#Russia | #WhatTheyVotedFor Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Click for ... uh ... you know what? Don't click. Typically when large powers tamper in elections, they do it in smaller, less powerful countries, and in less direct ways. That is to say, it's usually about a larger proxy war. This was pretty straightforward and clumsy; in the end, everything about the Russian tampering is a deviation. And Republicans especially need to remember that the job is done; everything else is icing. The long goal is the decline of American prestige; this is inherently served by growing a hedge of mistrust between Americans and their government. In a way, this betrayal is the perfect partnership for conservatives, no matter how queer it might seem: Yes, American conservatives are now sucking up to the KGB, showering the Soviets with political gifts as Republicans set about a morbidly vibrant proof of their thesis about how government does not and cannot work. To the other, when the purpose of government is to destroy itself, we finally see Republicans in office conducting themselves effectively and actually laboring to do something. President Trump is effectively withdrawing the United States from its international leadership role; Congressional and other Republican officials and Party officers are working as hard as they can to undermine civic confidence in government and society. This really is about traditional suprmacist values. As "America" transforms along the arc of history, shaping after an image of Justice, traditional empowerment blocs such as Christian conservatives and the white working class no longer want to play. Do they join the bourgeoisie in transcending America, or their lowest traditional instincts in aiming to call off the Republic? Joe, we didn't "win the Cold War" by playing nice. Then again, if we "won the Cold War", how can the GOP possibly be preparing to surrender it? And I do admit, your inner Cold War conservative is showing: The Left doesn't need the John Birch Society; we have plenty of newspapers and other such notions to bawl at us about history, too. In truth, that's what always got me about the whole FOX News and "liberal media conspiracy" bit. As it was, msnbc wasn't the leftward FOX News equivalent. Maybe the World Socialist Web Site↱, but I prefer to look down the ladder at Worker's Vanguard and other such endeavors to find the leftist equivalent of FOX News. It's just weird watching you have this old Cold War argument with Iceaura; we are the preeminent empire in human history—yes, we screw with other people's elections. And our excuse then was that they did it, and would do it to us directly if they could. We don't bother with excuses, these days; I mean, the circumstantial differences are apparent, but it doesn't speak well of us to recall (ahem!) tampering in Iraqi elections; that part is slightly different. But now they've gone and done it directly. That part seems a little different, too. Then again, I'm an American. In all the fighting you and I might possibly have. at least conceptually, undertaken in former days, between a leftward communitarian idyll and the idea that some issues are left to citizens and the private sector to deal with, and especially considering the proposition that government does not and cannot work, I would have presumed us covered in certain ways. That is to say, by praxis I am also a storyteller, and I can remember dwelling on plots having to do with massive online endeavors and thinking these were all rugoberg slapstick; the manner in which this was undertaken seems rather quite blatant, and it really should have been preventable, but even more dubious than being good enough for government work is the twenty-first century standard of being good enough for the tech sector. No, really: Part of the reason we're supposed to rely on the private sector instead of the government ... I mean, you remember those arguments of even twenty years ago, right? And what did the market do? Watch closely; the infamous Sputnik "news" agency is being folded into mainstream media. What part of our private sector will be postured to not get fooled again? Yeah. That's why. I just think there are more important things to worry about than polishing an old Cold War bedknob. The question of our history on this count, however, is a mere distraction from the discussion of what to do about the growing body of evidence suggesting persons within the current presidential administration have betrayed their country.
I am glad some else threw into your face the American involvement than me, I wonder if you are ignorant or closes your eyes to the facts, there are more than Isacura and wellwhisher mentioned The Greek elections in the wake of WWII. The Iranian elections in 1952. The Vietnamese elections in 1956. Every Japanese election 1950 - 1970. The 1970 elections in Chile. Australia's Federal elections in 1975. The 1984 elections in Panama. The 1990 elections in Nicaragua. The 2004 elections in Iraq. The Israeli elections of 2015. And so forth. Dozens of them.( I just chose random examples for each decade.)
