt you think Putin’s propaganda is also “journalism”. Of course Assange was also one of Putin’s operatives.
I note you specify the discredited one, but the ones that you consider proved are not identified – facts!.
The existence of a Russian influence operation to help Trump, including hacking and publishing Democrat emails, is a proven fact, AFAIAC.
The existence of a Russian influence operation to help Trump, including hacking and publishing Democrat emails, is a proven fact, AFAIAC.
Rasmus, Julian Assange said Wikileaks did not get the emails from Russia (CNN interview 4th Jan 2017) – text from Washington Post here. A single definitive source who would know.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/01/05/julian-assanges-claim-that-there-was-no-russian-involvement-in-wikileaks-emails/
Now it would be great if the world could double-check with Mr Assange over the whole affair, but he’s been incommunicado in Belmarsh prison for nearly four years – unconvicted, yet living through an inhumane and tortuously slow extradition procedure – a journalist imprisoned for doing journalism. What could you read into that?
I note you specify the discredited one, but the ones that you consider proved are not identified – facts!.
What do they admit, exactly? Some accusations against Trump are thoroughly discredited, such as the cavorting with prostitutes in Moscow. Other claims I’d consider proved. Again, who did leak those Democrat emails? Sorry to be repetitive, but if you could give me a link I could check just what the NYT is and is not admitting.
I assume you’re English. and you make a lot of unproven assertions. It has absolutely not been proven that Russia ran an influence operation, and if they did nobody was aware of it because nobody read anything or viewed anything in the outlets they used. As for leaking the DNC emails, far more likely is that a disgruntled employee of the DNC did this. Further, there is no evidence whatsoever that the Russians preferred Trump. In fact, for Russia Hilary would have been far more accommodating, as she had been in the past.
Finally your logical is totally flawed. Anybody and any party can make a claim. It’s not up to others to prove that this clam is false, rather it’s up to the people making the claim to prove that it’s indeed correct.
For example, I could claim that you’re an MI5 agent but that doesn’t make it so, and it’s not up to you to prove that claim false. Rather it’s up to those making the claim to prove it to be true.
So, next time I ask you for a link you will not tell me to Google it all myself?
I will tell you to Google it because you are more than computer literate enough to do so. You don’t need to be spoon fed.
So much for proving your claims correct, then.
It is a troll-like strategy: attempt to bog down the thread by posting myriad questions and so on. I stopped replying to him a few days ago. It’s a waste of time.
So much for proving your claims correct, then.
It is a troll-like strategy: attempt to bog down the thread by posting myriad questions and so on. I stopped replying to him a few days ago. It’s a waste of time.
Don’t you know when to give up. You are coming across as not too bright.
I will tell you to Google it because you are more than computer literate enough to do so. You don’t need to be spoon fed.
Don’t you know when to give up. You are coming across as not too bright.
Youa make a 100% valid point! Hence the downticks.. on UnHerd logic, commonsense and reason are not popular.. silly conjecture and baseless, slavish credulity are valued!
So, next time I ask you for a link you will not tell me to Google it all myself?
Youa make a 100% valid point! Hence the downticks.. on UnHerd logic, commonsense and reason are not popular.. silly conjecture and baseless, slavish credulity are valued!
Seriously, ask yourself why Russia would prefer Trump over Clinton. The Clintons have always had a gigantic For Sale sign as their personal motto (ask Haiti about it). Clinton would have been easy to work with, as was Obama (âtell Vlad, in my second term, Iâll have more flexibilityâ). Trumpâs only âcrimeâ was inadvertently kicking over the DC corruption rock by being elected and thinking that Washington actually wanted to solve problems. Once he was in office, he discovered the exact opposite to be the case, and, as the odious Chuck Schumer said – on camera – the FBI had âsix ways to Sundayâ to f*ck him up. And they did. Whatâs the lesson here? It wasnât really about Trump. It was anyone who gets in the way of the Washington crime syndicate, [D] or [R]. Just look at what theyâre doing to DeSantis. Sheesh, they were prepared to make big floppy Mitt Romney look like Simon Legree (âHeâs gonna put yâall back in chainsâ). I marvel at the inability of people to see this stuff. Itâs not as hidden, itâs not artful, itâs right there, in your face, daring you to do something about it.
They would prefer Trump because he admired autocrats like Putin, because he was divisive and produced chaos and polarisation, and because he was not going to do much to keep Russia within limits.
Seriously? He strenuously warned the entire European Union to beware of dependency on Russian energy – the only thing theyâve got to sell. As for being divisive, thatâs politics: people have principles. It was, however, the Washington establishment that turned him into Emanuel Goldstein.