What, Iceaura? I'm not threatened by a faux intellectual comrade. If you take solace from Iceaura comrade you are pretty damn desperate. There are anti-Americans everywhere including your beloved Mother Russia. Neither Iceaura, Wellwisher or you have proved Iceaura's allegations. Rather than mindlessly repeating each other perhaps one of you would care to take a stab at proving your allegations? But that’s not your style. Is it? Even if Iceaura's allegations were true, and that's a big if, they occurred a half century or more ago during the Cold War. That's pretty damn desperate. You do know about the Cold War? It was the result of Russia's (i.e. The Soviet Union) enslavement of millions of East Europeans. Even though Peter the Great eliminated slavery in 1723 in Russia by converting slaves to serfs; Russia remains the the 5th largest slave state in the world to this very day. https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2014/11/23/247-wall-st-countries-most-slaves/70033422/ The fact is the US does not interfere in the elections of other countries. The US has long advocated for and promoted democracy. That has been your history and our tradition. That's why Western Europe has been and remains free whereas Eastern Europe was enslaved and was only freed with the collapse of your beloved Soviet Union (i.e. Russia). The fact is nothing justifies Russia’s interference in US elections.
I think it goes much deeper than that. What if Russia is behind the rise of the alt-right? I see interesting parallels between alt-right militias and Russian soccer hooligans.
I think it does go much deeper than that. I don't think Russia is responsible for the creation of the alt-right but it has certainly fomented and co-opted the alt-right movement for its purposes. I see those parallels too. Sean Hannity collaborated with Wikileaks, a Russian intelligence asset, during the last election cycle.
I chose an example from every decade since 1950. The latest one was 2015 Israel. The US has undermined and helped to overthrow more democratically elected governments than any other country on the planet, by far, and replaced almost all of them with strongman rule.
I asked you to prove your assertions comrade, and I'm still waiting. You've made allegations, now prove them. You do realize the Cold War ended in the 90s? Then prove it comrade. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
In some parts of the world, a strongman is better than a fake democracy. There are prerequisites for a functioning democracy, you can't just assume it's always the best thing.
No. I simply provided you with examples, of what is perfectly obvious to everyone except an odd fraction of the American public. It's one end of the range. You can look up Noam Chomsky's take, say, on your own. I figured you would have an idea what the leftwing take is. The range - as with most aspects of physical reality - covers the entire ideological spectrum. By the look of the stats, more Reps crossed for Clinton than Dems crossed for Trump. I haven't seen an actual analysis, though - which is kind of interesting in itself. That's your idea of an election the US did not interfere with? Seriously? The US interfered to put Saddam in power in the first place. After removing him, the US tried to prevent elections and install Adnan Chalabi as new strongman. Failing that, the US delayed the elections and interfered with the candidate selection - no communists, no Baathists - and tried to delay them longer (one excuse was lack of voter ID - ha!). None of this is any defense of allowing the Russians to screw around with the US elections. The point is different:
Let me tell you I am familiar with interference which have taken place which Isacura mentioned I can add some more, if you like I don't depend on him . What seems strange that you are not familiar with our interferences, and you throw very liberally the word fact. Your last line I agree with you, no nation should interfere with other nations election.
Ok, let's stipulate that some US interference in other people's elections was well-intentioned. Chomsky doesn't think so, but lots of people do. Let's also stipulate that no interference in US elections is well intentioned - including the Republican Party voter suppression and gerrymandering efforts, and whatever Putin was up to in cahoots with the Trump campaign.
All the intelligence chiefs and the Justice Department refused to answer questions today with no apparent legal justification. Interesting...
Apparently Trump plans on launching an ad campaign against Comey intended to destroy Comey's credibility. Who does that to an ex employee? Trump does that.
Trump hasn't provided materials subpoenaed by these committees. His people have refused to answer questions from Congress. This isn't going to end in a good place. If Trump has nothing to hide, if he didn't do anything wrong, then why the cover-up? Every American should find this deeply disturbing. Trump has tried and continues to attempt to corrupt and politicize our judicial system.
Well, there is ritual significance to it all. Coats and Rogers are playing by an obscure protocol most of us only know by reputation of rumor; it's a playbook most people in their business never expect to run.