..who turned him into an orange lunatic? such a pity, he probably had a valid case a lot of the time.. out of the mouths of babes and sucklings I guess?
Orange lunatic is how the media described him. If he were Team [D], he’d have been a fashion trend-setter and great beauty, like Michele Obama.
Nah, I saw him myself; I heard him too.. the p***y grabbing, the slap him in the mouth remark, build the wall and make Mexico pay for it.. nah, definitely a lunatic. He did get one or two things right.. but even a busted clock tells the right time twice a day!
Nah, I saw him myself; I heard him too.. the p***y grabbing, the slap him in the mouth remark, build the wall and make Mexico pay for it.. nah, definitely a lunatic. He did get one or two things right.. but even a busted clock tells the right time twice a day!
Orange lunatic is how the media described him. If he were Team [D], he’d have been a fashion trend-setter and great beauty, like Michele Obama.
..who turned him into an orange lunatic? such a pity, he probably had a valid case a lot of the time.. out of the mouths of babes and sucklings I guess?
I guess we have to listen to you (for free speech reasons) but your comments are far from reality.
Seriously? He strenuously warned the entire European Union to beware of dependency on Russian energy – the only thing theyâve got to sell. As for being divisive, thatâs politics: people have principles. It was, however, the Washington establishment that turned him into Emanuel Goldstein.
I guess we have to listen to you (for free speech reasons) but your comments are far from reality.
Correct.. hence the downticks: the more valid, the more truthful, the more obvious, the clearer, the more logical, the more reasoned the more downticks.. maybe the downticks come from the CIA? who knows?
Quite right.
They would prefer Trump because he admired autocrats like Putin, because he was divisive and produced chaos and polarisation, and because he was not going to do much to keep Russia within limits.
Correct.. hence the downticks: the more valid, the more truthful, the more obvious, the clearer, the more logical, the more reasoned the more downticks.. maybe the downticks come from the CIA? who knows?
Quite right.
Please provide evidence for your hot-headed allegations.
The Democrat emails were hacked and published via wikileaks. By whom, if not the Russians – who were anyway identified as the likely culprits by the people who invetigated the breach? There have been various reports of Russian botnets pouring out tweets etc. Admittedly I do not have specific links – just seen it all over the press – but if you still care enough to ask I shall do some googling.
The Democrat emails were hacked and published via wikileaks. By whom, if not the Russians – who were anyway identified as the likely culprits by the people who invetigated the breach? There have been various reports of Russian botnets pouring out tweets etc. Admittedly I do not have specific links – just seen it all over the press – but if you still care enough to ask I shall do some googling.
Even the New York Times admits the whole thing has no substance.
I assume you’re English. and you make a lot of unproven assertions. It has absolutely not been proven that Russia ran an influence operation, and if they did nobody was aware of it because nobody read anything or viewed anything in the outlets they used. As for leaking the DNC emails, far more likely is that a disgruntled employee of the DNC did this. Further, there is no evidence whatsoever that the Russians preferred Trump. In fact, for Russia Hilary would have been far more accommodating, as she had been in the past.
Finally your logical is totally flawed. Anybody and any party can make a claim. It’s not up to others to prove that this clam is false, rather it’s up to the people making the claim to prove that it’s indeed correct.
For example, I could claim that you’re an MI5 agent but that doesn’t make it so, and it’s not up to you to prove that claim false. Rather it’s up to those making the claim to prove it to be true.
Seriously, ask yourself why Russia would prefer Trump over Clinton. The Clintons have always had a gigantic For Sale sign as their personal motto (ask Haiti about it). Clinton would have been easy to work with, as was Obama (âtell Vlad, in my second term, Iâll have more flexibilityâ). Trumpâs only âcrimeâ was inadvertently kicking over the DC corruption rock by being elected and thinking that Washington actually wanted to solve problems. Once he was in office, he discovered the exact opposite to be the case, and, as the odious Chuck Schumer said – on camera – the FBI had âsix ways to Sundayâ to f*ck him up. And they did. Whatâs the lesson here? It wasnât really about Trump. It was anyone who gets in the way of the Washington crime syndicate, [D] or [R]. Just look at what theyâre doing to DeSantis. Sheesh, they were prepared to make big floppy Mitt Romney look like Simon Legree (âHeâs gonna put yâall back in chainsâ). I marvel at the inability of people to see this stuff. Itâs not as hidden, itâs not artful, itâs right there, in your face, daring you to do something about it.
Please provide evidence for your hot-headed allegations.