#PutiTrump | #WhatTheyVotedFor Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Self-inflicted wounds are a curious political phenomenon; Donald Trump, Jr., might have done some serious damage, this time: In a statement, Trump Jr. acknowledged that the meeting took place, and was arranged at the request of an acquaintance he did not name. "After pleasantries were exchanged," he said, "the woman stated that she had information that individuals connected to Russia were funding the Democratic National Committee and supporting Ms. Clinton. Her statements were vague, ambiguous and made no sense. No details or supporting information was provided or even offered. It quickly became clear that she had no meaningful information." He added that "the claims of potentially helpful information were a pretext for the meeting." Trump Jr. may not fully appreciate the significance of that statement. One of the key questions in the Trump-Russia scandal is whether, and to what extent, the campaign may have cooperated with Russians during the attack on the American election. For Trump Jr. to join Kushner and Manafort for a meeting with a Kremlin-linked lawyer in the hopes of obtaining damaging information about Hillary Clinton looks quite a bit like collusion. In his statement, Trump Jr. is dismissive of the meeting, saying Natalia Veselnitskaya had nothing of interest to share. But in the process, he also effectively confirms the accuracy of the report: the point of the meeting was to obtain Clinton-related information from a Russian national. In other words, Trump Jr., who now appears to have been caught lying about the meeting, had a specific motivation that led him to participate in the conversation: he wanted Clinton-related dirt from Moscow and was willing to accept it during the campaign. That conclusion doesn't require any great leaps; for all intents and purposes, he's admitted as much in print. The argument from Trump Jr. is, in effect, that he tried to collude with a Russian national and was disappointed when the information wasn't useful—which sounds more like a confession than a defense. (Benen↱) The thing is that for the most part, the younger Trump aims to avoid any number of potential self-inflicted traps, but he really does nonetheless appear to walk straight into confessional territory. Or, as the New York Times↱ reported: When he was first asked about the meeting on Saturday, Donald Trump Jr. said that it was primarily about adoptions and mentioned nothing about Mrs. Clinton. But on Sunday, presented with The Times’s findings, he offered a new account. In a statement, he said he had met with the Russian lawyer at the request of an acquaintance from the 2013 Miss Universe pageant, which his father took to Moscow. “After pleasantries were exchanged,” he said, “the woman stated that she had information that individuals connected to Russia were funding the Democratic National Committee and supporting Mrs. Clinton. Her statements were vague, ambiguous and made no sense. No details or supporting information was provided or even offered. It quickly became clear that she had no meaningful information.” He said she then turned the conversation to adoption of Russian children and the Magnitsky Act, an American law that blacklists suspected Russian human rights abusers. The 2012 law so enraged President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia that he halted American adoptions of Russian children. “It became clear to me that this was the true agenda all along and that the claims of potentially helpful information were a pretext for the meeting,” Mr. Trump said. And the word "pretext" is the damaging one. Donald Trump, Jr., has just acknowledged an attempt to collude with a Russian national known to work on behalf of the Kremlin in order to harm his father's political opponent during an election cycle. For its phrasing that Trump, Jr., "was promised damaging information about Hillary Clinton", NYT cited "three advisers to the White House briefed on the meeting and two others with knowledge of it". And as it goes, certainly, reports of the Veselnitskaya meeting imply scandal, which the eldest Trump son seems to have punctuated rather quite definitiely. Steve Benen might be correct; Donald Trump, Jr., might not have understood the full implication of what he said. What we had up to that moment was an implication of scandal that could be answered with a weak but reliable façade about Veselnitskaya's crusade against the Magnitsky Act. When presented with claims from White House advisers and others claiming knowledge, Trump, Jr., committed a most remarkable error: In an effort to brush aside the question of Russian interference, Donald the Younger, instead of simply reducing the importance or significance of whatever chatter he might have hoped to characterize and dismiss, he described it as a pretext, and in doing so, as Benen put it, "effectively confirms the accuracy of the report: the point of the meeting was to obtain Clinton-related information from a Russian national". Self-inflicted, to be certain, but is this an unforced error? The full-court Press on this occasion might well have forced the confessional gaffe by simply turning up the heat on troubled players who simply aren't talented enough to perform in this premier league. ____________________ Notes: Becker, Jo, Matt Apuzzo, and Adam Goldman. "Trump’s Son Met With Russian Lawyer After Being Promised Damaging Information on Clinton". The New York Times. 9 July 2017. NYTimes.com. 10 July 2017. http://nyti.ms/2uJH8tL Benen, Steve. "Trump Jr. meeting takes Russia scandal in an alarming direction". msnbc. 10 July 2017. msnbc.com. 10 July 2017. http://on.msnbc.com/2sXu8DF
